I have just now finished reading the AP news story of your proposal this morning in Boise. Did you really propose using live animals as bait in order to attract wolves? It is enough that Sheriff Olsen (yes, I know he is your friend) and Rob Dunn have embarrassed our county nationwide several times before over their indifference to the suffering of animals and now this? I specifically wrote that editorial last week praising them for prosecuting the Roberts man for starving his horses hoping (perhaps against hope) that Jefferson County was stepping up to the 21st Century… but I guess I am wrong.

I’ve been to your home/ranch and have seen your dogs…would you use one of them for “live bait”? And why would you gut the animal torture and cock fighting aspects of the legislation? Are you totally inhumane? Both of our religions teach of our role in caring for God’s creatures. I am appalled that you would condone this much less spearhead this effort. I’m sure you’ve read that the character of a nation is judged by their treatment of animals. Do the honorable thing and resign…we need representatives in Boise that don’t use their position to promote their special interests. We need representatives that will protect those who can’t speak for themselves.

Andi Elliott
President of For the Love of Pets Foundation
Hamer

” … Silence in the face of evil is evil itself. God will not
hold us guiltless, not to speak is to speak, not to act is to act.”
Dietrich Boenhoffer, a German pastor who stood against the Nazis.

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

Many of us were relieved that Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow on Thursday signaling six more weeks of winter. In the context of one of the warmest Idaho winters on record, anecdotal quips and references to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), or manmade global warming, are on the increase. But of course, they can only be anecdotal since we know from the data that average global temperatures have been cooling slightly over the past decade, while manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) has been increasing steadily during the same period.

The fundamental tenet of AGW is logically fallacious. Man cannot “cause” the climate or the earth to warm. The primary source of heat for the planet is the sun, consequently, all truly causal forces of climate warming must be logically and scientifically connected with the sun, regardless of what man may or may not do to contribute to it. It is therefore both illogical and oxymoronic to refer to “manmade global warming.”

AGW proponents point to man’s CO2 emissions as “causal” to AGW, but they cannot be causal. Carbon dioxide, is a naturally occurring component of our atmosphere, but does not, of itself, produce heat. So even if we, as a species, doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it would not necessarily increase the global mean temperature since CO2 is not the cause, or origin, of heat for the planet.

That said, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means it can trap solar heat in the atmosphere. So while it’s illogical to refer to “manmade global warming” or AGW, it is completely logical and scientific to refer to man contributing to global warming. Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we generate CO2 with our carbon based transportation system and much of our energy production, we can and do have an effect on the amount of solar heat that remains in the atmosphere. Therefore we can contribute to global mean temperatures, but we cannot be the cause of it.

Let’s see if we can get a handle on how much we may be contributing to global warming by examining the components of our atmosphere. Scientists tell us that our atmosphere is composed roughly (by volume) of 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0-4% water vapor, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.

Now, let’s put carbon dioxide into perspective Oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon and land biomass has 2,000-3,000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 GT of CO2 and manmade emissions contribute about 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously which means that the addition by humans is incredibly small, amounting to .00159% of the total, and .0083% of the atmospheric carbon dioxide. Can such a relatively small contribution of CO2 make a difference climatically? Probably, but it’s going to be negligible.

To provide a point of reference for comparative purposes, the average household bathtub holds about 42 gallons of water. If you filled your tub and then poured in an additional half-a-teaspoon of water, that would be the equivalent of our CO2 contribution to the atmosphere. And remember, CO2 makes up just .039% of the atmosphere, which under other measuring systems would constitute no more than a “trace amount.” Water vapor is by far the most prevalent component accounting for as much as 85% of the greenhouse effect.

I’ve not seen anyone put this into the proper perspective better than Andrew Montford, a British science publisher. He said a couple months ago, “The problem is that you can accept all the basic tenets of greenhouse physics and still conclude that the threat of a dangerously large warming is so improbable as to be negligible, while the threat of real harm from climate-mitigation policies is already so high as to be worrying, that the cure is proving far worse than the disease is ever likely to be. Or as I put it once, we may be putting a tourniquet round our necks to stop a nosebleed.”

