Here is the most ambiguous and ignorant statement i have ever seen from a lical executive branch authority, i am outraged and am still willing to call out any sheriff on his position selling the people of the state to unbridled control and submission to the feds! I am outraged!
Here is their pathetic sellout statement!
We, the sheriffs of the State of Idaho support the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms and we oppose any intrusion upon those rights. The resolution recently passed by the National Sheriff’s Association eloquently states the exact position of the Idaho Sheriff’s Association and therefore, we adopt it as ours. The resolution reads:
National Sheriff’s Association Resolution: 2013-1
WHEREAS, the elected Sheriff is recognized throughout the United States as the chief local law enforcement officer and is directly accountable to the people through the electoral process; and
WHEREAS, all sheriffs take an oath of office to enforce and defend the United States Constitution and state constitution and laws; and
WHEREAS, a primary mission of sheriffs is to ensure public safety; and
WHEREAS, gun safety is vitally important to our nation’s public health and the 3,080 sheriffs of this nation; and
WHEREAS, the cause of violence, including gun violence, must be addressed on many fronts, including improved mental health treatment, media violence, drugs, gangs, breakdown of the family, strengthening laws that prevent or reduce the access of legally prohibited persons to firearms and vigorous enforcement of existing laws; and
WHEREAS, the National Sheriffs’ Association represents the interests of all sheriffs who are sworn to support and defend the United States Constitution; and
WHEREAS, sheriffs strongly support our citizens’ protected right to bear arms under the Second Amendment and the National Sheriffs’ Association does not support any laws that deprive any citizen of the rights provided under the Constitution and Bill of Rights; and
WHEREAS, the doctrine of judicial review grants to the United States Supreme Court and the lower courts the power to determine the constitutionality of any law and sheriffs do not v possess the legal authority to interpret the constitutionality of any law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the National Sheriffs’ Association supports the rights conferred by the Second Amendment and further recognizes the ultimate authority of the courts in interpreting the scope of those constitutional rights
The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association recognizes that the efforts of our state legislature, congress and president are to provide for safer communities by a reduction in gun violence. We take different paths, but the goal is the same. In order to achieve success we must work together on issues upon which we can agree. Citizens expect it and our children deserve it.
Please contact your sheriff for further explanation as to his/her position on various bills being proposed by state legislators and Congress. We encourage all citizens to contact their state legislators and Congressional representatives and let them know how they feel about this issue.
Idaho Sheriffs’ Association, 1087 W. River St. Ste100, Boise, ID 83702, 287-0001, idahosheriffsassociation.com
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Healthcare hearing-my statement
Healthcare state exchange statement February 7, 2013
Greetings Mr. Chairman and committee members, my name is Tom Munds from Caldwell, Idaho.
As Americans, It is our duty to challenge government authority whenever necessary as a means to remain vigilant preserving freedom for our posterity, but with the constant increasing barrage of assaults on our personal liberties and few standing against this assault, I stand before you with the respect I once had that has given way to genuine concern.
My concern is the continual encroachment on the rights of the people, specifically, but not limited to the federal governments assault on the states and the forceful submission to blind mandates with a variety of unknowns by a government that lacks the right, the authority or the proper jurisdiction.
As I attended the healthcare debate weeks ago, it was mentioned several times that we have a socialized system. If those in support of this system, state this as truth and the supreme court charged with guaranteeing a constitutional republican form of government also support this system, does this not only violate their oath, supporting a foreign form of government but prove that the supreme court rather than protecting and upholding the constitution has been hijacked and that they are nothing more today that nine tyrants or nine King Georges in black robes, not protecting our rights but now telling us what they are? How is this consistent with our principles of freedom established by our forefathers?
This healthcare issue should not be about how many people are without healthcare or how many people support this monstrosity because we are not a democracy, this should be about whether the Feds or the supreme court are within their jurisdiction and within their delegated powers to force states and the people to mandates when it is not only out of the jurisdiction of both but contrary to free sovereign and independent states and people!
