From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

Count Dave Ferdinand as another victim of the grinding maw of the Boise City Attorney’s office. Ferdinand happens, perhaps not coincidentally, to be a conservative Republican as well as a Canyon County commissioner.

With at least 31 full-time attorneys and a $490 million budget, the city has the resources to create considerable mischief and pervert justice in the process.

Ferdinand was prosecuted by the city for having a hand-gun in his carry-on luggage. His first trial, recently concluded, ended in a hung jury. The jury was hung by a lone hero juror - Kisha Majors - who, after listening to testimony, was convinced that charges should never have been brought in the first place.

Ferdinand had placed the gun, which he carried for self-protection, in an inside pocket of his luggage for a trip to McCall the previous week, placing it in a rarely-used pocket to prevent his grandchildren from inadvertently finding it. He simply forgot it was there.

But the legal bureaucrats in Boise’s city hall trudge on, and will spend who knows how many more thousands of taxpayer dollars to prosecute Ferdinand again. The new trial has been scheduled for Dec. 12.

Ferdinand has already been forced to spend north of $10,000 to defend himself against a bogus misdemeanor charge. His only other option was to plead guilty to something he did not do - “knowingly” trying to sneak a gun onto a plane -, accept one year of probation and forfeit his Second Amendment rights in the meantime.

The law under which Ferdinand was prosecuted explicitly requires that the defendant “knowingly” try to bring a hand-gun into a secure area of the airport. But according to Ms. Majors, in actuality not one of the six jurors believed that Ferdinand intended to sneak a gun on the plane; all of them believed it was a simple oversight on his part and that he had not done it on purpose.

They were talked into a “guilty” vote by the city prosecutor who somehow convinced them he was guilty just because he owned the gun and that his intent was irrelevant. The prosecutor even tried to keep the judge from giving the jury any instructions regarding the issue of intent.

Ms. Majors agrees with Boise police, and with Ferdinand himself, that he was “neglectful,” but correctly said “that’s not what we were there to decide. There wasn’t any evidence that he knew.”

Since the law requires intent for there to be a violation, Ferdinand plainly was not guilty of violating this law.

Even the Boise police report called it “an honest mistake” and let Ferdinand board the plane after taking possession of his gun.

Unfortunately for Mr. Ferdinand, justice does not seem to be high on the list of priorities for the attorneys who work for the city of Boise.

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Idaho Republican Bill Sali said today, during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing, that Congress should pass a bipartisan bill that would protect the Second Amendment rights of Washington, D.C. residents.

Sali is an original cosponsor of the bipartisan H.R. 6691, The Second Amendment Enforcement Act. This bill is in direct response to the D.C. City Council passing emergency laws that disregard the Supreme Court’s ruling in the District of Columbia v. Heller case by creating other new restrictions on D.C. residents’ rights.

“The D.C City Council emergency laws blatantly disregard the Court’s ruling but this bill before us today is a bipartisan step to enforce not only the Court’s ruling but the intentions of our Founding Fathers and the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court did not waver in its June ruling that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment,” said Sali.

“Congress must be vigilant to safeguard the right to keep and bear arms, which is now indisputably an individual right for all law-abiding citizens. The D.C. emergency laws need to be swiftly repealed and The Second Amendment Enforcement Act does precisely this,” concluded Sali.

Provisions in H.R. 6691 include:
Repeal D.C. ban on semiautomatic pistols
Restore right of self-defense at home by repealing the draconian trigger lock requirements
Reform registration requirements
Allow D.C. residents to purchase handguns

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

By Richard Larsen

As much as I enjoy sports and respect professional athletes for their athletic prowess, I’ve never been much of a fan of them off the court. For the most part, I find them totally egotistic, self-serving, and intellectually vapid, much like most Hollywood types.

There have been some notable exceptions to this generalization. I think of some greats like Bill Russell, John Stockton, Andre Agassi, Julius Erving, Jerry Rice, and Larry Bird. They were not only phenomenal athletes on the court, but they appeared genuine, sincere, and thoughtful off the court. They were more than just athletes, they were the type of people you wouldn’t mind having your children emulate and lionize.

One prominent athlete I’ve had little regard for has been Kobe Bryant, guard for the Los Angeles Lakers. He came onto the NBA scene with a splash in the post Michael Jordan era when the NBA was hungrily seeking a new “face” for the league. As a prodigious high school player in Philadelphia, Bryant opted to bypass college and go directly to the pros.

His play has become legendary, and his highlight reel is nearly as full of spectacular plays as Dr. J’s (Julius Erving) and Michael Jordan’s. But as a youngster in the NBA, it was all too evident that the accolades heaped upon him went to his head, and he became the epitome of self-centered, pampered professional athletes. His antics off the court have been a deterrent to holding him in higher regard.

But to many, especially youth, Bryant is an icon of “coolness.” His jersey, the Laker yellow #24, is the top selling NBA jersey, as is evidenced even on the streets of Pocatello.

In light of his “coolness,” it was extremely gratifying to hear his interview with Chris Collinsworth, a former wide receiver with the Cincinnati Bengals, on NBC this week. Collinsworth asked Bryant, “Tell the story when you first got your USA uniform.” To which Bryant responded, “Well, I had goosebumps and I actually just looked at it for awhile. I just held it there and I laid it across my bed and just stared at it for a few minutes; just because as a kid growing up this is the ultimate, ultimate in basketball.”

Collinsworth continued, “Where does the patriotism come from inside of you? Historically, what is it?” Bryant answered, “Well, you know it’s just our country, it’s… we believe this is the greatest country in the world. It has given us so many great opportunities, and it’s just a sense of pride that you have; that you say ‘You know what? Our country is the best!’”

Collinsworth took it a step further, “Is that a ‘cool’ thing to say, in this day and age? That you love your country, and that you’re fighting for the red, white and blue? It seems sort of like a day gone by.” Bryant replied, “No, it’s a cool thing for me to say. I feel great about it, and I’m not ashamed to say it. I mean, this is a tremendous honor.”

Bryant climbed several notches in my esteem with those comments. Here is the icon of “cool” for youth, not just in our country, but as we see in Beijing, around the world, and he’s saying it’s cool to love America, and recognize American exceptionalism for what it is.

The founding principles of this nation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our uniquely determined dependence on deity for our very existence as a country, have made us the envy of the world. Of equal significance is our adherence to principles of freedom and liberty even in our economic system. Why else would China, a nation with nearly 4 times our population, and an economy of roughly 1/5th the size of the U.S. go into the Beijing Olympics declaring openly that their primary goal was to achieve parity with the U.S.? I for one would be much more impressed by a move to achieve civil rights parity with the U.S.

For some reason, many Americans who enjoy the fruits of freedom here don’t seem to appreciate enough the tree from which those fruits grew. They lament a purported fall from grace and somehow think it’s “cool” to belittle and disparage our country. They point incessantly at the great moral evil of slavery, while failing to concede the monumental moral victory of our nation in eradicating it. In my estimation, not only is it possible to love America and all she stands for while being critical of politicians and policy, but I think that is what’s meant by dissent being the ultimate form of patriotism: a devotion to America and a commitment to her perpetuity so great that we speak out in opposition to those policies that we’re convinced challenge the role of America as an ensign of freedom to the world.

I’m grateful for Kobe Bryant’s expressed love of country, and am equally grateful that he never went to the Obama’s church or we might never have heard them.

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

I’ve been resisting the urge to point out the nonsensical, though laughable, material printed in the Idaho Falls newspaper. However, this week the headlines and other articles have overwhelmed my self-restraint.

Take a headline in today’s edition, which I have cut and pasted directly from the online version:

Idaho county approves feedlot near interment camp

Following a cursory read, one might conclude that a cattle feeding operation had been given the green light near a - what IS an interment camp? Is it possible that we have a new Idaho colloquialism for cemetery? Idahoans are pretty informal, and they do love the great outdoors. They have girls’ camps, Scout camps, National Forest camps, fire camps, and state camps. But calling a cemetery an interment camp is a little much even for the locals.

I should read the article, you say?

Jerome County Commissioners in south-central Idaho have approved a massive animal feedlot a mile west of a national historic site where Japanese-Americans were confined during World War II.

Ah - now I understand. The newspaper really meant internment camp. Pity. “Interment camp” held far more interesting possibilities.

And Monday’s edition provided us with this insight to the craft of the chronicler:

Historian draws from life

I suppose this is news because most historians just make things up. I have long suspected as much, but thanks are due the Idaho Falls newspaper for clarifying that point. Now we know there’s at least one historian in the world who records events that actually happened - in “life”. And, he’s from Twin Falls, Idaho. At last!

Perhaps the most humorous Idaho Falls newspaper piece I’ve read lately came from the opinion page, and was authored by none other than Roger Plothow, editor and publisher, entitled,

If it’s not journalism, it’s not news

Mr. Plothow first illuminates what journalism is not. Apparently it’s not blogging which “makes no pretense of fairness, balance, accuracy or integrity”. It’s not television pundits such as Bill O’Reilly. It’s not news fresh from the police scanner. And it certainly isn’t anything called or texted in by the average citizen.

