Published – Idaho State Journal, 09/25/11

I am continually astounded at the selfishness and egotism of some individuals, and some special-interest groups. An attitude that’s pervasive with anti-growth, anti-development, anti-progress groups that, by their actions, proudly and arrogantly proclaim, “I’ve got mine, so now I’ll prevent everyone else from getting theirs.”

Perhaps the most blatant, self-serving, and extreme versions of this selfishness is manifested by radical environmental groups. I’ve never been a big George Carlin fan, but his characterization of the radical environmental movement was spot-on. In his distinctive sardonic fashion, he would say, “We're so self-important. Everybody is going to save something now. Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails. And the greatest arrogance of all, save the planet. What?

“I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths, people trying to make the world safe for their Volvos. There is nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The people are (bleep).”

As inhabitants of the “blue planet,” we should all be “environmentalists.” We have a vested interest in protecting our habitation, preserving our quality of life, and ensuring the same for future generations. The problem arises at the extreme ends of the environmental protection spectrum.

Case in point is the ongoing “megaloads” issue in North Idaho. If you’ll recall, Canadian-based Imperial Oil, the world’s largest producer of synthetic oil harvested from oil sands, is investing $8 billion in expanded operations in Alberta. Included in that investment is $100 million in transportation costs to transport 35,000 tons of South Korean-made mining equipment across northern Idaho’s U.S. Highway 12, which has been handling over-sized loads safely for 20 years, from the Port of Lewiston.

Environmental extremists groups like Advocates for the West, Natural Resource Defense Council, and Friends of the Clearwater have done everything imaginable to prevent the shipment of the oversized loads over Idaho and Montana highways to Sweetgrass, MT where they cross the border into Canada. They have petitioned the respective Transportation Departments in the two states, they have filed injunctions and lawsuits in court, and even had some prepubescent malcontents from their ranks attempt to block the shipments by “sit ins” on the highways.

Let’s put this in perspective. Like it or not, oil is the literal fuel to our economy. The U.S. economy, and the world economy are struggling in spite of all the Keynesian “stimulus” spending that has buried the nation in debt. This week alone the Dow Industrial Average gave up 700 points in two days because of indications of another global recession. We’re still hovering at nearly 10% unemployment (closer to 17% according to the Wall Street Journal), and government is adding more and more deterrents to economic growth and job growth than ever before through regulation. There were 604 new regulations added in July alone. These shipments represent significant economic activity, job generation, and more energy production, all of which are sorely lacking today.

Frankly I would understand such resistance to these shipments if they were permanently damaging the state and our resources. But these are trucks, hauling equipment. They pose a minor inconvenience for midnight travelers.

Opponents argue that they could fall into the river. Anything’s possible, but everything we do has risks. When the rewards for the risks ventured are greater, we do them. Are we to the point in society where we are only willing to try something that’s 100% safe?

Interestingly, these groups are also fighting large shipments by Weyerhaeuser, a “green” energy company, that wants to ship oversized loads of equipment to a mill in Alberta that will generate fewer CO2 emissions from their facility there. If they were consistent in their assertion that they’re “saving the earth” shouldn’t they be facilitating, rather than blocking those shipments?

But such logical contradictions are commonplace with such illogical extremists. A recent blogger on the Journal weblogs admitted honestly, “Yes, I’m a walking contradiction. My concerns for Highway 12 are for the aesthetics…” That was after admitting the wind turbines west of American Falls are, “pleasing to the eye” even though such wind turbines permanently alter the landscape and are killing thousands of birds, many of which are on the Endangered Species List.

The risk to reward ratio is superb for this venture. The risk is negligible while the reward is significant in the form of increased supply of oil for everyone and economic velocity which the country is in short supply of these days. There is nothing to be gained, yet much to lose by blocking these shipments. The earth is not “saved” by successfully blocking them, leaving the only benefit as an inflated sense of self-importance and a “feel good” sensation for those extremists. The price of which we pay collectively.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 09/18/11

Our federal judiciary has become arguably and implacably the most powerful oligarchic body in the country. When they rule on the “constitutionality” of an issue it is assumed to be the final say in whether a vote of congress or the vote of the people via referendum or initiative is legitimized or annulled. This is not how the Supreme Court and its substrata of appellate courts were intended to operate, nor is it de facto the way it should be.

