From the Office of Rep. Bill Sali

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Acting Director Michael J. Sullivan today apologized to Congressman Bill Sali and confirmed the agency reported inconsistent versions and details of a program giving agents engraved Leatherman tool kits.

“I apologize for the confusion caused to you and your office as a result of the email sent from ATF. … The information in that email was inaccurate,” wrote Sullivan.

“I was pleased to receive this letter with its acknowledgement of the ATF’s responsibility for the confusing information released within the past two weeks,” Sali said. “My constituents deserve to know the truth about this marketing program, which has been interpreted by many Idahoans as anti-gun and anti-private property.”

The “Always Think Forfeiture” training program urges agents to focus on the seizure of private property.

“The fact remains that the ATF thought it was OK to think ‘Always Think Forfeiture’ instead of focusing on protecting our constitutional rights. While I appreciate Mr. Sullivan’s apology and clarification, I will continue to monitor the actions of federal agencies and insist that they ‘Always Think Freedom’ going forward,” said Sali.

The Associated Press reported on May 16, 2008, “None of the engraved tools, stored in the agency’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., have so far been distributed.” However, Mr. Sullivan clarified in his letter that over a two month period, “a total of 242 Leatherman mini-tools were distributed at various training classes and seminars.”

Although the program has been halted, and because ATF said the program complies with U.S. Department of Justice guidelines and federal law, Sali will soon introduce legislation that will prevent the ATF from distributing similarly engraved tools.

A copy of the letter is available upon request.

Previous post on this subject links here.

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

By Richard Larsen

There are certain phrases and appellations that are wantonly thrown around in political discussions that become common and accepted. By frequent repetition, such phrases become accepted as truisms, whether they are true or not. I heard one such phrase, “Republicans and conservatives are all Nazi’s” in a discussion this last week and started pondering the verity of that statement. The implication, of course, is that conservatives seek to restrict our freedom and liberties.

The contexts within which that reference is typically used are threefold: 1) The Patriot Act (with its flaws) which is designed to protect us from terrorists; 2) The defense of constitutionally unprotected life in the womb; and 3) enforcement of law. These policies have little impact on individual freedom for most of us.

However, for comparative purposes, let’s examine what freedoms and liberties the other side of the political spectrum seeks to curtail, that does affect all of us in one way or another.

Perhaps at the top of the list is economic freedom. Their perspective is that government has more right to our earnings than we do, and we’re just greedy to want to hold onto it for the economic well-being of our families. As the great Nobel Laureate and economist Milton Friedman said, “political freedom is inextricably linked with economic freedom. The more the government takes from me financially, the less freedom I have.”

They do everything they can to restrict 2nd Amendment rights. It appears to me that they would prefer that no citizens could own fire arms of any kind.

They seek to restrict our religious freedom by limiting public religious expression.

In an interesting dichotomy, they are pro-choice on infanticide up until the time the infant is partially delivered, but they are adamantly anti-choice when it comes to vouchers for education. They don’t want us to have freedom of choice for our children’s education.

They refuse some children the freedom of choice to serve their country in the military by preventing military recruiters from visiting school and university campuses. Ostensibly it’s because of some arcane notion of political correctness about homosexuals serving in the military (which “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was introduced by one of their own, Bill Clinton) but their disdain of the military predates that policy implementation.

They even disallow our children from playing some games at school, like dodge ball, because it may hurt some children’s feelings because they are “eliminated” from the game.

They think it’s the government’s role to tell us what we can and can’t eat. Just last year, New York City, following Europe’s lead, outlawed the use of trans fats in any restaurants in the city. They now have the Trans Fats Secret Police raiding poor unsuspecting restaurants to see if they’re using the contraband in their cooking practices. Herein lies another interesting dichotomy, for isn’t the argument “it’s my body and I can do what I want with it” part of their standard abortion argument?

They also restrict our collective freedom from dependency on foreign oil by preventing us from harnessing our own natural resources. It’s okay that China can drill for oil less than 30 miles from our Southern Coast, but we can’t. And somehow the sacrosanct wilderness of Anwar is more important to preserve than producing as much oil domestically as we buy from Saudi Arabia. I guess they think it’s better to be beholden to the price machinations and political control of those radical Middle Eastern and South American countries.

