This Blog Is Moving!
That's right, ladies and gentlemen! All of my blogs now currently hosted by Blogger will move to WordPress in the (hopefully) near future. The Foundation Forum and Meet the Founding Fathers will merge into one blog and be hosted on their own domain.
When that domain is up and running, I will post the link.
ATTENTION: When the new blog The Foundation Forum is up, all posts will no longer be visible here. Those posts, with their respective comments (except those after September 2009), will be visible on the new blog instead. If you link to this blog, or to any of my other blogs, be sure to update your links when I update this notification!
Thank you for reading.
~ Hercules
Ron Paul is a firm and a strict Constitutionalist.
Ron Paul is pro-family, and pro-life.
Ron Paul's stance on the issues is impeccable.
Ron Paul is NOT a God-hating liberal.
Ron Paul is NOT a Christian-hating liberal.
Ron Paul is NOT a member of the Council of Foreign Relations.
Ron Paul is NOT supported by the mainstream media.
Ron Paul is AGAINST the government tagging its citizens.
Ron Paul FIGHTS government fraud and corruption.
Ron Paul supports US SOVEREIGNTY.
Ron Paul OPPOSES the anti-"Patriot Act."
Ron Paul OPPOSES the North American Union.
Ron Paul is NOT a friend of the Clinton and Bush dynasties.
21 Comments:
Here, here!
Very good reasons for voting for Ron Paul. Here's hoping he's on the ballot in New York State.
Hey Herc,
Hope you and your family are well. I heard a little excerpt of Ron Paul on Meet the Press today on the radio, and he was declaring the corporate elite control by Bush and his cronies, were fascist, not socialist like I, and the Bible seem to indicate.
Daniel and Revelation make it clear, that the one world govt, economy, religion, sovereignty, borders, etc. led by anti-christ, is socialist in nature, rather than having a militaristic, power component to it.
I was under the impression, this global utopia of merging interests, by Bush, his cronies, and the New World Order, has a more liberal ideal, rather than conservative one, with the liberalization of entities, including religion, having not the conservative fascist character Paul enjoins it.
What do you think?
Yours Affctly
OFT.
Hi OFT.
Yes, I and my family are well; I hope it is your case likewise.
I personally don't know of any difference between fascism and socialism. From my slim knowledge of the subject, and the little research I did just now, fascism is only the ideals of socialism combined with military force. I think that the Bible does indicate that such will happen -- military force will be used against dissenters and "rebels."
I think that the definition of "fascism" that Ron Paul was referring to was more synonymous with corporatism. Mussolini said: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." I don't think it needs to be said that the American government has been doing this. This article by Wikipedia gives one some idea.
I agree with you (and from reading and listening to Ron Paul's statements, I think he thinks the same way) that although this NWO has a more liberal ideal, conservatives will be either betrayed or blindfolded by neo-conservatives into going along with it, most without realizing it at the moment.
But whether Paul thinks that Bush etc. is acting on socialism or fascism is, I think, irrelevant to determining which candidate to back. Ron Paul is the best candidate on the block. He has a truly Christian worldview, and this is confirmed by his strict Constitutional federalism (i.e., the CONSTITUTION is the standard; the fed govt has its place, it should stay there).
Thanks for your comment and thoughts.
Hey Herc,
I tend to agree with you about Paul, he's the best candidate. Maybe the issue is the difference between right and left, conservative and liberal.
The truth is, although, I may be wrong, this corporate power grab and subsequent domination is not a conservative enterprise, like liberals claim, but a liberal, socialist idea, made by the chief liberal, George Bush.
Can you see that? It's a hoodwink of the first degree, that Bush is conservative, when he is an enemy of Limited Constitutional Govt, a pro-murder abortionist, promoter of large, intrusive policies, a pro-homosexual advocate, for destroying the IV Amendment, and Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, because the inclusion of the military in this power-play, was, and is, being used by leftists; Stalin, and his take over of Western Europe, being a prime example.
So, this one world govt, economy, religion, etc. which is entering it's beginning stages, looks more conservative in its foundation, because of the misapplication of terms to George Bush, and his policies, which have departed from true conservatism; showing the leftists are the the guilty party, not discerning the fundamentals of this agenda, is their own.
