"I almost never read a borrowed book. I don't like to read borrowed books because I don't want to read a book without underlining things I want to remember. Since one doesn't underline someone else's book, I feel that if a book is worth reading, it is worth owning."
Boyd K. Packer
"Let us be sure, that those that come after will say of us in our time, that in our time we did everything that could be done. We finished the race; we kept them free; we kept the faith."
"Equality of opportunity is freedom; equality of outcome is repression."
I am a lover of words; I love learning about their roots, how they fit together, and how the nuances of words impress different meanings depending on which word you choose; out of three or four words that have similar meaning, one will be able to best express what you want to say. I tell you this, not to bore you to tears, but to bring up a point. Today, the White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, said this about a comment the new Supreme Court nominee made:
"I've not talked specifically with her about this, but I think she'd say that her word choice in 2001 was poor."
Now, in case you don't know what she said, let me quote her:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." The context was about gender: "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."
Wow! If a white male had said that, he would have been asked to step down from the bench.
Several things bother me about this. First, that she said it, and second that the best "excuse" the White House could come up with was that she chose her words poorly. We've all had moments where we say something dumb, but we're paying this woman TO choose words carefully as she adjudicates; she should be more well spoken than the White House is claiming. Secondly, if Robert Gibbs is going to allow a question about this in the press briefing, don't you think he would have ASKED HER, so he could QUOTE her?
No, I think this is a carefully orchestrated attempt at continued judicial legislating. This woman knew perfectly well what she was saying; she's also quoted as saying: "The court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating — it’s interpretation, it’s application." And this: "Because it is...[the]court of appeals is where policy is made."
Make no mistake, words DO matter, and I don't know about you, but I'll be listening.
I am the mother of seven children. I know what it takes to raise a large family, and I'm no fan of neglect; if you have children, take care of them.
So what is neglect? I think we've all seen dirty, unkempt children at the supermarket or other public place. Think of the orphans in Charles Dickens' "Oliver Twist" as one example. That is neglect!
My thoughts have been of 13 year old Daniel Hauser recently, and the implications of his illness. For those who don't know, Daniel has Hodgkin's Lymphoma. The parents, Catholics, had sited religious objections to harsh cancer treatments, and had opted for natural healing practices instead, and therein lies the trouble. Daniel was treated in February with current cancer treatments, and, when he "failed to show up" for the second round of hellishness in April, the doctor called "authorities." By mid May they were in court and his mother confirmed they would not be resuming chemotherapy. A judge then ORDERS that Daniel MUST resume chemo and ever so "benevolently" leaves Daniel in the custody of his parents (WHEN did this become a custody battle???).
Daniel and his mother flee--as I would have done I think, and have recently returned to Minnesota to submit to Big Brother.
I am shocked, appalled, outraged, and otherwise ticked off that this could happen in America. I know it's not the first time either.
Was Daniel's mother neglectful? Absolutely NOT! In this country we have been free to have our own belief system, our own way of looking at life. This freedom is not granted by our government!!! It is a gift from God. As individuals you get to choose what path you will take, what outlook you will have and who or what you will allow to influence your decisions and choices. Was Daniel's mother a bad mother for not choosing current medical treatments? NO!!! Oh my goodness!!! If that were the case, my parents, in today's lunatic environment would also be considered neglectful because...oh heaven forbid, we didn't get vaccinated!! I had the measles, the mumps and the chicken pox. However could they have let me suffer? My grandfather was a Naturopath, and we had a different belief system than the mainstream medical community. Does that make it wrong? NO! It was an individual choice, made by informed adults who loved me.
Why are the people of Minnesota not speaking up? Why are they not coming to the defense of this family? It could be any one of us next, do we want the government coming in and telling us that we aren't raising our children right, are neglecting them in any one of thousands of various aspects of parenthood?
Nearly 400 years ago, they burned people at the stake for having "alternative medicines" and practices. It seems we've only advanced slightly from that era. The government should have NO RIGHT to tell you what is best!!! I want to scream it from the rooftops. Daniels parents chose a valid alternative, something they wanted to try, and they are being told by Big Brother that they have no right to make those decisions for their family.
It won't be long before they tell the rest of us the same thing, and it won't be just about medicine.
So we've all heard lately of the push to get the goons in D.C. to actually READ the bills that come before them. Well, guess what, they hired a speed reader, then dismissed him; I can only assume it was because they couldn't UNDERSTAND the guy! My hat's off to him, the actual speed reader, I think it's an incredible talent-I'm a fast reader, but this guy-wow! However, the incredible poor judgement in bringing the guy in turns my stomach. There is no way that those who need to understand the bill could have with him reading.
Take a look for yourself. The actual reading part comes in at about 1:34 minutes into the clip:
Note the laughter. Rep. Waxman even admitted he had little idea what was in the bill. Now for your information, in case you don't know, the bill he was reading is the "cap and trade" bill. The Hoax that is Global Warming. I am so angry I could spit nails right now. Where do they get off being so self righteous as to assume they can actually regulate the Heavens, and do it with OUR money???
The economy is in the tank, and getting worse; the "cap and trade" is the darling of the left, and will likely pass; we have government taking over private enterprise; we have terrorists about to take up residence on our shores, and they can't be bothered to actually READ the garbage they are imposing on us!!! Doesn't anyone in Washington CARE that they are violating the Constitution on a very regular basis??
Here's the thing. They are making a mockery of our Constitution. Of our laws and traditions. They are laughing at the Conservatives, and the lovers of the Constitution. They are mocking the very foundation of our country, and all those who have died trying to PRESERVE this nation; all those who we set out to honor this Memorial Day.
We need to turn up the heat; make them sweat. How? I'm not sure, but I know we'll think of something.
What IS the proper role government should play in the lives of the citizens of the United States of America?
As written, our Constitution gives the government limited power over the lives of the citizens; as practiced, the government gives limited power to the people, and takes the bulk of it for themselves. In every aspect of our lives, the government has intruded to the point of lunacy. From the light bulbs you are able to buy, to the type of gas mileage you are going to have to live by, the government has inserted it's will, circumventing your will.
So where do the powers come from? Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." So according to our Founding Fathers, we get our rights from God. Unalienable means "not to be taken away, not to be given away, not to be separated." They knew that our rights came from God, and could not be taken away.
Ezra Taft Benson in "The Proper Role of Government" says that since God created man, and man created government, that man is superior to government, and should remain the master, not the government mastering the people. If we have the right to protect ourselves, as a large group, we hire someone to protect us, that person we hire only has the rights that we already have ourselves; we have only delegated the sheriff or police or whoever the rights that we already possess. The only source of his power is that which we have authorized. Benson goes on to ask "What powers properly belong to each and every person in the absence of and prior to the establishment of any organized governmental form?" We all know the answer is protection of life liberty and property. Bastiat calls this the "Principle of Collective Right," we have the rights, we delegate to others for the protection of our life, liberty and happiness (the Founders originally wanted property in place of happiness, life might be easier today if they had left it), nothing more.
Not to regulate our gas consumption, to regulate our environment (as if we could!), our banks, or our private industry; not to chase boys and their mothers across the nation because of respective health issues judged a governmental issue, not to impede us in our personal pursuit of happiness as long as we don't infringe on others. All of this is egregious overstepping by our government. In each case the government says it knows best. Maybe occasionally it would have a better plan, but that's not it's place. Personal responsibility has been pushed aside for the nanny state.
I believe this has happened because God has been left out of the equation. People no longer believe in God making things right in the end. They believe government MUST step in and do it for us, because we are too stupid to do it ourselves, and there is no God. We see this every day.
Hold on to your rights, and while I don't believe many in Washington are listening, speak up and fight back. I think things are going to get uglier.
My children were involved in a production of "Oliver!" at our tiny local community theatre. They all had a grand time, and learned something about themselves in the process. DS #2 played "The Artful Dodger", DD #4 played "Bet" and DD #5 was in the chorus. I've been waking with "Oliver!" songs in my head for weeks now, and I'm glad to say they performed to sell-out crowds.
I tip my hat (figuratively of course, I don't usually wear a hat ;) ) to Peg Major. She whipped these kids into shape, and helped my children find out a little more about themselves; DD #5 discovered she DOES like to be on stage, DD #4 discovered she CAN sing in front of an audience and DS #2 discovered he can ACT. It was a time of growth for these three, and as tired as I am, I look forward a teeny bit for the next production. I thought for those family members who couldn't make it down, I'd post some photos from the production.
I have always said that I would give credit where credit is due. Yesteday Obama reversed an earlier decision on abuse photos taken somewhere. A judge ruled that the ACLU was right, that under the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) the photos of abuse against terrorists should be released. We all know that the ACLU has the best interest of America at heart right? Obama said "not so fast", and that was the right decision.
Those photos would only serve to inflame the hatred against the US, and cause our troops increased danger and violence.
Now, on the other hand, there should never have been an issue. Obama only piqued the curiosity and anger of the radicals "oh gee, what is in those photos they don't want us to see??" Obama's misstep will have ramifications, but the final decison to not release them was right, and I'm ready to give Obama credit for it.
Besides, anything that drives the leftists in this country crazy makes me happy, and watching Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the crowd watch their messiah falter is priceless :)
I was having a discussion on Facebook the other day regarding the Second Amendment. The discussion was interesting and I learned a couple of things.
I asked the question "Where does the Constitution say we should look at precedent to decide cases?"
My co-arbiter said that it was the "Supremacy Clause." Huh?
So I looked it up.
Article VI paragraph 2:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made under the Authority of the Untied States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
OK, so what about the Tenth Amendment I ask. "Red-headed step-child" says he. Rude.
I went and got in the shower, and meditated for a few minutes. There is nothing like a hot shower to open the brain cells.
Not a red-headed step-child at all, but a clear and concise measurement of our Constitution.
The Supremacy clause states that the Constitution itself is the Law of the Land, that ANY laws to the contrary are notwithstanding, not applicable.
Let's take the Second Amendment, since that was the original subject thread.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I think we all know it by heart.
So, ANY Federal law that changed the Second IN ANY WAY would not be Constitutional. Period. The Tenth affirms that ANY THING not enumerated by the Constitution, (and NO other legality IS enumerated by the Constitution), belongs to the State.
So, if there is any other FEDERAL law that infringes or otherwise changes the Second Amendment,(and we know several) it's a violation of the Constitution.
They can't have it both ways. Either we can make other Federal laws or we can't. The Constitution is clear, the language unambiguous.... by the Supremacy Clause that was pointed out, the ONLY legal law they can look at would be the Second Amendment; anything else, including registration by the FEDERAL government is a violation of the Constitution, by virtue of it's own language in the Supremacy Clause.
Now I'm not a Constitutional lawyer or scholar, but the language is clear to me.
The Supremacy Clause says the Constitution is the Law of the Land; the Tenth Amendment says that anything not enumerated in the Constitution belongs to the State.
Anything that infringes on the Constitution, by virtue of the language in the Supremacy Clause is unconstitutional.
If only it were that simple. I highly recommend "Who Killed the Constitution" by Thomas E. Woods Jr. This has been going on for decades. Also read "The Proper Role of Government" by Ezra Taft Benson, this is available online for free, just do a search. There is a GREAT article by Pres. Benson called Our Divine Constitution. It's worth reading, printing and reading again.
This was not a Democrat vs. Republican issue. The Constitution has been trampled by both parties, and not just a little; and not just the Second Amendment.
I wrote a letter to my Senators today, after receiving a form letter claiming a need for Health Care Reform. My full letter follows.
I can appreciate people being without health care, and, having seven children, I can appreciate the costs associated with that health care; we've spent time without health care ourselves. However, the Constitution does not ALLOW you to be compassionate with my money. There is no place in the Federal Constitution that would grant you the right to redistribute the earnings of my household to give health insurance to someone else.
Do you understand the Constitution AT ALL? Have you EVER read it in it's entirety? This is a State issue if it's a governmental issue at all, which I do not believe it is. Government control over medicine is partly to blame for the rising costs, deregulate that if you want to help on a federal level, because I promise you, federal control over medicine is also not enumerated in the Constitution.
Please Senators, do the right thing, and vote this behemoth down. Choose to honor the Constitution instead of your desire for reelection."
Now, this is not a great piece of writing, I don't care. The point is, we need to be writing to them. Flooding their offices with what WE as their employers want. We can't let them brush us aside and go vote their own way. We must hold them accountable.
Feel free to use this as a template if you feel more comfortable, I also sent the exact same letter to two newspapers in my state, as "open letters" to the Senators. One will likely not print it, as they sent a form back thanking me for my submission, and spelling out their guidelines, and they don't "care much" for open letters. Oh well. Remember to be talking the Constitution, remember to hold it up as the standard by which to judge our elected officials, and vote against those who can't or won't uphold it.
The 2010 census is just around the corner...or is it? PLEASE read this, you'll see that they've already started.
Now forgive me for being a bit paranoid, but the reasons given for marking within 40 feet EVERY American home seems a bit freaky; a huge overreach of government power, not to mention several violations of the Constitution.
The article quotes Douglas Gibbs of American Daily Review pointing out that knowing where every front door in the country is has NOTHING whatsoever to do with counting the number of residents who live in that house...NOTHING!
So,why? What could the possible motive or motives be? Mr. Gibbs lays out a few ideas, and all of them I would tend to agree with. Don't forget, we are nearing a totalitarian government. The Constitution has been so shredded it's alarming. Little attention is paid to the rule of law; in fact, the rule of law now seems to be whatever *they* say it is. Remember, Obama said that he had won, so Republicans had to 'get over it.' He'll do whatever the puppet master tells him to do or say.
Article I. Section.2 spells out the counting of Americans for the purpose of districting: "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such a Manner as they shall by Law direct." Counting us, that's it! The End! The tricky part comes in with the caveat of 'in such a manner as they shall by law direct.' The Founding Father's never considered "the evil and conspiring men in the last days."
But they're here, and those same evil and conspiring men will, BY LAW, be able to tag us; to know who we are, what we do, where we go. It's gone way beyond counting heads. Now, you may say that that's already available, and that is true for the most part. We live on a lonely country road, and google maps doesn't have a good read on us, I've looked it up. But they will. They'll know where we all are, and it wouldn't surprise me if the modern equivalent of the Gestapo shows up to take us away one by one as we continue to disagree.
The whisperings of the Spirit tell me it's OK; it's all in God's hands, and I know this to be true. I just wonder what we'll have to endure before He comes again. What more will this godless society foist upon us. Much I think. Only time will tell if this is the Mark of the Beast prophesied in Revelations.
"Perhaps you and I have lived with this miracle too long to be properly appreciative. Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again. Knowing this, it is hard to explain those who even today would question the people's capacity for self-rule. Will they answer this: if no one among us is capable of governing himeself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"