The Bane of Student Loans

Student Loans are the pits, especially when you go to school and can't get a job using the education you got from them or you can't make enough money to support your family without going on to a Masters or Doctorate Program (incurring much larger amounts of debt). Mike and I both have student loans, not massive amounts of money mind you, but enough to buy a brand new truck. Of course, we have been paying on them for 10 years now. We have really only paid about half of it off - leaving us another 10 years to pay off the rest.

Personally, I'm wondering if they were worth it at all. Especially since I have learned more from reading classic books than I ever did in college. Add the fact that I can't remember much I learned in college and it really becomes a question of getting your money's worth.

I heard on the radio on Dave Ramsey's program a woman who went to school to be a pediatrician. She has approximately $250,000 in student loan debt. She says that with how much she pays in malpractice insurance and to keep her office doors open with payroll, employee benefits, etc. she does not foresee paying off her student loans until just before she retires. Her $250,00 debt becomes over $500,000 worth of debt over those years. Incredible!

Now, guess who you owe if you have student loan debt...the government! They have taken over that industry now.

Feds Take Over Student Loan Program From Banks

Students who previously had to choose a private-sector lender for their guaranteed loans will now have only one choice: the government.

I wonder what will happen if we can't pay it back?

New Endeavor - Springfield TJEd

I've been working diligently towards building a community where I live. Check out our new Springfield TJEd website. Here is the blurb for what we are about:

We are a coalition of family mentors working to build a community of people who value freedom. We are not affiliated with any political parties. Our goal is to promote freedom by offering opportunities to receive a Liberal Arts Education at home, in our schools, churches, and the community at large. Join us in educating ourselves, our families, and those around us.

How can we obtain a Liberal Arts Education?

A Liberal Arts Education is obtained through studying the great minds of history. A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the Twenty-First Century and The Great Conversation (Great Books of the Western World) describe how this can be achieved. The Founding Fathers studied these great minds and understood how precarious freedom would be then and in the future. Their knowledge led to the greatest expansion of free thinking and progress the world has ever seen.

Together, we can read and discuss the books the Founding Fathers discussed and the great books that have been written since their time. We can gain the knowledge they had. Through this we can retain, and even gain back, freedoms that are imperative to this great country of ours.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.  ~ Thomas Paine

Why should I obtain a Liberal Arts Education?

Many people feel that our country is heading in the wrong direction. Our nation is graduating people who cannot read sufficiently. The general feeling of anxiety and worry about our future, and the future of our children, permeates our everyday activities, the media, and our conversations. What better reason to learn about keeping freedom alive?

I don't know where to start.
Start with us! We have many upcoming opportunities to learn and grow together. Periodically we offer speakers on various education topics. Monthly classic book discussions are available for those wishing to meet and learn with other like-minded people.

Freedom has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men and so it must be daily earned and refreshed - else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die. ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower

Constituting America

I support organizations that teach Americans about America. I have read The Constitution of the United States a few times, but I heard about this undertaking by Constituting America to read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers in 90 days. I decided to take this challenge and hope that you all will too!

I'm a little behind in posting this, but I hope you'll do it with us!

Reading Schedule (Article are the Articles of the Constitution):

• Tuesday, April 20 – Read Article I
• Day 1 – Wednesday, April 21 – Blog on Article I; Read Article II
• Day 2 – Thursday, April 22 – Blog on Article II; Read Article III
• Day 3 – Friday, April 23 – Blog on Article III; Read remaining Articles (IV, V, VI, and VII) of the United States Constitution
• Day 4 – Monday, April 26 – Blog on Articles IV, V, VI and VII of the United States Constitution; Read the Amendments 1-10, Amendments 11-27
• Day 5 – Tuesday, April 27 – Blog on the Amendments to the United States Constitution; Read Federalist Paper # 1

Why the healthcare bills are unconstituional...

Here is the source from the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703278604574624021919432770.html

By ORRIN G. HATCH, J. KENNETH BLACKWELL AND KENNETH A. KLUKOWSKI

President Obama's health-care bill is now moving toward final passage. The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects.

First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress's powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.

Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point, exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.

