Pastor's Blog

More than half of Thomas E. Woods' book, Nullification:  Resisting Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century , consists of historical documents explaining and defending the right of states to nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government. One of these documents is "An Exposition of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798" written in 1833 by Judge Abel P. Upshur. He sums up the argument in five points: 1.  The Constitution of the United States is a Compact between the States, as such. 2.  The Government established by that Compact, possesses no power whatever, except what "the plain sense and intention" of that Compact gives to it. 3.  Every act done by that Governement, not plainly within the limits of its powers, is void. 4.  Each State has a right to say whether an act done by that Government is plainly within the limits of its powers or not. 5.  The States are not bound to submit to, but may resist, any act of that Government which it shall s...

Here is another example of the tortuous twisting of the Constitution:  Federal Judge George Caram Steeh ruled yesterday that Obama Care's requirement that everyone purchase health insurance passes Constitutional muster. Under what provision of the Constitution is this requirement justified? Why the "Commerce Clause," of course--one of three clauses, as Thomas Woods points out in his recent book, Nullification, which have been used by the federal government to justify all manner of unconstitutional tomfoolery. (The other two are the "General Welfare" clause and the "Necessary and Proper" clause). The Commerce Clause of the Constitution is found in Article I, Section 8:  "The Congress shall have Power To...regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." It is the part about regulating commerce "among the several States" that has been used to cause so much mischief. Woods explains t...

Sonja Schmidt over at PJTV gives us a scary  glimpse of the bureaucratic nightmare that will be government-run health care.

I've seen this before, but not in a form I could post, until I saw it again in Joel Belz' column in World Magazine . Take a few moments to look it over carefully and ask yourself if the proponents of the healthcare reform bill are living in the real world if they think we have the resources to pay for it. Figures above the line show a budget surplus, figures below show a deficit. Says Belz: "Take a look at the simple but frightening chart on this page, whose sources are the Congressional Budget Office (in red) and the White House itself (in yellow). What they're reporting is the best possible scenario-the most optimistic projection anyone can come up with. Here's what the graph summarizes:  The Bush administration inherited a surplus from the Clinton years. But tax cuts, the response to 9/11, and foolish and profligate spending by the Republican Congress of the mid-90s drove the federal government into successive deficits of around a third of a trillion dollar...

The new health care bill is so good, Democrats have exempted themselves from its requirements.

Doug Wilson has a few comments on the Lord's kindness in delivering us from the Obama healthcare evil with yesterday's election of Scott Brown.

In commenting on the abortion compromise in the Senate health care bill, Senator Barbara Boxer said, "You have both sides criticizing it [the compromise], which means we did what we had to do, we compromised in a fair way." Let's say an innocent man is put on trial for murder. The prosecution wants him to be found guilty and executed. The defense seeks his acquital and release. The judge wishing to give something to both sides, finds him guilty and gives him 20 years in prison with eligibility for parole after 10. Neither side got everything it wanted. They both complain. But the judge tells the press, "You have both sides criticizing it, which means I did what I had to do, I compromised in a fair way."

So, let me get this straight. We need a public (read: government) option in healthcare to keep private insurance companies honest, to make sure they don't deny anyone coverage. But it's Medicare, the government -run health insurer for seniors that currently leads the way in the denial of coverage? Is it just me who's having trouble following the argument?

Another good post by Thomas Sowell.

Check out the always humorous and insightful Ann Coulter on the free market's answer to the problems with U.S. health care.

President Obama has held up Canada's socialized health care system as a model for the U.S. So what does Canadian style health care look like? Take a peek. (Unfortunately, I am having trouble sizing the embedded video.)

Thomas Sowell has some good thoughts here on the current debate over health care.