again I said nothing of moral relativity, you don't have to be a christian to understand right & wrong. your looking for an argument where none exists and showing ignorance in the process. the argument is that things such as charity are not the proper or legitimate role of government, government by it's nature will politicize such things and use them for political expediency and the people who really need help will suffer as a result. These things should be left to the people for whatever reason they choose to pursue such things. In fact I would argue that the reason why someone who prescribes to an organized religion, fufill there so-called charitable obligations out of a belief to make themselves look good in the eyes of God, Therefore it is self interest that motivates this behavior. Your right it would nullify many laws, that is the problem Government has grown beyond it's legitimate function

I think the problem is they have forced themselves into areas that are not within their legitimate duties

their is nothing progressive about anything I said, progressivism implies government dictating morality and cofiscating wealth for purpose of achieving the vision of a few. secondly no one is attacking christian values, but the fact is not everyone is an orthodox christian, if you have a spiritual belief in such things that is all well and good, but not everyone does, the only moral obligation we have is to yourself and family everything else is extra curricular, and like I said it is something to be applauded. And you are wrong about your interpretation of legitimate law, while it is true that government has an almost monopoly on the use of force how it uses that force is what gives it legitimacy. The proper role of law is protect one individuals natural rights from infringement by another, coercion only comes into play when someone violates that. For example the government, except in special situations doen't stop someone from breaking into a home, and even if they happen to catch the person before he gets in the house he has already planned the crime.

While speaking at the 2010 national prayer breakfast, President Obama invoking health care proclaimed; that “we may disagree about the best way to reform our health care system, but surely we can agree that no one ought to go broke when they get sick in the richest nation on earth.” This statement was meant to be another of the Presidents’ toothpaste ad platitudes. (Nine out of ten dentists agree) But it actually exposed his extreme adherence to the Marxist ideology which has created such a chasm between the American people and himself.

It is certainly true that the majority of Americans have no interest in seeing innocent individuals struggle, financially or otherwise. Our nature however dictates that those struggles are a part of the human experience, and it is that very nature that limits our ability to address these struggles. I don’t know anyone who wants to see people go broke for any reason, but the question is, at what and who’s expense? It is for this reason that Obama tries to wrap his agenda in a cloak of moral superiority. But there is nothing moral about forcibly limiting the individual’s ability to provide for himself and his family for the sake of political expediency.

Obama suggests that we have this “moral” obligation as a result of being “the richest nation on the face of the earth.” This is an extremely ideological statement from a man who just days earlier declared that he is not an ideologue. While it is true that The United States is the home of a fourth of the world’s wealth, President Obama implies that this wealth belongs to the state. Our current deficits show that nothing is farther from the truth. The nation’s wealth in fact resides with its private citizens. It is extremely laudable for an individual to freely commit a portion of his wealth to the service of others, but there is however no moral obligation to do so. Finally, politicians seeking to use the iron fist of government to coerce the individual into the service of others or some dictated high virtue is not morality, it is tyranny.

Anthony D Dolpies

the whole article you mentioned makes all the sense in the world, in order to prevent things like this from happening. meaning bribing a senator with special legislation, also the reason why senators where not originally elected by popular vote.

absolutely all of these other side deals are just as bad.

it is actually very clear it says no preference in regulation OR in the revenue of ports, it is not strictly talking about ports but regulation in by the federal government that would give one state an outright advantage over the other, it is the same reason why they did not put the capitol in a state. or giving preferential taxation at the federal level, meaning the taxes levied by the feds must be equal in every state. I honestly don't know how this could hold up constitutionally.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/conservativerepublic...

Check out my Show you will not be disappointed

Date / Time: 12/10/2009 3:00 PM
Category: Politics Conservative
Call-in Number: (347) 637-2550

The Conservative Republic Live, Where Liberty Lives
We Can No Longer afford to hope join me today back at regular time 3pm est as we dissect Copenhagen, another entry from our perspective of a Russian immigrant, And the our dictatorial regime known as the EPA

what happened to the audio clip

right so lets all depend on social security where your payout is always less then what you put in, and better yet lets fund it with iou's & money that doesn't exist, this way we inflate the currency & destroy the prosperity of subsequent generations, condemning them to $40 loaves of bread, all because you lost some money in stock market downturn. How progressive.