If we are still a constitutional republic, which apparently we are not, and governments job is to preserve and not restrict the rights of the people and the states, how is this healthcare exchange consistent with these principles, when we are forced allow every branch of government and political subdivision to operate outside of their limitations by imposing mandates and unknowns on the people they swore to serve and protect?
The simple fact that our state would even consider a monster like this scares me because it leaves me questioning not only the integrity and knowledge of our state government but the backbone when it comes to protecting the people they represent.
If the people truly prefer a form of government foreign to our constitution then they do so at their ignorance, but if we still honor this document and the freedoms it secures, the only way this system of healthcare should even be adopted is by a proper constitutional amendment process where the people are fully aware of its ramifications not by a blind legislative enactment that will enslave them subject to random ever changing and hidden variables.
In case you can’t tell, I not only oppose this state exchange but oppose it with all of my being, not because I am insensitive to the needs of others but because it is purely unlawful!
Greetings Mr. Chairman and committee members, my name is Tom Munds from Caldwell, Idaho.
As Americans, It is our duty to challenge government authority whenever necessary as a means to remain vigilant preserving freedom for our posterity, but with the constant increasing barrage of assaults on our personal liberties and few standing against this assault, I stand before you with the respect I once had that has given way to genuine concern.
My concern is the continual encroachment on the rights of the people, specifically, but not limited to the federal governments assault on the states and the forceful submission to blind mandates with a variety of unknowns by a government that lacks the right, the authority or the proper jurisdiction.
As I attended the healthcare debate weeks ago, it was mentioned several times that we have a socialized system. If those in support of this system, state this as truth and the supreme court charged with guaranteeing a constitutional republican form of government also support this system, does this not only violate their oath, supporting a foreign form of government but prove that the supreme court rather than protecting and upholding the constitution has been hijacked and that they are nothing more today that nine tyrants or nine King Georges in black robes, not protecting our rights but now telling us what they are? How is this consistent with our principles of freedom established by our forefathers?
This healthcare issue should not be about how many people are without healthcare or how many people support this monstrosity because we are not a democracy, this should be about whether the Feds or the supreme court are within their jurisdiction and within their delegated powers to force states and the people to mandates when it is not only out of the jurisdiction of both but contrary to free sovereign and independent states and people!
If we are still a constitutional republic, which apparently we are not, and governments job is to preserve and not restrict the rights of the people and the states, how is this healthcare exchange consistent with these principles, when we are forced allow every branch of government and political subdivision to operate outside of their limitations by imposing mandates and unknowns on the people they swore to serve and protect?
The simple fact that our state would even consider a monster like this scares me because it leaves me questioning not only the integrity and knowledge of our state government but the backbone when it comes to protecting the people they represent.
If the people truly prefer a form of government foreign to our constitution then they do so at their ignorance, but if we still honor this document and the freedoms it secures, the only way this system of healthcare should even be adopted is by a proper constitutional amendment process where the people are fully aware of its ramifications not by a blind legislative enactment that will enslave them subject to random ever changing and hidden variables.
In case you can’t tell, I not only oppose this state exchange but oppose it with all of my being, not because I am insensitive to the needs of others but because it is purely unlawful!
Letter to idaho sheriffs association
To Idaho sheriffs assiciation
Regarding the article: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/01/25/2425376/i-uphold-all-of-the-constitution.html
Sheriff,
I will say that it has been a pleasure having the opportunity to chat with you over the last few years. One great thing about Idaho is that if we have a concern, we can get to the top if we need to. I am grateful for the time you have taken to speak with me.
The purpose for this post is not as much to disrespect your position but to get people to consider the alternate perspective that was not covered in your article; that should be important to everyone that loves freedom, I hope my post is received this way.
First of all, the oath taken for office should have been with a proper understanding of history, for without it, the oath is worthless.
Second, the oath was taken with an understanding of where man’s rights come from
Third, the oath was taken with the understanding that government was created to protect those rights of the people, not to protect people from themselves or to protect the government.
Third, in this oath it was taken as a solemn promise to the people that you understood the limitations of government on the people so that freedom and liberty were preserved and protected not dictated or restricted by a government.
