Memo to Glenn Beck: No "White Horse Prophecy"

Glenn Beck at Cruz Rally in Utah, March 19, 2016

Yesterday in Utah at a political rally for Ted Cruz, Glenn Beck stepped up to the stage with mic in hand and admonished the predominantly Mormon audience to rise up and fulfill the "prophecy" allegedly uttered by Joseph Smith that someday the Constitution would "hang by a tread" and needed to be rescued by the "body of the priesthood." Memo to the people of Utah and to Glenn Beck - the informed priesthood will continue to look to their priesthood leaders for direction, not to you.

Beck fancies himself as a reliable historian, but in this instance he demonstrated his lack of understanding. He certainly didn't do his homework, or he never would have pulled out that card and played it. Or, maybe he knew full well what he was doing in the heat of the presidential campaign and was pulling out all the stops in his strident advocacy for Cruz among Christians whom he had criticized in other places for not rising up in support of Cruz. Whatever his reasons, he got this one dead wrong.

As reported by Breitbart, Beck said the following: “I want to speak to you about something that may be controversial. And it’s not something that I have said when I have been out for Ted [Cruz] and now Mike [Lee]. But it’s something that this crowd needs to hear – that Utah needs to hear. The body of the priesthood is known to stand up when the Constitution hangs by a thread,” Beck said.

“I am a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints,” he explained. “What attracted me was not only the truth of the message, but also the people like President [Harold B.] Lee and President [Ezra Taft] Benson who knew exactly who we were – knew who we were as a country,” Beck said, naming prominent past presidents of the LDS Church.

“I joined many times. What held me through was the prophesy that the Constitution will hang by a thread, and this People would remember what our Founders did. It is our responsibility to stand for the Constitution,” Beck said.

At this point, Ted Cruz and the audience gave Beck a standing ovation.

Now, before the hate mail pours in, let me make it clear that standing for the Constitution is something I believe we must do. But I guess this is what I hate most about political speeches. The ones we hear directed at Mormons often seek to blur the distinctive line between the Church and the political arena which the Church assiduously attempts to keep separate. Political speech is often drenched in emotional and often hyperbolic sentiment that crosses the borderline of fact and truth in the name of whipping up an audience into a silly patriotic frenzy that is more often than not misguided. 

I wrote about "The White Horse Prophecy" when Mitt Romney was ramping up his run against Obama in the 2012 election, and nothing has changed since my first post about it in 2010.

Most members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have heard about something called "The White Horse Prophecy," but few understand its origins and implications.

Beck forgot to look into the most recent invocation of this specious "prophecy" when an unwise Idaho gubernatorial candidate, Dr. Rex Rammell, the Tea Party's darling, was forming groups encouraging others to study "the White Horse prophecy" in depth. Only priesthood brethren were invited and were instructed to go home and tell their wives.  

In advance of the primary election, on January 6, 2010, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) to which Glenn Beck belongs, was compelled to clarify the matter with this statement:

Two weeks ago The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement regarding the so-called "White Horse prophecy" in response to news inquiries regarding comments made by an Idaho politician. The matter has received additional coverage in the news media of late and so we reiterate that statement here: 

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is politically neutral and does not endorse or promote any candidate, party or platform. Accordingly, we hope that the campaign practices of political candidates would not suggest that their candidacy is supported by or connected to the church.

"The so-called 'White Horse Prophecy' is based on accounts that have not been substantiated by historical research and is not embraced as Church doctrine." 

  

Rammell's candidacy did elicit some support, if not entirely because of the controversy.  In the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary, he lost, but the veterinarian was successful in beating incumbent, C.L. "Butch" Otter in two counties and tying him in another.

  

So fast forward to yesterday in Utah. In the topsy-turvy world of national politics this year, Beck continues to fan the flames of rumor that persist that Joseph Smith purportedly said something to the effect in a private conversation with two Church members that the day would come when the Constitution of the United States would "hang by a thread," and the "elders of the Church would be called upon to rescue it."  

  

Beck needs to read this page, however, and he would learn the veracity and accuracy of the report of that conversation has always been in question because the recollections of the two men, Edwin Rushton and Theodore Turley, were not recorded in a diary by their friend, John J. Roberts, until ten years later when they were old men. Roberts first heard about it in the 1850s. As far as we know, the Prophet Joseph never taught anything like that publicly.

  

I believe the best in-depth treatment of this topic, if you're interested, is available here.  

  

It is clear there are numerous historical statements in support of the ideas expressed, but for the most part they are no better than the foundation upon which they rest -- the journal entry of a man who heard what two other men heard Joseph Smith say ten years earlier. Not exactly reliable and sound investigative journalism.

  

This isn't the first time this has happened. Besides the incidents surrounding Rammel's ill-fated gubernatorial race in Idaho, it surfaced in the presidential campaign of Senator Orrin Hatch, and then when Mitt Romney ran for Governor of Massachusetts, and then again when he ran for the presidency in 2012. Both were also Mormons (yes, Donald J. Trump, Mitt Romney IS a Mormon). However, to their credit, both disavowed the so-called "prophecy" then and so did the Church. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) would do well to immediately disavow what was said in his presence yesterday and put himself on the side of the Church and a more accurate accounting of the history. 

Politically, it's a negatively charged idea that the Church and/or its elders and/or an elder riding on a white horse (there are many possibilities) is somehow going to swoop in and take over a contested national Republican convention in Cleveland, or eventually the federal government that needs rescuing in a time of trouble. Like most faith-promoting rumors, this one is lacking in substance when the facts are examined in depth.  

  

That we believe as a Church the Savior will return and reign as King of kings and Lord of lords is indisputable (see Revelation 17:14; 19:16 for example), but to say the Church is going to set up a replacement government before that time is irresponsible and unfounded on all fronts.

Once again, Glenn Beck fails to pass the accuracy test and reveals himself for what he is - nothing more than yet another false prophet, however well-intentioned.

Another Doomed Attempt at Middle East War Making

It will come as no surprise to regular visitors to this page that I am not a big fan of our current POTUS. It would be fair to say there is little I find of merit in his presidency, and I am waiting for it to come to a merciful end for America at home and abroad when his second term expires.

I must confess I am baffled by his "management" (if it can be called that) of foreign policy and his almost continual array of missteps in the Middle East. For example, only a month ago he was saying that the ISIS (or ISIL) threat was little more than a bunch of "JV terrorists" who posed no serious threat. He also called it a "fantasy" to think we could arm, train, and field an opposition army to confront them composed of "Islamic moderates" and that he had "no strategy" to deal with ISIS.

And then they started beheading American journalists. Evil, pure evil, was once again presented before us. We now had to take action of some kind, but what? If the intent of the terrorists is to draw us back into the region again, then so far so good. It's working.

Fast forward to this week, as Congress hastily passed yet another "Continuing Resolution" without debate to keep the government running and managed to tack into that bill funding for arming, training and leading what amounts to a bunch of mercenaries who are comprised of the very "moderates" he said a month ago were nothing more than a "fantasy." The most disturbing fact about this week's hastily crafted piece of legislation to confront the threat of ISIS is that it passed overwhelmingly in both the House and Senate.

The legislation is designed "to train, arm and fund the elusive 'moderate' Muslim rebels" fighting to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria. It's astounding, isn't it? Nobody, least of all Barack Obama, wanted to do it when Assad was gassing his own people, and now it's our US "strategy" in the region.

This latest fantasy now calls for the US to somehow discern who the "honest brokers" who stand in opposition to Assad might be, and then start supporting between 3,000 and 5,000 rebels in the Free Syrian Army. Here we go again. . . that's the centerpiece of an authorization to spend $500 million through December 11, 2014.

Stunningly, the bill passed both houses with barely a moment of debate, and it received more support from Republicans than Democrats. We must be living in the twilight zone now, when Democrats sound like they're more responsible than Republicans.



There were a few "notables" in the President's own party who opposed the plan, like Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA). She called it “lame.” Speier wasn't the only one who noted that former generals are also expressing their opposition. The generals, and even Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) point out the obvious fact that the plan does nothing to cut off funding for ISIS. Said he:

"On Thursday, I voted against the Continuing Resolution that is a product of a dysfunctional law-making process. This resolution tied the authorization for military intervention in Syria to a bill to temporarily fund the entire government. One of the most important and solemn duties we have as members of Congress is to authorize the use of military force and ask the brave men and women in our armed services to put their lives in harm’s way.

"It is a gross dereliction of that duty – and an insult to those men and women – to tack on a military authorization to a must-pass spending bill, just so members of Congress can hurry back home." (Emphasis mine).

The terrorist group earns about $3 million per day on oil income from facilities they now control. What, any reasonable person might ask, does the latest plan do about disrupting that stream of income? Would we blow up oil wells and the roads they use to get the oil tankers to shipment?

Another Democratic Congresswoman, Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), claimed “We simply don’t know if somewhere down the line it will turn our guns back against us.” Ask anyone who knows about what happened in Iraq when we left. Who now controls millions of dollars of our military equipment? We gave it to the Iraqi army, and it's now in the hands of the Islamic State being used to kill the innocents.

Nobody can accurately identify what “moderate” Muslim fighters might look like. Whose definition of that term will we accept before we turn over a half billion US dollars to arm and train them? The Iraqi army threw down their weapons and ran in the face of ISIS.

I heard a comment last week from former U.S. ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, who said the rebels are not focused on fighting ISIS. He said, “Their priority is not the Islamic State; it is the Bashar al-Assad regime. We need to know that going in.”

Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) said he has “seen no evidence that the Syrian rebels we plan to train and arm will remain committed to American goals or interests."

Who would doubt Assad has a track record of supporting terrorism and is a brutal dictator? Certainly, he is in the same class as Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. So what does America do in the face of new dictators rising to power? Do we intend to take out everyone anywhere they emerge? Our track record so far suggests that when we take down a dictator, the country we "liberate" then falls under the control of even more radical Muslim terrorists. Iraq and Libya are classic examples.

There are still a few Republicans who opposed the President’s “lame” plan. Even though a vast majority (78) in the Senate) favored authorizing the funding, Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rand Paul (R-KY) joined Mike Lee (R-UT) in vocal opposition about the funding of Syrian rebels.

Once again, the Constitution provides that the military will always be controlled by the civilian population. That is wise. However, politics tends to trump good policy making when it is not accompanied by robust debate over the decisions to send American forces abroad into foreign intrigues our Founders warned about. So, acting in response to the horrifying images of their beheadings of the journalists that ISIS broadcast for all the world to witness, Congress acted to "courageously" stand up against the obvious evil. Congress can now go home and say they "did something," even if the plan seems doomed at the outset to fail.

And so the onward march of war in the last days continues unabated, it seems. More money, more lives lost, more treasure squandered, and more havoc wreaked.

For a POTUS who started his presidency by proclaiming he was elected to "end wars, not start them," we are now launched on yet another misadventure in policing the world against brutality, evil, and tyranny. May God help us all in that elusive quest.

The Most Intelligent SOTU Speech

Call me stupid if you wish, but the most intelligent speech last night didn't come from the POTUS. I didn't even bother to tune in to any of it. This morning, I downloaded Senator Mike Lee's response, and I believe (without even referencing BHO's "official" SOTU speech) there couldn't be a more well-thought-out approach than Lee's.

The only question remains whether "lofty rhetoric" from an empty suit will continue to persuade Americans or not. I pray IT WILL NOT.

Tyranny and "Kick the Can Down the Road"

So last night, once again we hear the leaders of Congress use words like, "Masterful," "historic agreement," and the self-adulation seems to know no bounds. 

Instead, I ask you how this is anything different than the same ol' same ol' we've been seeing from our elected officials. There is nothing new here, nothing to be happy about. We have two polarized positions well-illustrated by the cartoon above. One contingent wants to raise the debt ceiling to avoid default on America's public debt (nothing more than a political red herring, I might add). The other polarized and continuously losing position is to turn off the spending faucet. And who wins? The status quo statists from both parties, who continue to "compromise" around spending more and more in perpetuity with seemingly no end in sight. 

We have not seen a long-term budget passed out of Congress since before Barack Obama took office over five years ago. The government is funded instead in a series of "continuing resolutions" to keep the doors open. The devastating result is that there is never a serious effort to confront and solve the automatic payments now baked into the budget for all the entitlement programs that have been escalating since The New Deal days of FDR. The progressives have partnered and compromised drop by drop, year by year, with Republicans only too anxious to perpetuate the government solutions as a way to solve everything.

