Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Senator Smyser gives constituent the brushoff

Continued from the previous post in the correspondence with Senator Smyser,I received a kind short note, apparently refusing to answer my questions regarding her husband and the relationship with The governor, she simply said:

Thanks for you kind words. Have a great day!

I immediately felt compelled to call her out on her unwillingness to answer my questions:

Senator Smyser,
I am seeing a consistent pattern of our senators across the nation in that they feel that when they are poised with difficult questions, they feel that they can avoid the questions. This is the exact reason Why I feel that any incumbants that cannot give answers should be removed from office.

I have met you and I have watched you in your first term and actually appreciated some of the things that you said to me. I felt that out of most senators you may be one to answer those difficult questions.

Once again, I am asking you to answer the questioons I have submitted to you because I want to get a full knowledge of how you rationalize some of the decisions you make.

Again, I mean no disrespect, it is my duty as a concerned constituent to hold my representatives in office accountable unless you can provide somewhere in the constitution that says I shouldn't.

Please Senator, Answer my concerns ( I will list them again):

1. If you agree that we need to get back to the proper role of government, how do you explain the constitutionality of your husband being one of the largest lobbyists in the state? If he is pushing his agenda, do you abstain from voting on issues that he is lobbying for? Do you or do you not find that you being a senator and that of your husband being a lobbyist is a conflict of interest to your constituents?

Please explain.....

2. I also wonder about your appointment by CL Otter and the personal relationship that may have got you there rather than on your own merits and the desire of the people you represent. If it is that easy for someone to get elected, would it not be as easy to push an agenda even if it violates the constitution?

Thank you in advance for your response.


response from Rep. Phil Hart and a response back

What you say is true. But it is also true that most of the people in our state and nation are kind of lazy. They don't pay attention. And when they are lied to, they don't know it, because they don't do their homework. This rewards lying on the part of some of the worst politicians.

With regard to voting people out of office, are you going to work on the campaign of someone who is going to get into office and do a better job? Or are you going to run for office yourself? Or maybe you will finance the campaign of a few good candidates? I am curious.

Sincerely, Rep. Phil Hart

Rep. Hart,
I can't tell you how elated I am to receive a response from you, someone does read these. I believe I know who you are and expected a response more from you than some of the others, if I remember correctly.

What really impresses me is that you asked what I was going to do. I have been studying American history,constitution, law and apologetics which I probably dont have to tell you explains the multitude of worldviews, all the "isms"-Marxism, lenninism, Nazism,Humanism and different religions and the effects on their cultures for a little more than two years.It hasn't been long but that's when I received my wake up call, I wont deny my late blooming.

I have become intensly passionate about what I have learned but believe I have the ability to listen to others and consider other perspectives and believe I have gained a clear understanding why we are where we are today.

I believe it is this education that I have recieved that makes me feel like I am more qualified to be in a position of leadership with one exception...I dont do politics. Politics in a sense where I smear my oponent, am deceptive to my consituents, manipulate the constitution and bask in the filth of political correctness, lazily give answers for which I didnt have or disregard the voice of the people. I believe in giving straight answers to questions asked without all of the BS.

To summize,Laziness as you say is true and re-iterates what I said about personal responsibilty or lack of it. I will be running for precinct committeeman in district 11, precinct 51 as well as a possible run for house seat B, Carlos Bilbao. I realize he is favored here in Canyon county and it would be tough, if not impossible, but would give me a platform to voice my views and be an alternative in the case no one ran against him. If the political movement goes the way it appears, hopefully, it does,incumbants may get removed.

I consider myself a strict conservative constitutionalist that also includes my reliance on Almighty providence to guide me as our founders did. I am a 100% prolife, 100% against special interest legislation, like the homo agenda or mexicans, blondes, chinese maoists, Obamaoists and other small interest groups because the constitution as well as the word of God for which this country rests are against it.

