← My shift in focus

Opting in to the Constitution

POSTED ON MARCH 10, 2011 BY LDS LIBERTY

My thoughts posted on a thread in the LDS Liberty Google group:

I think that the closest thing that our system USED to have that resembles a periodic covenant is through the mechanism of voting as it used to take place.

when a voter filled a ballot, it was NOT a secret ballot, so therefore it was a legal instrument transferring representative authority from the voter to the candidate, that is assuming that the candidate won.

Since secret ballots came in at the turn of last century or so, there is no paper trail of these legal instruments proving the authority of representation by the representative of the voters who elected him.

In the old way of doing it, voters who felt that their rights were violated had the theoretical ability to sue the people who elected the representative.  So, if you elected a bad person, you may get a bill in the mail which is your share of the damages owed to the people who won the suit.

Now, does this bring EVERYONE into the system, if they voted? I dunno.  It’s the only mechanism that I can think of.

I don’t think that citizenship should be given, and that taxation should be levied on every person in the nation.

If voting and assigning representative authority involves on in the system and *IF* taxes should exist, they should only be paid by those who participate in the voting system…IMO.

IMO, if you don’t pay taxes you shouldn’t vote and if you don’t vote, you shouldn’t pay taxes and if you don’t do either, then you aren’t a citizen.  However, that does not mean that a-non citizen, or denizen can be trodden upon and have rights violated, for RIGHTS are universal to ALL people. The difference between a citizen and denizen consists of privileges afforded to the one that are not given to the other because the other doesn’t participate or pay the price.

The world in which citizenship privileges and obligations aren’t forced upon everyone universally is one in which people are free to play in the system or be out of it and still have peace reign.

That it this world:

D&C 134:5 “We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments . . . . “

So once everyone’s rights are protected, people are free to live like a bunch of Mormons building the city of Zion, or a bunch or anarcho-capitalists, lone hillbillies, communists, etc.

I think that if inalienable rights ARE protected, then rebellion is unbecoming, but since they aren’t, many of us are involved in a peaceful rebellion of ideas, to wake up as many people as possible.

I think that if all rights were protected by this constitutional system, then there wouldn’t be people agitating for NO government at all, because all that is in response to a mindset that NO government can, by the fact that it exists and is, protect rights unless they are taken away. It’s a theoretical non-starter to cause the usurpation of rights in the name of protecting them.

Government usurps rights in the name of protecting them and in the name of welfare by taxing EVERYONE by assuming that they are all in this system by virtue of their birth (or presence) and calling them citizens thereby….letting government employees (who don’t pay taxes) to vote, letting those who receive welfare (which they shouldn’t from the govt) to vote, and erasing the instrument of authority and hence accountability that ties the voter to the representative.

When/IF, government returns to it original moorings and people discard the mechanisms that cause evil in this society, all people who have complaints about it, will have cause to admit that the constitution was inspired, I think.

I think that the mandate of those who believe this, is to call for such a paring down of government that all others who eschew the whole institution in and of itself …and eschew the constitution, will not call for it’s complete dissolution.

Of course, in my mind, the reason for doing this is not a big “i-told-you-so”.  I want to see and be a part of building Zion. I don’t think that Zion would/could/will be built under current circumstances.

The other reason that I defer my reasoning as a latter-day saint skeptic of government, is the presence of prophecies that have been oft-repeated by modern prophets.  Latter-day Saints will be pivotal in bearing this constitution away from oblivion. I don’t know the circumstances surrounding this nor the state of this country as it happens. As a latter-day saint I have to believe it when a seer says that something will happen. If they say that it will happen and that the members of the church shall be part of it, then I want to do what I can to get other LDS people to hasten this to come about.