Paul, is right in a way, but, this issue is very cloudy, and without the proper circumspection of the issue, we can be mislead, as the liberal talk show host is, and his interpretation of the Paul sound bite.
Yours Sincerely,
OFT.
OFT:
I think your observations on this subject are sound, from my knowledge.
Yes, I equally despise the way that liberals twist Paul's image and words, but they are the only "biggies" out there who will let him on the air. Many of the mainstream conservatives, even Christians, sadly, will not support him. There are many grassroots conservatives (who are the ones not corrupted by power, temptation, and not led astray by humanism) who support him strongly, but the mainstream media won't give them coverage.
I am baffled why Christians support the Bushes. Have they never read that "you shall know a tree by its fruits"? Or do they think that the Bushes' use of the magic word "God" or "Christian," or the President's statement that he begins every day with prayer and Bible reading (I think he is very carefully avoiding, say, the Book of Revelation) is enough, and that he is still worthy of the presidency even though he (just like the others who preceded him) has trampled on our Constitution???
We clamor for less government intrusion, and it is unjust indeed, but we must seriously ask ourselves the question: are we ready to govern ourselves yet? I think not. Americans have still not gotten far enough past the brainwashing stage, and are still too concerned about the insignificant matters of their own little lives to pay any attention to the direction of the Christian Church and our country. There is not enough of a stand of morality (based on GOD'S WORD, not on MAJORITY OPINION) even in the Christian Church in the country. That is why we are so easily led by the media, by the public schools, by the humanist elite (whether you call them liberal or conservative).
As I write this, I just so happen to be writing a post on a speech by Ron Paul which I read recently. Come over to Herculean Reflections to read it.
Again, thanks for your post and your comments.
I will read your post on Herculean reflections. I am putting a rebuttal together and will give it to you to post for me, if it's ok. Its on Secularist Ed Brayton's blog
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/more_huckabee_absurdity.php
He spews his hate, most recently on Dr. James Kennedy. His blog is so ridiculous, it deserves to be refuted. Divide these up when you send them.
To Mr. Brayton,
Your knowledge of the first amendment is second rate.
The First Amendment only prohibits the first and second commandments; its idea is to only protect freedom of conscience. All other aspects of religion and morality are left to the states.
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Thomas Jefferson, Second Inaugural Address, 1805
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
Unconstitutional on both freedom of religion and free speech grounds.>
This civil prohibition against blasphemy and profanity drawn from the Decalogue continued well beyond the Founding Era. It subsequently appeared in the 1784 laws in Connecticut, the 1791 laws of New Hampshire, the 1791 laws of Vermont, the 1792 laws of Virginia, the 1794 laws of Pennsylvania, the 1821 laws of Maine, the 1834 laws of Tennessee, the 1835 laws of Massachusetts, the 1836 laws of New York, etc.
Judge Zephaniah Swift, author in 1796 of the first legal text published in America, explained why civil authorities enforced the Decalogue prohibition against blasphemy and profane swearing:
Crimes of this description are not punishable by the civil arm merely because they are against religion. Bold and presumptuous must he be who would attempt to wrest the thunder of heaven from the hand of God and direct the bolts of vengeance where to fall. The Supreme Deity is capable of maintaining the dignity of His moral government and avenging the violations of His holy laws. His omniscient mind estimates every act by the standard of perfect truth and His impartial justice inflicts punishments that are accurately proportioned to the crimes. But short-sighted mortals cannot search the heart and punish according to the intent. They can only judge by overt acts and punish them as they respect the peace and happiness of civil society. This is the rule to estimate all crimes against civil law and is the standard of all human punishments. It is on this ground only that civil tribunals are authorized to punish offences against religion.
In 1824, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (in a decision subsequently invoked authoritatively and endorsed by the U. S. Supreme Court ) reaffirmed that the civil laws against blasphemy were derived from divine law.