In fact, the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (1995) rejected a version of the commerce power so expansive that it would leave virtually no activities by individuals that Congress could not regulate. By requiring Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service, Congress would be doing exactly what the court said it could not do.

Some have argued that Congress may pass any legislation that it believes will serve the "general welfare." Those words appear in Article I of the Constitution, but they do not create a free-floating power for Congress simply to go forth and legislate well. Rather, the general welfare clause identifies the purpose for which Congress may spend money. The individual mandate tells Americans how they must spend the money Congress has not taken from them and has nothing to do with congressional spending.

A second constitutional defect of the Reid bill passed in the Senate involves the deals he cut to secure the votes of individual senators. Some of those deals do involve spending programs because they waive certain states' obligation to contribute to the Medicaid program. This selective spending targeted at certain states runs afoul of the general welfare clause. The welfare it serves is instead very specific and has been dubbed "cash for cloture" because it secured the 60 votes the majority needed to end debate and pass this legislation.

A third constitutional defect in this ObamaCare legislation is its command that states establish such things as benefit exchanges, which will require state legislation and regulations. This is not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states. No, this legislation requires states to establish these exchanges or says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will step in and do it for them. It renders states little more than subdivisions of the federal government.

This violates the letter, the spirit, and the interpretation of our federal-state form of government. Some may have come to consider federalism an archaic annoyance, perhaps an amusing topic for law-school seminars but certainly not a substantive rule for structuring government. But in New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court struck down two laws on the grounds that the Constitution forbids the federal government from commandeering any branch of state government to administer a federal program. That is, by drafting and by deliberate design, exactly what this legislation would do.

The federal government may exercise only the powers granted to it or denied to the states. The states may do everything else. This is why, for example, states may have authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance but the federal government does not. It is also the reason states may require that individuals purchase car insurance before choosing to drive a car, but the federal government may not require all individuals to purchase health insurance.

This hardly exhausts the list of constitutional problems with this legislation, which would take the federal government into uncharted political and legal territory. Analysts, scholars and litigators are just beginning to examine the issues we have raised and other issues that may well lead to future litigation.

America's founders intended the federal government to have limited powers and that the states have an independent sovereign place in our system of government. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi legislation to take control of the American health-care system is the most sweeping and intrusive federal program ever devised. If the federal government can do this, then it can do anything, and the limits on government power that our liberty requires will be more myth than reality.

Mr. Hatch, a Republican senator from Utah, is a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Blackwell is a senior fellow with the Family Research Council and a professor at Liberty University School of Law. Mr. Klukowski is a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union.

What is Seen and What is Not Seen

I had never heard of Frederic Bastiat until seeing his name on a list of authors from the Leadership Education reading lists. I really did not know what to expect when searching for his essays. I have to admit that I have not read many essays, especially political essays, and so I procrastinated reading this essay until recently.

How I wish now that I had not done that! I wish this essay was required reading for all adults of voting age. With this new age of bailouts and government spending exploding like a shaken soda bottle, this essay perfectly illustrates the need to look at both immediate benefits and LONG TERM consequences of every political decision. Bastiat classifies short term benefits as "what is seen" and the long term consequences as "what is not seen". He gives several examples of both sides of each issue.

As I read this essay, it became very clear to me that Bastiat knew what he was talking about. He understood the delicate balance of power in the economy. He writes in detail of the wrongness of government over regulating the economy, taxation, and how government officials understate the obvious long term consequences of their short term "fixes". How I wish the general American public would all read this essay! We could avoid do many blind attempts at fixing an economy that will right itself.

Please read What is Seen and What is Not Seen by Frederic Bastiat.

Homeschooling is a tax burden?

I was told by someone recently that I am taking away from her children by homeschooling. Huh? I was really stunned and asked her to explain. She was happy to explain her position that the local school has less money because my kids are not there to bring the money set aside for them to the local school. She feels that because of budget cuts in this state, all homeschoolers should return their kids to school so that more money will come to the school, thus benefiting her children.