And speaking of energy, they even restrict our freedom of what light bulbs we can use. By 2012, the 100 watt incandescent light bulb will join trans fats as contraband. In it’s place, we are to use the mercury laden fluorescent bulb, which, if you break one in your home, will require a HAZMAT team to clean up (at your expense) because of all that mercury in it.

They also seek to restrict what kind of vehicles we drive. With Congress’ efforts to push CAFÉ (Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency) standards higher and higher, we’ll all be driving shoe boxes with Briggs & Stratton engines before long. But to be politically correct, we all should drive a Prius.

They think we have too much freedom with the temperature levels in our homes, so California is leading the way by incorporating into all new homes the ability of the government to control home thermostats.

They also seek to restrict our freedom of speech. If they have a pet subject which by universal acceptance would acquiesce much of our income and freedom to the government, they just declare that “the debate is over.” Once they say that, we’re to all surrender to the global warming alarmists that would have us believe that by continuing to use those outlawed 100 watt bulbs and by turning up our thermostats by two degrees that we may cause calamitous global warming eighty years from now.

They also seek to restrict freedom of speech by re-imposing the “Fairness Doctrine,” that would literally put a muzzle on talk radio. That’s very important to them because that’s the only media form they don’t dominate.

They also don’t think it’s enough to punish criminals, they think criminals must be punished even more if they had hate in their hearts or prejudice against their victims. Beware the thought police!

In their misguided efforts for government to create a completely sterile cultural climate, they outlaw the use of certain words on university campuses. So they have the “word police” watching for illegal use of potentially offensive utterances.

The only thing that is consistent in all this is the “nanny state” notion that the government knows better than we do about how to conduct our lives, and we’re all ignorant fools who can’t think for ourselves and make choices for ourselves. To them the government has all the solutions and should be given control over every aspect of our lives.

Perhaps their intentions are good, but their actions are more important than their intentions. And their actions are whittling away more and more at our individual freedoms.

Now, you be the judge. Which group is more “Nazi-like?” Which wants to deprive us of more individual liberty? And if you still say the conservatives you’re not paying attention.

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

By Richard Larsen

What would you say to someone who placed themselves in peril to save your life? Are there any words adequate to express the deepest, heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for someone willing to sacrifice their life so that yours could be preserved? These are undoubtedly some of the introspective questions Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell ponders these days.

Petty Officer First Class Luttrell was the lone survivor of SEAL Special Forces Team 10 which was on a covert mission two years ago looking for a terrorist leader in the rugged mountains of Afghanistan. They crossed paths with three locals, and, exemplifying the morality and decency of those who serve wearing the American military uniform, allowed the three civilians to leave, even though by so doing their mission and their lives may be compromised.

Within an hour the four SEALs were surrounded by a hundred Taliban fighters. In the ensuing battle, all four soldiers, Luttrell, Michael Murphy, Danny Dietz, and Matthew Axelson, were badly injured. Unable to secure a signal to radio in their location for reinforcements, Lt. Michael Murphy moved to higher ground, exposing himself to the lethal barrage of bullets being hurled at them by the terrorists. Murphy was able to get a radio signal and successfully called in their location, but was hit by several bullets while doing so. He even ended his call with a “thank you,” before he terminated the call and began moving to shelter from the hail of bullets. That was the last time his team members saw him alive.

Regrettably, the chopper sent to rescue the surviving team members was shot down, killing all sixteen on board. The enemy then overwhelmed the remaining SEALs, killing all but Marcus Luttrell, who, in spite of dehydration, a bullet wound to one leg, shrapnel embedded in both legs, and several cracked vertebrae, was able to amble seven miles on foot where a friendly village fed him, cleaned his wounds, and protected him. With the assistance of one villager, Luttrell was able to get a message to a Marine outpost which successfully extracted him from the midst of enemy territory. The protection afforded by the friendly village led Luttrell to later tell The Washington Post, “In the middle of everything evil, in an evil place, you can find goodness. Goodness. I’d even call it godliness.” Luttrell recounts his experience in a recently published book, “Lone Survivor.”

For his heroic efforts to save his fellow SEALs, Lt. Michael Murphy was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor, the highest military honor afforded our living and fallen heroes. At a ceremony this week where President Bush presented the award to his surviving parents declaring, “With this medal, we acknowledge a debt that will not diminish with time and can never be repaid.” Accepting the medal for his son, Dan Murphy declared, “While I’m crying inside and my heart’s breaking, my chest is puffed out and I’m saying, my son, this is what he did and I hope the country appreciates it and realizes it.”