Fourth, the oath was to acknowledge that in our constitutional republic, we were a system of “self-government” and that the created government could exercise “few and specific powers” not to have the government interpret what our rights are because it is contrary to its creation.
Fifth, your oath was to honor the constitution as the Supreme law of the land, not to uphold all laws and administrative policies created by every and any political subdivision. Your oath was to render all laws repugnant to the constitution, null and void. In order for to see the repugnancy, one must understand what I have stated above.
In your article you mention the foundation of checks and balances and the separation of powers but your article is in complete contradiction to your statement. In it you state that such disregard would result in anarchy which is pure prejudicial conjecture and contrary to the entire creation of the constitution in that it was a document promoting self-government, that limits government NOT ITS PEOPLE!
In your article you state that we are the federal government, the state and local government, but you fail to mention that the states and the people are also free, sovereign and independent from the union as well. You fail to mention the phrase or any indication of the Declaration of Independence to fact that “when a government becomes corrupt to these ends it is the duty of the people to alter or abolish it” clarifying the sovereign capacity of the people and the states.
You state that our constitution says we have a right to bear arms but that was the Bill of Rights, but fail to separate the two documents because they were created for different purposes. One expressly declared what the government could and could not do, restraining itself, and the Bill of Rights was a Declaration by the people to the government stating what rights specifically were retained and not to be subject to some government entity or Supreme Court interpreting the rights of the people.
You state that there is also a “supremacy clause” and that your oath requires you to uphold all laws passed by state and federal representatives which is false. The supremacy clause was written with the understanding that the constitution was supreme and that no state could write laws that were repugnant to the constitution and could not write laws unless it was not expressly written in the constitution. In the formation of the union, it was the one way that the states would be guaranteed that the rights of the people and the states would not be violated by the federal government. Remember the purpose of the creation of government was to protect and preserve the rights of the people not restrict our rights at our expense, telling us what is good for us or to protect us from ourselves!
You state that our checks and balances point us toward a proper remedy to be challenged by the judicial branch is if it were legitimate. Case in point, our court has “RULED” that it should be legal to kill the innocent which is not only contrary to the constitution’s first tenant to protect life but violates the creation of government because it can no longer protect the innocent.
In your article you state that the determination of executive orders is to be left by the Supreme Court, not by 44 county sheriffs and you are incorrect again in that I would challenge you then to explain what the difference is between King George and his edicts and the edicts of an emerging dictator or nine in black robes? Explain how the people that created government to protect their rights would subject them to any one government entity that the founders knew could always have the power to oppress them?
The Sheriff is Americas last hope, it is the last line of defense to protect the people against the tyranny of a federal government and the sheriffs lack of knowledge of both the power he possesses and the understanding of his oath and our history, makes him unqualified and unable to protect the people, rendering the sheep to be tended by the wolves.
Sheriff, with all due respect, you possess the power to protect those in your county, all you need to do is stand and acknowledge it, we know you can, I know you can!!
Respectfully,
Thomas A. Munds
Monday, February 4, 2013
Why i hate public schools- walk in your shoes?
Why I hate public schools
Walk in your shoes?
My apologies for such a lengthy post but due to my activism and sensitivity to this issue and ad often as it comes up, i felt it was important to lay the issue out as completely as i could so that i would not be misunderstood. i hope that my point was made clearly especially due to its length.
I see posts from time to time that ask why people that oppose public school are so angry, why they seem not to have any feelings and why those that oppose, don't put themselves in the shoes of the teachers, almost suggesting that those that opposition feel and think like they do because they are ignorant or because they dislike teachers. These beliefs on all counts are completely inaccurate at least for me and I’ll tell you several reasons why.
First of all, I do not look at anything as if something is bad or good to begin with. The first test is lawfulness, is it lawful or is it unlawful overall.
The next test is looking a bit more closely at the creation of something like education and how invasive it is, again, not looking at how good or bad it is but how this creation and invasiveness fits within the law.
If the creation of something like education is lawful and it meets specific criteria, there should be no problem with its acceptance, if it does not; it is prima facia unlawful or unlawful on its face.
According to the federal constitution, the establishment of school is nowhere to be found because our founders felt not only should it be left to the states to decide, because closest was best, but believed that everything with regards to education should be left as the parents responsibility, not left to a government because it was not a delegated power. If it was within or became within their authority, it would take the power from the parents and give it to the state which could be viewed as an abandonment of personal responsibility and if not kept in check could be detrimental to a society because this created a system that could begin to teach anything it wanted without any way for the parents to control it.
When the founders considered education, they considered it based on only a few things in mind, that the children that passed through school would be taught uniformly, not only the principles of freedom through an intense learning of our history and civics regarding our present form of government but that they would all share the same faith that undergirded those principles of freedom by limiting government, not promoting a multicultural morally relative view of God like we have today. Our children were to be taught not only an acknowledgment of Christ, but to further the knowledge and understanding of scriptures.
If what I have stated has any validity then the truth and reality of why people are angry should already become quite clear.
If the US constitution has no mention of public school it was to be left to the states and the people.
If the state constitution mentions public school, does it make it lawful and constitutional? It depends. How it is written, how much control it was given, how much it has taken as it expands its powers, how transparent it is and how it spends and raises money. It also depends on who and how that money is received and what is actually taught.
Going back to the beginning of our history, if public school was set up to teach intense history to understand why our government is so important, does this school teach civics to perpetuate the understanding of this importance? It does not.
Does this system teach not only the faith of Christ and the relevance of Christianity to the principles of freedom and the perpetual unity of a nation? The answer is absolutely not! If this created entity teaches principles contrary to what it was intended, is it not easy to see why people are angry? If this system teaches generations of students principles contrary to what was intended, is it not clear to see the chaos in our society today and where the problems may be coming from?
Here are the facts:
We have allowed the federal government without the delegated authority or the right, to take control of a system that was meant for the states.
We have allowed the part that the state can control, also without the authority or the right, to control the people that fund it.
We have school board members, as well intentioned as they are, with no understanding of the proper application and limitations on their powers and as prior graduates from the system they support. These teachers apparently have no concept of the original intent of the constitution and its creation to preserve the rights of the people not to encroach upon them, which they do constantly either because they do not understand or they are forced to teach these principles against their will.
The local school boards act outside of their authority because they continue to spend beyond their budget and annually use coercion tactics to get bond levies past.
The state and the school districts rely on the federal government for funding, which the federal government lacks the power to do, because the establishment of the schools was to be a creation of the state and that the federal government is not a bank.
Many teachers support unions, without any knowledge of where the dues for the union go, in many instances to support an agenda that is completely contradictory to their beliefs but they submit by force to ensure their benefits. This is not freedom and is force against the will of the teachers that know better than to teach something they know is damaging to the children’s future and the prosperity of a nation.
This education system that was created violates the state constitution in Art. 9, section 1, “a free common school” because it not only charges for registration for school but for just about everything else. This is unlawful!
When the opposition challenges the authority of the revenue generators, it seems as if they are immune from having to answer to the tax payer that funds their salaries.
The administrations benefits are not only are guaranteed by the taxpayer but guaranteed for life and any shortfalls that may occur for non-productive investments fall on the taxpayer for those shortfalls.
Shall only a small percentage of the population carry the tax burden for those that do not pay? Shall teachers and government workers receive benefits for life at the expense of the savings and retirements of the tax payers? This is a violation of our republican form of government in that it supports a socialized equal government forced re-distribution of wealth from one individual to another.
Understanding the intent if the constitution and law in general, they were created with equality as the primary concern, that all laws, when properly applied, had to apply equally to all people and when taxes were necessary, the taxation was to apply equally as well and if benefits are allotted, if they were constitutional, which they are not, should also apply to ALL people equally.
Perhaps the most important issue regarding my frustration with public school is the fact that, whether by force or preference, our children have been propagandized to believe in such brainwashing dogma like the separation of church and state, in the God should be separated from government, not even realizing this is a Marxist principle not one consistent with America’s constitutional republic.
Why is this concept so important to our country, our freedom and the future prosperity? Because it is the one strike at our foundation that destroys the root of our republic, and the entire creation and understanding of our history, the fact that Rights come from a Creator, that these Rights are Unalienable, that no man can take them away and that governments were created to preserve these rights for future generations not to destroy, restrict , manipulate or interpret them…To preserve Our Unalienable Rights, that were given to us by God and that any other belief makes our rights subject to what government says they are, which has always ended in tyranny and oppression.
Quite simply, If you do not acknowledge the Creator as the giver of all rights, you are not only unlawful but support a form of government foreign to America, where your freedom is only subject to what some tyrant or oppressive government says it is.
This country is built on the rule of the written law, not subject to random opinions. We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy, where even the minority is protected and we were created as an experiment in “SELF- government” not reliance on it. Schools teach none of these principles.
If your children attend public school or you happen to be a teacher or school supporter, are you even aware of the detriments of this type of system on society?
If many of the supporters claim to be Christians and they openly deny Christ to our children in school, is that something you think God will forgive you for, for misleading them not by educating them but brainwashing them with principles that are contrary to our “free” country and the Biblical scriptures we claim so dear?
It was asked, “Put those that oppose public school in the shoes of supporters of such a system?” How about putting those that support public school in the shoes of those that understand the creation, funding and indoctrination of a monster, here to destroy our future!
I hope you can see by this post that my frustration is not meant to be a personal attack on teachers; it’s an attack on the system that is destroying the future of our kids enslaving our teachers!
Can you see why we are angry?
Tom Munds:
208-861-6405
Walk in your shoes?
My apologies for such a lengthy post but due to my activism and sensitivity to this issue and ad often as it comes up, i felt it was important to lay the issue out as completely as i could so that i would not be misunderstood. i hope that my point was made clearly especially due to its length.
I see posts from time to time that ask why people that oppose public school are so angry, why they seem not to have any feelings and why those that oppose, don't put themselves in the shoes of the teachers, almost suggesting that those that opposition feel and think like they do because they are ignorant or because they dislike teachers. These beliefs on all counts are completely inaccurate at least for me and I’ll tell you several reasons why.
First of all, I do not look at anything as if something is bad or good to begin with. The first test is lawfulness, is it lawful or is it unlawful overall.
The next test is looking a bit more closely at the creation of something like education and how invasive it is, again, not looking at how good or bad it is but how this creation and invasiveness fits within the law.
If the creation of something like education is lawful and it meets specific criteria, there should be no problem with its acceptance, if it does not; it is prima facia unlawful or unlawful on its face.
According to the federal constitution, the establishment of school is nowhere to be found because our founders felt not only should it be left to the states to decide, because closest was best, but believed that everything with regards to education should be left as the parents responsibility, not left to a government because it was not a delegated power. If it was within or became within their authority, it would take the power from the parents and give it to the state which could be viewed as an abandonment of personal responsibility and if not kept in check could be detrimental to a society because this created a system that could begin to teach anything it wanted without any way for the parents to control it.
When the founders considered education, they considered it based on only a few things in mind, that the children that passed through school would be taught uniformly, not only the principles of freedom through an intense learning of our history and civics regarding our present form of government but that they would all share the same faith that undergirded those principles of freedom by limiting government, not promoting a multicultural morally relative view of God like we have today. Our children were to be taught not only an acknowledgment of Christ, but to further the knowledge and understanding of scriptures.
If what I have stated has any validity then the truth and reality of why people are angry should already become quite clear.
If the US constitution has no mention of public school it was to be left to the states and the people.
If the state constitution mentions public school, does it make it lawful and constitutional? It depends. How it is written, how much control it was given, how much it has taken as it expands its powers, how transparent it is and how it spends and raises money. It also depends on who and how that money is received and what is actually taught.
Going back to the beginning of our history, if public school was set up to teach intense history to understand why our government is so important, does this school teach civics to perpetuate the understanding of this importance? It does not.
Does this system teach not only the faith of Christ and the relevance of Christianity to the principles of freedom and the perpetual unity of a nation? The answer is absolutely not! If this created entity teaches principles contrary to what it was intended, is it not easy to see why people are angry? If this system teaches generations of students principles contrary to what was intended, is it not clear to see the chaos in our society today and where the problems may be coming from?
