Tag United States Congress

Doing the Right Thing

Allen Frederick 4 Comments

Scripture tells us: Someone may say, “I’m allowed to do anything,” but not everything is helpful. I’m allowed to do anything, but not everything encourages growth. People should be concerned about others and not just about themselves. 1 Corinthians 10:23-24 (GW)

In other words. In a Free society we are free to do lots of things, but there are things which are not wise to do. We are free to do these things, but not all things are for the common good or work to betterment of society.

Benjamin Franklin, statesman and signer of our Declaration of Independence, said: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” John Adams, another signer, echoed a similar statement: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Legality alone cannot be the guide for moral people. The moral question is, is it the ‘right’ thing to do? Keep in mind that slavery was legal; apartheid was legal; the Nazi’s Nuremberg Laws were legal; and the Stalinist and Maoist purges were legal.

Are today’s Americans virtuous and moral, or have we made immorality and corruption legal? Let’s think about it a little shall we?

Suppose I saw an elderly woman pain­fully huddled on a heating grate in the dead of winter. I credit Walter E. Williams for this analogy. She’s hungry and in need of shelter and medical attention. To help the woman, I walk up to you using intimidation and threats and demand that you give me $200. Having taken your money, I then purchase food, shelter and medical assistance for the woman.

Would I be guilty of a crime? A moral person would answer yes because I was stealing from my neighbor. Most Americans would agree that it would be theft regardless of what I did with the money.

Now comes the hard part.

Using Walter E. Williams’ analogy again.

What if instead of personally taking your money to assist the woman, I got together with other Americans and asked Congress to use Internal Revenue Service agents to take your money? In other words, does an act that’s clearly immoral and illegal when done privately become moral when it is done legally and collectively? To put it another way, does legality establish morality?

I believe that assisting one’s fellow man in need by reaching into one’s own pocket is praiseworthy and laudable. In fact scripture teaches the same thing. Remember the parable of the Good Samaritan:

“A man went from Jerusalem to Jericho. On the way robbers stripped him, beat him, and left him for dead. “By chance, a priest was traveling along that road. When he saw the man, he went around him and continued on his way. Then a Levite came to that place. When he saw the man, he, too, went around him and continued on his way. “But a Samaritan, as he was traveling along, came across the man. When the Samaritan saw him, he felt sorry for the man, went to him, and cleaned and bandaged his wounds. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day the Samaritan took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. He told the innkeeper, ‘Take care of him. If you spend more than that, I’ll pay you on my return trip.’ “Of these three men, who do you think was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by robbers?” Luke 10:30-36 (GW)

This man took from his own resources to help the man in need. The first part of this story reminds me more of the government thugs who beat down businessmen on their way into town to do business and leave them by the side of the road as road kill. The poor business man was minding his own business, had profit in his pocket, and these thugs and robbers beat him down and took it from him leaving him to fend for himself. What this fellow needed was some compassion and someone to look on him to tend to his wounds but instead what he got was more ridicule, insults, and another beat down from the passers-by who wanted to take even more from him.

A good neighbor, or good Samaritan, or better put, a good citizen would have compassion on someone who truly is in need and would reach into their own pocket to provide for this persons needs. This is true charity and this is what the bible refers to as caring for a neighbor. This scripture condemns the ones who ignored the person in need as well as the robbers who beat and stole from the person.

Jesus taught to go and do like the good Samaritan. Reaching into another’s pockets is despicable, dishonest and worthy of condemnation.

Some people call governmental handouts charity, but as far as charity is concerned, James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, said, “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” To my knowledge, the Constitution, as penned by Thomas Jefferson has not been amended to include charity as a legislative duty of Congress. Granted our Supreme court has figured out some way to weave the ‘General Welfare’ clause to include whatever congress wants to do in order to take money from one person to give to another. This is not done for charitable purposes but rather to maintain positions of power and control over the population. Making dependents of people is the aim and not tending to make these people better citizens. In order to offer this ‘assistance’ the government must steal the resources of another person thus depriving them of their rights and liberties. And some call this ‘charity’.

“Our current economic crisis, is a direct result of immoral conduct”. This again comes from Walter Williams. It is legal alright but it is immoral none-the-less.

I like how the purveyors of entitlements like to frame the argument that you are greedy and mean-spirited to deny help to the needy while at the same time they ignore their own greed and the mean-spiritedness of their own actions by demanding the property of their neighbor. They do not ask politely, they are not even concerned if the person from whom they are stealing can afford to have their possessions confiscated. Since the recipients of such ‘charity’ are not the ones actually stealing from their neighbor they somehow feel justified in wanting more and more of what belongs to their neighbor. This is called covetousness and is condemned by scripture. Just because something is legal does not mean it is the ‘right thing to do.’ And it is certainly not in the general welfare of society to be stealing from one person just to give to another.