Someone asked me last night, "So what do you think of Mike Lee now?" knowing I had supported him and worked diligently to get him elected. My response was, "I love the man for standing on his correct principles despite the fact he never had enough votes to swing anyone to his point of view."

We have a unique political reality in Utah. Because it's a one-party state (reddest in the nation), Lee has a unique opportunity to take a principled stand. My guess is he's a Republican in name only. In his heart of hearts he leans more libertarian, just like me, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. He reflects my values, my hopes and dreams for America one day coming to her senses and putting to an end once and for all the unsustainable idiotic fiscal path we are running down at breakneck speed. I hope he succeeds. Like him, I say, "Damn the inbound political torpedoes, full speed ahead."

Warren Buffet minced no words this week in Washington: "We have spent 237 years since 1776 building a reputation as the most wonderful country on earth, and one that's entrusted with having the reserve currency of the world. . . That is being put in jeopardy now and it could be destroyed in a little while. A great reputation is like virginity. It can preserved, but it can't be restored."

"The whole idea of a debt limit is a terrible, terrible mistake. If you're going to spend more than you take in, what are you going to do except raise the debt limit? So it becomes this political weapon of mass destruction. It really is like a nuclear bomb. It's something that maybe you talk about but never dream of using."

Mike Lee, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are scary smart. Politicians cut from the old cloth they are not, however. They will always and forever remain a marginalized minority voice in the U.S. Senate unless and until Americans recognize the alternative they are offering and embrace it. The imposition of fiscal discipline is not a popularly accepted position to advocate, however. Low information voters abound in America today. They would rather have their government-subsidized bread and circuses. And Mitt Romney was about right when he pegged that number at around 47% of the population in America.

We often lament about the political divisions in America today, but it is totally reminiscent of the debates that Americans were having for years in the run-up to the war no one in the Colonies wanted - the Revolutionary War. Check your history books. It was not popular to attack the tyranny of King George back then. It is not popular now either. How does America impeach the first POTUS of African-American heritage, though his excesses are egregious? That's a battle NO ONE wants, and so the degradation of America continues unabated on his multi-tasking agenda. Whenever the choice is between cleverly-disguised tyranny and freedom, one would think it would be an easy choice, right?

Thomas Paine

Instead, even before we were Americans, people then were concerned more about their own welfare, their crops in the ground that needed tending and cultivating. We need to be reminded every day how we began this great nation. The phrase, "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman" originated with the pen of Thomas Paine. Those words first published as The Crisis that had followed his famous Common Sense served as an influential rallying cry against the British King. The debate raged in the Colonies for 17 long years in the run-up to putting the patriot rebels in one room who would affix their signatures to the Declaration of Independence.

Here's the practical reality: Nothing in our current crisis will change until there are enough votes in the Senate, and the veto-proof signature of a POTUS in the White House.

Even without the votes in their pockets, Cruz, Lee and Paul are to be commended for their principled stand. The statists, those who defend the status quo of big government solutions from both parties, who continue to compromise for more and more spending had better beware. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Senate Minority Leader, took home $2 Billion in funding for a dam in Kentucky, his home state, in this "historic deal" last night. He's up for re-election next year. That is a blatant confirmation of business as usual politics - "You give me this, I'll give you that." And neither side ever advocates for a serious debate about long-term consequences.

We DON'T need to cut off ALL spending at the pockets IMMEDIATELY. All we need is to develop a spending plan that creates a gradual downward slope in the debt-to-GDP ratio over the next 8 - 10 years. Does that really sound "radical" or "extremist?" NOT doing something like that is extremist.

The mid-term elections in 2014 shape up as a chance to garner more votes for the people's representatives in government who can begin to address the long-term funding problems we face as a nation. The current participants who remain at the throttles must be deposed at the ballot box. Will it happen? Another poll last week declared 60% were ready to toss out their current representatives. That number came in at 78% in a similar Rasmussen poll.How will that public opinion shift between now and then? Recently, 51% of those polled consider themselves "moderate" and "in the middle" of politics, none of whom say they identify with EITHER political party.

Let's conclude with more from Thomas Paine: "Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain [insert Obama as the despised tyrant], with an army to enforce her tyranny [insert IRS, NSA], has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but 'to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER' and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God."

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)

In an e-mail blast to his subscribers this morning, Mike Lee wrote: "The media keeps asking, was it worth it?  My answer is that it is always worth it to do the right thing.  Fighting against an abusive government in defense of protecting our individual rights and freedoms is always the right thing.

"Some say we shouldn’t have fought because we couldn’t win.  But this country wasn’t built by fighting only when victory was certain.  In fact, some of the most important victories in our history were the result of fighting battles against significant odds.

"And even if victory seemed difficult or impossible, that wouldn’t excuse me or anyone else from doing the right thing.  Avoiding difficult battles is how we ended up in this mess – $17 trillion in debt, out-of-control spending, a broken entitlement system, a tax code no one understands – all because Washington is willing to act only when there is guaranteed political gain.

"When the avoidance of political risk becomes our dominant motivation, only the Washington establishment wins.  And the American people lose."

Ask yourself, "Who fought honorably for liberty?" I suspect deep in the heart of Mike Lee beats a rhythm in unison with Thomas Paine. All other pretenders should be banished forever from the public trust. If only American voters had the history lessons before them. . .

IF ONLY

Why the Two-Party System is Pure Mythology

My Twitter timeline is growing more and more libertarian all the time. And, truth be told, so am I. There was a time when I accepted the reality of the two-party tradition in America. Today it is little more than slight distinctions about which party's candidates can convince us they can manage the intricacies of big government better.

Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI)

Sadly, while I still like Paul Ryan a lot, the release of his latest version of the budget features only a slightly lower baseline over the next ten years than the trajectory of the Senate's version, released last week by the Senate's budget chairperson, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA). Give her credit - at least she came up with the first Senate budget in over 1400 days. That said, we have yet to pass a federal budget during the administration of Barack Obama, much less seriously consider balancing one. Finally, last week Barack Obama admitted he has no intention of balancing the budget nor reducing the deficit during his remaining term. At least now we know where he stands, since he no longer is accountable to voters. His budget "proposal" merely calls for more taxes and more spending.

According to Ryan’s version of what he would advocate (these numbers are lifted straight from his proposal) we would reduce federal spending as a percentage of GDP from 22.2 percent this year to 19.1 percent in 2023. That is at least a start in the right direction, but hardly draconian in its import. However, if you believe what the Democrat/progressive/liberal elements tell us, such a brutal meat cleaver reduction in the federal spending projections over the next ten years would inflict almost incomprehensible pain on Americans.