The court then noted that its State's laws against blasphemy had been drawn up by James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court:
The late Judge Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, Professor of Law in the College in Philadelphia, was appointed in 1791, unanimously by the House of Representatives of this State to "revise and digest the laws of this commonwealth. . . . " He had just risen from his seat in the Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, and of this State; and it is well known that for our present form of government we are greatly indebted to his exertions and influence. With his fresh recollection of both constitutions, in his course of Lectures (3d vol. of his works, 112), he states that profaneness and blasphemy are offences punishable by fine and imprisonment, and that Christianity is part of the common law. It is vain to object that the law is obsolete; this is not so; it has seldom been called into operation because this, like some other offences, has been rare. It has been retained in our recollection of laws now in force, made by the direction of the legislature, and it has not been a dead letter.
4.Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
Again, unconstitutional on free exercise grounds.>
First is the inclusion in the U. S. Constitution of the recognition of the Sabbath in Art. I, Sec. 7, ¶ 2, stipulating that the President has 10 days to sign a law, "Sundays excepted." The "Sundays excepted" clause had previously appeared in the individual State constitutions of that day, and therefore, when incorporated into the U. S. Constitution, carried the same meaning that had been established by traditional usage in the States. That meaning was then imparted into the constitutions of the various States admitted into the Union subsequent to the adoption of the federal Constitution. The historical understanding of this clause was summarized in 1912 by the Supreme Court of Missouri which, expounding on the meaning of this provision in its own State constitution and in the U. S. Constitution, declared:
It is provided that if the Governor does not return a bill within 10 days (Sundays excepted), it shall become a law without his signature. Although it may be said that this provision leaves it optional with the Governor whether he will consider bills or not on Sunday, yet, regard being had to the circumstances under which it was inserted, can any impartial mind deny that it contains a recognition of the Lord's Day as a day exempted by law from all worldly pursuits? The framers of the Constitution, then, recognized Sunday as a day to be observed, acting themselves under a law which exacted a compulsive observance of it. If a compulsive observance of the Lord's Day as a day of rest had been deemed inconsistent with the principles contained in the Constitution, can anything be clearer than, as the matter was so plainly and palpably before the Convention, a specific condemnation of the Sunday law would have been engrafted upon it? So far from it, Sunday was recognized as a day of rest.
The second point establishing the impact of the fourth commandment of the Decalogue on American law is seen in the civil process clauses of the early State legal codes which forbade legal action on the Sabbath. For example, an 1830 New York law declared:
Civil process cannot, by statute, be executed on Sunday, and a service of such process on Sunday is utterly void and subjects the officer to damages.
Similar laws may be found in Pennsylvania in 1682 and 1705, Vermont in 1787, Connecticut in 1796, New Jersey in 1798, etc.
In the Federal Era and well beyond, states continued to enact and reenact Sabbath laws. In fact, the States went to impressive lengths to uphold the Sabbath. For example, in 1787, Vermont enacted a ten-part law to preserve the Sabbath; in 1791, Massachusetts enacted an eleven-part law; in 1786, Virginia enacted a law written by Thomas Jefferson and sponsored by James Madison; in 1798, New Jersey enacted a twenty-one-part law; in 1799, New Hampshire enacted a fourteen-part law; in 1821, Maine enacted a thirteen-part law; etc.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother
A good idea, in most cases, but a law requiring it would be unconstitutional and outside the purview of government. You can't legally enforce an individual's feelings toward their parents.>
1934 Louisiana appeals court:
" ˜Honor thy father and thy mother,' is as much a command of the municipal law as it is a part of the Decalogue, regarded as holy by every Christian people. ˜A child," says the code, ˜whatever be his age, owes honor and respect to his father and mother.' "
Other courts have made similar declarations, all confirming that the fifth commandment of the Decalogue was an historical part of American civil law and jurisprudence.
6.Thou shalt not kill
This one is obviously constitutional, and is a part of our legal system. But it's also found in EVERY legal system, even those that have nothing to do with the bible or Christianity.>
"The opinion that human reason left without the constant control of Divine laws and commands will . . . give duration to a popular government is as chimerical as the most extravagant ideas that enter the head of a maniac. . . . Where will you find any code of laws among civilized men in which the commands and prohibitions are not founded on Christian principles? I need not specify the prohibition of murder, robbery, theft, [and] trespass."