There appears to be little correlation between the amount of CO2 emissions and global temperatures. According to corrected NASA data, the earth has cooled by about 1 degree Celsius over the past decade, about the same amount it warmed over the past century, while CO2 emissions have increased by some estimates as much as 25%. If that tiny portion that man contributes to the atmosphere was so contributory to planet warming, certainly there would be empirical correlation and actual results would more closely match Michael Mann’s discredited “hockey stick” graph.

Even if all manmade CO2 emissions were immediately stopped, the effect would be negligible, as we contribute so little as a percentage to the atmosphere.

Like the weather, the climate has always changed, and will continue to do so in spite of, not because of us. Perhaps Punxsutawney Phil is a better prognosticator than the AGW alarmists.

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

Kudos to Austin Hill (KIDO Radio – Boise) for his show on the dire threat of Obama’s “contraceptive” mandate. This new exercise of raw federal power shows the dangers of ObamaCare. But contrary to the liberal media spin, this raw power grab impacts much more than the Catholic Church or religious institutions.

Under the new edict, EVERY private employer will have to provide free sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees. Not only will every employer have to provide those “benefits” – they will have to pay the full cost of doing so. President Obama has determined that it is an “unreasonable burden” for employees to cover even a modest co-pay. That makes every private employer, including the many who have pro-Life/Christian values, an unwilling party to the destruction of innocent life.

This is but one example of the grave moral danger associated with the drive in the Idaho Legislature to submit to ObamaCare by creating a state insurance exchange. Regardless of the hype coming from the gaggle of lobbyists pushing greater state power and control over insurance competition – a state exchange is the cornerstone block of ObamaCare. As such, it must adhere, by federal law, to the rules and guidelines issued by the Obama Administration.

A state insurance exchange is an expensive idea whose time may never come; but is downright dangerous now as part of Obama’s drive to remake Idaho.

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

By process of elimination we now find ourselves fighting/working at the County &
Regional level to maintain the ideals, ethics, morality, and principles set forth in
our Constitution by the founding fathers.

The following is a clarification of some of the elements involved in this concept of “The Last
Frontier Of Constitutional Freedom”.

COUNTY & REGION
We all know that a county or region is a geographical entity, but in the context of this paper it is
far more. It is a county, or several adjoining counties that are composed of people with either
liberal socialist values (LSV), or conservative constitutional values (CCV) . Traditionally the LSV
counties are in the metropolitan areas with the greatest concentrated voting population of their
respective state, and thus the LSV regions control the policies of the state. In contrast to this, the
CCV counties, although comprising far more square miles are subjected to state controlled
liberal socialist policies that are not practicable, compatible, nor acceptable, and thus, are not
able to overcome this state controlled liberal socialist agenda due to the continued disparity in
voting population.

THE LAST FRONTIER OF FREEDOM
The last frontier of freedom exists at the county/region level as a process of elimination by virtue
of the fact that the battle for the Constitutional heart & soul of this nation has been lost at the
Federal level due to the epidemic of corruptness, greed, and incompetence, stretching from
the President, through Congress, and down to the janitor in a federal building. This is not to imply
that we should cease our efforts, or even decrease our efforts to restore our original
Constitutional system at the Federal level, but it has been a losing battleground for years as we
continue to adopt a “hunkered down”defensive position and continue to fallback against a
relentless offensive socialist agenda.