The federal judiciary, as it has evolved historically, has unchecked and unlimited power over the nation by either of the other branches, the executive or the legislative. Its members are not accountable to the people, since most of their appointments are for life, and they cannot be removed from the bench by a vote of the people they are purported to be serving. Their ruminations and the results of their decisions are insular as they trump the will of the people with regard to key social issues. Their decisions are presumed to be final, even though they may be at odds with the democratic majority of our citizens.

Herein lies the fundamental problem about the present construct of our federal judiciary as it has evolved since the founding. If, as stated in the 10^th Amendment, all “rights and powers” not specifically itemized in the Constitution are held by the people collectively or by the states, what right does a court have to negate the will of the people? As it relates especially to key cultural issues like abortion, public religious displays, and definitions of marriage, should not the final court be the court of public opinion, rather than an oligarchy of judges insulated from, and not accountable to the citizenry? In most of these cases, state courts have ruled, and appeals brought to the federal judiciary. According to the Constitution, it doesn’t have to be that way.

Thomas Jefferson portended this judicial despotism. "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.”

It is clear from reading Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution that the founders delineated with specificity, what cases the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over. It declares, “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority…” In other words, the jurisdiction of the federal courts is limited to what we typically associate with federal matters. They do not have unlimited jurisdiction over the decisions handed down by state courts.

Even more telling, however, is the final sentence of Article III, Section 2, which states, “…with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” Congress, therefore, has the constitutional authority to limit or regulate the kinds of cases the Supreme Court hears.

Jefferson clearly understood the system of checks and balances on the respective powers of the three branches of government. As he said in a letter to Abigail Adams in 1804, “The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” It has obviously become a despotic branch since it can overturn the will of the people as expressed even in referenda or initiatives.

We need to reclaim the power promised in the 10^th Amendment of the Constitution. We have control over the legislative and executive branches through the power of the vote. By exercising the power of the vote we can also regain control of the oligarchical judiciary by having Congress limit, as intended by the Constitution, the appellate function as currently abused by the federal judiciary. They could be limited to federal statute only, specifically exclude state issues, or limited in any way they choose.

Congress clearly has the power to limit the power and scope of the federal appellate process. Since Congress is doing nothing to limit judicial review, perhaps it’s time for us to remind them they have the power to do so.

Published – Idaho State Journal, 09/11/11

America’s fundamental principles of life, liberty, and property are as critical, if not more so, at the local and state levels of governance as they are at the national level. The larger national issues are, to an extent, easier to juxtapose with the founding principles to illuminate the errors and voice our grievances. But those same precepts are under assault at the city, county, and state level as well. And unlike the national level where one voice is drowned out by the cacophony of millions of similar and dissimilar voices, at the local level, a few well-founded voices can make a difference right here at home, where it arguably matters most. Let’s examine a few examples.

The Greenway has been discussed ad nauseam over the past couple of years. And it still astounds me that we have city officials who would vote for, and express support for, the trumping of individual property rights by the special interests of a few influential activists. While they will rightfully say that the property owners who’re unwilling to surrender their property for the greenway would be offered “market prices” if eminent domain is declared, they would still be forced to sell their property. It’s bad enough that the government, with all its supposed omniscience and wisdom, dictates so much regarding land use. But it’s even worse when local government feels it can force their citizens to do something with their property because of someone’s “feel-good” idea. Individual property rights must be preserved and protected at the local level if we ever have hope of protecting them on a national scale.

Closely related to the Greenway issue is the “Open Space” plan adopted by the city, with the mayor casting the tie-breaker vote. Open space is another of those great “feel good” plans that on the surface seems so innocuous and positive for preserving our quality of life that no one should question it. Yet all across the nation, those feel-good open-space plans have turned from a good idea, to policy and statute curtailing private property rights. Will Pocatello’s well-drafted and craftily worded plan turn out any different? It’s not likely, as it represents the nose of the camel invading the tent of personal property utilization rights.

While we’re on the subject of property, what are we to think about a city council that authorizes the purchase of a piece of property for over a million dollars that just over a year earlier had been appraised for about $300,000? I would be willing to bet that none of those councilmen would be willing to shell out a 330% price premium on a piece of private property they wanted to buy. But for some reason, such transactions are okay when done with someone else’s money.

