Con con rebuttal to Smith, Wolfpac

23 February 2017
Comments Off on Con con rebuttal to Smith, Wolfpac

Con con Rebuttal to Jason Smith Wolfpac
http://www.idahopress.com/opinion/guest_opinions/don-t-be-conned-by-a-misrepresentation-of-article-v/article_c0fe9bb5-d6f7-5aed-84cf-9b2b0a3d8635.html
Rebuttal letter to Idaho Press Tribune to Jason Smith from Wolfpac:
Letter to the Editor- Idaho Press Tribune 2/23/17

Rebuttal to Jason Smith-Wolfpac

If I were slick and well-spoken enough to create a private organization that was well funded enough to sway state legislators and only a handful of their constituents event remotely paying attention to this issue, could I also call my organization a convention of states too since, as I read article 5, there is no provision for private organizations to coin the name? Could I also use my influence and money to subvert our constitution in the name of saving it and if I did, how many people would really know the difference in an era of such an ignorance, busyness or dealing with people that just don’t care?

Smith declares that Boyle and Rubel do not speak of the history and purpose of article 5, but in my view it would be better to leave it out than mislead people about it, which is what has happens once again when we look at the issues closely and critically.

Who declared COS to be the legitimate entity to run this con-con train and that defines its own language that even differs from legal references like Black’s law dictionary or any other that describes a constitutional convention?

Smith states that a convention of the states is not the same thing as a constitutional convention, my answer is who says? In my view the writer is right and wrong. Right, they are different in that COS is a private group, but are the same in that any attempt to change our constitution is done through one mode, the only mode to amend or completely replace our constitution and defined by any legal dictionary as article 5 for that purpose.

Smith adheres to the COS talking points and misleads the public where they also say that a COS can be limited, or that the delegates can’t exceed their commissions, which is also inaccurate in that Madison, in Federalist 40 writes that the delegates did, in fact, exceed their commissions. They say that the COS is only to make amendments and can in no way usher in a completely new document but history shows that because a convention is called, the convention is then the deliberative body that, in essence is superior to congress, which is why we got our constitution from an Amendments convention to amend the Articles of Confederation then using Article XIII that still required ratification.

Another thing that I find deceptive is that supporters for a con-con always say, Article 5 was meant for such a time as this, to rein in an out of control government but the problem isn’t the constitution, the problem is elected officials ignore it because in my view the people don’t know enough about our constitution to recognize whether if one voted into office will adhere to it, so the problem is not the constitution, it is either the ignorance of it or maybe something else when Sen. Coburn stated when he was here, “They [congress] do not adhere to the constitution you and I know, they adhere to a 74lb one!” Well if this is true, and they adhere to a different constitution, how then would using an Article 5 convention from one constitution be used to control a government that adheres to a completely different document?

In addition, if the big issue is the feds overspending, are the states and the people so blind that they can’t see that the 50 states combined form the union and that each year the reliance on federal funding increases and the states allow the federal abuse? If the states created the union, aren’t the states, in fact, collectively guilty of the federal abuse?

If a BBA was passed, who would enforce it and what are the provisions that they are keeping from you? What about in periods of a National emergency? Suspended! Would it help to expose that America has been under a National emergency since 1933? If this is true, why are they pushing so hard or a BBA during a period of national emergency?

Additionally, Smith uses references like the BAR association and federal bureaucracies to defend his position that a con-con as a good idea. Do you trust entities like this to preserve your liberty when both control your destiny and define their own terms? So, on one hand he exclaims federal abuse while adhering to statements of the feds in support of a con-con?

Another thing to consider is that Smith, although stating he somehow represents Wolfpac, failed to mention that the organization he represents if funded by Billionaire Global elitist George Soros, that has self admittedly collapsed countries and their economies attempting to merge the independent nations into a world government?

Letter to friend in government… 

18 January 2017
Comments Off on Letter to friend in government… 

Letter to friend in government:
Dear…
Do you have people that feed you info from alternative media? 
If you don’t, perhaps some of us could help share a list with you or you could help us understand how you are taught what is real from what is not. It would certainly help us! 
I suppose you may be apprehensive in clicking some of these links so i thought you should watch one where they apparently have plans recorded to hear it from those making plans to see if alternative media is fake or if its CNN?
Protestors are not constitutionalists, constitutionalists are trying to keep this country together from plummeting into chaos by Stalin’s “useful idiots” so much so, they call capitalists Fascists not knowing Stalin was a Fascist!  
If George Soros is funding an overthrow of our republic and people like Comey and Lynch are silent, what should that tell us? Soros is funding anarchy to the tune of 50/hr or 2500/week in 20 states across the country to overthrow our government. Please tell me you have intel that explains this? Just curious.
Anyway, listen to what they plan to do at this event and tell me whats is fake about this: https://youtu.be/MHZSfhd1X_8
Also maybe you can ponder or answer one question that has burned in my soul for years…
If there are people that have taken the time to become educated on law, our constitution, and the principles of self government and personal responsibility and understand what the plans are of collapsing this country and we all inherently know and believe the crap is going to hit the fan, and we know what can be done about it to save and protect it, when would law enforcement not see our actions as criminal in allowing us to make things right or at least expose whats wrong and when would we finally be viewed as credible and not “conspiracy theorists” or a threat to the law enforcement community? 
How is it responsible for the people based on protecting our homes and communities knowing our principles when people are seen as criminals by a government that either knows less than we do or knowingly prevents them from protecting their homes and communites?
It would be interesting to know what FBI AGENTS think, since the FBI HQ almost imploded as agents almost defected from Comey’s refusal to go after obvious criminality of the Clinton’s. 
And the citizens are just supposed to sit there and take abuse after abuse and do nothing because if we do, OUR actions are criminal?
If this is so, if the government had legitimate authority in the first place, the government has absolutely no authority to define mental illness and insurrection or espionage when they themselves are guilty as we get speeding tickets for going 5 miles over a state speed limit? Lunacy, complete lunacy!
In short, If we are in a boat going downstream toward a waterfall to certain death, shall we just hide under a blanket or do what we could  to save ourselves?
This country is the boat and we are both in it, the question is, what are we going to do about it?
Just a few thoughts…
Tom Munds

The Article 5 Con-Con fight in Idaho rages in support while opposition is silenced…until now

18 January 2017
Comments Off on The Article 5 Con-Con fight in Idaho rages in support while opposition is silenced…until now

What do you know about an article 5 Constitutional convention? Did you know that your legislators are in almost unanimous support for one? Have you ever asked yourself why your representatives would support something without your knowledge and without even bothering to inform you?

What is an article 5 convention? What is its purpose? Is it being used the way that our founders would have used it today? What are they not telling you about the article 5 convention and what kind of dangers are there in support of one?

To get answers to these questions there are two events that I must alert you about. 

The first event is a constitutional expert on the dangers of the Constitutional convention that will be presenting at the Idaho state capital, tomorrow January 19 at 3:30 in the Lincoln auditorium. We are asking each citizen to urge their legislators to attend and I am urging citizens to attend as well to pack the house.

The second event is the same presenter on the dangers of the Constitutional convention that will be giving this presentation at Food2store at 6:30 Thursday, January 19 at 3055 E. Fairview Ave, ste. 130.

If you were unable to make the event at the Statehouse we are asking you to attend the evening presentation. If you enjoyed the first presentation so much you’re more than welcome to join us at the second.

There will be no doubt after these presentations if you were in support of the convention that you will now oppose one. If you were not sure of what an article 5 convention is you’ll be very well educated at the end of this presentation on the topic and be able to help us oppose any application for an article 5 convention in Idaho!

For more information you can email me at tom@tommunds.com or you can call me on my cell phone at 208-861-6405

“See something say something.”

18 January 2017
Comments Off on “See something say something.”

We have listened to this rhetiric for years as the government in its divisiveness attempts to find more reasons to divide people more and more rather than any attempt at unity.

We are told by government to “see something, say something” about “suspicious acts” but not only are these acts not clearly defined, they only apply to the citizens about eachother and somehow not against government as governments have had a history of oppressing its people and never vice versa?

So, if reporting government abuses are criminal acts, what remedy is there then when “governments become abusive to these ends…?”

How has holding government accountable become a crime when it was once one of our founding principles?

Is it anything like Idaho’s recent issue pardoning Adultery, which is a felony, while condemning Freedom of Speech?

Why are your legislators pushing to change the constitution while their constituents know little to nothing about this move?

5 January 2017
Comments Off on Why are your legislators pushing to change the constitution while their constituents know little to nothing about this move?

IMPORTANT MESSAGE AND HUGE FAVOR TO ASK!!! 

Please contact your legislators ASAP and ask them these questions below. After you receive an answer, PLEASE get back to me with results to that we can track who has been contacted and who needs to be targeted with info and communication and perhaps a bit of pressure to change their minds

 

1. Are you in support of an Article 5 convention or some movement to trigger a convention? (Some dont think some of their movements are Article 5)

2. Can you specify in detail why you support or oppose such a convention

3. Are you open to changing your mind depending on information you receive?

4. Would you be willing to attend a presentation that shares an opposing view challenging the current talking points of those in support of a convention?