Well, let's think about this. We each pay our property taxes, right? When I look on my property tax bill I see the same amount of money goes towards the local schools, including community colleges. So, my question is where do my taxes go if not to the school? I pay the same taxes as everyone else. Shouldn't that money go to the local school where we live?

After we talked for awhile, the woman was a little bit perplexed. She was sure that her position was correct, but my statements had now made her think...where do homeschooler's taxes go? Who is pocketing these tax dollars? The same applies for people without children. They pay property taxes and the local schools do not automatically get the money. The testing system decides where the money goes.

I pay my taxes AND pay to educate my children myself. I do not get any tax benefits or tax breaks for homeschool curriculum. In our state, the schools get $9500 per student, per year (source click here). I can tell you I DO NOT spend that much per child. I spend about $500 per child, per year...and that includes fieldtrips, clubs, science experiments, etc. (Are you wondering why you are asked for so many supplies yet?)

So tell me...whose child is the greater tax burden?

Obama and Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Dear Friends & Family,

I have seen a few emails going around about Obama's desire to appeal Same-Sex Marriage Bans. I always want to see the SOURCE of their information in addition to the message of whatever cause it is that is sending emails. I complained during the presidential campaign about not knowing what Obama's agenda was, well now he has it all out in plain sight at WhiteHouse.gov. Please check it out so you know what to expect.

Here is the source:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/ - The statement on Same-Sex Marriage is neatly tucked in towards the bottom.

Directly from the website above:

Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.

The terminology "judicial extension of marriage" is KEY here. He is saying that judges should be able to make laws....which is against the Constitution.

Last time the Bill was introduced: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:5:./temp/~mdbsdO0WJP::

Where to join the cause:

http://www.nationformarriage.org

The BEST way to support the Ban on Same-Sex Marriage:

• Become educated about the cause.
  
• Write to the appropriate representatives, senators, presidential offices, etc.
  
• Write your OWN letter. Using blanket forms from a website does not get read nearly as much as a straight-from-the heart letter of why YOU do not want Same-Sex Marriage to be legal.

Sincerely,

Celeste Batchelor

Fed up with the Government? What do we do?

In my personal studies I have been learning about the Constitution and the way the US government is SUPPOSED to work. I am greatly disturbed by how broken the system is and how we are not really a free country anymore. I read an article this morning that has resonated within me the reasons WHY I am studying about our government. It also addresses how we can fix it....seems difficult doesn't it? I hope you will all take the time to read this article and ponder if it is something useful to you.

Education Must Proceed Activism

The real question to me is....What KIND of education do we need to correct the problems in our country? What do we need to know? How do we learn it?

Misinterpretations of the Constitution

I took a class from nccs.net earlier this year and it was fantastic. It opened my eyes to many things about our country that I had not known or understood before. This is part of an email I received and I wanted to share it with everyone. I highly recommend taking the time to read The 5000 Year Leap. It helped me to understand just how many of our freedoms we have lost.