Noah Webster
1932 Kentucky Appeals Court:
"The rights of society as well as those of appellant are involved and are also to be protected, and to that end all forms of governments following the promulgation of Moses at Mt. Sinai has required of each and every one of its citizens that "Thou shalt not murder." If that law is violated, the one guilty of it has no right to demand more than a fair trial, and if, as a result thereof, the severest punishment for the crime is visited upon him, he has no one to blame but himself."
There are yet many more declarations by our people affirming the sixth commandment into our laws.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery
Another one that is a good idea, but not constitutional if legally enforced. Adultery is a moral wrong, but it's a private matter between individuals.>
Vermont Laws of 1787
"Whereas the violation of the marriage covenant is contrary to the command of God and destructive to the peace of families: be it therefore enacted by the general assembly of the State of Vermont that if any man be found in bed with another man's wife, or woman with another's husband, . . . &c
For example, in 1898, the highest criminal court in Texas declared that its State laws on adultery were derived from the Decalogue:
The accused would insist upon the defense that the female consented. The state would reply that she could not consent. Why? Because the law prohibits, with a penalty, the completed act. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is our law as well as the law of the Bible.
8. Thou shalt not steal
This is the second one that is obviously constitutional, but also found in every legal system regardless of the religious system that may have initially spawned it. A universal imperative that would be part of the law even if the bible never existed.>
The laws regarding theft that indicate their reliance on divine law and the Decalogue are far too numerous even to begin listing. Perhaps the simplest summation is given by Chancellor James Kent, who is considered, along with Justice Joseph Story, as one of the two "Fathers of American Jurisprudence." In his classic 1826 Commentaries on American Law, Kent confirmed that the prohibitions against theft were found in divine law:
To overturn justice by plundering others tended to destroy civil society, to violate the law of nature, and the institutions of Heaven.
1951, the Louisiana Supreme Court acknowledged the Decalogue as the basis for the unchanging civil laws against theft:
In the Ten Commandments, the basic law of all Christian countries, is found the admonition "Thou shalt not steal."
There are many other examples demonstrating this commandment into our laws.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
Some have interpreted this to be analagous to our perjury laws, but nothing in the text indicates that. It's talking about lying in general, not in a legal sense during court proceedings. And while lying may be wrong, it's not legally wrong except in specific circumstances - perjury and libel/slander. Under our system, most instances of lying would be covered by the first amendment free speech clause.>
The 1924, the Oregon Supreme Court declared:
No official is above the law. "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is a command of the Decalogue, and that forbidden act is denounced by statute as a felony.
There are many other examples to show this commandment was incorporated into American civil law and jurisprudence.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Not only unconstitutional, it would require the ability to read minds.>
John Adams, one of only two individuals who signed the Bill of Rights, also acknowledged the importance of this commandment, declaring:
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet" and "Thou shalt not steal" were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.
Many courts have also acknowledged the importance of this provision of the Decalogue. For example, in 1895, the California Supreme Court cited this prohibition as the basis of civil laws against defamation. In 1904, the Court of Appeals in West Virginia cited it as the basis of laws preventing election fraud. In 1958, a Florida appeals court cited it as the basis of laws targeting white-collar crime. And in 1951, the Oregon Supreme Court cited this Decalogue prohibition as the basis of civil laws against modern forms of cattle rustling. There are numerous other examples that all affirm that the tenth commandment of the Decalogue did indeed form an historical part of American civil law and jurisprudence.
All the framers believed religion and morality are mandatory in our society:
William Findley, a soldier in the Revolution and a U. S. Congressman, who declared:
[I]t pleased God to deliver on Mount Sinai a compendium of His holy law and to write it with His own hand on durable tables of stone. This law, which is commonly called the Ten Commandments or Decalogue, . . . is immutable and universally obligatory. . . . [and] was incorporated in the judicial law.
"The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws. . . . Vain, indeed, would be the search among the writings of profane antiquity . . . to find so broad, so complete and so solid a basis for morality as this Decalogue lays down."
John Quincy Adams
Justice William Paterson, a signer of the Constitution placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington, declared:
Religion and morality . . . [are] necessary to good government, good order, and good laws.
Justice Joseph Story, later appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison, similarly declared:
I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations. (emphasis added)
Dewitt Clinton, the Framer who introduced the 12th Amendment, also declared:
The laws which regulate our conduct are the laws of man and the laws of God. . . . The sanctions of the Divine law . . . cover the whole area of human action.
Perhaps the best reflection of the collective belief of the Framers that religion was not to be excluded from civil society is enactment of the Northwest Ordinance, one of the four organic laws of the United States. That law, passed in 1789 by the same Congress that framed the Bill of Rights, declared:
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
I forgot, make sure you put this at the beginning, because he claims that other codes are the inspiration, not just the bible, but the founders disagree:
"Sparta, Rome, and Carthage...These examples, though as unfit for the imitation, as they are repugnant to the genius, of America, are, notwithstanding, when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty. I am not unaware of the circumstances which distinguish the American from other popular governments, as well ancient as modern; and which render extreme circumspection necessary, in reasoning from the one case to the other."
James Madison, Federalist #63
http://www.llpoh.org/federalist/63.html
Only Israel's civilization is a model for our Republican Law.
Your posts in response to Brayton are good, OFT. If you don't mind my asking, why exactly do you have the desire for me to post your writing on his blog? If I should copy & paste it there, may I put it in your name, saying that you wrote it?
If I may add my own observations on the relationship to the 10 Commandments and the Constitution, it is important to realize that the Founding Fathers did not write our Founding documents to enforce the Decalogue, but rather to provide the framework for which a society, which relied upon the 10 Commandments should operate. The first 4 commandments delineate man's spiritual duties -- man's obligations to God. Therefore, the Constitution gives man the freedom to follow his conscience (the Founders never said "his whim" or "his LACK of conscience") in deciding HOW to worship God. They knew that religious beliefs were not in the realm of government dictation, and so Brayton's point about the first 2 commandments being broken by our 1st amendment is wrong. IN fact, the 1st Amendment FULFILLS the 1st and 2nd commandments by removing government from interfering with man's worship of God. Since God is the only true God, only HE can dictate how man is to worship him, and government is essentially claiming to be God if it tells people how they are to worship.
I also think that Brayton's comment on adultery and the Constitution is stupid, because Brayton falsely assumed that adultery is a personal and not a social crime. Most of our social ills today in our nation are due to this constantly happening, and the problem gets worse the more people excuse it as only "personal," and therefore not an offense to society. If only people would wake up out of their own little worlds and realize the two important things that our founders realized: (1) covenants, esp. marriage covenants, are the bedrock upon which all healthy society rests, and (2) that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"; in other words, actions have consequences. I was impressed by your citations of all the laws forbidding this practice, and it is certainly sufficient to refute Brayton's statements on this subject, but I wanted to point out this flaw also.
Thanks for your comments.
He wants it posted on my blog because he's banned from posting there. Don't bother posting it for him, it will be deleted. I don't know why some people can't just get it through their heads that they're not welcome. You have your own blog, obviously, so put it there.
Yes, I was banned, but only because I refuted his lies, just like my post did.
At least Brayton read this post, maybe his readers will see Brayton's lies are easy to expose.
Yours Sincerely,
OFT.
Yes, I understand, OFT, that you were banned for refuting Brayton on his own blog. Apparently, I can't post it on there either. I do think, however, that it would make GREAT post for your own blog. I'm sure that anyone really interested in the truth, who would do some searching to find out the truth, would be very glad to find your article! I personally recommend posting it on your blog; people (those interested in the truth, and not in just trying to intimidate or criticize) could find it very easily just by punching in some search words.
Just my thoughts. :)
Herc, I posted that post on my site, hopefully, Brayton's posters will see how wrong Brayton is on this subject.
To ban someone for bad language, is one thing, but for disagreeing, shows he is afraid of debate, and the evidence. Maybe those bloggers will see it.
Sncly Yrs
OFT
Impressive blog! I think I will enjoy reading here.
