Boise, Idaho – During Governor Otter’s 2008 State of the State address, he promised to clean up government and instituted a new zero-base budgeting system. The Governor’s team went department-by-department making sure that every resource is utilized to its maximum potential. To date, Governor Otter has eliminated redundancies, maximized efficiency, and found roughly $2.1 million in ways to save your tax dollars.
“It’s always been my goal to show you that we’re worthy of your trust, especially through promoting responsible government, said Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter. “During these tough times, I asked my team to dive deep and start asking ‘why’?”
Through consolidation, under Governor Otter’s leadership, Idaho is now saving nearly $1M in mail services and between $10 million -$30 million in IT work. During the discovery process, more than 80 e-mail systems were found across the state. So far, 40 state agencies have merged on to one e-mail system. State government is saving your money everyday by working smarter.
“Through collaboration with different agencies, new public-private partnerships, and technology, we’re cleaning up the old way of doing business,” said Governor Otter. “Price is no longer the only emphasis – now, we’re evaluating on a best value philosophy.”
We’re utilizing technology more than ever. It has helped generate new bids resulting in lower prices, higher competition, and greater long-term value for the services taxpayers depend on!
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
The Anti-Federalists, Entrepreneurship, & the Future of Freedom
The Anti-Federalists warned us of what could happen to our Republic. Their warnings are becoming a reality today.
"The Anti-Federalists, Entrepreneurship, & the Future of Freedom" by Oliver DeMille
Part 1: Predictions
Part 2: Executive Branch & National Debt
Part 3: States & Courts
Part 4: Justice Lost
Part 5: Treaty Power
Part 6: Solutions
"No matter what the Constitution says, it won’t endure if the people don’t closely read it and demand that it be followed." ~ Oliver DeMille
"The Anti-Federalists, Entrepreneurship, & the Future of Freedom" by Oliver DeMille
Part 1: Predictions
Part 2: Executive Branch & National Debt
Part 3: States & Courts
Part 4: Justice Lost
Part 5: Treaty Power
Part 6: Solutions
"No matter what the Constitution says, it won’t endure if the people don’t closely read it and demand that it be followed." ~ Oliver DeMille
Friday, September 17, 2010
The Overseers: The Fourth Branch of Government
“Posterity — you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.” ~ John Quincy Adams
The following is recommended reading to all those who have a true desire to maintain the freedoms we enjoy in America.
"How to Destroy the Constitution" By Oliver DeMille
Click the following links to read the article.
Part 1: Vital Foundations of Freedom
Part 2: The Power of the Fine Print
Part 3: The Overseers of Freedom
Excerpts from the article:
"We tend to let our freedoms slip away because they are tucked away in documents and policies that we don’t ever deal with directly....read more
"Each new generation is acclimatized to the level of government overreach that they find themselves in, and it rarely occurs to them to object....read more
"With a system like this, the people are the only true overseers of freedom. If we don’t do it, freedom will be lost....read more
The following is recommended reading to all those who have a true desire to maintain the freedoms we enjoy in America.
"How to Destroy the Constitution" By Oliver DeMille
Click the following links to read the article.
Part 1: Vital Foundations of Freedom
Part 2: The Power of the Fine Print
Part 3: The Overseers of Freedom
Excerpts from the article:
"We tend to let our freedoms slip away because they are tucked away in documents and policies that we don’t ever deal with directly....read more
"Each new generation is acclimatized to the level of government overreach that they find themselves in, and it rarely occurs to them to object....read more
"With a system like this, the people are the only true overseers of freedom. If we don’t do it, freedom will be lost....read more
Thursday, September 16, 2010
The Great Anchor Baby Citizenship Fiasco
George A. Reimann
Those believing that being born in the U.S.A. automatically confers U.S. citizenship often cite the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision, 169 U.S. 649 (1898),[1] to justify this belief. This idea is a total falsehood perpetuated by the Congress and by the MSM. Hopefully readers will forgive my temerity in exposing the mendacity of a Supreme Court justice, often cited as a “legal historian,” in arriving at his opinion in the above-cited case.