5. Did you receive your JBS con con packet, open it and review the contents?

6. If yes, did they learn anything they didn’t know before? And if they have time, ask them what they learned. If no, please let me know.

7. Why is it that representatives support and advocate for something that their constituents know nothing about?

 

If you haven’t yet, please watch and have them watch this video if they can, it is the best we have directly countering each claim with a constitutional remedy without need of convention

Change it or obey it?

Send responses to: tom@tommunds.com

 

HJR5 updated bullet points

4 November 2016
Comments Off on HJR5 updated bullet points

HJR5 Bullet pointsBill Text:

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES – Proposing an amendment to Article III of the Constitution of the State of Idaho by the addition of a new Section 29 to provide that the Legislature may review, approve or reject any administrative rule to ensure it is consistent with legislative intent and to provide that legislative approval or rejection of a rule is not subject to gubernatorial veto.

Facts or stated beliefs:

Legislature creates executive branch agencies

Legislature grants rulemaking power to the executive branch

IDAPA rules are created by the executive branch (agencies)

What happened before IDAPA? Agencies could create rules without legislative oversight-no way to see rules created by agencies.

No legislative authority to correct the Administrative procedures act.

Legislature can’t wipe out executive agencies or it violates the separation of powers?

Administrative procedures act covers ability to reject rules and is a cumbersome process.

Legislature writes statutes, executive writes rules- stated to be balance of power (example: EPA writes rules, congress can review rules and executive branch can say no.)

Health Authorities (hybrid H&W, appointed by commissioners) Sued executive agencies in 1990

Rules by the box full are all approved to circumvent the conflict of presentments that deal with the altering of the power or abolition of the agency, presentments being a cumbersome process.

Admittedly, the executive branch is de facto law making, which isn’t law

Example or bureaucratic complication: ITD. Board members appointed by governor, originally3 person board, the governor doesn’t appoint the Director, the board does. Now a 7 member board, each violates the law, they think the people in the district are their constituents but the board doesn’t run the agency, they hire the director and he runs it! People think administrative rules are law when it is only an administrative jurisdiction

Supporters say:

Article 4, section 20 defines executive agencies

HJR5 will give the legislature oversight and the ability to edit, alter or overturn rules created by the Executive branch agencies.

This law is currently in statute but they want to add it as an amendment so the law cannot be struck down by the courts?

Rules have force and effect of law

The passage of this resolution will restore the power to the legislature.

Attorney General Wasden does not support it because his deputies make rules

Opposition says:

Article 2, Section 1: powers divided into three branches…no persons exercised with one, shall exercise those of another…”

Article 3, Section 1: Legislative power…Enactment clause… Be it enacted by the legislature…”

Article 3, Section 14: Bills may originate in either house…bills raising revenue in the house…”

Article 3, Section 15: no law to be passed except by Bill, read on three several days

Article 4, Section 1: “… Perform such duties as prescribed by this constitution and by law…” (By the legislature)

There is no power stated in Article 4 that states that agencies have lawmaking power or that these laws apply to the people.

HJR5 is an admission by the legislature that the executive agencies are abusive in their perceived authority.

Do “administrative rules” apply to any law that applies to the citizens or only to the administration that creates them?

In the 1960’s there was no such rule making power, what necessitated it?

Why would governor support a bill that strips him from his authority?

Executive branch can’t constitutionally make law, the Legislature does

Executive branch is making law through rule making

Executive branch has exceeded the maximum number under the constitution

The legislature has done nothing to rein in the number over 20

The legislature has done nothing to control the rule making power

How can the legislature create an agency but not control its abuses?

Administrative policy is not law, as it does not lawfully apply to the people, it applies to the administrative agency that creates it.

Rule-making power may be granted as necessary and proper but who should these rules apply to?

Executive agencies are to some degree controlled by the federal government, which is a violation of the separation of power between state and federal government

Executive branch agencies are writing rules that apply to the people as law, which is a violation of the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branch

Why would the legislature fear the courts striking down a statute and not a constitutional amendment especially since neither the courts or the legislature either care or understand the purpose or the text of the Constitution anyway much less anything related to jurisdiction, the separation of powers or checks and balances? And if a court were to rule against the law or amendment, what enforcement mechanism do they have to enforce it if the legislature Checks the judiciary?

The legislature doesn’t read all the bills before they pass anyway, much less read those three times and or suspend the rules?

The legislature continually shirks its duty and fails to stand exercising their full authority anyway where these laws and rules created by collective organizations somehow even apply to the people without an enactment clause, passed as a rule like common core?

Even is these rules are passed with an enactment clause, how can they be law, affecting the people when they did not originate from the legislature and were created by another branch? Can the Judiciary make law too?