I like Ron Paul as well... but I also like the Clintons and I am a liberal; not a God-hating nor Christian-hating liberal (have never met any of those) but still a liberal.
Hi Shawna. Thanks for visiting my blog and taking the time to comment and share your thoughts.
Yes, Ron Paul is a good candidate, because he supports the Constitution and therefore supports the true interests of our nation.
If you don't mind my sheer curiosity, why do you consider yourself a liberal? And what do you think constitutes a liberal? Being of a different political persuasion, I am naturally curious about the other side.
I do not necessarily equate professing liberals with God-haters, but the liberals with whom I have been acquainted, and whom I have heard of, are unquestionably peeved at the idea of a God interfering with their lives. This does not mean that I think that you are a God-hater because you say you are a liberal, however.
As far as the Clintons are concerned, I obviously dislike them. I cannot change what you believe, but I live in a state that has all too long been dominated by them and their philosophy. They support globalism (which is treason against America), they support abortion (which is the heartless murder of defenseless innocents, and an atrocity which has blackened the honor of our nation -- worse than slavery, because at least slaves had a chance), and socialism (which involves high taxes and tyranny). Their personal integrity is also highly suspect. Bill Clinton's morals are, at best, poor, and Hillary .. well, it would be much better for you to research this yourself on the Internet.
These are my views and my position based upon my own research and observations. You are free to have your own opinion, but just keep in mind that all beliefs have their consequences.
Again, your comment was deeply appreciated. Thanks for dropping by. I hope you plan to return and continue reading the upcoming posts on this blog. Your thoughts are welcomed.
Why do I consider myself a liberal? Good question... and one I have asked myself; and often of late.
I believe in the common good; I do not think socialism is all that bad... especially tempered with democracy as in Denmark and such places.
I think we do need to look out for the less fortunate and if that means taxes to provide programs for such than I am alright with that--to an extent. Many of the programs go too far, are unnecessary, etc, etc. But I do believe in a safe guard and charity.
As for globalism... that leaves me with a funny taste in my mouth. Not so sure I like the idea all that much, although I do see some validity to global efforts and a coming together on specific issues.
I do support a woman's right to choose and feel that is between she and her God and it is not my place to judge... it is only His place to judge.
And as I have stated, I have yet to meet a God-hating liberal or a Christian-hating liberal. Truly! I have met people who have differing views on their religion, often within Christianity... but non who hate. Maybe I should consider myself fortunate?
As for Bill's morals... he is merely a man and from what I can see of the "conservative party" they profess morality and then get caught being very immoral. At least Clinton doesn't claim holier-than-thou-morality, in my opinion.
Hillary? I admire her keen intelligence, her strength and backbone, her ideas and acts. Does that mean I admire and agree with each and every one of them? Of course not! But in general I like her.
In general, I tend to like most people unless they give me a real reason not too.
I hope I was able to answer your questions; they were good and fair questions.
Hello Shawna.
I almost completely forgot about your reply to my questions! I am so sorry for my belated response to them. I did not purposefully neglect them, but I delayed in answering them because I was preoccupied with other things that demanded my immediate and complete attention.
I'll address your responses one by one:
I respect your right to be politically convinced however you are, but if you don't mind my adding, conservatives believe in the public good, too. ;)
If you don't see socialism as all that bad, OK; but may I invite your attention to something? First of all, the government is not going to give to others who are poor, unemployed, etc., out of their own (lucrative) salaries and out of the goodness of their hearts. They are going to force the populous as a whole to pay exorbitant taxes to fund their programs, which are run by bureaucrats, who in turn feel that they are entitled to lucrative salaries for sitting at desks. Their work is done inefficiently, and much of the tax money is wasted, and the poor are not helped as much as they would be helped by PRIVATE charitable efforts, where people often help others for very little, if not for free.
In addition to this fact of government inefficiency, the government has no right to take money from other people and use it for whatever purposes they want to, even if those purposes are motivated by good intentions. Have you ever read former Congressman Davy Crockett's speech, "Not Yours to Give" and the story behind it? The text is found in several places online, including Ron Paul's website. And we also have the insight of Crockett's contemporary Daniel Webster, one of America's greatest statesman, who was called "The Defender of the Constitution."