The Case for Secret Combinations

--By Ken Bowers

Many people find it hard to believe in the idea of a conspiracy, especially one that is pervasive, world wide and all encompassing. Even members of the LDS Church find it hard to grasp that our society could possibly be ‘controlled’ by some secretive group. It doesn’t seem possible when we travel, vote, express our opinions openly, worship as we please and seem to lead lives that are largely uncontrolled. But the General Authorities of the Church say differently. For instance, Ezra Taft Benson said:

I testify that wickedness is more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before. Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing. A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world.(Ezra Taft Benson, “I Testify,” General Conference, October 1988, reported in Ensign, Nov. 1988, p. 87)

President Benson testified that a secret combination has control over America and the entire world. That goes contrary to what we are used to thinking. How can it be that we are controlled when we think we are free? Is President Benson’s view just an aberration, or is it shared with other General Authorities? Here is a quotation from Joseph Fielding Smith:

Satan has control now. No matter where you look, he is in control, even in our own land. He is guiding the governments as far as the Lord will permit him. That is why there is so much strife, turmoil, confusion all over the earth. One master mind is governing the nations. It is not the President of the United States; it is not Hitler; it is not Mussolini; it is not the king or government of England or any other land; it is Satan himself. (Joseph Fielding Smith Jr.,Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3, p.314-315)

How can that be possible? The answer is that this secret combination doesn’t have total control, but effective control. That means that they do not control our every action, as in Stalin’s Soviet Union; they control the direction our world moves in by controlling what we see and hear in the news media, the educational establishment, and the major political parties. Here are some quotations to prove this idea:

One of our best-kept secrets is the degree to which a handful of huge corporations control the flow of information in the United States. Whether it is television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books or the Internet, a few giant conglomerates are determining what we see, hear and read.(Rep. Bernie Sanders)

And this:

Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have. (Richard Salent, former president, CBS News)

And this:

In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press . . . They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers.

An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers . . . This policy also included the suppression of everything in opposition to the wishes of the interests served . . . (U.S. Congressman Oscar Calloway, The Congressional Record, February 9, 1917, Vol. 54, pp. 2947-2948)

The proof of media bias and brainwashing is substantial. One has to look for it, because the truth is deliberately buried by the media itself. Here are some quotations about our educational establishment:

The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues, and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else . . . Their purpose, in brief, is to make docile and patriotic citizens, to pile up majorities, and to make John Doe and Richard Doe as nearly alike, in their everyday reactions and ways of thinking, as possible. (H. L. Mencken)

The article goes on to say: “Dodd has advised his House committee employers to bear down upon evidence that grants, made chiefly by the Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations, were used toward‘directing education toward an international viewpoint and discrediting the traditions to which it had been dedicated, changing both school and college curricula to the point where they sometimes denied principles underlying the American way of life . . . ’”

(John O’Donnell, “Capitol Stuff,” From an article in the Daily News, May 12, 1954)

Again, the evidence for the educational brainwashing of our children is found in many other quotations. But surely, one may say, that does not include our major political parties? The answer is found in the following quotations that show the control of the Republicans and Democrats:

Usually, carefully screened leading “actors” are picked well in advance of election day by a small group, picked for both major parties, thereby reducing the promotional risk to just about zero.

On the political stage, one must be groomed by “backers” to become a “statesman.” It is desirable for such a candidate to have great personal ambition and, perchance, to be vulnerable to blackmail for some past occurrences; hence, someone not apt to become too independent in time, but always amenable to “suggestions” on the policy level. (Curtis Dall, FDR: My Exploited Father-in-Law, p. 23)

Curtis Dall was the son-in-law of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He saw what happened in FDR’s White House and was appalled at it. But he is far from the only witness to control from behind the scenes:

From 1936 through 1960 the Republican presidential nominee was selected by a small group of secret kingmakers who are the most powerful opinion makers in the world. They dictated the choice of the Republican presidential nominee just as completely as the Paris dressmakers control the length of women’s skirts. (Phyllis Schlafly, A Choice Not an Echo, p. 6)

Or this:

To Morgan, all political parties were simply organizations to be used, and the firm always was careful to keep a foot in all camps. Morgan himself, Dwight Morrow, and other partners were allied with the Republicans; Russell C. Leffingwell was allied with the Democrats; Grayson Murphy was allied with the extreme Right; and Thomas W. Lamont was allied with the Left . . . To this same seminal figure, (Morgan), may be attributed the use of tax-exempt foundations forcontrolling these activities . . . (Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p. 945)

