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.


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





Conservative News

General Interest

Idaho Falls Links

Idaho Politics

Left-Leaning Idaho

Libertarian Links

Pro-life Organizations

Jerry Sproul, CPA

Please take a moment to visit our sponsors!

David Ripley: Hillary Celebrates 100 Years of Planned Parenthood

October 21st, 2016 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

Planned Parenthood – the Abortion Industry’s largest producer – celebrated its dark 100 year history this past weekend. Democrat Hillary Clinton joined in the festivities by posting five separate Tweets praising the organization for its defense of “autonomy” and attacking Donald Trump. She expressed “pride” in what the abortion empire has accomplished over the past century.

Okay … let’s survey their handiwork.

Rachel Stoltzfoos over at the Daily Caller wrote an excellent piece summarizing the destruction Planned Parenthood has accomplished.

The semi-official death toll from Planned Parenthood is well over 7 million defenseless human babies. The annual carnage has now hit about 328,000 babies killed at some 650 abortuaries spread through every state of this Union. But the death toll only scratches the surface of the moral, social, spiritual havoc that Planned Parenthood has wrought. The cost to mothers and fathers, the damage to our legal system are but a couple of the accounts most difficult to measure.

Over the last decade, Planned Parenthood’s legitimate health care services have declined dramatically, while abortions have climbed. For example, they claimed some 2 million cancer screenings in 2006. By 2013, that number had declined to 900,000. At the same time, the annual killings have climbed from 289,000 to that staggering figure of 328,000. Yet they continue to enjoy funding from Congress and protection from leading Democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Of course, Hillary Clinton has every reason to praise Planned Parenthood: It is spending some $30 million to help elect her to the presidency.

The Daily Caller also notes that this purportedly “non-profit health organization” has pumped more than $50 million into congressional campaigns since 1990. These massive political bribes have been used to build an unparalleled empire aimed at fulfilling Margaret Sanger’s racist, eugenics vision.

There can be no doubt that this presidential contest presents American voters with a fundamental choice. The defeat of Hillary Clinton must be a priority for every single Christian, pro-Life voter. We must commit ourselves now to earnest prayer, asking the Almighty to pierce the veil of darkness with which Planned Parenthood and its media allies are trying to cloak this election.

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

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

Richard Larsen: Paul Harvey’s Warning to America – “If I Were the Devil”

October 21st, 2016 by Halli

by Richard Larsen

Many years ago, a courageous and devoted American broadcasted a message to his listeners that served as a harbinger for where the nation was headed socially and culturally. In his broadcast he revealed what he would do if he were “the devil,” to destroy our culture and undermine our collective societal standards and social mores. That man was Paul Harvey Aurandt, affectionately known to the nation simply as Paul Harvey, and his message not only has proven to be prophetic, but serves as a warning to Americans today of where our society continues to trend.

Paul Harvey was a broadcaster who rendered daily news on the radio from the 1950s through the 1990s, and inspired generations of Americans with true stories of goodness and heroism with his daily, “The Rest of the Story.” He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2005 for his contributions to the nation. At his peak, his broadcasts reached as many as 24 million listeners and readers, as 1,600 radio stations and 300 newspapers carried his program and columns across the nation.

One broadcast, which he titled, “If I Were the Devil,” ran originally in 1964, but he updated it several times over the years, and the version detailed below aired in 1996. In Paul Harvey’s own words, here is what he said he would do, if he “were the devil.”

“If I were the prince of darkness, I would want to engulf the whole world in darkness. I’d have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree — thee. So, I would set about however necessary to take over the United States.

“I’d subvert the churches first, and I would begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: ‘Do as you please.’

“To the young, I would whisper that the Bible is a myth. I would convince the children that man created God instead of the other way around. I’d confide that what’s bad is good and what’s good is square. And the old, I would teach to pray after me, ‘Our Father, which art in Washington …’

“Then, I’d get organized, I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull and uninteresting. I’d peddle narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.

“If I were the devil, I’d soon have families at war with themselves, churches at war with themselves and nations at war with themselves until each, in its turn, was consumed. And with promises of higher ratings, I’d have mesmerizing media fanning the flames.

“If I were the devil, I would encourage schools to refine young intellect but neglect to discipline emotions. I’d tell teachers to let those students run wild. And before you knew it, you’d have drug-sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.

With a decade, I’d have prisons overflowing and judges promoting pornography. Soon, I would evict God from the courthouse and the schoolhouse and then from the houses of Congress. In his own churches, I would substitute psychology for religion and deify science. I’d lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls and church money.

“If I were the devil, I’d take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. What’ll you bet I couldn’t get whole states to promote gambling as the way to get rich?

“I’d convince the young that marriage is old-fashioned, that swinging is more fun and that what you see on television is the way to be. And thus, I could undress you in public and lure you into bed with diseases for which there are no cures.

“In other words, if I were the devil, I’d just keep right on doing what he’s doing.”

Everything Harvey saw as nascent trends back in the 60’s has come to fruition. And realizing that many readers may not believe in the devil, per se, doesn’t change the fact that these portents have achieved fruition. Whether the causality is the adversary, other nefarious evil or injurious sources, or merely the result of wanton and hedonistic human nature, the culmination of these destructive trends in society has ripened dramatically in recent years.

Some benighted souls may interpret the dissolution of our most fundamental institutions, the defloration of our cultural mores, the rejection and denunciation of God, and the abandonment of standards of decency as “progress.” But to any with even a modicum of conscience, ethical grounding, or even objectivity in assessing our social viability from a historical perspective, we’ve not evolved as a society; we’ve devolved. Not unlike previous great cultures before us.

As intellectual historian Gertrude Himmelfarb has summarized, “What was once stigmatized as deviant behavior is now tolerated and even sanctioned; what was once regarded as abnormal has been normalized . . . . As deviancy is normalized, so what was once normal becomes deviant. The kind of family that has been regarded for centuries as natural and moral – the ‘bourgeois’ family as it is invidiously called – is now seen as pathological.”

Alas, where do we go from here? Do we continue to plunge to new depths of degeneracy as a society, or do we rise as a phoenix, reversing our downward spiral to nihilism? The answer lies in each of us, individually and collectively, and whether we, by honest introspection and appraisal, acknowledge our own failures and shortcomings, and determine to do better.

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

Posted in Family Matters, Guest Posts, Pocatello Issues, Politics in General | No Comments »

David Ripley: Trump Re-affirms His Commitment to Pro-Life Values

September 17th, 2016 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

Presidential candidate Donald Trump issued a public letter to the nation’s pro-Life community this past week, affirming his pro-Life values and expressing his determination to advance the Life agenda.

In his letter, Trump restated his commitment to four specific policy agenda items:

Nominating pro-Life judges to the Supreme Court of the United States;
Signing into law the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would essentially make abortions after 20 weeks illegal in the United States;
He would seek to defund Planned Parenthood so long as it performed abortions. Instead, he would re-direct the hundreds of millions in tax dollars to legitimate women’s health care providers; and
Trump would ask Congress to make the Hyde Amendment a permanent part of the federal code. This long-standing provision is usually attached as rider language to appropriation bills and restricts the use of federal monies to pay for elective abortions.
There is no question that these four action items represent a formidable pro-Life agenda for a new president’s first term. But even that awareness fails to capture the true stakes in November for America’s preborn children.

The Democrat nominee, Hillary Clinton, is a long way past the time when she declared that abortion should be rare in the United States. During her last run for the nomination, it became crystal clear that she is as rabid a supporter of Planned Parenthood’s agenda as any member of its Board. Clinton has publicly declared her support for tax-funded abortions and is committed to nominating the most rabid abortion-supporting lawyers to all levels of the federal bench.

Thus, we must appreciate not only what Donald Trump might accomplish as president, but what he will be able to prevent should he defeat Clinton and Planned Parenthood in November.

It is time to be in serious prayer for the outcome of the national election.

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: The Lesser of Two Evils, or Third Party?

September 16th, 2016 by Halli

by Richard Larsen

The presidential election of 2016 presents a consequential conundrum for voters, especially conservatives. With antipathy running at historic highs for a Republican nominee, the temptation to vote third party or not at all is significant. While each must make his or her own decision about what matters most in the process, we have to bear in mind the consequences of our decision.