Only Two Ways to Interpret the Constitution One of the friends of the Founders in the present Supreme Court is Justice Clarence Thomas. In a recent speech, he said: "Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution--try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores." (Wall Street Journal Opinion, October 20, 2008) A look at several of today's issues clearly reveals most of our government programs today are far from the Founders' original intent and as Justice Thomas says, have about as much basis in the Constitution as the latest football scores--the authority is purely made-up. For example: U. S. foreign policy: Founders' intent : Expressed in the Monroe Doctrine wherein the U. S. promised to stay out of the affairs of other nations, particularly those of the eastern hemisphere. Made-up intent: Involve ourselves in the affairs of nearly every nation on earth and try to buy their friendship with money we don't even have. U. S. monetary policy: Founders' intent : Congress to establish and control our money system based on gold and silver standard to prevent manipulation. Made-up intent : Give control of monetary system to private bankers who issue fiat money which lets them make money out of nothing--money on which we then pay them interest. Federalism or vertical separation of powers : Founders' intent : Only limited and carefully defined powers to the federal government. Government concerned with people's lives and property is only at state level or lower. Made-up intent : Allowing Washington to have direct influence and control of local government, which destroys strong local self-government. Horizontal Separation of Power: Founders' intent : The power to make law was given exclusively to the representatives of the people in Congress. Made-up intent : More laws are being made by the executive and judicial departments than are made by congress, which effect millions of people and their property. National Debt: Founders' intent : Debt is a temporary evil and if used must be paid off before the generation that borrowed it leaves the scene. It is immoral to pass debt on to next generation. It amounts to taxation without representation. Made-up intent : Debt is a blessing to America. We can borrow ourselves wealthy. Passing debt onto the next generation allows those to pay the debt who will benefit from the programs paid for by the borrowed money. Income Tax: Founders' intent : The Founders put a prohibition of income tax into the Constitution because its enforcement violates the privacy rights of U.S. citizens. They said there are much better ways to raise revenue. Made-up intent : Unconstitutional programs pushed in the "Progressive Era" became so expensive that new sources of revenue needed to be developed. A tax on incomes began at two percent and is only limited by what politicians can get away with. It is also a vehicle to implement a graduated tax to redistribute wealth. Welfare Programs: Founders' intent : The Founders' scale of fixed responsibility for one's welfare is: self, family, church, community, county, and state. Never was the federal government to be involved in welfare programs. Made-up intent : The federal government has unconstitutionally become the sugar daddy of the American people. One reason the federal government has done this is because the monetary system lets the money managers create money out of nothing. It buys votes and wins elections. Agriculture: Founders' intent : The Founders specifically excluded agriculture from the purview of federal authority saying it is only a local and state function. Made-up intent : Government programs in agriculture have taken away the freedom to fail, a necessary ingredient in the free-market system. The federal government has increased the cost of food by layer upon layer of regulation. Marriage and Domestic Law: Founders' intent : The core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family, therefore governments have the responsibility to foster and protect its integrity. Made-up intent : State and federal judiciaries have injected themselves into the questions of marriage, redefining marriage and endangering the most fundamental building block of society. Thomas Jefferson constantly warned against letting the federal government gradually usurp power over the people. Such bureaucracies bring heavy spending and debt. He said such debt would put the people under such a burden that all they can do is to work long hours in order to survive. Said he: "And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude . If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, [and] give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers.... This is the tendency of all human governments." (The Making of America , page 395) Sadly, with the makeup of our new administration and congress, it looks like we may be far down the road to fulfilling Jefferson's fears. Sincerely, Earl Taylor, Jr. P.S. Our seminars around the country are increasing in number and frequency. Click here to see if one is coming close to you or your friends.

National Center for Constitutional Studies

37777 West Juniper Road
Malta, ID
83342
US

Spreading the Wealth?

Over the past few years I have worked to be more politically aware. This change was greatly influenced from reading The Five Thousand Year Leap by Cleon Skousen, a seminar I attended on the Constitution, and a desire to know more about the world, especially this great country we live in. I am very concerned about the current choices for President and the difficulties our nation, and the world for that matter, are facing in attacks against family values.

Today, I saw an elderly gentleman working at a farmer's market we sometimes go to for produce. He was very old, with blackened fingertips from deep bruising under his skin. He was bagging groceries and all I could think was, "This is what the Law of Consecration is for so that the elderly and sick do not have to work like this." Chris and I both wanted to do something. But, what do we do? Do we hand him money? Do we try to work his job for him? I wondered, "Where is his family? Does he have anyone who can help him?" I left the store deeply troubled by this. We did not know exactly how to help this individual man.

I then thought of Barrack Obama's promise to "Spread the Wealth." This troubles me even more because the government does not need to take from the rich to pay the poor. People need to donate their own money and time to help the needy. The Law of Consecration is for this very purpose - that we willingly give of our time, talents, and possessions to help others. Chris was thinking along the same lines as I was because he asked me, "Was Robin Hood a good or a bad man?" It was an opportunity to discuss the right and wrong ways to change our society. I firmly believe that Obama's way is wrong...deeply wrong...and that we need to do all we can to protect our freedom from tyranny, especially governmental control over wealth.

Although I did not help the man at the store today, I realized that I can do much more to help others. I know one thing that I can do and that is to add this man to my prayers. I wish I had gotten his name - but I'm sure Heavenly Father knows who he is.