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

Canyon County Jail: Expansion or new… or something else?

12 September 2016
Comments Off on Canyon County Jail: Expansion or new… or something else?

 

 

I have some grave concerns about this jail issue and hope that if I took the time to share a few of them with you, it may matter. If you are taking the time to read and share it, I appreciate it.

 

First of all, most people that oppose things related to government expansion are simply because they are no longer trusted and to be honest, in a country that was created to protect life, liberty and property, it should be obvious to anyone that they do everything else but what they were created to do.

 

Second, all that is necessary in most cases to know whether we should support or oppose an issue, because we have been so active in understanding most agenda’s, is to see who supports it and who doesn’t, with “facts” being secondary, not primary because those whom we no longer trust lie for their own benefit at the expense of ours and in many cases we know who they are and what position they will take without them even stating it. With this understanding one could logically conclude that any expansion of any incarceration facility can and may be used to house dissenters exposing those corrupt reasoning’s that propel spend tax dollars. How would it feel to not be trusted in a position of “public trust?”

 

A few questions of many I have are:

 

What are the HONEST reasons people either support the expansion or a new jail? And what is the intelligence level of those in support and what is their knowledge of the proper application of law? Most that oppose either option, aren’t because they support the other option, they just know there are ulterior motives. I’m asking what they are?

 

What are the options on the table? One, two, three, four? How many? Are our only “choices” between Jail expansion and a new jail, and both that come at an outrageous expense? Are their not less expensive and more efficient options or has government decided to give those that fund it, only two?

 

What is the primary motivation for each side or each option?

 

Why the hell is Steve Rule so hell bent on a jail, does he want this to be his legacy? He has worked on this for years and from all I hear, is what he talks about mostly. This is however not a personal attack, so please don’t take it that way.

 

What are the benefits and detriments on each option?

 

Is anyone employed by government, that’s existence is solely dependent on the tax payer along with health and retirement benefits asking how much money the tax payer gets to keep as their retirements and savings go to the growth of government and could such a jail expansion used to house those that have decided enough is enough as tax payers try to keep something for themselves?

 

What is the percentage of maximum occupancy and what is the breakdown of the reasons for their incarceration? It is not secret that America, the land of the FREE and home of the brave has the highest incarceration rate in the world, is anyone asking why that is and is anyone looking for a solution to the problem without building upon that problem? The significant rise in incarceration means an increase in the burden upon the tax payer and one for the economy as well. Does it make economic sense to consider this as even a remote solution? It seems like the answer to those without solutions but they lack the vision of long term unintended consequences.

 

Today, in America, we have more laws than ever, we have more city ordinances and rules and administrative policies that not only complicate a system but make it to where anyone anywhere must question how many such impositions on them have they violated each day? Are we realizing that more laws do not equate to a more peaceful society? Are we not seeing that recidivism rates are high indicating that the current system as it is now doesn’t work?

 

How much more tax dollars will go to more that just the expansion, the building or maintenance and how much more will each prisoner get at our expense than they had before? Steak and lobster? TV? How much will be spent in rehab programs that few even realize have, in my understanding, little to no effect on the reduction of such incarceration rates?

 

Has anyone ever thought about why most people think they need to be incarcerated? What about pro-active solutions like re-instilling civics class in schools, empowering people to understand their civic duty and what about the re-establishment of our moral foundation of Scriptures? Why is it that a prisoner may have a Bible , after the fact, but a child is practically banned from having one in school before they offend?

 

Why are jails and prisons called corrections facilities for adults but detention centers for children? What part of government feels it has the lawful authority to correct behavior, when throughout history governments have always been the problem in the collapse of nations as they support and defend immorality and corruption that collapse them? Has anyone ever realized the history of mind control in totalitarian nations and once government can manipulate behavior it controls the people and what about the increased use of mind control drugs. Apparently, few have ever heard of Operation Paperclip for example that gave safe passage for Nazi doctors that were grafted into our government and pharmaceutical industry?

 

And finally, does anyone reading this have one remote concept of the principles of Liberty and the standard of the constitution and its principles as many of them had sworn their solemn oath?

 

I have grave concerns about the jail expansion and new jail both as poor options when there are a multitude of other options available. I am confident that if this went to vote by the ignorant electorate, you would have no problem hanging another burden on the tax payer for two reasons: one because they are truly ignorant and the other, people love to spend other people’s money.