The fallback battle position at the State level we found, was hardly any better than the Federal
level due mainly, to the noose of Federal funding. The Governor, the legislators (both R & D), and
state employees are not about to pass or approve any legislation that could jeopardize the flow of
federal money that their political careers, jobs, or retirements depend on. In Idaho that fact
was brutally brought home to us at one Republican controlled senate committee hearing, which
essentially killed the effectiveness of the sovereignty movement in our state. In essence, Idaho is
compromised by the action and inaction of the Republican legislators and Governor who are
“ joined at the hip” with the Feds and Democrats when it comes to Federal funding. But I repeat,
we must not cease our efforts, or even decrease our efforts to restore our original Constitutional
10th Amendment sovereignly working at the State level, but frankly, our past efforts and
projected future efforts for success at the Federal and State level efforts do not look promising,
and thus it is prudent and imperative that we now initiate a viable plan of action at the County/
Regional level. This position is certainly not our first choice for change and resistance, yet this is
where we now find ourselves in our last and final battle position of peaceful resistance to Federal
(and perhaps state) constitutional usurpations, THE COUNTY & REGIONAL LEVEL.

PROPOSED ACTIONS TO TAKE
The actions and options to take at the County/ Regional level may seem limited and insignificant
at this time, but are very significant as one looks at the projected consequences of Federal
intervention and encroachment into state and county jurisdiction combined with the lack of
representation and protection at the Federal/State level by our representatives.

If things continue as is, I believe the time will eventually come in Idaho County, as it has already
come in various other counties throughout the US, where the people of the County decide they
can no longer submit to the unconstitutional mandates, rules, & regulations of the usurping
federal agencies, and thus the peaceful head to head encounter with the “Feds” comes about.

In the various counties that have already “taken on” the Feds, the tip of the spear of resistance
was the County Sheriff, and so far the Feds have backed off when confronted with the
determination of the people and the County Sheriff, but one cannot count on this result
indefinitely as this “resistant movement” grows.

If a particular county has a Sheriff and/or county commissioner who agree with the Fed’s agenda
and will do nothing to assert the County sovereignty or protect the people against Federal
unconstitutional usurpations, then perhaps the first item on the coalition’s agenda would be to
replace them with ones who will.

I believe it is vital that in each Idaho county, a “core coalition” of credible people be formed,
dedicated to the support of the Sheriff as he/she ( the primary person with the legal constitutional
County Law enforcement authority) resists the Fed’s illegal and unconstitutional encroachment
into County Jurisdiction. When this “core coalition” has put together a viable structure & plan of
action, they should reach out to the remainder of people in the County/Region with a professional
informational presentation that will inform and inspire the general public. This presentation will
need to be done in a very professional manner, and the process of “ putting this entire program
together” could greatly benefit from seeking the talents of those across the state that have the
expertise in this arena. I also believe that it is imperative to begin now to establish our “core
coalition”, as the productive conservative folks in the (CCV) regions are so busy with their
businesses, jobs, and recreation, that they are unable to see the pending crises that will engulf us
all, if we fail to act in a timely manner.

CONCLUSION:
Even though we are unable to effectively resist the Feds at the State & Federal level there is a
viable possibility of not only stopping the Federal aggression at the county line, but of actually
taking back lost ground, perhaps starting with the current school system. This county resistant
movement is slowly spreading through other states and has the possibility of becoming a
nationwide “resistance movement” of “freedom bonfires” remotely sprinkled throughout the US.

Pete Ketcham
Grangeville, Idaho

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

Boise’s Channel 7 ran a story on Planned Parenthood’s outrage over being dropped by the Komen Foundation. The impression they convey is that all of the Treasure Valley is up in arms because the local abortion clinic will no longer receive money raised under the auspices of “fighting breast cancer”.

Perhaps local donors will no longer be interested in finding a cure.

It has long been a curiosity that Komen got involved with the Abortion Industry in the first place. Setting aside the growing body of research which shows a linkage between abortion and increased risk of breast cancer – the simple truth is that Planned Parenthood does not do mammograms. The money they’ve been getting from Komen is in the form of “pass-through grants”, whatever that is. (There is an informative article on this point now up on LifeNews.Com). The local news “reporter” failed to ask anything about Planned Parenthood’s ability to actually screen for breast cancer. They simply gave Planned Parenthood staff the chance to publicly chastise and threaten Komen.

Channel 7 also failed to contact this organization for a fuller explanation of the upside for Komen. While there may be abortion zealots who are offended about not simultaneously helping kill babies while supporting cancer research – many in the pro-Life movement are energized. In fact, Komen is reporting that its donations have doubled since the announcement. That was, apparently, too much information to share with viewers in Idaho.

In truth, Channel 7 – the “Idaho News Leader” – rarely covers the pro-Life movement, despite the views and values of an overwhelming majority of its audience. How sad.

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

Folks, we are asking people to send this to their representatives so that Idaho can be certain that candidates that appear on Idaho ballots are actually eligible to be there. It is up to the Chairmen of the political parties to “vet” the candidates. This is not always done. Georgia and Texas and a handful of other states have begun this process and this legislation is modeled after their legislation.

This is a draft of the proposed legislation that folks all over the state are asking their representatives to sponsor/cosponsor.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Thanks, Andi Elliott
208-662-5808
straighttalkidaho@yahoo.com

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT relating to certification for placement on the ballot of candidates for president or vice-president of the United States.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO:

SECTION 1. Section_________, Election Code, is amended by amending Subsection (__) and adding Subsection (___) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided by Subsection (__) or (___), the secretary of state shall certify in writing for placement on the general election ballot the names of the candidates for president and vice-president who are entitled to have their names placed on the ballot.

(d) The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the candidate’s certified and/or notarized copy of his or her original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen.

SECTION 2. The secretary of state shall perform a background check on presidential candidates to ensure they meet the Constitutional qualifications, including whether not they are a NATURAL Born Citizen of the United States – born of 2 U.S. citizen parents within the United States according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 1875. Candidates for president and vice-president who are entitled to have their names placed on the ballot shall complete the same Federal I-9 form that every other employee in the country is required to complete to prove that they are legally able to work in the United States. The secretary of state shall certify that said Federal I-9 form has been completed.

SECTION 3. An emergency existing therefore, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this act shall be in full force and effect on and after its passage and approval.

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

The pro-Life community is buzzing with the tremendous news that Planned Parenthood has lost the legitimizing cover of the breast cancer lobby. The Komen Foundation’s decision to end its partnership with the Abortion Industry is a huge blessing – on many levels.

There is the money which Komen has transferred from life-loving citizens to those promoting the death of women and babies. Seeing Planned Parenthood lose several millions in charitable support is certainly encouraging.

And we are all excited by the fact that pro-Lifers will no longer have to argue or wince or boycott fundraising efforts designed to end the scourge of breast cancer. In fact, we encourage our readers to at least send the Komen Foundation an email to express our gratitude; a donation in the name of innocent children would be better. Komen deserves sincere praise for protecting the integrity of the effort to treat and cure breast cancer.

But in the long term, the best aspect of this development is that Planned Parenthood can no longer hide its evil behind the skirt of “fighting breast cancer” – as if it were principally concerned about the health or lives of women. Whenever their killing operations have been exposed, they seek to change the subject by pointing to their work with Komen.

That ruse just got a lot harder.

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

The president, in his State of the Union address declared, “The problems we’re overcoming are not the heritage of one person, party, or even one generation. It’s just the tendency of government to grow. And there’s always that well-intentioned chorus of voices saying, ‘With a little more power and a little more money, we could do so much for the people.’ For a time we forgot the American dream isn’t one of making government bigger; it’s keeping faith with the mighty spirit of free people under God.”

If you don’t recall that opening line, it’s understandable, for it wasn’t in the latest State of the Union, and it wasn’t this president. The president was Ronald Reagan, and the year was 1984. Whether one agreed with him or not, there was remarkable consistency in what he said, and his message didn’t vary based on the venue, his audience, or the grandness of the stage. Even more remarkable was his policies and recommendations to congress and the American people were consistent, at least incrementally, with what he said. This is an increasingly rare commodity, especially in politics, as we observed firsthand this week.