Here are the facts:
We have allowed the federal government without the delegated authority or the right, to take control of a system that was meant for the states.
We have allowed the part that the state can control, also without the authority or the right, to control the people that fund it.
We have school board members, as well intentioned as they are, with no understanding of the proper application and limitations on their powers and as prior graduates from the system they support. These teachers apparently have no concept of the original intent of the constitution and its creation to preserve the rights of the people not to encroach upon them, which they do constantly either because they do not understand or they are forced to teach these principles against their will.
The local school boards act outside of their authority because they continue to spend beyond their budget and annually use coercion tactics to get bond levies past.
The state and the school districts rely on the federal government for funding, which the federal government lacks the power to do, because the establishment of the schools was to be a creation of the state and that the federal government is not a bank.
Many teachers support unions, without any knowledge of where the dues for the union go, in many instances to support an agenda that is completely contradictory to their beliefs but they submit by force to ensure their benefits. This is not freedom and is force against the will of the teachers that know better than to teach something they know is damaging to the children’s future and the prosperity of a nation.
This education system that was created violates the state constitution in Art. 9, section 1, “a free common school” because it not only charges for registration for school but for just about everything else. This is unlawful!
When the opposition challenges the authority of the revenue generators, it seems as if they are immune from having to answer to the tax payer that funds their salaries.
The administrations benefits are not only are guaranteed by the taxpayer but guaranteed for life and any shortfalls that may occur for non-productive investments fall on the taxpayer for those shortfalls.
Shall only a small percentage of the population carry the tax burden for those that do not pay? Shall teachers and government workers receive benefits for life at the expense of the savings and retirements of the tax payers? This is a violation of our republican form of government in that it supports a socialized equal government forced re-distribution of wealth from one individual to another.
Understanding the intent if the constitution and law in general, they were created with equality as the primary concern, that all laws, when properly applied, had to apply equally to all people and when taxes were necessary, the taxation was to apply equally as well and if benefits are allotted, if they were constitutional, which they are not, should also apply to ALL people equally.
Perhaps the most important issue regarding my frustration with public school is the fact that, whether by force or preference, our children have been propagandized to believe in such brainwashing dogma like the separation of church and state, in the God should be separated from government, not even realizing this is a Marxist principle not one consistent with America’s constitutional republic.
Why is this concept so important to our country, our freedom and the future prosperity? Because it is the one strike at our foundation that destroys the root of our republic, and the entire creation and understanding of our history, the fact that Rights come from a Creator, that these Rights are Unalienable, that no man can take them away and that governments were created to preserve these rights for future generations not to destroy, restrict , manipulate or interpret them…To preserve Our Unalienable Rights, that were given to us by God and that any other belief makes our rights subject to what government says they are, which has always ended in tyranny and oppression.
Quite simply, If you do not acknowledge the Creator as the giver of all rights, you are not only unlawful but support a form of government foreign to America, where your freedom is only subject to what some tyrant or oppressive government says it is.
This country is built on the rule of the written law, not subject to random opinions. We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy, where even the minority is protected and we were created as an experiment in “SELF- government” not reliance on it. Schools teach none of these principles.
If your children attend public school or you happen to be a teacher or school supporter, are you even aware of the detriments of this type of system on society?
If many of the supporters claim to be Christians and they openly deny Christ to our children in school, is that something you think God will forgive you for, for misleading them not by educating them but brainwashing them with principles that are contrary to our “free” country and the Biblical scriptures we claim so dear?
It was asked, “Put those that oppose public school in the shoes of supporters of such a system?” How about putting those that support public school in the shoes of those that understand the creation, funding and indoctrination of a monster, here to destroy our future!
I hope you can see by this post that my frustration is not meant to be a personal attack on teachers; it’s an attack on the system that is destroying the future of our kids enslaving our teachers!
Can you see why we are angry?
Tom Munds:
208-861-6405
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Idaho state exchange critical elements
Idaho state healthcare exchange video.