They say they are using HJR5 to restrain federal agencies “like the control of surface water?” If the state lawfully passed a constitutional amendment declaring marriage between a man and a woman, if I remember correctly, the state peacocks threatening a lawsuit against the very agency that was guilty of the overreach of power and overthrew or nullified the states amendment?

How then will an amendment, protect the state from federal overreach when the basic understanding of our state government is that we are inferior to the federal government?

What can we tell by those in support of anything? National Association of Legislatures supports this? If we are remotely interested in being constitutional (be serious) How is this agency constitutional and how much pull and control should a collective association or agency have as the bill will most likely benefit the agencies or corporations at the expense of the citizen?

Governor Otter and Brad little support it then flips? What’s that tell you when they allowed federal overreach giving us common core and Obamacare, gay marriage and Muslim refugees etc. then stating he was going to challenge federal overreach in a federal court? Sounds like the state is subservient? Didn’t the court attempt to nullify a lawfully created state constitutional amendment and the star cowered like a slave to its master?

Today, we can always find the truth by following the money since evidence of the governorship, for example, appears so focused, not on maintaining liberty as an elected governor of the state but consumed with job creation like somehow it’s his job as a corporate executive to bring jobs here to Idaho on taxpayer subsidies and making what would appear to be treaties with foreign countries that I believe the job was lawfully delegated to congress.

How are words of HJR5 to replace the mechanism of citizen accountability when the state adheres so loosely to not only the GOP platform but the state and federal constitution? If they feel that adherence to these documents is not necessary is it any wonder why we’re in the shape we are in as a state or nation?

I was told in the last GOP convention that their biggest frustration is that “constitutionalists” believe those that take an oath or say they have a platform should stick to it, when they believed it was just a loose basic guideline that can be contorted at will. Is this why the GOP wouldn’t realize if the party were hijacked by Marxists or other subversive elements? How could they possibly?

In speaking with the bill creator of this bill, he stated to me that this had nothing to do with NGO’s. When I received my first flyer, it didn’t have supporters listed except for the Idaho GOP. When I called Wayne Hoffman, asking him who supports this” His answer to me was “what does the flyer say?” When I told him all it said was Idaho GOP, he said “there ya go.” Interestingly enough when I received another well done and expensive flyer, it appears my suspictions were confirmed and the “partial list” of NGO’s was clearly placed on the lower left hand corner of the flyer. How are these NGO”s not any part of this when they endorsed it?

Who was listed?

Idaho Farm Bureau, Food Producers of Idaho, Idaho Chamber Alliance, Idaho Forest Group, Idaho Land Fund, Idaho Potato Industry PAC, Idaho Dairymen’s Association, Freedom Foundation, Idaho Republican Party, Idaho Young Republicans, Idaho Association of Realtors, National Federation of Independent Businesses, Idaho Milk Producers Association, Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry (IACI), Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Idaho Building Contractors Association, Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce etc. (end partial list)

It is evident that FARM BUREAU, for example, an NGO, is lobbying and printing material in support of HJR5 as I was handed a flyer to confirm that fact. My first question is what power and authority should any collective organization have over an individual’s concern and could not that collective, with its bargaining power and money, strip that power from the individuals that oppose what they support? Shall we as state citizens also support giving up state and national sovereignty in support of TPP/TTIP that apparently through an article in Ag weekly Farm Bureau supports?

Is anyone asking the motivation for such a dangerous move or are they attempting to bamboozle people either because they may be misled of that they desire to fulfill some agenda that somehow slipped under the radar?

What constitutional power should associations of legislators or groups like farm bureau have that are collective unions against the individual vote of the citizens? And what if these collective organizations so focused on profit are unaware of unintended consequences that could equate to the obliteration of state sovereignty?

It’s like courts, the congress has the authority to rein in its control but won’t because they now use judicial indefference where they play “circle jerk” with the citizens, a political “hot potato” if you will. Simply stated if the legislature sees delegated power abused why the hell do they need words on paper when the enforcement mechanism isn’t words, that enforcement mechanism is knowledge and action!

Politicians #1 desire is to get re-elected, if citizen or the lobby has a problem, the legislator bears the consequence.

 

Why oppose HJR5?

If the legislature can create an agency, it can surely UN-create it or control its authority without HJR5

It will expend government and enshrine these agencies into the constitution

It will constitutionalize executive branch bureaucracies to create administrative rules that apply to the people as law, rather than to create administrative policies that apply only to the agencies.

It will constitutionalize all of the agencies beyond the maximum allowed 20 specified in the state constitution and allow them all to make rules that apply to the people as law.

