Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Choice in Education
Purpose-
The restoration of a parental sovereignty, so that they may direct the education of their child, without monetary penalty or political prejudice.
This can be partially accomplished by returning the fullness of choice in education to all parents and children. As it currently stands in the State of Idaho, parents can choose to home school or they can send their children to a private or charter school. However, opting out of the State sponsored education system currently brings with it a huge financial penalty in tuitions and additional fees. Accordingly, only the children of the more wealthy families or families that choose to sacrifice other personal luxury have the ability to teach their children at home or attend institutions that offer a higher level of educational opportunities or better suits the needs of the child (as determined by the person who can best judge a child individually; the parent). This class prejudice certainly limits the educational opportunities of lower income households, single parents and minorities to name a few. This apparent imbalance can be remedied two ways.
The Statist solution- Outlaw private schools, charter schools and home schooling. This solution would demand an equal opportunity to mediocrity. Obviously this would guarantee an equal state sponsored means of education but not guarantee an equal ends or outcome. This solution, although “fair” is not in line with the principals of freedom, upon which our nation or state was founded.
The second option (the favorable option) would be to allow each parent the discretion to spend the education dollars allocated for their child in the way they think best suits the needs of the child individually. This method would ensure each parent and child an equal footing on their quest of education and ultimately their “Pursuit of Happiness.”
Proposal outline
Funding- The source of the funding for education for the time being shall remain as it is; a disproportionate levy from the citizens placed into the fund for the collective, and sales of state owned natural resources, such as timber. Additional funding is received from the National Government. The Constitutionality and efficiency of National funding are not addressed in this proposal.
Distribution- Each parent (if they choose to exercise the their Liberty) will receive a check or automatic deposit in account (in the amount of the state median education allocation for the child at appropriate grade level), bimonthly to use as a medium of exchange that the parent may use to fulfill the State’s stated educational objective standards for a student of the appropriate grade level, either solely (claimed as regular income in the case of a home school parent) or by sub-contract (Private School). The State’s only concern is that of, “Investment=Objective.” If a parent or private school (in cooperation with the student) perform in an efficient enough manor to achieve the standard educational objective in less hours or days than customary, the State remains dis-interested in the students/private institutions use of the “surplus time.”
Qualifications- (home school) Each parent that actively participates in home schooling and receives state dollars, must have a minimum GED qualification, and may only teach their child, natural or legally adopted. Parents may join in groups and teach in groups, with minimum requirements but one parent without teaching credentials may not teach groups of kids without the other parents present. Each parent must yield to random drug testing; positive test will result in discontinuation of funding.
Qualifications (private school) - All core curriculums must be taught by a properly documented teacher; no such requirements are considered on non-core classes or electives. Since the state is paying the parents directly rather than the state all classes, religious or otherwise are exempt from state oversight. Each teacher must yield to a background check and random drug testing.
Standardized testing-Each child must take a standardized test at the beginning and end of each school year, as a means to judge performance and as a comparison to other children of equal age and grade level. Comparative performance evaluation will determine individually, the continued funding each child’s non-state education (performance based). Private schools performance evaluation will be judged on the same scale as public schools and any probationary action will not exceed that of a public school. Home school parents that do not receive funding are not bound to this arrangement.
Diploma- The State will issue a standardized diploma to all students that complete the required objective curriculum, without implied discrimination or special document designation such as GED.
The Case for Choice
Anytime money is taken from the public whether proportionately or disproportional their must be a purpose for the seizure of the funds. We have taken for granted that education is a worthy cause, however the word education itself is subjective to the point of being liquid. What I mean by liquid is that whoever is in charge of the administration of education can determine what is of value, and what is not, based upon their individual values; money flows like liquid to serve their wants. What we are in dire need of is an objective, Objective. We must define what education is exactly, in order to “justify” the seizure of money from those who would otherwise be free to give or spend what they have earned in other ways that perhaps meet their values more closely. An objective is essential in any governmental affair whether it be war or education…what does victory look like? Of course each state has the right to design its objective; either minimalist or extravagant. Whatever the objective is it must not have vague statements like “instill values” and “social preparation” for those objectives are ones of the family and not the state.
Benefits of Education Choice
Monetary- It is proven in every case, the free market drives innovation progression and reduces costs; traits governmental monopolies invert as proven. As better methods are discovered and as the wheat is separated from the chaff only the best and most efficient will be teaching.
Economic- With many parents of elementary students choosing to stay home and educate their kids, many jobs would open up, driving the unemployment rate down and likely wages up (shortage of supply means prices go up). Additionally this wide spread distribution of earned money will move through the economy unfettered by governmental and union cronyism. Choice in education means jobs.
Family Values- It is quite normal in this day and age for both parents to work, leaving only a few hours of interaction in the evenings. This has broken the family apart. Many working moms bring home a mere pittance after the cost of child care and transportation is accounted for. With an allowance of $7000 per child a mother of three might just stay home to teach her own kids for a few years; years that will never come again.
Less legal drugs (ADD) - Almost everyone agrees Ritalin if the most over prescribed drug in the world. It is often prescribed as an alternative to discipline, to control an unruly child (mostly boys).
Less Illegal drugs – Children are largely a blank slate. Humans in general have very few natural instincts; therefore there behavior is determined by observing the behavior and interaction of other humans. One instinct humans have however is the desire to love and be loved. An assumed prerequisite to love is acceptance, therefore children crave the acceptance of other children, but they must learn how to be accepted. Children gain the understanding of how to be accepted from their parents their peers and popular culture. This is where quantity of impression often over rides the quality of advice. In other words inexperienced kids learn more from other inexperienced kids and popular culture, then they do from the wisdom of their parents; they spend so much more time observing the former than the latter. Behavior is developed by monkey see monkey do. Drug use alcohol use, sexual promiscuity, bullying are all unquestionably detrimental to the physical and psychological well being of a child, and not a result of parental advice. The monopoly of state controlled education forces, particularly the lower class children into this self perpetuating sociological disaster.
Reduce “hard” curriculum- Hard or physical curriculum such as text books are expensive to produce and become quickly out dated. Alternative education, free of state mandates may use online curriculum to achieve the educational objectives.
Reduce Capital expenses and maintenance- Public schools have massive overhead. Buildings, maintenance, lighting, heating cooling, busses, other vehicles, insurance of all kinds, are just a few examples. Any government program once inception takes upon a life of its own. Almost human, it has two desires, protection and growth. Naturally the larger it grows the less manageable it becomes. Lacking competition it casts off the shackles of accountability in times of plenty and expands far beyond the ability to maintain itself in times of shortage. The free market manages growth decisions by forecasting, perhaps influencing, human choice, and reacting to human action.
Improve the outcome- Free market education consistently and significantly out performs its public counterpart. In this case the ends should mandate the means.
More educated parents- Home school parent particularly find great value and enrichment while preparing a lesson plan or teaching a child. Both parent and child win in this arrangement.
Population Growth (the right kind) – Any legislation effects economic growth positively or negatively; but all growth is not good. For instance, several states are in the process of using their legal prerogative to nullify unconstitutional federal drug laws, by legalizing marijuana. This will have two effects: people who want to use marijuana without threat of legal action will move in and those who do not wish to live in a “high society” will move out. Perhaps the exchange in numerical population will be equal but will the economic effect be equal? Will the net production of the state be improved by this exchange? Logic gives us an answer that will most certainly be disputed by the “social engineers”; I’ll choose logic. Likewise will the Choice in Education option affect the demographics of our state. As I have experienced over the years, the quality of schools is one of the top factors when a person makes a real estate buying decision. In turn I believe, the freedom for a parent to choose the environment and ultimately influence the destiny of their child will also play a strong role when deciding which state to call home. One who makes a decision with these factors in mind and opts for freedom, is more likely to bring with them an industrious nature and moral convictions.
The restoration of a parental sovereignty, so that they may direct the education of their child, without monetary penalty or political prejudice.
This can be partially accomplished by returning the fullness of choice in education to all parents and children. As it currently stands in the State of Idaho, parents can choose to home school or they can send their children to a private or charter school. However, opting out of the State sponsored education system currently brings with it a huge financial penalty in tuitions and additional fees. Accordingly, only the children of the more wealthy families or families that choose to sacrifice other personal luxury have the ability to teach their children at home or attend institutions that offer a higher level of educational opportunities or better suits the needs of the child (as determined by the person who can best judge a child individually; the parent). This class prejudice certainly limits the educational opportunities of lower income households, single parents and minorities to name a few. This apparent imbalance can be remedied two ways.
The Statist solution- Outlaw private schools, charter schools and home schooling. This solution would demand an equal opportunity to mediocrity. Obviously this would guarantee an equal state sponsored means of education but not guarantee an equal ends or outcome. This solution, although “fair” is not in line with the principals of freedom, upon which our nation or state was founded.
The second option (the favorable option) would be to allow each parent the discretion to spend the education dollars allocated for their child in the way they think best suits the needs of the child individually. This method would ensure each parent and child an equal footing on their quest of education and ultimately their “Pursuit of Happiness.”
Proposal outline
Funding- The source of the funding for education for the time being shall remain as it is; a disproportionate levy from the citizens placed into the fund for the collective, and sales of state owned natural resources, such as timber. Additional funding is received from the National Government. The Constitutionality and efficiency of National funding are not addressed in this proposal.
Distribution- Each parent (if they choose to exercise the their Liberty) will receive a check or automatic deposit in account (in the amount of the state median education allocation for the child at appropriate grade level), bimonthly to use as a medium of exchange that the parent may use to fulfill the State’s stated educational objective standards for a student of the appropriate grade level, either solely (claimed as regular income in the case of a home school parent) or by sub-contract (Private School). The State’s only concern is that of, “Investment=Objective.” If a parent or private school (in cooperation with the student) perform in an efficient enough manor to achieve the standard educational objective in less hours or days than customary, the State remains dis-interested in the students/private institutions use of the “surplus time.”
Qualifications- (home school) Each parent that actively participates in home schooling and receives state dollars, must have a minimum GED qualification, and may only teach their child, natural or legally adopted. Parents may join in groups and teach in groups, with minimum requirements but one parent without teaching credentials may not teach groups of kids without the other parents present. Each parent must yield to random drug testing; positive test will result in discontinuation of funding.
Qualifications (private school) - All core curriculums must be taught by a properly documented teacher; no such requirements are considered on non-core classes or electives. Since the state is paying the parents directly rather than the state all classes, religious or otherwise are exempt from state oversight. Each teacher must yield to a background check and random drug testing.
Standardized testing-Each child must take a standardized test at the beginning and end of each school year, as a means to judge performance and as a comparison to other children of equal age and grade level. Comparative performance evaluation will determine individually, the continued funding each child’s non-state education (performance based). Private schools performance evaluation will be judged on the same scale as public schools and any probationary action will not exceed that of a public school. Home school parents that do not receive funding are not bound to this arrangement.
Diploma- The State will issue a standardized diploma to all students that complete the required objective curriculum, without implied discrimination or special document designation such as GED.
The Case for Choice
Anytime money is taken from the public whether proportionately or disproportional their must be a purpose for the seizure of the funds. We have taken for granted that education is a worthy cause, however the word education itself is subjective to the point of being liquid. What I mean by liquid is that whoever is in charge of the administration of education can determine what is of value, and what is not, based upon their individual values; money flows like liquid to serve their wants. What we are in dire need of is an objective, Objective. We must define what education is exactly, in order to “justify” the seizure of money from those who would otherwise be free to give or spend what they have earned in other ways that perhaps meet their values more closely. An objective is essential in any governmental affair whether it be war or education…what does victory look like? Of course each state has the right to design its objective; either minimalist or extravagant. Whatever the objective is it must not have vague statements like “instill values” and “social preparation” for those objectives are ones of the family and not the state.
Benefits of Education Choice
Monetary- It is proven in every case, the free market drives innovation progression and reduces costs; traits governmental monopolies invert as proven. As better methods are discovered and as the wheat is separated from the chaff only the best and most efficient will be teaching.
Economic- With many parents of elementary students choosing to stay home and educate their kids, many jobs would open up, driving the unemployment rate down and likely wages up (shortage of supply means prices go up). Additionally this wide spread distribution of earned money will move through the economy unfettered by governmental and union cronyism. Choice in education means jobs.
Family Values- It is quite normal in this day and age for both parents to work, leaving only a few hours of interaction in the evenings. This has broken the family apart. Many working moms bring home a mere pittance after the cost of child care and transportation is accounted for. With an allowance of $7000 per child a mother of three might just stay home to teach her own kids for a few years; years that will never come again.
Less legal drugs (ADD) - Almost everyone agrees Ritalin if the most over prescribed drug in the world. It is often prescribed as an alternative to discipline, to control an unruly child (mostly boys).
Less Illegal drugs – Children are largely a blank slate. Humans in general have very few natural instincts; therefore there behavior is determined by observing the behavior and interaction of other humans. One instinct humans have however is the desire to love and be loved. An assumed prerequisite to love is acceptance, therefore children crave the acceptance of other children, but they must learn how to be accepted. Children gain the understanding of how to be accepted from their parents their peers and popular culture. This is where quantity of impression often over rides the quality of advice. In other words inexperienced kids learn more from other inexperienced kids and popular culture, then they do from the wisdom of their parents; they spend so much more time observing the former than the latter. Behavior is developed by monkey see monkey do. Drug use alcohol use, sexual promiscuity, bullying are all unquestionably detrimental to the physical and psychological well being of a child, and not a result of parental advice. The monopoly of state controlled education forces, particularly the lower class children into this self perpetuating sociological disaster.
Reduce “hard” curriculum- Hard or physical curriculum such as text books are expensive to produce and become quickly out dated. Alternative education, free of state mandates may use online curriculum to achieve the educational objectives.
Reduce Capital expenses and maintenance- Public schools have massive overhead. Buildings, maintenance, lighting, heating cooling, busses, other vehicles, insurance of all kinds, are just a few examples. Any government program once inception takes upon a life of its own. Almost human, it has two desires, protection and growth. Naturally the larger it grows the less manageable it becomes. Lacking competition it casts off the shackles of accountability in times of plenty and expands far beyond the ability to maintain itself in times of shortage. The free market manages growth decisions by forecasting, perhaps influencing, human choice, and reacting to human action.
Improve the outcome- Free market education consistently and significantly out performs its public counterpart. In this case the ends should mandate the means.
More educated parents- Home school parent particularly find great value and enrichment while preparing a lesson plan or teaching a child. Both parent and child win in this arrangement.
Population Growth (the right kind) – Any legislation effects economic growth positively or negatively; but all growth is not good. For instance, several states are in the process of using their legal prerogative to nullify unconstitutional federal drug laws, by legalizing marijuana. This will have two effects: people who want to use marijuana without threat of legal action will move in and those who do not wish to live in a “high society” will move out. Perhaps the exchange in numerical population will be equal but will the economic effect be equal? Will the net production of the state be improved by this exchange? Logic gives us an answer that will most certainly be disputed by the “social engineers”; I’ll choose logic. Likewise will the Choice in Education option affect the demographics of our state. As I have experienced over the years, the quality of schools is one of the top factors when a person makes a real estate buying decision. In turn I believe, the freedom for a parent to choose the environment and ultimately influence the destiny of their child will also play a strong role when deciding which state to call home. One who makes a decision with these factors in mind and opts for freedom, is more likely to bring with them an industrious nature and moral convictions.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Sentinels of the Republic Foundations
We the Sentinels of the Republic, recognize two primary documents as the foundation for our beliefs in matters pertaining to government and the People. Those two documents are, The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States (including the first ten amendments; The Bill of Rights).
The Declaration of Independence serves as witness and record to posterity, that man is born with “certain Unalienable Rights” granted by God, not by man or by government, and that any infringements upon these rights are not just to be frowned upon but a cause for a fight to the death. Furthermore we recognize The Declaration enumerates specific grievances against the King. These specific grievances were laid out in an orderly fashion, not only for the King and for the sovereign People of the several States, but for the generations to come, that we may know exactly what a tyranny looks like and weigh all laws, taxes and governmental actions against this picture of a tyranny. We also believe that, the signers of The Declaration by its strength of its words and their mark of signature and endorsement, left no doubt that the principles and charges within, were so important, their very lives were worth forfeiting in the purpose of the advancement of its principles. The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the United States of America, the spirit of its people and the most orthodox document on record when the “spirit” or intent of The Constitution is in question.
The Constitution of the United States of America is the foundation of our Republic. In a Republic the “Law is King” and not government officers or representatives. In the US, The Constitution is King and the only supreme authority in matters between man, the States and the national government. It is imperative to understand that The Constitution is a compact between the States by the People. It’s a written understanding of how they (the states and the People) will relate to their created being, their servant; the national government. It is also very important to understand that the States created the national government not the inverse and that it was only created, after each state agreed.
In a case such as ours, where the power is held in an inanimate object, those who lust for power find refuge in word-smithing, revisionism and legal jargon as a means to confuse the people and seize power. They wish for you to believe that the document is “living” and will change with the times or they would like you to believe it is too complicated fro the common man to grasp; neither is true. As evidenced by the historical record, The Constitution was written for the common man to understand, and each word was chosen painstakingly as not to be misunderstood or convoluted to serve the desires of a tyrant. Understanding this, we must specify quite simply how The Constitution must be interpreted in full orthodoxy.
The most primary sources for Constitutional interpretation
1) The Declaration of Independence (see prior)
2) The Preamble to The Constitution. This often ignored segment of the Constitution is probably the most important. The Preamble is the Executive Summary. Any interpretation of the Constitution that conflicts with the Preamble is quite suspect. For instance, the excerpt, “…secure the Blessings of Liberty”, tell us three things…Blessings are from God, hence the capitalization, Liberty is a gift from God, and first and foremost the Constitution is set apart to SECURE the Blessings of Liberty. Secure is a strong word indeed and notably chosen over the word “promote” which is also used in The Preamble.
3) Documents, letters and meeting minutes of discussions on The Constitution, recorded BEFORE its ratification, ONLY. These documents include, The Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, The Articles of Confederation and such. It is important that we exclude writings from any of the founders after the date of ratification, no matter how artfully written. Revisionism started the day after ratification.
4) Period dictionaries- Our language changes with each generation. Strong words become weak and visa-versa. As mentioned before, every word was carefully chosen in the Constitution and the Declaration, therefore we must not assume modern day meanings are accurate. One such instance is in what is known as the “Commerce Clause.” In that clause the word regulate was used. Today regulate is synonymous with control or overlord, however in the day of the Constitution it meant, “to make regular; the meaning is astonishingly different.
Finally, it is important to grasp that The Constitution involves three parties: The Sovereign People of the States, The States and the created being, the United States National government. The Constitution enumerates certain powers that the National government must carry out, and strictly forbids any activity beyond those prescribed limits. Furthermore the Constitution also reserves any other imaginable power, to the States or the People. As an amplification to the intent of the Constitution, The Bill of Rights was added to protect the People and the States from the National government, and the People from injustice from the States as well.
The Declaration of Independence serves as witness and record to posterity, that man is born with “certain Unalienable Rights” granted by God, not by man or by government, and that any infringements upon these rights are not just to be frowned upon but a cause for a fight to the death. Furthermore we recognize The Declaration enumerates specific grievances against the King. These specific grievances were laid out in an orderly fashion, not only for the King and for the sovereign People of the several States, but for the generations to come, that we may know exactly what a tyranny looks like and weigh all laws, taxes and governmental actions against this picture of a tyranny. We also believe that, the signers of The Declaration by its strength of its words and their mark of signature and endorsement, left no doubt that the principles and charges within, were so important, their very lives were worth forfeiting in the purpose of the advancement of its principles. The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the United States of America, the spirit of its people and the most orthodox document on record when the “spirit” or intent of The Constitution is in question.
The Constitution of the United States of America is the foundation of our Republic. In a Republic the “Law is King” and not government officers or representatives. In the US, The Constitution is King and the only supreme authority in matters between man, the States and the national government. It is imperative to understand that The Constitution is a compact between the States by the People. It’s a written understanding of how they (the states and the People) will relate to their created being, their servant; the national government. It is also very important to understand that the States created the national government not the inverse and that it was only created, after each state agreed.
In a case such as ours, where the power is held in an inanimate object, those who lust for power find refuge in word-smithing, revisionism and legal jargon as a means to confuse the people and seize power. They wish for you to believe that the document is “living” and will change with the times or they would like you to believe it is too complicated fro the common man to grasp; neither is true. As evidenced by the historical record, The Constitution was written for the common man to understand, and each word was chosen painstakingly as not to be misunderstood or convoluted to serve the desires of a tyrant. Understanding this, we must specify quite simply how The Constitution must be interpreted in full orthodoxy.
The most primary sources for Constitutional interpretation
1) The Declaration of Independence (see prior)
2) The Preamble to The Constitution. This often ignored segment of the Constitution is probably the most important. The Preamble is the Executive Summary. Any interpretation of the Constitution that conflicts with the Preamble is quite suspect. For instance, the excerpt, “…secure the Blessings of Liberty”, tell us three things…Blessings are from God, hence the capitalization, Liberty is a gift from God, and first and foremost the Constitution is set apart to SECURE the Blessings of Liberty. Secure is a strong word indeed and notably chosen over the word “promote” which is also used in The Preamble.
3) Documents, letters and meeting minutes of discussions on The Constitution, recorded BEFORE its ratification, ONLY. These documents include, The Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, The Articles of Confederation and such. It is important that we exclude writings from any of the founders after the date of ratification, no matter how artfully written. Revisionism started the day after ratification.
4) Period dictionaries- Our language changes with each generation. Strong words become weak and visa-versa. As mentioned before, every word was carefully chosen in the Constitution and the Declaration, therefore we must not assume modern day meanings are accurate. One such instance is in what is known as the “Commerce Clause.” In that clause the word regulate was used. Today regulate is synonymous with control or overlord, however in the day of the Constitution it meant, “to make regular; the meaning is astonishingly different.
Finally, it is important to grasp that The Constitution involves three parties: The Sovereign People of the States, The States and the created being, the United States National government. The Constitution enumerates certain powers that the National government must carry out, and strictly forbids any activity beyond those prescribed limits. Furthermore the Constitution also reserves any other imaginable power, to the States or the People. As an amplification to the intent of the Constitution, The Bill of Rights was added to protect the People and the States from the National government, and the People from injustice from the States as well.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Phil Hart Ethics Hearing (an open letter to Rep Jaquet)
7/29/2010
RE: Ethics Committee hearing, Phil Hart
Dear Rep. Jaquet, (An open letter)
I was one of those in attendance for the Phil Hart ethics hearing, and listened intently for the duration of the hearings. My first observation during the hearing was, I actually felt a bit sorry for you. After the reading of the professionally ambiguous “charges” levied by the democrat minority leader, it was fairly obvious you were the one who had to defend these baseless accusations. The leader put you in a bad spot, and I hope you will let him know; for your own sake.
Although this hearing should have never taken place, the facts came out and the charges against Rep. Hart were soundly put down on all accounts; that was probably a good thing overall. However, the reason I write to you today is in regards to the tack you took once the facts and evidence made your position, a loser. I was shocked to hear that you were willing to vote to reprimand Mr. Hart, not based upon fact, but based upon “public perception.” As a side note Rep. Jaquet, you did not even provide a reference or supporting evidence to substantiate a negative public perception, so at best it is implied public perception; a weak case indeed. Furthermore, public perception may or may not be based upon facts, and most likely will be corrupted by prejudices. More often than not “perception” is formed by little snippets from the media. If implied perception be the essence of justice should we not just skip the legislature and the courts and just let those who generate perceptions (the owners of the newspapers, websites and TV stations), rule in all affairs? The point of this hearing was not to imply perception, or deliver an informal referendum from your constituents, but seek the truth and marry it up to the law; that is justice.
I was also troubled to hear the other two members of the democrat party on the panel parrot your sentiment (Rep. George Sayler Dist. 4 and William Killen Dist. 17). Rep Sayler even flatly stated, “Perception is reality.” Wow! Perhaps this is a “teachable moment” for the public. Perhaps the difference between the (D) and the (R) are manifest in this principal. Does a democrat believe that public perception should rule as law even if it is unjust? I know the essence of republicanism is the exact opposite. Its credo is one of written law, above any one man or group of men; one which holds in check the tyrant and the lynch mob alike.
Finally, I find your preference to perception over truth, inconsistent with a member of an ethics committee. I find no place for feelings or implied perceptions, in such a privileged position; the truth is all that matters. Had you your way, a great injustice would have taken place today to one of Idaho’s brightest sons. In light of that I would ask you resign your position on the committee.
Walt Holton
Caldwell, Idaho
RE: Ethics Committee hearing, Phil Hart
Dear Rep. Jaquet, (An open letter)
I was one of those in attendance for the Phil Hart ethics hearing, and listened intently for the duration of the hearings. My first observation during the hearing was, I actually felt a bit sorry for you. After the reading of the professionally ambiguous “charges” levied by the democrat minority leader, it was fairly obvious you were the one who had to defend these baseless accusations. The leader put you in a bad spot, and I hope you will let him know; for your own sake.
Although this hearing should have never taken place, the facts came out and the charges against Rep. Hart were soundly put down on all accounts; that was probably a good thing overall. However, the reason I write to you today is in regards to the tack you took once the facts and evidence made your position, a loser. I was shocked to hear that you were willing to vote to reprimand Mr. Hart, not based upon fact, but based upon “public perception.” As a side note Rep. Jaquet, you did not even provide a reference or supporting evidence to substantiate a negative public perception, so at best it is implied public perception; a weak case indeed. Furthermore, public perception may or may not be based upon facts, and most likely will be corrupted by prejudices. More often than not “perception” is formed by little snippets from the media. If implied perception be the essence of justice should we not just skip the legislature and the courts and just let those who generate perceptions (the owners of the newspapers, websites and TV stations), rule in all affairs? The point of this hearing was not to imply perception, or deliver an informal referendum from your constituents, but seek the truth and marry it up to the law; that is justice.
I was also troubled to hear the other two members of the democrat party on the panel parrot your sentiment (Rep. George Sayler Dist. 4 and William Killen Dist. 17). Rep Sayler even flatly stated, “Perception is reality.” Wow! Perhaps this is a “teachable moment” for the public. Perhaps the difference between the (D) and the (R) are manifest in this principal. Does a democrat believe that public perception should rule as law even if it is unjust? I know the essence of republicanism is the exact opposite. Its credo is one of written law, above any one man or group of men; one which holds in check the tyrant and the lynch mob alike.
Finally, I find your preference to perception over truth, inconsistent with a member of an ethics committee. I find no place for feelings or implied perceptions, in such a privileged position; the truth is all that matters. Had you your way, a great injustice would have taken place today to one of Idaho’s brightest sons. In light of that I would ask you resign your position on the committee.
Walt Holton
Caldwell, Idaho
Thursday, July 15, 2010
BUY and READ NULLIFICATION!!!! ASAP!!!!
Below is a letter I composed, intended for our State reps and senators; a plea for them to read the EXELLENT book "Nullification". My Barnabas, told me it was too long so I wrote another very short version, and sent it to them. I left this attachment in the letter just in case I did not make the sale with brevity.
Dear Representative,
I humbly beg your attention on a matter of the utmost importance; the preservation of the Union of the United States.
It is no secret there is much discord amongst the people these days. I assert that much of this general sentiment is a deliberate attempt by despots to sew the seeds of dissent, and who wish to install a different Order over man. . Regardless of intent or lack thereof, we, as a nation, are nonetheless eroding into a centralized government with the power far out of reach of the people and the States that formed the Union. Despite the fact that central powers, either in a Nation or Religion, have spawned the greatest inhumanities of the histories, such a great and powerful behemoth is not what is described in our founding documents; The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution and Bill of Rights. I fear as we continue down this road of despair and hopelessness, small insurrections will come to pass, as desperate men, out of options and hope, attempt in vain to throw off the chains of legal injustice. I PRAY this day does not come! I am quite certain, however, that when God answers our petitions, he does not manifest his power through a lightning bolt, but rather through the hearts and minds of Man. Considering that observation and before you consider my request, I humbly ask you to consider this verse:
James 1:5-6 (NIV) 5If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind.
My personal definition of “wisdom” is: The ability to disseminate the Truth. The Truth exists in every aspect of matter, energy and awareness (life); finding the Truth is wisdom.
I submit “based upon the Truth” being an objective term, that there is a Truth concerning the meaning and intent of the Constitution of the [u]nited States of America. This intent is not reserved for the sage or barrister but rather in plain sight for all to discover. The literal intent of our founders is no secret, as they flatly and simply expounded so many times, and as they eloquently bloviated for volumes to satisfy the wordsmiths and tyrants in waiting who sought to morph its meaning even in their time. The Constitution was for the common man.
The Constitution is a contract/compact between the States to form a general government with very specific enumerated powers. The enumeration of these powers was done specifically and clearly to act as a final limit to the power and reach of the general government; all other powers and rights are reserved for the “States, or the People.” The very specificity of these enumerated powers is the first evidence to a logical mind that the ambiguous redefinition of certain terms within the Constitution such as “regulate” (Commerce Clause) and “General Welfare”, are nothing more than an attempt to usurp and redirect the power this document carries to a despot or tyrant. One note of utmost importance is the fact that the States voluntarily formed the Union, and that a State by 18th century definition means nation; sovereign in all intents and purposes, and the Union was meant to serve the common interests of the States and not to be their master. As evidenced by many of the founder’s writings, their greatest fear was the created ‘being’ or entity (the general government) would live on its own and seek to destroy its master; to use my own analogy like Frankenstein’s monster killing his master.
For the sake of brevity and courtesy for your time I will make an assumption that you will likely agree with and then make my final plea for investigative action and intellectual investment on your part. My assumption is that the general government (National, Federal or whatever you wish to call it), has on countless occasions stepped outside its prescribed limits, by the establishment of laws, resolutions, treaties, administrations and so forth. For whatever the intent of the unconstitutional laws, either holy or unholy, this usurpation of authority has largely been unchecked, and metastasized into an unsustainable gauntlet of regulation and granted privilege. I could go on but such a rant would be redundant with undeniable evidence at every turn of the head. Perhaps this is death by a thousand paper cuts, but death nonetheless.
We are taught that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter for a dispute of constitutionality of an action of the Federal Government that harms a State or a person in the State. Any reasonable mind would immediately see the obvious and absurd conflict of interest this form of dispute resolution offers since the Supreme Court is a part of the Federal Government. Although we are taught they are a non-political entity of Sages, the simplest mind should see through such a façade simply by watching a confirmation hearing. The Kagan confirmation hearings show there need not be a more grotesque comedy to make the case in point. So if the Supreme Court is not supreme, then who is??? Did the founders leave us at an impasse in justice? Was a virus imbedded in our form of government? Absolutely not! The power belongs to the States; the creator of the agency that is the US government. I do not make this claim out of arbitrary whim but based upon the utmost orthodox sources fathomable; the writings AND actions of the very architects of this nation…Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. They foresaw such an impasse in justice and wrote quite clearly about it. Their solution; Nullification, as it was later called was the summation of “The Principals of ‘98”, and the summary word for the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. I beg of you to NOT simply Google these resolutions and read the modern day nationalistic commentary. I ask you to invest in some critical knowledge. I ask you to buy the book Nullification; How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century”, by best selling author Thomas Woods. Please note, I have neither affiliation nor investment in any kind to Dr. Woods. My investment is in America only, and she will profit from my request.
So what does this mean to you Mr./Mrs. Representative? It means YOU are the kingpin that will hold fast or rust and break. It means you are not only a keeper of municipal things but the keeper of the Union. It means you are our agent of protection against Federal tyranny. It means you are to thank for the preservation of the Union and the protection of our Liberty; or to be damned for their loss. I remind you that ignorance is no excuse for an intellectually capable person, but rather an indictment of character.
Respectfully,
Walt Holton
Dear Representative,
I humbly beg your attention on a matter of the utmost importance; the preservation of the Union of the United States.
It is no secret there is much discord amongst the people these days. I assert that much of this general sentiment is a deliberate attempt by despots to sew the seeds of dissent, and who wish to install a different Order over man. . Regardless of intent or lack thereof, we, as a nation, are nonetheless eroding into a centralized government with the power far out of reach of the people and the States that formed the Union. Despite the fact that central powers, either in a Nation or Religion, have spawned the greatest inhumanities of the histories, such a great and powerful behemoth is not what is described in our founding documents; The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution and Bill of Rights. I fear as we continue down this road of despair and hopelessness, small insurrections will come to pass, as desperate men, out of options and hope, attempt in vain to throw off the chains of legal injustice. I PRAY this day does not come! I am quite certain, however, that when God answers our petitions, he does not manifest his power through a lightning bolt, but rather through the hearts and minds of Man. Considering that observation and before you consider my request, I humbly ask you to consider this verse:
James 1:5-6 (NIV) 5If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind.
My personal definition of “wisdom” is: The ability to disseminate the Truth. The Truth exists in every aspect of matter, energy and awareness (life); finding the Truth is wisdom.
I submit “based upon the Truth” being an objective term, that there is a Truth concerning the meaning and intent of the Constitution of the [u]nited States of America. This intent is not reserved for the sage or barrister but rather in plain sight for all to discover. The literal intent of our founders is no secret, as they flatly and simply expounded so many times, and as they eloquently bloviated for volumes to satisfy the wordsmiths and tyrants in waiting who sought to morph its meaning even in their time. The Constitution was for the common man.
The Constitution is a contract/compact between the States to form a general government with very specific enumerated powers. The enumeration of these powers was done specifically and clearly to act as a final limit to the power and reach of the general government; all other powers and rights are reserved for the “States, or the People.” The very specificity of these enumerated powers is the first evidence to a logical mind that the ambiguous redefinition of certain terms within the Constitution such as “regulate” (Commerce Clause) and “General Welfare”, are nothing more than an attempt to usurp and redirect the power this document carries to a despot or tyrant. One note of utmost importance is the fact that the States voluntarily formed the Union, and that a State by 18th century definition means nation; sovereign in all intents and purposes, and the Union was meant to serve the common interests of the States and not to be their master. As evidenced by many of the founder’s writings, their greatest fear was the created ‘being’ or entity (the general government) would live on its own and seek to destroy its master; to use my own analogy like Frankenstein’s monster killing his master.
For the sake of brevity and courtesy for your time I will make an assumption that you will likely agree with and then make my final plea for investigative action and intellectual investment on your part. My assumption is that the general government (National, Federal or whatever you wish to call it), has on countless occasions stepped outside its prescribed limits, by the establishment of laws, resolutions, treaties, administrations and so forth. For whatever the intent of the unconstitutional laws, either holy or unholy, this usurpation of authority has largely been unchecked, and metastasized into an unsustainable gauntlet of regulation and granted privilege. I could go on but such a rant would be redundant with undeniable evidence at every turn of the head. Perhaps this is death by a thousand paper cuts, but death nonetheless.
We are taught that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter for a dispute of constitutionality of an action of the Federal Government that harms a State or a person in the State. Any reasonable mind would immediately see the obvious and absurd conflict of interest this form of dispute resolution offers since the Supreme Court is a part of the Federal Government. Although we are taught they are a non-political entity of Sages, the simplest mind should see through such a façade simply by watching a confirmation hearing. The Kagan confirmation hearings show there need not be a more grotesque comedy to make the case in point. So if the Supreme Court is not supreme, then who is??? Did the founders leave us at an impasse in justice? Was a virus imbedded in our form of government? Absolutely not! The power belongs to the States; the creator of the agency that is the US government. I do not make this claim out of arbitrary whim but based upon the utmost orthodox sources fathomable; the writings AND actions of the very architects of this nation…Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. They foresaw such an impasse in justice and wrote quite clearly about it. Their solution; Nullification, as it was later called was the summation of “The Principals of ‘98”, and the summary word for the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. I beg of you to NOT simply Google these resolutions and read the modern day nationalistic commentary. I ask you to invest in some critical knowledge. I ask you to buy the book Nullification; How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century”, by best selling author Thomas Woods. Please note, I have neither affiliation nor investment in any kind to Dr. Woods. My investment is in America only, and she will profit from my request.
So what does this mean to you Mr./Mrs. Representative? It means YOU are the kingpin that will hold fast or rust and break. It means you are not only a keeper of municipal things but the keeper of the Union. It means you are our agent of protection against Federal tyranny. It means you are to thank for the preservation of the Union and the protection of our Liberty; or to be damned for their loss. I remind you that ignorance is no excuse for an intellectually capable person, but rather an indictment of character.
Respectfully,
Walt Holton
Friday, July 2, 2010
Statism and Emissions (An open letter to Governor Otter)
Dear Governor Otter (an open letter),
I have voted for you in every general election since I was old enough to vote. Years, ago my vote was based simply upon the fact that Republicans, on the whole, typically stand for the principals of individual liberty and responsibility more so than the Democrats; I really did not know much about you beyond that. Since then I have put on a couple decades of knowledge and wisdom, and I must say that I am a bit confused, concerning your actions and inactions.
Back when you were a congressman you wrote a forward to a pamphlet by Ezra Taft Benson, “The Proper Role of Government.” I read this pamphlet for the first time several months ago and I was a bit surprised, after reading the very eloquent direct and liberty minded, that it was written by you. I would encourage you to go back and re-read your fine words, as well as the co-forward by Professor John T. Wenders (world renown University of Idaho economics professor), who I was fortunate enough to study under. I ask you to do this with hopes you will rediscover your once apparent, spirit of Jefferson and Madison. In this rediscovery I hope you will stand, and use your Constitutional power as Governor, and resist every attempt by the National government to dissolve our borders both as a state and nation. I ask you to stand and lead the good people of Idaho, rejecting every assault, no matter how small or apparently benevolent, to the Constitution and 10th Amendment particularly. I know you are a good man, worthy of the power entrusted to you, now it is time to wield that power against the statists in DC. Was the reason you were born and given your blessings of office, to simply manage highway funding, or was it to help save America?
Pep talk aside, I would like you to consider throwing your weight around on a “small” issue with big implications to our states lower and middle class counties. A few months back Canyon County was forced (kicking and screaming) to comply with emissions testing on cars and trucks. Was it a coincidence this mandate happened during the worst economy of our lives? I would like you to consider the wealth represented in real dollars (as real as a paper dollar is anyway) that is being taken from our citizens not just in the fees to comply with the testing but in lost productivity, loss of other scarce funds, and loss in asset value.
Keeping a long topic relatively short, each person and business must take time from business or leisure and spend it complying with this regulation; this is a loss to the economy; subjective but tangible. Also consider the thousands of cars that do not pass, these ridiculous standards, either due to a particulate count or a check engine light (automatic fail). Each one of these un-needed repairs, usually no less than $200 and often $1000, is an assault on the very scarce funds available. What’s more, most of the cost of repairs goes directly to Detroit or where ever the parts are manufactured…money leaving the state! Another “unintended consequence” to this statist law is the evaporation of “real” wealth represented in the value of the thousands and thousands of cars valued under $2000. Consider many of these older modern cars have ECM’s engine control modules, in other words a computer an old computer. These computers malfunction and send error messages for stupid reasons; most owners of older cars simply live with the light on because you would be in the mechanic every week. Now consider if you have a check engine light on, and you wish to trade your car in, and the dealer knows it can not be licensed with that light on, and it will likely cost $1000 to fix it. Will they reduce the trade in value? They must. This scenario represents hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in evaporated asset value in Canyon County alone. What will the National government do to remedy this? Likely another “Cash for Clunkers” program, one funded by the next generation; funded by those too young to vote. In this scenario again, money is leaving the state, due to a mandate from the National government, enriching the union companies in Detroit. I am convinced this is not by accident.
One could also apply the same thinking to many other National government mandated laws, like lead based paint certification, air conditioning refrigerant mandates and on and on. I ask you Butch to fight the small fight as well as the big ones. Every mandate is a liberty lost, and every mandate by the National government outside of their seventeen Constitutional powers, our republic of federated states fades.
Sincerely,
Walt Holton
I have voted for you in every general election since I was old enough to vote. Years, ago my vote was based simply upon the fact that Republicans, on the whole, typically stand for the principals of individual liberty and responsibility more so than the Democrats; I really did not know much about you beyond that. Since then I have put on a couple decades of knowledge and wisdom, and I must say that I am a bit confused, concerning your actions and inactions.
Back when you were a congressman you wrote a forward to a pamphlet by Ezra Taft Benson, “The Proper Role of Government.” I read this pamphlet for the first time several months ago and I was a bit surprised, after reading the very eloquent direct and liberty minded, that it was written by you. I would encourage you to go back and re-read your fine words, as well as the co-forward by Professor John T. Wenders (world renown University of Idaho economics professor), who I was fortunate enough to study under. I ask you to do this with hopes you will rediscover your once apparent, spirit of Jefferson and Madison. In this rediscovery I hope you will stand, and use your Constitutional power as Governor, and resist every attempt by the National government to dissolve our borders both as a state and nation. I ask you to stand and lead the good people of Idaho, rejecting every assault, no matter how small or apparently benevolent, to the Constitution and 10th Amendment particularly. I know you are a good man, worthy of the power entrusted to you, now it is time to wield that power against the statists in DC. Was the reason you were born and given your blessings of office, to simply manage highway funding, or was it to help save America?
Pep talk aside, I would like you to consider throwing your weight around on a “small” issue with big implications to our states lower and middle class counties. A few months back Canyon County was forced (kicking and screaming) to comply with emissions testing on cars and trucks. Was it a coincidence this mandate happened during the worst economy of our lives? I would like you to consider the wealth represented in real dollars (as real as a paper dollar is anyway) that is being taken from our citizens not just in the fees to comply with the testing but in lost productivity, loss of other scarce funds, and loss in asset value.
Keeping a long topic relatively short, each person and business must take time from business or leisure and spend it complying with this regulation; this is a loss to the economy; subjective but tangible. Also consider the thousands of cars that do not pass, these ridiculous standards, either due to a particulate count or a check engine light (automatic fail). Each one of these un-needed repairs, usually no less than $200 and often $1000, is an assault on the very scarce funds available. What’s more, most of the cost of repairs goes directly to Detroit or where ever the parts are manufactured…money leaving the state! Another “unintended consequence” to this statist law is the evaporation of “real” wealth represented in the value of the thousands and thousands of cars valued under $2000. Consider many of these older modern cars have ECM’s engine control modules, in other words a computer an old computer. These computers malfunction and send error messages for stupid reasons; most owners of older cars simply live with the light on because you would be in the mechanic every week. Now consider if you have a check engine light on, and you wish to trade your car in, and the dealer knows it can not be licensed with that light on, and it will likely cost $1000 to fix it. Will they reduce the trade in value? They must. This scenario represents hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in evaporated asset value in Canyon County alone. What will the National government do to remedy this? Likely another “Cash for Clunkers” program, one funded by the next generation; funded by those too young to vote. In this scenario again, money is leaving the state, due to a mandate from the National government, enriching the union companies in Detroit. I am convinced this is not by accident.
One could also apply the same thinking to many other National government mandated laws, like lead based paint certification, air conditioning refrigerant mandates and on and on. I ask you Butch to fight the small fight as well as the big ones. Every mandate is a liberty lost, and every mandate by the National government outside of their seventeen Constitutional powers, our republic of federated states fades.
Sincerely,
Walt Holton
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Rebuke! For Your Silence Implies Consent
I am sure many of you have seen the stories the news lately about “Christian” militias. And I am sure many of you understand this is a direct frontal assault, not on the few people they are charging with a crime, but to Christians in general. But that is not all. Tea Party goers are reportedly racist and Janet Napolitano herself defines “right wing extremists” as the real terrorist threat. Barrack Hussein Obama as well, implied intellectual superiority over those who “cling to guns and religion,” in his campaign for president. However, aside from the obvious and blatant coordinated efforts of the media and inside the government, to imply certain groups of people in this nation are counter productive to the collective good, that’s not all. This multi million dollar campaign to own the weak minds of America is not the only tactic the left is using today; another is one carried out by lurkers and trolls on sites like this one, Face book and Twitter.
These lurkers and trolls have many tactics. Some pose as one of the crowd, spouting patriotic rah-rah, to gain acceptance. Once acceptance is granted their tactics take on many forms. For instance the other day I was reading some comments on Tom Tancredo’s Face book page. Most of the discussion was logical and organized around securing the borders and enforcing laws we already have on the books. Out of the blue a comment from an obviously anonymous name, spouted “I agree with you throw out all the beaners!” This post did not stay on the board long because the page was watched by its admin closely. However, had this been ignored and other trolls or true racists joined in, a picture of the page could be taken and used as implied evidence that those who want secure borders are pure racists.
Another example- On a Ning site, one regular blog poster began posting increasingly “off color” posts. One of them was, how you would go to hell if you married a person of a different color. He had many other posts that blatantly implied God did not like black people and such. Most of his blogs went without comment; likely a “don’t feed the trolls” mentality. I complained to the admin and explained my concerns. The response I got was just plain silly, “don’t worry he is just a religious zealot…I don’t want to infringe on his right to free speech.” My response was, “he has a right to speak, not to be heard.” A day later this guy published a blog stating how he was framed by the FBI, and was not involved in a 1990s bombing in the Middle East. He provided “official documents” with his name on them implicating him with terrorism and then denied involvement…WOW. After my next note to the site admin he was banned.
How should we respond to the tactical leftist and the true psycho? We must rebuke them and report them! Do not be drawn into an argument. If it is on your Face book page, respond with a rebuke and delete them, in other places simply rebuke them and report them to the admin. If the admin is un-responsive leave the site, but before you do, post a blog with the reason. Silence is consent.
These lurkers and trolls have many tactics. Some pose as one of the crowd, spouting patriotic rah-rah, to gain acceptance. Once acceptance is granted their tactics take on many forms. For instance the other day I was reading some comments on Tom Tancredo’s Face book page. Most of the discussion was logical and organized around securing the borders and enforcing laws we already have on the books. Out of the blue a comment from an obviously anonymous name, spouted “I agree with you throw out all the beaners!” This post did not stay on the board long because the page was watched by its admin closely. However, had this been ignored and other trolls or true racists joined in, a picture of the page could be taken and used as implied evidence that those who want secure borders are pure racists.
Another example- On a Ning site, one regular blog poster began posting increasingly “off color” posts. One of them was, how you would go to hell if you married a person of a different color. He had many other posts that blatantly implied God did not like black people and such. Most of his blogs went without comment; likely a “don’t feed the trolls” mentality. I complained to the admin and explained my concerns. The response I got was just plain silly, “don’t worry he is just a religious zealot…I don’t want to infringe on his right to free speech.” My response was, “he has a right to speak, not to be heard.” A day later this guy published a blog stating how he was framed by the FBI, and was not involved in a 1990s bombing in the Middle East. He provided “official documents” with his name on them implicating him with terrorism and then denied involvement…WOW. After my next note to the site admin he was banned.
How should we respond to the tactical leftist and the true psycho? We must rebuke them and report them! Do not be drawn into an argument. If it is on your Face book page, respond with a rebuke and delete them, in other places simply rebuke them and report them to the admin. If the admin is un-responsive leave the site, but before you do, post a blog with the reason. Silence is consent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)