Tuesday, March 26, 2013

The defilement of America and its terms

America is under assault from all sides. Our history has been revised, our morals have been exchanged for deviant acts, our English language has been redefined, our economy is in free fall, our crime rates are through the roof, even with increased laws, corruption is the norm rather than the exception, our laws that were once created to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent are now are a tool for sociological jurisprudence and today our government views free people as criminals that just haven’t been caught yet, the ignorance in government is now revered rather than rejected and things today that are considered constitutional couldn’t be further from the truth. Quite simply, America is no longer the beacon of light and hope to all nations but a nation of ironies and deception. Is it reasonable then to consider in the land where the trust in government is gone that the people through fear, desire to protect themselves because they realize that the government that was created to protect their rights no longer has the desire to do so?

Historically, America’s creation stemmed from the fleeing from government abuse. American government was created with expressed limitations, enumerations to prevent governmental abuse. Americas supreme law was a written document that limited government to guarantee the rights of the people but now the government have not only refused to protect the rights of the people but to force submission and to remove any capability to defend themselves. Is this freedom? Is this consistent with American exceptionalism? What are the people to do when they are left defenseless?

Today, our English language has been used to the detriment of the people, words like tea party, constitution, sovereign, freedom, liberty, Militia and Posse. How can words instrumental in the in our historical fight for independence be defined as “acts of terrorism” unless governments redefinitions are intentional personal assaults by them against the freedom of the people?

It is critical at this juncture to clarify a few misunderstandings. Our constitution was written for a moral and religious people, built on the love of God and our neighbors with the highest regard for personal responsibility. In the Founder’s quest for perpetual freedom, our constitution was created to provide specific and exhaustive checks and balances to safeguard the liberties of the people against the usurpations of government as its primary concern. Our constitution was a written document that clarified the limitations on government to guarantee the rights of the people without question. The Bill of Rights was a document that was a declaration from the people to their government telling government what they could not do and was not to be left to interpretation.

With these thoughts in mind, is it not clear as to why the people are in fear of their government, forcing them, even against their own will to defend themselves because they feel the necessity to protect themselves from the government ? With the bleak economic outlook and cutbacks, is government protecting the rights of the people when they continue to remove or restrict the right to self-defense?

Government, over the years, has decided not only to force the society to abandon God and the value of unalienable rights but has, taken, without authority, the right to interpret what rights the people are entitled to and that they are ultimately decided by the supreme court? LIES!

“We the People” were created by God, with certain unalienable rights, among them are life, liberty and property,” That governments were created to protect those rights to preserve freedom for us and our posterity. The Founders viewed “We the people”, as they did the states, as free, sovereign and independent and in order to safeguard our rights, we had the right to self-defense not only against our neighbor but more so, as history dictates, against government.

Is government in America, telling its people, now that we can no longer believe in God, that we no longer have the right to self-defense in addition to telling us what our rights are?

Militias and Posse are American terms as they are reminders of the sacrifices that were made so that we may be free. These terms are checks and balances reserved by the people and the states against government and are to be utilized when government “becomes corrupt to these ends.” Should government have anything to fear when it operates in the capacity in which it was created? Should people have any fear of its government when it operates within the capacity it was created? Why then does government fear the people’s right, with constitutional authority to defend themselves, unless it has ignorance of the law or knows of its usurpations?

“We the people”” have been re-programmed to be subjects rather than masters with inherent authority, rather than to challenge government and remain vigilant, to submit to any governmental authority regardless of the nature of unjust laws. The people, for generations have been lied to about who we are as a people and that division is the new unity.

It is time that the people and law enforcement realize we have been pawns of a system that’s mission was to pin one against the other, and that the only way to restore peace and order is to eliminate the division between law enforcement and its people knowing that true peace comes from the combined effort and desire for its restoration, together as a people and not one of full forced submission of one by the other to unjust laws contrary to the intent of our freedom guaranteed by our constitution.

Posse and Militias are our right and our duty as a free, sovereign and independent people and states collectively as a nation in a constitutional republic and is clarified and well documented in history and for this, no apology for its support is necessary. After all who are the criminals, those that uphold the law or those whom have subverted or abandoned it?

Let us, as Americans, both the people and law enforcement, come together, not in fear of one another but in open dialogue, and realize Ben Franklin’s statement, “if we do not hang together, we will surely hang separately.” Because we are both targets and pawns in the fulfillment of an agenda that will result in America’s destruction!