In this week’s State of the Union we heard, “What’s at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them.” I couldn’t agree more! But what does he think those values are? The historical version of those “American values” and Obama’s are not synonymous. For the rest of the speech the only words uttered with greater frequency than “fair” and “fairness” were “I,” “me,” and “my.”

From what Obama said Tuesday night, his notion of our “American values” is not based on freedom, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or any of the ancillary principles or traits that have made America great. His overarching theme was “fairness,” which is simply a euphemism for class envy, based on increased taxation of the most financially successful Americans, to pay for more regulation, agencies, and programs. This concept of “values” is very un-American. They are distinctly antithetical to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that encompassed the nation’s political value system for two centuries.

This contrast is observed even more starkly with the 1986 State of the Union address when President Reagan put the role of fairness in proper perspective. “Private values must be at the heart of public policies.” He elaborated, “Americans have always valued faith, character, hard work, personal responsibility, self-reliance, discipline, competition, charity, fairness, and achievement. Values originate from what people believe, especially what they believe about God.” Clearly, from Obama’s speech, those are not his idea of “American values.”

Editors at The Washington Post observed this as well, when they said of Obama’s speech, “None of the proposals constitutes a single bold stroke to revive the economy, but the heart of Obama’s message was that America’s wealthiest citizens must do more to cement the economic recovery and pull the country from its dire fiscal condition.”

We should, with every major speech like the State of the Union, assess the consistency in speech and actions. If one tells us one thing but does another, that’s not just duplicity, it’s hypocrisy and prevarication. Here’s a perfect example from Obama’s speech the other night, “But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.” He obviously doesn’t really believe that, since government now is expanding and encroaching into our lives more than ever before and he proposed even more government “solutions” in his speech.

In describing the period leading up to Reagan’s 1984 address, Reagan said, “There was a feeling government had grown beyond the consent of the governed. Families felt helpless in the face of mounting inflation and the indignity of taxes that reduced reward for hard work, thrift, and risk-taking. All this was overlaid by an ever-growing web of rules and regulations.” Sound familiar?

Every solution for Obama is another government program or more spending. This is clearly not an American value. But this one is, “I think the best possible social program is a job.” That, too, was Ronald Reagan. He also correctly assessed the relationship between expansion of government and individual liberty, when he declared factually, “As government expands, liberty contracts.”

For those of us who lived through the Reagan years, the contrast between our president from thirty years ago and our current incarnation could not be more stark. They are diametrically opposed in the role of government in our lives, the American values that define us culturally and economically, and in the inherent trust of people, versus a trust of the government.

History and our founding documents provide a documented transcript of what our “American values” are, and that transcript provides a narrative much different from what our current president portrays.

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

The Board of Idaho Chooses Life has voted to oppose the creation of a state insurance exchange because of the myriad dangers it poses to Idahoans. Implementing ObamaCare, even as we challenge it before the U.S. Supreme Court, just doesn’t make sense. The pending lawsuit provides with a great exit ramp.

But the nation’s best hope is a rejection of Barack Obama at the polls this fall.

We have distributed a “Policy Statement” on the idea of a state exchange to key members of the Legislature and are now meeting to reinforce our message. Rather than voluntarily submit to the edicts of Obama and Secretary Sebelius, Idaho must offer national leadership by choosing a private-sector path to better, cheaper health care.

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

President Obama issued a public statement this past Sunday honoring the Supreme Court for its heinous act 39 years ago this week:

“We must remember that [Roe v. Wade] not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.”

That is special. As the present leader of a movement to strip Americans of privacy and their right to pursue happiness and retain the fruits of their labor – the one area Obama would acknowledge “privacy” is in the matter of destroying an innocent life. In his view, the destruction of a defenseless human being should remain a “personal” matter between a mother and her abortionist.

How truly sad it is that the “leader” of the free world has nothing more to offer than legitimizing moral chaos in the name of “freedom”.

We ask that you join us in praying to the Lord Almighty that He would raise up a righteous man to help restore America’s moral grounding by tearing down the high altars of libertinism.

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