SCOTUS, Obamacare, and the Constitution....

I have been puzzling for some time about why Obamacare was not simply overturned on the basis that it violates Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution requiring that all revenue legislation originate in the House of Representatives.

I just figured out why.

Article 1, Section 7 says,

"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

The House had originally passed its own version of the healthcare act, which was rejected by the Senate.  Instead, the Senate took H.R. 3590, a bill revising the Internal Revenue Code with regard to housing tax breaks for military personnel, gutted it, incorporated some of the aspects of the rejected House Bill, added loads of its own amendments (as permitted by Article 1, Sec. 7), and passed it.  Since the original revenue-related legislation originated and was passed in the House, Obamacare is a legal tax.  And since the Democrats knew that H.R. 3590 revised the Internal Tax Code, they also from the outset that this was a new series of taxes.

Just one more example of the lengths to which the Democrats went to force Obamacare on us - turning a tax break for military personnel into the single biggest package of new taxes (21 of them) in the history of the United States.

A Response to the “Evangelical Statement of Principles for Immigration Reform”...

More than 100 "evangelical" organizations have banded together to publicly call on the church to push for amnesty for more than eleven million illegals now living in the US.  Focus on the Family and the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission are just a couple such organizations.


As a fundamental, Bible-believing Christian who is also an ordained minister of the Word, I am well aware of the biblical teaching to love our neighbor, just as I am also aware of the teaching regarding showing mercy.

I am likewise aware of the clear teaching of Romans 13:1-5, 

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience."

The course of action for which you advocate is contrary to God's clear instructions that we obey the laws established by our authorities. The individuals for whom you advocate are those who have CHOSEN to disobey the laws of our country; now they demand that we set those laws aside and give them the entrance for which thousands of others stand in line and patiently wait as they navigate our immigration system.


Worse, this course of action violates the Bible's clear teaching that forgiveness first requires repentance. You would have us offer amnesty where no repentance, rather, defiance, has been shown. Our salvation first requires us to recognize our sins. It then requires us to repent of those sins. Finally, it requires us to receive God's forgiveness on HIS terms - not ours. As this applies to the current situation, illegals must first recognize that they have violated our laws, that they have stolen livelihoods from the families of the citizens whom they displaced. They must turn away (repent) from their illegal status and activities. Finally they must make application for citizenship in the manner specified by the laws of our country.


Will this have potentially adverse ramifications for the families of illegals? Obviously, the answer to that question is Yes. But therein lies the problem with sin; it affects not only the sinner, but many associated with the sinner as well. Likewise, because of the choices of parents, children may face undesirable consequences, as is true of any situation in which a lawbreaker has children. Or as is stated in the proverb found in Ezekiel 18:2, 

"...The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." 

Yet, even in this passage there is hope for the children of illegals: 

"Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:19-20). 

Many of the children of illegals are old enough to make application for citizenship on their own, or to acquire citizenship through serving in the armed forces of our country. If they do what is right, it is possible for them to legally obtain the citizenship they now DEMAND by way of amnesty.


God's love and mercy is offset by His justice. All three characteristics are integral to who God is, and to emphasize love and mercy to the exclusion of His justice is to misrepresent His character and teachings.


I implore you to reconsider the course of action to which you call others who name the name of Christ, and to recognize once again the explicit teaching of Romans 13. 

68th Anniversary of the D-day Landings.....

‎"6 June 1944. Under the command of General Eisenhower, Allied naval forces, supported by strong air forces, began landing Allied armies this morning on the northern coast of France."

To all who served and died on this longest, momentous day that led to final defeat of the Nazis, D-day, Thank you.

Selective Prosecution and the Michigan Marijuana Law....

An article appearing in the Grand Rapids Press on June 4 claims that the federal government is practicing "selective prosecution" against holders of Michigan Medical Marijuana cards.  This resulted in a number of postings by newly-minted supporters of States' Rights, arguing that the federal government has no business prosecuting these people in the first place, and calling on those of us who have long supported the precept of States' Rights to back their cause.  One individual went so far as to say that selective prosecution violates due process and the Equal Protection Clause, to which I replied:

No, it doesn't. Just as Michigan state laws include preeminence clauses that override local ordinances and laws, so do federal laws. Their prosecution of MM users is in line with those laws, and they aren't obligated to cut you ANY slack. 

 As I said before, this is what happens when you elect officials who interpret the Constitution as affording the fed the power to override the protections of States' Rights that were an integral part of the Bill of Rights any time it desires to do so. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were included specifically to make these sorts of federal power grabs impossible, but the continued election of officials who choose to believe that the Commerce and "Necessary and Proper" clauses override those explicit protections has brought us to where we are today. 

 I almost have to laugh at all this. Many of you who are now angry with Obama because he isn't honoring his word about this voted for the man in the first place because he promised you all sorts of things that violate States' Rights - like Obamacare, for example. You can't pick and choose. You voted for officials who told you from the outset that their understanding of the Constitution gives them the right to do exactly what they are doing now. If you are going to be for States' Rights, then you have to be for States' Rights even when it doesn't necessarily benefit you. If you are going to vote for a man who believes that the Commerce and "Necessary and Proper" clauses give the federal government the right to override the explicit protections of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments at will, then you have no business complaining when that elected official actually does it. 

 You voted for him. Now it's up to you to see if you can change him. Good luck with that.

For the record, I don't believe in luck.  I felt it appropriate to wish them something I don't believe exists as they try to perform a task that I don't believe possible to achieve.  Both are fairy tales.