Tom Munds:

Friday, March 22, 2013

Idaho state healthcare exchange fallout

Health Exchange Fallout by Senator Thayn
What is the next step? Many of the opponents to the ACA are very frustrated by the passage of the state health insurance exchange. I would like to share a positive path forward; but first, I would like to share why we are frustrated.
The ACA will not reduce costs. It is a threat to freedom. What we see with the ACA is a new entitlement for the middle class. An entitlement is simply the taking of money and resources and power from those that produce and giving that money and resources and power to those that did not produce. We hate to see our country change in such a fundamental way where more and more citizens become dependent upon government programs. John Locke basically said that the assault on property is really an assault on life itself. The ACA is taking the essence of our life and giving it to someone else. Locke said:i (please read footnote).
The second area of frustration is a minority in support are imposing their will on a majority that oppose. When the Constitution was ratified it took 2/3 of the states not a simple majority. A 2/3 majority is the operational principle of limited government. No major changes in government structure should take place without a 2/3 supermajority. Obama Care should have taken a 2/3 majority to implement because it is a major change in government. The few of us opposed to ACA and the state health insurance exchange seem to have no rights at all. Who do we appeal to? What do we do?
A Plan
The answer is simple. We act rather than react. What is the real goal? The real goal is to empower people so that they control their own health care decisions. We do not need recalls and referendum. We need to do more than complain. We need to come up with plans of action on how to solve two problems.
1. Reduce the cost of medical care 2. Improve access to care
These two goals can be achieved by using limited government strategies. I will share a few today and in the future I will go into more detail. The basic concept is that costs go up as government and insurance companies control more of the funds costs. Conversely, cost decline as more funds are controlled by the people. People need to control the funds; not government or insurance companies.
First, protect your own health. Stay as healthy as possible through diet, exercise, and life style choices.
Second, don’t go to the exchange. Boycott it. There is no legal requirement to go to the exchange. It is voluntary and unnecessary. Health insurance can be purchased outside of the exchange. The funding for the exchange is dependent upon those that buy products on the exchange. If no one goes to the exchange, it will have no funding. Today, only 38,000 households need to go to the exchange to get the subsidy. If Idaho citizens really are opposed to the ACA, and if they find another option, then the exchange would not have enough customers to stay open.
The reason is that the exchange must be self-funded. It must charge to use the exchange. If the exchange has to charge $500 to use the exchange, people would be disincentivized to use the exchange because of the cost and stay away.
Third, find health care options outside of the exchange. There are ways to operate outside of the ACA that are legal. We need to explore these options more fully.
1. Buy a non-qualifying policy such as a high deductible policy. This would require you to pay the penalty beginning in 2014. The first year it is $95 or 1% of income.
2. Pray that nothing happens. (Most wives do not think that this is a good plan.) 3. Join an organization that is exempt from the penalty but still can help with medical costs. 4. Self-fund or band together to help each other.
The last step is to work to make changes to the health care system which would include:
Support S1106 that I wrote this year. This only applies to state employees at this time but could be expanded. It has to do with funded health savings accounts
Support H289 which requires health insurance companies to offer low cost insurance policies Build off-exchange real market solutions Work on reforming Medicaid
These ideas are not a panacea; however, they are a beginning. There are struggles ahead; let’s work together.
i A person’s property is a protection of life itself. Another interesting point made by Locke is the fact that all property is an extension of a person’s life, energy, and ingenuity. Therefore to destroy
or confiscate such property is, in reality, an attack on the essence of life itself.
The person who has worked to cultivate a farm, obtained food by hunting, carved a beautiful statue, or secured a wage by his labor, has projected his very being – the very essence of his life- into that labor. This is why Locke maintained that a threat to that property is a threat to the essence of life. Here is the reasoning:
Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common [as the gift from God] to all men, yet every man has “property” in his own “person”. This, nobody has the right to but himself. The “labor” of his body and “work” of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that nature hat provided and left in, he hath mixed his labor with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.
He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, he certainly appropriated them to himself. Nobody can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask, then, when did they begin to be his? When he digested? or when he ate? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? And is it plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could. ( Locke Second Essay Concerning Civil government, pp. 30-31, par, 26-27)
How is ownership Acquired?
Locke then deals with a very important question: if all things were originally enjoyed in common with the rest of humanity, would a person not have to get consent of every other person on earth before he could call certain things his own? Locke answers by saying:
That labor... added something to them [ the acorn or apples] more than Nature, the common mother of all, had done, and they became his private right. And will anyone say he had no right to those acorns or apples he thus appropriated because he had not consent of all mankind to make them his?... If such a consent as that was necessary, [the] man[would have] starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given him... It is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state Nature leaves it in, which begins the property, without which the common [ gift from God] is of no use. ... Thus this law of reason makes the deer that [property of the Indian] who hath killed it; it is allowed to be his goods who hath bestowed his labor upon it, though, before, it was the common right of every one. (Ilbid., p. 31, par. 27-29.)

