Extra Mile Family Media

Back in 2009 Web Blogger Dick Morris of dickmorris.com published an article titled "HOW MUCH WILL YOUR STATES’ TAXES GO UP IN OBAMACARE?". While the article, on the first read, appears to be specualtive with respect to the spending increases that would be necessary by each state to meet the required 133% for Medicaid, I am inclined to believe that the Author may be correct but more research would need to be conducted to be sure.

That isn't what caught my attention in this post however. My attention was, instead, captured by one of the reader's comments; "Fu-fu2" who wrote:

"States are not Slaves to the Federal Government, States are not Agents of the Federal Government, The Federal Government is an AGENT of the States. No State is Required under our Constitution to abide by any Federal Law not rooted within the enumerated powers section. When A state wakes up and reads a little history with regards to their proper role in a Representative Republic we will be on the road to recovery.

The Federal Gubmint has no AUTHORITY over ANY STATE unless the State ALLOWS it. JUST SAY NO"

So I did some digging and apparently this reader may in fact be correct. What I am saying is that this reader seems to have naturally stated the factual rights of the citizens to decide the final fate of the health care bill commonly referred to as simply "Obamacare" or any other bill up for a vote simply by allowing or disallowing their state representative(s) to speak a yeah or neigh on their behalf. A fact regarding "Enumerated Powers" that many citizens and voters do not seem to be aware of.

Enter the catch phrase: "Enumerated Powers"…

According to wikipedia.org "The enumerated powers are a list of responsibilities found in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which enumerates the authority granted to the United States Congress. Congress may exercise only those powers that are granted to it by the Constitution, limited by the Bill of Rights and the other protections found in the Constitutional text."

The wikepedia article goes on to say that "strict Constitutionalists believe that Congress's power should be limited to only those duties listed in the Constitution". but yet "On the other hand, liberal interpreters of the constitution allow for powers more tangential to those duties." Many of those liberal interpreters usually citing the "Necessary and Proper clause" and the "Commerce clause" as grounds for their argument.

 According to wikepedia, The Necessary and Proper Clause (also known as the Elastic Clause, the Basket Clause, the Coefficient Clause, and the Sweeping Clause[1]) is the provision in Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18 states:
 
 
 “ The Congress shall have Power – 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.

Conservatives however will most often cite the "Tenth Amendment" as grounds for their argument.
 
 Also according to wikepdia, The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.
 
 According to a document at phanara.com The Tenth Amendment in the original constituion reads:
 
 Article X
 
 Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
 
 and in  fact shows that it is acutally the Twelfth Amendment of the original amendments that reads:
 
 Article XII
 
 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
 The Twelfth Amendment? Wait a minute! I thought there were only ten Amendments!
 
 
 – Here is a quick side lesson about the Bill of Rights –
 
 To present this accurately I give the following account of the events that lead to the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution (which became known as "The Bill of Rights").
 

According to MSC, Inc (http://msc-inc.net/documents/bill_of_rights.html)
 
 As Washington was inaugurated as America's first president and the infant nation set about to establish a strong government, memories of civil rights violations during the colonial period were still vivid. However, in the draft constitution submitted to the states for ratification relatively few basic rights were included.
 
 A number of prominent Americans were alarmed at the omission of individual liberties in the proposed constitution. George Mason, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, refused to sign the document, as did Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts.
 
 Thomas Jefferson, U.S. Minister to France at the time, wrote James Madison that he was concerned about "the omission of a bill of rights….providing clearly….for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."
 
 Aware of the lack of these provisions, George Washington urged Congress in his first inaugural address to propose amendments that offered "a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen and a regard for public harmony."
 
 Motivated by these leading Americans, Congress responded by submitting Amendments to the Constitution providing for essential civil liberties. They were officially proposed on September 25, 1789. Of the original twelve, Articles 3-12 were ratified. Accordingly, in 1791 these articles became the first ten amendments to the Constitution…..known collectively as The Bill of Rights.
 
 Here are the original twelve amendments as they appear in The Laws of The United States of America, printed by Richard Folwell, Philadelphia, in 1796.
 
 Here is the complete text of the original twelve amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
 
 
 
 The Bill of Rights:
 
 Article I (didn't get ratified)
 After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one representative for every fifty thousand persons.
 
 
 
 Article II (didn't get ratified)
 No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
 
 
 
 Article III (Was ratified)
 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
 
 
 Article IV (Was ratified)
 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.
 
