TrishAndHalli.com

Where we bring you fresh opinions on Idaho government, observations on life in general, great recipes, and an opportunity to comment on them all!

RSS Feeds, Etc.

Get New Posts Via Email! Enter your e-mail address and hit the 'Subscribe' button. Your address will never be sold or spammed.

About

Profile TrishAndHalli.com
Where we bring you fresh opinions on Idaho government, great recipes, and an opportunity to comment on them!.

Archives

Categories

Pages

Blogroll

Conservative News

General Interest

Idaho Falls Links

Idaho Politics

Left-Leaning Idaho

Libertarian Links

Pro-life Organizations


Jerry Sproul, CPA
ThoughtfulConsideration.com

Please take a moment to visit our sponsors!

David Ripley: Historic Struggle for Life Continues

July 16th, 2016 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

In the wake of the most recent Supreme Court ruling, some in media have suggested that the political, social and legal fight for preborn is all but over. Of course, wishful thinking is not a measure of reality.

In recent days, it has become clear that the pro-Life community is more resolute than ever to end the tyranny of legalized abortion.

For example, just yesterday the House Appropriations Committee voted on a key funding bill for the State Department and foreign aid programs. In it, Republicans fought to defend pro-Life values by denying funds for the UN’s Population Control programs – so long as they continue to aid China in forcing women there to submit to abortions. In addition, Republicans included language which would codify the “Mexico City Policy” – long a battle ground with Planned Parenthood and their Democrat advocates. Started under President Reagan, the policy prohibits U.S. tax dollars from going to international organizations who perform abortions in foreign countries. (In other words, Planned Parenthood International).

Since Obama destroyed the Mexico City Policy upon taking office back in 2009, the House measure obviously sets up a confrontation with Senate Democrats and Obama later this year.

We also saw a meeting of the Platform Committee yesterday preparing for the Republican National Convention. Reports indicate that they are recommending to the convention the strongest pro-Life platform in history. The Platform will call for an end to taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood, as well as a ban on the use of aborted baby parts for medical research. Another section condemns the recent Supreme Court edict (Whole Woman’s Health) which prioritizes Planned Parenthood profits over the health and safety of women and girls.

The Republican platform stands in complete contrast to the upcoming Democrat statement on abortion, which apparently is becoming ever more radical. News reports indicate that Hillary will demand that taxpayers pay for all abortions if a woman or girl can’t pay the gangland slayers at Planned Parenthood.

Thus sets up an historic election. No genuine pro-Lifer can afford to be caught on the sidelines this fall.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Politics in General, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: Brexit – A Portent for the EU and Possibly for America

July 9th, 2016 by Halli


by Richard Larsen

Bigger is rarely better. Especially when it comes to governance. The “bigger” government is, the more detached from the governed it becomes; the more onerous its regulations and taxes become, and it becomes more susceptible to the ideologically motivated cause célèbre of the ruling elite. We have seen that verity over the past several years in America, and apparently the United Kingdom (UK) has come to the same conclusion.

Last week UK citizens voted by a narrow majority to withdraw from the European Union (EU), the amalgam of 28 nation states who joined the collective 23 years ago. The EU was to provide member nations more clout and influence by being part of the politico-economic entity that comprised the 2nd largest economy in the world, based on gross-domestic product (GDP).

The result of the vote created a veritable tempest in a teapot for financial markets, as most global stock exchanges dropped by 8-12% over the next two trading sessions. The stock selloff resulted in a predictable flight to safety, as traders moved to treasuries and the metals, spiking bond values and dropping yields. U.S. markets have recovered most of that volatility-induced loss, while most European markets have only somewhat recovered.

The tempest in a teapot metaphor is apropos since it would appear the vote to exit (British Exit, hence, “Brexit,”) was significantly influenced by a planned regulation of the top selling teapots and toasters in the UK. Tea and toast are staples to Britons, as they consume six times the tea their mainland counterparts drink. In April European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker accidentally revealed that there would be new restrictions on the devices based on new “ecodesign” models, over concerns with anthropogenic global warming. The new regulations would have banned eight of the best selling teapots and nine of the best selling toasters in the UK. In short, don’t mess with the Brit’s tea and toast!