Roughly two-thirds to three-quarters of our federal budget can be described as Congress’ taking the property of one American and giving it to another. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid account for nearly half of federal spending. Then there are corporate welfare and farm subsidies and thousands of other spending programs, such as food stamps, welfare and education. Yes, education. Education is a welfare program because you are not paying for the education of your own children but rather you are demanding that your neighbor pay for your child’s education. Since the cost of educating your child is spread among your neighbors you do not see the real cost and burden your actions is placing upon society and the burdens you are forcing your neighbors to bear.

According to a 2009 Census Bureau report, nearly 139 million Amer­icans — 46 percent — receive handouts from one or more federal programs, and nearly 50 percent have no federal income tax obligations. In other words roughly 50% of our population are taking something from their neighbor and giving nothing back. They are contributing nothing to the “general welfare” of their neighbors.

In the face of our looming financial calamity, what are we debating about? It’s not about the reduction or elimination of the immoral conduct that’s delivered us to where we are. It’s about how we pay for it — namely, taxing the rich, not realizing that even if Congress imposed a 100% tax on earnings higher than $250,000 per year, it would keep the government running for only 141 days. Ayn Rand, in her novel Atlas Shrugged, reminded us that “when you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good.” In other words when you legalize immorality you have people acting immorally and demanding more and more from their neighbors. There are too many thieves and robbers in our society and not enough good Samaritans.

That is the way I see it! What say you?

This has been A View from the Nest. The statements, comments, or opinions expressed are solely that of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of the host of this site or any affiliates thereof. Any questions or comments should be directed to myself and not to the host or hosts of this site.
Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Dictatorial Powers?

Allen Frederick 4 Comments

In those days Israel didn’t have a king. Everyone did whatever he considered right. Judges 21:25 (GW)

Two days after defying Republicans and the Constitution by appointing Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, President Obama visited the new agency to take a little time to gloat.

Making a victory lap of sorts at the independent agency, Obama cracked a joke, telling employees that he came by to help their new director move in.

When he announced Cordray’s appointment in Ohio on Wednesday, Obama made it clear that he would not wait for Congress to act on issues he deems pressing.

“When Congress refuses to act, and as a result hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them,” he said.

“I’ve got an obligation to act on behalf of the American people. And I’m not going to stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people we were elected to serve. Not with so much at stake, not at this make-or-break moment for the middle class.” Source The Hill

And our elected leaders said nary a peep about it. Where is the outrage? Where is the uproar? Where are those who swore on oath to uphold our Constitution?

Constitution of the United States of America

Image by The U.S. National Archives via Flickr

Ours is not a nation of men but of laws so eloquently spoken by John Adams. By taking an end run around congress Obama has set himself up as the dictator in chief. Congress is elected by the people to represent their interests and to act on their behalf. This action by Obama, like other actions rammed down the American people’s collective throats, shows exactly how little respect Obama has for the American people. Wednesday Obama gave the American people the proverbial finger. It is time we give him the proverbial kick in the butt right out the door.

In spite of the many valid criticisms leveled against John Adams, it is fair to argue that his ideal, that America was a “nation of laws, not of men,” has been the bed rock of our Nation’s longevity.  At every crisis faced by our nation, the Constitution has always been there to temper the heated passions and calm the political tempests.  The genius of the Constitution’s simplicity and brevity has been one of the keys to its permanence.  However, it is only a piece of paper.  It takes citizens to create a civil, law-abiding nation. 

Amoral relativism has reduced questions of right and wrong to simple expediency. Everyone doing what they think is right regardless of established law is a canker that becomes the death knell of free societies.

The American ideal is that we are “a nation of laws, not of men,”  but the unpleasant reality is that the ruling class obeys only the laws it chooses to obey.

“We the people”can persuade its ruling class to “choose to obey” its laws through various means, and not even the absolute monarchs of ancient times could casually disregard all of them.We need to challenge our representatives to take a stand against unconstitutional government and voice our positions firmly but politely, reminding them that they work on our behalf and were chosen to represent our interests not their own. Groups like the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, the TEA Party movement and other grass-roots activists groups have been successful in stemming the tide of tyranny rapidly overtaking our society.