At issue is the meaning of the citizenship clause in Section 1 of Amendment XIV, as follows:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The question was whether the progeny of non-citizen Chinese immigrants became a U.S. citizen if born in the U.S.A. Justice Gray decided such a child “becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States” regardless of the parents’ citizenship, based on English common law.
The opinion was rendered by Justice Horace Gray, who had the reputation of being a meticulous researcher. As evidence of his penchant for research he used nearly 20 pages to cite court decisions, mostly on English common law, for the past 3 centuries. As a legal historian Justice Gray seemed unaware that we fought the War for Independence to extricate ourselves from under the burden of English common law, based on arbitrary medieval English feudalism, as it was applied to the colonies. While the colonies suffered patiently under this burden they finally reached the point where it became necessary to “alter their former Systems of Government.” The Declaration of Independence listed a “History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations” to justify this action. Given a choice the Founders preferred natural law to common law. Further, any ambiguity regarding the applicability of English common law to birthright U.S. citizenship should have been removed by ratification of the 14th Amendment[2] some 30 years before Gray wrote his opinion, rendering his “meticulous research” unworthy of consideration.
When Justice Gray confronted the 14th Amendment directly in his opinion he cited the record of the 39th Congress in the Congressional Globe[3], to justify it but selected only parts of the discussions. Apparently he was so consumed by his attachment to medieval English common law he was unable to discern the intended meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” even though he referred to this phrase repeatedly. Gray insisted that “Amend. art. 14. In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” Gray cited numerous pre-1868 cases that became irrelevant when the 14th Amendment was ratified.
The dispute should have been easily resolved by referring to the debates in the 39th Congress as printed in The Congressional Globe (now The Congressional Record). Even a Congressperson could do it. Senator Jacob Howard (MI) wrote the 14th’s Citizenship Clause (note references to natural law, national law) and introduced it into the Senate, stating:[4]
[T]his amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
In response to a question from Sen. Fessenden regarding coverage of the citizenship clause, Sen. Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, replied:[5] The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” Sen. Trumbull continues: What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Sen. Trumbull’s description of the citizenship clause was so uncomplicatedly clear that the meaning should be immune to mischaracterization. That phrase Gray referred to repeatedly is defined, right there in plain sight. Therefore, one could easily conclude that Justice Gray, the “meticulous researcher,” was deliberately misleading.
The citizenship clause means that aliens, legal or otherwise, will be under only the jurisdiction of local ordinances and laws but they owe the United States no allegiance and are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They cannot vote, be summoned for jury duty, be drafted into the military, etc. To become a naturalized citizen one must swear allegiance to the United States and after having done so full citizenship is obtained. Then the citizen’s progeny also become citizens.
The UK has no written constitution as a single controlling document but relies on tradition and precedent, various documents (some ancient), statutes, etc., for guidance. Together these comprise an “understanding” that is supposed to regulate the actions of the Parliament. However the Parliament, consisting of a combination of the Crown, the Lords, and the Commons is sovereign which means it can do almost anything it wants to do. It seems Blackstone favored this approach, while the Founders rejected it and embraced Vattel[6] instead. No judiciary is available to overturn an act of the sovereign Parliament that violates the “understanding” nor is there a chief executive that can veto it. It would seem that the “understanding” is elastic and can grow with the UK’s culture and its history. “Progressives” in the USA would rejoice if our Constitution could be replaced by such an understanding.
But I digress. Vice President Chester A. Arthur became President immediately after President Garfield died, primarily from an assassin’s bullet. Garfield died on September 19, 1881 and Arthur was sworn in, first at his home and again in D.C. On December 19 Arthur nominated Horace Gray to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. Gray was confirmed by the Senate the next day. Not much debate to confirm Gray.
Questions regarding Chester Arthur’s eligibility to be Vice President dogged Garfield’s campaign, but Arthur was able to persuade most doubters that he was born in Vermont in 1830, not in Ireland or Canada, and the matter was put to rest. As he neared death in 1886 Arthur had the servants burn all his personal papers, a most unusual act for a past-president.
An investigator uncovered information recently about Arthur in the Library of Congress that disclosed Arthur’s father was a British citizen who did not become naturalized until 1843, when Arthur was 14 years old.[7] Therefore, Arthur’s father was “subject to the jurisdiction” of England, English common law not withstanding. Arthur was not a “natural born citizen” and knew it. So questions about Arthur’s birthplace were a distraction and it occurred to no one at the time to investigate his father’s citizenship and that Arthur was born a British subject. So does it now appear that one US president was in fact a British subject? Did Justice Gray know this and develop the English common law issue only to legitimize Arthur’s presidency 12 years after his death?
If Chester Arthur was not eligible to be President then the appointment of Horace Gray was tainted, as was the finding in the Wong Kim Ark case. Would this negate the finding in this case, could it just be considered wrongly decided, or is this another judicial travesty to remain as “settled law?”
“Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.”[8] Well of course. That is exactly what the 14th Amendment is about. Another constitutional amendment to clarify what is already quite clear is not needed, but some supportive legislation by Congress would be helpful. A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is an honor and a matter of public trust. The appointees are obliged to rely upon the documented intentions of the Founders (and in this case those of the Framers of the 14th Amendment) and not have their decisions encumbered by the weltanschauung inculcated by the Ivy League.
___________________________
[1] U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), http://tourolaw.edu/patch/Wong/Gray.asp
[2] Ratified July 9, 1868
[3] Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, (1866), pp. 2890-2893, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html
[4] loc. cit., p.2890
[5] loc. cit., p. 2893
[6] Vattel’s Law of Nations (1758) Interesting discussion at this site: http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html
[7] Donofrio, Leo C., “Historical Breakthrough-Proof: Chester Arthur Concealed He Was A British Subject At Birth,” STARWISE, December 06, 2008, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2144293/posts
[8] Quoted from J. Gray’s decision.
Those believing that being born in the U.S.A. automatically confers U.S. citizenship often cite the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision, 169 U.S. 649 (1898),[1] to justify this belief. This idea is a total falsehood perpetuated by the Congress and by the MSM. Hopefully readers will forgive my temerity in exposing the mendacity of a Supreme Court justice, often cited as a “legal historian,” in arriving at his opinion in the above-cited case.
At issue is the meaning of the citizenship clause in Section 1 of Amendment XIV, as follows:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The question was whether the progeny of non-citizen Chinese immigrants became a U.S. citizen if born in the U.S.A. Justice Gray decided such a child “becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States” regardless of the parents’ citizenship, based on English common law.
The opinion was rendered by Justice Horace Gray, who had the reputation of being a meticulous researcher. As evidence of his penchant for research he used nearly 20 pages to cite court decisions, mostly on English common law, for the past 3 centuries. As a legal historian Justice Gray seemed unaware that we fought the War for Independence to extricate ourselves from under the burden of English common law, based on arbitrary medieval English feudalism, as it was applied to the colonies. While the colonies suffered patiently under this burden they finally reached the point where it became necessary to “alter their former Systems of Government.” The Declaration of Independence listed a “History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations” to justify this action. Given a choice the Founders preferred natural law to common law. Further, any ambiguity regarding the applicability of English common law to birthright U.S. citizenship should have been removed by ratification of the 14th Amendment[2] some 30 years before Gray wrote his opinion, rendering his “meticulous research” unworthy of consideration.
When Justice Gray confronted the 14th Amendment directly in his opinion he cited the record of the 39th Congress in the Congressional Globe[3], to justify it but selected only parts of the discussions. Apparently he was so consumed by his attachment to medieval English common law he was unable to discern the intended meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” even though he referred to this phrase repeatedly. Gray insisted that “Amend. art. 14. In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” Gray cited numerous pre-1868 cases that became irrelevant when the 14th Amendment was ratified.
The dispute should have been easily resolved by referring to the debates in the 39th Congress as printed in The Congressional Globe (now The Congressional Record). Even a Congressperson could do it. Senator Jacob Howard (MI) wrote the 14th’s Citizenship Clause (note references to natural law, national law) and introduced it into the Senate, stating:[4]
[T]his amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
In response to a question from Sen. Fessenden regarding coverage of the citizenship clause, Sen. Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, replied:[5] The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” Sen. Trumbull continues: What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Sen. Trumbull’s description of the citizenship clause was so uncomplicatedly clear that the meaning should be immune to mischaracterization. That phrase Gray referred to repeatedly is defined, right there in plain sight. Therefore, one could easily conclude that Justice Gray, the “meticulous researcher,” was deliberately misleading.
