tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post8302951380304500594..comments2017-04-13T04:47:21.148-06:00Comments on Pro Libertate: Criminalizing Citizen Activism: The Chris Pentico CaseWilliam N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-40887005941122512062009-05-17T23:19:00.000-06:002009-05-17T23:19:00.000-06:00Sans Authoritas, No, No, God forbid! I did not mea...Sans Authoritas, No, No, God forbid! I did not mean that politicians have "moral authority." My remark was meant as sarcasm because <I><B>they </B></I> think they have moral authority. They are amoral and I don't recognize their authority over me. I don't even like the words "consent of the governed" in the Declaration of Independence. Just who among all the equally created (white men) did Mr. Jefferson think needed to be "governed?"I Hate Bobby Flaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-33026846802906614942009-05-17T19:08:00.000-06:002009-05-17T19:08:00.000-06:00I Hate Bobby,
I'm sure 95 percent of the people ...I Hate Bobby, <br /><br />I'm sure 95 percent of the people who read this blog were, at one time or another, legal positivists, rabid or otherwise. I'll be the first to admit that I was once numbered among them. We've all done our share of blushing. <br /><br />Thanks be to the grace of God and logic, I am no longer a legal positivist. <br /><br />As for such politicians and their natural hypocrisy? Well, Jesus had something to say about them, in Luke 11:46: "But he said: Woe to you lawyers also, because you load men with burdens which they cannot bear, and you yourselves touch not the packs with one of your fingers." <br /><br />Now, "Woe" isn't something that is often decisively visited upon politicians in this world, though politicians often lead very sad, tragic lives. Jesus's indication of an unpleasant reception at <I>his</I> judgment seat, should they fail to change their ways, should be a lesson to the rest of us not to become like them. <br /><br />Politicians don't have any more "moral authority" than the rest of us, I Hate Bobby. They only have more power to impose their wills. <br />If I tell you not to murder someone, I've just exercised as much moral authority as any president or king could ever wield. I have authority to say this only because I echoed the natural and divine law. Even a four-year old can have as much authority as a king or myself, if he also echoes God's law. Positive law is only binding if to break it means it breaks the divine law. For example: failure to stop at an octagonal red sign at an intersection is not an intrinsically evil act. Failing to stop at an intersection is only evil because if you do not stop at the sign indicating an intersection, you recklessly put others in danger. <br /><br /> -Sans AuthoritasSans Authoritasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-31460709348540142362009-05-17T18:29:00.000-06:002009-05-17T18:29:00.000-06:00This weekend, President Obama addressed the subjec...This weekend, President Obama addressed the subject of abortion in his commencement speech at Notre Dame University. He said,<br /><br />'Understand – I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it – indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory – the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature. Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.'<br /><br />All well and good. But of course, the one thing which the president did NOT offer was for the U.S. fedgov to simply withdraw from a subject over which it has no constitutional authority.<br /><br />As a thought experiment, I ask people to project what would have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had declined to get involved in the Roe v. Wade case in 1973.<br /><br />At that time, four states had decriminalized abortion, and similar legislation was pending in more than a dozen others. My guess is that somewhere between half and two-thirds of the 50 states would have liberalized abortion. Others such as Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Utah, and probably a dozen more, would have kept it illegal.<br /><br />Pro-choicers would have denounced the fact that a right allegedly found in the 'penumbra' of the constitution was not universally available. Similarly, pro-lifers would have deplored the fact that large states containing the majority of the U.S. population had decided to allow the killing of unborn babies.<br /><br />Nevertheless, such a gnarly patchwork of laws would have acknowledged the fact that the U.S. is a culturally variegated place, where 'one size fits all' ukases from the fedgov rub nerves raw on both sides of issues.