First, let’s dispense with what elections are and what they are not. Voting for candidates is a means of selecting representatives for our governance. The most pervasive definition is, “An election is a formal decision-making process by which a population chooses an individual to hold public office.” The U.S. is not a theocracy, so we aren’t voting for a pastor, or a spiritual leader, or a great moralist.

Candidates have platforms, or statements of belief to delineate their policy positions in order for voters to ascertain their intent if elected. Ideally, all candidates are decent, honest, and honorable. So what do we do when the two major candidates in a two-party system are not? The most logical approach is to remove the subjective elements and focus strictly on the objective, by comparing your beliefs with those of the candidates. A superb way of seeing how your convictions align with the candidates is on the Internet at Take the quiz at the top of the page for the presidential election and see how your view on the role of government, and specific issues, aligns with the candidates.

Although several candidates, including those from the Libertarian, Constitution, and Green parties are included, and may be on most of the state ballots, ours is fundamentally a two-party system. Some of that is due to our political history as a nation, but according to a research piece by the University of California in 2004, the Electoral College is one of the principle reasons. With a multiple party system, the ability to achieve the requisite 270 electoral votes is greatly diminished, which would cause presidential elections to be decided by the House of Representatives, rather than the popular vote by state, selecting Electors.

One Independent candidate has a strategy to take just one state, which his supporters argue, could possibly prevent either of the major candidates from surpassing the 270 electoral requirement. As it stands now, with the states Hillary Clinton has solid leads in, she has a 262 to 154 Electoral vote lead. Realistically, this isn’t even close, since all Hillary has to pick up is a state or two among the nine toss-up states, while Trump has to pick up all of them to win.

Because of the strength of the two-party system, third-party candidates inevitably draw voters from one of the two major parties. The Green Party takes some liberals from the Democrats, and the Constitution Party draws from the Republicans. While the Libertarian Party draws some from both, in part due to the social policies including legalization of drugs, but mostly from the ranks of the GOP. With the high level of dissatisfaction with the GOP nominee this year, the more votes siphoned away from one party or the other may have an impact on who ultimately wins, just as in 1992. That year Ross Perot, an Independent, amassed nearly 20 million votes, but didn’t win a single state or any Electoral votes. George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton by only five million votes, but it was an Electoral landslide for Clinton with 370 to 168 Electoral votes. The Independent candidate handed the victory to Clinton, having funneled off enough Republican voters to deny Bush the reelection.

Many voters are caught up in the “lesser of two evils” debate, averring they could never choose to support a candidate who is perceived to be only slightly less “evil” than the other. From a logical perspective, this approach to voting is fundamentally flawed, for it’s based on the premise that there is, in the political space, the opposite of evil – a perfect candidate. There are no perfect candidates. We’re all mortal, hence fallible and imperfect. Thus, technically, every election is a choice between “evils.” And since we’re dealing with mortal institutions, every choice is a gradation of imperfection and fallibility.

So given that all candidates are mortal, and therefore flawed, or if you will, “evil,” to some degree or another, we’re always voting for the lesser of evils. Let’s approach this concept from a logical and philosophical perspective based on Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics, or duty-based ethics. From a Kantian “moral imperative” standpoint, to in any way facilitate the victory of the greater evil, is contrary to our duty to the republic. So if one acknowledges that one of the major candidates is more “evil” than the other, to allow the greater evil victory, by siphoning away votes from the lesser evil, is in fact immoral.

The bottom line is, why do you vote for a candidate? Do you vote for someone you believe honest, but whose convictions are antithetical to your own, or do you vote for the one who aligns closest to your convictions and preferred policies, perhaps in spite of perceived personal flaws? If politics was an ecclesiastical exercise, and you were selecting a new pastor, perhaps the former makes most sense. Ideally, all of our candidates would be honest and without character flaws. But as mortals, imperfection is a given, perhaps especially in the realm of politics. And since politics is about governance, and policy follows principle, ideological alignment is a more fundamental and realistic basis from which to choose.

Before the pro-liberty voter commits to a third party, they must consider the implications if they enable a Clinton victory. A few key issues to consider: 1. More Ginsburgs and Sotomayor’s on the Supreme Court, or more Scalia’s and Alito’s? 2. Less regulation versus more regulation. 3. More free enterprise or less? 4. More U.S. sovereignty (and concomitant security) or less, by ceding authority to the UN. 5. A stronger military or a weaker, more diluted and socially engineered one? 6. More wealth redistribution, or more personal accountability and freedom to achieve? 7. Keep Obamacare, or repeal it?

The reality is that either Clinton or Trump will win. Sometimes we have to step outside of our comfort zone and vote based on policy and the greater good, rather than on a person, or assuaging our intrinsic sense of propriety. This is especially true for those who live in swing states where the election outcome will be determined.
Abstinence from voting, or voting in such a way to facilitate the election of the “greater evil,” certainly would be a violation of the moral imperative. We’d best consider the consequences of that third-party vote, or not voting, because if Clinton is handed the victory, the political hangover the morning after the election is going to be a doozey!

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

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

David Ripley: The Most Dangerous Man in America

August 28th, 2016 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

George Soros’ wide and deep role in funding and directing the American Left have come under some media scrutiny in the past couple of weeks, as a treasure trove of email traffic and documents from his “Open Society Foundation” have been made public.

Documents show that he is a primary financier of the Black Lives Matter group fomenting violence as well as lethal attacks on police officers across America. Other documents show his fingerprints on the movements to free violent felons from federal prisons, erase the nation’s border, revolutionize voting procedures and undermine America’s economic strength through a radical environmental agenda.

Despite a criminal record for insider trading, Soros continues to amass greater wealth and controlling influence within the Democratic Party. Reports indicate that he is now worth some $25 billion – the very personification of the “One Percent”. Yet he exercises a magnetic force on the politics of Hillary Clinton and many members of Congress – from both parties.

But among the many revolutionary/anarchist movements that Soros continues to spawn in a mad strategy of destroying western civilization, none is more troubling than his funding of the legalized abortion movement.

A recent report in LifeNews shows that Soros is spending millions of dollars to overturn pro-Life protections for preborn children in a number of nations – including Ireland, Tanzania, Mexico and Nigeria. His strategy in Ireland is to funnel millions into Amnesty International to promote the notion that abortion is a fundamental “human right”.

In America, Soros has donated more than $18 million to Planned Parenthood in the past five years. He then made an emergency allocation to Planned Parenthood in the wake of their baby-body-parts scandal to help them finance a public relations effort aimed at calming the consciences of most Americans. That kind of money and powerful influence is part of the reason that the Congressional inquiry into Planned Parenthood’s sordid practices has faded from the media’s attention, despite the panel’s irrefutable evidence of the darkest evil within America’s largest abortion chain.

This is but a brief overview of the dark influence of George Soros on modern American politics. But it is sufficient to confirm the worst fears that Soros is a one-man conspiracy to cripple America. The extent of his influence and effectiveness is truly horrifying.

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

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

Richard Larsen: Capitalism Works, if Government Would Just Get Out of the Way!

August 26th, 2016 by Halli

by Richard Larsen

A seemingly accelerating trend with many Americans is to look with skepticism and a jaundiced perspective at business, capitalism, and the profit motive. In spite of efforts by some to rewrite history, those of us who are students of history recognize that capitalism made America the economic superpower that it is. And the more we allow government to interfere in our economy, the more we move toward a fascistic system where government controls the means of production.

Business and the profit motive have turned us from an agrarian to a high-tech producing and consuming nation. All of us are dependent upon business and the profit motive for everything we do every day. From the manufacturer of the bed we arise from and the alarm clock we wake up to, to the toothpaste, shampoo, and comb we use in the morning. The beverage we imbibe to give us a kick-start in the morning and the vehicle we drive to work are products of once small businesses that have grown sometimes to global proportions. If any of those products or services we depend on get too expensive, we start shopping for cheaper alternatives. That’s capitalism in a nutshell.

Most of us even work for a small business driven by the profit motive. Those firms, created and managed by entrepreneurs, market and sell products, provide advice and services, and fill the needs of people from all walks of life. They pay us to fill a specific function within the company to help them service their customers more efficiently and cost-effectively. And most of them pay another 30% of our salaries or wages in the form of benefits to help retain quality employees. And according to Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University an amazing 89 percent of us are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with our jobs.

As a matter of fact, according to the Small Business Administration, small businesses represent 99% of all employer firms, employ half of all private sector employees, pay 45% of total U.S. private payroll, generate 80% of new jobs annually, create more than 50% of nonfarm private GDP, comprise 97% of all identified exporters, and produce 26% of the known export value to our GDP.

Yet every time new governmental regulation is imposed on businesses, the costs increase. Whenever the government increases taxes on companies, the costs increase again. In order to stay in business, they must pass those costs on to their customers, or find other ways to reduce costs like eliminating jobs. That’s why it makes no sense to tax companies since we all end up individually paying their taxes via increased prices for their products and services.

And it’s not just small business that makes our quality of life what it is, but the brother of small business; BIG business. It’s not an evil concept, to sell things that people want and need at prices that most people can afford, so they can sell as much or as many as possible, applying the economies of scale. And they do so with a profit motive in order to share their success with those who ponied-up the capital, (investors, silent partners, share-holders) facilitating their business ventures. Remember, if they over-price their widgets, they price themselves out of the market. If they underprice their widgets, they’re not going to remain viable, and will have to lay off employees and won’t be able to pay all those taxes the government is requiring of them. Then their employees will have to hope they can find another widget company to replace the job they lost.

The media, Hollywood, and even some of our fellow citizens bash “big pharma,” big oil, or big retailers like Wal-Mart. But in reality what do those “big” evil companies do? They provide needed products and services at reasonable prices, and jobs, enabling our national economic engine, and our quality of life, to keep chugging along. They have limited control over much of their expenses, but to be able to continue doing what they do, they achieve a modest profit to ensure their viability in future years, and allow us to have a job.

When politicians promise “free stuff” at the expense of taxpayers, they’re doing nothing more than attempting bribery – they promise free stuff for our votes. And it’s not their free stuff. It’s stuff they promise to use governmental coercion to forcibly take from others, in order to redistribute to those they’re bribing.

It’s no wonder that Bernie Sanders, who nearly captured the Democrat nomination, (and would have if the DNC had not colluded with the Clinton campaign) garnered the support he did as the self-avowed socialist peddled collectivist promises for populist electoral support.

And Hillary Clinton is no less ideologically aligned with socialistic solutions. A disciple of Saul Alinsky, and the first architect of a socialized healthcare system for the U.S., she has made some brash statements over the years that reveal her ideological convictions. Among her many anti-capitalist statements are these nuggets. “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good,” (6/29/04). “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity,” (5/29/07). “(We) … can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people,” (6/4/07). “I certainly think the free-market has failed,” (6/4/07).

The brilliant economist, Thomas Sowell, has philosophically put the failed socialist ideology into proper perspective. “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you’ve earned, but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.” “Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good.” And for academics who are smitten with the failed ideology, “Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant than only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”

Too many of us rely on fallacious populist typecasts of what business and the profit motive do, rather than relying on our empirical observations of their contributions to our quality of life and economic viability. We allow the media, Hollywood, or anti-business kvetching to taint our perceptions with a failed, yet idyllically appealing narrative of “equality” or “social justice.”

PragerU has produced an insightful clip that explains this perfectly. It can be seen here.

The profit motive, capitalism, and free enterprise, are the backbone to our economic system, and as such, are the key to future growth and prosperity, individually and collectively. Government encroachment and increased regulation stymie future potential growth, our quality of life, and our job security. It’s time for Americans to quit buying (with their votes), what self-serving politicians promise for them. Less regulation, less taxation, less government spending, and less government control is the solution for future economic growth and security.

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

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

David Ripley: Tim Kaine – Perfect for Hillary

August 23rd, 2016 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

Sen. Tim Kaine, Democrat pick for Vice-President, is a near-perfect running mate for Hillary Clinton. He is a decent looking person, with a moderate amount of charm. Kaine seems reasonably intelligent and able to answer most questions. Not quite bland – but close enough so as to pose no challenge to Hillary, probably the least charismatic candidate ever nominated for the presidency.

But those are all the superficial reasons Clinton settled on the senator from Virginia.

A much more important qualification is Kaine’s Catholicism. His most important job is to lure moderate Catholics into supporting the Democrat ticket. He will preach the Democrat gospel of “social justice” from the campaign trail, rather than the doctrine of Catholic orthodoxy.

Ronald Reagan won the Catholic vote in 1980 and 1984; George Bush won Catholics in 2000 and 2004. Clinton and Obama won the Catholic vote in other recent elections. The only Republican to win the presidency and (narrowly) lose the Catholic vote was George Bush Sr.

That data suggests the critical nature of Kaine’s mission this November.

Kaine is well-suited to the task: He has a history of third-world missionary work, which serves as an entrée into the Hispanic Catholic communities. But it is his practicality and self-serving character which will make him most useful to Clinton.

Long ago, Kaine jettisoned the teachings of the Church on core moral questions: He is now “personally” pro-Life – but has vigorously defended the government’s imposition of legalized abortion on America. (And, by “personally” – we presume that he would never, personally, seek an abortion. Which is a good thing). He joins a long list of Catholic public officials – Pelosi, Kennedy, Cuomo – who have seemingly prospered in this world by jettisoning the inconvenient truths of their faith; officials who continue to succeed without a peep of censure from the hierarchy of the Church.

For years, Kaine has defended the notion that taxpayers – many of whom are Christians with a deeper grasp of the abortion horror – should not be coerced into paying for abortions; but that “principle” has come into conflict with the Democrat Party’s new platform. Consistent with a lifetime of adjusting his principles to accommodate his ambition, Kaine has recently come to believe that taxpayers should help poor women and girls kill their babies.

Which brings us to the central reason that Tim Kaine is such a perfect match for Hillary Clinton. The Clinton Family won’t have to worry about VP Tim raising Cain over the Mafioso-like operations of their White House. He is perfectly flexible.

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

Posted in Guest Posts, Politics in General, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: The Democrat Convention – A Spectacle of Duplicity

August 12th, 2016 by Halli

by Richard Larsen

Ronald Reagan once memorably stated, “The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” Seldom do we get such a grand stage to prove the veracity of his statement, as we did at the Democrat Convention last week. Here are just a few of the numerous examples that were liberally uttered during their confab.

Cecile Richards, CEO of Planned Parenthood said on the first day of the convention, “Planned Parenthood was founded 100 years ago, giving women the care they need to live their lives and chase their dreams — no limits, no ceilings.” Apparently she’s forgotten that PP founder, eugenicist Margaret Sanger, held the conviction that blacks and minorities should be “weeded out” from the populace. That sounds like a pretty significant “limit” and “ceiling,” to me!

Michelle Obama said, “We explain [to our girls] when someone is cruel or acts like a bully, you don’t stoop to that level. No. Our motto is: When they go low, we go high.” Apparently the First Lady is unfamiliar with how Barry has bullied his progressive agenda onto the nation, bypassing congress, which has the only authority to create laws. As the president has said, “I have a pen and a phone,” and he presumed that gave him all the authority necessary for him to create new law by simply and dictatorially declaring it. There has never been a bigger bully in the Oval Office.

She also said, “Don’t let anyone ever tell you that this country isn’t great — that somehow we need to make it great again. Because this, right now, is the greatest country on earth.” Hmm. I seem to recall her saying in 2008, “For the first time in my adult lifetime I’m really proud of my country.” She must not have thought it was too great then. Oh, maybe that’s because her husband hadn’t yet completed his “fundamental transformation” of America. Now that the government has eviscerated so many of our individual rights, and so many socialistic programs imposed on the populace, maybe it’s now great to her.

Senator Elizabeth Warren declared, “Look around. Americans bust their tails, some working two or three jobs, but wages stay flat. Meanwhile, the basic costs of making it from month to month keep going up. Housing, health care, child care — costs are out of sight. Young people are getting crushed by student loans. Working people are in debt. Seniors can’t stretch a Social Security check to cover the basics. And even families who are OK today worry that it could all fall apart tomorrow. This. Is. Not. Right!” Well what do you expect, Senator? Those are the predictable results of seven years of Obama Administration policies. Since Hillary would be the heir apparent to perpetuate those destructive policies, the Senator has unwittingly provided the very evidence why Clinton should not be elected!

Warren also said, “People get it: the system is rigged.” That couldn’t be more true for Bernie Sanders supporters, who saw the DNC rig the system to ensure Hillary’s coronation. And perhaps not coincidentally, the economy is now “rigged” against the middle class, as they shoulder the immense costs associated with the redistributive policies of Obama, and the increased costs of onerous regulations imposed on small business over the past seven years. Yes, it is rigged. And Obama, Clinton, et al did most of the rigging!

Erstwhile presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said, “Together, my friends, we have begun a political revolution to transform America, and that revolution — our revolution — continues.” One can only wonder if he didn’t get Michelle Obama’s memo that America is already great. And if perpetuation of that “revolution” means more of what the past seven years has dumped on the nation, heaven help us if his revolution is not yet over! The middle class can’t take much more of his idea of “transforming America.”

Khizr Khan, a Gold-Star Father and an immigration attorney specializing in Muslim immigrants, said, “Donald Trump, you are asking Americans to trust you with our future. Let me ask you: Have you even read the U.S. Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. In this document, look for the words ‘liberty’ and ‘equal protection of law.’” Well, apparently Khizr Khan hasn’t read the Constitution himself. The word liberty only appears in the preface explaining the purpose of the document, and “equal protection of law” is nowhere to be found. Granted, the 14th Amendment assures “equal protection under the law” for citizens, but not for those whom Khan was promoting. Further, when he said Trump’s proposal to limit Islamic immigrants was “unconstitutional,” he obviously didn’t know about the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 which allows the president to “bar migration of any alien or class of aliens the president sees as a threat to the United States for any reason at any time.”

Former Attorney General Eric Holder said on day two, “As the brother of a retired police officer, I am profoundly aware that an attack on a police officer anywhere is an attack on our entire society. So it is not enough for us to praise law enforcement after cops are killed. We must protect them, value them…” Holder has arguably been at the helm of the nationwide war on policemen. Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke has said of Holder, that he is “the most race-obsessed attorney general in the history of the United States… Everything he does is put through the racial lens. He’s had Ferguson, Missouri and its police department in his crosshairs ever since he went down there with that tragic situation with Mike Brown.” He and his boss are most culpable for the threats to our law enforcement officers resulting from the Black Lives Matter movement.

Former Senator and presidential candidate Howard Dean declared, “We need a president who will defend our interests around the world — not with ignorant bluster and bombast, but with toughness and resolve.” He’s exactly right! Obama certainly hasn’t done that, even with Clinton at his side. Electing the one most responsible for the chaos in Libya, abandoning Americans there to die, and then lying about it, hardly fits the bill!

And finally, from outgoing President Barack Obama, “While this nation has been tested by war and recession and all manner of challenges — I stand before you again tonight, after almost two terms as your president, to tell you I am even more optimistic about the future of America. How could I not be after all we’ve achieved together?” According to the most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 73% of registered voters say the country is on the wrong track, while just 18% said it is headed in the right direction. I’m not sure he has any ground to brag from. And Hillary represents just more of the same.

And then on the final night it was the candidate herself. In one paragraph in her speech, she lamented the horrible condition of the economy, and yet claimed Obama and Biden didn’t get enough credit for it.

It’s little wonder that a party whose core principles move ever farther from the republic’s foundational values, would display such detachment from reality. These observations should be universally acknowledged, yet inexplicably they get lost in the spin of the media and partisan myopia. If indeed 73% of registered voters believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction, the last thing we should do is to add another four years to the Obama legacy of economic malaise, regulatory overreach, redistributive policies, and foreign policy ineptitude.

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: 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 »

« Previous Entries

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