We all should appreciate and realize the inexplicable personal sacrifice and commitment made by these brave souls who place themselves in harms way to reduce the possibility that we will be. Whether or not we object ideologically to the conflict they are or have been engaged in, all the way from World War I through Vietnam and contemporary Iraq, we are the beneficiaries of their commitment to preserve our way of life, our freedoms, and our security. Those who fight the terrorists who have vowed to convert or destroy us make the same, if not greater commitment since they volunteer, as those who fought the Nazis of World War II, or those who fought the communists in Vietnam. The enemies are no less real today than they were then.

These men and women who serve in the military exemplify the standard by which our culture and society should ascribe the appellation of “hero.” Are there exceptions to this standard? Of course, but “exception” is the operative term. They all volunteer for this duty which is all-too-often a thankless job; maligned by some, disrespected by others, not sufficiently appreciated by many of us.

Some of us either couldn’t or didn’t serve in the military yet are sometimes criticized as being “chicken hawks” when we praise our soldiers for their efforts in our behalf. Such logic is specious at best, for almost all of us support education and law enforcement, and are beneficiaries of the service and commitment of teachers and policemen who competently and capably perform their duties. Can one only be an avid advocate of education or law enforcement if we are teachers or policemen ourselves? The concept is ludicrous. For as Cicero said, “Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all the others.” All of us should be ardent supporters of those who commit to protect and serve us, praying for their successful completion of their mission and safe return home.

Famous athletes’ fame is fleeting, and their actions off the field of competition rarely match their prowess on the field. Actors and musicians can act, sing, and dance, but all too frequently, their antics in their private lives prove a dearth of true character making them hardly worthy of emulation. Our military personnel, however, volunteer to serve their nation, protect our liberties, and vanquish those who seek our overthrow or destruction. Where better to look for contemporary heroes, men and women deserving of elevating to hero emulation status, than in the ranks of our military. Not just for our young people, but for all of us.

Their sacrifices, sometimes including the ultimate sacrifice, are made for all of us who are Americans. Regardless of race, creed, or political affiliation, they serve us all willingly, capably, and nobly. For such they warrant our admiration, respect, support, and utmost gratitude.

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

From David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

We began a discussion yesterday about the essential linkage between economics and the abortion holocaust. Many in the media perennially argue that abortion is some weird “social issue” without a serious constituency or material impact on the business interests which dominate the Republican Primary. This debate recurs with vigor around presidential politics.

Yesterday also brought news that the first “Baby Boomer” has applied for early Social Security benefits.

If one needed monumental evidence that unbridled abortion carries an overwhelming economic impact, one needs look no further. David Walker, Comptroller General of the Government Accounting Office spells out a harsh economic future:

“We face a tsunami of [government] spending due primarily to the retirement of the baby boom generation and rising health care costs,” Walker told FoxNews. “So what’s happened is we’ve gone from 16 workers paying into Social Security for every person drawing benefits in 1950, to 3.3 today, and we’re going down to two to one by the time the boomers retire in big numbers. That’s where it will stay over the long run.”

Former Democrat Congressman Tim Penny (a pro-Lifer, by the way) explains the impact:
“By 2017, just ten years from now, we will no longer be collecting enough payroll taxes to pay Social Security benefits.”

We’re talking about an annual budget shortfall (in current dollars) of something close to $300 billion. Over the next 75 years, the federal government will be in debt to the tune of $50 trillion – just to cover Social Security and Medicare obligations.

Peter Weisbach, national radio talk show host, did a program last week on the “Pyramid Scheme”. He argued that both national parties are sorely compromised by their understanding of Social Security’s potential to bankrupt the national economy. The system demands greater and greater numbers of contributing workers to keep the cash flowing; given the nation’s high abortion rate – that means a profound dependence on immigrants to fill the gap.

Let’s put the abortion numbers in context. Estimates are that some 50 million American citizens have been legally slaughtered since 1973. Yesterday began the retirement of 75 million “baby boomers” – the same people who have been systematically killing their own future.