<br /><br />Barack Obama, of course, imagines a conciliatory grand pow-wow whose fudges will be administered by his goodself and his legions of fedgov bureaucrats. Nowhere in his sensitive, thoughtful speech does he acknowledge that the comically flawed Roe v. Wade federal power grab made him part of the problem, not part of the solution ... and that the best thing he could do to promote reconcliation on this contentious topic would be to pull his fedgov Leviation out of the way, and turn the matter back over to the states and the people where it rested before and where it still belongs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-21447592701840555752009-05-17T17:41:00.000-06:002009-05-17T17:41:00.000-06:00Thanks Sans Authoritas. In the Before Time I was a...Thanks Sans Authoritas. In the Before Time I was at least a positivist law enabler in that I have uttered the words "the law is the law" and "I don't agree with such-and-such but it <I>is</I> the law and what if everybody blahblahblah." I blush with shame.<br /><br />How lucky for the passers of the pos laws that they don't suffer any consequences when they break them. Our Senator-for-life, Richard Shelby, was asked by a constituent for help in his son's case who received a life sentence without parole after a confidential informant (and his employee) accused him of dealing drugs. Even though there was zero evidence and the CI recanted, Shelby answered the man, "We must take a strong stand... I support strict punishment for individuals involved in... illegal drugs." Shelby's son was later caught bringing hashish into the country and was fined $500. (Now he is strongly standing against internet gambling. I hate him too.)<br /><br />Remember Carl Rowen? While not a legislator, he was an Elite, and therefore exempted himself from the laws he advocated for everyone else--a complete ban on the sale or possession of handguns (except the beloved police) and imprisonment for anyone caught with a handgun, whether it was used or not. Then he shot a teenager for trespassing on his property.<br /><br />I doubt whether these people cared about the morality of laws so much as they cared about their moral authority to rule over others.I Hate Bobby Flaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-44294900501860252552009-05-17T09:44:00.000-06:002009-05-17T09:44:00.000-06:00I Hate Bobby,
What Mr. Napolitano (while he is a ...I Hate Bobby,<br /><br />What Mr. Napolitano (while he is a very reasonable man, I still refuse to recognize a State-issued title) says about positivism is true, but I don't think it comes down to the definition of positivism. I think his definition is more accurately applied to "tyranny." <br /><br />Legal positivism is the idea that the mere act of proscribing an act can make performing the act immoral. Conversely, positivists believe that legalizing an action makes it moral. <br /><br />For example, many positivists believe that abortion is moral not because they think the act is good in itself, but because it is <I>legal.</I> Of course, many positivists only believe that the moral nature of an act is changed by legislation when it suits their fancy. You will seldom see a legal positivist liberal, who thinks that abortion is moral because it is legal, take the view that carrying a firearm is moral because it is legal. <br /><br />You've doubtless heard many people say, "The law is the law," or if someone is shot while running from a badgethug, "That's what you get for running from the police." Anyone who speaks those words in favor of legislation that proscribes behavior that harms no one is a legal positivist. A legal positivist is like an abused woman: she is so conditioned by the husband's violence that she actually believes "Well, he wouldn't have hit me if I hadn't done something wrong." Unfortunately, the abused woman believes that "Something wrong," could be something as innocuous as sneezing in a way that the man in power did not like. <br /><br />The abused woman really and truly believes, in her Stockholm syndrome delusion, that the man is justified in using violence against her, based on actions she performed that harmed no one. <br /><br />In its essence, that is what legal positivists are: abused women who approve of violence being used, not to protect someone from a real threat, but to <I>make them act</I> according to their own wills. <br /><br />I have run into many people who believe that slavery was moral simply because it was legal. These are actually people who believe that it was moral for police to enforce laws against runaway slaves. Or against blacks sitting in the front of buses. <br /><br />Legal positivists want to make people act in accordance with their wills. They want to impose an arbitrary, created order on other people. Sane people, on the other hand, recognize law for what it is: a codification of the already-extant moral law. But we cannot simply codify every aspect of moral law: much of the moral law is spiritual in nature. We cannot use physical violence against spiritual threats. It is impossible to proscribe sin. The only just law is that which proscribes behavior that actually and directly harms the life or property of others. (Murder, theft, fraud, etc.) The law will not be effective in <I>making</I> anyone live according to its precepts, but it will serve as a codified vehicle for remuneration to the victim of the aggressor's action, after the fact.<br /><br />The legal positivist is like a child who obeys his mother when she tells him not to hit his sister. He obeys not because he recognizes that it is wrong in itself to hit his sister, but obeys "because Mommy said so, and if I don't, I get spanked." <br /><br />Legal positivists live with a craving for power over others. They <I>must</I> use political means (read: coercive violence) in order to achieve their ends, because their ends are not in accord with the natural law. It takes a bit of violence to force the square peg of human nature into the round hole of their perception of what human nature should be. <br /><br />The rest of us, who recognize the source and purpose of all real law, simply want to be left in peace, to live out our lives in voluntary, mutually-beneficial social interaction. <br /><br />In a nutshell, if an act (distilling whiskey, owning a firearm of any type, caliber or rate of fire, prostitution, or drug use) doesn't really and actually violate (against the person's will) the life or property of others in itself, and you want to prohibit that behavior, you are a legal positivist. <br /><br />We do not need to approve of immoral behaviors that do not violate other people's life and property. But just because they do not have the right (according to the moral law) to perform an immoral action, it does not mean we have the right to pick up a up a gun to stop said immoral behavior. Furthermore, there is <I>absolutely</I> no rational justification on <I>any</I> level to use violence against men who do not only not violate the life or property of others, but do nothing immoral at all. Physical violence must only be used against actual physical threats to physical people and their physical property. <br /><br />Positivists fail to recognize this. <br /><br /> -Sans AuthoritasSans Authoritasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-23121704382612138952009-05-17T00:19:00.000-06:002009-05-17T00:19:00.000-06:00The article about the 43 children said that "in ne...The article about the 43 children said that "in nearly every case, the guards had permission from parents or grandparents to administer the 'electronic immobilization devices...' "<br /><br />Isn't that the strangest thing? That parents would take their children to a prison in the first place is inconceivable, but once there they leave them in the care of someone else to whom they have given permission to apply a stun gun? These people are not even human.I Hate Bobby Flaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-54285692303141660442009-05-16T15:51:00.000-06:002009-05-16T15:51:00.000-06:00Will, have you seen this?
43 kids stun-gunned at ...Will, have you seen this?<br /><br />43 kids stun-gunned at prisons' Take Your Kids to Work Day<br /><br />http://www.miamiherald.com/459/story/1050424.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-35320583065032610792009-05-16T04:30:00.000-06:002009-05-16T04:30:00.000-06:00Thanks Will, and good on me, I have Judge Napolita...Thanks Will, and good on me, I have Judge Napolitano's book, I just haven't read it yet. But I did look up the passages you mentioned.I Hate Bobby Flaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-10797915411761076722009-05-16T00:33:00.000-06:002009-05-16T00:33:00.000-06:00About suggestions for action items, I have one. We...About suggestions for action items, I have one. We need some enterprising engineer to devise an invention--a tool, clothing, something--that would confer protection against tasers. Would it be a violation of libertarian principles to organize an attempt to bankrupt taser with lawsuits?<br /><br />I am reminded of that famous psychology experiment regarding torture. Clearly the taser is a torture device in the hands of combat-high junkies. The SS never had it so good...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-62643644700552162082009-05-15T20:53:00.000-06:002009-05-15T20:53:00.000-06:00Doug @1:55 am,
A strange thing about things of th...Doug @1:55 am,<br /><br />A strange thing about things of the soul which are beyond the power of language: We can say things which appear to be contradictory but are both true. The sayings of Jesus appear to be full of contradictions, but are not really so. You and I are both correct, but we are talking here from different levels of truth - me from a lower, you from a higher.<br /><br />Of course this world is God's - He made it. He made Satan too. But the world has been given over to Satan to administer, because God's character is love and forgiveness and Satan's character is justice and punishment, and Satan thinks this world is his. Just like I think my bank account belongs to me. When I die, how much of it will I take with me?<br /><br />Ah so. Quite. I am a fool, just like Satan.<br /><br />Some days I talk from one perspective, some days from another. Rather than a long religious discussion here, when the real topic is civil liberty, please go back and see what I wrote near the end of the comments to the 4/30/09 article "Pinning Us Down" - first what I wrote to Dixie Dog @5:39 am then 3 comments in a row to Shay's Rebel right near the end. Those comments agree with your higher perspective 100%.<br /> <br />Kind regards,<br />Lemuel.Lemuel Gullivernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-6617226167685496322009-05-15T20:17:00.000-06:002009-05-15T20:17:00.000-06:00I Hate Bobby Flay --
Please forgive me for throwi...I Hate Bobby Flay --<br /><br />Please forgive me for throwing the term "positivism" without providing a suitable link or other means of defining it.<br /><br />Judge Andrew Napolitano laid out a pretty concise explanation in<I>A Nation of Sheep</I>. His definition is that positivism is the doctrine that “the law is whatever those in power say it is.... Under positivism, whoever or whatever controls the government, whether a majority or a minority, always rules and always gets its way.”<br /><br /><br />Positivism, he continues, “is perhaps the most primitive legal theory, having evolved only slightly from the sort of justification that could be offered for following the demands of a tribal chieftain or general-turned-dictator. The theory promotes fear rather than respect.... The problem today in America, the greatest and gravest threat to personal freedom in this country, is that the positivists are carrying the day.”William N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-38518258117737693042009-05-15T16:51:00.000-06:002009-05-15T16:51:00.000-06:00Can anyone explain what a "positivist judge" is? O...Can anyone explain what a "positivist judge" is? Or positivist law? I looked it up but I don't understand it.I Hate Bobby Flaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-31721906189865926382009-05-15T15:30:00.000-06:002009-05-15T15:30:00.000-06:00"But I wish that Will would list "action items" at..."But I wish that Will would list "action items" at the end of each piece."<br /><br />This is a wonderful idea because my first inclination is to call and shriek at people for things like this. Constructive advice and laying out of steps would be good.Jerri Lynn Wardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-27289650053678034992009-05-15T13:00:00.000-06:002009-05-15T13:00:00.000-06:00That prosecutor should be brought up on the carpet...That prosecutor should be brought up on the carpet for poor conduct unbefitting an agent of the state. Her hyperbole in describing the accused was shot down clearly by the judge. She should have been much more professional in her presentation to the court. The point is, she is not there to win or lose, she is just there to present the case!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-62247042644942862882009-05-15T11:42:00.000-06:002009-05-15T11:42:00.000-06:00Anonymous, that's a very good suggestion; somethin...Anonymous, that's a very good suggestion; something of that kind is badly overdue. Thanks!William N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-79342195530624453252009-05-15T10:54:00.000-06:002009-05-15T10:54:00.000-06:00What happened to Chris Pentico, and Pastor Steve A...What happened to Chris Pentico, and Pastor Steve Anderson, as described by Will Grigg, are outrages, and how can anyone not be infuriated? <br /><br />But I wish that Will would list "action items" at the end of each piece. Because it is worthless to be educated and alarmed, and yet do nothing. <br /><br />For example, I would like to write the Idaho evil-doers, and the Arizona Border Patrol, polite letters of rebuke. Will, could you possibly start providing suggestions about how to actively protest these travesties? And how to lend support to the wrongly persecuted?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-6114079540622577452009-05-15T09:24:00.000-06:002009-05-15T09:24:00.000-06:00Will,
