You are replying to a post made by: Hot_Single_Dude
Where did you found this bribed antilife Doctor any way Faith? Just imagine he calls him self a Doctor... I got a butcher who is much more "Doctor" than this so called Doc of urs
My point is this; the Constitution defines 'natural rights" as Rights that protect us from government tyranny :
The right to freedom of political and religious speech.
The right to bear arms, to not have our homes taken over by the government.
The right to be secure in our personal property and papers without unreasonable searches.
The right to due process of law, to a speedy trial by jury.
The right to protection from cruel and unusual punishment.
The right of protection from the government interpreting the Constitution to establish its own right to violate principle.
The right to individual state's rights since the federal government is only authorized to do what specifically is given them by the Constitution.
All of these natural rights have everything to do with protecting our liberties from government tyranny and nothing to do with guaranteeing that we personally have food, clothes, housing, or health care. When you give your liberties to the government in exchange for the security they promise, you end up with neither security nor liberty. That is the lesson of history and the result of informed thinking and common sense (which unfortunately may not be as common as it once was in America). The government often causes an increase in hardships simply by going beyond their authority specifically given to them in the Constitution. The government causes more problems than it says it wants to solve by infringing on natural rights of liberty.
If we want to "fix" health care we need free market principles, not more government control. If we wish to have a thriving economy we must stop making it a sin to have profit and we must end the income tax!!! (That's another article).
Do I want everyone to have health care? Do I want everyone to have food? Do I want all to have housing? You better bet that I do and the only way to increase the chances that all have what they need is to unleash freedom, and restrict this insane federal power grabbing, socialist, tyrannical government to its given Constitutional limits. Live Free Or Die!!!
The liberals are masters at using emotions to move people to give up the essential principles of long term liberty. Emotions are short term and often result in the proverbial "unintended consequences" problem. Principles of liberty are based on absolute truth rather than subjective emotions. Compassion is great and care for the hurting is great. A desire to overcome what we notice as injustice is very important however we will never overcome injustice by trampling on the principles of liberty. In our scenario, I am sure some of you were quite shocked when I said; "The man does not have a natural right to be treated." If you define natural rights in the wrong way, you are making a huge mistake since the application could then be applied to many other things. For example; let's say a man is hungry, does he not have a need that is immediate? If he has not eaten for a week and stumbles to the sidewalk falling down faint with hunger does he have a natural right to another person's food? If I walk by and see him is it that he has a right to my food or is it that I have a moral obligation in my free will to feed him? It is not that he has any inherent right to my food but rather it is my moral obligation if I know what's going on and have the ability to feed him to do so. Is it then his natural right to have the government forcibly take some of my food and give it to him continually? The answer is NO! Even though the man is in a difficult situation, the government has no right to force me to give the man food. It is at odds with the principles of liberty. It is not at odds with liberty to have a moral responsibility before God to do something, but that must, in a free society, be left to individual conscience. For those of you who think food is not as important as health care let me suggest to you that in most people's lives food is considerably more important than health care. In fact without food one would die a lot quicker than would result from most health issues. Is it a natural right to have food? If it is, then the same argument can be made for the government to take over all of the food industry to make sure all people are given the "adequate nutritional needs." How about clothes? Based on the thinking of liberals who have no idea what natural rights means an argument can be made for the natural right to have clothes especially in the North East since it is so cold that a person could die from exposure to the cold. Therefore the government should take over the clothing industry to make sure that the natural human right is taken care of.
1) "In order to have liberty one must recognize that there are risks to living in it." One of the inherent problems with people who do not understand liberty is their lack of understanding of the risks associated with it. They seem to think that they can have freedom while at the same time being under the control of centralized government. This is a major ignorance on their part. We could most likely eradicate most crime if we were to place police officer check points in and out of every town while having them search everyone at will. They could monitor all of our personal conversations by tapping our phones. They could come into our homes and search them whenever they wish, and take us into custody without any provocation or evidence of wrong doing. This would cut a lot of crime however it would be contrary to natural rights and therefore a free society must not allow such abuses of power. So the question becomes "Do we want a totalitarian society that cracks down on crime by violating everyone's natural rights or do we value our liberty and in doing so take more risk concerning crime?" The answer for a free people is obvious, we are willing to take the risk rather than live under tyranny. We also know that history teaches us that when people give up their liberty for so called security, they eventually end up with neither due to corruption of centralized power since "absolute power corrupts absolutely.