It will constitutionalize the ability for the federal government to continue to influence these agencies forcing regulations as law on the people

 

Solution?

The legislature has the lawful power and authority to create or abolish these agencies by law.

If the legislature realizes that these agencies are abusing their authority, the legislature has the power, it just needs to use it.

​Return agencies to maximum allowable agencies of 20

​Restrict their rule making power to only the agencies that create them.

​Restrict federal involvement from within those agencies.

​Restrict any outside influence by corporations, NGO’s or their lobby

​Return the whole power to legislate to the legislature.

 

HJR5 updated bullet points…

24 October 2016
Comments Off on HJR5 updated bullet points…

HJR5 Bullet pointsBill Text:

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES – Proposing an amendment to Article III of the Constitution of the State of Idaho by the addition of a new Section 29 to provide that the Legislature may review, approve or reject any administrative rule to ensure it is consistent with legislative intent and to provide that legislative approval or rejection of a rule is not subject to gubernatorial veto.

Facts or stated beliefs:

Legislature creates executive branch agencies

Legislature grants rulemaking power to the executive branch

IDAPA rules are created by the executive branch (agencies)

What happened before IDAPA? Agencies could create rules without legislative oversight-no way to see rules created by agencies.

No legislative authority to correct the Administrative procedures act.

Legislature can’t wipe out executive agencies or it violates the separation of powers?

Administrative procedures act covers ability to reject rules and is a cumbersome process.

Legislature writes statutes, executive writes rules- stated to be balance of power (example: EPA writes rules, congress can review rules and executive branch can say no.)

Health Authorities (hybrid H&W, appointed by commissioners) Sued executive agencies in 1990

Rules by the box full are all approved to circumvent the conflict of presentments that deal with the altering of the power or abolition of the agency, presentments being a cumbersome process.

Admittedly, the executive branch is de facto law making, which isn’t law

“Faithful execution” of the laws is apparently something more than signing or rejecting the proposed laws but the ability to make rules?

Example or bureaucratic complication: ITD. Board members appointed by governor, originally3 person board, the governor doesn’t appoint the Director, the board does. Now a 7 member board, each violates the law, they think the people in the district are their constituents but the board doesn’t run the agency, they hire the director and he runs it! People think administrative rules are law when it is only an administrative jurisdiction

Supporters say:

Article 4, section 20 defines executive agencies

HJR5 will give the legislature oversight and the ability to edit, alter or overturn rules created by the Executive branch agencies.

This law is currently in statute but they want to add it as an amendment so the law cannot be struck down by the courts?

Rules have force and effect of law

The passage of this resolution will restore the power to the legislature.

Attorney General Wasden does not support it because his deputies make rules

Opposition says:

Article 2, Section 1: powers divided into three branches…no persons exercised with one, shall exercise those of another…”

Article 3, Section 1: Legislative power…Enactment clause… Be it enacted by the legislature…”

Article 3, Section 14: Bills may originate in either house…bills raising revenue in the house…”

Article 3, Section 15: no law to be passed except by Bill, read on three several days

Article 4, Section 1: “… Perform such duties as prescribed by this constitution and by law…” (By the legislature)

There is no power stated in Article 4 that states that agencies have lawmaking power or that these laws apply to the people.

HJR5 is an admission by the legislature that the executive agencies are abusive in their perceived authority.

Do “administrative rules” apply to any law that applies to the citizens or only to the administration that creates them?

In the 1960’s there was no such rule making power, what necessitated it?

Why would governor support a bill that strips him from his authority?

Executive branch can’t constitutionally make law, the Legislature does

Executive branch is making law through rule making

Executive branch has exceeded the maximum number under the constitution

The legislature has done nothing to rein in the number over 20

The legislature has done nothing to control the rule making power

How can the legislature create an agency but not control its abuses?

Administrative policy is not law, as it does not lawfully apply to the people, it applies to the administrative agency that creates it.

Rule-making power may be granted as necessary and proper but who should these rules apply to?

Executive agencies are to some degree controlled by the federal government, which is a violation of the separation of power between state and federal government

Executive branch agencies are writing rules that apply to the people as law, which is a violation of the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branch

Why would the legislature fear the courts striking down a statute and not a constitutional amendment especially since neither the courts or the legislature either care or understand the purpose or the text of the Constitution anyway much less anything related to jurisdiction, the separation of powers or checks and balances? And if a court were to rule against the law or amendment, what enforcement mechanism do they have to enforce it if the legislature Checks the judiciary?

The legislature doesn’t read all the bills before they pass anyway, much less read those three times and or suspend the rules?