 
 
 Article V (Was ratified)
 No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
 
 
 
 Article VI (Was ratified)
 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 
 
 
 Article VII (Was ratified)
 No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
 
 
 
 Article VIII (Was ratified)
 In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
 
 
 
 Article IX (Was ratified)
 In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
 
 
 
 Article X (Was ratified)
 Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
 
 
 Article XI (Was ratified)
 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
 
 
 Article XII (Was ratified)
 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
 
 Source: The Laws of the United States, printed by Richard Folwell, Philadelphia, 1796.

 
So as it turns out the Tenth Amendment was actually the Twelfth Amendment originally submitted for ratification but had to be renumbered after the ratification of the proposed amendments since Amendments 1 and 2 didn't make the approved list.

So in closing, it looks as if it may well be up to "We The People" after all.

Also I might add, according to current opinions this blogger is aware of regarding the campaign promises presented by the President whose slogan was "Change we can believe in"; "Obamacare" isn't a very welcomed "change" worth believing in…
 
 

When is this horrible nightmare going to end? When are Fathers Right's going to be upheld and given the importance they deserve? Why are these mothers allowed to break the law and commit these crimes against humanity? When will this InJustice System be brought to JUSTICE?!?!?

I don't know about you but this story makes me mad enough to chew nails and spit rivets!

Fathers of the world must unite to fight this hate crime against Fathers and Children! Who gave that mother the right to deny that child his inalienable right to have his father in his life. As Daddy Justice had correctly phrased it in this video, the Father is being thrown out with the placentia! Since when are Fathers a disposable commidty to be used up and thrown away because they might be an inconvenience to the mother? Or worse, what if she did this just so she can collect the child support award. Is she simply doing this just to ensure she has a steady income?

I should also point out that this is not just a violation of this Father's Rights but it is a terrible violation of this Child's Rights!

So, I have been asking the question, is spanking in Pennsylvania legal or against the law. Here are some of the answers I was given. When I asked Lancaster Family Children and Youth they said that spanking "with an open hand" is not against the law in PA even if your boyfriend did the spanking. Boyfriend? it's ok if the boyfriend did the spanking? Apparently the answer was a resounding yes "if the mother gave him permission" Huh? what if the Father didn't? If Dad is not the custodial parent then he would have to take the mother to court and tell it to the Judge. OK I said, "Is it against the law to hit a child with a wooden spoon"? The answer was "yes".

Stragely enough though, earlier this year I read a legal brief however that showed a Judge ruled that even though a father paddled his child and left brusies as well as splits in the skin that this was not abuse!

Huh! Either someone in this state needs to answer to curruption charges or the people  who call the shots here are completely FUBAR. How can it be against the law to spank with a wooden spoon but not illegal to beat your child with a paddle and cause briuses and tissue damage (e.g. lascerations).

This really stinks of "Hey, I make the rules up as I go!" I think the legislature in this state has quite a bit of catching up to do to arrive in the 21st century.

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer to a question that is such a tender subject to parents?

Can anyone answer this? Leave your thoughts with us in this debate, what do you think?

BTW here is one straight answer I can give you for sure. If the parent is in court and expresses that he or she does not want anyone to discipline their child except for strictly the parents the Judges will almost always order this wish to be honored and it will become a part of the custody order. That is Good News! Maybe not earth shattering but it is still good to know.

 I have taken the liberty to cross-post John Mackey's OP-ED from the Wall Street Journal here so it will still be available for others to read just in case it gets censored out of the articles list over there. That is not to say the WSJ would actually censor the article, but they could possibly be forced to remove it for some strange reason. Hey, one never knows the way things are today…

Note to Mr. John Mackey: As a professional courtesy, if you make it known to me that you do not wish for this article to be displayed here I will take it down at your request.

Ever since John Mackey, co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc, wrote this article he has been attacked by the left in numerous ways including an outright attack by the liberal left and unions who have even called for his termination of employment at Whole Foods simply for disagreeing with this horrible plan for health care reform. Instead there has been an outpouring of support from Whole Foods customers across the nation. Everyone in America knows the plan reeks of socialism and staunchly opposes it yet liberals are willing to destroy a fellow american just to have thier way. In light of that action, one can't help wondering, Hmm, is that the behavior of the citizens of a democratic, free nation, based on Christian Values and Morals or the behavior of a blind, self-serving, socialist, liberal left? Tell us what you think it is in the comments section below:

The Following is the complete text of the OP-ED as displayed at the Wall Street Journal's website:

By JOHN MACKEY

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."

—Margaret Thatcher

With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people's money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.

While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone: 

•  Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness. Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan's costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.
•  Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.
•  Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.
•  Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.
•  Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.
•  Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?
•  Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.
•  Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America

Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor's Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million.

At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly—they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an "intrinsic right to health care"? The answer is clear—no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.—or in any other country.

Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.

Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.

Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.

Mr. Mackey is co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc.