Saturday, July 7, 2012

Obamacare. Ugly. Dangerous. Unconstitutional.

I was asked recently, why I didn’t like the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”; AKA “Obamacare”. 

There are a host of reasons, but let’s start with the Constitution: 

Article 1 Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution:  

*The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; 

*To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; 

*To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; 

*To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; 

*To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; 

*To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;

*To establish Post Offices and post Roads; 

*To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; 

*To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; 

*To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; 

*To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; 

*To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; 

*To provide and maintain a Navy; 

*To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; 

*To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 

*To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; 

*To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings 

*To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof

There are certain and well defined powers that Congress IS granted. Things that they are SUPPOSED to do; nowhere do I find in there the authority to force me to purchase something or to take something from me (my property, which in this case is my money) in order to give it to someone else (this is called redistribution, and is done for a faulty ideal of “fairness”).

Many of the clauses of the Constitution have been misconstrued, misinterpreted, or misunderstood.

Some are:
            *The Necessary and Proper Clause

            *The General Welfare Clause

            *The Vesting Clause

            *The Implied Powers Clause 

Thomas Jefferson, in his opinion regarding the Constitutionality of a National Bank said this in 1791(Italics and spelling original; again red is my emphasis):

“1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum(*) for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.

To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.

It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.

It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.

It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution.

2. The second general phrase is, “to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers.” But they can all be carried into execution without a bank. A bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase. It has been urged that a bank will give great facility or convenience in the collection of taxes. Suppose this were true: yet the Constitution allows only the means which are “necessary,” not those which are merely “convenient” for effecting the enumerated powers.

*ad libitum: “at ones pleasure”; that marked in red is my own emphasis 

Jefferson highlights a couple of things; first, that when our elected officials find a phrase in the Constitution that they think might have two meanings, they are to see which one FITS the document, not just decide that because it says “X”, that “Y and Z” will naturally follow; and two, that regardless of how convenient doing “Y and Z” might make things, if they are not necessary, they are not allowed. 

Now, is insurance good? Yes, absolutely. However forcing you to purchase it is tyranny; some people don’t want it, some people don’t need it. Insurance is a gamble; the insurance company gambles that you will pay them, with the probability that you won’t need it, or won’t need much of it, back.

Never before in the history of our nation has the government ever assumed that they could coerce you to buy a product that you didn’t want or need. Never before has the “commerce clause” been so bastardized--and it has been grossly abused regularly. 

The Constitution, a divine document, was written through the inspiration of our Heavenly Father, and is based on the eternal principles of agency and self government.  We have the gift of Agency from our Heavenly Father; the opportunity to choose for ourselves what we will do, and if we will be obedient.

When the government comes in and tells me I MUST do something, that’s a twisted, progressive ideal; that was Satan’s plan. 

Barak Obama had this to say about the Constitution:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK .

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf…”

(Red is my emphasis) 

Apparently Mr. O doesn’t understand that that was what the Founding Fathers WANTED. "Economic Justice" was never part of the Constitution for a reason, why is this a hard concept? It was a document designed to protect YOU and ME from government encroachment and tyranny. It’s NOT SUPPOSED to grant that the government is to do something for you outside of protecting your life, your liberty and your ability to pursue happiness (which in the founding generation meant, in part, your acquisition of property). 

So, I don’t like Obamacare from a Constitutional standpoint because, regardless of what the SCOTUS gave us this week, government mandated healthcare is NOT constitutional (some will argue that because the SCOTUS says it’s constitutional, that meant it is; no, that just means it’s legal. They also upheld slavery at one time, and we know that it most certainly was NEVER constitutional.)

Other things that bother me greatly, aside from the assault on my personal agency are the fact that it’s a financial nightmare; at a time when we are already in dire straits, this bill is financial Armageddon. 

Justice Roberts, siding with the majority--which boggles, called it a tax, so it’s now the largest tax increase in the history of the United States, and the bill originated in the wrong house: this alone should have been enough to throw it out. A very wise man named Frederic Bastiat called this type of “taxation” “Legalized Plunder”. It is not a proper function of government to take from you, and give to me; be it welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, public schools, health care; anything where you have to give up money for a non enumerated governmental function is nothing more than redistribution of wealth--a plank from the Communist Manifesto.

When Nancy Pelosi said “we have to pass it so we can find out what’s in it” that was a GIGANTIC red flag, but then, countless ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES did not even READ the blasted thing, yet they voted on it because they got backroom deals with secret handshakes--sounds like Korihor to me. 