The legislature continually shirks its duty and fails to stand exercising their full authority anyway where these laws and rules created by collective organizations somehow even apply to the people without an enactment clause, passed as a rule like common core?

They say they are using HJR5 to restrain federal agencies “like the control of surface water?” If the state lawfully passed a constitutional amendment declaring marriage between a man and a woman, if I remember correctly, the state peacocks threatening a lawsuit against the very agency that was guilty of the overreach of power and overthrew or nullified the states amendment?

How then will an amendment, protect the state from federal overreach when the basic understanding of our state government is that we are inferior to the federal government?

What can we tell by those in support of anything? National Association of Legislatures supports this? If we are remotely interested in being constitutional (be serious) How is this agency constitutional and how much pull and control should a collective association or agency have as the bill will most likely benefit the agencies or corporations at the expense of the citizen?

Governor Otter and Brad little support it? What’s that tell you when they allowed federal overreach giving us common core and Obamacare, gay marriage and Muslim refugees etc. then stating he was going to challenge federal overreach in a federal court? Sounds like the state is subservient? Didn’t the court attempt to nullify a lawfully created state constitutional amendment and the star cowered like a slave to its master?

Today, we can always find the truth by following the money since evidence of the governorship, for example, appears so focused, not on maintaining liberty as an elected governor of the state but consumed with job creation like somehow it’s his job as a corporate executive to bring jobs here to Idaho on taxpayer subsidies and making what would appear to be treaties with foreign countries that I believe the job was lawfully delegated to congress.

How are words of HJR5 to replace the mechanism of citizen accountability when the state adheres so loosely to not only the GOP platform but the state and federal constitution? If they feel that adherence to these documents is not necessary is it any wonder why we’re in the shape we are in as a state or nation?

I was told in the last GOP convention that their biggest frustration is that “constitutionalists” believe those that take an oath or say they have a platform should stick to it, when they believed it was just a loose basic guideline that can be contorted at will. Is this why the GOP wouldn’t realize if the party were hijacked by Marxists or other subversive elements? How could they possibly?

It is evident that FARM BUREAU, an NGO, is lobbying and printing material in support of HJR5 as I was handed a flyer to confirm that fact. My first question is what power and authority should a collective organization have over an individual’s concern and could not that collective, with its bargaining power and money, strip that power from the individuals that oppose what they support? Shall we as state citizens also support giving up state and national sovereignty in support of TPP/TTIP that apparently through an article in Ag weekly Farm Bureau supports?

Is anyone asking the motivation for such a dangerous move or are they attempting to bamboozle people either because they may be misled of that they desire to fulfill some agenda that somehow slipped under the radar?

What constitutional power should associations of legislators or groups like farm bureau have that are collective unions against the individual vote of the citizens? And what if these collective organizations so focused on profit are unaware of unintended consequences that could equate to the obliteration of state sovereignty?

It’s like courts, the congress has the authority to rein in its control but won’t because they now use judicial indefference where they play “circle jerk” with the citizens, a political “hot potato” if you will. Simply stated if the legislature sees delegated power abused why the hell do they need words on paper when the enforcement mechanism isn’t words, that enforcement mechanism is knowledge and action!

Politicians #1 desire is to get re-elected, if citizen or the lobby has a problem, the legislator bears the consequence.

 

Why oppose HJR5?

If the legislature can create an agency, it can surely UN-create it or control its authority without HJR5

It will expend government and enshrine these agencies into the constitution

It will constitutionalize executive branch bureaucracies to create administrative rules that apply to the people as law, rather than to create administrative policies that apply only to the agencies.

It will constitutionalize all of the agencies beyond the maximum allowed 20 specified in the state constitution and allow them all to make rules that apply to the people as law.

It will constitutionalize the ability for the federal government to continue to influence these agencies forcing regulations as law on the people

 

Solution?

The legislature has the lawful power and authority to create or abolish these agencies by law.

If the legislature realizes that these agencies are abusing their authority, the legislature has the power, it just needs to use it.

               Return agencies to maximum allowable agencies of 20

               Restrict their rule making power to only the agencies that create them.

               Restrict federal involvement from within those agencies.

               Restrict any outside influence by corporations, NGO’s or their lobby

               Return the whole power to legislate to the legislature.

 

Tom Munds

208-861-6405

Tom on “Patriotism”

21 October 2016
Comments Off on Tom on “Patriotism”

“Patriotism” is not the hatred of government, it is the ability to remain vigilant and constantly educated, while attempting to educate and encourage others to do the same with the goal of holding the government accountable to its authorized few and defined powers. 
It is however, not the governments fault when they expand their power and authority gradually as the people remain ignorant, apathetic and do nothing to prevent it. More succinctly, I believe Franklin said it best, “a republic ma’am, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT! 
To keep something is to take ownership, to be jealous guardian and keep constant eye with fear of loss. If we play a game of football and you have the ball, part of your job is to KEEP THE BALL until you decide to part with it, guarding that ball with all you have so that it is not taken from you. Should you possess the ball and not concern yourself with keeping it or are unaware of the opponent trying to take it, you will lose it, in this way, I view “patriotism” like football. 

