This story is suspect! Traditional journalism would give you both sides of a story. But, as we've seen the past few years, journalism appears to be dead and completely biased. How easy it is to interview someone with accusations and their own bias and just report that as the truth. I'm not saying what she is saying is false, however you didn't even broach the subject or entertain another perspective. Why? No one likes being criticized especially when their record is called into question. My understanding is that their ratings are done by how they vote on each bill not just arbitrarily. Too often our elected officials compromise on principle and they don't like getting called out for it. And perhaps I'm wrong but this one-sided narrative from the media is wrong and is getting old! You're proving we can't trust the media to get to the truth which is why everyone is going elsewhere to find it.
Mary Souza's SOUR GRAPES! She is not a Conservative and got poor scores. She is unhappy about that. Too bad, sister! You should have legislated more conservatively and constitutionally.
I'm sure the ktvb staff tried really hard to contact the IFF before making this hit piece. so, w/o further ado, let's hear some commentary from IFF - " Holmes switches over to an interview with former Sen. Mary Souza, whom he describes as a 'conservative' even though there’s not a single scorecard putting her in that camp. Souza whines like a little baby, telling TV viewers, “it’s wrong” for IFF to analyze legislation before the committee hearing or floor debate. How is it wrong? If a bill expands government or teeters toward socialism, do we need to hear the floor debate to decide it’s wrong? How stupid is that? And why do Holmes and Souza pretend we are the only group in the state that reviews legislation? The leftists at the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry and the Idaho Education Association do it. What’s so different and scary about the Freedom Foundation? I’ll tell you what’s different: We analyze all the bills - all of them - to see if they grow government or reduce freedom. So, when a legislator tells you they’re conservative, it doesn’t take much to figure out if they’re lying. " I must agree - I can read. I don't need to hear some legislator's version of " *their truth* " to know whether my tax dollars should fund drag queen story hour in a school library. souza claims she couldn't criticize IFF before "because of her position in the senate." too weak to face up to the fact that she was never conservative and never had any courage? she didn't retire. she didn't run because she was told by the party that she didn't stand a snowball's chance. Idahoans can see the results of seattle, portland, and san fransisco politics and are trying to get Idaho congress to vote against those types of policies. IFF is simply exposing their record of failures, so they *must* be the bad guys. people who placed an "R" next to their name on the ballot hoping that's enough to get them elected, then got elected but don't vote conservatively, or do the work their electorate voted for, and are now crying because they're being called out for not doing what they were hired to do...... wwaaaahhhh! here's a quarter.
I sent a letter to Senator Rick Just, Idaho’s Stand-Your-Ground law is not as clear nor concise as it should be. If a law-abiding citizen legally owns and uses (or threatens to use) a firearm in a self-defense situation, that person can be presumed guilty by a prosecuting (or district) attorney. If/when that occurs that person will be forced to prove in court that (s)he is innocent. That is backwards in a country founded on the belief that all defendants in court are innocent until proven guilty. Dozens of other states (including California, Florida, Arizona, and Pennsylvania) have it stipulated in their laws granting the presumption of innocence to gun owners following a self-defense shooting and forcing that the state prove their guilt in a court of law. Idaho’s self-defense laws also allow a person to be arrested in the wake of a shooting, even if there was no evidence that that person committed a crime. In many states, there must be probable cause to arrest a gun owner in the wake of an alleged self-defense shooting. Idaho law also doesn’t allow a gun owner to invoke Stand-Your-Ground law as a defense in court until after (s)he has been convicted in court, where it must be part of the appeal process. In many states, gun owners are allowed to have their counsel assert Stand-Your-Ground law protections in a pre-trial hearing, potentially sparing them a malicious prosecution for the ‘crime’ of defending themselves and saving many tax dollars from being wasted on malicious or wrongful prosecution. In the wake of the Mark McCloskey and Kyle Rittenhouse prosecutions, it’s clear that a growing number of county prosecutors are pursuing a political agenda, rather than true or meaningful justice. That’s why this legislation (S.B. 1004) is needed so badly. It gives gun owners the presumption of innocent and a legal process to assert Stand-Your-Ground law before their lives are turned upside down. The Idaho Second Amendment Alliance is having this legislation (S.B. 1004) brought forward in the Senate, and as a voter in your district, I am urging you to co-sponsor and vote yes on this important legislation. If you have already co-sponsored this legislation, thank you for taking a stand for our gun rights and the Constitution. The Idaho Second Amendment Alliance will keep me apprised of the status of this bill. his response: "I have concerns about the vague definition of what constitutes a threat." that's it. nothing else. no further explanation. no thoughts on whether a person using lethal force in a clear case of self-defense should be subject to malicious prosecution. nada. a total dodge of the issue. *that* is the type of legislator that needs a proposal to go up for committee hearing or floor debate. otherwise, how would he know how to interpret a bill? or maybe they just need to know which way their lobbyists lean so they don't lose any campaign contributions.
![ฮักเทื่อสุดท้าย - บอย ศิริชัย [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-1PoPoQ-B-k/mqdefault.jpg)
...like the governor and lobbyist don't do the same thing.
This story is suspect! Traditional journalism would give you both sides of a story. But, as we've seen the past few years, journalism appears to be dead and completely biased. How easy it is to interview someone with accusations and their own bias and just report that as the truth. I'm not saying what she is saying is false, however you didn't even broach the subject or entertain another perspective. Why? No one likes being criticized especially when their record is called into question. My understanding is that their ratings are done by how they vote on each bill not just arbitrarily. Too often our elected officials compromise on principle and they don't like getting called out for it. And perhaps I'm wrong but this one-sided narrative from the media is wrong and is getting old! You're proving we can't trust the media to get to the truth which is why everyone is going elsewhere to find it.
exposing how each congressional member votes on each issue? how dare they!
Thanks Pravda, now we know the approved version of ‘truth’.
Mary Souza's SOUR GRAPES! She is not a Conservative and got poor scores. She is unhappy about that. Too bad, sister! You should have legislated more conservatively and constitutionally.
Welcome to accountability Ms Souza!
I'm sure the ktvb staff tried really hard to contact the IFF before making this hit piece. so, w/o further ado, let's hear some commentary from IFF -
" Holmes switches over to an interview with former Sen. Mary Souza, whom he describes as a 'conservative' even though there’s not a single scorecard putting her in that camp. Souza whines like a little baby, telling TV viewers, “it’s wrong” for IFF to analyze legislation before the committee hearing or floor debate. How is it wrong? If a bill expands government or teeters toward socialism, do we need to hear the floor debate to decide it’s wrong? How stupid is that?
And why do Holmes and Souza pretend we are the only group in the state that reviews legislation? The leftists at the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry and the Idaho Education Association do it. What’s so different and scary about the Freedom Foundation?
I’ll tell you what’s different: We analyze all the bills - all of them - to see if they grow government or reduce freedom. So, when a legislator tells you they’re conservative, it doesn’t take much to figure out if they’re lying. "
I must agree - I can read. I don't need to hear some legislator's version of " *their truth* " to know whether my tax dollars should fund drag queen story hour in a school library.
souza claims she couldn't criticize IFF before "because of her position in the senate." too weak to face up to the fact that she was never conservative and never had any courage? she didn't retire. she didn't run because she was told by the party that she didn't stand a snowball's chance. Idahoans can see the results of seattle, portland, and san fransisco politics and are trying to get Idaho congress to vote against those types of policies.
IFF is simply exposing their record of failures, so they *must* be the bad guys.
people who placed an "R" next to their name on the ballot hoping that's enough to get them elected, then got elected but don't vote conservatively, or do the work their electorate voted for, and are now crying because they're being called out for not doing what they were hired to do...... wwaaaahhhh!
here's a quarter.
Souza blocks those who disagree lol
Iff must be doing something right or the media and elites wouldn’t be concerned.
I sent a letter to
Senator Rick Just,
Idaho’s Stand-Your-Ground law is not as clear nor concise as it should be. If a law-abiding citizen legally owns and uses (or threatens to use) a firearm in a self-defense situation, that person can be presumed guilty by a prosecuting (or district) attorney. If/when that occurs that person will be forced to prove in court that (s)he is innocent. That is backwards in a country founded on the belief that all defendants in court are innocent until proven guilty. Dozens of other states (including California, Florida, Arizona, and Pennsylvania) have it stipulated in their laws granting the presumption of innocence to gun owners following a self-defense shooting and forcing that the state prove their guilt in a court of law. Idaho’s self-defense laws also allow a person to be arrested in the wake of a shooting, even if there was no evidence that that person committed a crime. In many states, there must be probable cause to arrest a gun owner in the wake of an alleged self-defense shooting. Idaho law also doesn’t allow a gun owner to invoke Stand-Your-Ground law as a defense in court until after (s)he has been convicted in court, where it must be part of the appeal process. In many states, gun owners are allowed to have their counsel assert Stand-Your-Ground law protections in a pre-trial hearing, potentially sparing them a malicious prosecution for the ‘crime’ of defending themselves and saving many tax dollars from being wasted on malicious or wrongful prosecution. In the wake of the Mark McCloskey and Kyle Rittenhouse prosecutions, it’s clear that a growing number of county prosecutors are pursuing a political agenda, rather than true or meaningful justice. That’s why this legislation (S.B. 1004) is needed so badly. It gives gun owners the presumption of innocent and a legal process to assert Stand-Your-Ground law before their lives are turned upside down. The Idaho Second Amendment Alliance is having this legislation (S.B. 1004) brought forward in the Senate, and as a voter in your district, I am urging you to co-sponsor and vote yes on this important legislation. If you have already co-sponsored this legislation, thank you for taking a stand for our gun rights and the Constitution. The Idaho Second Amendment Alliance will keep me apprised of the status of this bill.
his response: "I have concerns about the vague definition of what constitutes a threat."
that's it. nothing else. no further explanation. no thoughts on whether a person using lethal force in a clear case of self-defense should be subject to malicious prosecution. nada. a total dodge of the issue. *that* is the type of legislator that needs a proposal to go up for committee hearing or floor debate. otherwise, how would he know how to interpret a bill? or maybe they just need to know which way their lobbyists lean so they don't lose any campaign contributions.