March 21, 2010 -- As I sit here on a dreary, rainy Sunday, watching Fox News, I realize I’m depressed. It’s not the kind of depression that can be resolved by a pint of ice cream or a pill from the friendly neighborhood pharmacist. No, this depression is the product of betrayal by those we trusted, yes, mandated to represent OUR interests.

The culprits are the elected officials who were entrusted with the responsibility of upholding our beloved Constitution and ensuring that there were no abuses of the powers granted by it.

On this dark Sunday the American people witnessed an assault on the Nation’s very foundation under the guise of benevolence. It will change our Nation forever. The expansion of government powers and economic control is unrivaled in U.S. history.

My husband watched the day’s events unfold with disgust while working in Russia. His anger was apparent during our phone

conversation: “It makes me sick to hear them say they had to ‘vote their conscience’ and that’s why they’re voting FOR this bill. They weren’t elected to ‘vote their conscience’; they were elected to represent US.”

Our elected representatives seem to have forgotten that they are servants of the people; they are sent to Washington to reflect OUR will by voting OUR conscience, OUR interests and OUR desires.

Our Founding Fathers recognized the danger of a government that views itself as the benevolent caretaker of the people instead of the servant of the people. The Fathers knew this would lead to a mentality that the government knows what’s best for the people, instead of serving the voting public’s best interests.

The American voters have been speaking out, loudly and clearly, about what they want for months. We have told them we want healthcare reform, but not the so-called “reform” in this legislation. We want healthcare reform to include key issues like tort reform and interstate insurance competition.

Since we can barely afford our own healthcare, we don’t want to pay for illegal immigrants’ healthcare. We have been disgusted by the bribes offered to states with representatives who switched their votes from no to yes on this phantom measure.

This isn’t the first time that the federal government has sought to justify extending its powers beyond those granted in the Constitution.

In 1790, the creation of a National Bank was proposed. It was opposed by Thomas Jefferson, but President Washington decided to side with Alexander Hamilton, the secretary of the treasury at the time, and establish a National Bank.

In the following years, Hamilton was repeatedly investigated by Congress. In 1794, the serious charges of misappropriation of funds were leveled against Hamilton. After these investigations, as well as an extramarital affair, Alexander decided to retire as secretary of treasury before Congress met again. (Some things remain consistent in government after all!).

Finally, in 1811, when the National Banks charter was up for renewal, its constitutionality -- and the power it gave the select few who oversaw the National Bank -- was once again questioned by President Madison and members of Congress. The renewal of its charter failed to pass by one vote in the House and Senate.

The issue of a National Bank was fought and lost/won many times during the following years. The passage of the Federal Reserve Act of

1913 finally resolved the debate. The importance of this history is contained in words spoken by Jefferson in opposition to this expansion of government powers. Jefferson’s words are obviously pertinent in respect to healthcare “reform”:

“They [members of Congress] are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase -- that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. ... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.”

-- Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791

As I watch the “lip licking” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tell us how the passing of the healthcare “reform” bill is cause to celebrate because it will be historical like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, I cringe at her total lack of conscience. These great examples of government incompetence and pilfering should be cause for shame from our government, not celebration.

In the 2009 trustees report, Social Security is projected to begin cash flow deficits by 2016.

Medicare is in even worse shape; It’s already broke. It is currently paying out more than it is taking in so it’s redeeming its trust fund assets. After it exhausts these funds about 2017, benefit payments will be cut. (What happened to that lock box, Al Gore?)

The federal government has spent money recklessly, passing programs under Democratic and Republican presidents that we simply couldn’t afford.

I began to understand why Pelosi’s lips were so dry when I heard her fabrication of how the healthcare “reform” will cut Medicare waste and fraud. Why wasn’t this done before? And how is it that adding 32 million healthcare consumers to an already overburdened system will somehow make it easier to manage the fraud and waste?

But not to worry, America, we’re going to establish Medicare “police,” along with all the IRS agents that will be ensuring you either have health insurance or pay the fine. Oh, by the way, who is going to pay for all these new wonderful Medicare policing programs?

The American taxpayer, of course.

Now that the federal government has voted to take over one-sixth of the economy by passing healthcare legislation, why should American voters trust their government to do a better job with healthcare than it did with Social Security and Medicare?

This legislation was not passed for our benefit, it was passed to enable a government to expand its power base and its spending ability through increased taxation.

Adding injury to insult, our government wants us to believe that adding 32 million to our healthcare system and implementing new Medicaid fraud- and waste-prevention programs will decrease our deficit! This is another “smoke and mirrors” trick brought to you by the Obama administration.

Remember the $200 billion in cuts to physicians that made the $138 billion in deficit reduction possible? GONE. That’s right, taken out right before the vote. So the Congressional Budget Office numbers that showed a reduction in the federal deficit are now meaningless.

It appears that physicians weren’t too keen on treating patients for free; seems they have to eat, too. Oh well, at least President Obama had a lot of fun with that while it lasted.

But seriously folks, when has the federal government ever reduced costs, fraud, waste or deficits by implementing another social program? Never. Who pays for all this betrayal? The American taxpayer.

But the most offensive part of Pelosi’s defense of perhaps the greatest abuse of federal government powers witnessed in our lifetime was her attempt to convince us that healthcare is a constitutional right, not a privilege. She stated her case by saying we are honoring the vows of our Founders “… who in the Declaration of Independence said that we are ‘endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. ...This legislation will lead to healthier lives, more liberty to pursue hopes and dreams and happiness for the American people.”

Grab your lip balm, Pelosi, and let’s talk about what that document really says. "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Unalienable means something cannot be transferred, sold, or surrendered -- for instance, the government.

Our Founding Fathers said that the “unalienable Rights” were given to us by our Creator, NOT by our government. Our government only has the task of keeping these rights secured as clarified by the next paragraph of the Declaration of Independence: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, … (now Nancy, this next part would obviously be something you Democrats don’t want to discuss) … deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”

So if you want to play around with interpreting the meaning of the Pursuit of Happiness, what’s next on your agenda? That every American has a right to a home? Oops, sorry I forgot, you guys already tried this when you had Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac give out home loans to unqualified applicants. Aren’t the defaults on all of these loans precisely what started this recession?

Nancy, here’s another line from the Declaration that you should

read: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

In other words, when the government has repeatedly violated the limitations of their powers and therefore, violated the people’s rights, with the intent of making them subject completely to the governments dictates, then it is the DUTY of the people to provide “new Guards for our future security.”

I, for one, plan on doing just that in November -- with my vote.