Progressives want nothing more than to control our lives, to dictate every facet. Grandma may not get that pacemaker, because at 102 years of age, she’s outlived her usefulness to the collective. Someone who is obese and on hypertension meds, my not get more meds, because they are just too darn fat to justify their lives. Go to YouTube and look up George Bernard Shaw’s comments regarding Eugenics. These people are real, and they are evil. 

The elitist mentality that says they know better than me, how to run my own life is straight from the playbook of the Adversary. “Not one soul will make a mistake”; I have too much faith to let some advisory board decide what is, and what is acceptable for ME. “Men are that they might have joy”, not “men are that they might be manipulated by the government”. 

I have great hope that the SCOTUS last week is a stealth operation by the Chief Justice, many don’t believe so, but here are three items for your perusal that give me that hope; that and the calm whisperings of the Spirit that remind me “it’s going to be OK” just like President Hinckley said he reminded himself every day after Sister Hinckley died. 

Healthcare can be done at a state level via the 10th Amendment, but that's another discussion.

I know there are much smarter people than me that are up in arms and calling Justice Roberts a coward, but these three pieces give me great hope.

Thursday, June 28, 2012


Some of you may have wondered if I've fallen off of the planet; nope. We've been in hell.
In March I went to visit two of my daughters, in two different states; came home and turned around and headed to a third daughter in a third state, this time with very sad results.

This third daughter, Sarah, was very ill; she was sent home with us to Oregon by her doctors. She was here with us for only a month, before she passed away, leaving two gorgeous daughters ages 6½  and 3½ behind behind.

I won't go into the details of her death here; I've started to talk about it a little on my other blog The View From My Kitchen Window and the first post is here: Of Heaven and Rainbows.
I haven't felt much up to the contention and the rigors of politics, but today's SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare has me nearly in shreds. I'm not going to post tonight, too many thoughts in my head, and my heart is still tender; but I will be back soon, and we'll work on learning the Constitution and maybe go through some thoughts that might mean there is a silver lining in this SCOTUS ruling.

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Newt Gingrich? Honestly?

 George Washington, in his first inaugural address said: 

 “No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.”

John Adams said:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Providential agency is to be acknowledged in the Founding of this country and the government was made for, and is only serviceable to, a moral and a religious people.


 Thomas Jefferson:

“He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions.”

And, lastly from Sam Adams: 

“The public cannot be too curious concerning the character of public men.”

Newt Gingrich finished on top in South Carolina. WHAT are we thinking??
 Aren’t we even concerned that a man who rivals Bill Clinton for moral depravity may once again grace the White House? I know Obama the Dictator is bad, but Newt as the replacement? Really? 

If the Author and Finisher of our faith cared so much about us, and about Liberty to have a hand in founding this country, will we now say “no thanks”? Will we approve a man who is a serial adulterer over other good and decent men?

If our Heavenly Father took such great care to raise up wise men to Found this nation, can we now be ambivalent to the character of the men we choose? 

What happened to Integrity? Character? Honesty? Honor? 

The definition of insanity is doing the same things again and again, but expecting different results. Is ANYONE happy with the morals and character of our elected representatives these days?

How often do you hear “they’re just a bunch of crooks”? Well STOP electing crooks!

“They’re just a bunch of slimeballs”; STOP electing slimeballs! 

I have not been a Mitt Romney fan; I was last election--come on, John McCain?? I was a supporter of Romney last election, but this time, I’m more conservative than I was then, and Romney hasn’t been my guy; until now. 

I’ve been in an lengthy discussion on Facebook about forgiveness, and how I’m not being forgiving of Newt; well, *I* don’t have any reason to forgive Newt, he hasn’t done anything TO me. I don’t NOT forgive him either; he has to ask his Father in Heaven for that; I don’t however have to trust him one way or the other; here’s what I do know: 

Doctrine and Covenants 82:3

“For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.”

And that’s not about forgiving Newt Gingrich; it’s about US. 

Could we say, as American’s with a divine document as our foundation, that much has been given? Can we honestly doubt the hand of God in our government? Our Founding Father’s believed it, are we so much more “enlightened” that we can safely shun that ideal?
Much HAS been given to us, and MUCH is expected of us in return; how we  handle the reigns of liberty will be weighed against us just as readily as any other sin we might commit. Do not take lightly the trust your Heavenly Father has placed in you, and do not take lightly the responsibility to be “curious about our public men.”

If we can’t be too careful, as Sam Adams reminds us, how is it that someone who has cheated on two wives can be trusted to not be a liar and a cheat again?
Can we trust a person, man or woman, who has had a $300,000 ethics fine while serving in the public trust? I say no. 

I don’t understand how Newt can be favored over two men of valiant character; how can Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney both be rejected for Newt the slimeball? 