This is not the first such case in Idaho. I...Will,<br /><br />This is not the first such case in Idaho. I encourage you to look at the Dr. Peter Rickards case in Elmore County.<br /><br />Dr. Rickards was convicted of "trespassing" at a PUBLIC HEARING held on possible construction of a nuclear plant near Mountain Home. The judge frankly gave Rickards a raw deal. http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2008/12/23/opinion/reader_comments/151424.txt<br /><br />Whether you are for or against nuclear power should not be the issue here. The issue is judicial brutality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-61013116310265677062009-05-15T02:55:00.000-06:002009-05-15T02:55:00.000-06:00I hate to disagree here on this site but Lemuel yo...I hate to disagree here on this site but Lemuel you make a simple yet common mistake in inturprating scripture. Satan said: "All this will I give thee, if thou wilt bow down and worship me."<br /><br />"That means all the kingdoms of this world and all the glory thereof belong to Satan, and are Satan's property to bestow on his servants." This is the wrong view.<br /><br />The reason that Jesus didn't bow down is becauce He knew what Satan was saying was a lie. Satan did not have any authority to give anything so Jesus. All the land, cattle and kingdoms belong to God and Jesus knew that they would be his as well. Jesus was raised from the dead and given all authority over land, cattle and kingdoms. <br /><br />Why should we as christians be kicked out of the public square and out of the public arena? As joint heirs with Christ they belong to us. I believe we are to tend to the garden not move out.<br /><br />Remember to pray daily "Thy kingdom come, on earth as it is (already) in heaven."<br /><br />Take dominion man, don't "bend over"!Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10589848926678192578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-62204065368322689092009-05-14T21:23:00.000-06:002009-05-14T21:23:00.000-06:00So, is the moral to this story to always go for a ...So, is the moral to this story to always go for a jury trial? It seemed as if Mr. Pentico had a pretty good following. Maybe those folks would have made up a portion of the jury. Just a thought.Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11711343543256743613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-52317037100499956402009-05-14T16:55:00.000-06:002009-05-14T16:55:00.000-06:00MoT,
Thanks for the observations. One of the (to ...MoT,<br /><br />Thanks for the observations. One of the (to me) most significant sayings of Jesus was: "My kingdom is not of this world." Moreover, Satan took Jesus up into a high place and tempted Him, showing Him "all the kingdoms of the world, and all the glory thereof," and said to Jesus, "All this will I give thee, if thou wilt bow down and worship me."<br /><br />That means all the kingdoms of this world and all the glory thereof belong to Satan, and are Satan's property to bestow on his servants.<br /><br />Christian churches and Christians should stay the hell out of politics. Politicians are servants of Satan, and so are those so-called "ministers" who meddle in politics.<br /><br />Mother Teresa never gave a single penny to any political party or cause. She spent it all on those who needed it.<br /><br />Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Ralph Reed, Richard Mellon Scaife and Tim LaHaye, are you sons of bitches listening?<br /><br />I'd include Jerry Falwell, but he can't hear us any more over the roaring of the flames.<br /><br />Meanwhile, any excuse will suffice for a tyrant. Especially the excuse that they are "doing God's work." Or "keeping us safe."<br /><br />The only thing that will "keep us safe" is a guillotine in the public square, reserved for those politicians who make more than minimum wage.Lemuel Gullivernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-33218237376700498302009-05-14T12:50:00.000-06:002009-05-14T12:50:00.000-06:00Lemuel, I guess the lesson learned here, if one we...Lemuel, I guess the lesson learned here, if one were to have ears, is not to trust any governmental entity regardless of its red or blue state affiliation. The problem, as I see it, is that Christians have put more faith in government than it ever deserved. One should always hold government in suspicion. Rather than wait for them to DO something for you or TO you wouldn't it be better to go about the business of making life better without their permission. The fact is we don't need them for much of anything that we can't do for ourselves.MoThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13996714804361467430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-11012332617441112862009-05-14T09:34:00.000-06:002009-05-14T09:34:00.000-06:00From Aesop's Fables:
Once upon a time a Wolf was ...From Aesop's Fables:<br /><br />Once upon a time a Wolf was lapping at a spring on a hillside, when, looking up, what should he see but a Lamb just beginning to drink a little lower down. "There's my supper," thought he, "if only I can find some excuse to seize it." Then he called out to the Lamb, "How dare you muddy the water from which I am drinking?" <br /><br />"Nay, master, nay," said Lambikin; "if the water be muddy up there, I cannot be the cause of it, for it runs down from you to me." <br /><br />"Well, then," said the Wolf, "why did you call me bad names this time last year?" <br /><br />"That cannot be," said the Lamb; "I am only six months old." <br /><br />"I don't care," snarled the Wolf; "if it was not you it was your father;" and with that he rushed upon the poor little Lamb and WARRA WARRA WARRA WARRA WARRA ate her all up. But before she died she gasped out: <br /><br />"Any excuse will serve a tyrant."Lemuel Gullivernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-47316652497158553502009-05-14T09:17:00.000-06:002009-05-14T09:17:00.000-06:00Edward Gibbon:
"Augustus was sensible that mankin...Edward Gibbon:<br /><br />"Augustus was sensible that mankind is governed by names; nor was he deceived in his expectation, that the senate and people would submit to slavery, provided they were respectfully assured that they still enjoyed their ancient freedoms." - Chapter 3<br /><br />In the eight years of the Cheney-Bush dictatorship, that is exactly what happened. Almost half the American public swallowed their line of Big Republican Government bullshit hook, line and sinker. They believed every goddam lie they were told, because it came out of the mouth of some filthy maggot calling himself a "Republican." Bush was a saint. Literally. I was told that by a True Believer Christian woman. Her words exactly: "Our President is a saint." Cheney was a real man. (Someone who got 5 deferments from going to Vietnam.) Any Republican was a species of superior human being, and all Democrats were traitors ans scum. They even made "liberal" into a cussword.<br /><br />Well, children, you made your beds. Now you will have to lie in them. Have fun. If you voted for them, shut your mouth and enjoy the choices you made. <br /><br />If you had enough functioning brain cells to see what the Bush cabal and the RepubliNazi Party were doing, and are still trying to do, join with me in jeering at Republicans. Or in selling them a bridge.<br /><br />Just like Adolf Hitler and the Germans after the war, who in the beginning voted for him 77% and afterwards called him a monster, today some Republicans can find it in their shriveled little dry hearts to call Saint Bush a failure.<br /><br />Did you see the latest poll? Evangelical Christians are the most likely to advocate torture, more so than mainline sects or Catholics. I guess if you can believe Bush was a saint, and you can believe in "The Rapture," which is nowhere in the Bible but was invented by a convicted child molester in the 19th Century, you can believe anything Dick Cheney says. They make me sick.Lemuel Gullivernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-88108349010239247902009-05-13T14:32:00.000-06:002009-05-13T14:32:00.000-06:00Brings to mind “listings of people”… people more e...Brings to mind “listings of people”… people more easily intimidated and controlled by a tar and feathering they receive as a result of the foolish acts of others that are associated in the public mind with them. This public smear causes them to break off all networking, lay low, and do nothing to resist the rise of tyranny. Gibbon’s famous quote says it well. "A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master, who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the last extremes of injustice and oppression."Wayne Sedlakhttp://earlychristianamerica.com/blog/?p=126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-40223875753490593662009-05-13T12:48:00.000-06:002009-05-13T12:48:00.000-06:00To Sic Semper Tyrannis -
As a follow-up to my ea...To Sic Semper Tyrannis - <br /><br />As a follow-up to my earlier post - I can appreciate what you stated regarding Idaho's "leadership". The same can be said about the legislature and governor of Utah, both of whom are more than happy to live at the teat of the Federal Government.<br /><br />Best wishes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com