I have no training or political knowledge. I dont know how to campaign, raise money or even prepare a speech. I have no eloquence of speech to give some lofty meaningless speech either. I love this country, our freedoms and acknowledge with great reverence our founders and the sacrifices that have been made to secure that freedom. When I woke up to find out how far away we are from our founders original intent, I could no longer sit idly by and let someone else continue to drag us in the opposite way we should be going.

I can no longer look into the eyes of my four children and the eyes of those around me knowing when they are older they may ask me "Why didn't you do anything to fight for us when you could....." "You left us a cess pool as a legacy"

This is why I send letters, this is why I am running and this is why I continue my studies.

I desire not for a career position but to be part of the solution, if the people of my district are ready, I will be as well, if not, it is better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all. I will no longer have to say "I wish I did, or I should have..." knowing I did what I could when I could.

I appreciate you reading and contacting me and asking what my concerns are.


response from Sen. Smyser and my response


Thanks for your input. I certainly agree that we need to get back to the proper role of government and only provide those things that are necessary. The government has gotten too large to controlling.

Melinda S. Smyser

Dear Senator Smyser,

If you agree that we need to get back to the proper role of government, and I am glad that you agree so how do you explain the constitutionality of your husband being one of the largest lobbyists in the state?

If he is pushing his agenda, do you abstain from voting on issues that he is lobbying for? Do you or do you not find that you being a senator and that of your husband being a lobbyist is a conflict of interest to your constituents?

Please explain.....

I also wonder about your appointment by CL Otter and the personal relationship that may have got you there rather than on your own merits and the desire of the people you represent. If it is that easy for someone to get elected, would it not be as easy to push an agenda even if it violates the constitution?

I mean no disrespect here, it is my duty as a voter to hold my representatives accountable when it would appear that they have become accountable to no one.

Thanks for your time responding to my concerns,

Letter to Idaho state legislature

To all it concerns,

I have tried being polite and I still find myself pulling my hair out not only due to their omnipotence, disrespecting their constituents nationally but locally and I felt it was time to speak my peace. Our government has run a muck.

It appears their really are only a few who are truly interested in the constitution and representation of their constituents. Are there any among you who have the ability to stand against the social pressures of political correctness that is aiding in the destruction of our culture? Do any of you have the backbone and the strength to stand on what you believe is right or wrong or do you find that their really isnt anything wrong?

Deception, selfishness, putting political career before representation,before honesty and integrity? Fiscal and social irrespsonsiblity, lax immigration laws, lack of integrity, constitutional violations, and the "Im gonna get mine attitude?".

I just wanted to ask if your elected position seems like a game, your elected leadership positions in the great state of Idaho?

I heard someone say "Thats just politics" Is that really what what we should expected from our representatives?

I hope that any of you that are running for another term that continue to usurp your power are voted out on your ear this year and that the people you say you represent are intelligent enough to see that any of you that put your career before those you serve are removed.

Your people are angry, my best advice is to listen!

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

A Second Independence Day: Jefferson and the Kentucky Resolutions

Sometimes there are articles that are written so well that they need to be posted. This one, unfortunatly was written by a friend of mine.

In a recent post, entitled "Saving America," I suggested that state legislatures are our last, best hope of resisting the tyrannical usurpation of power by the central government.

By working through the legislatures, who are the chosen representatives of the people of the individual states, we can preserve our republican form of government by working within the parameters of the Constitution. This approach creates the possibility that the overreach of the federal government can be slapped down through a deliberative and representative process rather than through chaos and civil unrest, which I fear is the alternative.

Should the Democrats press ahead with their suicidal attempt to order every American to buy health insurance, the reality is that the American people simply will not stand for it. Freedom and liberty are too deeply ingrained in our DNA to put up with this kind of tyranny. It just will not happen. Almost certain and serious social dislocations and violence will result, unless we can find a way through our elected representatives to stem the tide.