Heavenly Father IS mindful, and if we aren’t careful, if we don’t hold our elected representatives to a higher standard, one that we should hold ourselves to, then not only will he be our “elected representative”, but he will be a representation of how far American’s have sunk morally. 

Proverbs 3:5-6:

5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.” 

Pray for guidance, and look to George Washington as a model for our public men and women; use the General as the example to measure the others against.

The “Indispensible Man” is needed once again. Now.  Even yesterday.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

What a Wonderful Book Year it Was

Well, I’m a tad embarrassed. I exceeded my reading goal by a wide margin; not because I meant to, but because I got the numbers wrong. 

You see, I thought I’d given myself the goal of 40 books, so to have read 43 was over, but nothing spectacular. I just went to check my booklist post from January, and found that I’d only committed to THIRTY books, not forty. Wow. How lame am I? 

So, yes, I read 43 books this year; some new to me authors, some old favorites, and a couple “Several days of my life I will never get back” books. 

I find I adore Gene Stratton-Porter; I’d read “Laddie: A True Blue Story” for the second time, and was asked if I’d ever read “The Girl of the Limberlost”; I said I hadn’t, and was encouraged to do so--thank you Anne! I devoured it, and moved on to four more GSP books in than six weeks. Wow.
Courage, compassion, honor, integrity, endurance, love, tenderness; all this and more are embodied in her novels, at least these six that I read.
I highly, highly recommend them. 
This was my first experience reading any Kipling; I think I’d tried once before and was not impressed and put the book away. I decided this year, that I knew “The Jungle Book” (you know, because of Disney, we know the Jungle Book, right?), and decided to give it a try. Boy was I surprised. What Disney gave us was a FRACTION of the story, and there are several OTHER stories that I had no idea were from “The Jungle Book”. I loved it, and will not ever trust Disney again to give me the whole story.

That being said, I loved it enough to go on to read “Captains Courageous” also by Kipling; I can’t say that I LOVED this book, but I can say that I have a greater appreciation for Kipling and I love the WAY he writes; I will be adding “Kim” to my reading list soon, maybe not this year, but soon.
One that didn’t make the list, because I can’t officially say I “finished” it is “The Last of the Mohicans” by Hawthorne; {gasp} what a boring book!  If you loved it, I’m so sorry,  but I hated it! We listened to it going cross country last summer, and I COULD NOT stay awake; boring and confusing ( I fully admit that the confusion may be because I kept falling asleep, but my husband was driving and HE was bored and confused too); never again. Done.
Another one I hated was “Redwall”; I know, I know, don’t throw rocks, but BAH! What a boring book. I did finish it, because it was the first book of the New Year that I was reading and I HAD to, but good grief, I’ll not read the rest of the series, no thanks. 
I read several of the Narnia books, and that’s like a visit with an old friend-although we’ve only been acquainted for about 6 years, they go deep into my heart and will live there a good, long time.
As usual, I read plenty of non-fiction, which is my favorite place to be; there is great evil coming, but there is great strength and courage to draw from.
If I could recommend one, it would be “The Real Thomas Jefferson”; how I love this man.  The picture that has been painted of this great man through years of Progressive led education is made up of lies and distortions; read this book.
I also recommend “The Coming Insurrection” by the Invisible Committee; this book details the evil that was coming and is now here; the occupy movement handbook if you will.
Another one I highly recommend is “How Evil Works” by David Kupelian; I was enlightened on how evil grabs us, and how to watch for the snares. 
On to 2012. 
 I’m reading Glenn Beck’s “Being George Washington” right now, and so far I love it; I also have several holdovers that I didn’t get to in 2011, two of which I’m in the middle of, and while they are fabulous, I can’t go too fast, because there is SO much to take in; “An Enemy Hath Done This” by Ezra Taft Benson, and “Original Intent” by David Barton. Both highly recommended, thus far.
I also want to get to “Jesus the Christ” by James E. Talmadge this year as well as “George Washington’s Sacred Fire” by Peter Lillback.
I have a whole stack, I suppose I should get busy! 
I think this year my goal WILL be forty, obviously I can make it. giggle. 
All in all, it was a wonderful book year. How about you? What did you read? 
Happy New Year, go get a book!!

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Change is Our Only Hope

You might think, from the title that I’m referring to Obama’s mantra of “Hope” and “Change”; in a sense I am. I had posted “‘Change’ is our only ‘Hope’” as my Facebook status the other day; at least that’s how it started.

I realized afterwards that it goes much, much deeper than just who gets elected as the next President.

The Thirteen Colonies were established because there is, deep within each of us, a yearning for Liberty; and religious liberty was a primary concern.  With these liberties available here, religion flourished, and by the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, the colonies were a patchwork of religious sects; diversity wasn’t even a catchword then. 