I was asked to compile the critical elements of the state healthcare exchange debate on 1/23/13 in an effort to briefly and efficiently educate others on a few of the critical elements of healthcare in idaho.
Heres the short compilation of the full length video available www.tommunds.com.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU1aXEdvReg
I was asked to compile the critical elements of the state healthcare exchange debate on 1/23/13 in an effort to briefly and efficiently educate others on a few of the critical elements of healthcare in idaho.
Heres the short compilation of the full length video available www.tommunds.com.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU1aXEdvReg
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Video to all government officials in the country
Dear all,
My intention is never to abuse ones email but out of urgency an attempt to wake up our representatives that are to represent its people.
Our freedom is in danger, our safety is in danger and no one seems to care!
I have made it my personal mission to send his video out to every government official in this state with the understanding that today apparently fighting for and preserving liberty is no longer the job of our "elected" representatives, or to be protected by law enforcement but seemingly to leave it up to the people themselves.
Quite simply, government has two choices, historically, it can honor its oath and protect the rights of its people or by inaction choose not to.
I, personally am tired of the inaction and the silence of my reps and due to exhausting all of my efforts to hold them accountable, i feel trapped, cornered and After tireless attempts find absolutely no remedy.
This country, this state is in trouble, don't you think its time to do something about it before people get angry enough to do something they really would choose not to?
As a man of honor, integrity, love of God, family and my fellow man, i have chosen to stand.
I hope that you will join me and stand, spreading the message enough is enough!
Enjoy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nF098HtY-s&feature=youtube_gdata_player
You cannot both be for liberty and against it!
Tom Munds
God given,Constitutionally protected,Citizens Rights advocate
Www.tommunds.Com
Twitter: @mundsTom
208 861-6405
My intention is never to abuse ones email but out of urgency an attempt to wake up our representatives that are to represent its people.
Our freedom is in danger, our safety is in danger and no one seems to care!
I have made it my personal mission to send his video out to every government official in this state with the understanding that today apparently fighting for and preserving liberty is no longer the job of our "elected" representatives, or to be protected by law enforcement but seemingly to leave it up to the people themselves.
Quite simply, government has two choices, historically, it can honor its oath and protect the rights of its people or by inaction choose not to.
I, personally am tired of the inaction and the silence of my reps and due to exhausting all of my efforts to hold them accountable, i feel trapped, cornered and After tireless attempts find absolutely no remedy.
This country, this state is in trouble, don't you think its time to do something about it before people get angry enough to do something they really would choose not to?
As a man of honor, integrity, love of God, family and my fellow man, i have chosen to stand.
I hope that you will join me and stand, spreading the message enough is enough!
Enjoy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nF098HtY-s&feature=youtube_gdata_player
You cannot both be for liberty and against it!
Tom Munds
God given,Constitutionally protected,Citizens Rights advocate
Www.tommunds.Com
Twitter: @mundsTom
208 861-6405
Friday, February 1, 2013
Another letter to Ada sheriff Raney
I recieved this letter from a fellow Patriot and thought it was well worth posting, again not to assassinate his character but to question his knowledge and motives if his position of power as our counties last line of defense from federal tyranny! Nice job, Gerald, it is my honor to post this!
Tom
Sheriff Raney - Void of common sense
by Gerald Harbel
Star, Idaho
I was utterly dismayed and appalled by Sheriff Raney's complete lack of logic and common sense pertaining to our government and Constitution. He will "uphold all of the Constitution, not just a part of it" based upon the "supremacy clause". Let's use a simple analogy of his logic - The school bully declares all inferior, smaller children will give up their lunch whenever he demands. Using Raney's logic, he would enforce the bully's decree in complete disregard for the smaller children. I may just be old and confused, but according to my recollection, our government was not established to just provide life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the bureaucrats in the Federal Government. This right was given to all of "We the people".
Rainey threw common sense out the window in his comment that if we disagree with congressional law, there is a "proper remedy: changing the laws or challenging them in the judicial branch." Considering the unethical, corrupt, bickering bunch of 535 elected congressmen currently holding office, what chance would we have in changing a tyrannical law once power has been granted to the Federal Government? Based upon history, we would have just about as much chance as a snowball in hell. Challenging an unconstitutional law in the judicial branch is absolutely laughable - just look at the recent ruling from our United States Supreme Court on "Obamacare". Federal tyranny imposed once again upon "We the people".