My central thesis is this: our central government is a government of limited, prescribed and proscribed powers. It legitimately, legally and morally possesses only those powers delegated to it by the states in the federal Constitution. When it exercises authority beyond the limits established by the states in the Constitution, its exercise of authority is immoral, abusive, tyrannical and most importantly, of no legal weight.

More to the point, the states are under no obligation of any kind to submit to such of power. We must never forget that the central government is the creation of the states, not the other way round. The states cautiously delegated certain prerogatives to the federal government for the sake of preserving the unity of the fledgling Union and strengthening its ability to defend us against foreign threats, but reserved every other right of action for themselves.

The powers assigned to the central government were strictly defined and limited by the Founders. They are "enumerated powers," meaning you can list them using numbers. Eventually you run out of delegated powers, and get to the end of the list. Any power that the central government tries to exercise that's not on that list is an exercise of power which has no moral or legal force.

Such an exercise of power is itself a violation of the Constitution, turns the the slave into the lord over the master, elevates the created thing above its creator, and as such is certainly and wholly immoral. Elevating the created thing over the creator is nothing less than age-old idolatry.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the central government tried to impose its will on the states in an unconstitutional manner almost immediately after the founding, through the "Alien and Sedition Acts" of 1798.

The Kentucky legislature adopted a series of resolutions, known as "The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798," to respond to this overreach. Years later, it was revealed that the resolutions were actually authored by Thomas Jefferson. Thus they give us a window of insight into his perceptive thinking on constitutional issues.

What's critical for our purposes is not so much the particular provisions of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" but the the issues of governance they raised. They clearly represented an overstepping of constitutional limits, and this is what animated Jefferson and the legislators of the Bluegrass State.

What follows is the first of these Resolutions, with commentary on the contemporary guidance it and the remaining resolutions provide for state legislatures looking to take a modern stand for freedom and against the tyranny of an overweening central power. This will be of particular significance as they decide how to respond to the autocratic and wholly unconstitutional takeover of health care by the federal government.

Here is the first of the resolutions, with salient components bolded:

1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes - delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

It is critical, as Jefferson reminds us, to note that the states "delegated to that (general) government certain definite powers..." In other words, we have forgotten that the states created the general government, not the other way round, and that it is the states who delegate authority to the general government, not the reverse.

We have become so accustomed to the gargantuan size and power of the central government that we have begun to think of its obese and grotesque size as normal, accepted, even appropriate in some way, and to believe that whatever authority states have is authority the central government has allowed them to have. Once again, this is 180 degrees out from the vision of the Founders.

The states are the source of whatever power the central government has, since the states created the central government through the compact which we know as the Constitution. The states do not have only that freedom of action the central government allows them to have; rather, the central government has only those powers the states allow it to have.

Since taking over our entire health care system is not among the "enumerated powers," the federal government has no constitutional, legal or moral right to do it. Any such effort is, as Jefferson pointed out, "unauthoritative, void and of no force." I stand with Mr. Jefferson on this one, and every state legislature should do the same.

The good news is that no less than 35 states have taken steps of one kind or another to stand on their Tenth Amendment rights and stare down the president and the Democrats in their attempt to to use a "rod of iron" to impose MussoliniCare on the rest of us.

Jefferson correctly wrote that when "powers are assumed (by Congress) which have not been delegated, a nullification of the acts is the rightful remedy: every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact (i.e. the Constitution) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power" beyond what the Constitution authorizes.

Otherwise, he adds, "without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise the right of judgment for them."

He points out that the States and the States alone have the right to make this determination, since the States alone are "parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it." Congress, he correctly observes, is not even a player in making this determination, since Congress is "not a party, but merely the creature of the compact."

One implication of Jefferson's should be noted here. Don't miss this. If he is correct - and he certainly is - then deciding what is constitutional or not is not even a matter for the Supreme Court, since it too is a creature of the states. The states and the states alone have the moral and legal authority to decide when Congress has violated the Constitution, and have every moral and legal right to ignore Congress when it transgresses its proper boundaries.