The citizenship clause means that aliens, legal or otherwise, will be under only the jurisdiction of local ordinances and laws but they owe the United States no allegiance and are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They cannot vote, be summoned for jury duty, be drafted into the military, etc. To become a naturalized citizen one must swear allegiance to the United States and after having done so full citizenship is obtained. Then the citizen’s progeny also become citizens.
The UK has no written constitution as a single controlling document but relies on tradition and precedent, various documents (some ancient), statutes, etc., for guidance. Together these comprise an “understanding” that is supposed to regulate the actions of the Parliament. However the Parliament, consisting of a combination of the Crown, the Lords, and the Commons is sovereign which means it can do almost anything it wants to do. It seems Blackstone favored this approach, while the Founders rejected it and embraced Vattel[6] instead. No judiciary is available to overturn an act of the sovereign Parliament that violates the “understanding” nor is there a chief executive that can veto it. It would seem that the “understanding” is elastic and can grow with the UK’s culture and its history. “Progressives” in the USA would rejoice if our Constitution could be replaced by such an understanding.
But I digress. Vice President Chester A. Arthur became President immediately after President Garfield died, primarily from an assassin’s bullet. Garfield died on September 19, 1881 and Arthur was sworn in, first at his home and again in D.C. On December 19 Arthur nominated Horace Gray to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. Gray was confirmed by the Senate the next day. Not much debate to confirm Gray.
Questions regarding Chester Arthur’s eligibility to be Vice President dogged Garfield’s campaign, but Arthur was able to persuade most doubters that he was born in Vermont in 1830, not in Ireland or Canada, and the matter was put to rest. As he neared death in 1886 Arthur had the servants burn all his personal papers, a most unusual act for a past-president.
An investigator uncovered information recently about Arthur in the Library of Congress that disclosed Arthur’s father was a British citizen who did not become naturalized until 1843, when Arthur was 14 years old.[7] Therefore, Arthur’s father was “subject to the jurisdiction” of England, English common law not withstanding. Arthur was not a “natural born citizen” and knew it. So questions about Arthur’s birthplace were a distraction and it occurred to no one at the time to investigate his father’s citizenship and that Arthur was born a British subject. So does it now appear that one US president was in fact a British subject? Did Justice Gray know this and develop the English common law issue only to legitimize Arthur’s presidency 12 years after his death?
If Chester Arthur was not eligible to be President then the appointment of Horace Gray was tainted, as was the finding in the Wong Kim Ark case. Would this negate the finding in this case, could it just be considered wrongly decided, or is this another judicial travesty to remain as “settled law?”
“Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.”[8] Well of course. That is exactly what the 14th Amendment is about. Another constitutional amendment to clarify what is already quite clear is not needed, but some supportive legislation by Congress would be helpful. A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is an honor and a matter of public trust. The appointees are obliged to rely upon the documented intentions of the Founders (and in this case those of the Framers of the 14th Amendment) and not have their decisions encumbered by the weltanschauung inculcated by the Ivy League.
___________________________
[1] U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), http://tourolaw.edu/patch/Wong/Gray.asp
[2] Ratified July 9, 1868
[3] Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, (1866), pp. 2890-2893, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html
[4] loc. cit., p.2890
[5] loc. cit., p. 2893
[6] Vattel’s Law of Nations (1758) Interesting discussion at this site: http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html
[7] Donofrio, Leo C., “Historical Breakthrough-Proof: Chester Arthur Concealed He Was A British Subject At Birth,” STARWISE, December 06, 2008, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2144293/posts
[8] Quoted from J. Gray’s decision.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Linden Bateman Candidate for State Representative
Linden Bateman, Candidate for State Representative District 33, Seat B.Linden Bateman’s past service in the Idaho legislature includes 4 years in leadership as caucus chairman where he presided over Republican meetings of the House of Representatives. He also served as vice chairman of the Local Government Committee and co-chairman of a joint legislative education reform committee. He holds a degree in government from BYU. During recent years he has supervised student interns for both ISU and BYU-I.