Here's what caught my attention from Ryan's CPAC speech last week: “We don’t see the debt as an excuse to cut with abandon, to shirk our obligations. We see it as an opportunity to reform government, to make it cleaner and more effective. That’s what conservatives stand for.”

But here's the rub. Isn't that exactly what Democrats believe too? Aren't they always proclaiming their efforts are designed to give us more effective and efficient government too?

I studied Ryan’s proposal to see if I could find anything that would forever end the federal government’s involvement in education. We've been talking about that since the days of Reagan who wanted to close the doors on the Department of Education. No sign of that in Ryan's budget. All the federal programs that sponsor job training are still there in the Ryan budget. There is nothing to eliminate the Departments of Energy, Transportation, and all the rest. There are so many bloated federal agencies that could be eliminated presidential candidate Rick Perry stumbled during a debate on his recitation of the list of agencies he would cut and it cost him the nomination. But nowhere in the latest Ryan budget do you find provisions for cutting them out.

There is a plus, however. Ryan's budget calls for ending Obamacare, but that isn't going to happen now as that train left the station and is picking up speed on the implementation rails as it rumbles into an insurance plan near you soon. But even if that were a successful legislative coup (and it won't be) the Ryan budget fails to eliminate the federal government’s involvement in health care. At least Ryan wants to cap higher education subsidies, but that doesn't terminate the federal government’s involvement in education. Well, you get the idea. The core problem is simple: More efficient government isn’t the same as limited government. That's the important Constitutional mandate we have bargained away over the years as both political parties have given us more and more government. Whether the federal government is efficient or effective is a debate I don't even care about. I'm becoming more libertarian because it's the only option left to us.

I'm just old enough to remember when we thought we could believe a two-party political system consisting of Republicans and Democrats representing vastly different values and objectives existed. However, true patriots who value liberty and freedom from tyranny, those who are accurately informed, well researched and historically astute know otherwise. Now I see things much differently. The thin veneer of political differentiation has finally peeled away. By the time George W. Bush and Henry Paulson at the end of the Bush era decided to bail out Wall Street and bankers, the illusion was forever evaporated. Government can only fund solutions with money it collects from taxpayers, and so far there seems to be insufficient angst among voters to stop it from escalating.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)

Something extraordinary happened a couple of weeks ago on the Senate floor. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) launched a nearly 13-hour filibuster over an issue that barely aroused any interest among Americans, yet it clearly illuminated this rising tide of awareness of the thinly-veiled differences between the establishment powers in both political parties. What stunned me was the reaction by certain members of the Republican party we must not minimize. I happen to like the old Jimmy Stewart movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," only because it's about the little guy who dares to take on the establishment against all odds. Rand Paul's filibuster was a throw-back to earlier times. Here's at least one man (and there are growing numbers) who still recognizes the Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights as the supreme law of the land. I include Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) in that group. John McCain called them "wacko birds." Then he thought better of the comment and apologized. That defiant act of filibuster by one man had much deeper meaning on many more levels than the topic at hand. When "wackos" are people who believe in limited government and liberty, then I choose to stand with the wackos.

Senator Paul asked for a simple response about the potential use of drones on American citizens on American soil from the Attorney General who represents the Executive branch of our government. Attorney General Eric Holder did not respond, so Senator Paul took to the Senate floor and spoke for 13 hours. As painful as it was for the Executive and Judicial branches and their media surrogates to even acknowledge Senator Paul’s persistence, his actions eventually generated a response. A short letter signed by Attorney General Holder was begrudgingly released. The answer was “no.” As remote as the possibility may seem to some, at least this administration is now on the record if that means anything.

Every freedom-loving American should be heralding Senator Rand Paul for what he did. It was evidence that every American who still cares about the rule of law and our God-given rights as enumerated in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights has at least one voice who speaks for them on the Senate floor. One would think that kind of issue would resonate throughout America without regard to political party. But he received nothing but ridicule for what some claimed was a cheap political grandstanding maneuver. I saw it as much more.

I consider myself a Conservative. I used to think I was a "moderate" Conservative. I find I must distinguish what that means to me and what it means to Paul Ryan, however. My loyalty is to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I'm increasingly more interested in like-minded individuals who share that desire above party label. To stand for only a better-managed big government is now bordering on tyrannical and treasonous in my mind.

On the morning of the 9/11 attacks, I watched in horror as the Twin Towers collapsed and the realization we were attacked by foreign enemies slowly sank in that morning. Looking back on the aftermath of that day, I think I supported wholeheartedly, as many Americans did, the passage of legislation that formed even more agencies of the federal government. The Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security are only two examples. Now I believe I was wrong in my initial embrace of those moves. In the subsequent bursting of the bubble of Wall Street excesses with securitized mortgages and other dicey investment vehicles, there came clarity. I have discerned we were then, and still are to an increasing rate, being lied to by elected officials on both sides of the political spectrum. The "BIG LIE" is that we are going to be okay with the status quo they so desperately seem determined to perpetuate.

I've stopped listening to the so-called "Conservative" talk radio pundits and the TV talking heads. Like an old soap opera where you can tune out for months at a time, then tune in for a few minutes, the story lines never change and the themes are repetitive. The search for truth is paramount in these last days. And the truth cannot be found in the political realm.

Jesus Christ laments over Jerusalem

You are either loyal to God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, or you are not. It really won't matter much which political logos you're wearing when the elements melt down in the fervent heat yet to come. What will matter instead is your allegiance to God and our Constitution and Bill of Rights in America. As Christ was rejected of His own in His day, so He is being rejected once again in our day. I surmise He laments over Washington D.C. today as He once did over Jerusalem. The imperial government, the pervasive institution to which we are all being asked to pledge allegiance and to turn for sustenance, has forsaken her birthright. These are values our great nation once represented. There is no political party left, however, to claim the crown of champion for those values. Both parties have been corrupted. As long as I live I will resist any and all attempts by others to impose a godless theocracy upon us. If America fails, there will be no other contender left on earth in the running among the super powers to champion the cause of freedom.

