Anyone who is a true friend of liberty must be disturbed by the substance of the president's address last night. Most of his comments reflect an assent to Socialism in virtually every area of our political life.
While he would describe himself as a strict constructionist of the Constitution, his words prove that his interpretation of the powers and duties of the federal government are just as "dynamic" as the most ardent liberal.
"Each of us is guided by our own convictions -- and to these we must stay faithful. Yet we're all held to the same standards, and called to serve the same good purposes: To extend this nation's prosperity; to spend the people's money wisely; to solve problems, not leave them to future generations; to guard America against all evil; and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us. "
Notice, not guided by the Constitution, but by "our own convictions." We must each "stay faithful" not to the Constitution, but to these convictions. This means that the Muslim, intent on the reconstruction of America according to Shira law must stay faithful to his convictions. It also means that pro-abortionists must stay faithful to their convictions.
Of course, the Constitution provides no warrant for "extending the nation's prosperity" as a function of government, except that government should not interfer with or restrict the liberty of individuals and groups to engage in commerce. The idea that the government should determine the direction of economic activity is Marxist, not American. The Soviet Union followed this modle of "command economy" with disastrous results. Such policies result in shortages, inferior products and political bondage.
To "guard America against all evil," is at once presumptuous and blasphemous and displays, once again, that whatever brand of Christianity the president may subscribe to, it is not grounded in biblical theology. Only the gospel can "deliver" men from evil.
"Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans, and to help them to build a future of hope and opportunity -- and this is the business before us tonight."
In order for the government to "make life better," it must first determine what a "better life" looks like. This makes priests of government officials. Those "Americans" who have a different idea about what makes life "better" must, of course, be dealt with. This is not merely political rhetoric, it is a declaration of war on personal freedom and responsibility.
There is too much in the address to deal with extensively. However, it would be instructive to know how all those who were so recently alarmed over attempts to restrict their "freedom of expression," will use their freedom to respond to this address.
Will Dr. Dobson take the president to task for taking such liberties with the Constitution? Will other "pro family" groups recognize that there are no "parental rights" in a government that assumes powers to itself as it sees fit?
President Lincoln correctly observed that no foreign power could ever defeat our freedom, but that domestic enemies are always at work to destroy liberty.
The real threat to our liberty is not Al Queda, Iran or any other foreign power. The real threat to our liberty is those who seek to "make life better," and they are seated in the offices of our Executive, Legislative and Judicial institutions.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Friday, January 19, 2007
What is this bleating of sheep?
Victory for Grassroots Lobbying--Bennett Amendment Passes Senate
E-mail January 19, 2007 from >From the HSLDA E-lert Service...
Dear HSLDA Members and Friends,
Last night, the U.S. Senate approved the Bennett amendment by a vote of 55-43. American citizens will remain free to organize and contact their congressional representatives without being forced to comply with federal regulation and oversight.
The Bennett amendment removed section 220, the grassroots lobbying provision, from S. 1. Section 220 would have redefined lobbying to include "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying." Entities that engaged in grassroots lobbying would have had to comply with all federal lobbying disclosure laws, including registration with Congress and the filing of quarterly reports to Congress, or face serious consequences.
The Bennett amendment would not have passed without the calls and support of you and millions of other concerned citizens. The senators who supported the amendment were very thankful for your calls and credited them with this victory. (Edited by Theophilus)
----------------------------------------
There is nothing to celebrate here.
Once again, Christians have demonstrated that they can be led like sheep based on misrepresentation of fact (remember Teri Schaivo?). How many bothered to read SB 1 to see if they were being told the truth (remember the Bereans?)
The only "victory" here is for groups whose existence depends on them being able to raise large sums of money through the exploitation of crises.
Actual language from the dreaded Section 220:
"`(4) FILING BY GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRMS- Not later than 45 days after a grassroots lobbying firm first is retained by a client to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, such grassroots lobbying firm shall register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.'."
So, is HSLDA acknowledging that it is a "lobbying firm?" How about FoF and AFA? If so, who is the "client" by whom they have been "retained" and how much are they being "paid" to influence the "general public?"
Isaiah Chapter 59
14 And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.
15 Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.
E-mail January 19, 2007 from >From the HSLDA E-lert Service...
Dear HSLDA Members and Friends,
Last night, the U.S. Senate approved the Bennett amendment by a vote of 55-43. American citizens will remain free to organize and contact their congressional representatives without being forced to comply with federal regulation and oversight.
The Bennett amendment removed section 220, the grassroots lobbying provision, from S. 1. Section 220 would have redefined lobbying to include "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying." Entities that engaged in grassroots lobbying would have had to comply with all federal lobbying disclosure laws, including registration with Congress and the filing of quarterly reports to Congress, or face serious consequences.
The Bennett amendment would not have passed without the calls and support of you and millions of other concerned citizens. The senators who supported the amendment were very thankful for your calls and credited them with this victory. (Edited by Theophilus)
----------------------------------------
There is nothing to celebrate here.
Once again, Christians have demonstrated that they can be led like sheep based on misrepresentation of fact (remember Teri Schaivo?). How many bothered to read SB 1 to see if they were being told the truth (remember the Bereans?)
The only "victory" here is for groups whose existence depends on them being able to raise large sums of money through the exploitation of crises.
Actual language from the dreaded Section 220:
"`(4) FILING BY GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRMS- Not later than 45 days after a grassroots lobbying firm first is retained by a client to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, such grassroots lobbying firm shall register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.'."
So, is HSLDA acknowledging that it is a "lobbying firm?" How about FoF and AFA? If so, who is the "client" by whom they have been "retained" and how much are they being "paid" to influence the "general public?"
Isaiah Chapter 59
14 And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.
15 Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Much ado about nothing?
Focus on the Family, the American Family Association and HSLDA have all sent alerts to their constituents alleging that Section 220 of SB1 is intended to eliminate grassroots lobbying. While it is unquestionably important for us to protect our right to petition our elected representatives, it is equally important that we be correctly informed about the issues involved.
I have read Section 220 and can find no danger to the kind of activities in which these groups normally engage, e.g., sending alerts to their members. In fact, sub-section (18)(a) would seem to exclude such groups.
Please notice the use of terms like "paid" and "client." These do not seem to apply to FoF, AFA or HSLDA.
I would be glad for the impartial assessment of any qualified analist in clarifying this matter.
I have read Section 220 and can find no danger to the kind of activities in which these groups normally engage, e.g., sending alerts to their members. In fact, sub-section (18)(a) would seem to exclude such groups.
Please notice the use of terms like "paid" and "client." These do not seem to apply to FoF, AFA or HSLDA.
I would be glad for the impartial assessment of any qualified analist in clarifying this matter.
Thursday, January 4, 2007
Swearing on the Koran
There is a good deal of controvery over the fact that Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the US Congress, has announced his intention to take the Oath of Office with his hand on the Koran rather than the Bible.
Three points should be observed:
1. The Constitution does not require that ANY book be employed, simply that officials take an oath, the text of which is established by statute. The actual "swearing-in" is done in a group setting; the individual oath-taking is merely ceremonial and has no legal significance.
2. The value of the oath sworn by any particular official is only as meaningful as the underlying value system to which he holds, i.e., if he doesn't mean to keep his word, it doesn't matter whether he holds a Bible, Koran or the Reader's Digest. In the case of Rep. Ellison, it is a question of his personal integrity as well as the degree to which, as a Muslim, he is bound to keep his word to what he must consider an "infidel" society.
3. Rep. Ellison's claims that it is his right to use whatever book he chooses because the US is a nation of religious tolerance. It is legitimate to ask whether the Koran, as a system of belief and law, could create and sustain such a culture of liberty.
Perhaps Rep. Ellison could point out where such a Muslim based culture of liberty currently exists or has ever existed.
Three points should be observed:
1. The Constitution does not require that ANY book be employed, simply that officials take an oath, the text of which is established by statute. The actual "swearing-in" is done in a group setting; the individual oath-taking is merely ceremonial and has no legal significance.
2. The value of the oath sworn by any particular official is only as meaningful as the underlying value system to which he holds, i.e., if he doesn't mean to keep his word, it doesn't matter whether he holds a Bible, Koran or the Reader's Digest. In the case of Rep. Ellison, it is a question of his personal integrity as well as the degree to which, as a Muslim, he is bound to keep his word to what he must consider an "infidel" society.
3. Rep. Ellison's claims that it is his right to use whatever book he chooses because the US is a nation of religious tolerance. It is legitimate to ask whether the Koran, as a system of belief and law, could create and sustain such a culture of liberty.
Perhaps Rep. Ellison could point out where such a Muslim based culture of liberty currently exists or has ever existed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)