2) Natural rights are not the same as another person's moral duty. In the afore mentioned scenario, the question is this; "Is it the right of the man to be treated or is it the moral responsibility of the Doctor to treat him?" The Doctor has a clear moral obligation to treat the man in that situation. Having said that, the man does not have a natural right to be treated. There is a major difference. I will get to the answer of why I say this a bit later in this article.
3) No political system can guarantee absolute protection for all possibilities of harm. It is literally impossible for any government political system to always be able to protect its citizens in every situation. Putting trust in government to be your nanny is irrational. No government can fix every problem and protect from every hardship.
4) The natural passion of emotion a person experiences about a perceived injustice is not an argument to trample on liberty. As a minister of the gospel I often feel overwhelming compassion for people who are in various situations. My heart is frequently heavy over conditions I see in the lives of people. What I experience emotionally is never an excuse to trample on liberty. A free people are not motivated by emotions. Free people are motivated by principle as they understand that facts are more important in the long run than short term sentiment.
We have all seen the signs that the liberal protesters hold up. We have heard the liberal pundits spew out their talking points concerning socialized medicine. We know the "Health Care is a Human Right" mantra that drones on and on and yet how can we argue against that? Do we conservatives not believe a person should be treated if they are dying? Do we not believe that there is a moral obligation in the following case for a person to receive care? Let us examine this hypothetical scenario;
A person stumbles into an emergency room with a gunshot wound. They fall on the floor close to death. The Doctors rush up and start asking questions about health Insurance. The fallen man is barely able to get out the words "I have no insurance" and the doctors order him to get out of the hospital and die since they are not going to work for free.
In this example we see an absurdity. Of course the Doctors would treat him in this situation because they have a moral obligation to do so. There is no hospital in America that would not treat a person under these circumstances. The question now is does a person have a human right to health care? My answer may shock some of you due to the example I just gave. Let's look more into what a human right is. Our founders talked about the idea of "certain inalienable rights" endowed by our creator. In order to understand the principle of natural rights we must understand it in the context of liberty. If you think of human rights outside the context of liberty we will miss the understanding of what true human rights are. The following are some principles that must be contemplated:
1) In order to have liberty one must recognize that there are risks to living in it.
2) Natural rights are not the same as another person's moral duty.
3) No political system can guarantee absolute protection for all possibilities of harm.
4) The natural passion of emotion a person experiences about a perceived injustice is not an argument to trample on liberty.
Enter the tea-party revolution (a national clamoring for a return to our nation's founding principles). America has coldly and quite vocally rejected Obama's anti-American agenda.
You've heard it said, but I'll say it again: People with conservative values – particularly Christians – need to take back America. We must take charge of government at every level from the municipal hall to the White House.
It's time for men of the cloth – as they did during the first American Revolution – to exercise true leadership, return to the pulpit and call for national revival, both spiritual and political. As George Washington so astutely observed, the notion that political issues, and those of "religion and morality," are somehow mutually exclusive, is patently absurd. They are one in the same.
Am I calling for a theocracy? Of course not. Am I calling for men and women of strong faith to retake control of all high-level positions of influence in government, academia, media and entertainment? Absolutely.
The late, great Rev. Jerry Falwell perhaps said it best: "I'm being accused of being controversial and political. I'm not political. But moral issues that become political, I still fight. It isn't my fault that they've made these moral issues political. But because they have doesn't stop the preachers of the Gospel from addressing them."
Pastors, priests and rabbis: It's up to you to address, head-on, these moral issues. Don't be intimidated by anti-theist groups like the ACLU, American's United for Separation of Church and State, People for the American Way and the like. These hard-left outfits engage in dishonest letter-writing schemes and file frivolous threats with the IRS in hopes of silencing you. Don't be silenced.
Guess how many churches have been penalized, or have lost tax-exempt status due to even one of these complaints: Exactly zero. To call these groups "paper tigers" is too strong. They're paper kittens.
Pastors: You have an absolute constitutional right, if not a duty, to stand at the pulpit and educate your flock about the hot-button political/moral issues of the day. You also have an absolute right to tell your flock exactly where candidates stand on these issues. You can even, as an individual, publicly endorse candidates. Most importantly, you have an absolute right to encourage parishioners to vote in accordance with their faith.
Biblical values must once again guide our political and cultural decisions and discourse, or tragically, this great American experiment – having survived longer than any governmental system in existence – may be at its twilight.
Still, I somehow doubt that the sun has set on this, the greatest nation on Earth. To borrow from a truly great president, Ronald Reagan, come Nov. 3, I suspect, instead, we'll once again awaken to a bright new future. We'll once again awaken to "morning in America."
Christians: Make it happen.
Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of the book "The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War" and serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel. Send comments to Matt at jmattbarber@comcast.net / Facebook.com/jmattbarber / Twitter @jmattbarber (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)
And clearly the whole foundation of the Republican party of America is unconstituional and against the United States of America and destroying the whole foundation of the US of A in the benefit of Taliban and Saudi funders of Fox News and REpublican campaines and what ever BS GOP stands for... when all what I write in this one are undenaiable facts... then what is worth listening to GOP definitions of the american constitution any way? I mean sending all GOP to Guantanmo base or at least exciling and fencing them in Arizona will almost do the job! America have never had any enemy more dangerous than GOP
Ok Dude. It's apparent you need another history lesson on the USA again. This time I hope you learn.
Posted: 10/31/10
Time to Reunite Church and State
By J. Matt Barber
John Adams, our second U.S. president, famously observed: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
The U.S. Constitution, indeed our entire republican form of government, was crafted by deeply pious men who were overwhelmingly Christian. It was fashioned within the context and framework of the Judeo-Christian zeitgeist of the time and was further intended to function in harmony with a Judeo-Christian worldview – period. Though leftists may deny this reality, it remains indisputable fact. The historical record is unequivocal.
Patrick Henry said this: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!"
George Washington agreed:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. … eason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
I'll say it: I agree with George Washington. Those godless, postmodern secular-socialists, who, today, hold the reins of government, are unpatriotic. Fringe leftists like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid seek to "subvert" Washington's "great pillars" of "religion and morality" and are distinctly un-American for it.
Ø Religion says, "I have to follow rules." A relationship with Christ says, "Because of the price that He paid for me, I want to follow His plan for my life."
Ø Religion says, "I have to go to church." A relationship with Christ says, "I want to position myself to learn more, worship Him, and benefit from fellowship."
Ø Religion lacks assurance; a relationship with Jesus offers unfailing guidance and assurance.
Ø Religion is man's attempt to reach God; a relationship with Christ is God reaching down to man.
When people misunderstand and become dissatisfied and discouraged with Christianity, it's often because they confuse "religion" and "rules" with a true relationship with Christ. They base their opinion of Christianity on how they see other Christians act. This can be dangerous. Don't base your opinion of Christianity solely on the actions of others. One of the greatest threats to Christianity is not in our failure to proclaim it, but in our inability to live it out.
Why do many leave Sunday morning church services no different than when they arrived? In many cases, it's because they have religion and not a true relationship with Jesus. No wonder Jesus said that many people draw near to Him with their words, but their hearts are far from Him (Matthew 15:8). A.W. Tozer states it best: "Millions of professed believers talk as if were real and act as if He were not. And always our actual position is to be discovered by the way we act, not by the way we talk."
In the New Testament, Jesus had harsh words for those who appeared to be religious but inwardly had not changed. Our actions, not our words, reveal the authenticity of our relationship with Christ. I don't say this to promote a performance-based religion; I say it to demonstrate the importance of having a loyal, committed, genuine relationship with Jesus. In Matthew 7:13, Jesus commanded us to enter by the narrow gate, as opposed to walking through the wide gate that leads to destruction. Jesus was demonstrating the importance of having a personal relationship with Him, rather than following the crowd, religious tradition, or the latest fad.
Who is Jesus? How we answer this question is the difference between right and wrong, light and darkness, heaven and hell. When asked this question, the apostle Peter gave the correct response: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). Jesus Himself confirmed this by saying: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6).
Seriously consider who and what you choose to follow. Man's way leads to a hopeless end-God's way leads to an endless hope. God has shown us the way, not through religion, but through a relationship.
Please remember there is a difference between Christianity and Religion. Christianity is about relationship. Religion is not about relationship.
Posted: 07/17/07
Religion vs. Relationship By Shane Idleman
WHEN I WAS A YOUNG MAN, I believed that I was strong because I could bench press over 400 pounds, drink a 12-pack of beer, and win most of the fights that I was in. What I failed to realize was that I was weak; I was dying spiritually. I didn't have control of my life-my life had control of me. Years later, I read again about the life of Jesus Christ, this time with open eyes. I found that I had been completely wrong about Him. Who, but Jesus, would say, no man takes my life, I lay it down willingly? Who, but Jesus, would say to the judge who ordered His execution, you would have no power over me unless it was given to you from above? Who, but Jesus, when hanging on a cross, severely beaten and dying for our sins, would say of his accusers, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do? (See John 10:18; John 19:11; and Luke 23:34.) Following Christ does not represent weakness; it represents meekness. Weakness is the absence of strength; meekness is strength under control. It takes far more strength to follow Christ than to go with the flow of society.
Two words from Jesus: "Follow Me"-have changed more lives than all the words of famous men combined. As the great preacher, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, once said: "The grace that is not strong enough to change me will not be able to save me." We don't need to be ashamed of Christ and what He did for us. The apostle Paul said: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes" (Romans 1:16).
Why then are so many disturbed when the name of Jesus is mentioned? Why is His name, above all others, often taken in vain? The answer is simple: there is power in His name-power that shakes the spiritual realm. Philippians 2:9-11 says that God has highly exalted Him and has given Him a name that is above every other name, that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. No wonder the enemy seeks to destroy our relationship with Jesus; it's the only name that can defeat him. Martin Luther said, "When Jesus Christ utters a word, He opens His mouth so wide that it embraces all Heaven and earth, even though that word be but in a whisper."
Is your current belief system producing assurance, purpose, and peace, or is it bringing discouragement, disappointment, and despair? Jesus said, "Wisdom is shown to be right by what results from it" (Matthew 11:19 NLT). Is your faith leading you in the right direction? If not, consider who or what is leading you-religious tradition, or a relationship with Jesus Christ. "There is no peace until we see the finished work of Jesus Christ-until we can look back and see the cross of Christ between our sins" (D.L. Moody).
Faithfulness: Jesus was definitely a free thinker in His time. Wasn't held to the religious laws and traditions like the Pharisees. Jesus did His thinking and talking outside the box back then.
Sorry but for years now I've never been able to picture the Sermon on the Mount without thinking of Life of Brian!
Blessed are the cheesemakers
I understand. Everyday I am at work I get to live out the Sermon on the Mount.
Jesus was definitely a free thinker in His time. Wasn't held to the religious laws and traditions like the Pharisees. Jesus did His thinking and talking outside the box back then.
I want to know what women really go for looks or personality?
Normally I would go for both because a wonderful personality makes someone so much better looking. A bad personlity can make the most handsome or beautiful person the ugliest person in the world.
The Oath of Office versus the ‘Rule-of-Obama’ Obama swore an oath on the Bible when he became President, that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. The idea that we now have the Rule of Obama instead of the rule-of-law should frighten everybody. The fact that the Progressives support the policy, is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act. It is absolutely critical for Obama to comply with Congress and the constitutional process.
The House Republicans must pass a resolution instructing the President to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out the office of Attorney General and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job. His job is to enforce the law, that’s the job of the Chief Executive of the USA. For us to start replacing the rule-of-law with the Rule-of-Obama is a very dangerous precedent.
Clearly Obama’s and Holder’s actions are a dereliction of duty and a violation of constitutional oath and are something that cannot be allowed to stand.
U.S. Posts Record Monthly Budget Deficit By Robert Schroeder
Published March 10, 2011
| MarketWatch Pulse
WASHINGTON - The U.S. government posted a budget deficit of $222.5 billion in February, the largest monthly deficit on record, the Treasury Department reported Thursday. The government spent about $333 billion in the month and took in about $110 billion. Compared to February 2010, corporate tax receipts were 69% lower. On the spending side, the U.S. spent 29% more than a year ago on interest on the U.S. debt.
"The purpose of the Trilateral Commission to promote world government by encouraging economic interdependence among the superpowers," says Kah. Indeed you find this, in so many words, on the "About our Organization" page of the TC Web site. What began as an alleged collaboration of Japan, Europe, and North America to foster closer cooperation among these core democratic industrialized areas of the world has grown so that, now, according to their own Web site, "The 'growing interdependence that so impressed the founders of the Trilateral Commission in the early 1970s has deepened into 'globalization.'"
Explains Kah, "The strategy of the WCPA and its affiliated organizations has been to quietly put as many pieces into place as possible . . . then once the groundwork is laid, the WCPA and its large New Age support network would rush forward as quickly as possible, implementing the world government before people really have had a chance to think about what is happening or are able to form an effective opposition." I see the "rush forward" part happening before my eyes these days.
Consider Rahm Immanuel's famous quote, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." What kind of crisis might fit conveniently into the overall plan of the one-world government enthusiasts? An economic crisis? They're working on that one. An outbreak of nuclear war in the Middle East? It appears we're on the brink. The rapture of the church? Even so, come, Lord Jesus! These are options; you can bet they'd use any of 'em.
What I've outlined here is just the tip of the iceberg. The plan is too immense to explain it all here. But by now your question is likely, "Heidi, what do I DO with this information?"
First of all, you trust God. Remember, He already foretold all of these things that are coming together; it's no surprise to Him:
The 10-region world government (Rev. 17:12-17) The one-world international monetary system (Rev. 13:16-17) The one-world religion (Rev. 13:12-15) Secondly, remember that God is still on His throne. And do you know what He's doing as He watches them conspire together? He's laughing!
"Why do the nations rage and the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His anointed, saying, 'Let us break their bonds in pieces and cast away their cords from us.' He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall hold them in derision," (Psalm 2:1-4). "The Lord laughs at [the wicked], for He sees that his day is coming," (Psalm 37:13).
Finally, I highly recommend you get a copy of Gary Kah's book, En Route to Global Occupation. It's an excellent primer on the foundation that has been laid for Satan's short-lived kingdom. Once you have this bedrock of information, the news you hear daily will make a lot more sense. I speak from experience.
Absolutely not. I do not believe in a one world government.
Posted: 02/02/10
A One-World Government? God is Laughing!
Yes, there really is a collaboration to create a one-world government. This government is to include a ten-region world government, a new international monetary system and the uniting of all world religions into what they, themselves, call a New World Order. Sound familiar?
Before you write me off as a quack job, you should take a look at the already-completed Constitution for the Federation of Earth. This document was created over a period of nine years (1982 – 1991) through the efforts of an organization known as The World Constitution and Parliament Association (WCPA), established in 1958.
According to Gary Kah, former high-ranking government liaison and author of the book En Route to Global Occupation, WCPA has been "charged with the task of actually bringing us into the New World Order." They've gotten a pretty good jump-start on their mission.
"As part of its role of putting the final pieces into place [for a world government] the association has assembled a Provisional World Parliament," Kah explains. The 12th session of that parliament is scheduled for June 2010 in Zagreb, Croatia.
A number of the most powerful New Age (read: occult) organizations, such as Lucis Trust (originally founded by occultist Alice Bailey as The Lucifer Press - a printing and distribution arm for the Theosophical Society) and World Union (another occult organization heavily involved in the politics of planning and implementation of the world government) are well connected with all the one-world political societies, which in turn feed directly into the World Constitution and Parliament Association.
Let me tell you about just some of the other groups that WCPA is affiliated with:
The Council on Foreign Relations
Rear Admiral Chester Ward, a former CFR member for sixteen years, warned the American people in a March 1991 The New American magazine article entitled, "The Internationalist," stating, "The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common – they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States."
And Kah quotes Dan Smoot, a former member of the FBI headquarters staff in Washington and one of the first researchers into the CFR, who summarized the purpose of the organization when he said, "The ultimate aim of the Council on Foreign Relations . . . is . . . to create a one-world socialist system and make the United States an official part of it."
The Bilderbergers
Yes, they really do exist. Kah explains that the overriding purpose of this group is the establishment of a world government. According to Bilderberg founding member, Denis Healy, this attribution is "not wholly unfair."
As a side note, I find it interesting that the group has no Web site (that I could find), is extremely and admittedly secretive about their meetings, and there is no official statement from the organization regarding their purpose.
The Club of Rome
The Club of Rome, Kah says, "has been charged with the task of overseeing the regionalization and unification of the entire world."
Economic crises, climate change, globalization and sustainable development are key phrases that litter the Web site of this organization. And again, according to Kah, "the WCPA is also using the environment as its chief argument for why a world government is required, similar to [Club of Rome's] strategies and proposals." He also documents the occultism that drives the organization, explaining the pantheistic, New Age beliefs of its founder, Aurelio Peccei.
Faithfulness Forum Posts (1,056)
RE: Round-3, TWO WORD, SAME RULE
narrow way