Washington Cries Wolf..........Again

     Another threat of a government shutdown. Haven't we heard this before? Let's see. If we don't raise the debt ceiling, the government is going to shut down. If we don't bail out the big banks, the government will shut down. Now, if we don't have Obamacare, something that the Washington political body will themselves be exempt from, the government will shut down. Does anybody else see the silliness of it? Haven't we, the general public, who's having our hard-earned wages stolen from us to pay for a plan that's already doomed to fail and drive us further into poverty, had enough of this scare tactic? If we don't bomb the crap out of Syria, even though we don't have the facts, Syria is going to get us. Do we really think just because it's coming out of the President's mouth that it must be true? Do we not see yet that Washington politics is all a chess game, and the average wage-earner like you and I are just pawns? Doctors all around the country have said Obamacare is destructive, but nobody's listening to the people who really know! But Obamacare is not just about health care. It is about the further redistribution of wealth that feeds the voracious appetite of centralized government and centralized banking for power and money, takes bread from our mouths, and destroys our economic liberty.
     But we have been seduced by a "fairness" doctrine that says everyone is the same and should be treated the same. It sounds right, but it's not. If God created us the same, we would look the same, walk the same, talk the same, and do the exact same things. The only thing each of us has that is exactly the same as everyone else is SPIRITUAL POTENTIAL. We differ in how we discover, develop and express that potential in our daily affairs. But the government is assuming the responsibility to make things "fair", and it only gives opportunity to feed our passions, perverts the divine order, rejects Constitutional order, and hinders our individual success. We're told Obamacare is supposed to create fairness in our system. It's a lie.The intrusion of the government in any domestic affair creates only chaos, more need and more dependence on government. And that is exactly what they want.
     The bible says pray for our elected officials. It says nothing about trusting them, especially when their policies are anti-biblical, anti-Constitutional, anti-free market and anti-self government. What does a tyrannical state do to get its way? Create fear. Make the people afraid. Make them think that they need the government, not God, to survive. Make them think that they are not smart enough or powerful enough to meet their own needs. That's what they, our federal overlords, truly think of you and I, and that offends me to no end.
     But some of us would rather simply believe what we're told by people who disguise themselves as angels of light. It's easier. We'd rather not think. We'd rather not question. We'd rather not study. We'd rather not investigate. It takes too much effort. It's comfortable slavery. That's the destiny of a pawn.

A Civil Rights Smokescreen

     Let me say once again. I'm a black man. And I'm disturbed, not discouraged, but disturbed by the way my people think. The Trayvon-Zimmerman incident has made it clear. We complain about the violation of our civil rights when a  light-skinned person of another race harms a black person. We're ready to march, and send  our complaint to the Capitol.. What about when a black person harms another black person? As black people, don't we violate one another's civil rights every single day? A gang member shoots a little girl in a playground. What about that little girl's civil rights? Innocent people are robbed and murdered daily in Chicago. Several black youths assault a Hispanic youth in the name of "Trayvon". Wasn't that kid's civil rights just violated? When the rights of a black person is violated by a white person we are ready to go to war. We want revenge. We want justice! We will bust windows and destroy private property to get justice. We will make other people suffer. But when we do it to one another, it's no big thing.
     I may be harsh in my analysis, but that's the way I think. As black people we love being portrayed as the victims. We are comfortable with it. There is a self-righteousness in it. There's a sense of entitlement in it. We use our suffering as an excuse to bolster our sense of entitlement and even to justify our crimes toward others. We have the right to be mad. Okay, fine. be mad! But channel that anger into constructive action. Don't take it out on one another. But we don't want to come to grips with how we victimize one another every day in the black neighborhoods and contribute to our own suffering. It's the log and speck principle Jesus told us about. We do much worse things to one another than what Zimmerman did to Trayvon. It was mutual combat. Somebody was bound to get hurt. Yet our eyes and ears are only on this one event as if it's supposed to unify us.
     So I'm supposed to react because it was the black kid that was fatally wounded. What if the roles were reversed? Would we protest as well, black people?  If the black kid were acquitted in that scenario we would be celebrating, would we not? We would reason that the black kid had a right to shoot.. Because human nature is that fickle and our human thinking is that distorted. That's all we need. To focus on a "black-white" situation like this to get our minds off of how much we violate one another's civil rights every day. We've made civil rights a color issue instead of a human issue. It's a  smokescreen. And our black "leaders" have created it. It blows my mind. Obama is permitting his man, attorney general Eric Holder, to file a federal civil rights lawsuit against George Zimmerman, a Hispanic kid. A kid! The government against a kid! Someone please tell me I heard wrong. Please? I heard both their speeches. Let's put a pacifier in the mouth of the Black community. We need  to keep their votes. And why are we not hearing the voices of Hispanic activists? I smell another political rat.
     God's word exhorts us to exercise equity in judgement. "Diverse weights and diverse measures. They are both alike an abomination to the Lord." Proverbs 20:10. It's a moral principle that we have long abandoned in this country. How can I possibly judge in a situation that I did not witness and have no first-hand knowledge of? I'm supposed to accept the second-hand information of the media and of our so-called black leaders and entertainers who can twist things any way they choose? To foster a counterfeit black unity?I'm not buying into this hype. All I know is what I see us doing to ourselves in the black community. That is what should disturb us..
     But that's just me.
   

A Counterfeit Black Pride

True story......
    I'm a black man to be clear. I walked into a sandwich shop to order a sub. A 40 or so black gentleman was selling some items inside. Among those were some pretty cheaply made metallic plaques with Obama's face on them. He showed me one of them as I was waiting to order. Near the bottom of the plaque was the name "Romney", and below that name was a picture of a hand with the middle finger sticking up. You know what it means. I proceeded to tell him, "No, I didn't vote for him anyway." The gentleman coarsely responded, "That's nothing to be proud of. That ain't nothing to be proud of!" as he was turning away from me. He would't dare rebuke me directly in my face. Not wanting to be confrontative I let it go, as I was still waiting to order my sandwich.
     As I was standing waiting for my order, I was watching this black gentleman in my periphery. His body language showed that he was flustered, irritated. I stood there unresponsive but ready to respond if he were to choose to push the issue and speak directly to me. " It's got nothing to do with pride, sir. It's got everything to do with worldview." That would be my response. In all of five minutes he did not directly press the issue, but he was clearly flustered, as he made a few slight corner glances at me, slighlty shaking his head and quietly grumbled "Ain't nothin' to be proud of."
     I voted for Barack Obama the first time for the exact same reason this gentleman did - because he was black. I did not vote for him this second time because I decided to educate myself, and I know better now. Neither did I vote for Romney. I wrote in my choice. I have analyzed Obama's worldview for myself and it is destructive to our personal liberties and individual sovereignty that the Constitution upholds. But the majority has been entangled in his smooth talk of "equality". What hurts is that this gentleman's comment implies that I should feel bad because I am a black man who didn't vote for a black man. That a vote against Obama is a vote against against black people. It's a matter of "black pride". It's not a matter of what we know about the man. It's not a matter of understanding how this man thinks. It's not a matter of understanding Constitutional principles and the laws of economics. It's not  matter of understanding biblical principles. It's not a matter of a realistic assessment of his previous performance in office. It's a matter of being black. And being black, or appearing to be black, the man can do no wrong. This counterfeit black pride, the kind that lacks wisdom and knowledge, is killing us.
     If Obama, or any other President, doesn't care about the Constitution that he swore to protect and defend in its entirety and in its original intent, then Obama doesn't care about black people or any other people. The common people are simply tools to be used to gain power.
     I love my people. But I'm not going to participate, or even pretend to participate, in this black pride delusion. And if you choose to speak to me directly, I will tell you why.

General Welfare, Part 2

Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;.......

Now that I have a better understanding of this clause it astounds me how much we've taken it out of its literary and historical context, completely ignoring words in the text and their meanings, like "common" and "general", "duties, imposts, and excises". "General welfare", for example, means national welfare or benefit, according to the Heritage Guide to the Constitution; not local or regional benefit, but the benefit of the whole.
     To understand the concept of the whole we must understand how the Founders thought, that is, their meaning of  "United States". It may shock you to hear that the United States is not in itself a republic.The United States is a federation or corporation of fifty republics where each state is a sovereign, republican nation. A republic is a self-governing entity. The United Nations (notwithstanding its corruptness) is a federation or corporation of sovereign, self-governing nations. It is not a nation in itself but a governing body. The United States, by statute, is a federal (from the word "federation") governing body representing fifty self-governing nations. Our Constitution does not say that the United States is a Republic, as the Pledge of Allegiance indicates: "I pledge allegiance to the flag....and to the Republic (singular) for which it stands". It says....
   
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of  Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion, and on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."  Article 4, Section 4

In other words, the United States, the Federal governing body, shall guarantee to each State of the Union its sovereignty, the right to govern itself. It is the nature of statehood.

Perhaps it's time to revisit the Pledge of Allegiance. According to Constitutional law, the general welfare is to be provided for by the general government only in the context of protecting the States against invasion from foreign nations and violence between themselves. Then, is social security tax under the umbrella of the general welfare? Is medicare tax? Obamacare? Welfare? Anything on that whole liberty-eroding, wealth-stealing list of federal programs?

Man, the truth really has a way of getting you pissed off, doesn't it?

The General Welfare, Part 1

  We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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 Preamble

     The general government has for many years used the Preamble to justify its legislative intervention in the domestic affairs of American citizens. Many people have used to it to justify our welfare state. The general misinterpretation is that our government is to provide for all our needs. It is a dangerous misinterpretation. The Heritage Foundation  takes an instructive look at the Preamble of the Constitution in historical context.    

.http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/0/essays/1/preamble    

To summarize.......

1. The Preamble was placed in the Constitution as an afterthought by Gouvernour Morris, independent of the Constitutional Convention. Preambles were declarative statements and neither granted nor limited power.

2. The Preamble was created in light of its counterpart in the Articles of Confederation. It was a general declaration between the states to insure military protection and the security of religious liberty, free trade, sovereignty, etc. It was an agreement among states, not people. That is, it did not involve the private matters of individual Americans. This is what was meant by the "general welfare". 

     The Preamble reads "promote the general welfare" . Provide is not the same as promote. The general government is to  "provide for the common defense", but it is to "promote the general welfare". Promote means to encourage to exist. Provide means to furnish, supply or equip. "General welfare" is applicable to the whole rather than to particular parts. For example, to federally fund the building of a highway in Illinois is beneficial only to the people within Illinois. It has no direct benefit to any other state of the union and therefore cannot be regarded as being in the general welfare. Concerning the domestic affairs of the states and we the people of the states, the general government is simply to promote our welfare by LEAVING US ALONE. But we've been psychologically conditioned to the contrary.
     Our President is quoted as saying  the Constitution, our national law, the very compact he himself studied and swore an oath to God to uphold and protect, is "a charter of negative liberties", and uses the civil rights movement to demonstrate its "flaws". Google it and hear it for yourself. Does this not raise a giant red flag in your mind?

The Nature Of The Oath

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."  The President's Oath of Office.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that i take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will act well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter; so help me God."  The Congressional Oath of Office.

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God."                     
The Supreme Court Justice Oath of Office

What is an oath? An oath is more than a promise between two human beings. An oath is a covenant between a human being and God. The Latin word for oath is sacramentum from which comes the word "sacrament".
In the Hebrew swearing an oath has a strong connotation. When God’s name is called out, the oath becomes consecrated and sealed. It is broken under penalty. Therefore, to swear an oath is also to curse oneself. In the Old Testament, when one swears an oath (sacrament) and fails to live up to it, the curses of the covenant are unleashed - conquest, slavery, exile, pestilence (Deut. 28). 
     In our society, there is little awareness of the seriousness of an oath. We take God’s name in vain (a.k.a. “so help me God”) and give it not a second thought. In our swearing- in ceremonies it becomes a simple formality, a show. Not in God's eyes. But who is there to hold them accountable to their oath if the people, particularly God's people, do not know the Constitution themselves? For certain, God is not mocked. Face it people, we are experiencing the curses of violating the covenant - conquest, slavery, exile, pestilence - on a different level, in the form of the progressive loss of our individual liberties and subversion of our sovereignty. We are no longer significant. 
     They, the President, Congress, the Supreme Court, are consistently violating the Constitutional law they themselves swore to uphold and preserve and defend, and we have unknowingly let them  get away with it. They are calling it "out-of-date" only because it limits their power. Our President says it has serious flaws. For him, for his personal program, it has flaws. For the people, it protects our liberties and protects us from the constraints and conscriptions of government.and it is the law. Biblical principle undergirds it. Individuals in power simply don't like to be constrained, and they count on our lack of knowledge. Well, we haven't let them down. So the President is stamping executive decrees all over the place and right on the forehead of Congress in the name of "fairness", and "equal opportunity" and "national security", but in direct defiance of Constitutional law. And to many, he's a hero. Congress has long ago given its Constitutional control of our national currency over to the Federal Reserve which, by the way, 1) is not a federal agency, and 2) has no reserves and has never had reserves and consequently it has crippled us economically. But that's another subject.
     Is it too late for us? All I can say is, it's never too late to educate yourself and fight for what is right in God's eyes.

The Tangled Web Of Taxation - Part 1

     What a tangled web of ignorance we have woven on the issue of taxes. The debate is endless, as hard-working people like us sink deeper into the quicksand of poverty at the hands of the greedy few, as they assure us that raising taxes on people will solve everything. How the American tax system was meant to be is to us like a dense fog. Seems nobody really knows, especially those who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. Or they don't care to know. It's working pretty good for them just the way it is. I'd like to clear away some of that fog, if only to sacrifice the blissfulness of my own ignorance and get a good painful look at the way things were supposed to be. The truth really does hurt.
     The underlying principle within the Constitution is the sovereignty of the states in all domestic matters. The Federal government has no jurisdiction in a State of the Union and the citizens of that State. It cannot assess or collect taxes where it has no jurisdiction. It does have, however, direct taxing authority in those territories that it has purchased - District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin islands, American Samoa - and any foreign business or corporation operating within the geographical United States. These kind of taxes are called "excise" taxes. They are taxes on a privilege. The government is granting foreigners the privilege to operate a business within the states.
     Believe it or not, the government does not have the Constitutional authority to directly tax any American business owned by an American citizen. It has no authority to directly tax the wages of an American citizen. For the American citizen, operating a business and making a living is a RIGHT, not a privilege. A right cannot be taxed. Only the State has the authority to tax its citizens if it so chooses, and that in proportion to its population. The government has the authority to tax any foreigner working within any State, but not a  citizen of that State. So how do you explain the 16th Amendment?