Thursday, October 27, 2016

Kootenai County 2016 General Election - Voter's Guide

Ok frankly, I’ve truthfully been dreading writing this year’s voter’s guide, ok?

Maybe that’s overstating it a bit. I’ve looked forward to almost everything. All the down ballot races are exciting and very important. The part I’ve been dreading is the presidential race. Many have postulated that there’s never been a more divisive race than that of Trump vs. Clinton. And that has led to some issues.
I want to start out by saying that this voter’s guide is just that - a guide. Nothing I say or do not say should be taken as gospel and nothing says your vote must be the same as my vote. I put this out there because it’s a way to help others who aren’t hopeless political nerds without a life. I spend a lot of time researching and reading to come up with these suggestions and present them to you with the belief that these are the best options we have.
My purpose in writing this is so that you can have the resources and knowledge you need to make an informed vote based on Biblical and Constitutional principles.
If we disagree on one point or another, that is simply because we are human. And humans make errors. It should not drive a wedge between friends or cause relations to become strained. Instead, it should motivate us to learn, study, and become better people. People who have all the facts, not just the facts we like. People who love our fellow flawed humans so much that we treat them like we would want to be treated. People that cling to Biblical principles no matter what.
If we focus on unchanging principles instead of ever-changing people, we will stay on the right track.
Now, before we get started, you should not be casting a vote unless you understand what is the purpose and proper role of government. Voting is a duty and a responsibility and it should not be done unless you understand what you’re voting for and why. So before we get to the voter’s guide, please check out this article. You’ll thank me later.

Quick Picks:

(Picks marked in BLUE. Scroll down for Detailed Explanations of my picks)

United States Senator

-Ray Writz (CON)
-Mike Crapo (R)
-Jerry Sturgill (D)

U.S. Representative 1st District

-Raul Labrador (R)
-James Piotrowski (D)

State Senator District 2

-Steve Vick (R) - Unopposed

State Representative District 2 Position A

-Kathy Kahn (D)
-Vito Barbieri (R)

State Representative District 2 Position B

-Eric Redman (R)
-Richard Kohles (D)

State Senator District 3

-Bob Nonini (R) - Unopposed

State Representative District 3 Position A

-Ron Mendive (R)

State Representative District 3 Position B

-Don Cheatham (R) - Unopposed

County Commissioner Second District

-Chris Fillios (R) - Unopposed

County Commissioner Third District

-Bob Bingham (R)
-Russell McLain (IND)

County Sheriff

-Tina Kunishige (D)
-Benton “Ben” Wolfinger (R)

County Prosecuting Attorney

-Barry McHughl (R) - Unopposed

Idaho Supreme Court Justice

-Robyn Brody
-Curt McKenzie

Idaho Constitutional Amendment

-Yes
-No

Detailed Explanations:

United States Senator

-Ray Writz (CON) While I generally agree with positions held by Constitutional candidates, the caliber of the candidates themselves is often less than stellar. I met Mr. Writz briefly and was less than impressed by his ability to communicate. This does not inspire confidence in his ability to either win an election or to get things done if elected.
-Mike Crapo (R) A 0% from NARAL and 0% from Planned Parenthood Action Fund, 100% from National Right to Life, a strong record of protecting the 2nd Amendment, a defender of traditional marriage...and the list goes on. Let’s put this guy back in Washington.
-Jerry Sturgill (D) According to Mr. Sturgill’s website, “wage inequality” is a major concern to him as well as making sure the government forces businesses to pay employees more. Obviously, his understanding of the government’s proper role leaves much to be desired. He received a 0% rating from the NRA, which leads one to believe he can’t be trusted with protecting our 2nd Amendment rights. Also, his website makes no mention whatsoever of his position on life/abortion. This is always concerning when candidates don’t even see this issue as important enough to mention.

U.S. Representative 1st District

-Raul Labrador (R) Rep. Labrador is one of the founding members of the Freedom Caucus that was instrumental is outing Speaker Boehner. This group of conservative representatives has been very active and effective in stopping bad legislation. Rep. Labrador is strongly pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment. He understands the role of government and has shown a dedication to his beliefs.
-James Piotrowski (D) One of his biggest criticisms of Rep. Labrador is the fact that Labrador voted against a spending measure. Let that sink in. Mr. Piotrowski says he is a strong constitutionalist, yet he claims he has always been a Democrat and believes it is the part of individual rights. Anyone who has ever read the Democrat party platform knows that this is very, very far from the truth. The Democrat party is the party of denying the individual rights of unborn children. That right there tells you all you need to know.

State Senator District 2

-Steve Vick (R) - Unopposed Senator Vick has a pretty good record and has shown a commitment to pro-life causes as well as taking a strong stance on the 2nd Amendment.

State Representative District 2 Position A

-Kathy Kahn (D) Ms. Kahn’s website and Facebook have no information regarding policy positions. From her press release, we gather that her main issues are opposition to Rep. Barbieri’s tax votes, a push to expand spending on infrastructure and “equal pay for equal work”.
-Vito Barbieri (R) Rep. Barbieri is a firm believer in the Constitution, life and the 2nd Amendment. He has a strong voting record and is definitely the best choice in this race.

State Representative District 2 Position B

-Eric Redman (R) Representative Redman has a solid voting record in the State House co-sponsoring pro-life legislation, supporting the 2nd Amendment, and voting to allow the use of the Bible in public schools. He also has legislative process experience under his belt which is a major plus in getting things done in Boise.
-Richard Kohles (D) No information regarding this candidate.

State Senator District 3

-Bob Nonini (R) - Unopposed

State Representative District 3 Position A

-Ron Mendive (R) - Unopposed

State Representative District 3 Position B

-Don Cheatham (R) - Unopposed Rep. Cheatham has a good voting record co-sponsored pro-life legislation and pro-2nd Amendment legislation this last session. Overall, I’m satisfied that he is serving Idaho well.

County Commissioner Second District

-Chris Fillios (R) - Unopposed

County Commissioner Third District

-Bob Bingham (R) Limited government, less taxes, less intrusive government, and a record to back it up? Say no more.
-Russell McLain (IND) All I could find on Mr. McLain was a one-minute video where he basically said he wanted to bring jobs to Idaho. And that’s about it. I can’t even find contact information in order to send him a questionnaire.

County Sheriff

-Tina Kunishige (D) As stated before, voting for a party will lead to mistakes. Voting for principles will always steer you right. The Kootenai Democrats have officially voiced their non-support of Ms. Kunishige. Apparently her strong belief in the original intent of the Constitution and liberty do not line up with the Democrat platform. Big surprise. Running as a Democrat was apparently a strategic move in order to avoid a 3-way race in the general election. A little research will reveal that Mr. Kunishige understands that government officials are there to protect the rights of the people. She also understands that an oath of office is not something to be taken lightly. She has a depth of knowledge of the Constitution that is rarely seen.
-Benton “Ben” Wolfinger (R) While Sheriff Wolfinger has a decent record and a good deal of experience in law enforcement, Ms. Kunishige’s passion for the Constitution outshines.

County Prosecuting Attorney

-Barry McHughl (R)

Idaho Supreme Court Justice

-Robyn Brody - This race was supposed to be decided in the primary, however thankfully we get another chance to get this very important race right. No one candidate received a majority of the vote so it went to a runoff election in the general.
-Curt McKenzie - Judicial elections can be tough to call since candidates generally steer clear of partisan issues due to the fact that they are required to not run as a member of a certain party. However, “show me your friends and I’ll show you your future” as the saying goes. Mr. McKenzie has received endorsements from Sage Dixon (a strong, conservative constitutionalist), Rush Fulcher, the NRA and (in my opinion, most importantly) Idaho Chooses Life. Mr. McKenzie has made it clear that he understands the Constitution and the proper role of the judiciary is to interpret, not make, law. Mr. McKenzie has served 7 terms in the Idaho Senate, demonstrating that his local constituents who know him best trust and respect him to keep his word.

Idaho Constitutional Amendment

-Yes While I was initially skeptical of this proposal, after doing a lot of research and consulting some of the most informed people I know on the subject, I am confident in my “yes” vote. This amendment enshrines an existing power of the legislature to review the rules and regulations proposed by the executive branch. This ensures that the executive branch’s rules and regulations are in line with the spirit of the legislation they are supposed to enforce. The arguments against this amendment appear to not take into account that the legislature already has the authority to do what it is doing and HJR 5 does not grant any more power to the legislature, nor does it take any power from the executive or judiciary. After much research, talking to people smarter than I, and a lot of thought, I believe that this amendment should be passed.
-No

Bonner County 2016 General Election - Voter's Guide

Ok frankly, I’ve truthfully been dreading writing this year’s voter’s guide, ok?

Maybe that’s overstating it a bit. I’ve looked forward to almost everything. All the down ballot races are exciting and very important. The part I’ve been dreading is the presidential race. Many have postulated that there’s never been a more divisive race than that of Trump vs. Clinton. And that has led to some issues.
I want to start out by saying that this voter’s guide is just that - a guide. Nothing I say or do not say should be taken as gospel and nothing says your vote must be the same as my vote. I put this out there because it’s a way to help others who aren’t hopeless political nerds without a life. I spend a lot of time researching and reading to come up with these suggestions and present them to you with the belief that these are the best options we have.
My purpose in writing this is so that you can have the resources and knowledge you need to make an informed vote based on Biblical and Constitutional principles.
If we disagree on one point or another, that is simply because we are human. And humans make errors. It should not drive a wedge between friends or cause relations to become strained. Instead, it should motivate us to learn, study, and become better people. People who have all the facts, not just the facts we like. People who love our fellow flawed humans so much that we treat them like we would want to be treated. People that cling to Biblical principles no matter what.
If we focus on unchanging principles instead of ever-changing people, we will stay on the right track.
Now, before we get started, you should not be casting a vote unless you understand what is the purpose and proper role of government. Voting is a duty and a responsibility and it should not be done unless you understand what you’re voting for and why. So before we get to the voter’s guide, please check out this article. You’ll thank me later.

Quick Picks:

(Picks marked in BLUE. Scroll down for Detailed Explanations of my picks)

United States Senator

-Ray Writz (CON)
-Mike Crapo (R)
-Jerry Sturgill (D)

U.S. Representative 1st District

-Raul Labrador (R)
-James Piotrowski (D)

State Senator District 1

-Shawn Keough (R)
-Steve Tanner (D)

State Representative District 1 Position A

-Heather Scott (R)
-Kate McAlister (D)

State Representative District 1 Position B

-Stephen Howlett (D)
-Sage Dixon (R)

State Senator District 7

-Carl Crabtree (R)
-Ken Meyers (D)

State Representative District 7 Position A

-Jessica Chilcott (D)
-Priscilla Giddings (R)

State Representative District 7 Position B

-Paul Shepherd (R) - Unopposed

County Commissioner Second District

-Jeff Connolly (R) - Unopposed

County Commissioner Third District

-Dan McDonald (R) - Unopposed

County Sheriff

-Daryl Wheeler (R) - Unopposed

County Prosecuting Attorney

-Louis Marshall (R) - Unopposed

Idaho Supreme Court Justice

-Robyn Brody
-Curt McKenzie

Idaho Constitutional Amendment

-Yes
-No

Detailed Explanations:

United States Senator

-Ray Writz (CON) While I generally agree with positions held by Constitutional candidates, the caliber of the candidates themselves is often less than stellar. I met Mr. Writz briefly and was less than impressed by his ability to communicate. This does not inspire confidence in his ability to either win an election or to get things done if elected.
-Mike Crapo (R) A 0% from NARAL and 0% from Planned Parenthood Action Fund, 100% from National Right to Life, a strong record of protecting the 2nd Amendment, a defender of traditional marriage...and the list goes on. Let’s put this guy back in Washington.
-Jerry Sturgill (D) According to Mr. Sturgill’s website, “wage inequality” is a major concern to him as well as making sure the government forces businesses to pay employees more. Obviously, his understanding of the government’s proper role leaves much to be desired. He received a 0% rating from the NRA, which leads one to believe he can’t be trusted with protecting our 2nd Amendment rights. Also, his website makes no mention whatsoever of his position on life/abortion. This is always concerning when candidates don’t even see this issue as important enough to mention.

U.S. Representative 1st District

-Raul Labrador (R) Rep. Labrador is one of the founding members of the Freedom Caucus that was instrumental is outing Speaker Boehner. This group of conservative representatives has been very active and effective in stopping bad legislation. Rep. Labrador is strongly pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment. He understands the role of government and has shown a dedication to his beliefs.
-James Piotrowski (D) One of his biggest criticisms of Rep. Labrador is the fact that Labrador voted against a spending measure. Let that sink in. Mr. Piotrowski says he is a strong constitutionalist, yet he claims he has always been a Democrat and believes it is the part of individual rights. Anyone who has ever read the Democrat party platform knows that this is very, very far from the truth. The Democrat party is the party of denying the individual rights of unborn children. That right there tells you all you need to know.  

State Senator District 1

-Shawn Keough (R) A brief look at Ms. Keough’s voting record is ample evidence of her “un-conservative” convictions. For instance, Senator Keough voted against SB 1165, a bill that outlawed abortions after 20 weeks. She also voted against SB 1387 that requires women to have an ultrasound before having an abortion. She has made claims to being “strongly pro-life,” but as the old saying is - actions speak louder than words. Her votes against these measures that have been proven to reduce the number of abortions is unconscionable. The government’s job is to protect our God-given, inalienable rights and the first of those rights is “life.” If a politician is anti-life, they are anti-liberty and therefore have no business pretending to “protect” our other rights.
The Idaho Freedom Foundation rates candidates based on their votes throughout the session and rates them based on their “Freedom Index”. Senator Keough has consistently scored poorly on every issue from life to the economy. And sadly this year was no different from past years.
-Steve Tanner (D) Sen. Keough is deeply entrenched in Boise. Her liberal views and policies pose almost no threat to the Democrats (and liberal Republicans in name only). As a result, the Democrats have seen no need to present a challenge to her seat since 2004. Steven Tanner, with absolutely no help (or approval) from the Democrat Party, took it upon himself to put up a challenge to Sen. Keough. Mr. Tanner is pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, and pro-small government. His run as a Democrat was a strategic move of necessity due to the fact that Shawn Keough won the Republican primary. As I’ve stated before, voters must always make their decision based on principle, not party.

State Representative District 1 Position A

-Heather Scott (R) My vote would go wholeheartedly go to Representative Scott. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting her and was extremely impressed by her knowledge, passion and vision. She is by far the obvious choice for this office and it is my desperate prayer that she is re-elected. We need people like her in Boise! Her voting track record has been superb and she has fearlessly stood up to the status-quo and been unmoving in her dedication to Idaho’s people and the Constitution.
-Kate McAlister (D) Once again, we find a Democrat who does not even deign to mention the issue of abortion on her own campaign website. It may seem I am harping on this, but it is for good reason. How can you trust a government to protect your rights (its one and only job) when that same government allows the rights of its most vulnerable citizens to be destroyed? Life is the first right. Without it, none of your other rights matter. This is an issue that Democrats will lose on every time and that is exactly why they avoid it by all means necessary. Besides that, Ms. McAlister does not understand the proper role of government as evidenced by her promotion of government as a job creator.

State Representative District 1 Position B

-Stephen Howlett (D) No information regarding this candidate.
-Sage Dixon (R) Mr. Dixon is the obvious choice for this position. He takes strong positions on important issues such as reducing the size of government and protecting individual rights. He is very knowledgeable and argues his positions not by opinion but by what our Constitution actually says. Sage Dixon being in the Idaho House has been a tremendous benefit to all Idahoans. He has remained true to his word and has proven it over and over again that he means what he says.

State Senator District 7

-Carl Crabtree (R) From the limited information I can find on Mr. Crabtree, all I can say is that I am devastated that Sheryl Nuxoll did not win in the primary. Mr. Crabtree website is extremely uninformative and does not list his positions on the issues. I have reached out to him and will update if he provides more information.*
-Ken Meyers (D) Mr. Meyers believes in man-caused global warming, makes no mention of the life issue, the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment, and is apparently quite satisfied with 62% of Idaho’s land being owned by the federal government.

State Representative District 7 Position A

-Jessica Chilcott (D) Here we find another Democrat who makes no mention of the abortion issue. Here we find another Democrat who does not mention the Constitution (the very thing she would potentially swear to uphold). The choice in this race is very, very clear.
-Priscilla Giddings (R) Ms. Giddings background is military and recently she “volunteered as an aide in the Idaho State Senate during the entire 2015 session. She was invited to go to Washington D.C. and help lobby for education programs that countered Planned Parenthood. After the legislative session ended, she accepted a position with U.S. Senator Mike Crapo as his Idaho campaign field director.” Judging from the information on her website, Ms. Giddings understands the proper role of government and the supremacy of the Constitution. She also gets the need to reduce the tax burden on Idaho and the importance of making sure our balanced budget law is followed. I like her stance on opening up Idaho’s lands that are currently federally controlled. I believe Ms. Giddings will provide a fresh perspective in Boise as well as fresh energy behind conservative causes.

State Representative District 7 Position B

-Paul Shepherd (R) - Unopposed

County Commissioner Second District

-Jeff Connolly (R) - Unopposed

County Commissioner Third District

-Dan McDonald (R) - Unopposed

County Sheriff

-Daryl Wheeler (R) - Unopposed Sheriff Wheeler understands the role of a constitutional sheriff and believes strongly in protecting the rights of the citizens of his county. His strong stance on and deep understanding of the 2nd Amendment recommends him highly to the citizens of Bonner County. Though he is technically unopposed, Terry Ford, after losing in the primary election, has mounted a write-in campaign. In other words, there is a challenge in this election, so be sure you vote for Sheriff Wheeler.

County Prosecuting Attorney

-Louis Marshall (R)

Idaho Supreme Court Justice

-Robyn Brody - This race was supposed to be decided in the primary, however thankfully we get another chance to get this very important race right. No one candidate received a majority of the vote so it went to a runoff election in the general.
-Curt McKenzie - Judicial elections can be tough to call since candidates generally steer clear of partisan issues due to the fact that they are required to not run as a member of a certain party. However, “show me your friends and I’ll show you your future” as the saying goes. Mr. McKenzie has received endorsements from Sage Dixon (a strong, conservative constitutionalist), Rush Fulcher, the NRA and (in my opinion, most importantly) Idaho Chooses Life. Mr. McKenzie has made it clear that he understands the Constitution and the proper role of the judiciary is to interpret, not make, law. Mr. McKenzie has served 7 terms in the Idaho Senate, demonstrating that his local constituents who know him best trust and respect him to keep his word.

Idaho Constitutional Amendment HJR 5

-Yes While I was initially skeptical of this proposal, after doing a lot of research and consulting some of the most informed people I know on the subject, I am confident in my “yes” vote. This amendment enshrines an existing power of the legislature to review the rules and regulations proposed by the executive branch. This ensures that the executive branch’s rules and regulations are in line with the spirit of the legislation they are supposed to enforce. The arguments against this amendment appear to not take into account that the legislature already has the authority to do what it is doing and HJR 5 does not grant any more power to the legislature, nor does it take any power from the executive or judiciary. After much research, talking to people smarter than I, and a lot of thought, I believe that this amendment should be passed.
-No


*(Please note, when unsure how to vote, I tend Republican. This is not because I consider myself a Republican, but because the platform of the party lines up closest with what the Founders intended (as reflected in their numerous writings, the Constitution, and other founding documents).)


Wednesday, October 12, 2016

The Purpose of Government

A great primer on the purpose of government from our friends at Paineful Truth:


American government is not complicated.
Allow me to rephrase that. American government is not supposed to be complicated. The United States Constitution has under 8,000 words (including signatures and amendments). Put forth in this document was a concise, simple, straightforward approach to governing, unlike anything that had been done before. And it worked amazingly well.
Until recently.

Whoever is elected president is going to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. However, most of what was put forward by candidates these days, is in violation of what the Constitution says. And that is a problem. A candidate who is wanting to run your country needs to abide by the governing document of the country.
Understanding this will empower you as a citizen to hold your leaders to a unarguable standard. A standard that will produce prosperity and growth in a country that is groaning beneath the weight of a disgustingly bloated government.
Let me show you how this is supposed to work and how gloriously simple it is.
Our Declaration of Independence laid out the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of government. Then our Constitution laid out specifically ‘how’ it was to be done.
Government has one job - to protect the rights of its citizens. Among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our government was set up with the express purpose of protecting our rights. Pay special attention to the order in which our Founders listed the rights to be protected. It is no coincidence.
Life: The First Right
Life comes first. Whatever government does, it must be in the interest of preserving the life of its citizens. This is absolutely fundamental because without this right, none of the others would matter.
Then liberty. We have a God-given right (I didn’t say it, the Founders did!) to freedom. The ability to live our lives how we see fit as long as what we do respects the rights of others.
And then pursuit of happiness. A term not often used today, however it was interchangeable in many instances with the term “property” and was understood to mean the ability to acquire and use property in order to advance oneself.
The Declaration does not limit our rights to these three. Rather, these three rights are seen as the “umbrella rights” under which all other rights could be categorized.
So the first test when determining if a candidate understands their oath to uphold the Constitution, is to see if the policies they promote fall under government’s one and only job - to protect our rights. If a candidate is promoting policies that are in violation of anyone’s life, liberty or pursuit of happiness, they are in violation of the Constitution and therefore are out. Not even a consideration.

The next test is to see if a candidate understands “limited powers”. Protecting our rights is wonderful. But what happens if, for example, government decides that it will “protect life” by mandating that everyone has healthcare insurance? It’s doing its job right?
Remember how I said, the Declaration lays out ‘what’ and ‘why’, the Constitution lays out ‘how’? That’s where this comes in. It is government’s job to protect rights but it must do so within the bounds of the powers given to it by the Constitution.
James Madison, known as the Father of the Constitution, said in Federalist 14, “In the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.”

There you have it. The Tenth Amendment, part of the initial Bill of Rights also made this point abundantly clear. However, these facts have been relentlessly ignored and trodden on by both parties, Republican and Democrat alike. And it’s beyond time for that to stop.
But that starts with you. As you hear about candidates and listen to them, no matter what side of the aisle they are on, ask yourself these two questions about them: (1) Do they believe that the one job of government is to protect my rights? (2) Do they believe that government’s powers are limited by the Constitution?
If you can honestly answer yes, then there still might be some hope.


Jonathan Paine
@painefultruth76
painefultruth1776@gmail.com