This behind the scenes manipulation of both political parties is also very well attested. These days, one must really dig to find the truth. The control of our lives also includes our national finances through the agency of the Federal Reserve System, which is a private, stock-owned banking cartel which enriches itself while making the rest of us poor. They do that through inflation that comes about through fractional reserve banking. Here are some quotations that establish that fact:

This Act, [Federal Reserve Act of 1913,] established the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized . . . The greatest crime of Congress is its currency system. The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetuated by this banking bill. The caucus and party bosses have again operated and prevented the people from getting the benefit of their own government. (Charles A. Lindberg to the House of Representatives, December 23, 1913)

Or this:

MR. SPEAKER: Our government debt at this time is approximately $50 billion. By the time that it’s paid, it will aggregate $100 billion . . . The amount of 100 percent is due to the interest charges . . . I have never yet had anyone who could . . . justify the federal government borrowing the use of its own money . . . I believe the time will come when people will demand that this be changed . . . [and] they will actually blame . . . Congress for sitting idly by and permitting such an idiotic system to continue. I have talked to the secretary of the Treasury and members of the Federal Reserve Board . . . They know this can be done easily and conveniently and will save money . . . the Federal Reserve Bank System . . . is not owned by the government.. Many people think that it is because it says “Federal Reserve.” It belongs to private banks, private corporations. So we have farmed out to the Federal Reserve Banking System . . .the privilege of issuing the government’s money! (Rep. Wright Patman, House, Sept. 29, 1941, Congressional Record, p. 7583)

Or this:

We have two governments in Washington: one run by the elected people–which is a minor part–and one run by the moneyed interests, which control everything. (Congressman C. Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, quoted by Studs Terkel in Hard Times, New York: The New Press, 2005, pp. 284-285)

So the idea of a conspiracy owning our government is not some half-baked crazy idea. There is hard evidence demonstrating the fact of control from behind the scenes. Nevertheless, many still scoff at the idea and dismiss it without even consulting the evidence. They just can’t believe such a thing possible. J. Edgar Hoover said:

The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.

Unfortunately, denying the existence of a conspiracy does not make it go away. Perhaps people would just prefer to think that everything is rosy and if they put on horse’s blinders, there won’t be an 800 pound gorilla named ‘conspiracy’ sitting in the corner of the room. But that is not a good attitude to have. We have to wake up and see things for what they really are.

Why anti-Christ, devil worshippers, and liberals hate labels

Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone had a label right on their shirt?  Life would be grand!  We would know right away if the person was a child molester, bank robber, raper, liberal, muslim, or whatever.

Breeds of humans, like breeds of dogs, have different capabilities that are genetically impossible to ignore.  You probably won't find many poodles as police or attack dogs.  Likewise, with humans, you do not expect a Mexican to invent anything.  On the other hand, Mexicans make extremely good workers, and are often found harvesting fruits and vegetables.

Satanists are against freedom.  Christians are for freedom.  The only real difference between Jesus and Lucifer is their view on free agency.  The followers of Jesus opted for freedom of choice.  The followers of Lucifer opted for a safety net so that there would be no failure, but everyone would succeed in returning to heaven.  Lucifer could best be described as a democrat, liberal, or for having more hatred for freedom than any entity in the universe.  These are the facts, and anyone with a different point of view is either a liar or incredibly stupid, or both.   

Satanists, or Lucifarians do not want us to label things as they really are because normal people would be offended and the spread of Marxism, socialism, communism, Satanism, etc. would not be as easy.  Normally, a person would not intentionally drink from a bottle labeled "poison."  Although in the case of cigarettes, the label is often ignored.  Who would become an alcoholic if the label on the bottle said "will destroy your relationships, make you act like an idiot, destroy brain cells, and harm your unborn child?"   Now when "whores" (another label) want to murder their unborn children, the Lucifarian at Planned Parenthood do not let the young mother seen the face of the unborn child or even an ultra-sound.  The girl is told that she has "freedom of choice" and she is simply eliminating a fetus.  Some evil, liar, bitch, told the girl that the fetus is part of her body and therefore she can cut it out if she wants.  The truth is that women do not have a penis and so a male child is not a part of the woman's body but a body of it's own.  By labeling the murder as an option, it sounds so much better.