 

If I seem disturbed by this jail issue, you are correct in that understanding because if someday I fail to pay the taxes on my home that I have ”owned” since I built it, and have spent years investing in it as a morally financially responsible Person, and any attempt to take my home is attempted, In the defense of my life, liberty and property, I could end up there defending what government was created to defend that now thinks it doesn’t have to.

 

For what it is worth, these are my thoughts,

 

Sincerely,

 

Tom Munds

Public schools and mandated “community service”

9 September 2016
Comments Off on Public schools and mandated “community service”

QUESTION for my smart friends! (no comments from the peanut gallery ( Oh, I dont have any of those!) LOL!

Middleton High School ( in all its glory!) has a mandated requirement of all students prior to graduation to have a certain amount of “community service” before they graduate.

My first question is if it is mandatory, did the pre-grads somehow commit a crime warranting the government to fulfill its mandate in lieu of incarceration?

If it is not voluntary, from the heart, as like a church or political event, how can this be lawfully mandated?

I did a simple Google search and found something fun that actually makes my point quite nicely. Check this out!

“community service”
noun, Law.
1. a punitive sentence that requires a convicted person to perform unpaid work for the community in lieu of imprisonment.

noun

2. voluntary work, intended to be for the common good, usually done as part of an organized scheme

RE: Idaho’s HJR5- Tom’s attempt at simplification through questioning:

2 September 2016
Comments Off on RE: Idaho’s HJR5- Tom’s attempt at simplification through questioning:

 Tom’s perspective on Idaho’s HJR5: (And to no surprise, long winded) 
This post is one that was written to simplify a post that was written on this topic previous to this one. It was shorter and in more of a bullet point format but I had a few readers ask me to explain my position more clearly as it was confusing.  
I have been told that many times less is more but what I realized when I was first reading things like this, is if the same thing was written in a variety of different ways, although looking at the length of this would seem overwhelming, the topic I discuss may, by the time you finish it be made more clear. 
HJR5 a few thoughts…
Apparently this resolution has been around the Idaho legislature for a few years now and true to form, it appears to be written to baffle the common man written in what some call corporate legalese, to give the appearance that it is good for the people but also true to form again, we know that few bills are, as we are finally waking up to the overwhelming corruption in every branch and every level of government.
With this in mind, I decided to take a whack at what I see knowing what I know not only about the abuse of the people by the federal government but locally as well as the lining pockets seems to trump liberty and from my perspective, Idaho is no different with the exception that we valiantly echo repeated falsehoods that “we are the most conservative state in the union” like it somehow means we are conservative, which when asked,no one can seem to cogently define the term.
That all being said, this is what I gathered from my attendance at a county central somewhere in the state where attorneys, businessmen, corporate lobby and both Neocons in the party attend with the despised “constitutionalists.”
HJR5 Verbal Stated purpose;
The passage of HJR5 will give the legislature authority to review or deny rules created by Non governmental agencies (NGO’s.) 
This law is currently in statute but they want to add it as an amendment so the law can not be struck down by the courts?
The passage of this resolution will restore the power to the legislature.

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

The legislature has always had the power to review, edit or deny the rules as it is part of the law making process. Why would the legislature write and pass bills without writing the scope of what the law was for and how it was to be applied?
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 Constituion 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?
How would the creation of an amendment restore control they have always had? And if it was delegated, does not the legislature have the authority to take it back?
In addition, The legislature doesn’t read all the bills before they pass anyway, much less read them three times.
 The legislature admits they don’t pay attention to detail and now they are going to have time to review rules?
Doesn’t the legislature have the authority to review AND APPROVE OR DENY rules as part of law making power?
Is there a constitutional provision to allow corporate lobby or NGO’S to make law and rules are part of that process?
Why doesn’t the legislature exercise its authority in law making including rule making?
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?
“Rules have more effect than the statute?” Rep. Janet Trujillo. What did she mean by this and what sort of constitutional record does she have and will that record reveal her motivation for support of such resolution? If not, shall we look at the interest of others involved and their connections?
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?
Supporters of HJR5 said AG Wasden opposes HJR5 in recent land board meeting citing legislative overreach?

Is Wasden saying that the legislature does not have the lawful authority to frame the rules surrounding that law and that corporations or NGO’s lawfully have that power? I wouldn’t state my claim on what he says until I got an explanation directly from him on this issue.
Supporters say HJR5 was upheld by Supreme Court? What message does that and should that send when more than half, or many of our state are either ignorant of the constitution of have little to no interest in properly applying it?
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?
One man questioning my view stated

He didn’t see the passage of HJR5 as a problem. One question I have is how redundant should laws, rules, policy and amendments and constitutional provisions be and would this not further complicate the law in addition to the expense of debating it and codifying it when it’s already part of the law making process? Let’s not forget mans nature to define and redefine the law over time to change its meaning for the benefit of whom lines their pockets. Would more comprehensive laws aid that process or distort it?
Another asked me, “If they’re already in the habit of delegating the rule-making stuff, I’d prefer that our elected officials at least review it rather than not.Kind of a good better best thing.Best is to have the legislature write all the rules 

Better is to have them delegate it, but still oversee rules. Worst is to have them delegate rule-making and then have no say…”
In my view, This is a pragmatic, defeatist, subservient and less than ideal position considering our liberty is at stake with the passage of every law, rule and policy whether they are lawfully applied or not. It presumes that we can’t do anything about it anyway and we might as well do what we can to preserve what Liberty we can left, knowing we lose freedoms with every bill and every law passed. 
The answer is not more law, more rules, delegating rules then creating more red tape and expanding government in an effort to create oversight over that expansion in government, it is to become educated in our fundamental principles of Liberty, the understand why constitutions were written, to become and maintain our education and apply what we learn to maintain those principles and to stand when necessary when something appears to be in question. 
It is to then hold our elected officials accountable to those limitations of their power and authority and keep them within their perspective jurisdictions so that no expansion of government is possible nor the ability for government to delegate authority that doesn’t have lawful authority to do and to hold them to the written letter of the law in which the spirit of it rested and remember more than anything else, if contained or if controlled by forces led by profit in the hands of the few, will surely, as history has shown, will end in some form of despotism with the citizens funding not only the profits of the corporations but their own enslavement.
My point though is words themselves aren’t oversight and are not an enforcement mechanism, knowledge and action are!
 If people want to take back the control of our legislature, the wording is already there. All they need to do is do it! No court cases, no exhaustive drain on the tax payer, they just strip the power from the NGO’s they gave it to! 
I wonder if we have asked why the legislature in support of HJR5 aren’t reining in that abused delegated control since the creation of this bill clearly shows the concern for the abuse of power? 
The easy way isn’t to create more bureaucratic oversight on those that abuse the power , it is to strip them of it! Period! If they have given unconstitutional power to an unconstitutional entity and now they want a constitutional amendment that forever cemented NGO’s to remain in rule making authority what sense does that make as it related to our liberty?

Is it possible that, that is the motivation right there?
From my position with knowledge of a multitude of perspectives, this would connect the dots understanding the implementation of Agenda 21 and would also confirm the plan outlined in Patrick Woods’ book “Technocracy rising” which I strongly urge all of you “Technates”(as opposed to citizens in a free state) to read that exposed the plan to move away from our constitution and be run instead fully by Non Governmental Agencies (NGO) like the radical environmentalists used by the United Nations (UN) to implant and finalize its agenda. 

SOLUTION:

The power, and purpose of government is defined in our state and federal constitutions that, codified the spirit in which these provisions should be applied, meaning that the words on paper, motivated by the spirit of them clearly outline the way in which government was to run. 
By the existing constitutional requirement of the Idaho constitution instead of suspending it routinely, Art.3 sec.15 which requires the reading in full all bills 3 times on 3 separate days on the floor of each house before a vote can be take. Would it not be clear to anyone that any written law should have rules to that law prior to its enactment into law and done by people that are affected by it rather than those that are immune from it?
It is well known that the legislature suspends the reading of the bills. So what is to keep them from suspending any other clause of the constitution or redefine its meaning since loose adherence or being used as general guidelines is all that is necessary? They don’t even adhere to their own bylaws in their own state convention!
My point here is, does the legislature have the authority to delegate rule making and if so, to whom and why and if rule making is abused why does the legislature not rescind that power if it were constitutionally delegated?
 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!
The sad part of it all is that laws like this are becoming the rule rather than the exception and I fear,like u do with most bills that they will have catastrophic unintended consequences, one like this would be the push for an Article 5 convention to rein in an out of control federal government as somehow words will leap off that page and force congress to obey itself. 
In a word, words have no enforcement mechanism and if they did, Idaho could save millions by abolishing our law enforcement!
Unless someone can change my mind and enlighten me on what I may be missing, I’m not only voting No on HJR5, I’m asking you to consider my thoughts before you vote.

For your convenience, the bill text is below. 

BILL TEXT:

The status of each bill, resolution, proclamation, and memorial is updated when the offices of the Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Clerk of the House publish the un-official daily journals and should not be deemed official. The official bill actions are located in the final journal, which are maintained by the offices of the Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Clerk of the House. The daily journals are published at the end of each legislative day.Full Bill Information
Individual Links:  

       Bill Text 

      Statement of Purpose / Fiscal Note
 HJR005 by STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE 
 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. 
   03/10 Introduced, read first time, referred to JRA for Printing   

 

   03/11 Reported Printed; Filed for Second Reading   

 

   03/14 Read second time; Filed for Third Reading   

 

   Rules Suspended: Ayes 65 Nays 0 Abs/Excd 5, read three times – ADOPTED – 62-3-5

AYES — Anderson, Anderst, Andrus, Barbieri, Batt, Beyeler, Boyle, Burtenshaw, Cheatham, Chew, Clow, Collins, Crane, Dayley, DeMordaunt, Dixon, Erpelding, Gannon, Gestrin, Gibbs, Harris, Hartgen, Hixon, Holtzclaw, Horman, Jordan(Memmott), Kauffman, Kerby, Kloc, Loertscher, Luker, Malek, McDonald, McMillan, Mendive, Miller, Monks, Moyle, Nate, Nielsen, Nye, Packer, Palmer, Pence, Perry, Raybould, Redman, Romrell, Rudolph, Rusche, Scott, Sims, Smith, Thompson, Troy, Trujillo, VanOrden, Vander Woude, Wintrow, Wood, Youngblood, Mr. Speaker

NAYS — King, McCrostie, Rubel

Absent — Bateman, Bell, Chaney, Shepherd, Wills

Floor Sponsor – Loertscher

Title apvd – to Senate   

 

   03/15 Received from the House passed; filed for first reading   

 

   Introduced, read first time; referred to: State Affairs   

 

   03/21 Reported out of Committee with Do Pass Recommendation; Filed for second reading   

 

   03/22 Read second time; filed for Third Reading   

 

   03/23 Retained on calendar   

 

   03/24 Read third time in full – ADOPTED – 34-1-0

AYES — Anthon, Bair, Bayer, Brackett, Rohn(Buckner-Webb), Burgoyne, Davis, Den Hartog, Guthrie, Hagedorn, Harris, Heider, Hill, Johnson, Jordan, Keough, Lacey, Lakey, Lee, Lodge, Martin, McKenzie, Mortimer, Nonini, Nuxoll, Patrick, Rice, Siddoway, Souza, Stennett, Thayn, Vick, Ward-Engelking, Winder

NAYS — Schmidt

Absent and excused — None

Floor Sponsor – McKenzie

Title apvd – to House   

 

   03/25 Returned from Senate Passed; to JRA for Enrolling   

 

   Reported Enrolled; Signed by Speaker; Transmitted to Senate   

 

   Received from the House enrolled/signed by Speaker   

 

   Signed by President; returned to House   

 

   Returned Signed by the President; Ordered Transmitted to Secretary of State   

 

   

I OPPOSE IDAHO’s HJR 5

1 September 2016
Comments Off on I OPPOSE IDAHO’s HJR 5

I OPPOSE Idaho’s HJR5
Verbal Stated purpose;
HJR5 legislature has authority to review or deny rules to strip power from NGO’s.
Objection: 
The legislature doesn’t read all the bills before they pass anyway, they admit they don’t pay attention to detail and now they are going to have time to review rules?
Doesn’t the legislature have the authority to review AND APPROVE IR DENY rules as part of law making power?
There is no constitutional provision to allow corporate lobby or NGO’S to make law and rules are part of that process.
Why doesn’t the legislature exercise its authority in law making including rule making?
The legislature continually shirks its duty and fails to stand exercising their full authority anyway
They are using HJR5 to restrain federal agencies like the control of surface water?
“Rules have more effect than the statute?” Rep. Janet Trujillo
National association of legislatures supports this? How is this agency constitutional?
Governor otter and Brad little support it? What’s that tell you when they allowed federal over each giving us common core and obamacare, then stating he was going to challenge federal overreach in a federal court? Sounds like the state is subservient?
Wasden opposes HJR5 in land board meeting citing legislative overreach. ((WHAT?) 
Upheld by supreme court. “Scotus won’t throw it out” ? They sure did with gay marriage! If SCOTUS did oppose it, the states would cave anyway. 
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.