Of course, there is always the punishment we can administer at the ballot box, but this is a “limited.” The rate of re-election for the House of Representatives hovers around 95%, and rarely drops below 90% . Senators enjoy high re-election rates as well, with the worst years of the modern era barely dipping below 80%. The most fabulously corrupt members of Congress have been there for decades.I guess we are gluttons for punishment. It is time we enforce our own term limits upon these ‘career politicians’. We must insist that they represent our interests or they will be replaced at the next election. One term until they learn that our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The growth of the modern super-state will continue to grow and become more unruly as it continues to circumvent or disregard legal restrictions on its power enumerated in the Constitution.We the people must hold our elected officials accountable to us and urge them to uphold and defend the Constitution as ‘rule of law.’ Things have degenerated to the point where no one even bothers asking if the actions taken by congress, the President, or the courts is constitutional. The government has become unhooked from the restraints of the constitution and it is now operating lawlessly.

A government that is not restrained by the ‘rule of law’ is both immoral and inefficient. It’s interesting to note that almost the only restraint on government power to survive the last few decades intact is the two-term limit on the presidency, imposed through the 22nd Amendment in 1951.  Of course, like any law, it could be changed – and there are people who wish to repeal the 22nd Amendment – but changing a law is vastly more difficult than ignoring it, particularly when dealing with amendments to the Constitution.

Equally strong term limits for Congress would go a long way toward draining the Washington cesspool, making each politician less attractive targets for graft, and preventing them from accumulating decades of power to insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions. In a similar vein, dramatic tax reform is the only reliable means of preventing Washington from believing it can appropriate unlimited funds to indulge its grand designs. I am a strong advocate for abolishing the IRS and instituting a flat tax or fair tax. Eliminate all tax loopholes and apply the tax to everyone. None is exempt thereby making everyone invested in how their tax money is being spent. With almost 50% of the population not paying any taxes is it any wonder there is a large percentage of the population in favor or raising taxes? Since they do not contribute they are not concerned about those who must pay the bill.

We need to take our country back but that requires effort on our part and the willingness to actually take part in our own leadership. We need to embrace the IDEAL that we are a self-governing people and not looking to be ruled by a ‘elite ruling class’. By our silence and inaction, we have allowed our current state of affairs. We have not sought to maintain our autonomy but rather went looking for a king. Well my friends a king is what we have crowned. Giving all authority and power to an individual or a ruling class delimits our own liberty and makes us slaves of the masters.

I do not know about you and your house but this current administration does not speak for me on nearly all matters pertaining to my life and liberty and pursuit of happiness, therefore the ruling class is not seeking to defend my liberties but is only interested in advancing their own agendas and gaining power and control over my freedoms.

And this is another view from the nest. What say you?

But those who are waiting for the Lord will have new strength; they will get wings like eagles: running, they will not be tired, and walking, they will have no weariness. Isaiah 40:31 (BBE)

Along for the journey

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Cooperation is not Compromise

Allen Frederick 1 Comment

“Integrity is not a conditional word. It doesn’t blow in the wind or change with the weather. It is your inner image of yourself, and if you look in there and see a man who won’t cheat, then you know he never will.” John D. MacDonald

When a man walks in integrity and justice, happy are his children after him. PROVERBS 20:7

It seems to me that the only time we hear the word compromise, or the concept of compromise is when the democrats do not have control of one house of the congress or the other. When they controlled both houses plus the White House I do not recall ever hearing the word compromise. Now that the American people voted to put some brakes on this current administration, every congressional impasse is met with the term compromise.

Have you noticed how it is usually the democrats telling the republicans that they need to compromise? If you can cite me examples of democrats willing to compromise with republicans I would welcome the response.

Compromising one’s ethics, integrity, and core values does not move morality and ethics forward, it dilutes them at best and negates them at worst.

Cooperation however can be achieved without compromising one’s principles and values. What we need are more men and women of conviction who will not compromise their values just to get along with the opposition.  With that being said I give you an article written by Debra Burgess. Be sure to stop by her website and show her some comment love.

Eagle out.

Cooperation For Integrity
By Debra Burgess

The time has come to learn what cooperation is. When I research it, I find the meaning to be “working or acting together for a common purpose or benefit”. Something stands out however; there is no synonym for its meaning to compromise.

Looking at historical references we can learn much. The downfall of nations all seem to begin in the heart of those who lead, or are in partnership with leaders. The downfalls begin because someone came into an agreement to compromise from what they knew to be right.

Imagine the possibilities if our leaders could be surrounded by those whose hearts are willing to cooperate but never compromise? Integrity could use some good press these days, but until we value it within ourselves we cannot appreciate its truth in others.

