Tuesday, April 28, 2009
The man has been a RINO(Republican In Name Only)from the beginning if you ask me.
He's denied once before that he was leaving the Republican Party; we can see how honest and upright he is.
Specter is *claiming* that the Republican party has moved too far to the RIGHT. Excuse me, did he just say "too far to the RIGHT"??? How does he explain No Child Left Behind, the "first" bailout, the Patriot Act, and numerous other Republican jabs at the Constitution?? Someone needs to ask him, make him explain his reasoning, because he's clearly mad. The Republican party right now is so far from "Far Right" right now, that I want to scream.
Specter said in his "I'm not leaving the Republican party" speech that we need a two party system. Well, how does he figure leaving the Republicans with no voice in the Senate will help the "Two Party System?"
The man is a traitor and a turncoat, not to mention a liar and a thief. He's halfway through this term, he should finish out the term he was elected as a Republican to fill, then, if he wants to switch parties at the election, then go for it, but he's stolen the votes of the people of Pennsylvania.
It is my sincere hope that he is soundly defeated by a true Conservative in 2010; then he will live up to his name and be a former specter in the Senate.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Now, lest you think me evil, I love the earth, I revere it as the life supporting orb that I inhabit. Everyday is Earth Day for me. I love nature, and in my photographs I try to reflect my conviction that a loving Heavenly Father wants us to find joy in the beauty He's created; to highlight the gifts we've been given daily. I just don't happen to be one who thinks the earth is in peril from human habitation.
- I don't recycle.
- I use regular incandescent lightbulbs, and I have several years worth stored.
- I don't own a hybrid vehicle (Nor will I ever!).
- I burn wood for heat, as well as for fun.
- I drive a truck or an SUV depending on the day.
- I keep my thermostat at 74ish when I use the pellet stove.
- I usually run my dishwasher twice a day.
- I use an electric dryer almost every day.
- My husband and I have SEVEN biological children.
Apparently I have a HUGE carbon footprint. What's a carbon footprint?
I don't believe that a loving Heavenly Father would give us a place to live that doesn't have EVERYTHING we need to survive. I believe that all technology has been inspired by Him, and therefore, He intends for us to use it. That doesn't mean a license to abuse however.
We pick up trash, even other people's trash; we don't cut down trees in National Forests, or carve our initials into the trunks. We don't dump our oil in the gutter--or in the creek in our case, and we don't use chemicals on our pastures.
I think it's a matter of moderation. We live in a modern society, I know I am here at this time and place by design, and I'm GRATEFUL for the things I have to make my life easier.
Here is a lovely quote:
Nature is ever at work building and pulling down, creating and destroying, keeping everything whirling and flowing, allowing no rest but in rhythmical motion, chasing everything in endless song out of one beautiful form into another.
-John Muir, Naturalist and explorer (1838-1914)
Even John Muir knew that the earth is in constant changing motion. Nothing we humans can do on a large scale will change what's happening to our earth. It's all part of the Lord's plan.
Remember you are in the palm of His hand, and relax. The Second Coming will happen long before this planet gives us the last breath of oxygen, or the last raindrop falls.
Trust your maker; clean up after yourselves; stop worrying that the earth is dying. It is, but it's all part of grand plan that none of us has any control over. Only God himself knows when the day and the hour will be.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
First, I seriously doubt it will spark any change in Washington. Obama promised "change," and he's delivered; it is the WRONG kind of change, but he doesn't care what I think, and therein lies the problem.
Shortly after he took office, he made the comment to some of the Republicans in Washington, that he had won, so they had to "get over it." He's been elected and he's going to call the shots. It doesn't matter what the rest of us want. Fascism.
Does that mean it's a waste of time to attend? NO! These T.E.A. parties are a great idea; the Sons of Liberty would be so proud I believe of the effort to effect change. If we don't stand up, show larger numbers than we have previously, Conservatism will die a sad and lonely death.
In "the old days," you knew your neighbors, you knew his beliefs; you knew what he stood for. Today, sadly, I don't know my neighbors; I don't know what they believe, or what they stand for; that's about to change. If nothing else, we need to know who we can trust, and who will throw bricks through our living room windows.
I found this quote this morning, regarding the "citizen journalists" enlisted by Pajamas Media to cover the T.E.A. parties: 'The digital evolution of conservative activists comes too late to help John McCain, whose new media arm was left in the dust by President Obama's campaign. But organizers are holding out hope that this movement has juice.'
Let me be clear, I believe that NOTHING could have helped John McCain because he is NOT a Conservative, but the concept is valid: we can't be 'too late' anymore. We must get off of our couches, out of our comfort zones, put aside our non-confrontational mentality and stand up for what's right and good. We don't have to abuse or scream bloody obscenities to make known our dissatisfaction with the way the country is headed.
So, if you are so inclined, go make some T.E.A. If you can't, go by the rally, and honk your horns, let the opposition know you are united in the effort to save our Republic; our Constitution; our very way of life.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
No one has the right to come into your home, and inspect either it, your belongings, your children, you, your sink full of dirty dishes, or your mounds of laundry unless they have a warrant.
There are numerous stories of CPS coming and bullying a parent to let them in, only to have said CPS agent, upon being let in, take the children; homeschoolers get this kind of bullying periodically.
You have a right to be secure. You have a right against unreasonable searches and unreasonable seizure of your property.
If there is probable cause, a warrant must be issued. That warrant must state what location, what is being searched, what person is the object of the search/seizure, and what is to be seized.
Far too often, the Fourth Amendment has been violated.
Does the police officer have the right to look in your trunk? Does he have probable cause? Does he have a warrant?
Does the CPS officer have the right to come into your home? Does he have probable cause? Does he have a warrant?
Does the Sheriff have the right to come on to your property? Does he have probable cause?
Does he have a warrant?
Does Animal Control have a right to take your pet? Does he have probable cause? Does he have a warrant?
In any case you can imagine, you can apply the test. Unfortunately, you won't always get away with the complaints up front, but you do have a Constitutional right to make them, and quite possibly to win your argument.
This brings up privacy. The Constitution doesn't specifically spell out a "Right To Privacy," but as I read each of the Amendments, they all speak to me of privacy; The right to keep and bear arms--private issue; The right to worship freely--private issue; The right to speak freely--private issue; The Founding Fathers intended us to live freely, privately--or as private as we choose to be.
We have a law in Oregon that is being debated this week--I just heard about it for the first time today, so I don't know yet where it stands. This is one of the most pernicious laws I've heard of.
This law would FORBID you to smoke in the car if you have children under the age of 16.
Now, you might ask "Isn't that a GOOD thing?" Well, yes and no. It is definitely a good thing for children, I think people who smoke around children are some of the stupidest people around; people who smoke in cars with children are selfish and ignorant. However, I do not in any way shape or form think the government should tell us what we can and cannot do in our PRIVATE vehicle. Smoking is not illegal; it's unhealthy, dirty, and people who smoke stink, but it's not illegal.
HOW would the enforcement of this law be handled? Well, I see random people calling the police because the car that just passed them is full of children, and the parents are smoking in the front seat; tattling on your neighbor was big in Hitler's day, and behind the Iron Curtain. I see police pulling you over because you are smoking, just to check to see if you are traveling with children.
I see children being asked at school if mommy or daddy smoke in the car; tattling on parents was also big in Hitler's day, also behind the Iron Curtain.
I see this as a violation of your Fourth Amendment Rights--search and seizure, no warrants, to probable cause. (Call me crazy, but if *I* am looking in someone else's car, being nosy, isn't that a type of search?)
And don't think for one minute they will stop at the curb. They are already passing laws outlawing smoking in most public places, within 10 feet of an entrance to all public establishments, what's next? What's to stop them from telling you that you can't smoke in your home if you have children?
Now, lest you think badly of me, I am NOT a smoker, and I love children, that's why I had several. I just want you to understand that the government is incrementally stripping the Constitution, and we all are letting it happen.
Did anyone speak up against the forced use of seat belts? Seat belts are a good thing, the veracity of that is undeniable. But once we let the government come in and tell us we HAD to wear them, they had their proverbial foot in the door. 'What else can we make them do?' If you want to risk not wearing a seat belt, that should be your choice (I do think children ,who cannot make an informed choice, should be required to wear whichever safety device is suited.), but if you are injured or killed because you refused to wear a seat belt, then you or your estate should be required to pay for the cleanup. Easy fix. Seat belts save lives, you don't use one, here are the consequences.
In the post I did about the Second Amendment, I told you of an article that said anyone who supported a "Third Party" in politics was considered a possible terrorist. They have since backed off, but the damage is done. When will they start showing up at doors "requesting" to have a look at your guns? When will they stop requesting?
Read the Fourth Amendment, then read your newspaper, or search online. You may not be able to get away with just reading headlines, but I promise you, it's happening.
*They* do not have a right to enter your property, search your person, or seize your anything without a warrant. Don't forget it.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Not Yours To Give
Col. David Crockett
US Representative from Tennessee
Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett,"
by Edward Sylvester Ellis.
One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support.
The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it.
We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.
"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could.
In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them.
The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done."
The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence.
As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly."
'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and---‘"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."
"This was a sockdolager...I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
" ’Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it.
In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.…But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions.
'The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'"
'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’
“ ‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’"
‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'"
‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes.
But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.
What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.
If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper.
You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.
'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief.
There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.'
"The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give.
The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'"
'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people.
I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'"
I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to.
But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:" ‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'
"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'"
‘If I don't’, said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'"
‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’" 'Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.’"
'My name is Bunce.'"
'Not Horatio Bunce?'"
'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'"
It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts.
He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote."
At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before."
Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before."
I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.
"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:" ‘Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’"
"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:"
‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error." ‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'"
He came upon the stand and said:" ‘Fellow-citizens - It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'"
He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.'"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'"
"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday."There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
Saturday, April 4, 2009
'No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.'
It's pretty straight forward.
The root of this is found in the Quartering Acts; British soldiers stayed in the homes of the Colonists. They ate, drank, and slept without the consent of, and without enumeration to the homeowners. As you can imagine, this didn't go over very well.
This Amendment clarifies under what circumstance you and I may be asked to quarter soldiers.
Will it ever happen? Maybe; rough and ugly times are coming.
If you ever hear of a bill coming forth that specifies this, make sure you are educated as to the EXACT types of quartering, and the EXACT circumstance.
As always, know your rights.
I had a thought while Elder Cook was speaking. He talked of other churches teaching that some will be saved, and others will be damned. The End. Essentially, you are either saved, or you're not.
I wondered if that could be the catalyst for some believing that abortion is OK. Could the false doctrine that God picks and chooses who is saved, decides who is disposable cause some to justify their behavior?
What a glorious, comfort it is to KNOW correct doctrine; to KNOW that I am saved by grace AFTER all *I* can do. It's up to me! I either choose to be obedient or I choose not to be. Shakespeare was right, that IS the question!
Heavenly Father has given me the path, I must choose to walk it. If I don't, then I will suffer the punishment. Christ is my Advocate with the Father, but I must remain true. Matthew says "by their fruits ye shall know them." Moroni echos Matthew with "by their works ye shall know them;"
What gratitude I have for my Heavenly Father. The Restoration is real and true.
I loved the analogy to the swans. For most of history, it was thought that swans were white and only white. Then Australia was discovered; lo and behold, there are black swans.
It was REVEALED in the Lord's time that there were added truths; more to the story if you will.
The Book of Mormon was REVEALED in the Lord's time, full of other truths, testifying of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Truths that were lost through apostasy and translation errors.
I KNOW this to be true, and I'm filled with gratitude for that knowledge.