FARM BUREAU, an NGO, is lobbying and printing material in support of HJR5. But they also support giving up state and national sovereignty in support of TPP/TTIP 
What constitutional power do associations of legislators or groups like farm bureau that are collective unions against the individual vote of the citizens?

BILL TEXT:
The status of each bill, resolution, proclamation, and memorial is updated when the offices of the Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Clerk of the House publish the un-official daily journals and should not be deemed official. The official bill actions are located in the final journal, which are maintained by the offices of the Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Clerk of the House. The daily journals are published at the end of each legislative day.Full Bill Information
Individual Links:  

       Bill Text 

      Statement of Purpose / Fiscal Note
 HJR005 by STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE 
 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. 
 
 

   03/10 Introduced, read first time, referred to JRA for Printing   

 

   03/11 Reported Printed; Filed for Second Reading   

 

   03/14 Read second time; Filed for Third Reading   

 

   Rules Suspended: Ayes 65 Nays 0 Abs/Excd 5, read three times – ADOPTED – 62-3-5

AYES — Anderson, Anderst, Andrus, Barbieri, Batt, Beyeler, Boyle, Burtenshaw, Cheatham, Chew, Clow, Collins, Crane, Dayley, DeMordaunt, Dixon, Erpelding, Gannon, Gestrin, Gibbs, Harris, Hartgen, Hixon, Holtzclaw, Horman, Jordan(Memmott), Kauffman, Kerby, Kloc, Loertscher, Luker, Malek, McDonald, McMillan, Mendive, Miller, Monks, Moyle, Nate, Nielsen, Nye, Packer, Palmer, Pence, Perry, Raybould, Redman, Romrell, Rudolph, Rusche, Scott, Sims, Smith, Thompson, Troy, Trujillo, VanOrden, Vander Woude, Wintrow, Wood, Youngblood, Mr. Speaker

NAYS — King, McCrostie, Rubel

Absent — Bateman, Bell, Chaney, Shepherd, Wills

Floor Sponsor – Loertscher

Title apvd – to Senate   

 

   03/15 Received from the House passed; filed for first reading   

 

   Introduced, read first time; referred to: State Affairs   

 

   03/21 Reported out of Committee with Do Pass Recommendation; Filed for second reading   

 

   03/22 Read second time; filed for Third Reading   

 

   03/23 Retained on calendar   

 

   03/24 Read third time in full – ADOPTED – 34-1-0

AYES — Anthon, Bair, Bayer, Brackett, Rohn(Buckner-Webb), Burgoyne, Davis, Den Hartog, Guthrie, Hagedorn, Harris, Heider, Hill, Johnson, Jordan, Keough, Lacey, Lakey, Lee, Lodge, Martin, McKenzie, Mortimer, Nonini, Nuxoll, Patrick, Rice, Siddoway, Souza, Stennett, Thayn, Vick, Ward-Engelking, Winder

NAYS — Schmidt

Absent and excused — None

Floor Sponsor – McKenzie

Title apvd – to House   

 

   03/25 Returned from Senate Passed; to JRA for Enrolling   

 

   Reported Enrolled; Signed by Speaker; Transmitted to Senate   

 

   Received from the House enrolled/signed by Speaker   

 

   Signed by President; returned to House   

 

   Returned Signed by the President; Ordered Transmitted to Secretary of State   

 

   

Bodysurfers code and The pursuit of Liberty

1 September 2016
Comments Off on Bodysurfers code and The pursuit of Liberty

When I travel, as I do often to the tune of 5,000 miles a month, I find I do a lot of thinking as I go through audio book after audio book on the founders, the constitution, liberty, tyranny, and the multitude of current events that plague our nation and as debilitating to those that understand the issues, I often ask myself what I can do for others that will help them in some small way. 
As I was traveling the other morning as I do almost every day, I thought I could find a way to share any glimpse of good news I can find related to the restoration of liberty and the monumental nature of what we face ahead.  
Now, as you all know, I’m not a motivational speaker, that I wish I were or some empowerment master that I also wish I was but my desire to encourage and empower still exists. If I can remember and sit still long enough I will do my best ever day to post something encouraging that I hope will empower you and leave you better off after you have visited than before you got here.
Today, I remembered how long ago how long it’s been since I was at the beach, Sandy Beach, Oahu, Hawai’i and the fun I had but I have never, until now realized what being there taught me about life.
Now I’m not sure how many of you have ever surfed or bodysurfed or been to Sandy beach but it is a lot like what we face.
Did you know that there are more necks and backs broken every year than any other beach in the world combined?
Did you know that the waves, no matter how large or small break in less than a foot of water?
Did you know that in that foot of water it could be sand or crushed coral depending on the conditions?
Did you know that being caught on a big day in the impact zone makes it almost impossible to either get out of the water or pass through the waves to deeper water?
Did you know that when you are in the water in inconsistent conditions the waves will vary greatly in size, with several that would force you to pray you make it through without being held under until you see the Light of God as Jesus descends to retrieve your spirit?
Did you know when you take off in a wave all of these variables are known to those that are regulars in the water?
Did you know that those that are not regulars or have never been don’t know what we know?
Did you know that it is an unspoken rule to look out for those that need looking after?
It is my present existence as I stand with many of you that whether you surf or not these things apply.
I guess my point is, we are the regulars, we know what we’re up against and even understand there are some things we don’t yet know. We understand the dangers, the obstacles, the desire of self preservation leaving others behind but we as regulars, know we can’t. It is our code of conduct that we protect those that are not regulars as we are and I hope you will join me in my bodysurfing code and not leave anyone behind.
Today, there are more regulars than ever and rather than protecting the non regulars from the rip tide, they are presently drifting into the smashing waves against the reef taking us with them.
The choice is yours. Will you leave them in harms way or will you sacrifice yourself for another for the sake of Liberty risking any names or labels or no matter how hard they try to drown you to save themselves?

One small step, one small victory 

30 August 2016
Comments Off on One small step, one small victory 

VICTORIOUS!!! Ladies and gentlemen, in the wake and continual onslaught of abuses, as people not only become more fearful of government and the desire to hide is becoming greater than those willing to fight, it is my desire to share any success no matter how small or large to help empower my fellow Americans! Well I wanted to share a story with you that I hope empowers you like it has elevated me.
I got a call from a woman that lives in my community that was told to call me because apparently I have been known to fight for people, I think they referred to me as some sort of rabble rouser.
At any rate, this woman and her husband decided to get an exchange student this year on their own without any connection to any “for profit” corporation. They assumed that there would be no issue enrolling this child in the same school as their daughter but, to her she was met with frustrating resistance and felt up against the wall. At this point, the exchange student was told that they needed to go to a different school because they have maxed their limit on such students. In other words, the parents daughter and the exchange students although living in the same district were forced by the school to be divided, which seems to be counter to the point of the exchange program.
When we spoke, I told her I would do some research and see what I could do. In addition to her deposition, we looked at law and school policy and within one week after meeting with the school administrators, I am happy to say that we have worked through the issue, exposed the ridiculousness of the policy and the gross contortion if it and have brought unity to this family.
It bring me to tears to know in all I have said and done that I have not been much help to others to the degree that I desired, that today I have helped a family for no other reason than to see them happy, not for money, not for fame and not to prove I was better or smarter than anyone else.
They thanked me and think I helped them but what they don’t realize is what they have done for me, helping me realize I have done some good for folks I had not even known.
Tonight, their family will enjoy dinner together knowing that the division created by a government agency has been overcome by the ability to act on behalf of another.
Congratulations family, have a great year!

Middleton High School’s cell phone confiscation policy

30 August 2016
Comments Off on Middleton High School’s cell phone confiscation policy

Dear MHS,

 

I emailed regarding this topic yesterday but apparently, I could not find the email anywhere in my sent folder and found that rather strange since I don’t delete sent messages.I did however receive an out of office reply from Williams but the body of the email was not included.

 

The reason for this email is to notify you that unless there is a legitimate reason  to call on the confiscation of cell phones in class, If the information I heard was accurate on this issue, we kindly and respectfully decline the invitation to attend. I know I do not need to give a reason  but in an effort to show diplomacy, I feel it may help you not only understand my position but one as it substantiates the law. If you feel that my thoughts on the issue are skewed, I hope that you may call on me to discuss the issue in more detail. My desire is to be respectful while standing in question of certain policies, knowing many teachers only administer policy and not necessarily responsible for writing them. I do know however that there are times where teachers think they have authority they don’t really have and in that case it is to kindly nudge them to see that they do not. I also think the policy is dangerous for the school if someone decided to take legal action on it and I thought you may want to know.

 

My reasons are as follows:

 

Why would this policy be created in my son’s senior year? The very year that these students are supposed to be equipped to live successfully in society? Are they, even as seniors not to be trusted and if they aren not trusted does this not call into question the fact that they may not trust you either?

 

As I understand it, this policy, that may not even be policy somehow is only implemented in the History department? If this was a policy and was lawful, it still wouldn’t be because it singles out a certain class of people rather than the school in its entirety and why then not apply to teachers as they have been commonly found on their phones rather that teaching? Is this a school policy or some attempt for one teacher to exercise power they do not have in the classroom?

 

Our kids have the same rights as anyone else, they have the right to freedom of speech, religion , redress and to be secure in their personal affects. They also have the right to do as they do without being seached or detained for questioning without probable cause. If these kids are to learn to be responsible why is it that every time there can be lessons to be learned, are they controlled and removed by the school?

 

Our govenrment was based on a few principles that few even know and so was the law in this country. I find it ironic that this policy would be implemented in the goveremnt department, which should be the last place it should be implemented unless the forms of government you teach are more about subjegation rather that the principles of freedom.

 

Policy, first of all, is not law. Policy when formed correctly, is created by the entity that it falls under. In other words policy created by the school board applies to the school district, not the students.

 

Law, by design was to punish those that that committed crimes.They were not created to prevent people from exercising their liberty. Law especially was not to punish certain classes of people, it was meant to punish wrongdoers. Today, we think when somoene does something bad that there needs to be a law to prevent everyone from doing it, when in reality, the law should have applied that only the one that did wrong.

 

Lastly, the school from what I can tell lacks the enforcement mechanism to enforce such a policy. The reasons for this are that one must assume that a child has a phone in his pocket and may or may not. The next step would be to put a child in the position to lie in an effort to keep the right that belongs to him. The other would neccesitate the need for search and seisure where  they may lack lawful jurisdiction. If the SRO, was called to implement the Search, one would need to question his capacity, whether it is as a staff member, which he also may lack lawful jurisdiction or as a county sheriff’s deputy where a susupiction of a crime or probable cause in that commission would be required and last but not least a warrant would need to be secured by the local magistrate.

 

As you can see, implementing such policies can have long standing unintended consequences that are far more reaching than they were intended to be. I will say that I am not ignorant enough to think I don’t understand why teachers feel they want to implement  them, as kids may cheat or whatever, but ultimately if a child cheats, or desires to cheat, it is an individual choice that comes with individual consequences and would be ludicrious to implement policies that scream the kids you teach cant be trusted which would be a sad state of affairs.

 

If you all remember just a few years ago, I had a son that decided to plan a prom off campus but was told by the school that it was illegal which was not only wrong but ridiculous and we proved we had the right to do what we did and empowered an ENTIRE Junior and senior class of students. What you may not know is that in making this happen, contrary to what people have said, it wasn’t my idea, it was my sons. Anyway,  The very same year I was told by several teachers that these kids couldn’t be trusted and Tracie and I knew very few of them, we took out an insurance policy for the Spurwing and shouldered that responsibility on ourselves. Why? We did it because we believed it would be an indispensible opportunity to learn what freedom and trust feels like and we were willing to risk all we had to allow the kids, that we didn’t even know to enjoy their prom without having the students blowing in the face of teachers, without K-9’s in the parking lot, without nosing in their cars and personal affects and without a entry checkpoint! Futhermoore, they were allowed to leave and come back as desired! We had a record prom turnout that year over 400 kids, I think and not one issue!

