An ignorant Limey asks...

US based on rebellion and hate of government

The US was started with a love of money and a war against our Christian Monarch and a hate of government. Nothing in the NT even hints that there is a "right" to vote on one's taxes.


Compare the US, Canada, and the western expansion. Canada is noted for the RCMP who kept peace and order and enabled farmers to expand into the west in peace.

The US is noted for our "wild west" where uncivilized people, losers, and bad neighbors could "go west" to rape, rob, shoot each other, and steal every kind of asset from the Indian People.

Yes, both countries ill treated the Indian People but the Canadians thought they were saving souls and civilizing the "savages." Canadians were not noted for treaty breaking, far as I know.

The US made many treaties that forced the Indian People into land the white people thought was useless. As soon as something of value was discovered, treaties were broken. The "Trail Of Tears" was only the start.

After Lincoln's War we had the "Monroe Doctrine" and "Manifest Destiny," the God Given Right to commercially dominate south and central America and start civil wars when the locals decided THEY wanted some freedom.

Nothing has changed since 1776 except our owners put one over on the working class with the Constitutional Convention.

 

Let's put this into context.

This massive spending bill follows on the heels of a massive "stimulus" spending bill which was actually a wish list of special interst spending which had nothing to do with economic stimulus.

The lawmakers rushed it through with no public debate and while admitting that not one single one of those voting actually read the bill.

Now we have this massive "health care" bill which supposedly is to provide health care to a supposed 47 million without insurance.

The problem is that there are not 47 million without health care. A number of those are illegal imigrants, those who are eligable for other current government health care programs but simply have not bothered to sign up, and those who are affluent enough to purchase insurance but don't want to spend the money.

And again, those who are pushing the bill and will be voting on the bill again have admitted and now are even defending not reading the bill. Can you fathom that?

The net result is that citizens who have bothered to learn what is in this bill have been showing up at these meetings and asking questions about the bill are being told - "We the legislators can not be expected to read the bill" - "We are too busy to read the bill" - "You are listening to rumors" - "Thats a lie" etc. But the very lawmakers who are pushing this bill cannot answer questions concerning specifics of the bill.

So now it is a point of frustration for many concerned citizens who will be adversely affected by this "health care bill" who are currently satisfied with what they have but see the government taking it away and limiting our choices.

Oh yes - we need to add the cherry on the top. The ruling class who is forcing this change in our health care system exempt themselves from it. You see they have a special plan for themselves which includes all the private health insurance companies which they are demonizing as being so bad for the average citizen.

Tell me, in your country are there two heath care systems - one for the average person and another superior system for the ruling elite who make the laws for everyone else?

 

You're correct about the abuses Matt, but the abuse of that right documented by our founding fathers is bipartisan and not because we are Americans but because we are human (not an excuse but an explanation) as you know. We shouldn't loose sight of that.

Also, I believe that some or maybe even much of the "heckling" is proper under the American Right of Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Expression.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

Also some Americans have been accused of a "mob mentality" by those of the political majority.

Again this so called "mob mentality" has to do with another freedom provided by the documents of our founding fathers called the Freedom of Association: The Freedom of Association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests assuming no violence is done.

Yes, oft times the expression of these rights have crossed the line into a violent expression and thereby not in accord with those documents.

Does this sound like an obsession with the rights provided by our founding documents?

Indeed it is. It is why we broke from the Crown and the blood of hundreds of thousands of Americans has been shed to protect these rights.

HankD

 

The constitution gives authority for defense. It does not give authority for medical needs. And no ones freedom has been diminished by the patriot act.

 

Matt, see post 22.

 

The House Democrat leadership sent out a memo to their members asking them to hold town hall meetings. The memo states in part: "Winning the health reform debate in August requires nothing less than an aggressive, multi-front effort to control the message...The Leadership is working in close coordination with the White House and outside groups (including but not limited to HCAN, Families USA, AFSCME, SEIU, AARP, etc.) to ensure complementary efforts during August."

President Obama sent out an email to supporters saying, "This is the moment our movement was built for...That's why Organizing for America is putting together thousands of events this month...where you can reach out to neighbors, show your support, and make certain your members of Congress know that you're counting on them to act."


So you can see that the Dems are pushing this reform hard and coordinating with outside groups, and you can't blame protesters for feeling that this legislation is being forced on us all. Granted, protesters have gotten loud, but there was no violence and nobody was pushed around till union muscle was used against them. See HERE .

 

Because it doesn't bring into consideration the "whole counsel of God" by which we discern the scope and purpose of civil government. If Jesus were in Congress, He would not endorse any legislation that takes wealth from one individual to finance the personal needs of another.

It props up your entire nation, without which prop your "NHS" could not work.

Disbursements of U.S. foreign aide are easily found on the Internet.

See above.

[

 

Bumped...a fantastic post on the subject. Well said.

 

Hi again Matt,

RE:Vote them out. Indeed I will try.

Problem: I am unyielding pro-life and it's becoming difficult to find honest pro-life candidates.

The remainder of my venue is a mix and I'm not exactly a conservative by American standards.
I probably cross over into the liberal side when it comes to entitlements for the underprivileged.


Beef:The current administration gives the appearance of a desire to bring us into a kind of socialism flavored government under the guise of these colossal takeover "bail-outs" and now the latest government run health program.

We seem to have come full circle: Taxation (disguised under different names -"stimulas package", "cap and trade", "health reform",etc) without representation.


Bottom line: I can live under any government.
As Christians we are pilgrims here.
Our eternal state will be in that city not built with hands.


While I am here however, I have been afforded certain unalienable rights by my Creator which, if God wills, I fully intend to exercise.


I appreciate your thoughtfulness and demeanor Matt.


HankD

 

Matthew 25:31-46 would seem to differ with you on this and that is not even addressing the point that Jesus would most likely never be in the legislature, his kingdom was not of this world.

 

Constitution authorizes Congress to promote the general welfare and regulate interstate commerce. Hard to argue that Medicare (and whatever) doesn't promote the general welfare and insurance companies are not involved in interstate commerce.

 

It is not hard to argue at all since :

1. The term General welfare was never intended to be a catch all
2. Medicare is not specifically listed as a purpose of the constitution.

 

Hmmmmmmm.....

Catchall: Something that encompasses a wide variety of items or situations

General: 1 : involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole
2 : involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class, kind, or group


Very interesting.

 

You need to board this train at the station. If you had, you might have seen I was answering Black's assertion that Jesus would endorse government-run healthcare.

 

Matt in general I agree with you. I think though that the US is going about it all wrong. We're trying to build this from scratch rather than taking the cues from the UK, Norway, etc... to find their faults and inefficiencies and apply it better here. What we will invariably get is something that only benefits a few and the majority of americans will end up with worse healthcare than any other country in the world. I'm not sure I want to go in that direction.