They were also planning on banning six of the top 10 selling vacuum cleaners in the UK, including immensely popular British manufactured Dyson models. The move was seen as more “nanny state” meddling in the minutia of daily life. And their proposals were seen by Britons, apparently, to be as inane and idiotic as when the U.S. congress outlawed incandescent light bulbs as one of the first “accomplishments” of Nancy Pelosi’s 110th Congress in 2007. Ideologically driven regulatory meddling – the “nanny state” personified!

Brexit is perhaps the first of a series of antiestablishment votes, protesting the perceived disparaging effects of globalization. British Prime Minister David Cameron has announced he will resign in October. After a new PM is selected at the Conservative Party conference, the new PM will trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which will initiate the formalities of divorcing the UK from the EU, which are predicted to take about two years to implement.

MFS, the Boston-based mutual fund company, explained in a research piece this week, “To sum up, it looks as though the UK’s decision to leave the EU could be the beginning of a large, protracted process in which dissatisfaction with the effects of three decades of globalization is being expressed in ever more impactful ways.”

Theodore Bromund, senior research fellow in Anglo-American Relations at the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, expresses little concern from the Brexit vote. He argues that the benefits to both the U.S. and the U.K. are much greater than staying with the EU.

“The upside, economically, is that the UK would have the ability to sign genuine free trade agreements with whichever nation or nations that it could negotiate satisfactory agreements. The U.K. has a much wider financial role than just trading with the United States, as important as that is, and the city of London could continue its worldwide financial role, unrestrained by Euro related concerns. So that’s the economic side.”

Marian L. Tupy, senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity at the Cato Institute, thinks the effect on the U.S. will be negligible. “I don’t think that British involvement in Europe will have any consequences for America’s economic growth, not at all.”

Professor Tim Congdon of the University of Buckingham, has highlighted the high costs of regulation from the EU. He maintains that EU membership costs the U.K. over 10 percent of GDP, and that long-term they’ll be much better off.

The Brexit vote could be the beginning of the unravelling of the EU. Other countries considering their own “Brexit” are Czechoslovakia (“Czechout”), Finland, (“Finnish”), Italy (“Italeave”), and Netherlands (“Nexit”). As the anti-globalization sentiment grows, there could be a domino effect, which could see the unraveling of the EU and their currency, the Euro. Since the UK retained their Pound Sterling, at least they won’t have to worry about a currency reversion.

Nigel Farage, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP), gave some of the credit for the successful Brexit campaign to President Obama. “Threatening people too much insults their intelligence. A lot of people in Britain said, ‘How dare the American president come here and tell us what to do?’ It backfired. We got an Obama-Brexit bounce, because people do not want foreign leaders telling them how to think and vote.”

Presidential candidate Donald Trump was not surprised. “The world doesn’t listen to him.” Trump said he wholeheartedly backed Britain’s decision to leave the EU and once again forge its own path. “You just have to embrace it,” he said. “It’s the will of the people. What happened should have happened, and they’ll be stronger for it.”

Farage explained further, “People power can beat the establishment if they try hard enough.” It worked for the UK, and may carry over to other EU members with their upcoming votes. The U.S. could join that same anti-globalism and anti-establishment wave with a Trump victory in November. Time will tell.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, National Sovereignty, Politics in General, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: No-Fly List Gun Control – Denying Citizens Rights Without Due Process

July 9th, 2016 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

The latest efforts to enact gun-control by Democrats in congress are either strictly symbolic, since they would not have stopped the San Bernadino or the Orlando Islamic extremists, or a Trojan horse to abolish the 2nd Amendment. Their proposal is to deny 2nd Amendment rights to anyone on the Transportation Safety Administration’s (TSA) “no-fly list.”

The murderers in San Bernadino and Orlando were not on the no-fly list, so even if such a law were in place, those acts of domestic terrorism would not have been prevented. So from that standpoint, such legislation would be mostly symbolic, and solve little to nothing.