 

In my view, in this free country, our schools should be empowering kids to take responsibility while allowing them to make mistakes that all kids make, which is how they learn. Making policy and law that prevents and furthermore punishes kids for mistakes has done more to make them dependent than independent.

 

In speaking to my wife just before the school year started, she sounded so disappointed. When I asked why, she said that when she went to MHS, it was a blast! She spoke of all the things kids could do, they had weekly pep rallys, they had football and other sports floats, they were TRUSTED to manage concessions and a list of other things. She said today, the admin seems to have forgotten that the time the kids spend in school were to be some of the most fun and memorable experinces in life. My queston to you is, is control at the expense of taking everything  from them more important? Do you as adults not remember how much fun you had? Why can’t they have what we had?

 

As a life time tax payer for the school, I strongly recommend considering removing the chains from these kids and re-implement some of the more fun things that the kids enjoy- Afterall it’s not a prison.

 

Please don’t take my letter as derrogatory as it was intended to make a statement and lay a foundation and to reconsider all we are doing for our kids and think about what we do from their perspective and to consider giving them their freedom back.

 

Regarding the cell phone policy, I am asking that if there is an issue with my son’s unwilingness to comply that you do not question him, you come to me and discuss it. His non-compliance is directed  from his parents. Just to let you know, If a teacher stands to single him out in class, he may defend himself verbally and may embarrass the teacher and may cause other students to follow him in non-compliance. Yesterday, as a measure of a true man, I am honerd to say,  my son  could have disrespected the teacher but chose instead to take her outside to explain to her in private his reasons.

 

“If we have nothing to hide…” is not a reason to give up our rights and as a father, it is my duty to teach my family what their rights  are and how to use them. I wish the school would teach them a little more about rights than political agendas like global warming and global citizenship and social justice in support of gay marriage.

 

Humbly submitted,

 

Tom Munds

 

Rebuttal letter to Capital AG Press weekly for support for TPP-Shame on the AG industry?

29 August 2016
Comments Off on Rebuttal letter to Capital AG Press weekly for support for TPP-Shame on the AG industry?

IMG_0174Dear Readers, a rebuttal against the article dated Friday, July 29th, in support of TPP/TTIP should be considered, especially when giving TPA authority to an already overreaching executive branch and allowing congress to yet again to give up the power to control to an emerging king. How can we complain about overreach on one hand as we offer more power on the other?

It should also be considered when those in support think they, as individuals or corporations have something to gain at the expense of the sovereignty of our state and nation in a self serving will that once again leaves the future generations with the mess we leave behind are we asking if anyone care about the this country anymore or is “globalism”  now the prize? Is anyone paying attention as this country falls into despotism and can we all stop and find ourselves blameless as we blame others? “Free Trade” agreements, this one over 5000 pages, is one that no one has read but supports anyway, all as we watch tax payer funded jobs go overseas as those at home complain about the job markets and as Britain exits the EU because they realized it was a silent coup that reneged on every promise they made as their economy continues the plummet?

Has this country become so ignorant or so self serving that our rule of law means nothing as the globalism controls every facet of American life? It is a fact that NAFTA, CAFTA and others caused more damage to our economies than if we would have not engaged in such agreements? Is anyone asking what the endgame is? How about the creation of the North American Union or what Gorbachev called the EU, the “European Soviet?” Do any of you realize that support for such agreements will lead to the obliteration of sovereignty that will through the passage of the TPP, then the TTIP merge every continent in the formation of a world government with the United Nations as the Sole monopolistic supra national governing entity over all nations under such “partnership” enslavement? Why does the last free nation on earth want to shackle itself with the despots of the world? for money? What did the Founding fathers say about foreign entanglements?

Some may laugh but consider what happened to the EU with economic and political integration. Now imagine the NAU the same way, then look at FTAAP and what do you find? You see the abolition of individual nation sovereignty in the formation of regional governments. Once these regions are created they will then be merged. Then consider the global education system, the global police under the Strong Cities Network, then the global environmental laws and what about who will govern us all? Will we all be under the UN charter where the only rights people have are what the UN says they are? Please think about the unintended consequences because the future of our country depends on it and so does that of future generations of either global citizens or individual sovereign nations and free people trading freely without regulations that no one has even read. Shall your children curse you and the ground you walked on after you pass on? If you support such agreements without any knowledge of them, I hope they do because I will and so will my children for generations to come.

« Previous PageNext Page »