EVERYONE, PLEASE CHECK OUT GOOOH

There is a gentleman named Tim Cox who has come up with a plan to get rid of the 435 current members of the House of Representatives and replace them with ordinary citizens like us. I just heard him speak today and his plan is fascinating. Please check out: http://goooh.com/Home.aspx.

It is a simple economic principle that any government spending (whether for courts, military, healthcare, or whatever) has to be transferred to the populace. This is most evident in taxes, but there are hidden costs such as inflation and/or loss of jobs. You are correct in your assessment that there is no such thing as free healthcare. It sounds like your instructor does not have a good grasp of economics. The underlying principle behind most all economic theory is limited resources. I have at times been shocked at the sheer level of stupidity "experts" in economics often possess.

Perhaps you need to define for your classmates and your professor what you really mean by price. They are viewing price in terms of what is directly being billed to them. You are viewing price correctly - as the total cost of doing business that is being transferred to pay for the service. For example, if a doctor charges $100 for a visit than the price is $100. It is the cost of doing business that is being transferred to someone else. Your classmates are only viewing this as price if it is directly transferred to them - as a bill in the mail. However, they are not seeing it as price if it is being transferred somewhere else - to the government. But, as you have already assessed, it is a price and it will be transferred to the consumer, but the transfer will not be directly apparent. It will be hidden in taxes, inflation, loss of jobs, and/or diminished services.

It is my suspicion that the results of government healthcare will be fat government contracts to pharmaceutical companies with certain political connections. The quality of service will plummet as the graft of organized crime sucks profit out of the system.

You are making some faults by looking at people as only intellectual beings. The truth is, people are not always logical and they often do things based on their emotions. You have oversimplified issues to be issues of logic, when some of these issues are issues of the heart.

To say one cannot be a Christian and a liberal shows a basic misunderstanding of what Christianity is about. Christianity is about having a relationship with God through putting faith in Jesus Christ. One only needs to believe in Jesus Christ to be a Christian. Romans 10:9, 10 proclaims, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." One can have messed up ideas and still be a Christian or one can have an intellectual assent of all things good and right and not be a Christian.

Everyone approaches things with certain presuppositions. Truth is some people do not even realize or question these presuppositions. Often people act in ways inconsistent with these presuppositions or hold viewpoints that conflict with one another. In all honesty, this is true of every person to a certain degree - including me and you.

We have to remember that God looks at peoples' hearts. He goes below the surface and sees why people do the things they do. Some people may really believe that someone like Obama is going to help this nation. So, they voted for him with the best intentions in their heart. Even though they lack understanding, they may have a pure heart.

A Christian does not necessarily have a good understanding of God. A Christian has a relationship with God. With time and study one should gain an ever-increasing understanding of God. The relationship should bring knowledge, but this only comes with time and study. Over time all of a Christian's beliefs and actions should come in line with the Bible, but in truth this is a process that never ends. There is never a point of complete consistency since we are all sinners.

You make some good points about the need for people to be consistent with their beliefs. You also make some good points that the consistent outworking of liberal beliefs is repulsive beliefs and actions. I challenge you to be careful not to pigeonhole people. Understand they are emotional beings and look beneath the surface and see their hearts. The ultimate outworking of consistent Christian values is love and I am not sure from your original post that you are viewing things from this perspective.

A lot depends on what type of college she works for. If she works at a private school, the school is able to take a stand for certain political, philosophical, or religious beliefs. In such a case, they could hire, fire, or punish based on one's stance on those particular issues. However, those issues would have to be a clearly stated stance of the college. For example, many Christian colleges have a doctrinal statement and those on faculty and staff have to abide by that statement. I don't see any reason why a college couldn't be a Socialistic, Communistic, Atheistic, or any other philosophy or belief as long as they were open about it. This would only apply to private schools.

If she works at a state school, she should be able to take any political, religious, or philosophical position provided taking that position does not hinder her in performing her duties or she does not promote those beliefs in a way that hinders another's free expression.

I have taught at both private and state schools. At a state school there will be some sort of diversity policy. Theoretically, these policies should operate to give everyone the freedom to express their viewpoints. What often ends up happening in practice, because people are so easily offended, is that people may be reluctant to openly tackle certain issues for fear of complaints. It can have the effect of turning the college into an environment where controversial issues are not discussed for fear of reprisal.

If she is at a state-funded school then she should have the freedom to have those books. Also, those books should be available at the library (or through some sort of library loan system, which is common at most college campuses). A decent college library should have books from all political viewpoints - Democratic, Republican, Marxist, Communist, Libertarian, Anarchist, or whatever other viewpoint people could hold. Also, a college should not discriminate based on whatever political viewpoints one holds provided they handle themselves with common sense and respect for others.

I have attended two T.E.A. Parties. One was in Ashtabula Country in Ohio. The second was in Hanoverton, Ohio. The first one was smaller, maybe a couple hundred (at most) in attendance. However, this was a small, rural area. The second one was much larger, probably over a thousand people. Again, this was in a rural area. The T.E.A. Parties are the canary in the mine shaft. They are a warning of a bigger, growing problem. There are masses of people not involved at this point, because they feel powerless and they fear the government. There are also a lot of people that are part of the blinded masses, who actually believe that Obama and the current administration will bring change for the better. As things get worse, they will start to cross over to the other side. I think things will progress slowly until a certain critical mass is hit. After that point, the movement will grow exponentially.

Amen!

You are not crazy. Our government is only a puppet for the big international corporations and bankers. While I cannot peer into Obama's heart, his actions are far from being Christian. People say his policies do not make any sense. Well, they do not make sense if one assumes he is doing what is best for the country. However, if he is trying to collapse our economy, destroy our freedoms, and set up a totalitarian regime then everything he does makes sense. He is out to destroy the American way of life. Anyone who does not believe that does not have a firm grasp on reality.

I would imagine most people feel they have no ownership in the debt and it has been thrust upon them. Hopefully this post will add a reasonable (and perhaps even legal) logical argument to support those sentiments.

THE NATIONAL DEBT IS NOT OURS

While those in power want the populace to believe that the average citizen owes the national debt, this is not the case. No citizen of the United States (with the exception of those in government offices propagating this immoral debt scheme) have any responsibility to pay the national debt.

The national debt is an illegal scheme created by immoral politicians and money-hungry bankers. Common sense and the Constitution would support the notion that in order for the nation’s debt to be valid the following conditions would have to be true: 1) Government officials are in power based on free elections, 2) The use of funds that resulted in the debt were used only for the powers given to the Legislative Branch as define in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, 3) The national monetary system was one based on the Constitution, 4) Elected officials truly represented the will of the people, and 5) The Federal Government was raising funds to pay for the debt based on the Constitution. If even one of these conditions were not in place, then the debt does not belong to the people.

The first condition is an illusion. It is clear we do not have free elections. Free elections require that any citizen who decided to run for office, provided he or she meets legal qualifications, would play by the same rules as anyone else running. As long as preferred party status is in place, which sets in place preferential treatment for the two major parties, free elections are merely an illusions. Elections are controlled by those leading the parties as opposed to being controlled by the citizens of this country.

The second condition has clearly been broken. The Federal Government has become a bloated monstrosity with offices, functions, and roles far beyond those defined in the Constitution. The idea that we the people are financially indebted to pay for a government operating well beyond the rule of law is ludicrous.

The third condition is also no longer in place. Article I, Section 8 defines the legislative role as “to coin money”. At that time coining money meant that money was made from precious metals or that one could carry a treasury note that could be traded for precious metal. Money had intrinsic value. Our current monetary system is a paper money system, which is the polar opposite of what our Founding Fathers intended. Money no longer has intrinsic value, but its value is being manipulated by those in control of the banking system.

The fourth condition is no longer a reality. In fact, since free elections are only an illusion, this condition cannot exist. Even if one were to argue we have free elections, it is quite obvious the will of the people is not being represented.

The fifth condition is also far from being fulfilled. The Constitution set up a system where the bills of the Federal Government would be passed on to the states (Article I, Section 2) and that the states would have representative in the Senate (Article I, Section 3). This would guarantee limited spending, since the states would pick representatives that kept money in the states. The passage of the 16th amendment (income tax – which is illegal according to the original Constitution) and the 17th amendment (election of senators by popular vote) illegally changed the balance of power. Government spending was now being transferred to the individual and the role of the state in limiting Federal powers had been severely diminished.

There are serious questions as to whether the 16th amendment was legally ratified. Even if it was, it was an illegal amendment to begin with. While Article V does give power to amend, that power only allows amendment in order to exercise powers already given to the Federal Government. Amending does not allow new powers to be given to the Federal Government. That would be against the 10th amendment and common sense. Unless there is permanence to the rule of law, the rule of law is meaningless.

The national debt is not the responsibility of ordinary citizens. Its responsibility solely rests upon the shoulders of government officials. We the people need to wake up and tell our creditors that they may seek payment out of the hides of our government officials.

IS THE CONSTITUTION A LIVING DOCUMENT?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

That quote is from the Declaration of Independence signed July 4th, 1776. The battle that began in 1776 is still being fought today. Today there are many enemies to our freedom and unfortunately many of these enemies are in our own government. I will not take party sides on these issues, but there are issues we face as a nation. One particular one is how much power should reside in Washington and how much power belongs to the states and the people. It is quite obvious that both Democrats and Republicans have overstepped their bounds and are passing laws and engaging in activities that are clearly unconstitutional.

Differing views are being taken towards the Constitution. One is the idea that the Constitution is a living document. The people that hold this view do not believe it a living document as Christians would hold the Bible a living document. The Bible is viewed as a living document because it conveys immortal truths - truths that are as permanent as the God upon which they are founded, that change the course of history and the heart of man. The reason God's Word is living is because it is permanent and that permanence gives it the power to transform whatever it touches.

Those that hold the Constitution as a living document do not see it as permanent. They see it as an evolving entity that conforms itself to the society and often to the whims of those in power. Did our Founding Fathers write the Constitution so it could morph into the whims of every political maelstrom, or did they put it in writing because they desired a living document similar to the Bible: one that changes society because it conveys truths that are forged in the human condition and the immutable laws which God established to govern the universe? The issue is one of what is the meaning of language and why do we put things in writing. As you consider the process of human communication, spend some time pondering what our Founding Fathers did, why they did what they did, and how we should interpret what they did. Also, let's remember those that have served this country honorably - in the military, as police, as firefighters, as pastors, as public servants, and even those in Washington who have been willing to rise above the graft and stand up for liberty.