It is much more likely, however, that the legislation is a Trojan horse to literally abolish 2nd Amendment rights of all, or more likely, select citizens. The no-fly list is created by bureaucrats of the Executive Branch, and is so secretive that people don’t even know their names are on it until they attempt to board a flight. We have no idea exactly how many people are on the no-fly list, but an FBI factsheet uncovered by PolitiFact in 2013 indicated there were 47,000 names on the list at that time.

Not only do citizens not know if they’ve been added to the list, they have no way of preventing themselves from being added, since the government maintains it in secrecy, and has provided no clear criteria or rationale for names being added to it. As Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU Nation Security Project has said, “The government puts people on the no-fly list using vague and overbroad standards, and it is wrongly blacklisting innocents without giving them a fair process to correct government error.”

The ACLU has filed suit against the government over their seemingly arbitrary and spurious addition of names. As Shamsi explains, “Our no-fly list lawsuit seeks to establish a meaningful opportunity for our clients to challenge their placement on the list, which is error-prone and has had a devastating impact on their lives.”

And since the list is maintained by the Executive branch, and in secrecy, the potential for abuse is massive. Just look at how the IRS, which is also administered by the Executive branch, has politically targeted purported enemies of the Obama administration, and conservative political activist groups. Such abuse has tyranny and fascism written all over it!

Especially in light of what the Obama administration did just after it came to power in 2009. In an Agency Assessment from Obama’s Department of Homeland Security, titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” the “enemies of the state” were clearly identified, and it was entirely based on ideology.

According to the, communiqué the issues qualifying citizens for “enemies of the state” status include opposition to gun control, government infringement on civil liberties, abortion, hate crime legislation, anti-illegal immigration, and opposition to same-sex marriage. In a footnote, the document states, “[Rightwing extremism] may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.” In other words, everyone who is not a left-wing radical was identified officially an enemy to the Obama Administration and accused of being a potential domestic terrorist! By their own admission, however, they had no evidence of potential threats, so the assessment was nothing but a political hatchet-job against those who don’t agree with them.

After passage of the Democrat’s bill denying 2nd Amendment rights to those on the no-fly list, all that would need to be done by an unscrupulous and tyrannical president, is put all citizens with political leanings identified by the 2009 Agency Assessment on the no-fly list. From the Democrat’s perspective, problem solved. But for the nation, nothing solved, since leftists perpetrate most mass killings.

Once on the no-fly list, it’s nearly impossible to get off of it. The ACLU has declared, “The government denies watchlisted individuals any meaningful way to correct errors and clear their names.” Eleven term congressman John Lewis (D-GA), has been trying to get his name off of the list for five years.

There is no process by which a citizen can be prevented from being added to the no-fly list, or the FBI’s Terrorist Watch List. Which means, if a citizen were added to one of them, they would be deprived of their constitutional rights without due process, which is guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments. This would be just one step away from the government denying 1st Amendment (freedom of speech, etc.) rights by placement on a government watch list, or “no speak” list, again denying due process, and violating rights assured by our most foundational document. This would be tyrannical and fascistic, and as antithetical to American values as one could get!

This argument was brilliantly illustrated in a House Government Oversight Committee hearing exchange between chairman Trey Gowdy and DHS Deputy Director Kelli Burriesci in December. That two minute video should be watched by every American, and can be seen at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wrxmaMLXLE.

And while we’re on this subject, why is it that the ire of the anti-gun left is invariably targeted against the National Rifle Association? Founded in 1871, the NRA is the oldest continuously operating civil rights organization in the country. Their objectives are protecting our 2nd Amendment rights and teaching responsible and proper gun use. Blaming them for abuse of those rights is like blaming the ACLU for 1st Amendment abuses, like hate speech! Can’t get much more illogical and inane than that!

Gun control is a key issue for the left, since it can be so easily fomented emotionally. But it does nothing to address the underlying social and cultural issues which are the cause of violence and domestic terrorism. And using vague government controlled lists as the basis to deny fundamental rights is a violation of our constitutional rights, which define what it means to be an American citizen.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, National Sovereignty, Politics in General | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: Solution to Domestic Terrorism is NOT More Gun Control

June 29th, 2016 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

In the face of the horrible terrorist attack in Orlando this week, Senate Democrats filibustered, holding the floor of the Senate hostage in order to enact more gun control legislation. What they seem incapable of acknowledging, is that it’s not further diminution of our 2nd Amendment that needs correction, but rather a complete overhaul of the Obama Administration’s policies that enable and facilitate such heinous attacks on our own soil.