Merely proposing that the federal government borrow and spend less than what is currently projected is certainly better than the alternative of burying our heads in the sand and pretending we are not in a spending and debt crisis. But those who accept Paul Ryan's version of the proposed federal budget cannot be serious if their goal is limited government. We must come to a point where we must find the collective will as free citizens to impose limits all the areas where government has intruded on our rights.

Some people worry what will happen if draconian measures are taken to cut federal spending. Think of the "safety net" suddenly being snatched out from underneath everyone. Think of all the unemployment if federal employment for millions of Americans suddenly terminates. In the garden of Eden, were Adam and Eve firmly clutching their Social Security checks and food stamps? When did we lose sight of working by the sweat of our own brows? There were no promises then, and there are none now. Ryan is defending a mythological fantasy when he says he can ensure the promises their government has made to Americans in the years ahead. What he's really saying is I can do it better than Democrats, when both have moved this country beyond the ability to deliver on those promises without severe cutbacks in the status quo. That's a political agenda politicians don't dare enunciate for fear of losing the next election.

I've heard the list of horribles of what might happen if we take control of our own debt and spending now, but what if we are already at the tipping point where the collapse is imminent anyway? Isn't the path we are on amply demonstrated by now to be unsustainable? Seems to me we must prune back the spending and debt bushes voluntarily now, or the pruning will be imposed at a time not of our own choosing and by circumstances we cannot possibly foresee or control.

I'm happy for the thought and preparation that has gone into Ryan’s latest budget proposal. But it only represents a step toward a slightly cheaper big government in a time when what is needed is a return to limited government we can actually afford.

Predicting the Future of Politics

I was reminded today about an old Yogi Berraism: "Predictions are always uncertain, especially about the future."

When you look back ten years, is there anyone who could have predicted then where we would be as a nation today? So why would anyone in their right mind believe ANYONE living today could possibly predict the future of politics in this country?

That said, I will venture a guess that things as they are today will not remain for much longer politically. The Republicans are still smarting from the election of 2012. There were many surprises. The old methods of analysis of the demographics have faded away, it would seem. Conversely, there were numerous allegations of voter fraud and stealing the election in key battleground states. Whatever the facts may someday reveal, it was a shock to the conservative base to which I belong.

We face some daunting challenges. The country is broke, at least by the traditional definitions of what that means. When we spend more than we take in that used to mean "broke." We have a federal government that is out of control in its spending habits. We can’t afford what they are doing. We now have a government that is doling out benefits across a broad spectrum to half the citizens. Our private industry, once the envy of the world in productivity is now stalled and mostly stagnant compared to China's output. The Republican Party, once the champion of free enterprise, limited government and individual freedom and responsibility lost its way in the darkness of progressivism a long time ago.

Democrats were historically the party of big government. There was hope in the 90s when Bill Clinton declared the end of big government, constrained as he was by the Newt Gingrich revolution in Congress that produced a balanced budget. Now they too have lost their way. Under Barack Obama it appears they would make everyone dependent upon big government. They believe they have discovered the golden ticket to winning elections in perpetuity among voters who like the dole they receive in whatever form it takes.

Sadly, about all we got Republicans to admit in this last election cycle is that they could manage big government better than Democrats. While I at one time believed there was a clear and obvious contrast between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, when it comes to the argument about Big Government versus small government, the argument became a blended mishmash that was nearly indistinguishable, especially in that last debate.

So I've mostly gone silent on the political front since that first week in November. Stunned and still recovering would be the best way to describe my reaction. This country has been without a true political freedom of expression and limited government party for many years.

That reality must change. The upstart "tea party" has received its death warrant from more than a few pundits, most recently from former Senator Bob Bennett, who was soundly thrashed in the Utah nominating convention in 2010, and whose seat is now held by Mike Lee (R-UT). But I have the sense predictions of the spirit it represents may be premature. I hear a lot of rebellion talk brewing under the surface in the Republican Party, at least here in Utah. You can describe "the base" any way you wish. I choose to think the true conservatives, moderates and independents who make up Utah's "base" were aroused in 2008, spoke up in 2010, and still shout, "Stop it! Reduce this out-of-control federal government! Wake up, Washington, and put a lid on the debt, the spending and the deficits that are enslaving our future generations. Reduce the taxes, abandon the regulatory agencies that are throttling down the economic engine of America. Stop it all!"

This ground swell of emotion and political action state by state made a decision to return to the Republican Party in 2010, hoping they would get it right. The grassroots elements of the tea party now seem to be opposed once again to the "establishment wing" of the Republican Party. We saw it play out in the primary elections held in the states during the last cycle. If all the establishment can give us is an argument they can be better managers of a bloated government, then my prediction is an easy one to make - those grassroots people will abandon the Republican Party, both here in Utah and nationally.

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)

As an example, I suspect Mike Lee chose the Republican Party only because it was the most expedient vehicle in which to ride at the time. I might be wrong. I didn't discuss it with him personally during his run when he had my unabashed support, but everything he has done since being elected leads me to believe he cannot long endure the status quo I see promoted by the establishment in the party.

So here's my bold prediction, and I've held this view for some time now: The new political reality we will see playing out in the future is no longer going to be Republican versus Democrat. That's been a carefully managed political contrivance of convenience and expediency for way too long. No, instead, it’s going to be lovers of freedom and limited government versus Big Government dependency. We may be running out of time to make a conscious choice about that. Events may compel us into that path whether we like it or not.

Back in the day, Abraham Lincoln left the Whig Party and formed the Republican Party because he and others would not compromise on slavery.

In the future people like me will leave the Republican Party because we will not and cannot compromise on freedom and limited government. Finding candidates who believe in principle over party will be the next challenge.

America's Debt Ceiling and Why It Matters

This explanation of the federal debt ceiling debate and why it matters to every single American citizen is critical to understand:



Unless Congress gets its act together and addresses these issues, America will face a situation where it can no longer pay its bills. The insanity over believing this path can go on and on without reducing spending is hard to fathom.

Senator Mike Lee recently proposed an amendment to the Sandy hurricane relief bill to reduce spending by a very small amount and it was shot down without so much as a fair hearing. The belief that the national credit card has no limit is flawed. Until we get members of Congress who can impose the restraints we need, the country will continue to languish economically through this decade.

Only by throwing off the shackles of government debt and spending can we unleash the innovation and creativity needed to grow us out of the debt overhang. It's called capitalism, and it's the only way we have been able to advance historically.