Democrats change the meaning of words and especially labels.  For instance, most universities have an area set aside where people can practice "free speech."  People with brains or people that are not inherently evil want freedom of speech everywhere, not in a small fenced off area. 

Labels are a wonderful thing and anyone that doesn't like labels is by definition "evil."  We learned as children that sticks and stones can break our bones but words can never hurt us.  This is 100% true but evil people don't want us to label things the way they actually are because it will make the spread of evil more difficult.

We all know for a certainty that Muslims are the only ones that hijack airplanes.  Of course, if we only profile towel heads, the Muslims will hire a different idealogy to do their evil work.  Even so, a normal person will be more alert if seated next to a Muslim on an aircraft.

Evil people hate individualism.  They want every child in school to be equal.  If a smart kid does extremely well and never has homework, he is not encouraged.  If an illegal alien that can't even speak the language, lets stinky taco farts and waves a Mexican flag, he is passed to the next grade even though he is not as smart as a first grader.

Some of us are pretty or handsome.  Some of us are flat ugly.  Equality is stupid to even think about.  Yet liberals want the government to make everyone equal.  This is totally against God and Nature.  Should pretty people be required to slash their face with a knife to leave a nasty scar?  This is precisely what taking rich peoples money to give to the lazy is all about. 

Black people when left to their own devices as is the case in Africa, have many limitations.  Every medical student knows for a fact that black brains weigh less and are smaller.  SAT scores have proven that black people are simply not as smart.  Anyone that denies this should go commit suicide immediately because we have enough idiots on this earth already.  So the government comes up with different scores and in many cases, simply gives a waiver or exemption to blacks.  

So in every case, 100% of the time, when a moron doesn't like labels it is because they do not like their own label.  Maybe their father is a child molester.  Or maybe one of their daughters is a whore.  Or maybe they have the label of lazy, uneducated, drunkard, pot head, liberal bitch.  

Just imagine how much better life would be if everyone had labels.  There would never be fraud or scams because their label would be scammer or fraudster or liar, etc.  

There are only 2 types of people on this earth.  Good and evil.  Good people are willing to get a job and work for things.  Evil people want welfare, food stamps, etc.  Sometimes good people have hard times and need help but this should be from people that volunteer to help like churches, family, and friends.  Anytime I am forced to be charitable, I want to go kill someone in the government that took away my freedom to choose who I will help.

Obama Care is evil because it forces and takes away freedom.  Why should healthy people be forced to pay medical bills for alcoholic, obese, drug addicted, idiots?  

So, every time some jerk wants to take away your freedom, remember that if you kill them, it is in self defense and a good thing.  When someone wants us to eliminate labels so we will not know what things really are, we should recommend that these people do the world a favor and kill themselves as soon as possible.  

Just like women libbers are obese, ugly, stinky women that no man would ever want anyway, so too are liberals that want to remove labels evil, satanic, freaks that are simply a disgrace to the human race.

Remember that calling a fag or queer a gay does not make the person any less a freak.  Changing words to mean something else is simply evil.  When evil people call abortion a freedom of choice, it is no less premeditated murder of a child.

So lets hope all liberals commit suicide tonight and have a wonderful life with lots of labels.

Genetic differences between blacks and whites

Equality: Man's Most Dangerous Myth

by Dr. William L. Pierce

All racial differences are either genetic (hereditary, inborn) or cultural (acquired from society after birth). The latter can be changed or eliminated by enforced social changes; the former are independent of man's laws and customs, except over a period of many generations.