US President Barack Obama speaks during a press conference in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington, DC, December 7, 2010. Obama vowed Tuesday to fight to overturn tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in 2012, just a day after reaching a compromise with Republicans to extend the cuts for two years.

In response to the attack, President Obama showed anger and emotion, something rarely seen from him. But his rage was not directed to the homegrown terrorist who perpetrated the massacre in Orlando, rather it was aimed at his political critics, and Donald Trump, for criticizing Obama’s apparent inability to correctly identify and name the jihadist zealotry that has brought Islamic extremism to the homeland.

Obama angrily lashed out, claiming that calling such terrorism “radical Islam” is not a strategy. He is correct, it is not a “strategy.” But it is the basis for creating a strategy. Sun Tzu, the 6th century Chinese general and military strategist, perspicaciously declared, “If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles… if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.” Obviously, from a strategic standpoint, it’s critical to know not only yourself and your strengths and weaknesses, but also those of your enemy. And your strategy is incapacitated and fundamentally flawed if you refuse to even properly or accurately identify your enemy, especially their motivation.

Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse, correctly identified this fundamental flaw of Obama’s this week when he said to the Senate Homeland Security Committee, “Telling the truth about violent Islam is a prerequisite to a strategy – a strategy you [Obama] admitted you don’t have. It is the Commander-in-Chief’s duty to actually identify our enemies and to help the American people understand the challenge of violent Islam.”

ralph-peters1Lt. Col. Ralph Peters echoed that verity in an interview on Fox News this week. “Using the correct terminology, jihad, & radical Islam, they have legal, strategic, military, and no end of important meanings as applied to the strategy.”
He went on to provide examples of how the Obama administration has weakened our ability to address the threat, not just abroad, but even more significantly, here at home. “We’ve censored our law enforcement, the pentagon and the military. They can’t teach certain things. They can’t teach the history of jihad honestly. They can’t use these terms. The FBI is restricted from using certain terms. How does that help us?”

He concluded, “We’ve got to quit saying that this isn’t Islam. It’s part of it. Jews and Christians have no authority to say what is and isn’t Islam. Muslims have that authority, and hundreds of millions of Muslims have declared that this is it. We have to call it what it is, and what they’re telling us it is.”

Then, addressing the political component of this failure to identify the enemy, he pointed out, “The administration has allowed Muslim activists here to block certain lecturers from speaking at military schools or the FBI Academy. We have allowed radical Muslim activists here in the United States to control the curriculum at our law enforcement and military training schools. It is a phenomenal error. If we can’t teach or have an open and honest debate, hear from both sides, about the history of jihad, about radical Islam, about Wahhabism, what have we come to? This is Orwellian doublespeak: peace is war, war is peace. You’ve got to use language precisely. It has legal, military, cultural implications, and it matters to the strategy.”

751bfb15177cf32c640f6a7067003688In the middle of all of this extremist mayhem, and with the worst domestic terrorist attack since 9/11 serving as a backdrop, the Obama administration quietly announced this week that it’s “fast-tracking” the number of Syrian refugees coming into America. According to Avril Haines, Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor this week, “We’re speeding up the admissions process. So far, we’ve admitted about 3,500 Syrian refugees – more in the last five weeks than in the past seven months.”

National Intelligence Director James Clapper said just a few months ago, “We don’t obviously put it past the likes of ISIL to infiltrate operatives among these refugees, so that is a huge concern of ours.” And the FBI Director James Comey said just a few months ago in a House hearing, that the government has no way to adequately screen these refugees for jihadist leanings. “We can only query against that which we have collected,” Comey said. “And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them.” In other words, there’s no way to adequately vet them.

Chaffetz-428-ThumbnailTo make matters worse, if they could possibly be worse, the Obama administration’s Immigration and Custom’s Enforcement (ICE) has released over 86,000 illegal immigrant criminals, who committed over 231,000 crimes, just since 2010. This data was made public at a House hearing last month by Rep. Jason Chaffetz. These were aliens who illegally entered the United States, were convicted of crimes here, and then simply released upon the unsuspecting public. We have no breakdown on the nations of origin of those criminals, but considering how porous our southern border is, the odds are great that many could have extremist leanings.

There is ample evidence that Obama’s convoluted and warped ideology carries over to domestic law enforcement. Retired Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agent Philip Haney had been running a special investigation into a worldwide Islamist movement originating from Pakistan known as Tablighi Jamaat. In the course of his investigation, Haney uncovered numerous connections between several mosques and individuals in the U.S. with known terrorists and terrorist organizations, including Al Qaida and Hamas, among others.

In an open letter to Congress just last year he explained how his program was cancelled. “Almost a year into this investigation, it was halted by [Hillary Clinton’s] State Department and the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. They not only stopped us from connecting more dots, the records of our targets were deleted from the shared DHS database. [Which included over 300 suspects.] The combination of Farook’s involvement with the Dar Al Uloom Al Islamiyah Mosque and Malik’s [the San Bernardino jihadist] attendance at al Huda would have indicated, at minimum, an urgent need for comprehensive screening. Instead, Malik was able to avoid serious vetting upon entering the United States on a fiancé visa and more than a dozen Americans are dead as a result.”

He then offered this poignant observation. “The investigation was not stopped because it was ineffective, it was stopped because the Administration told us the civil rights of the foreign nationals we were investigating could be violated.” He then asked this compelling question, “When did foreign nationals gain civil rights in the United States, especially when they are associated with groups we already know are involved in terrorist activity?”

A meme circulating in social media indicates that during Ronald Reagan’s terms, there were 11 mass shootings. Under George H.W. Bush, 12. Under Bill Clinton, 23, and under George W. Bush, 16. But under the accommodating and acquiescent policies of Barack Obama’s administration, there have been 162, most of which they don’t recognize because of their diluted definition of a “mass shooting.”

More gun control is not the answer to these domestic terrorist attacks. The solution is to enforce existing laws against those who conspire to perpetrate terrorist attacks on Americans. Unleash law enforcement to employ profiling and all other effective tools go to the root of the jihadist organizations that have set up shop here at home. Take guns away, and they’ll simply change their weapon of choice, to IEDs or suicide vests. Solve the problem by going to the root, not by thrashing ineffectually at the branches.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, National Sovereignty, Politics in General, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

David Ripley: Congressional Panel Continues to Press on Organ Harvesting Scandal

June 6th, 2016 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

The House Select Investigative Committee released more findings of its research into the gruesome partnership between Planned Parenthood and companies trafficking in aborted baby parts.

Led by Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, the Congressional committee announced this week that it had uncovered serious violations of patient privacy and collusion to deceive women undergoing abortions at Planned Parenthood clinics. Given the sordid nature of the business, it is impossible for women and girls to avoid being treated like a commodity as organ harvesting companies hunt to buy valuable organs and tissue for resale.

The committee found that companies like Stem Express gain illegal access to patient files as they look for the best candidates to fill orders from their partners in universities and the pharmaceutical industry. Medical history, blood type, economic status and genetic information can all add special value to the tissue harvested from aborted babies. Such violation of privacy is illegal under HIPPA, and a gross abuse of those vulnerable women ensnared by Planned Parenthood.

But it gets worse as Stem Express goes in for the sale on the woman sitting in the lobby. The committee also found evidence of manipulation and even coercion of those mothers by the trolls looking for quick cash from the resale of their dead babies. And, as we have long suspected, the consent process used by these companies and Planned Parenthood is wholly inadequate and misleading.

We commend the work of Blackburn and her colleagues. It is imperative that they resist the politics of congressional Democrats – who have been turning up the heat to end the investigation into this national scandal. They must continue to move through this sewer and bring their findings before the full Congress for appropriate action: We must make harvesting and trafficking in aborted baby parts illegal in America.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Legislature, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Politics in General | No Comments »

David Ripley: Zollinger for House in Idaho Falls

May 14th, 2016 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

Idaho Chooses Life strongly endorses Bryan Zollinger for the Idaho House in District 33 (Idaho Falls).