Social spending for entitlements has killed other European economies and is unsustainable. Just today we learned the CBO projects that in the next 10 years the federal government will be spending 53% of its budget on entitlement programs. The problem should be obvious - where do you get that much in taxes to pay for it all? The revenue has to come from somewhere, and the only "revenue" the government takes in is from taxes. Somebody has to pay for that "warm glow" that is supposed to accompany social engineering to help the poor and needy, and it's always done with OPM - and that means YOUR money.

To think we can somehow rewrite the history of socialism with a happy ending in America is folly.

The Winter Inversion and Warmth and Light

Pine Valley

We live at 7333 feet above sea level in the Uinta Range of the Wasatch Mountains. Far below in the Salt Lake Valley at about 4400 feet, cold winter air laden with pollutants is trapped and temperatures plummet when the high pressure is aloft. However, yesterday we were basking in the warmth of the sun at 45 degrees, while the valley below was in the frigid 20s. 

The analogy is an apt one in today's political climate. We have concluded perhaps the most bitter and divisive presidential election anyone can remember. Mitt Romney was savaged and made to look like someone who could never be considered for high office, when in fact he may have been the most qualified candidate for the presidency ever put forward by either party. You can debate that point if you wish, but the brutal non-stop attacks on him would certainly have made anyone think twice before considering a vote for him. Despite the ugly accusations, he lost by a narrow margin. The recriminations have ended, and no one will be able to blame the Mormon Church for the state of our politics. Probably a good outcome for the Church and its members, many of whom withheld their votes for Romney. 

In the aftermath of the 2012 election, I have been reminded of a passage of scripture: "Old things are done away, and all things have become new." (3 Nephi 12:47). 

That passage, of course, has reference to the Savior's teaching in the "Sermon at the Temple," similar to the teaching He gave in the Sermon on the Mount in Galilee. He was referring to Himself as being the fulfillment of the Old Testament Law of Moses, and He taught the old law had now been replaced by His atonement, the event the law had only typified before it was accomplished. 

I began thinking about how trapped and paralyzed we are in the political chill of living at lower elevations. If anything, this election plumbed new depths of debauchery and depravity. It seems we have become frozen and polarized as a nation in our thinking about politics. Indeed, Washington D.C. seems paralyzed and inept at best. We have a president who is so inept he refuses to negotiate with Congress over pressing fiscal matters facing us as a nation. 

In the middle of the night on New Year's Day last week, the Senate passed a bill dubbed "The Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012." The bill was distributed to Senators at 1:36 a.m., they were given six minutes to read the 153 page bill, then the vote roll call began.

Similarly in the House two nights later, it passed without an open floor debate, an amendment, or so much as a whimper of protest. In fact, the bill provided for a tax increase on an estimated 77 per cent of Americans. Yes, some Bush-era tax cuts were made permanent and rates were fixed on those making less than $400,000 (single) and $450,000 (married), but in the way the bill was passed in the middle of the night, a bill hammered out by chiefly two individuals, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Vice President Joe Biden, the process left much to be desired. And after all the bickering in the run up to the procrastinated settlement, President Obama flew out of town to resume his Hawaiian vacation without signing the bill. He left the formality to his auto-pen.

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)

Our system of government is broken, some say irreparably. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) offered an explanation for his "no" vote on the measure in an op-ed piece that appeared in the Washington Examiner. Orrin Hatch, senior senator from Utah, and one who will never have to face the referendum of voters ever again, was the only member of the Utah delegation who voted "yes." Even Democrat Congressman Jim Matheson, ever so cautious about upsetting conservatives in Utah, voted "no." One of Obama's critics has come up with at least 50 impeachable offenses so far (he's still counting). There are others, including newly-elected Texas Senator Ted Cruz who contend Obama's doing nothing more than broadcasting scare tactics about defaulting on the national debt if he doesn't get a rubber stamp from Congress to increase the debt limit. We have more than enough revenue coming in to service the debt. It costs about $30-40 billion per month to service the debt with over $200 billion per month in tax revenues.  

So as I looked back to scripture in that same chapter for direction and compared it to the Biblical account in Matthew, I spent some time with the Beatitudes in the same sermon. If the goal in life is to become more like our Savior, Jesus Christ, we have an unfailing glimpse into His character. What if we adopted the inspiration in our public discourse that reflects what we read in the Beatitudes? I know it's impossible to comprehend we might find such character reflected in government officials, but I can dream. 

President Harold B. Lee

President Harold B. Lee observed, "In His Sermon on the Mount the Master has given us somewhat of a revelation of His own character, which was perfect, or what might be said to be 'an autobiography, every syllable of which He had written down in deeds,' and in so doing has given us a blueprint for our own lives." (Stand Ye in Holy Places [1974], 342). 

Our need to rely upon God in our civil discourse in this country has never been more acute than it is right now, yet we see those in government who are doing everything humanly possible to disavow and disengage from any religious influence. People of good will everywhere, regardless of their affiliation with a certain denomination, must never fail to point to the Judeo-Christian model of self-governance if we are to preserve our heritage as Americans. We know, if we learned anything from Mitt Romney's candidacy, that there are increasing numbers of people inclined to seek and value good leadership even if they lost a close election this time around. Leadership is most often lacking because of arrogance and the false meme that government can take care of every social ill that besets us. Humility is always in style, especially as the severity of our extremity becomes more apparent.

President Gordon B. Hinckley

President Gordon B. Hinckley said, "Meekness implies a spirit of gratitude as opposed to an attitude of self-sufficiency, an acknowledgment of a greater power beyond oneself, a recognition of God, and an acceptance of his commandments." ("With All Thy Getting Get Understanding," Ensign, August 1988, 3-4). 

There may always be fewer of us who can remember and still infuse the vision of America in our youth, but don't discount the rising number of young people in this country who are more inclined toward good and right principles than ever before. Regardless of the comparatively small numbers in the ranks we can all remember the Savior's teaching about being "the salt of the earth." 

Elder Bruce R. McConkie taught, "Among the ancient Hebrews salt. . . was used as a preservative, in seasoning food, and in all animal sacrifices. (Leviticus 2:13; Ezekiel 43:24; Mark 9:49-50). So essential was it to the sacrificial ordinance that it was the symbol of the covenant made between God and His people in connection with that sacred performance. (Leviticus 2:13; Numbers 18:19; 2 Chronicles 13:5).