So, all of you that spend more time watching football, than preventing your country from going to hell, it’s time to view and guard that freedom like it was your pigskin.

Crapo in a moment of moral high ground?

8 October 2016
Comments Off on Crapo in a moment of moral high ground?

Are you serious? We all knew this country was soft and in trouble and this, to me proves there is an orchestrated coup not only on America but the entire political process itself to maintain establishment globalist control, apparently even in Utah and Idaho. These people all act like there is some moral fabric left in this rotting corpse of freedom and haven’t realized that their utopian altruisms may have worked decades ago but not anymore.
What I find clearly disturbing that exposes it to me is that while they are so quick to condemn Trump, they not only judge without finding themselves blameless, they fail to state a replacement option aside from a complete disruption of the political process?
So, what, now because of comments made about women Its now either paving the way for a lying murderer to take her rightful place as America’s Satan incarnate or throw out the process in favor of another globalist neocon?

America is on the fast track to hell and for the first time in my life, I feel like this is blatant proof that government elected officials are working for the globalists in concert and Crapo, a man I have pretty well respected I now question.

We are going to hell, make no mistake, and soft easily offended altruists and social justice warriors and feminists are making sure we get there towing the globalist agenda on one hand while claiming Neocon globalists will restore freedom?

Dear God, we deserve everything we get, please have mercy.
http://www.idahopress.com/ap/politics/the-latest-gop-sen-crapo-calls-on-trump-to-quit/article_bc09aa25-b49c-5fd1-9ea7-a949d6b54e0c.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=user-share

Response to AG Lawrence Wasden’s “No on HJR5”

8 October 2016
Comments Off on Response to AG Lawrence Wasden’s “No on HJR5”

Isn’ t it amazing that so many today that claim the constitution is the law of the land only use it when they seem to have an agena and twist and continuslly contort its meaning and somehow they forget that a document designed to hold government to few and defined powers, to maximize freedom of the people has for decades been used to abuse those same rights reversing that intent?
As I stated in my original opposition piece, we also cannot forget the establishment control of not only the IDAHO’s majority party but how we have gradually slide left with that party maintaining monopilistiic control over the state as it touts the need for continued republicanism at every election.

Whats more evident of such control is the inability for the constitutional element (liberty grass roots activist element) to even have a say in any central committee anywhere in the state. I view these as a form of monopolistic totalitarian control, rude, and divisive to liberty and consistent with the balkanization if our country.

I also mentioned my disappiintment about how the establishment GOP appears to have extreme disregard and even expresses verbal vitriol for those, like me that want our freedom back as the GOP seems to be clueless on the true state if the nation, instead spouting its continual GOP rhetoric like somehow voting GOP one more time will give people back their freedom- it sounds Machiavellian to me.

So, I as I have been waiting for Wasden’s opinion on HJR5, I must admit, once I saw it, I felt vindicated and humbled in my position in that he and I were in agreement on HJR5 but until I read it, maybe not so much And here is why:

Wasden: Idaho voters properly rejected the Legislature’s attempt to permanently invade Executive discretion and prohibit judicial oversight of the relationship between the Executive and Legislative branches of government within rulemaking. 

Me: I’m a bit disturbed that an opinion stated the people voted properly or not as it seems a bit authoritarian. He is, afterall the AG for the state but isn’t a vote by the people still the vote by the people and if they voted improperly, wouldnt that cause government to tell the people how to vote which is what we are essentially faced with now and have been for decades?

Furthermore, he mentions that the people correctly prohibited, what I call judicial review but why is this correct when we appear to have a government based in the judiciary and somehow judicial review is hailed over the land by our supreme court as law?

I have always had issues with our state constitution, admittedly because we dont appear to have documentation in its proper context like we do with the federal contitution, so few really understand its proper context. 

My question here is why does the executive branch get to create 20, and only 20 executive agencies, why not 38 or 42? Isn’t it arbitrary?

Furthermore, what makes people think just because the state constitution allows for the creation of these agencies that these agencies can create rules and determine their usage that somehow apply to the people since these are clearly administrative agencies considering the protection from usurpations of power were in the hands of the people preventing a form of dictatorship. In other words, could it be that the creation of executive administrative agencies rulemaking power was only to apply to the executive agencies themselves and not applicable to the people? This would certainly be a check on the overreach of the executive were the agencies nor their rules would apply to the people and makes more sense constitutionally as it pertains to protecting the peoples liberties. 