If the states allow unconstitutional acts to stand, Jefferson writes, in essence they would be allowing Congress to "place any act they think proper on the list of crimes and punish it themselves whether enumerated or not enumerated by the Constitution." This would make the central government a government of "unlimited powers" and transform it from a servant into a tyrant.

No, said the good gentlemen of Kentucky in the words of Jefferson, "this commonwealth is submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth."

It's time once again for every state in the Union to say "No" to tyranny and "Yes" to self-government. No less than six times, the Kentucky Resolutions loudly declare that any act of Congress which "assumes powers...not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force." Read those words again: "is not law, but is altogether void and of no force."

Each one of these declarations is like a fresh ringing of the Liberty Bell, celebrating liberation from tyranny and the rod of an oppressive central government. In Jefferson's eloquent words, we must once again "bind (Congress) down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

It's time for a second Independence Day. Let freedom ring.

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

(This article posted from Idaho values alliance)

Caldwell goes Gay rebuttal

An article I wrote in the Idaho press tribune received an interesting rebuttal that I found interesting and thought it should be shared. As is turns out a friend of mine I see at the gym every morning wrote it. The interesting thing about our relationship was that I met him when I found out he was one of the group of protesters from the Canyon area human rights task force protesting a church conference I had organized a couple of years ago called "Shake the nation."

Tom and I have commonly disagreed on many issues but over the years have come to appreciate eachother when discussing contraversial issues, I greatly admire him for his stand on what he believes even though we do disagree in many areas.

Anyway, I believe what he wrote is innaccurate on many on the issues discussed and were misunderstood but was also surprised at the language that was used calling me ignorant and that I was biased assuming that I was just on a rant which I assure you was not the case.
The problem with writing an articlwe in the paper is that you dont get a chance to respond for 30-90 days, so I wait.....

Tom's rebuttal is here:

Tom Munds’ letter published on 2-10-10 reflects his personal biases as well as his lack of understanding of the issues. With the new Caldwell equal employment policy, sexual orientation cannot be a factor in hiring or firing employees. Thus, heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bi-sexuals will be treated the same regardless of their sexual orientation. None is elevated over another. Gender identity has nothing to do with sexual orientation. I identify myself as a male. If others think that I exhibit feminine traits, thus I must be female, sorry Tom Munds, under truly equal employment policies, I can’t be fired because of my gender identity, no matter that identity.

Throughout our nation’s history, laws have been implemented to deny equal rights to citizens. As society has evolved, our laws have also evolved. It is no longer our “Constitutional” right to own slaves. Laws denying interracial marriage and forbidding some sexual acts between consenting adults are no longer considered “Constitutional” even though those laws might still exist on some record books. Laws allowing homosexuals to be granted employment opportunities equal to heterosexuals are being passed. Mr. Munds asserts that granting homosexuals rights in employment equal to heterosexuals and bi-sexuals is not lawful, but I would leave that to the lawmakers and the courts.

Munds asks if the decision of the City to provide equal rights in employment will benefit us all, or just one group. Have laws overturning the “Jim Crow” laws of the last century benefited us all, or just one group? Clearly we all benefit when we remove legal barriers to full citizenship for all Americans. The “don’t ask , don’t tell” law has removed an estimated 13,000 homosexual men and women from our military ranks. When it is repealed, we will all benefit. We are all Americans, including "those" people.

What I would ask is that readers when reading this artiocvle reflect on the article titled "Caldwell goes Gay" and see which one makes more sense. I will post thoughts and clarify my views in a following post.

The intent of the original article wasn't to condemn a group of people but to show the unconstitutitonality of legislation or special rights to small groups without addressing the laws that should be made for all people and really had nothing to do with what perspective I had about the group in question.

This was about civil law and the constitution law, this was about how the lack of knowledge of it creates arbitray legislation that is more corruptive to human rights that to support them.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

America, A Christian nation: the Debate

I have a friend that ran for governor in Missouri that introduced me to one I call friend as well, Judge E. Ray Moore. You know the contraversial story about his refusal to remove the ten commandments from the wall of his chambers? Yeah, that's him.

Well, I am happy to say that since then he has made his debate with a well known atheist available for viewing. I received an email from his office and he shared the links with me to provide to those that are interested.

As I post them a few thoughts came to mind, one being, will non-believers take the time to consider this debate, to really watch and ponder just what he is saying or will they discredit it like all other proofs in fear that they could be wrong about their worldview?

For example, I spoke to a friend about what Glenn Beck has been talking about on his show for the last few months and he was so caught up in who I said was was speaking, he said he would never watch because of who he was, it wouldn't matter what the subject matter. I told him not to listen to the how he says it if that what bothers him but the accuracy of the one speaking for it reveals the truth and the connections and the similarities thoughout history. He still refuses to listen and so he still remains ignorant to what is coming to this country, at least a bit.

You see he was one that leaned liberally progressive when we first began talking about politics, was much in denial about who Obama is and what he is doing but now, has changed his tune. He sees what is happening and says the more "left" he pushes, the more "right" he becomes.

Thank God for another set of eyes opening. The awakening seems to have been slow and still is but people, in fact, are waking up.

Anyway, the fact that some people are wiling to listen to other perspectives is what continues to form our worldview as we get older, constantly being molded. Their is nothing wrong with changing positions on issues, all of us have.

I submit these links to you for your viewing,

The "Is America a Christian nation debate"







7. Q & A



Some final thoughts:

Why is it that there are those who are so willing to deny history- just to make themselves feel good? Is living a lie better than knowing the truth? Isn't that selfish for those who seek to find the truth?

I understand, as Obama says, that we are no longer a Christian nation and how we act today would be a perfect indicator that he is right, especially with his denial of God's existence (sometimes-when convenient). What he is wrong about is our heritage, where we came from , what we were founded on.

If this country has chosen to deny God and our heritage, I guess we will have to come to terms with that but why do we have to pretend it never happened?

People have fallen for the nation that has turned its back on it's people, they lie to you, tax you cheat you and oppress you and you still follow like sheep?

We all have developed presupositions -some right, some not. It is difficult to "change" that way of thinking but isnt that what education is for, to fine tune what you know, gain wisdom to pass down to future generations or to ignore what is real and what is good?

The denial of the truth is clearly being made manifest, all that is necessary is "For those who have ears, let them hear" and all that have eyes let them see.

Continual denial of Gods hand in the foundation of this country will result in His ultimate judgement, the collapse of the most blessed, most powerful nation in history and their wont be anything any of us can do about it but seek his face and repent of our sins. 2 Chronicles 7:14

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Caldwell, Idaho goes Gay!

What am I talking about, the whole world is going gay! Caldwell is just one more victory for an agenda that undermines our constitution and our national morality while elevating one group of people over another.

Apparently, last night, The Caldwell city council unanimously approved another anti-discrimination policy to favor equality in the workplace for gays. Reading this statement at face value seems rather harmless right, equal rights should be a good thing but is this passage constitutional?

First, It is important to understand that our founders understood the importance of religion in government that there could be no morality apart from it which is why the "Separation of church and state" is such a lie that has been forced on the American people to accept and why our national morality is in the toilet.

Second, our constitution of the United States, states that all men are created equal, not that they should have equal or special rights above others. The statement in the Constitution's intent was to say that all men are given the same rights, collectively, that laws should not have been made to specify or elevate one group over another which is why we are experiencing this culture war.

Third, many state constitutions go so far as to state that sodomy is actually illegal but will not be enforced because of the Lawrence decision according to the ruling by the Supreme court.( The supreme courts job is to verify the ruling as it pertains to the Constitution, for those few that know, an all out disgrace by bias judges that have no understanding of the rule of law but only to elevate and give special interest to one group over a christian do I get special rights?
Yeah, right!