Elder Bruce R. McConkie

"Accordingly, our Lord's statement, made first to the Jews and then to that other great body of Hebrews, the Nephites, that they had power 'to be the salt of the earth,' takes on great significance. . . They had power, in other words, to be the seasoning, savoring, preserving influence in the world, the influence which would bring peace and blessings to all others." (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition [1966], 667-68). 

This is now mostly self-talk to remind myself what it's like living at the Ranch in clear, crisp air where the sun shines and warms the house even on the coldest of days down in the murky valleys below. We must continue to hold the high ground. We must stand with Christ, His Church, and His teachings. Those teachings include the Beatitudes to help us govern ourselves. In the very next verse after He tells us the old things are done away, He reminds us, "Therefore, I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect." (3 Nephi 12:48). 

The quest for perfection is a lifetime ambition, not to be confused with New Years resolutions made and forgotten. Those were what Mary Poppins referred to as "pie crust" promises - easily made, easily broken." He really means to make us perfect in Him. (See Moroni 10:32-33.) It is not merely ethereal theological gas, this matter of perfection. We can become perfect in our faith in HIS perfection. When we do, we are "sanctified in Christ by the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot." 

Each of us can model perfect faith in Jesus Christ, our Redeemer. It was Thomas Carlyle who reminded us, "Every noble work is at first impossible." 

Influence for good will continue to be felt among those who take the higher ground. It's people like Mike Lee in government who will make a difference with the support of people of good will who are serious about preserving our way of life in America under the glorious banner of the Constitution. The struggle ahead will be long and arduous. I predict Mike's influence will be as one consistent and resolute voice in the wilderness of sanity and reason, pleading with Americans to stay true to the principles of sound government and Constitutional principles. As the years ahead unfold we may be assured others will join him. 

How can I be so bold in asserting that? I live in the thin air of the winter above the inversion where the sun is warm and the truth is more easily discerned, and, like Billy Graham, I've remained an optimist. I've read the last chapter of the Bible and I know how this all turns out - we win.

And the SCOTUS Upholds. . . WE THE PEOPLE!

No one in their right mind would say they didn't get their money's worth in drama last week. The SCOTUS handed down a ruling that was universally loathed on both sides of the aisle, but under the hood this was a finely-tuned engine poised for full power to be unleashed. The people of the United States of America have had the power returned to them if they can seize it.

Benjamin Franklin

It calls to mind the immortal words of Benjamin Franklin, a representative to the original Constitutional Convention. Their deliberations gave us, for perhaps the first time in all history, a republic with the three basic divisions of government, the legislative, executive, and judicial, mutually and completely independent the one from the other, under which it is not possible for any branch of government legally to set up a system by which that branch can first conceive what it wants to do, then make the law ordering its doing, and then itself, judge its own enforcement of its own law, a system that has always brought extortion, oppression, intimidation, tyranny, despotism, a system that every dictator has employed and must employ. May we never unravel those underpinnings.

And when it was done, a questioner asked Benjamin Franklin, the first American, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a Republic or a Monarchy?” To which Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” In the sweltering record-setting heat (an apt metaphor) of the SCOTUS ruling handed down last week in Washington D.C., Franklin's response still resonates. We know we can keep our Republic, the question looms. . . Will we?

I wrote about us having to take a stand and stop having it both ways some months ago. We are at the inflection point now as never before, thanks to the SCOTUS ruling this week. The hint it was a historic court decision was all the histrionics that followed from both sides. Clearly, the legal victory belonged to the Obama administration. On a 5-4 decision the Affordable Healthcare Act was upheld by the finding that the individual mandate was indeed a tax, it was constitutional and Congress had the full authority to do that. Predictably both sides claimed victory.

The Republicans were delighted on three counts - the Commerce Clause, long abused with its meanings expanded beyond belief for decades was finally curtailed. You cannot mandate activities of the American people for something no one has done yet, the Roberts opinion stated. Medicaid expansion being forced upon the states was also slapped down. And they even found something to like in the Court's definition of the mandate as a tax, not a penalty. They will be able to remind everyone that Obama lied about there being no new taxes here, when in fact (as I stated repeatedly) this represents the largest tax increase to pay for the largest entitlement program in the history of the world.

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)

The Obama administration, of course, loved the legal victory of the Obamacare law being declared constitutional after all. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), however, argued it will be a short-lived and hollow victory in the end. Why? Because he believes the American people will rise up in revolt and revulsion over this decision and slap down the legislators who gave us this monstrosity of a law in the middle of the night without one single opposition vote to sustain it. Love the optimism there.

Here's what Chief Justice Roberts did for the nation last week. He actually said something no one had predicted he would say. Everyone in the nation was poised for the ultimate arbiter, the Supreme Court, to finally settle the argument once and for all, and to tell all the children that "father knew best." Instead, here's what John Roberts said that will enshrine him in the pantheon of American jurisprudence forevermore: “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” 


Wow! How refreshing is that? This is a restatement of the plan of salvation: Men are free to choose. Free agency, the power to choose, is a gift of God. We are endowed with it by our Creator. In 2 Nephi we read: "Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself" (2:16). Further, "Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves — to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life" (10:23). And in modern revelation the Lord said, "Behold, I gave unto him that he should be an agent unto himself" (D&C 29:35).

Joseph Smith

The Prophet Joseph Smith described agency as "that free independence of mind which heaven has so graciously bestowed upon the human family as one of its choicest gifts"(TPJS, 49). The word "free" is also used to describe free agency in this hymn Latter-day Saints have been singing since our first hymn book in 1835:

Know this, that ev'ry soul is free
To choose his life and what he'll be;
For this eternal truth is giv'n
That God will force no man to heav'n.
He'll call, persuade, direct aright,
And bless with wisdom, love and light,
In nameless ways be good and kind,
But never force the human mind.
— Hymns #240

We made a political judgment with our freedom of choice in 2008. The pendulum swung in favor of the Democrats. Both houses of Congress and the White House were swept. No one, even the Supreme Court, was available in the end to change those consequences. John Roberts reminded Americans last week it was time to grow up, take off the training wheels from our wobbly attempts to ride the bicycle of freedom of choice and to stop looking for a savior to fix things. The savior did not emerge in Barack Obama, and Roberts wasn't about to insert himself or his court into that role either. Ultimately, Roberts declared, the power for good or evil is in your hands America. Choose well.