Another thing to consider in speaking of separation of powers is how the state thinks its ok to create “executive administrative agencies” one one hand while they are under federal guidelines like the EPA that use those mandates against the citizens that violate their liberties? Is this not a violation if separation if powers in more than one instance?

Wasden: HJR 5 ignores the will of the people as expressed just two years ago. 

Me: This concerns me in that votes come up are in case people want change either because they were ignorant and realize they made a mistake, they found a hidden agenda or realize they may have been duped by the government that sold them out. Then if course there is that issue if the people voting a king because they were pronised manna from heaven. Rarely today do we see the government acting in the interest of the people constitutionally and more the rule is to either bow to the feds of special interests. My question is why and now would government appeal to the people that something is good for them? They always have so what makes us think we wont lose here too?

Wasden: HJR 5 also permanently encourages lobbyists to influence Idaho’s policymakers at virtually every level of state government.

Me: I concur wholeheartedly

Wasden: At its most basic level, HJR 5 reflects Legislative contempt for the will of the voters. 

Me: I see HJR5 as a form of contempt for sure but I also see what I believe to be the breach of separation if powers in that the not only the creation of these agencies but as they appear not to apply to the executive at all, just us. Where is a check on such power then if not in the hands if the legislature? Furthermore, ask your government why the executuve that hasthe state authority to create agencies creates them to be controlled, to varying degrees by the feds?

Wasden: The primary reason for resubmitting this constitutional amendment is that “the voters didn’t know what they were doing and voters need to be educated better.” In essence, the proponents of the amendment are claiming that they know better than Idaho voters what Idaho voters want. 

Me: This part disturbs me because governments have always acted this way and now somehow they care about our constitution and protection of our liberty? Is that why the establishment GOP control for decades has slid us left every session? I am reminded in this statement about the states legislature allowing for local school boards to have 4 bond elections a year andapparently that passed as a law so when we say no, we somehow really didn’t mean it? Where was our AG, judiciary, executive or legislature then? Im sure this isnt the only instance.

Wasden: The proposed amendment will remove the ability of the Judiciary to evaluate Legislative delegations of authority to the Executive branch and install the Legislature as the final say on Executive exercise of authority this proposed amendment will allow the Legislature to permanently invade the discretion of the Executive branch and second-guess many policy decisions by substituting the Legislature’s judgment for that of the Executive branch. This permanent legislative take-over of powers,

Me: First of all, I see the power grab not so much in the hands of the legislature because the legislature is the ONLY branch of government to make law, applying to the people, I see the power grab retained in the executive as somehow their rule making ability affects people with apparent full force if law, notonly state law but in accordance with federal law, which, if true is a blatant violation of the separation of powers. Additionally, why are we to believe the executive can create agencies that create rules that apply to the people with full force and effect of law and not bound only within the executive branch? In my view, the proper law making authority and rules outlining those laws are part of the law making process and best left in tge hands if the legislature. The rights of the people are and have always been within the branch that makes the law. We all know that any attempt to make law via an executive authority is an eventual recipe for tyranny.

Wasden: under HJR 5, lobbyist influence will increase within Idaho’s government. The current system insulates much of Executive rulemaking from lobbyist influence based on the notice and hearing process by which rules must be adopted. But that process is disrupted through lobbyist encouraged Legislative interference. Recognizing that the Executive agencies often make rules based upon cultivated expertise within their respective areas designed to administer a collective benefit, there will always be individuals unhappy with that process. Lobbyists with decreased influence within Executive branch agencies will flex their muscle within the Legislative branch to overturn negotiated, publicly driven rulemaking processes in order to advance narrow paid for agendas. This is an existing weakness within the current regime and should not be placed permanently within Idaho’s constitution. HJR 5 will permanently allow well-heeled individual interests to overturn the open negotiated process of rulemaking by hiring a lobbyist, who can then influence the Legislature to reject rules based on narrow lobbied interests. HJR 5 will permanently substitute the influence of lobbyists for the will of the people and should be rejected.

Me: I conur in every detail relating to the influence of lobbyist control and as i see it, if lobbyists are a lawful entity, protecting their interests, the people have a right to the same but, known to all seemingly abusive and are ignored and denied repeatedly . 

One final thing to consider here is that our constitution was written to protect and preserve individual rights as a people, not collectively by the corporations with the most money. 

Comments and teachable moments are welcome.

In Liberty, without any hidden agenda,

Tom Munds

Next Page »