Describing his political philosophy to be one of creative conservatism, Bateman is alarmed by an ever-expanding federal interference into the affairs of state governments. He fully supports the lawsuit initiated by Idaho and 19 other states challenging the constitutionality of the Obama health care legislation.
Bateman believes that education improvement and funding will be among the top priorities scheduled for the next legislative session. He believes that schools can more effectively guide students into successful careers through the development of each child’s natural talents and productive interests.
Bateman is a life-long resident of Idaho Falls and grew up in the heart of legislative District 33. He and his wife, Deann, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren.
lindenbateman.blogspot.com
Tom Luna Superintendent of Public Instruction
As Idaho’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Luna is a state and national leader on education reform. Through a collaborative approach, Tom has spearheaded efforts to raise student achievement and create a system that focuses on the needs of the customer, not the bureaucracy, and his leadership has yielded results! Student achievement is on the rise and more resources are being focused to where they matter most: the classroom. Idaho’s increase in student achievement is being celebrated not only in Idaho, but being recognized nationally. Idaho has led the nation in the increase in the number of schools reaching the state’s high academic goals for two years in a row. In 2007, 26 percent of Idaho schools made the high academic goal, known as Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). In 2010, over 60 percent of Idaho schools reached this goal.http://www.lunaforidaho.com/
Friday, September 10, 2010
Representative Jeff Thompson
State Representative Jeff Thompson District 33, Seat A.
Jeff enjoys living in Eastern Idaho and has served in various positions for the Bonneville County Republicans, including Precinct One Committeeman as well as Vice Chairman.
As a conservative, he has been a lifelong member of the Republican party. Jeff was elected to the Idaho Legislature in 2008, and has served on the Business Education, and Health and Welfare committees. He has sponsored and cosponsored several bills over the last two years, and he works hard to advocate for the people of Eastern Idaho.
Jeff looks forward to continuing his service to Eastern Idaho in the Legislature.
http://www.thompsonforidaho.com/
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Governor Butch Otter
Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter was born on May 3, 1942 in Caldwell, graduated from Boise’s St. Teresa’s Academy – now Bishop Kelly High School – attended what then was Boise Junior College and earned his bachelor’s degree in political science from the College of Idaho.
The former Idaho National Guardsmen spent the first 30 years of his career with the J.R. Simplot Company in various roles, working his way up to president of Simplot International.
He was elected Lieutenant Governor in 1986, retired from Simplot in 1993, was elected to represent the people of Idaho’s 1st District in Congress in 2000, and was elected Idaho’s 32nd Governor in 2006.
Governor Otter knows that limiting the size and scope of government in our lives enables individual Idahoans to pursue the unlimited opportunity that should be every American’s birthright.
For information on how Governor Otter is working to create more career opportunities and continue leading Idaho to an even brighter future, visit his Web site at http://www.otter4idaho.com/.
Governor Butch Otter on the Proper Role of Government
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Revolution? Reform? or Renaissance?
Every once in a while a truly great article comes along that has a profound message. "Why We Need a Renaissance" by Oliver DeMille is an article I highly recommend reading for all those who care about freedom and the future of their posterity. I would love to hear your comments.
The following are excerpts from the article. Click the "read more" links to read the entire article.
"But when the economy is struggling, jobs are difficult to get and keep, employers are laying off and reducing costs, and/or capital is scarce and minimizing risk, a different set of values dominate......read more
"We need a massive internal renaissance of the great explorer, frontier, pioneering, and entrepreneuring values which took Pilgrims to the Mayflower, 49'rs to the plains, and led generations of Americans to build the businesses, families, schools, churches, and communities that made our nation great......read more
The following are excerpts from the article. Click the "read more" links to read the entire article.
"But when the economy is struggling, jobs are difficult to get and keep, employers are laying off and reducing costs, and/or capital is scarce and minimizing risk, a different set of values dominate......read more
"We need a massive internal renaissance of the great explorer, frontier, pioneering, and entrepreneuring values which took Pilgrims to the Mayflower, 49'rs to the plains, and led generations of Americans to build the businesses, families, schools, churches, and communities that made our nation great......read more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)