Mitt Romney

Conservatives should be dancing in the streets. Roberts gave us exactly what we believe in - a battle cry for freedom, less top-down, government-and-courts-driven dictum, and actual liberty for the people who can decide (if we will) to elect people to Congress who won't tax us and obligate us to unsustainable spending with debts we cannot pay. The choice, said Roberts, is all yours. And the big winner here, I have to believe, is Mitt Romney. Perhaps never since George Washington has a presidential candidate represented that political philosophy more eloquently and completely.

President Barack Obama

Liberals who believe in a cradle-to-grave entitlement existence under the "parental" control of an empowered tyrannical executive run rampant on individual freedom got exactly what THEY wanted - additional control of another 18% of the GDP - the healthcare industry. They now have the funding mechanism under the taxing authority of the United States government to make their progressive agenda a reality after 100 years of trying. Victory at last! Power to the oppressed! And it's all constitutional. The Constitution was crafted by the people, for the people and of the people. It granted enumerated and limited powers to the government and virtually everything else to the people. When government asserts powers it does not possess and encroaches into our individual freedoms, the only way tyranny can be curtailed is by the people. It may yet be the case that no one in the history of this Republic may be judged in the final analysis to represent tyranny more completely than Barack Obama.

Only the people are empowered to adjudicate the winner of this debate on November 6th.

Chief Justice John Roberts

Roberts just did exactly what the nation could not have foreseen. He has literally handed back to the free people of America a very unpopular piece of legislation (I'm intentionally using restraint here) that was crammed down our throats against the wishes of the majority by a minority suddenly emboldened with the votes to do it. Now, if we really mean it and we are truly unhappy with the results of the election of 2008, we can either fix this aberration (if I'm right and that's all it is) at the polls on November 6th, or if I'm wrong we can live forever with the consequences. It seemed the electorate rose up in the 2010 mid-terms and put a stop to the runaway train by returning control of the House to the Republicans. Will the trend continue in 2012? Victory in the Senate races is paramount.

I am setting aside all the punditry and the loud protestations I've heard from both sides in the aftermath, and I will make this bold declaration: I liked what happened and what I've read in the actual opinions of the justices since the ruling was handed down. I like it because it retrieves accountability for our actions as a free people from the Executive Branch and the Courts. Our elected representatives in the Congress should now be right where they belong, in the cross hairs of every freedom-loving person in America with a ballot in their hands.

I like the idea of having a Mulligan, a chance to re-educate Americans with the reality our policy and process should begin and end with us. It starts with an informed vote, and electing representatives more carefully than ever before, people who will actually represent our collective will in Washington D.C., and will resist the few who represent the minority who would destroy us from within.

So now it's "game on" time. I hope we can throw off the idea that government is somehow the benevolent dictator of our future and the dispenser of our freedoms. The people in Washington are there only because we put them there.

Forget that routinely a minority of the electorate show up to vote. That should and must change if we are to preserve the Republic Benjamin Franklin and the others gave us. They must become our willing minions, not the other way around.

I suspect Roberts knew full well what the risks would be in handing down the majority opinion that the Obamacare law was found constitutional. Too many people will see that headline and continue to quietly go about their lives without further adieu. Factor in the complacency of many who have grown to love the idea of government checks flowing into their mailboxes on a regular basis. That is precisely what Obama and the left will bank on.

The spin has already begun. Astoundingly, what do we hear from the White House after the definition of the word "tax" has been rendered? "It's not a tax." Really? No one has done more damage to their loose familiarity with truth, justice and the American way than this administration. Well, they are transparent to anyone with eyes to see.

Between now and November little will change to measurably improve the anemic economic recovery with which we are saddled because of the policies of this White House. The MSM will continue to remind us of the "victory" in this bill being upheld constitutionally, but in the end the court of pubic opinion will prevail.

In their heart of hearts, surely Americans realize there is no free lunch, no "something for nothing" reality. . . don't they?

I'm not one who is going to bash John Roberts into oblivion. I prefer instead to think he just punted the ball deep in his own territory on fourth down with the game clock expiring and said to the American people, "If you want a touchdown, you now have the final possession and go make it happen."

We may be confused as a people with the cacophony of political rhetoric, but in his case Chief Justice Roberts was clear-eyed and deliberate. We, the people, brought the ball to the game and after the final buzzer sounds we still own the ball regardless of how battered and bloodied it may be.

I'm often wrong on political predictions. I certainly could not have envisioned what Justice Roberts just did. But I do know God is still invested in America, and her destiny will not be denied if the people who sustain her and all her ideals are still alert. Who knows, this loathsome burden on the American taxpayer may not even be the law of the land come January. Already governors are rising up in opposition and refusing to implement its provisions in their states.

If you're still reading, I advise taking the long view here. Resist the desperate voices, tune out the pundits, turn off the TV, instead listen to the quiet whisperings of your soul. John Roberts may have just saved the Republic. . .if you can keep it.

I think we can.

What Are the Obamacare Legal Arguments?

Nobody has a better handle than Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) on the issues now before the SCOTUS regarding the "Affordable Healthcare Act," aka Obamacare.

In essence, the underlying question is simple: If Congress has the authority under the Constitution to issue an individual mandate that Americans MUST purchase a product, in this case health insurance, does that mean Congress can compel by individual mandate that Americans must do other things as well? And, of course, what "other things" might portend will make this SCOTUS decision, whichever way it is ultimately decided, a landmark decision with far-reaching implications either way.

As readers of this page can attest, I have opposed Obamacare from the moment I first learned about it. Apart from the legal nuances which are many and a bit obtuse for the casual observer, the fundamental question for me has always been this one: Does it make rational fiscal sense to foist this decision on the public at a time of record national debt and deficits, when all the cost estimates either from the independent CBO or other economists who have studied it confirm this will become by far the most expensive entitlement program ever launched in American history?

One can argue that Obamacare was conceived to "bend" the cost curve in future years associated with medical costs in this country, and that's certainly a worthy goal, as Medicare and Medicaid costs have nearly swamped our budget, but the scoring on the Act has proven it cannot be paid for in its present form without massive tax hikes. Now we await the judgment of the SCOTUS, and while we wait the fifty states and their residents remain frozen in uncertainty. If there were one word to describe Obama's legacy it would be that one - UNCERTAINTY.

Lee shares his views here in the third video in a series describing what's at stake and the probable outcomes as he sees them: