Obama Debates Founding Fathers


The talk of the town is the upcoming Presidential Debate tomorrow evening and as such I thought I would ponder what would happen if President Obama had to actually debate our founders. Here in their own words are their rebuttals to Obama’s many accusations.

Taxes and Debt

Obama likes to say: “Are we going to double-down on the top-down economic policies that helped to get us into this mess? Or do we embrace a new economic patriotism?”And in response we could note that Obama Tax that has effected every working American citizen since he took office. Median household income has declined by $4,520 (8.2 percent) across the board since this president took office. That is the Obama Tax already in place even before the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire on Jan 1 2013.

First up in response to taxes we turn to Thomas Jefferson:

“The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large-scale.” And if 6 trillion dollars in new deficit spending isn’t large-scale swindling I do not know what is.

Point for Jefferson.

Next up…

Obama’s It’s not my fault I inherited a crisis.

In the first debate Obama repeatedly invoked his now-familiar refrain about the financial crisis he “inherited”: “When I walked into the Oval Office, I had more than a trillion-dollar deficit greeting me. And we know where it came from…”

Yes we do actually. It’s true that the economy Obama inherited wasn’t the solid recovery that began some months after 9/11 under President George W. Bush and his Republican Congress. Instead, it was the gravely weakened economy of Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Harry Reid (D-NV) and their Democrat congressional majorities in both houses. On January 3, 2007, the date that the Democrat-controlled 110th Congress took office after a record 52 months of job growth accelerated by Bush administration tax cuts, unemployment was at 4.6 percent, and the economy was growing at three times the current rate.

Let’s turn to former President James Wilson for his response to Obama’s claims of inheriting a mess.

“[The President] is the dignified, but accountable magistrate of a free and great people.” –James Wilson

Ultimately it is the job of the President to look after the affairs of the state, and if he sees a problem it is his responsibility to discuss that problem. After all Obama asked us for the job of inheriting Bush’s fiscal mess. I guess he thought if Bush could get away with out-of-control spending then he could get away with even more.

Next up Jobs:

Obama will insist that the latest jobs numbers support his economic plan — “We found out the unemployment rate fell to its lowest rate since I took office. It’s a reminder this country has come too far to turn back now.”(in spite of all his efforts to shut it down completely)

Obama will then try to back-up his claim with another report from the Dept of Labor. A DoL report noting that weekly jobless claims dropped by 30,000 to a mere 364,000 new unemployment claims, lower than it was when Obama was elected —

But if you take time to read the fine print in the DoL data you will find this:

“One large state didn’t report some quarterly figures.” That “one large state” would happen to be the nation’s largest state, California, and a DoL analyst concluded that the “missing figures” account for most of the decline. ( in other words there was no decline, it was an accounting trick)

John Adams what do you have to say to this?

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

Facts have never stopped a democrat before, and I am sure they will not stop Obama now.

Next up the 47% comment

Vice President Joe Biden couldn’t help himself but to hammer Paul Ryan with the 47% comment over and over as if to imply that the Romney Ryan ticket is not concerned about these people.

Let’s start by saying 47% of Americans pay no federal income taxes is correct, it also coincides with Obama’s current support in the polls — and that was the basis for Romney saying they will not support him and thereby he is not concerned about trying to reach them.

By contrast Obama believes 100 percent of Americans are dependent on government, as he made plain in his now-infamous assertion, ‘You didn’t build that. Somebody else [read: “government”] made that happen.’ The Democrat plan envisions that all Americans would be enslaved on the government plantation.” and looking to government for their needs to be met.

Benjamin Frankly chimes in with a response to this argument:

“Repeal that [welfare] law, and … industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.”

And this explains why democrats are always opposed to welfare reform. By changing welfare into workfare you enable an individual to mend their own circumstances and thusly they are no longer looking to the government for help. Well stated Ben.

You see folks Democrats could care less what hardships you face in life as long as you are dependent upon them to bring you limited relief. They do not wish to see you prosper but rather they want you to stay as you are or even get progressively worse, because by so doing they will increase in their own power and influence in your life, thus depriving you of liberty and making you a slave to the state. Republicans believe in personal freedom.

James Madison wanted to jump into this discussion with this:

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”

Next up Foreign Policy

Obama is going to do his best to avoid any talk about Libya and the consulate raid and later deaths. The news outlets are falling all over themselves to find someone to pin the blame on but actually the buck stops with the White House and the commander-in-chief, Barry O.

Libya is just the latest symptom of a larger problem, and that is Obama’s appeasement of our enemies — from his apology tour following his election, to his continual snubbing of our most significant ally in the Middle East, Israel. He seems to have time to appear on many television programs and fund-raising tours but he can not seem to find the time to actually meet with foreign leaders to discuss the Middle East meltdown.

John Adams boldly condemns Obama on this issue when he said:

“National defense is one of the cardinal duties of a statesman.”

Yes indeed Mr Adams, I am sure fund-raising, golfing, family vacations, late night television appearances are just as important too! Right?

Oh there is more how about Fund-raising Irregularities?

The issue of illegal foreign and fraudulent on-line campaign donations is important, and yet another reason not to trust Obama.

What do you have to say about that  Mr Adams?

“If an election … can be procured by a party through artifice or corruption, the Government may be the choice of a party for its own ends, not of the nation for the national good.” –John Adams

Our closing remarks on this debate are brought to you by none other than George Washington and Noah Webster.

“A few short weeks will determine the political fate of America for the present generation, and probably produce no small influence on the happiness of society through a long succession of ages to come.”George Washington

‘In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate — look to his character.’ Noah Webster

Our nation is at such a turning point and I ask us all to look at the character of the men who want to be our leaders and decide which one holds to the highest standard in personal conduct and character. Let prudence by your guide.

And 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.
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Worst Call Ever! or Was It?


All the talk today has been about the LAST PLAY of the Green Bay-Seattle football game. All the people ‘in the know’ have cried foul over the final call by the referee. All the buzz has been about how the ‘NFL franchise’ is being tarnished by these ‘unprofessional’ replacement refs calling the games.

That got me to thinking.. watch out folks when this bird-brain starts thinking.

Whoever enters an athletic competition wins the prize only when playing by the rules. 2 Timothy 2:5 (GW)

Anyway I only have a few things to say about the replacement refs, the tarnishing of the franchise, and the result of the last play of the Packers and Seahawks game.

Tarnishing the brand?

Well if wearing PINK SHOES and PINK gloves does not tarnish the brand then I think the NFL can survive a few weeks or even a season of ‘unprofessional’ referees. If the sissification (my made-up word for the kid-glove tackle policies of the NFL) of game play does not tarnish the franchise of the NFL neither will unprofessional referees.

Apparently the team owners are not concerned about tarnishing the brand since they are the ones who are supposedly behind the lock-out of the regular referees over defined pension benefits packages. (Those costly unfunded benefits that are drowning cities and states in red ink.)

The NFL referees only work part-time averaging about 20 games a year and hold down other jobs as their main career. Yet they are paid on average around $149.000+ a year. And want more of course.

We Are All Professionals Here

The players are crying about safety issues and fairness in officiating and yet they all are paid pretty handsomely to play a “GAME”. In addition they refer to themselves as PROFESSIONALS and as such I would think they could behave PROFESSIONALLY with or without professional supervision. Hey just saying.

Everyone on the field and on the sidelines are familiar with the rules of the game and yet, as I have been observing, it is apparent to me that the players and the coaches are taking advantage of the ‘unprofessional’ staff officiating thus showing a total disregard and lack of respect for the role of the officials on the field and the rules of the game.

You would think PROFESSIONALS would conduct themselves with more PROFESSIONALISM. Or could it be that FOOTBALL is at the core a brutal sport played by brutal men, who enjoy rough-housing on Sunday’s?

As a point of perspective I recall, in my younger days, the pick-up football games we would play at the local school yard after school and on weekends. There were no officials, and we all played for the love of the game. Yes there were a few who would ‘play dirty’ but even as kids we all knew this was wrong and would police ourselves. If the game got too out of hand we simply quit playing and went home. BUT WE WERE NOT PAID MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO PLAY.

Was it Really a Bad Call?

Finally to address the last play of the Packers/Seahawks game that seems to be causing all the controversy today I have only one thing to say. Why did Jennings CATCH THE BALL? All he had to do was BAT IT DOWN and the whole thing would be a non-issue.

So now I have to ask who really made the biggest bone-headed decision in that game? The referees calling it or Jennings who caught the ball? By Jennings catching the ball he put himself into a position to get a simultaneous possession call which he should know would be called for the offense. AND YET he held on to the ball… or could it have been that Golden Tate was the one who was actually holding onto the ball since Jennings would have every reason to let go of the ball?

Hummmmmmmmmm perhaps the replacement refs made the right call after all?

In the end though it is ONLY A GAME get over it already!

But what do I know I am only a bird-brained commentator.