Thursday, March 21, 2013

What happened at central committee

I am so sick of politics. You know the kind where we pretend to honor God by praying asking for his favor while we stab each other in the back? Or pledge allegiance to a flag that no one seems to know or care about not even considering the fact that the flag that is sworn to isn’t even the flag of the people’s constitutional republic but a flag of military jurisdiction?

How can the continual prayer and pledge and the stated desire to return our country back to the principles of the original intent create division in one political party? Perhaps there are a few that have no desire to return to these principles but prefer to tingle the ears of those that don’t know any better?

Its been months since I have attended a central committee meeting and the reasons why are stated above. I thought maybe after a few months of being gone things may ease up and these meetings may be more enjoyable but I was wrong. What I saw last night was nothing more than embarrassing and degrading but re-affirmed my thoughts about who and what government is.

The meeting seemed to go reasonably well until there was confusion at a mention about the filling empty precinct committee chair seats and where I saw the divide was more evident than at any other time in my attendance there. There are clearly two parties divided within the party.

When madame chair asked the secretary if she had any nominations, she had stated that there were two, What I believe to be one constitutional republican and the other that is an active representative in the legislature, which of whom when asked previously stated he was too busy and to look for someone else. The secretary it seemed implied that since the active representative denied his original nomination that the obvious choice should be the constitutional republican. There was then confusion about Roberts rules and the bylaws and suspension of rules. The active rep stated to the secretary that his accusations were false to which statement drew some verbal criticism, stating that he had lied and never denied his nomination. There were four that stood confirming his alleged untruths and suddenly the madame chair blows up in a disciplinary action like a mother to his children stating that “we are central committee and will not act this way and if there are accusations they need to be made in private.” Just then two armed law enforcement show up, one standing in each doorway almost looking like there weren’t going to let us out, obviously a sign of force “ in the name of safety” to quell any possible unrest when there was literally no reason for their presence. Is public debate, argument now unlawful and to be met with brute force? I was extremely angry at such a show of force! Are we to believe that getting angry expressing and revealing untruths and verbal challenges needs support of law enforcement? What message does this send when there is so much distrust and division in committee that the attendees feel that they need law enforcement? After what I believed to be a scolding of alleged people’s bad behavior of those challenging the truthfulness of the legislator it goes to a vote to where this active legislator wins precinct chair position. I could have called that vote!

With my understanding of politics and my understanding of the major players in this committee, I feel comfortable stating that there is a deep divide with two distinct parties within one party, one that truly desires the restoration of freedom and liberty for a country in decay and the other that’s main concern is retaining republican establishment control, even at the point of force, maybe because of the last elections now meets resistance in its application of questionable ethics?

It seems that there are still those in committee that really do not understand what this nation faces, the importance of unity and the adherence to the principles of freedom to which we allegedly all hold so dear.

There are many good people at these meetings, this post is not to disrespect them but rather for all of us to reflect on just where it is we are going as a county, as state and as a nation.

If we allow our representatives to lie, to deceive, and to abandon honesty and integrity with no way to hold them accountable, is it no wonder why we have problems in our government?

I was reminded as I fell asleep last night that as Mark 3:25 states “And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”

Run for school board?

Many of you that know me or have heard me speak know that my school district is one of my passions. I have been involved for several years on and off attempting to make necessary changes to a system that I believe does not benefit the people or our kids the way it should and that is why i have declared my candidacy for zone 4 trustee for the Middleton school district.

Some of the changes i would like to make are to minimize the animosity between the board and staff by opening communication and answering questions to why provisions have been put in place and to clarify apparent misunderstandings between the board, the staff, teachers and parents. i would also like to restore the proper role of parent, teacher and government that seems to continue to spiral out of control consistently in the favor of the state and the federal government rather than the district or the parents.

As a husband and father of four,with two still in school in this district, and a descent grip on law and love for community, i believe i could be an asset to our district in an age where it is needed.

If you have any questions ir would like to meet with me please contact me anytime at 208-861-6405 or tom@tommunds.com

Friday, March 1, 2013

Regarding HB 219

State affairs committee Hearing for SB 219

Toms statement

Dear my fellow Idahoans,

I would like to personally thank all of my friends, church members, business associates and acquaintances and radio listeners for your support. I find myself writing this letter in utter humiliation and find the need to apologize to my friends and those in the legislature whose relationships I have taken time to cultivate and to cherish, as well as to be properly understood in case what I say just doesn’t come out right, which at times, I think you can agree happens to the best of us at the worst possible times.

As someone who is passionate about our state, country, our history and understands the urgency and sign of the times, and the necessity to stand and remain vigilant fighting against the usurpation of our rights by an ever encroaching federal government and , at times, even local governments because of many decisions that are being made, I have become increasingly fearful of the direction were headed and find myself wondering just which side our government is on, whether it is for the people or against them. The delivery of my statement today was clarification of this fact.

Due to my clear understanding of the assaults people are facing, I have become much more sensitive to the issues and therefore much more protective of the laws that are being written as well as skeptical of those in committee charged with writing such bills. Due to time constraints and the inability to spend every day at the statehouse, getting to know everyone, it is difficult for the average person to know who supports bigger government, and who stands for the preservation of freedom for our future generations and so the natural tendency is to treat all of these people, with the exception of those we know as opposition, or at the very least, be extremely skeptical of who they are and their intentions, even when they may in fact, at times, all be in complete support of liberty and freedom, and therein lays the misunderstanding.

Many of you are my friends and many just know me as a voice on the radio, some just know me as someone that they are not sure they want to know because of the principles of which I speak or the way I speak about them so this letter is an attempt to clear up any misunderstanding.

It seems that over the past few years I have been much more active than before and therefore have become more known than in any other time in my history and this is uncharted territory for me, leaving me vulnerable to tremendous scrutiny. The last few years, I have been told through email, postcards and letters that I have a fantastic message that resonates with people and how I am an advocate for the silent majority however, due to the many comments I have received today by my statement to the committee regarding SB 219, I feel I have failed you in that my message was not delivered the way it should have been and that the passion, which I have been told is appreciated, was, this time, seemingly uncontrolled and hurt the cause more than it benefitted it.

My intentions, as many of you know was never meant to hurt a person or cause but to let the people know, if are unaware of current events, that as the people, we cannot stand for government abuse but also to let our legislature know that they have our full support if they do what they are bound by their oath to do. I failed to make this clear.

In retrospect, I should have had a prepared statement and I should have made it clear that the concerns I had were with those that did not understand their constitutional limitations and to avoid addressing the entire committee presuming I was there to attack them, which really was not the case. My purpose was to attempt to educate those legislators, that don’t understand about our history, our constitution and the dangers from misinterpreting the original intent expanding beyond the checks and balances of the three branches of government and to expose the encroachment of the judiciary as it states that every right is determined by them and every rights that is stripped from the states and the people are somehow constitutional when nothing could be further from the truth.

The people that are concerned about the direction of this country have a right to be. Those, like myself, that are passionate about what we have learned and the urgency in educating others has now become a primary focus to save what is left of our republic and all we want to know is that our elected officials understand this and will support and defend the people against injustices providing they can recognize them which many of us are fearful that some or many cannot.

Many of the people that attend these hearings have a firm understanding of what is happening which is why they are there. These same people also feel that over the last few years it is apparent that our elected officials to varying degrees are no longer listening to the people creating more passion, frustration, fear and concern as well as the need to stand in support of someone, perhaps a replacement of sorts, that will listen and fight for what rightfully belongs to the people. I have no self-serving agenda. My only desire is to restore this country to what was intended with equal justice under the law and a firm understanding of the principles of freedom through self-government.

My position, that seems to have been created over time, again, is one to stand for those that are afraid, those that cannot speak publically or those that are non-confrontational, those that fear what they see and are not sure what to do about it. My position, as my brother’s keeper is to stand and defend my brothers and sisters against encroachments to and restore liberty and freedom back to the people. As a father of four sons, a beautiful wife and two grandchildren, it is not only my right but my duty to stand in an effort to guarantee and preserve the unalienable rights for myself, and my family as well as my fellow Idahoans but I realize now that if I am to represent anyone in any capacity, I must learn to craft my message so that it is not misunderstood.

As we continue through this sensitive time in this country, with all of the issues that abound, I ask you to please accept my most humble apologies. If I can ever be of service to anyone, please do not hesitate to let me know.

I was alerted to an old saying, “It isn’t what you say, it’s how you say it.” I should learn from the wisdom of these words.

True to my belief in full transparency, for inquiring minds, the video of this hearing is available on my website at www.tommunds.com/videos. Your comments and criticisms are always welcome even when I stumble.


Thomas A. Munds