The city’s recycling plan is a noble effort and is commendable. It is logical to have that service available at a reasonable cost in a municipality of this size. I also appreciate the fact that participation with the program is voluntary, as it should be. However, with a voluntary program, it rather seems that the cost should be borne by those who volunteer to participate with it. Instead, all city residents pay for it whether they participate with the program or not. As a matter of principle, it seems a bit incongruous and even disingenuous to offer a “voluntary” program to citizens but have everyone equally charged for it. Many government services’ costs must be spread across the tax-payer base, whether the services are used by all the taxpayers or not, but voluntary “opt-in” programs should not be. As is, the funding formula is just like government-funded abortions: everyone pays for them, but participation is “voluntary.”

At the county level, no discernable progress has been made to undo our recent massive budget increase. Three years ago the commission increased the county budget by $10 million, nearly a 30% increase in one year. Two of the three commissioners involved in that fiasco have been retired by the voters. Our present county commissioners sold themselves to voters as conservatives, promising more fiscal restraint and judicious spending. Unless something is done in this regard, the present commissioners just might be facing early retirement as well.

In spite of the fact that we have more self-avowed “conservatives” on the city council and on the county commission, local government continues to grow, budgets expand, and costs of government continue to escalate. “Bait and switch” is illegal in marketing, but obviously is standard practice in politics. We need people in those positions who would be as parsimonious with our money as they are with their own.

Published – Idaho State Journal, 09/04/11

Last week presidential candidate Rick Perry was asked about evolution, to which he responded, “it’s a theory that is out there — it’s got some gaps in it.” Perry’s answer drew the predictable ire and reprehension we’ve learned to expect from the establishment media, and leftist anti-God pundits, who arrogantly surmise that the science is just as settled with regard to evolution as it is with regard to anthropogenic global warming. Perry was exactly right, there are “gaps” in evolutionary theory.

Empirical scientific observations are classified roughly into three categories: hypotheses, theories, and laws. The weakest of these are hypotheses, while laws provide the strongest scientific explanations.

Evolution, as taught in most schools, is classified as a theory. Some aspects of evolutionary theory are correct, and are validated by the paleontological and genetic evidence. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, and adaptation, are all well documented. If evolution is defined as cumulative change over time then it is verifiable. Even “descent with modification” applied to specific species is scientifically verifiable. But Charles Darwin claimed much more than this, as he asserted that all species originate from one. This is Darwinism, and is scientifically unverifiable and, as such, is little more than conjecture.

To apply the valid tenets of evolution and then make Kierkegaardian" leaps of faith" to make assertions that are not supported by the science is what Darwinism does. Such assumptions include, but are not limited to, trans-genus, trans-class, or trans-species evolution. There is no paleontological evidence of gradual and progressive evolution of bugs to mice, or frogs to birds, etc. And to make the presumption that this all started from a big bang which itself is causally inexplicable to scientists is another such leap of faith.

Stephen Gould, Professor of Geology and Peleontology at Harvard, although an evolutionist, has admitted, “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." He continues, “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little [actually, nothing] in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between the major groups are characteristically abrupt.” Even pre-Cambrian fossil discoveries in China did not provide the evidence sought by Darwinists.

Another major gap in Darwinism is the genetic component. Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, has said that the information stored within our DNA is essentially a genetic code, much like a computer language. Because of this characteristic, mathematical probabilities can be calculated based on presumptions of Darwinistic evolutionary theory.

One such calculation has been conducted by Dr. Frank Salisbury of the Division of Biomedical and Environment Research at the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission many years ago. He examined the chance of one of the most basic chemical reactions for Darwinistic evolution to take place. This reaction involves the formation of a specific DNA molecule within a 4 billion year time period. He calculated that chance as 10 x 415-power. This number has 415 zeros after it! That’s for one molecule. The evolutionary improbability grows exponentially when you consider there are billions of such molecules in human dna.

Dr. Emile Borel, a French mathematician, formulated a basic law of probability. It states that the occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in 10 x 50-power, a much smaller figure than what Salisbury came up with, is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted.

Clearly, then, it’s a mathematical impossibility for life to have evolved as Darwinists claim. Not only does paleontological evidence not support it as there is no evidence of transitional fossils, but the massive strides in genetic research made over the past few decades actually make it more difficult to support.