This has been a view from the nest. And 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.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Why I Can Not Vote Democrat


 

 

There are lists circulating the Internet listing the 12 or more reasons why people vote republican or democrat and I was going to make a list why I vote republican but that list would be very short since the only reason I vote republican is because I can not vote democrat. Now I would prefer to vote Constitutional Conservative but since there is no Constitutional Conservative party candidate on the ballot I am left with only a couple of options. Not vote at all, vote for a third-party candidate which is most likely not going to win, or vote for one of the other two candidates and since this article is about why I can not vote democrat that leaves me with only one option the Republicans get my vote by default. Now if the democrats ever change their policies to include my positions then I could just as likely vote democrat, but since I have been of voting age the democrat party has continued to exclude more and more of my positions leaving me with absolutely nothing in common with the current democrat party. So let’s see why it is exactly that I can not vote democrat.

  1. RIGHT TO LIFE: I am a strong supporter of the Declaration of Independence right to LIFE provision. And that to me means all life should be considered SACRED and should be protected. ALL have the RIGHT TO LIFE and that right should be protected at all costs. Since the democrat party protects at all cost the killing of innocent children and are not the party of “Right to life” I can not vote democrat.
  2. DEFENSE OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE: Since I believe solid families make for a solid community I support the defense of marriage act. Since the democrats have come out so strongly for non-traditional marriage and redefining the terms of marriage they again leave no door open for those of us who happen to believe in the traditional marriage make-up. Therefore I can not vote democrat
  3. FATHER KNOWS BEST: Yes I know this is old-fashioned but marginalizing the role of fathers in our society has led to many ills. Many souls who are imprisoned will lament the absence of a solid father figure. Studies show households with both fathers and mothers outperform homes of single parents in many key factors. According to childwelfare.gov Fathers are important in the healthy development of children. The democrat “war on poverty” policies have had a devastating effect on many urban families. And as such I can not vote for more of the same so I can not vote democrat.
  4. TAXES: The progressive income tax has cost many American jobs. We now have the highest corporate tax rate of any developed nation and as a result many companies are taking jobs and investments off shore. As a result our job market is being adversely affected. Democrats seem to like HIGH TAXES and have yet to propose any solution to this high corporate taxation. Therefore again I can not vote for a failed policy and  thusly I can not vote democrat.
  5. OBAMACARE: This really does not need much of an explanation. I do not believe the federal government should be involved in health care at all. Medicare and Medicaid are failing and since the government is in charge of these programs I am convinced that another program like it will fail just as miserably. Besides forcing an individual to buy anything is unconstitutional even if the supreme court says that it is.
  6. THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: The second amendment has been a thorn in the Democrat side for years in fact I recall then candidate Obama saying that we like to cling to our guns and our religion. With that attitude toward gun owners I find it impossible to pull the lever for a Democrat so as a believer in the second amendment I can not vote democrat.
  7. THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Corporations are indeed a group of people. Brick and mortar do not create jobs nor pay taxes nor hire employees and since the democrats have a real problem with corporations contributing to candidates other than democrats I can not vote democrat. Usually the democrats love the Supreme court but in the “Citizen’s United” case they are singing another tune. Recently Obama and the democrat party has gone on a rampage against business and free enterprise and as a result I can not vote democrat.
  8. FREEDOM OF RELIGION: Forcing religious organizations to violate their conscience is unconscionable. The constant railing against religion disenfranchises those of us who take our religion seriously. Again this comes down to a right protected by the Constitution and yet another reason I can not vote democrat.
  9. THE RULE OF LAW: Ours is a nation governed by the rule of law not the rule of men. However since taking office Obama has ignored Constitutionally passed legislation and has ignored Supreme court orders. His is a lawless administration but no one from the democrat party seems to have a problem with Obama’s selective refusal to obey or enforce the law. And since I believe very strongly in the ‘rule of law’ I can not vote democrat.
  10. THE CONSTITUTION: This founding document is the ruling law of this nation and its enumerated powers clause was meant to be a hindrance to run-away government. Our founders knew the dangers of too much government and tried to safe guard future generations by limiting the powers of the central government. Democrats have a history of finding clever ways to get around the Constitution of the United States even so much as calling it “living and breathing”, meaning that it has no regulatory meaning at all if it can be changed at the whim of any lawmaker or special court ruling. I can not support interpreters of the Constitution, what I can support are defenders of the ORIGINAL INTENT of the Constitution. Therefore I can not vote democrat.
  11. STATES RIGHTS: Once again we are faced with a Constitutional dilemma. Powers not specifically granted to the federal government remains with the states or the individual. Since taking office and appointing Eric Holder as US Attorney General there have been many lawsuits brought against the STATES regarding Voter ID Laws, Defense of Marriage amendments to state constitutions, illegal immigration enforcement, and even attempts to tell companies which states they can work in. All this is beyond the powers enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. States are free to operate independently of federal intervention. Where the federal government fails to fulfill its duties to the citizens the citizens have a right to expect their States to work in their best interests.   Since I believe in the sovereignty of states and enumerated powers granted to the federal government by the states I can not vote democrat.
  12. A STRONG NATIONAL DEFENSE: This issue comes up each time the democrats gain control of both houses of congress and the white house. Defense spending is the only area they ever find waste and cost cuts. No other department is ever considered for any cuts or reductions it is always the military. The current administration is unilaterally disarming our military while the rest of the world is arming themselves. This I feel is a very dangerous policy and as a result I can not vote democrat.
  13. SCHOOL CHOICE: I believe parents should be given options when it comes to educating their own children. Since democrats are beholden to the teachers unions they are against school choice and any voucher program and education reform in general. One of the current administrations first act as an elected leader was to end the DC VOUCHER program. For this reason and because I believe in school choice I can not vote democrat.
  14. ENTITLEMENT REFORM: The democrat’s experiment with the “great society programs” have all proven to be failures. Yet there is not one democrat willing to discuss the failures and offer solutions or fixes. Whenever a proposal is made by the opposing party to discuss the failures of these programs it is demagogued to death and the sponsors of the bill are demonized. For this reason I can not vote democrat.
  15. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY: No budget since 2007. The primary responsibility for congress is to present a budget every year. The democrat controlled Senate has not produced a budget in over 3 years. As a result we are accumulating $1 trillion plus debt every year. This is irresponsible and reprehensible. And another reason I can not vote democrat.
  16. NATIONAL SECURITY: Border control is important. Our country is being infiltrated by trespassers and the current administration wants to grant these lawbreakers amnesty, and bestow upon them rights retained for true American citizens. There are many who wish to come to this country legally and I am all for LEGAL ORDERLY immigration policy, but this, crash our borders, squatters rights is not in the best interest of this country and as such I can not vote democrat since they promote this continued illegal activity.
  17. FOREIGN POLICY: Two words “Arab Spring”. A huge reason I can not vote democrat.
  18. TEA PARTY: Democrats do not want us therefore I can not vote democrat.

And the list goes on and on. Again I do want to emphasize that these are reasons why I can not vote democrat and not reasons to vote republican since many republicans fail to meet these same criteria, but since the democrats are opposed to every one of these points there is no room in the democrat party for someone who holds to these principles. The only conclusion I can come to is the democrat party does not wish to include people like me who believe like I do and since they are excluding me and my views I can not vote democrat.

Now 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.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Onerous Legislations


But He said, Woe to you, the lawyers, also! For you load men with oppressive burdens hard to bear, and you do not personally [even gently] touch the burdens with one of your fingers. Luke 11:46 (AMP)

United States Senate Seal

United States Senate Seal (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

After blasting the Senate last week for passing a 600-page bill no one had time to read, Sen. Rand Paul(R-Ky.) introduced legislation that would force the Senate to give its members one day to read bills for every 20 pages they contain. And he was looked at as if he had two heads. I mean why should congress actually be FORCED to read these bills? They are way too cumbersome and difficult for the average member of congress to understand. Thus was the sediments of John Conyers in regards to the monstrosity known as Obamacare. He said so on the Senate floor.

“For goodness sakes, this is a 600-page bill. I got it this morning,” Paul said, just before the Senate approved a massive bill extending highway funding, federal flood insurance and low student loans rates.

“Not one member of the Senate will read this bill before we vote on it,” he added.

Paul also introduced related legislation Friday, S. 3359, that would prohibit the inclusion of more than one subject in a single bill.

“At the very least, we ought to adhere to our own rules,” Paul Rand said. “Forty-eight hours is still a challenge to find out everything in here.”

The highway-flood-student loan bill came up just one day before authorization for highway spending was set to expire, and two days before the interest rate on loans was set to double to 6.8 percent. But Paul said that is no excuse for rushing a bill to the floor without giving senators a chance to learn what’s in it.

The Senate voted 72-22 to waive the rule requiring a 48-hour layover, after Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and other Republicans raised a point of order against the bill because it came up too quickly.

Did you ever notice how these politicians always make it sound like there is NO TIME. We must act now! They are always in a hurry and to quote Obama; “we can’t wait”. And yet it has been more than 3 years since the congress has passed a BUDGET. Apparently America can wait for a budget but not these SPENDING BILLS!

Paul also noted that Senate rules require bills to be held for 48 hours before they receive a vote so members can read them, but said the Senate failed to follow even that minimal rule. Another rule these lawbreakers do not wish to follow because it would hinder them from doing what they want to do. There isn’t a law these lawbreakers like and yet they make darn sure that the rest of us buckle and bow down to their wishes. Why should the rest of us obey the laws these lawbreakers write? Why should we allow them to enforce their wills upon us when they are apparently not under any such restraint?

While the bill officially ended the debate on highway funding, flood insurance and student loans, Congress acted too late to have the measure signed into law by President Obama over the weekend.Instead, both the House and Senate approved a bill extending the highway and student loan rate for one week, because several days are needed to prepare the bill for the president’s signature. And yet they did not seem to find the time to actually READ THE BILL.

And like all other bills that get “forced” upon the American people this bill will stay in effect in perpetuity. All these new bills seem to take on a life of their own. They are hardly ever challenged or repealed. And when they are challenged in Superior court, the court finds a way to rubber stamp them.

Any efforts to curb government spending is met with STAUCH opposition from both sides of the political aisle. Although all new laws and “new court rulings” are seen to be written in stone, the founding document of this republic is constantly being revised and transformed into an entirely different document than what was penned in Philadelphia. There is never any challenge to legislators’ attacks on the constitution but no one ever challenges the validity of all these NEW LAWS and regulations streaming out of congress at the rate of thousands upon thousands of pages each year. WHY are these laws supposedly “etched in stone” while our Constitution is considered to be “living and breathing”?

God’s laws are the only ones which were CARVED IN STONE and they filled two stone tablets. Today’s law makers inscribe their laws on parchment paper and they fill thousands of pages of government speak. Such voluminous tomes should be on book shelves and not in the government archives. For example:

  • Leo Tolstoy‘s Classic Novel War and Peace contained 1424 pages in the English translation. However, due to font and page size, that can obviously vary somewhere between 1200-1600. And many people have actually read the whole thing.
  • Any Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” has about 1100 pages. Which has been read by many and is assigned reading in some schools
  • The King James Bible has over 700 pages. Many have read this many times in their life.

Obamacare has over 2400 pages none of which anyone who signed the bill has ever read. I guess it really wasn’t exciting reading. Or perhaps it is not worth the paper upon which it was written? Or could it be that no one really cared enough to read it? Or was it deliberately vague to be the vehicle to push forth every dumb idea the government has from this day forward? I think the latter is probably the most accurate of descriptors. The law empowers the executive branch of government. through its varied agencies, particularly the Department of Health and Human Services, which was given almost carte blanche authority to regulate the American citizen and its varied entities under the guise of managing health care.

All the secularists who bash the Christian bible and those who hold to its world view prefer this fluid lawmaking body over the structured laws of both God and our Constitution. The secularists apparently love the idea of thousands upon thousands of rules and regulations forced upon them and their fellow Americans as opposed to the personal freedom given to them by our Creator and codified in the Constitution. Our Constitution was written on only 4 pages and those 4 pages were enough to establish this great nation. Now since we have become so secular and I might add LAWLESS it takes thousands upon thousands of pages of rules and regulations to regulate our behaviour. On the contrary I believe because we have left the moral laws of God and of our Constitution and replaced Him with the whims of lawless men, we find ourselves faced with these lawless laws being written by lawless men who wish to control everyone but themselves, and “we the people” have to suffer at the hands of their incompetence and they do not even do us the honor of actually READING what they are SIGNING.

Those of us who enter into any LEGAL agreement know enough to READ a binding agreement before SIGNING it. Our legislators apparently feel they are ABOVE the average person and do not have to stoop to our level to actually read what they will be forcing their fellow citizens to endure. And since most of these elected elites exempt themselves from these same laws they do not feel they need to worry themselves with the details. How arrogant, how condescending can you be?

I prefer the moral laws God inscribed in stone above anything man has written on parchment. At the very least let us get back to the limits placed upon this wayward government by the Constitution. To think that wanting to uphold the “Supreme law of the land” is considered extreme by these lawless leaders and those who are content with enacting feckless laws.

And 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.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Doing the Right Thing


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.
Enhanced by Zemanta