After denigrating (look that one up, Mr. Newspaper Guy) any and every one not on his own crack staff, Mr. Plothow tells us what real journalists do. He cites the “code” of the Society of Professional Journalists”:

A true journalist is “… seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.”

The argument can persuasively be made that the Idaho Falls newspaper frequently stumbles when seeking truth. However, the average reader is usually unaware of the extent of that failing, since even the mistakes and missteps that are corrected are found in small paragraphs hidden among massive ads on inner pages.

And the “fair” part? “Fair” is one adjective that is rarely used to describe the Idaho Falls newspaper. Take, for example, the hit job performed on the Boy Scouts with the never-ending parade of articles blaming the BSA for one man’s actions over a decade ago. Yes, that man should be brought to justice. Does it rate nearly daily reporting on the situation for 3-4 years? Probably not.

And yet Roger Plothow and his fellow newspaper people were thrilled to excess with the “journalistic” prizes they won with the original series. These “honors” were further illustration of just how far Plothow’s sense of excellence and fairness diverges from his readers’.

In fact, the circulation of the Idaho Falls newspaper appears to continue in decline, due, at least in part, to the aforementioned series. Many locals who threatened for years to cancel their subscriptions were finally pushed to follow through. Despite claims that online and print versions have never been more widely read, I believe the newspaper is in trouble. Be sure to read a previous post on this subject. And for your information, the Idaho Falls newspaper continues to fail to report their circulation to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, unlike the Boise Statesman and the Twin Falls Times-News. This begs the question: How DOES the Idaho Falls paper document circulation to their advertisers?

Now there is talk of eliminating completely the Monday print edition of the paper, while making it available online. That is not a proposal that comes from a thriving newspaper, especially one which has just invested substantially in new printing equipment. It is also rather strange for a newspaper which, as shown by a recent survey, is read mostly by those over 55 years of age, those least likely to have access to the internet. And, in my humble opinion, their website is in every way inferior to those of the 3 local television stations with whom they appear to be in direct competition.

But let us return to Mr. Plothow’s arrogant and “self-important” musings. Says he:

Good journalism needn’t be humorless or colorless…

By all indications, humor is still found on the pages of the Idaho Falls newspaper. And I don’t mean the comics.

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

By Richard Larsen

Last week’s column by Cecil Andrus regarding John McCain and Social Security was long on subjective, unsubstantiated opinion, and extremely short on fact. While attempting to paint with a pejorative and broad brush all conservative approaches to shoring up Social Security, the former Governor betrayed a bias that was ill-informed and oblivious to the facts.

In his first paragraph, Andrus displayed an ignorance of the history of Social Security that could only have been tainted by his political bias for it resembled nothing historical. He stated, “…one thing seems to be constant: the Democratic (Presidential) candidate wants to strengthen and sustain Social Security, and the Republican candidate wants to do harm to [Social Security].”

When the political rose-colored glasses are on, such a statement might be tenable. When they’re off, we realize that for all presidential candidates, Social Security is a sacred cow, the veritable “Third Rail of American Politics” that candidates can only issue supportive platitudinous statements about. You touch it as a presidential candidate, and it can spell political doom. Addressing the future challenges of Social Security, George W. Bush in the 2004 election was harangued and harassed mercilessly for suggesting the possibility of allowing 2% of a workers’ FICA contribution to go to a personal account where they could direct the composition of the investments even though it could ultimately make Social Security more beneficial and more secure.

Also, when the political rose-colored glasses are off, we recognize that there is one party that has been most destructive to Social Security, and it’s not the one Andrus targeted. While Presidential candidates can’t seem to touch the issue for fear of political reprisal, the party in control of Congress for fifty of the past sixty years has done tremendous damage to Social Security.

It was Andrus’ party which moved social Security from an independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it. It was his party that during the Johnson administration put a tax on Social Security benefits. It’s his party that has increased that tax on Social Security two times since, with Al Gore casting the deciding vote the last time around. It is his party that has moved aggressively to expand benefits to illegal aliens who haven’t contributed a dime to the solvency of the program. It is his party that has expanded benefits 12 times since the program’s inception, which is politically popular with those new beneficiaries, but spells trouble for the continued solvency of the program. It is his party that has increased FICA withholding taxes 20 times since the program’s inception in order to attempt to pay for those expanded benefits.

Factually, Andrus’ premise rings hollow and is nothing more than political bias. Presidential candidates can do little to ameliorate the solvency issue because it’s Congress that controls the purse strings, and by a vote can contribute to future instability and insolvency by continuing to expand benefits according to their political desires. And it is Andrus’ own party that has done more to undermine the future stability and security with the program than any other.

What we do know is that the program has problems. According to the Social Security Administration, “Social Security has been changed over time to meet the needs of the American people. It will need to change again to meet future challenges… In 2017 benefits owed will be more than taxes collected, and Social Security will need to begin tapping the trust funds to pay benefits. The trust funds will be exhausted in 2041. At that time, Social Security will not be able to meet all of its benefit obligations if no changes are made.” In light of that, it’s much easier to correct course early on by making minor adjustments than to wait until the last minute to make drastic adjustments to save the program.

Andrus posited as fact that “John McCain would dismantle and destroy [Social Security].” Since he didn’t bother to quote what the Senator has actually said about the program, why don’t I. McCain’s official position is, “Everything’s on the table,” in order to address future funding issues. And frankly, shouldn’t that be the properly objective approach to solving the problem? It certainly seems more viable than simply increasing the tax to pay for the problem (as Obama suggests) and certainly more viable than what our Congress wants to do by making Social Security benefits available to 12 million illegal aliens. Sorry, Cecil, I think I’ll take McCain’s realistic and more objective approach. And to put that in perspective, I’m far from a McCain apologist. I’m the one with the bumper sticker that says “McCain ’08: Better half right than all left.”

Social Security should be an issue in the Presidential sweepstakes. But keep in mind, that in the end it’s Congress that makes the changes, regardless of what the President proposes. And I have about as much confidence in our Congress to do the right thing in this regard as is warranted by their latest dismal 8% approval rating.

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

From the office of Rep. Bill Sali

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Bill Sali today led a national debate on forest fires, saying Congress needs to do more to actually prevent forests and rangeland from going up in flames – as is happening now across the county. Sali, a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, served as the Republican debate “manager,” allocating speaking time to his colleagues as they debated a bill to dedicate funding for wildfire suppression. During the debate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi complimented Sali for his leadership.

“Each year in Idaho the skies fill with smoke from fires. Last year alone more than two million acres burned in Idaho, threatening lives, homes and communities,” said Sali, a leading voice in Congress for sound forest management. “Real solutions to these deadly and growing wildfires must be found.”

While recognizing that the proposal under consideration was an attempt to address Forest Service issues, Sali lamented that the legislation, “fails to address the more critical issue – forest management. The greatest obstacle our pubic land managers face in preventing catastrophic wildfires isn’t dollars; it is having the ability to overcome mountains of red tape and lawsuits filed by extremists. The laws that Congress has created in an attempt to ‘save’ our forests, have now become the biggest obstacles to saving them from wildfires.”

H.R. 5541, the Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act (FLAME Act) is aimed at dedicating funds for suppressing large wildfires. The bill passed on a voice vote. The Forest Service used to provide a source of revenue by managing federal lands and selling the harvested timber. Today, in most areas, active harvesting and forest management is non-existent resulting in less money generated by the Forest Service while there are growing fuel loads on federally managed lands.

“There is no question that there are budget issues that must be addressed. But we must address the cause of the fires as well, the increasing and unchecked fuel loads in our national forests that surround our homes and communities. We will continue to have larger and larger fires until we reduce fuel-loading,” said the Congressman. “Until we provide the tools for pre-fire forest management to reduce fuel-loading, the western United States will continue to see homes burned, watersheds destroyed and even lives lost.

“Providing tools to communities to protect their homes, livelihoods and very lives from these devastating fires is something we can and must do when addressing long-term funding to suppress these fires. This is precisely what I suggest we do in my bill, the Saving American Lives and Investing in Protecting Land and Nature Act, H.R. 4245, which I urge the House of Representatives to take up. This is a non-partisan issue about public safety and sound forest management that will benefit millions of Americans,” Sali said.

During debate, Speaker Pelosi praised Sali for his bipartisan leadership. Pelosi also echoed Sali’s call for treatments as a necessary element of a comprehensive approach to fire management. “We need prevention; we need the treatment that was described by our colleague. A long term strategy is needed…” Pelosi said during her comments today.

Sali’s bill, H.R. 4542, speeds up projects to reduce hazardous fuels and reduce risks from wildfire, insect damage and disease. Such projects help protect communities and private lands adjoining federal forest lands by reducing the risks on those lands. The bill would allow a shortened environmental review process – a categorical exclusion – as allowed under the National Environmental Policy Act. The bill would keep in place the environmental safeguards stipulated in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, would provide old growth and endangered species protections and comply with forest management plans and environmental laws.

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