This line in my mind is the most significant. The real issue for the Founding Fathers was to make secure the blessings of liberty they had fought so hard to attain. This is why when you look at the rest of the Constitution you will not find what Government is supposed to do but how it is limited so that liberty is not interfered with or destroyed.
This is why you will here Barack Obama and other liberals look at the Constitution as both a flexible document and one that is flawed because it does not establish what government is supposed to do. The fact is the framers and the modern liberal have a very different view on liberty in relationship to government. The framers saw big government as the problem; modern liberal do not.
Liberty is a precious gift whether it is given by a government or God. The framers understood this and in fact revisited this question again and formed the Bill of Rights so that everyone understood how government was limited. They wanted to make it crystal clear what the government could not interfere with in our lives in this country.
Next: For Ourselves and Our Posterity
Showing posts with label limited government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label limited government. Show all posts
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Rant of the Week: Obama's Plan For Me
I was glancing at the magazine rack at work early this morning and saw the cover of Men's Health. "Obama's Plan for You". The issue of course is his health plan but the title is what got me. It was subtitled: For you Health, For your Finances and at that point I turned away.
Why in the world does this man think he has the right to plan my life in any way? Who does he think he is? This is the arrogance of liberals that somehow they think they have the right to plan your and my life. The purpose of government is not to plan my life and control it in this country. The purpose of government is to uphold and defend my right to plan and control my own life for myself. Who are these people that they think they have a better plan for me than me.
This is why the current health care plan must be stopped because it is a step in the direction of government directed health care and when that happens government begins to plan your life. That means that anything that could be deemed health related would fall under government jurisdiction. What you eat, what you drink, your activities suddenly fall under the governments regulatory power.
How huge will government be? It is already too big and it is the reason the country is struggling right now. Let the people be in charge of themselves and their health. This means private sector.
I only have one question: how people support this? I will tell you -- it is the same I want something for nothing attitude and someone else should take care of me. Such people who support such an idea are in support of the death of liberties in favor of their own selfish wants. Get a life liberals, you can't control your own life, leave mine alone.
Why in the world does this man think he has the right to plan my life in any way? Who does he think he is? This is the arrogance of liberals that somehow they think they have the right to plan your and my life. The purpose of government is not to plan my life and control it in this country. The purpose of government is to uphold and defend my right to plan and control my own life for myself. Who are these people that they think they have a better plan for me than me.
This is why the current health care plan must be stopped because it is a step in the direction of government directed health care and when that happens government begins to plan your life. That means that anything that could be deemed health related would fall under government jurisdiction. What you eat, what you drink, your activities suddenly fall under the governments regulatory power.
How huge will government be? It is already too big and it is the reason the country is struggling right now. Let the people be in charge of themselves and their health. This means private sector.
I only have one question: how people support this? I will tell you -- it is the same I want something for nothing attitude and someone else should take care of me. Such people who support such an idea are in support of the death of liberties in favor of their own selfish wants. Get a life liberals, you can't control your own life, leave mine alone.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
The Rabyd Theologian Looks at the Constitution -- Part 3 -- "In Order to Form a More Perfect Union"
"In order to form a more perfect union..."
Now you have to know a little history to understand this line. The original Constitution of the United States called 'The Articles of Confederation' was not working. The unity that had once existed between the various states during the revolution had basically disintegrated. The Articles gave the central government very little power --effectively none unless their was a war. The idea of forming a more perfect union was large in many peoples' minds. The thought of protecting the rights of states to run their own affairs was on the minds of others.
Biblically, a parallel existed as the tribes of Israel were much the same before the advent of the kingdom of Saul. The problem with this is some people believe that things were too free and wanted a king to protect them. The statement in Judges "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" is not a moral statement; it is a political one. Samuel himself was probably the author of judges and he was not pro-monarchy but quite the opposite. He can't be saying that the monarch got people to stop sinning because that was far from the truth. The statement is about the fact that each man stood in his own sovereignty before God himself. There was no king to answer to but God himself. The issue is that people often look to centralized authority in times of crisis. In the case of the time of judges, the authority was supposed to be God and His Law but judges would handle the crisis points empowered by God. Each man was very free and had massive liberty as long as he, by choice, followed the law of God. It was in short: a theocratic democracy.
In the United States at the time of late 1700's God was in the picture but not a ruler but as bystander and each state handled its own affairs, unfortunately there existed no central government with the power to handle things when to states had a dispute with each other. Union was not on any person's mind but states rights. The Constitution is a result of finding a better way to balance states rights with a need for a centralized power to handle crisis and disputes. The result was a limited central power but with strength within its limits.
The Constitution in and of itself was not powerful enough in many respects for some when regarding in the rights of individuals and states. The individual question was answered by the Bill of Right some years later. But the question of states verses Federal rights has always been heated as this was and still is not quite spelled out in the Constitution. This issue got so heated once we had a Civil War over it.
This line was an attempt to placate both sides -- we want to be united but we know it is an attempt at a more perfect union, not one that does not respect states' rights.
Next: Establish Justice
Now you have to know a little history to understand this line. The original Constitution of the United States called 'The Articles of Confederation' was not working. The unity that had once existed between the various states during the revolution had basically disintegrated. The Articles gave the central government very little power --effectively none unless their was a war. The idea of forming a more perfect union was large in many peoples' minds. The thought of protecting the rights of states to run their own affairs was on the minds of others.
Biblically, a parallel existed as the tribes of Israel were much the same before the advent of the kingdom of Saul. The problem with this is some people believe that things were too free and wanted a king to protect them. The statement in Judges "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" is not a moral statement; it is a political one. Samuel himself was probably the author of judges and he was not pro-monarchy but quite the opposite. He can't be saying that the monarch got people to stop sinning because that was far from the truth. The statement is about the fact that each man stood in his own sovereignty before God himself. There was no king to answer to but God himself. The issue is that people often look to centralized authority in times of crisis. In the case of the time of judges, the authority was supposed to be God and His Law but judges would handle the crisis points empowered by God. Each man was very free and had massive liberty as long as he, by choice, followed the law of God. It was in short: a theocratic democracy.
In the United States at the time of late 1700's God was in the picture but not a ruler but as bystander and each state handled its own affairs, unfortunately there existed no central government with the power to handle things when to states had a dispute with each other. Union was not on any person's mind but states rights. The Constitution is a result of finding a better way to balance states rights with a need for a centralized power to handle crisis and disputes. The result was a limited central power but with strength within its limits.
The Constitution in and of itself was not powerful enough in many respects for some when regarding in the rights of individuals and states. The individual question was answered by the Bill of Right some years later. But the question of states verses Federal rights has always been heated as this was and still is not quite spelled out in the Constitution. This issue got so heated once we had a Civil War over it.
This line was an attempt to placate both sides -- we want to be united but we know it is an attempt at a more perfect union, not one that does not respect states' rights.
Next: Establish Justice
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Whose Health is It Anyway?
In the ongoing debate on health care one thing seems very much lost in the shuffle -- Who's health is it anyway? The reason I ask this is because once we establish who owns the health of an individual does that not define who is responsible for that health?
1. My health belongs to me. It is my responsibility to both maintain and provide for.
2. I must take this responsibility, it is not some other person's or organization's responsibility.
3. No one has the right to take charge of my health from me.
Given these things I find two things reprehensible in the debate:
1. How many people think that someone else should be responsible for their health care. This continued passing the buck has been around since Genesis 3 but the fact is its you health quit looking to someone else to take care of it.
2. The government's continued think that they have the right to take control of my health care as if it belongs to them. Once my health is taken into their care what else are they going to take control of? Under Obama and a liberal Congress is their no end to the power they want to take away from the people and give to themselves?
3. The belief that good health care is a right. It is not a right, but a privilege of and advanced society and a person's ability to provide it for themselves through whatever means they can find.
My health is my own and if in the end I don't have the ability to pay for it that is my fault. What we have in this is a bunch of people who think they are going to live forever, so they do not provide for themselves the means to have heath care. Then when they get sick someone other than themselves must pay for it. One incompetence leads to another.
I like private insurance because it means I get to shop around and I get to provide for myself. The government always makes things difficult and they never do anything that has any true quality to it other than the military. If we give health care to them the quality will diminish and you can bet it will get very expensive for the already overburdened taxpayers. You know if we continue to tax the rich they will live somewhere else and that will ultimately be bad as they are the ones who dive the prosperity of the economy not the government.
The real solution 1) Kill Medicare altogether and 2) put limits on tort so the cost of health care can stay low.
IMHO
1. My health belongs to me. It is my responsibility to both maintain and provide for.
2. I must take this responsibility, it is not some other person's or organization's responsibility.
3. No one has the right to take charge of my health from me.
Given these things I find two things reprehensible in the debate:
1. How many people think that someone else should be responsible for their health care. This continued passing the buck has been around since Genesis 3 but the fact is its you health quit looking to someone else to take care of it.
2. The government's continued think that they have the right to take control of my health care as if it belongs to them. Once my health is taken into their care what else are they going to take control of? Under Obama and a liberal Congress is their no end to the power they want to take away from the people and give to themselves?
3. The belief that good health care is a right. It is not a right, but a privilege of and advanced society and a person's ability to provide it for themselves through whatever means they can find.
My health is my own and if in the end I don't have the ability to pay for it that is my fault. What we have in this is a bunch of people who think they are going to live forever, so they do not provide for themselves the means to have heath care. Then when they get sick someone other than themselves must pay for it. One incompetence leads to another.
I like private insurance because it means I get to shop around and I get to provide for myself. The government always makes things difficult and they never do anything that has any true quality to it other than the military. If we give health care to them the quality will diminish and you can bet it will get very expensive for the already overburdened taxpayers. You know if we continue to tax the rich they will live somewhere else and that will ultimately be bad as they are the ones who dive the prosperity of the economy not the government.
The real solution 1) Kill Medicare altogether and 2) put limits on tort so the cost of health care can stay low.
IMHO
Friday, August 21, 2009
The Rabyd Theologian Looks at the Constitution -- Part 2 -- "We the People"
For step on of this long running series I would like to look at the preamble of the Constitution. By far it is one of the best written things by man that is not Scripture. Here is the whole thing:
'We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'
The thing that starts this off is the "We the People of the United States..." Not a statement by a king or dictator to his subjects but an establishment of sovereignty by the people by the country. The Constitution lets us know who is ordering itself with this Constitution -- the People of the United States. This does have a few implications:
1. The government, whatever is established, is under authority of the people. In short, the people of this country sit as sovereign not the President or Congress or the Supreme Court. The people as a whole are the rulers.
2. There is a Biblical ramification in this for final judgment and relationship with God as a nation. As the people go, so does the relationship. If the people elect ungodly men to run themselves then it is the people that will be held responsible. Also, even if a godly men are placed in office, the sovereignty of the people means that this may not save them from God's judgment as God will hold the people responsible for their actions. There were times that Judah had good kings but because of the wickedness of the people they were still judged.
3. With the people as the sovereign entity, any government established would have to be a limited on so as not to upset this sovereignty. The order of government must be such that "We the People' is never violated.
Next: In Order to Form a More Perfect Union
'We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'
The thing that starts this off is the "We the People of the United States..." Not a statement by a king or dictator to his subjects but an establishment of sovereignty by the people by the country. The Constitution lets us know who is ordering itself with this Constitution -- the People of the United States. This does have a few implications:
1. The government, whatever is established, is under authority of the people. In short, the people of this country sit as sovereign not the President or Congress or the Supreme Court. The people as a whole are the rulers.
2. There is a Biblical ramification in this for final judgment and relationship with God as a nation. As the people go, so does the relationship. If the people elect ungodly men to run themselves then it is the people that will be held responsible. Also, even if a godly men are placed in office, the sovereignty of the people means that this may not save them from God's judgment as God will hold the people responsible for their actions. There were times that Judah had good kings but because of the wickedness of the people they were still judged.
3. With the people as the sovereign entity, any government established would have to be a limited on so as not to upset this sovereignty. The order of government must be such that "We the People' is never violated.
Next: In Order to Form a More Perfect Union
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