Our judicial branch is no longer a part of the check and balance system as originally established by the Constitution for protection of "We the people". This small number of appointed and elected judges has now become a "legislative branch" in itself. The majority of our judges no longer rule by the Constitution, but they "make" law based upon their personal, political, Democrat or Republican ideology. Common sense tells us that the Judicial Branch is a total joke for protecting the life and liberty of "We the people". How long does it take to enslave an entire nation when the citizens of that nation have lost their right to keep and bear arms? Lets ask the Jewish citizens of Germany. Oh I forgot, we can't ask them because they lost their right to defend themselves and consequently, six million were slaughtered. Common sense tells us that it takes a lot less time to impose complete tyranny than it does for legal litigation to pass from a small county to the United States Supreme Court.
Last, but not least, is Raney's lack of common sense for whom he works. He works for the citizens of Ada County and the great state of Idaho - not the Federal government. We pay his salary. Does it make good sense to bite the hand that feeds you? It appears as if our Sheriff needs to study history and read some very pertinent documents beginning with: (1) the United States Constitution: Amendment II "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (2) The Constitution of the State of Idaho, Article I, Declaration of Rights emphasizes that right by "SECTION 11. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; ... Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony." and (3) the United States Constitution Amendment X "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution , nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Sheriff Raney - WE are THE PEOPLE!!
Tom
Sheriff Raney - Void of common sense
by Gerald Harbel
Star, Idaho
I was utterly dismayed and appalled by Sheriff Raney's complete lack of logic and common sense pertaining to our government and Constitution. He will "uphold all of the Constitution, not just a part of it" based upon the "supremacy clause". Let's use a simple analogy of his logic - The school bully declares all inferior, smaller children will give up their lunch whenever he demands. Using Raney's logic, he would enforce the bully's decree in complete disregard for the smaller children. I may just be old and confused, but according to my recollection, our government was not established to just provide life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the bureaucrats in the Federal Government. This right was given to all of "We the people".
Rainey threw common sense out the window in his comment that if we disagree with congressional law, there is a "proper remedy: changing the laws or challenging them in the judicial branch." Considering the unethical, corrupt, bickering bunch of 535 elected congressmen currently holding office, what chance would we have in changing a tyrannical law once power has been granted to the Federal Government? Based upon history, we would have just about as much chance as a snowball in hell. Challenging an unconstitutional law in the judicial branch is absolutely laughable - just look at the recent ruling from our United States Supreme Court on "Obamacare". Federal tyranny imposed once again upon "We the people".
Our judicial branch is no longer a part of the check and balance system as originally established by the Constitution for protection of "We the people". This small number of appointed and elected judges has now become a "legislative branch" in itself. The majority of our judges no longer rule by the Constitution, but they "make" law based upon their personal, political, Democrat or Republican ideology. Common sense tells us that the Judicial Branch is a total joke for protecting the life and liberty of "We the people". How long does it take to enslave an entire nation when the citizens of that nation have lost their right to keep and bear arms? Lets ask the Jewish citizens of Germany. Oh I forgot, we can't ask them because they lost their right to defend themselves and consequently, six million were slaughtered. Common sense tells us that it takes a lot less time to impose complete tyranny than it does for legal litigation to pass from a small county to the United States Supreme Court.
Last, but not least, is Raney's lack of common sense for whom he works. He works for the citizens of Ada County and the great state of Idaho - not the Federal government. We pay his salary. Does it make good sense to bite the hand that feeds you? It appears as if our Sheriff needs to study history and read some very pertinent documents beginning with: (1) the United States Constitution: Amendment II "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (2) The Constitution of the State of Idaho, Article I, Declaration of Rights emphasizes that right by "SECTION 11. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; ... Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony." and (3) the United States Constitution Amendment X "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution , nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Sheriff Raney - WE are THE PEOPLE!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)