How is it then that this city council can pass such a decision when it is unlawful? Ask yourself will this decision affect us all in a positive way or just that group? ( Remember Constitution is our rule of law)

Fourth, Is this really about gender identity? Are people really born that way? If they are how come they have failed to have been acknowledged as a gender for over 200 years? Did somehow we, as humans, now suddenly evolve in that we have a new species that needs to be acknowledged? NAh, I dont think ,so. The bible acknowledges it as an abomination, Our rule of law says it is illegal so their must have been prior knowledge of this "lifestyle" as a choice not that one is born this way.

I spoke with a lady friend of mine, she wants rights for blondes, I would like rights for people that surf...I cant surf in Idaho, I want equal rights! Where exactly does it end...mexicans, gays, negroes, chinese, buddhists, maoists, Obamaoists...Do you see the implications of such decisions?

This is not a gender identity issue, this is a sexual preference and nothing more. Homosexuals do not have scientific evidence that they are anymore born that way than that we came from apes!

This is not about whether I support gays or not, if I beleieve they are born that way or what I believe the bible says, this is about another in the long line of continual manipulation and distortion of our rule of law!

Decisions that give "Equal rights" to gays or anyone else is simply unconstitutional! Equal rights, in todays definitions does not mean "equal" they mean "special", think not?

Gays want to be in the military
Gays want same benefits
Gays want same rights as married couples ( should they suffer the penalties in taxes as well or wil they be excluded in the name of retrobution for oppresion?)

If this "lifestyle" has been denied as it is illegal and immoral, should we change it because it is no longer immoral or would that open the flood gates to arbitrary judgements playing more into the rule by man than the rule of law, in other words, decision by democracy rather than the rule of law under the constitutional republic?

The problems with this is that we are publically acknowledging they are somehow different as humans. They are no different as humans, the difference is in their sexual preference. Why would a group of people want to be acknowledged for their sexual preference, are heterosexuals? Are other sexual deviations and should they be?

If we are all created equal then it would stand to reason that all laws apply to all citizens!

Laws established by man that violate personal liberty, that replace personal responsibility with government decisions and mandates upon its citizens are also unconstitutional!

It is better to destroy our constitution and deny its rule of law than say we respect it while we desecrate it!

The letter from the ACLU is below:

Dear R.;

We are excited to share another victory for LGBT Equality in Idaho!

Last night the Caldwell City Council voted unanimously to include sexual orientation and gender identity in their non-discrimination policy. This comes on the heels of another unanimous vote to do the same in Pocatello last November.

This is a tremendous victory for the City of Caldwell and the State of Idaho as yet another city votes in favor of equality in the workplace! Although many were involved in this work, we would like to send a special thank you to the members of the Canyon Area Human Rights Task Force, the Caldwell City Council members and Mayor Garret Nancolas. It was with the hard work and courage of these individuals, and many more, that made this victory possible.
Please take a moment to send a thank you to the members of the Caldwell City Council and Mayor Garret Nancolas.

Mayor Garret Nancolas
Caldwell Mayor’s Office
411 Blaine St.
Caldwell, ID 83605

City Council Members
Jim Blacker, President
Rob Hopper
Dennis Callsen
Jim Dakan
Rob Oates
Bob Sobba

Thank you from the ACLU of Idaho! Your membership and support helps us advance equality in our state.

ACLU of Idaho Staff

To write your thoughts to those that were involved please contact:

President Jim Blacker:
Bob Sobba:
Dennis Callsen:
Jim Dakan:
Rob Hopper:
Rob Oates:

When I spoke to Mayor Nancolas today, he expressed his dissatisfaction in this ruling and that his vote would only count as a tie breaker but somehow the conversation we had today seems to contradict what he wrote in his announcement!

Politics as usual?

" All the worlds a stage, grab a bowl of popcorn and watch or get involved."