I love to encourage the heart of people to be who they are meant to be in Christ. My hope is anything offered of myself would be pleasing first to my Heavenly Father and secondly to bring a blessing to others.

http://www.debrabee.org

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Supreme Court Nominee Struck Dumb on Commerce Clause

Allen Frederick 1 Comment

Kagan-35
Image by Harvard Law Record via Flickr

Another shining example of educated morons. Harvard Law is on a roll with all their graduates apparently illiterate when it comes to matters of our own Constitution. It is no wonder, the study of the Constitution is not a requirement in Harvard Law school, international law however is.

Makes sense we are turning out international lawyers who are now running our country according to the laws of third world dictatorships.

I wonder how much Federal Money goes to Harvard Law School?

Sen. Tom Coburn asked Elana Kagan a simple straightforward question: can the government, under the guise of the Commerce Clause, pass a law requiring Americans to eat three vegetables a day? The video of this exchange, which you can see
Ms. Kagan’s response is one of stupefied, stunned silence. A long awkward pause follows the question. Her reaction was so blank that it would be uncharitable to our antlered friends in the forest to describe her facial expression as that of a deer caught in the headlights.
James Madison, who, as you may recall, is the Father of the Constitution and therefore may be presumed to have more right to speak to this issue than the mind-numbed Ms. Kagan, made it clear in Federalist Paper Number 42 that the purpose of the Commerce Clause was to prevent states from imposing import and export taxes on goods shipped across their borders from neighboring states.
Merchants in the days of the founding, in order to get their goods to metropolitan centers or to shipping ports, would often have to transport them across state lines. States had taken to charging import taxes on these goods when they came into their jurisdiction and slapping export taxes on them when they left.
Madison and the Founders recognized the threat this posed to harmony among the States of the newly created Union. Said Madison, if this practice were allowed to continue, “it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serous interruptions of the public tranquillity.” So the Commerce Clause was added to prevent this pernicious practice.
Let’s be clear: the Commerce Clause, as framed by the Founders, gives Congress no authority other than to ban the imposition of import and export fees by the various States. That’s it.
The fact that Dean Kagan does not understand this is alone reason enough to disqualify her from sitting on the highest bench in the land.
It is perhaps unsurprising to find that it is possible to graduate from Harvard Law School without ever once taking a class in constitutional law. Dean Kagan made a class in international law obligatory, but a class in constitutional law is still just an elective.Read more at action.afa.net
Related articles by Zemanta

While America Suffers Capital Hill Prospers

Allen Frederick 1 Comment

congress salary

A crumbling economy, more than 2 million constituents who have lost their jobs this year, and congressional demands of CEOs to work for free did not convince lawmakers to freeze their own pay.

Instead, they will get a $4,700 pay increase, amounting to an additional $2.5 million that taxpayers will spend on congressional salaries, and watchdog groups are not happy about it.

However, at 2.8 percent, the automatic raise that lawmakers receive is only half as large as the 2009 cost of living adjustment of Social Security recipients. thehill.com

The 2009 annual salary for rank-and-file senators and representatives is $174,000, up from last year’s $169,300.

The legislative pay hike comes as major U.S. employers shed jobs by the tens of thousands. Many worker salaries have been frozen or cut. Their benefits often have been slashed.

Families are pinching pennies and watching retirement accounts evaporate.In this decade, Congress has allowed the pay increase to go through for every year except 2007. The percentage increase is tied to private-sector wages and cannot be more than increases granted to general federal employees.

This follows the news from this weekend that Congress approved $93,000 more in petty cash for each member. Gatewaypundit.blogspot.com

I am all for people getting periodic MERIT raises but this automatic increase no matter what kind of job a person is doing has bankrupted this country. Capital Hill constantly pontificates on the sacrifices AMERICA has to make and then they turn around and pad their salaries and increase their benefits packages all at the expense of the taxpayer.

As the average American family is trying to survive this government induced economic recession, Capital Hill continues to spend OUR MONEY without any regard to the hardships they are placing upon their constituents. I am proposing a spending cut starting with all federal and public employees. I propose that all federal and public employees should have their wages and benefits reduced by the same percentage as the GDP index reduces. In other words the economy has shrunk by almost 6% since Obama took office so therefore the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and all public employees and offices must reduce all spending and wages by at least 6%.

Once they have done all that then they can start to eliminate all PORK and earmark spending by at least 6%. I propose that all federal, and public employees who live off of TAXPAYER money must have their wages  froze at the MEDIUM wage of all workers in their states. In other words all State Senators and Representatives can not earn more than the AVERAGE of all other state residents. They should not be earning huge wages while the people they represent are struggling to manage their households. Perhaps if all Federal, and Public employees would suffer along with their constituents then perhaps they will listen a little more intently when we say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. What say you?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related articles by Zemanta