Why are we entertaining what President Obama wants to do? President Obama and the extreme left are only 20% of the population. It's like Romans 14:7-12 - A weak Christian who tries to make everyone do exactly like they do. You can't eat ANY meat in the marketplace because you don't know which was sacrificed to idols. But Paul tells us that all food is good to eat, because the idols are worthless and not the true God. We are America. We are not Europe. Why are we playing with European ideals at all? They aren't even American ideals. You can't even adapt them to be American ideals.
When America wrote her constitution, there wasn't anyone else in the world trying a form of government like this. No one else had a system of checks and balances like this. They were supposed to work in harmony so that no one branch of government was stronger than the other. And, believe it or not, we were the final check. WE THE PEOPLE had the ultimate power, the power of the vote. If we didn't like things, in 2 or 4 years we could change them. The six year vote for the Senators didn't come until later.
I've been reading a book called The 5,000 Year Leap. It gets it's title because we made a 5,000 year leap in technology in just 400 years of history, in OUR time on this continent. We landed here, in the late 1600's, using farming techniques much like what they used 5,000 years ago, with people who still spun their own thread, hand spun cloth, then made their own clothes. There wasn't a store to run down to. Or, they imported cloth, and started from there to make their own clothes. And now, do many people even know how to MEND their own clothes? They not only run to the store to get something new when the old one wears out, they buy something when they're bored with the old one.
In this book, there is a list of the checks and balances we are SUPPOSED to have. I'm going to list them, and then comment on how they have either eroded, or have been replaced by this administration, if applicable. Some are still in place, but very few.
1. "The House of Representatives serves as a check on the Senate since no statute can become law without the approval of the House." Well, this would work if one party didn't control the House beyond 2/3 vote. Which was the case until Scott Brown got in office, and may be the case anyway as he might have been proven Progressive Light.
2. "At the same time the Senate (representing the legislatures of the states before the 17th amendment) serves as a check on the House of Representatives since no statute can become law without it's approval." See the note on number 1.
3. "A President can restrain both the House and the Senate by using his Veto to send any bill not meeting with his approval." Except that the President and both house and senate are all of the same party, so they are in agreement on most bills.
4. "The Congress has, on the other hand, a check on the President by being able to pass a bill over the President's veto with a 2/3's majority of each house." See the note on number 3.
5. "The legislature also has a further check on the President through it's power of discrimination in approving funds for the operation of the executive branch." Again, the note on number 3.
6. "The President must have the approval of the Senate in filling important offices of the executive Branch." The President and both houses are from the same party.
7. "The President must also have the approval of the Senate before any treaties with foreign nations can go into effect." See note on number 6.
8. "The Congress has the authority to conduct investigations of the executive Branch to determine whether or not funds are being properly expended and the laws enforced." See note on number 6 - like that's gonna happen.
9. "The President has a certain amount of political influence on the legislature by letting it be known that he will not support the reelection of those who oppose his program." See note on number 6 - and this has already happened at the Republican health summit.
10. "The executive branch also has a further check on the Congress by using its discretionary powers in establishing military bases, building dams, improving navigable rivers, and building interstate highways so as to favor those areas from which the President feels he is getting support by their representatives." This sounds like blackmail to me.
11. "The judiciary has a check on the legislature through its authority to review all laws and determine their constitutionality." The President appoints judges. About half of the justices are liberal. Good thing they're appointed for life.
12. "The Congress, on the other hand, has a restraining power over the judiciary by having the constitutional authority to restrict the extent of its jurisdiction." This check is currently in place.
13. "The Congress also has the power to impeach any of the judges who are guilty of treason, high crimes or misdemeanors." This check is currently in place.
14. "The President also has a check on the judiciary by having the power to nominate new judges subject to the approval of the Senate." About half are liberal currently.
15. "The Congress has further restraining power over the judiciary by having control of appropriations for the operation of the federal court system." This is in place.
16. "The Congress is able to initiate amendments to the Constitution which, if approved by 3/4's of the states, could seriously affect the operation of both the executive and judicial branches." This is in place, and the Republicans could currently use it, but would 3/4 of the states overturn anything Obama did?
17. "The Congress, by joint resolution, can terminate certain powers granted to the President (such as war powers) without his consent." Except the President and most of Congress is the same party. There aren't enough Republicans to do this.
18. "The People have a check on their Congressmen every two years; on their President every four years; and on their Senators every 6 years." This is OUR only check, and they apparently either aren't afraid of it, or think we're too stupid to see beyond the R or the D, or too Party tied to go against it. Or they think our memory is too short to remember what they did to us by the time election time rolls around, or that it can't be undone, because they're doing it anyway.
My pastor told a story about when he was young and the state of Arkansas gave out commodity groceries. Commodity Groceries were free groceries, you didn't have to do anything to get them. They were totally free. He contrasted it to accepting Jesus Christ. When you accept Christ, it's not really totally free. There's a condition attached. You have to accept Jesus as your Lord from now on. He says, "You can have this Salvation, but I get you." It's like saying, "You can have this bag of groceries, but I get you."
Well, the government is doing that now. "Here, GM, take this bail out, but we own you." They try to do it with the American people. Except the government is not a Savior, they're batting for the other side. You can't serve two masters. Are you beholden to a government that is handing you money? What is a bail out? Is it my son's SSI? Is it my husband's military retirement check? Is it our Tricare Prime health care? What is your bail out? Will there come a time of hard decisions?
I'm pretty sure I can make decisions not based on the benefits I'm receiving. It would hurt to lose them, but I could cut enough stuff out to live without them. It would require a major overhaul of my budget, and my in-laws would not be happy with me, but it could be done. We are trying to sell a house we own together, and they would have to get a reverse mortgage and buy my half of it from me, to get me out of that mortgage. Then I wouldn't have any government handouts. I hope it doesn't come to that. I worry about people who are addicted to government handouts. It's like any other addiction. It might hurt for a while to cut it off. There will be no fading off of it.
If our government collapses into a Great Depression, all those handouts will STOP cold turkey. What will America look like with no Welfare? No unemployment? Will we be able to help each other? Will there be roaming bands of "takers?" Will the police be able to handle all the violence? This is another reason to fight gun control. They want to take guns away, probably in an effort to stop the violence that they see coming when things collapse. Do you really think the criminals are going to be honest and give up their guns? No. Honest people might be HONEST and give up their guns because they've been taught to do what authority tells them to do, and authority is telling them to hand in their guns. But the bad guys have lied all their lives, what makes you think they'll pick now to be honest? so when things collapse, who will have guns? Only the police and the bad guys. You hear stories NOW of people being put on hold with 911.....what about when the "stuff" hits the fan? I'm not gonna be on hold with 911, with someone breaking into my house to steal my food, hurt my family, holding a knife when they have a gun, because the government asked me to turn in my guns.....
When they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Lori Ann Smith, in TEXAS
No comments:
Post a Comment