Those 50 million babies would, for the most part, be productive workers and middle managers in the American economy. It doesn’t take much imagination to realize the huge, and missing, contribution these folks should now be making to Social Security and the economy as a whole.
So we can see that there are profound national security and economic impacts of the abortion holocaust.

Leaders of the national economy, leaders of the Republican Party, would do well to confront the abortion epidemic for its moral, economic and national security implications.

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

Yes, it happened just last night on Larry King Live - Mexico’s former Presidente Fox revealed that while it is a “very longterm” goal, merging the American and Canadian dollars with the Mexican peso to create “one currency” is part of the strategy he and President George Bush envision for our continent.

Check out the transcript or the YouTube video for yourself. Please leave comments with your interpretation of Fox’s remarks.

When King asked if the currency would be like the Euro, Fox responded:

Well, that would be long, long term. I think the processes to go, first step into is trading agreement. And then further on, a new vision, like we are trying to do with NAFTA.

It should be noted that a WorldNetDaily.com article on the subject documents multiple references in the mainstream media to a coming Amero. In addition, author Jerome Corsi points out that the continued drop in the value of the US dollar may fuel a demand for the new Amero.

Obviously, the “Amero”, or a common currency, is just part of the larger plan, which does include NAFTA and the FTAA, also known in Spanish as ALCA.

In his answer to the email question, Fox lamented that Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has stepped in to the picture and by his isolationism has hindered the progress of the union of nations.

But Fox seemed undeterred from the goal of merging all of North America, and possibly South America, as he continued to describe in glowing terms the benefits already gleaned from trade between Mexico and the US.

It is getting more and more difficult for skeptics to refute observations that a North American Union (NAU) is planned. Many of the key players, such as Fox, are revealing details in full view of the public.

It appears to be only a matter of time before we’re all citizens of the largest trade federation/unified economy in the world, happily spending our Ameros at home and beyond increasingly meaningless borders. Remember that international treaties, which include NAFTA, the FTAA and the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), supersede US law.

(Be sure to scan blog articles under the heading National Sovereignty for more on the NAU and SPP.)

I’m not ready to surrender my rights as a US citizen to a trade federation.

Are you?

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

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

I had the opportunity to speak yesterday on behalf of all us in the Idaho Values Alliance in presenting testimony to the Legislative Family Task Force chaired by Rep. Steven Thayne of Emmett. Other members of the task force include Rep. Dick Harwood (St. Maries), Rep. Janice McGeachin (Idaho Falls), Rep. Marv Hagedorn (Meridian), Rep. Branden Durst (Boise), and Rep. Dean Mortimer (Idaho Falls).

Using statistics provided by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, I pointed out that the divorce in Idaho, while about what it was in 1970, is almost 40% higher than the national average. Also worrisome is the fact that the marriage rate in Idaho is now 60% lower than it was just a generation ago.

Since out-of-wedlock births in Idaho are at their highest totals in state history, the clear implication is that increasing numbers of Idahoans are cohabiting rather than entering into the solemn commitment of marriage. The effective “divorce” rate, then, is likely to be substantially higher even than the statistics indicate, since the break up of cohabiting couples does not show up in divorce summaries.

Cohabiting unfortunately has become increasingly acceptable, due to the sexual revolution and the rise of feminism, and there are now twelve times as many cohabiting couples in America as there were in 1960.

Research confirms that cohabitation is harmful for adults, the children in such homes, and for society in general. Cohabiting relationships are notoriously unstable, as cohabiting couples break up at a much higher rate than married couples, and cohabiting couples who eventually marry have a divorce rate that is 46% higher than couples who do not live together before marriage. Children pay a terrible price for the inherent instability associated with these environments.

The risk of domestic violence is twice as high for women in cohabiting relationships, who are nine times more likely to be killed by their partners than women in marital relationships.

Children in cohabiting environments are at a much greater risk of both physical and sexual abuse. In fact, the most unsafe environment for children is one in which the mother is living with someone other than the child’s biological father, which is the case in the majority of cohabiting households.

Further, cohabiting couples report lower levels of income, sexual exclusivity and sexual satisfaction than married couples. The bottom line is that, if we care about both Idaho’s adults and Idaho’s children, we will support public policies that encourage marriage rather than cohabitation.

No-fault divorce, enacted in Idaho in 1970, has contributed to the instability of the marriage relationship by making it possible for one partner to unilaterally dissolve a marriage and break up a family, leaving spouses with no legal protection for the bond they have created.

As Maggie Gallagher observed, marriage “has become less binding than the average business deal. Marriage is one of the few contracts in which the law explicitly protects the defaulting party at the expense of his or her partner.” No-fault divorce has contributed to a 25% increase in the rate of divorce all by itself, and has perversely contributed to an increase in cohabitation as adults have less and less confidence that a marriage commitment will receive significant legal protection.

Reversing the trend toward cohabitation will require a cultural awakening which reestablishes the view that personal happiness is a function of high-trust and lasting relationships.

But public policy changes are certainly a key element. It is probably time for Idaho legislators to revisit no-fault divorce, and perhaps replace it with a “mutual consent” plank, in which a “no-fault” divorce can only be granted if both parties agree to it, especially when minor children are still in the home.

Mutual consent divorce would give some leverage and bargaining power to the innocent spouse, and involves the least amount of government intrusion since the couple would work out custody and financial issues before coming into court.

It’s worth noting that New York is the only state without no-fault divorce, and one main reason is that every time it has been proposed, feminist groups have fiercely opposed it. They recognize the exposure no-fault divorce creates for women, especially those who have left the workforce to devote their full energies to raising children. Women in such circumstances often experience a precipitous drop in their standard of living, and no-fault divorce leaves them sadly unprotected.

If you’d like to read the full testimony I delivered on behalf of all us in the IVA, you may read it at the following link.

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

Idaho Congressman Bill Sali has taken a beating in the last two days from the left wing blogosphere and the mainstream media for his criticism of the Hindu invocation that was offered this summer before the United States Senate, and for his caution regarding America’s first Muslim Congressman, Keith Ellison of Minnesota.

According to American Family Radio and OneNewsNow, Sali said that Hindu prayers and Muslim congressmen “are not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers,” and that a Hindu prayer is a prayer to “a different god” and that “creates problems for the longevity of this country.”

Here is a statement in response to the criticism of Sali, from Bryan Fischer, Executive Director of the Idaho Values Alliance.

“Despite the criticism Rep. Sali has received, he is exactly right on both counts.

“Hindus believe in a virtually infinite number of gods, and worship cows, monkeys and snakes, while our Founding Fathers believed in one God, the Creator God revealed in the Old and New Testaments.

“As a people, we pledge allegiance to ‘one nation under God,’ not to ‘one nation under gods.’ Hindus are free in America to worship as many gods and animals as they want to, but they do not pray to or worship the God who is enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

“Congressional invocations are not just ceremonial in nature, but substantive. They are one of the crucial ways in which our leaders seek the assistance of the same God who granted us such signal blessings at the time of our founding and for over 200 years since.

“For the sake of our country’s future and continued prosperity, it’s important that we maintain the tradition of the Founders, so that the God who is called upon in congressional invocations continues to be the God of George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy.

“And Rep. Sali’s caution with regard to Islam and public policy is wise. The citizens of Minnesota certainly have the right to send anybody to Washington they wish, but when you examine nations whose public institutions have been shaped by Islamic politicians, you find no freedom of religion, no freedom of speech, no freedom of conscience, no fundamental rights for women, and no freedom for ordinary citizens to choose their leaders.

“If an Islamic-inspired worldview were to shape America’s public policy, this country would be a far different land than the one handed to us by our Founding Fathers. It would no longer be the “sweet land of liberty” of which we sing. That’s not the kind of nation we want, and Rep. Sali is right on target in issuing his word of caution.”

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

By Richard Larsen

I listened with interest to DNC Chairman Howard Dean’s comments in Pocatello on Wednesday, and realized with even greater perspicacity the polarization of our political environment based on party affiliation.

Governor Dean said that people need to know the true Democrat party and not rely on other sources that have “not told the truth about them for 30 years.” In reality, it is not necessary to peruse additional sources to define them. The primary sources, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the gaggle of presidential candidates tell us everyday what they believe. They want more government; increasing confiscation of our income; socialized medicine; more wealth redistribution; “peace” through appeasement, acquiescence, and flight; fight terror with subpoena’s instead of bullets; more control of our personal lives by either limiting or outlawing cigarettes, trans-fats, emotions in crime (i.e. hate), etc., etc. No, I think they define their vision for the future of America very well on their own. And of course, their solution for everything that ails America is more taxes. I think they define themselves very well on their own.

Deans’ comments about Iraq were imbued with the type of rhetorical flatulence we’ve come to expect from the left, all based on the premise that we have to “get out now.” Of course he didn’t bother to explain how our national security is served by getting out now; or how we’re safer or how the world is better.

Dean implemented some circuitous reasoning by claiming that Democrats support the troops, and the best way to support them is to bring them home. For some reason, I always thought the primary function of the military was to defeat enemies seeking our destruction. I’m sure there are some terrorists here on our own soil, but I’m even more sure that there are a whole lot more over there than there are here. Although with a premature withdrawal from Iraq, the likelihood of having many more of them here is certainly augmented.

It appears to me that right now we have the best of both worlds: the Republican way of fighting them where we find them, and the Democrat way of serving subpoenas and using law enforcement to track them down domestically. That sounds like a pretty good combination. I don’t think the law enforcement approach advocated by the Democrats would work very well in the terrorist hotbeds of Iraq and Afghanistan. We’d need too many document servers, for they’d probably be beheaded after serving the subpoenas.

By the way, in light of that comment by the Governor, did you know that we lost more servicemen during “peacetime” from 1993 through 1996 in the Clinton Administration than we have lost in the war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan in four years? According to the Department of Defense, we lost 4,417 servicemen and women in that four-year period, while we have lost about 4,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan. It doesn’t seem that they are more safe conducting training missions than they are in actual battle against the enemy. There is undoubtedly more to be unearthed in the figures, but from a purely quantitative approach, they appear to be safer while doing what they volunteered to do: defeat our enemies and protect the country. And to me, they’re all equally heroic whether they died in training exercises or on the battlefield against our enemies.

Interestingly, Dean also mentioned the genocide in Darfur and how we should do something about it. From a purely moral perspective, it would be good if we could, but I don’t think I heard him explicate what our national security interest there is? And even from a purely moral perspective, shouldn’t we be more concerned with preventing the genocide that would occur in Iraq with a premature withdrawal where we have genuine national security interests?

Regarding the funding of the Iraq conflict, the Governor said we need to take the money going into that effort and put it into our schools, our healthcare, and our roads. Hmm. I guess I missed the part of his recommendation that explains how that’s going to prevent Islamic extremist terrorists from attacking us. They’d have to be very good schools and roads if they’re going to help protect us from the lunatics who would rather behead us than talk to us!

This is not my typical writing style, but I just thought it would be interesting to write a column just like all the liberals who write for the Journal: no documentation, little or no facts, just straight from the hip and replete with simplistic accusations, pejorative innuendo, and aspersions about the incompetence of the opposition party. I can see why they write this way. It’s a lot less work so you can be intellectually lackadaisical in the process, and you don’t have to substantiate anything.

As for Governor Dean, I’m sure glad he’s just chairman of the DNC and not our President. He has even less of a grasp of the primary threat facing America than the aforementioned gaggle of Democrat presidential candidates who haven’t even mentioned the war against terrorism once in their four or five dozen debates they’ve held so far.

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

From Bryan Fischer, Executive Director of Idaho Values Alliance

There is a staggering level of hubris on the part of federal judge Mikel Williams at virtually every level. He apparently believes he is more qualified to diagnose gender identity disorder than the mental health professionals who have evaluated this inmate, despite the fact that, to my knowledge, Judge Williams has never even met the man let alone talked with him about his sexual confusion.

In one fell swoop, Williams has appointed himself the director of the Idaho Department of Corrections, as well as its chief medical officer, chief psychiatrist, and chief financial officer.

The mental health professionals who have evaluated this inmate do not believe that gender identity disorder is the correct diagnosis for him, but that apparently is of no concern to this activist and unaccountable judge.

The Idaho Department of Corrections is expected to reveal today whether it will comply with the judge’s order, ask him to reconsider, or appeal his decision to a higher court.

Notice that this judge has granted special rights to this inmate because he is a felon. A law-abiding male citizen who wanted female hormone therapy would have to pay for it himself. Not even health insurance companies will pay for this twisted therapy. But this man, solely because he has committed a felony offense, has now been given the right to taxpayer funded estrogen injections by this out-of-control jurist.

By ordering female hormone therapy, Judge Williams, by judicial fiat, has in one stroke normalized transgenderism and declared that it is an approved and accepted alternative to heterosexuality.

What’s next: Transgender prisons?

What no one has yet explained is what is going to be done with this inmate as his treatment progresses. It will not be long before we get pressure from this man’s lawyer as well as transgender activist groups to build separate prisons for transgender inmates.

The argument for transgender bathrooms is that a transgendered male does not feel comfortable in a men’s room, because he is a female trapped in a male body. But females understandably don’t want to share bathroom space with someone who is biologically a male, so transgenders insist they must have their own bathrooms.

The IVA intervened this spring to force BSU officials to admit that they had been calling a new bathroom in the student union expansion a transgender bathroom, and only under pressure did they finally agree to stop calling it anything but what it is, a bathroom designed for the disabled.

If the transgendered must have their own bathrooms, why shouldn’t they also have their own prisons?

Even the Liberty Counsel has weighed in on this matter today, pointing out in a press release that an appeals court ruled in a 2004 case that “the common meaning of male and female . [refers] to immutable traits determined at birth.”

Said Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of the Liberty University School of Law, “Hormones and plastic surgery do not change a person’s sex, which is an immutable trait fixed at birth.”

The next step, of course, will be for this Idaho inmate to demand that taxpayers pay for sex-reassignment surgery. Says Staver, “The state should not be compelled to fund so-called sex reassignment surgery, especially when such treatment is not widely accepted, is experimental, and has not been shown to resolve the disturbed mental behavior.”

One option Idaho officials should consider: simply refusing to comply with Judge Williams’ unconstitutional, unconscionable and socially destructive ruling.

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

Interestingly enough, Mason gave himself this descriptor. Having been convicted of 6 felony counts of grand theft and forgery in March of this year, Mason was sentenced to a minimum of 3 years and up to 10 years in prison, in addition to a sentence for earlier charges. Mason was accused of altering judges’ orders, forging judges’ names, and stealing evidence from the Idaho Falls police evidence room.

Mason has served as Bonneville County prosecutor as well as Idaho Falls City prosecutor, during which time there were numerous complaints about his arrogance and seemingly unethical behavior. But few expected his crimes to be quite this serious. Apparently, appearances were not deceiving in this case.

Personally, I’ve been gleefully singing “He’s in the jailhouse now…” around the house for months.

But now that his prison term has commenced, Mason instructed his attorney, Ron Swafford, to petition Judge Woodland to let him out of jail. No surprise here - apparently this is common in such cases. However, it is particularly revealing to examine the reasons Mason feels he should be let out after serving only a fraction of his minimum sentence, as reported by Newschannel 6, KPVI.

Of course, Mason only has the best interests of others at heart. His absence from the crowded Idaho Corrections system would free up space for more deserving criminals (that would be all other criminals). Mason would be happy to perform community service (I, for one, don’t even want to see him picking up trash along the highway). And finally, it is clear that his absence from home is causing “severe mental and emotional damage to his minor children.”

The last reason is certainly the most compelling, as no one likes to see innocent children suffer for the crimes of their parents.

But the bottom line is this: actions have consequences. True, for years Mason acted with impunity, but his “luck” finally ran out. He even confessed to some of the crimes, once cornered. And now he is trying to dodge the consequences of his actions.

What a difficult lesson for every human to learn! An individual may choose his actions, but he cannot choose the consequences. Whether you choose to defy the laws of physics, the laws of the land or the laws of God, there will be consequences. Short of extraordinary circumstances (which some would call luck), you will suffer (or enjoy) the results of your choices now, or in the future.

Besides irate Idaho Falls taxpayers, Mason’s children and other family members are the real victims of his crimes. Too bad Mason didn’t consider them while he was pilfering from the evidence room, or stamping a judge’s name on a document. Over the years Mason was committing his crimes, I wonder if he gave any thought whatsoever to the impact his actions would have on his family. If he truly cared for them, he would have kept his nose clean.

Sadly, it is also true that the innocent often suffer the consequences for the actions of others. But if Mason is kept in jail to serve his rightful sentence, perhaps his children, at least, will learn the relationship between actions and consequences, even if he never does.

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