John Adams said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

He meant it; most of our Founding Fathers also meant it. 

Read the writings of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Samuel Adams and others; they believed in “Divine Providence” and “the Invisible Hand” guiding the fortunes of America, and the need for us to be a moral people for the republic to flourish; the history we’ve all been taught in public schools is wrong.  

 2 Corinthians 3:17 tells us:
“Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”

Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty.  

Look back over the ages past, and you’ll notice that the United States of America, the Republic we were blessed to be born in, has enjoyed the longest and most prosperous union of any other nation in the history of the WORLD. Why?

Because of the Judeo-Christian principles that permeated society for the first 100 years; this was the unquestioned standard until the middle of the last century; God was present and accepted and cherished. 

Fast forward nearly 160 years after the signing of the Constitution; religion came under attack, and in doing so put the Republic in peril. Knowing what we know, these being the Last Days, this really isn’t a surprise.

The march of anti-religious sentiment has kept a steady pace with prayer being forbidden in most any public institution.  

How did we get here? What can we do? 

It started simply enough 1947, when the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) essentially “federalized” the First Amendment; it has been turned AGAINST the people and AGAINST the states since that time, completely turning the meaning on its head, despite the writings of the Framers of the Constitution and those we consider the Founding Fathers. 

First Amendment
“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

It’s very simple.

There are many cases, but one highlights the blatant disregard given to the Framers:

In the case “Lee vs. Weisman; 1992”, (prayer at school graduations), Justice Souter, in a most arrogant assessment, dismissing historical precedent, claimed that the Framers of the Constitution “simply did not share a common understanding of the ‘Establishment Clause’” and that they tended to “raise constitutional ideals one day and turn their back the next.”

Justice Souter claims to know more about the Constitution and the INTENT of the Framers than they themselves knew and meant and WROTE ABOUT. Incredible. 

Thomas Jefferson was rightly concerned about a Federal judiciary; he said “The Constitution…is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”
He was spot on.

We, as a populace got lazy; and by and large, we let this happen; we remained silent while this precious liberty has all but evaporated.

I found this in 1 Corinthians 8:9:
“But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.”

We were weak; we let others handle the burdens of liberty and they had (and have still today) an agenda; in league with the Enemy of all mankind.

We were not diligent in our stewardship over the Constitution of the United States of America, and we got Justices like Souter as a reward-and he’s just the example of the day. I suggest you read “Original Intent” by David Barton; no revisionist history here; only original sources, quotes and examples. It’s quite enlightening. 

Do you realize that at the start of 2012, FORTY THOUSAND new laws were put on the books across the country? FORTY THOUSAND new flaxen threads, to bind your liberties, all across these fruited plains. 

How do we save our beloved Republic? 

Here’s what Moroni did in Alma 46:

12 "And it came to pass that he rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole. 

13 And he fastened on his head-plate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land" 

I’m not asking that you rip your clothing and place it on a pole for your neighbors to see; I am asking that you behave like Christians. I’d love it if you found my brand of Christianity to your liking, but that’s not even what this is about. It’s about BEHAVING in a Christlike fashion. Help others to see that being good, and kind and honest and trustworthy is a worthy goal. Loving your fellowman regardless of the differences you may have between you. The best way to convert someone to your way of thinking is to be what you profess to be. 

Insist on prayer in your home; when you have company over, have a family prayer with them before they leave; let them know that you value God, and that you value them.

We have to change OUR hearts, OUR minds, and OUR examples before we can hope to influence a nation.

I heard someone on Glenn Beck’s program today say that he didn’t believe that God cares much about elections. I vehemently disagree. 

Doctrine and Covenants 101:
77 “According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles.”

80 “And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. 

If our Heavenly Father isn’t interested in elections, he wouldn’t have given us a Divine document that needed preservation, and set up within that document the methods for election, nor would he have “raised up” wise men as an example to us. I believe God cares very much about elections, about the United States of American and about Liberty. 
“Our God, our religion, our freedom, our peace, our wives and our children”’ these are the things that matter; notice that Moroni puts liberty as third on the list of things to fight for AFTER our God and our religion. Mighty important.Throughout history, when people leave God, God leaves them; change is our only hope, and it starts with us.

Sunday, January 1, 2012

Just for Today

It’s New Year’s Day again, and just for today, I’m going to pretend that everything is perfect.

I’m going to pretend that I’m a fabulous cook, that I’m back into my “real” clothes; I’m going to pretend that I’m a tidy housekeeper and I’m going to pretend that I’m a fabulous Constitutionalist and historian.

I’m even going to pretend that the world isn’t on fire. 

Just for today. 

May you have a Happy, Blessed and Prosperous New Year!