This seat has opened up because of the retirement of Rep. Linden Bateman. The loss of Bateman is a tremendous blow to the pro-Life movement, as the good representative was one of the strongest, most determined champions of preborn children in public office. It is unlikely he will ever be truly replaced.

That said, Bateman’s legacy is at stake in this race.

We sent both GOP candidates detailed surveys on their views regarding critical life issues. Only Mr. Zollinger responded. His answers inspire confidence that we can trust to carry Linden’s mantle forward.

By contrast, David Smith did not bother to respond. While that means we have no specific information about this views – experience teaches us that Mr. Smith will likely be no defender of babies in the womb. Even if he has vague pro-Life views, his failure to answer specific questions for voters in District 33 has to mean that the Life issue(s) holds no priority for him.

We urge the good people of Idaho Falls to send a strong pro-Life legislator to Boise: We ask for your support of Bryan Zollinger on Tuesday.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Falls Issues, Idaho Legislature, Politics in General, Taxes | No Comments »

May 12th, 2016 by Halli

Trial Lawyers Plot Public Heist
Posted: 12 May 2016 03:49 AM PDT
With the release of candidate finance reports this week, we have learned a great deal about the race for the Supreme Court seat. The most startling fact is that the Idaho Trial Lawyers are engaged in a massive effort to place one of their own on the high court.

Robyn Brody, an unassuming attorney from Rupert, has shocked experienced political observers by amassing some $175,000 in her bid to win a seat on the high court. How could a first-time, unknown candidate for public office generate such a huge sum of money just weeks after announcing her candidacy? The answer is found in the large number of law firms (29) investing money in her.

The speed with which Brody has raised and spent money strongly suggests that the Trial Lawyers have been planning this campaign for some time. In fact, it seems likely that they recruited Brody to run, a perfect unknown commodity who could sweep to a seat on the Idaho Supreme Court with the financial backing of dozens and dozens of criminal defense and plaintiff attorneys who desperately want, apparently, a friendly face on the highest court. Their scheme hinges on a tidal wave of money to overwhelm voters before folks can figure out what is really going on.

We are also deeply troubled by the fact that Ms. Brody is being supported by a rather long list of liberal, pro-choice attorneys – like Rory Jones, lead attorney for Planned Parenthood in its current lawsuit against the state of Idaho.

Brody’s money pile also answers the question about the curious “rating” by members of the State Bar Association of the candidates. It is clearly implausible that attorneys from around the state would be in a position to offer objective ratings of the candidates based upon personal knowledge of them. Now we know that it was the Trial Lawyers Assn. which Gerry-rigged the numbers that Ms. Brody is touting in her literature.

We don’t know what Ms. Brody’s values are, because candidates for the bench don’t answer such questions. But the list of her supporters should give Idahoans tremendous cause for concern. And the biggest question we will have to answer next week is whether Idaho voters will allow the Trial Lawyers to buy a seat on the Supreme Court.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Family Matters, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Politics in General | No Comments »

David Ripley: McKenzie for Supreme Court

May 9th, 2016 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

The Board of Idaho Chooses Life has voted to endorse Sen. Curt McKenzie for the open seat on the Idaho Supreme Court, now held by retiring Justice Jim Jones.

McKenzie has a 100% pro-Life record over his 7 terms in the Idaho Senate. He has sponsored and co-sponsored pro-Life legislation, including a measure which prohibits the State Insurance Exchange from using tax dollars to pay for abortions.

Sen. McKenzie earned our Friend for Life Award in 2012.

In addition to his pro-Life values, McKenzie brings a proven record of defending the religious liberties of Idahoans. One of his most important tests came in the fight to establish a state insurance exchange. We asked legislators to amend the bill by including language to protect Idaho’s employers from being forced to provide insurance coverage under ObamaCare that violated their religious beliefs. This measure would have stopped the state from helping Obama force Christian employers into paying for abortion-causing drugs like Ella and “Emergency Contraception”. McKenzie was one of only 11 senators to vote for our Religious Liberty Amendment in 2013.

There is no doubt that the most important qualification for any judicial candidate is a proven adherence to the principles and values which gave rise to a republican form of government in America. The Constitution is a clear and precise defense of our liberties and a systematic limitation on the powers of government. We are being destroyed by judges who believe they are part of a new high priesthood with the power to rewrite the Constitution to suit their particular social agenda and vision for a “better” society.

In contrast, we believe that Curt McKenzie respects the proper limitations of the judiciary, and will vigorously apply the Constitution as plainly written to cases which come before the Court.

We have a huge responsibility this month. Idaho’s Constitution provides the voters of this state with a powerful check on judicial arrogance: Our ballot.

We urge pro-Life voters to support Curt McKenzie in the May 17th Primary Election. And please urge your neighbors and friends at church to do the same.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, Idaho Legislature, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Politics in General | No Comments »

Idaho Chooses Life Endorses Crapo for Re-Election

May 6th, 2016 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

Idaho Chooses Life announced today that its Board has voted to support the re-election of Sen. Mike Crapo to the United States Senate.

“We are proud to once again endorse Sen. Crapo,” said ICL Executive Director David Ripley in a prepared statement. “He has worked hard during his entire public career to defend preborn children and their mothers from the scourge of abortion.”

“We are especially gratified by the leadership Sen. Crapo has taken this past year to end the taxpayer subsidies of Planned Parenthood,” Ripley added. “It is long past time for women and girls to receive quality health care and for Congress to end its partnership with America’s largest abortion chain.”

Idaho Chooses Life honored Sen. Crapo in 2008 for his stellar voting record on pro-Life issues by giving him its “Friend for Life” Award.

In January of this year, Sen. Crapo became a co-sponsor of legislation brought forward by Sen. Rand Paul to recognize the personhood of preborn children from conception. The “Life at Conception Act” would explicitly extend the protections of the 14th Amendment to babies in the womb.

“That is the kind of leadership we have come to expect from Sen. Crapo,” Ripley concluded. “His integrity and vigorous defense of our values should make every Idahoan proud.”

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Politics in General | No Comments »

David Ripley: Deep Trouble in Canada

April 15th, 2016 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

Canada is now in the throes of a national fight over physician-assisted suicide.

The drama begins with an edict from the high priests on the Canadian Supreme Court that the Parliament must enact a law to legalize physician-assisted suicide. That was something like a year ago. The new prime minister, pin-up model Justin Trudeau, has dutifully come forth with legislation.

Fierce opposition has developed over many of the provisions proposed.

Some argue that the proposal would provide a perfect cover for a person to commit murder. The language provides immunity to “any person” who participates in an assisted suicide.

The language also requires that every physician in Canada, if they object to participating in the premature destruction of a patient, refer their patient to a doctor or facility who will help kill the person.

One Canadian physician has publicly challenged this requirement and the lack of conscience protections for medical professionals.

“If a father were to request that his daughter undergo circumcision (i.e., genital mutilation) and I deliberately provided an effective referral to a willing physician, I would be complicit in an extremely grievous breach of medical ethics,” writes Dr. Ewan Goligher. “This scenario is not ethically identical to physician-assisted death, but it effectively illustrates the moral and ethical responsibility attached to an effective referral. Knowingly referring a patient to a physician willing to cause the patient’s death makes doctors complicit in that death.”

To make matters worse, the association of life insurers in Canada has come out with a new policy, saying they would be happy to abandon their long-standing practice of denying coverage in cases where the policy holder commits suicide – as long as those policy holders follow the procedures outlined by the government. That practically provides something of an incentive to persons suffering from financial hardship: they can arrange to provide for their family by submitting to premature death.

While this Canadian development does not directly affect the U.S. – the legislation supposedly bans “tourism suicides” – it is a bad omen for the future. Not only do we share a long border and common pop culture, but we share vital roles in defending the fundamental Christian values of Western Civilization. That is our common heritage.

From that perspective, we must be concerned with the obvious love affair in Western culture with death, and self-destruction in general. The advanced cultural cancer which is destroying Europe has reached the shores of North America.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Politics in General, Taxes | No Comments »

« Previous Entries

Copyright © 2oo6 by TrishAndHalli.com Powered by Wordpress          
Ported by ThemePorter - template by Design4 | Sponsored by Cheap Web Hosting