Examples of cultural traits which differ from race to race are mannerisms of speech ("Amos 'n' Andy" dialect or "Black English"), styles of dress, and personal grooming. If Blacks and Whites are forced to live together from birth, attending the same schools and exposed to exactly the same cultural influences, they will grow up speaking and dressing in very nearly the same manner. Even Blacks who have grown up in the tribal areas of Africa and who customarily distort their earlobes or lips with huge wooden plugs or plaster their hair with liquid cow dung as a means of attracting Blacks of the opposite sex can be trained to adopt White standards of personal cleanliness and grooming.

The fact is, however, that the most important racial differences are genetic rather than cultural. Skin and eye color, facial features, skull shape, skeletal proportions, patterns of body fat disposition, tooth size, jaw shape, female breast form, odor, and hair texture are only the most noticeable genetically determined physical characteristics which differ racially.

Beyond these things are the entire biochemical constitution and development of the individual. There are profound racial differences in blood chemistry, in endocrine function, and in physiological response to environmental stimuli. Blacks and Whites mature at different rates. They have different susceptibilities to many disease organisms as well as different patterns of congenital disease. They even have different nutritional requirements.

Racial differences, in other words, are much more than skin deep; they permeate the individual and are manifested in virtually every cell of his body. They are the products of millions of years of separate evolutionary development which has adapted the different races, with considerable precision to different environmental demands.

When we understand the all pervading nature of genetic racial differences, we can see that cultural racial differences are not so superficial as some would have us believe. Far from masking any fundamental "equality" or exaggerating racial dissimilarities, they simply manifest the genetic differences of which they are, in fact, expressions.

The culture of a race, free of alien influences, is telling evidence of that race's essential nature. The African Negro with a cow-dung hairdo, a bone through his nose, and teeth filed down to sharp points, in other words, presents to us a far more accurate image of the Negro essence than does the American Black in a business suit who has been trained to drive an automobile, operate a typewriter, and speak flawless English.

Negro culture is not merely DIFFERENT from White culture; it is a LESS ADVANCED culture and, by practically any standard, INFERIOR. It is a culture which never advanced to the point of a written language or a civilized society. It never saw even the barest glimmerings of mathematics or the invention of the wheel. The smelting and use of metals and the quarrying and dressing of stone for architectural purposes are crafts that were taught to the Negro by members of other races. The hokum currently being served up in the schools about a centuries-old Negro "civilization" based on the ruins of stone walls found at Zimbabwe, in Rhodesia [note: at the time of this writing, the country was still called Rhodesia] is simply the product of wishful thinking by proponents of racial equality who are willing to ignore all facts which conflict with their equalitarian mania.

Negro culture inferiority is the consequence of the physical inadequacy of the Negro brain in dealing with abstract concepts. On the other hand, the Negro shows an ability approaching that of the White at mental tasks requiring only memory. That is why the Negro can be trained relatively easily to adapt to many aspects of White culture.

His verbal ability and his ability to imitate allow him, when properly motivated, to assume much of the outward appearance of "equality." In a decade of special college-admission quotas for Blacks, many thousands of Blacks have obtained college diplomas -- but only in those disciplines in which a glib tongue and a good memory suffice. There have been virtually no Black graduates in the physical sciences and very few in engineering.

Thus the Negroes inability to handle the abstract concepts required in problem-solving and technological innovation make a mockery of outward appearances. And this inability is genetic in nature, rooted in the physical structure of the Negro brain.

Until the post-World War II campaign to blend the White and Negro races began in earnest, the Negro's mental limitations were common knowledge. The 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, says of the Negro, in part:

"...Other characteristics appear to be hypertrophy of the organs of excretion, a more developed venous system, and a less voluminous brain, as compared with the White races."

"In certain of the characteristics mentioned above the Negro would appear to stand on a lower evolutionary plane than the White man, and to be more closely related to the highest anthropoids ...."

"Mentally the Negro is inferior to the White ... While with the latter the volume of the brain grows with the expansion of the brainpan, in the former the growth of the brain is on the contrary arrested by the premature closing of the cranial sutures and lateral pressure of the frontal bone."