Evolutionary theory scientifically explains much regarding the advancement of life. But the pure science cannot explain the original of the universe, the origin of life, or the biological origin of man, empirically, inductively or deductively. To claim they can is factually and scientifically incorrect.

Even I, a non-scientist, can reason through what is scientifically verifiable and what is not, regarding evolutionary theory. And an educated electorate, which is demanded by a republic such as ours, must be able to do so as well. Otherwise, “scientists,” media, and teachers with agendas, will prey upon our collective ignorance to convince us it’s not scientific to question Darwinism or other postulations.

A Darwinist must exercise faith to come to the conclusion that all life evolved from a single organism, just as a man of faith might accept an intelligent design explanation. I, for one, would prefer a theological possibility, rather than a paleontologically unverified mathematical impossibility.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 08/28/11

Although I was mostly apolitical as a teenager growing up in the 70’s, I recall with clarity the public debate over Richard Nixon’s role in the Watergate break-in. That role led to articles of impeachment being drafted against him, and in the face of certain ratification by congress, Nixon resigned the office of the presidency. Although the articles of impeachment specified illegal activity warranting impeachment, the consensus among the public at large was that Nixon felt himself to be above the law, and that he could do whatever he pleased as chief executive of the nation.

The President of our republic is arguably the chief law enforcement officer of the country. He heads the executive branch, which is responsible for enforcing the laws of the land. The Attorney General of the nation is the president’s appointee charged specifically with that duty, of enforcing the laws that are established by legislative statute. The President cannot pass or impose laws, as that is the function of the legislative branch. He can issue Executive Orders which may clarify executive intent on the execution of specific laws established by congress, and no one did that better than George W. Bush.

However, can a president place himself above the laws of the land and choose which laws to enforce and which not to enforce? Many feel that is what Nixon did, and many feel that’s what Barack Obama did last week when his Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, declared that they would not enforce the nation’s laws with regard to those who enter the country illegally.

The Immigration and Nationality Act Section 237 says, “Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States is deportable.” According to INS statistics a few years ago, about 60% of our estimated fifteen million illegal aliens (foreign nationals) are guilty of “entry without inspection,” or EWI. The remaining 40% are illegal for overstaying their authorized duration of residency in the country. Under federal statute cited above, both are deportable offenses.

So does Obama feel he’s above the law and can cherry pick which laws he’ll enforce and which he won’t? Apparently so. But it’s not the first time. There are several laws which Obama’s justice department refuses to enforce, including the Defense of Marriage Act, and voter intimidation laws. The latter is the most blatant for it involved well-documented and recorded efforts (some of which are viewable on YouTube) of voter intimidation by Black Panthers in paramilitary garb harassing Philadelphia voters in 2008.

Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer and publisher of the left-wing Village Voice observed the intimidation (which is a federal offense) firsthand, and called it “the most blatant form of voter intimidation I’ve ever seen.” Bull testified that not only were the thugs brandishing clubs as weapons, but they hurled racial threats at voters, including “You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!” Yet Obama’s justice department dropped the charges against them. This is not surprising since one of the intimidators was Jerry Jackson, a member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and a credentialed poll watcher for the Party. Rhetorically we might question if charges would have been similarly dropped against Republican poll watchers, or against Tea Party activists implicated in such voter intimidation.

Another blatant disregard of law is Obama’s handling of his “kinetic” war against Libya. The Constitution and the War Powers Act require approbation from Congress for the deployment of military forces abroad for more than 60 days. It has been 150 days since Obama deployed forces to Libya, and no sign of congressional approval is in sight.

Obama’s response for such authorization was that Congressional involvement in this regard would be “unnecessary and unhelpful.” Liberal Congressman Dennis Kucinich has been among the chorus of critics calling Obama’s disdain of congressional approval a clear usurpation of Congressional authority. “President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn't have Congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said." Kucinich added that Obama's actions "would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense."

President Obama is frequently compared to our 39^th President, Jimmy Carter, for his dismal failure in handling the economy. He currently enjoys a 26% approval rating in handling of the economy, according to Rasmussen, which proves that while it may be impossible to fool all the people all of the time, it is possible to fool about a fourth of them. But in terms of narcissism and a superiority complex that supersedes the rule of law, he arguably could be more aptly compared with our 37^th President, Richard Nixon, as the evidence is mounting that he considers himself to be above the law.