Webster wisely observed:
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
Let's face it, where there is the power to do good, there is the power to do evil. The Constitution was designed in such a way as to make the federal govt. do as much good as possible, while simultaneously preventing as much evil as possible. We should not step outside of the barriers of the Constitution, because, as Constitution-Framer and Signer Alexander Hamilton said, "every breach of the fundamental laws [i.e., the Constitution of the US], though dictated by necessity, impairs that sacred reverence which ought to be maintained in the breast of rulers towards the constitution of a country, and forms a precedent for other breaches where the same plea of necessity does not exist at all, or is less urgent and palpable." (Federalist #25; emphasis mine)
We are a constitutional federal republic, and not a democracy. Just because many people feel that they are entitled to govt. benefits (which are a whole lot less effective as privately-organized charity) doesn't mean that the laws of the land must change. If govt. must provide charity, let the state and local govts do it; the federal govt. is to stay out.
Concerning globalism, I do not have a problem with nations working together or cooperating, but I do not think that we must surrender our national sovereignty in the name of being "fair." This is a huge subject in of itself, and I don't think that it needs long explanation where you are concerned.
You say you support a woman's right to choose... I am not against the free will of women, but let's face the hard facts -- ABORTION IS COLD MURDER plain and simple. We punish with hard penalties those who murder strangers in cold blood. But we have to argue about whether or not it is OK for a mother to allow the gruesome murder of her own child??? When we make that a private, and not a moral matter, we have freely surrendered to our society's doom and violent death. A society which kills its own children without the qualms of conscience is sick and barbaric. My strong language is not meant to offend you, but this is my opinion, and it is based upon my look at the facts of today and at historic trends.
It is true that God will judge each person individually for their actions, but because abortion is murder of the most heartless kind, and because murder is a public offense punishable by law, abortion must be punished.
As to liberals v. God and Christians, maybe you consider my view far-fetched? I come into contact with them (or hear about them and what they say) rather frequently. May I should consider myself unfortunate? I have argued with them, I have listened to them argue, etc. Maybe they have nice personalities, and maybe they are polite in religious discussions (though not all are), but if they reject God and His Word when the evidence has been presented affirmatively and conclusively, their personality and their mood does not matter; they hate God because they reject His love and His sacrifice of His own Son.
I must agree with you (with a sigh) that even those in "conservative" circles can be just as bad as Bill Clinton. But that does not change conservatism; and I don't excuse their behavior just because they claim to be conservatives (and I don't call them true conservatives), because real conservatives will preserve, not erode or disgrace, the moral values which made our Constitution a success in early America.
If you admire the Clintons, maybe you would be interesting in doing more research about them. As for my part, I cannot admire or support for public office those with a record of political and moral corruption.
I think I will stop here. I think I have just made my response and exhaustive read. I hope you managed to read it all! :S
Thanks for the response! I am in agreement with you up until abortion. Yet I still respect your perspective and point of view as your perspective and point of view. I am sure I am going to enjoy visiting your blog regularly.
I don't hear a lot about him. I think your voting is reasonable.
Nice posting.
Hello, Fida. I am glad you stopped by.
Yes, it is true that most people in America do not hear a lot about Ron Paul. The reason they don't hear much about him is that the media corporations (and those who own them) want certain kinds of people to win this presidential election. Therefore, they keep talking about certain candidates, and either ignore or downplay other candidates. This is what they are doing to Ron Paul. Because he is a man who believes in the Constitution, and putting the federal government back in its proper place, the media either ignores him, makes him look weird, or simply tells the American people that he has little chance of winning the election.
This is why some people, especially people on the Internet, say that if the media doesn't like a certain candidate, than that candidate is worthy of consideration, and possibly support. This isn't the best guideline for who to vote for, but it's a start.
Thanks for stopping by, and for taking the time to leave your comments. I appreciate it very much.
Hello Hercules,
I really appreciate for your great kindness and support to the petition.
Thank you very much.
Fida
Post a Comment