And the 1932 edition of the Encyclopedia Americana lists, among the distinguishing characteristics of the Negro race, the following:

"3. Weight of brain, 35 ounces (in gorilla 20 ounces, average Caucasian 45 ounces) ....""8. Exceedingly thick cranium, enabling him to use the head as a weapon of attack ...."
"14. The cranial sutures, which close much earlier in the Negro than in other races."

As the media stepped up their flow of "equality" propaganda, later editions of these encyclopedias simply deleted the racial data on Blacks. One had to turn to specialized medical texts to learn that the associative areas of the brain, where abstract thought takes place, are less developed in the Negro than in the White.

It has been well known since the large-scale intelligence testing of U.S. Army recruits in World War I that the average Negro IQ is approximately 15 per cent below that of the average White. Apologists for the Blacks have tried to explain away the earlier test scores as being due to the effects of segregated schools and Black poverty; i.e. they claimed the tests were "culturally biased."

Later IQ tests, however, showed essentially the same degree of Black deficiency in IQ: whether Black graduates of integrated high schools were tested against White graduates of the same schools, or Blacks in a certain socio-economic category against similarly categorized Whites, the Blacks always scored substantially lower, even though standard IQ tests measure memory skills as well as purely associative ability. Tests which focus on the latter type of mental function show a much larger difference between Black and White scores.

But it is precisely the ability to associate concepts, to deal with abstractions, to mentally extrapolate the present into the future that has allowed the White race to build and maintain its civilization, and it is the Negro's deficiency in this regard which kept him in a state of savagery in his African environment and is now undermining the civilization of a racially mixed America. That is why it is vitally important for every White person to understand that there can be no such thing as "equality" between Whites and Blacks, regardless of the amount of racial mixing forced on Americans by the government.

Supreme Court Must find Obama Care Unconstitutional

Special Message From the League of American Voters

Why the Supreme Court Must Act
Obamacare Is Unconstitutional

 

The most important question before the U.S. Supreme Court, and one of the most significant hot-button issues facing the nation, is whether President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform bill is constitutional or unconstitutional.
 

The court’s recent hearing of arguments about the law shows that serious constitutional issues have been raised about the most sweeping legislation in modern times.
 

The League of American Voters has steadfastly opposed the Obamacare legislation on constitutional and other grounds.
 

The law will cost taxpayers over $1 trillion, add massive new regulations with enforcement agencies, cut Medicare by $500 billion for those who paid into the system — while adding tens of millions of new people to the system. A bevy of new taxes and fees will be used to pay for the program.
 

There are political matters, but there are significant constitutional ones as well.
 

The League soon will be sending a memo to the nine members of the Supreme Court outlining our opposition to the law and why our 250,000 members believe that this law should not be upheld.
 

Any number of legal experts, elected officials, and interested observers have weighed in with their views on the constitutionality of Obamacare — with many declaring that the high court should strike it down.
 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was signed by President Obama on March 23, 2010. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for and against the bill on March 26-28, and the court’s decision is expected by the end of June.
 

Most of the discussion regarding the bill’s legality has centered on the individual mandate, which holds that Americans not covered by employer- or government-provided healthcare insurance must purchase insurance or pay a penalty.
 

Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III has stated, “I would hope that the court would throw out at least the individual mandate that people buy insurance.

“The current state of the law regarding the Commerce Clause is a long ways from what the founders had in mind in the Constitution, and to carry it a giant step further in the direction of governmental power would be a big mistake.”

Chief Judge Joel Dubina of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, the court that ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional last August, wrote: “The individual mandate was enacted as a regulatory penalty, not a revenue-raising tax, and is therefore unconstitutional. This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potential unbounded assertion of congressional authority: The ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives.”

Stephen B. Presser, the Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History at Northwestern University School of Law and a frequent witness on constitutional issues before congressional committees, noted that the Supreme Court has generally upheld acts of Congress. 

“Still, there are cases where the court has ruled that Congress has gone too far, such as U.S. v. Lopez [1995], where the court held that Congress had no power to prohibit the carrying of firearms within 1,000 feet of schools because that might interfere with interstate commerce [young scholars’ education might be interrupted, and thus they would produce less in interstate commerce],” Presser observed.

“While Congress does, undeniably, have some power to reach deep into the economic lives of U.S. citizens, still there must be some limits on its power. These limits are clearly hinted at in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which provides that the powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states, and to the people thereof. 

“Our framers understood limiting the federal government to be essential to preserving the liberty of our citizens. The PPACA, in effect, takes over one-sixth of the American economy, and forces Americans to buy a service [insurance] that they may not need or desire.

“The logic of forcing Americans to buy health insurance is just a short step away from dictating to Americans other consumer choices [e.g., you may only buy an electronically powered automobile, or you must eat three servings of vegetables or fruits a day].

“If Congress can enact the individual mandate in the PPACA, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to find any limits to its powers, and given the 10th Amendment, this is an intolerable situation.”

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, a leading opponent of the healthcare bill, has said that if the Supreme Court does not throw out Obamacare, the federal government will have “limitless power. If they can order you to buy this product, they can order you to buy any product.”

 The PPACA “was an ugly bill when it was born and it was never expected to become law in the form it’s now written,” he added. “It has so many errors in it and, of course, more egregious than that, it has constitutional violations.”

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson in December 2010 ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, that the “tax” imposed on people who choose not to have insurance coverage was in practice a “penalty” outside the federal government’s constitutional authorities to raise revenues.

He said he could find no precedent for Congress’ right to regulate a person’s decision not to purchase a product.

Texas Rep. Ted Poe, an opponent of the law, said, “There is no place in the Constitution that gives government the authority to force citizens to participate in interstate commerce — in this case forcing citizens to buy government-approved insurance.

“There is nothing in the Constitution that gives government that authority and that’s really the basis for the entire bill, the individual mandate.

“What’s next? The government can then force us to buy their car — their green car, force us to buy their particular type of house — and it goes on and on, whether it’s food or some other product.”

He said that the individual mandate violates the principle of limited government. “If we don’t participate in the program by the government, we could be fined under the law, and I think all of that violates the constitutional standard of limited government. It makes government unlimited.”

Former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey, a healthcare expert, agrees: “If Congress can force individuals to buy health insurance, Congress can force individuals to buy stocks and bonds to prop up Wall Street, or American-made automobiles to prop up Detroit.”

Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, chairman of the Republican Policy Committee and an orthopedic surgeon, has stated, “This is the first time in the history of our nation that the federal government has said to each and every American citizen, by virtue of being a citizen you must buy a product and this is what it must be.

“It is that second clause, the ‘and this is what it must be,’ very specifically that runs into constitutional challenges. 

The bill is very specific in what kind of health coverage you and every single American must have, and if you don’t purchase what the government mandates that you purchase, then guess who enforces it? The IRS. 

“This law is bad on all sorts of counts. As a physician, I can tell you that it harms access, it increases the cost of healthcare, it harms the quality of healthcare and it certainly decreases choices for the American people.”

Some supporters of Obamacare argue that if the government can mandate auto insurance, it can mandate health insurance. But opponents counter that the federal government doesn’t mandate auto insurance, the states do, and the states are also free to mandate health insurance while the federal government is not.

Others note that driving a car is considered a privilege, and not a natural right protected by the constitution. The state, therefore, can require a person who wants such a privilege to purchase insurance.

Opponents also stress that while current precedent allows Congress to regulate “economic activity,” with Obamacare, Congress has taken the extraordinary step of regulating inactivity — not buying insurance.

Another question before the Supreme Court is “severability” — whether other parts of Obamacare can be allowed to stand if the individual mandate provision is struck down.

Florida District Court Judge Roger Vinson stated that the individual mandate is absolutely fundamental to the bill’s structure, and if it goes, so does the rest of the act.

The Heritage Foundation’s constitutional law expert, Todd Gaziano, agrees: “When the heart of the act is torn out, the rest of the statue will fall.”

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee also agrees that the entire bill should be scrapped.

“I look at this healthcare bill as a big bowl of stew, and at this point the Supreme Court may say there’s some tainted meat in that stew that we’re going to take out. I don’t know, if you take the tainted meat out, if anybody would still want to eat it,” he said. “Let’s start with a clean pot, some fresh meat, and let’s make this stew all over again. That’s what we need to do with the healthcare bill.”

Cuccinelli declared, “This would never have become law without the individual mandate — that’s very clear.”

Economist Robert Reich, a former secretary of labor, feels that regardless of constitutionality, the PPACA can’t survive without the individual mandate. “Only if everyone buys insurance can insurers afford to cover people with pre-existing conditions, or pay the costs of catastrophic diseases,” said Reich.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made his view on the matter clear during oral arguments in March: “My approach would be if you take the heart out of the statute, the statute is gone.”

The Supreme Court will also rule on whether it is constitutional for the PPACA to force the states to greatly expand their Medicaid coverage, which opponents of the bill say constitutes “coercion.”

In sum, the Obamacare law is a bad law that adds new regulations, new bureaucracies, and new taxes without addressing the underlying problems of our medical system: skyrocketing costs, systemic insurance and Medicare fraud, and a failure to employ free-market programs like Health Savings accounts.

The League of American Voters strongly encourages the Supreme Court to use its vested power to declare the law fully unconstitutional and void.

Vote John A Swasey for Duchesne County Commissioner

After the Duchesne County Commissioners were ordered by the Court to pay $5 million dolllars to a man for refusing to issue a business license, the county gave a "deer in the headlights look" and said they were taken completely by surprise.

It had never occurred to them to obey the law because they thought they were the law. 

Duchesne government has had an extreme hatred for free enterprise and personal property rights for several decades.

Introducing John Swasey!  God's gift to Duchesne County.  Even though he brings a breath of fresh air and honesty to a corrupt chamber, there will undoubtedly be the satanic portion of the county that will not vote for honesty.

Keep checking his web site at http://votejohnswasey.com   

Is it possible for a Democrat to be a good person?

There was a time when the democratic platform could be perceived as a party of the people.  It was always a lie, but there have always been stupid people that do not deserve freedom.  In fact, millions of people actually prefer slavery.  It has always been that way.  Even before the Earth was created, there were billions of intelligent spirits that chose Lucifer's plan of rebellion, protests, organized labor, socialism, something for nothing plans including food stamps, welfare, etc., instead of the freedom to choose as outlined by Jehova, even though freedom of choice meant living with the consequences of one's choice.

Jesus Christ's plan for us to obtain a body and have complete freedom of choice in all areas created a war between freedom lovers and slave enjoyers.  

When the United States Constitution was drafted, it was intended that this country would be a unique form of government never before tried, a constitutional Republic and was never intended to be a democracy, since there has never been a successful democracy in the history of the earth.

Basically, there are two types of people; freedom lovers and those that prefer to be slaves to a government that will make their decisions for them.

One way to tell if a church is evil or good is the political belief of the pastor, or leader.  

Democrats are by definition evil.  Sometimes a person claims to be a democrat because their parents were or because they don't know any better, having never studied what it actually meant.  

Once a person claims to be a democrat, after studying what that actually means, they have joined a Satanic Cult with pre-mortal origins.  Like Satan, they believe in their platform and it is a part of who they are.  It is more ingrained than their DNA.  It is their very soul.  They are evil and can never be changed.  Like an ant can never be a dinosaur, a democrat can never be a good person.

Democrats make poor parents and pass their beliefs on to their children.  They lie and deceive at every opportunity and will use force and intimidation like a union's demands against an employer.  

There can be good and bad people in every race or color.  But it is not physically possible for a democrat to be a good person.  A democrat may do something good, but no amount of good that any democrat can ever do in an entire lifetime, can ever make up for the fact that they despise freedom.

If a person is angry enough to kill someone, they can kill a democrat and be guaranteed that even a random killing can be a benefit to society.  Killing a Mexican in the hopes of eliminating an illegal alien on the other hand does not offer the same 100% certainty that the person deserved to be killed that killing a democrat offers.  Killing a democrat is always a good thing.