Thursday, May 06, 2010

Articles of Freedom, part 12


This is a series of posts concerning the works of the 2009 Continental Congress. Two weeks ago I wrote about Article 10 of the Articles of Freedom, which was about our monetary policy. Now I will continue with Article 11, the text of which follows my comments.

I basically agree with everything in this article, but the point about people losing their money if they loaned it to the Federal Government is a tough call. I agree that it is now pretty obvious that if you made such a loan, most of the money would be spent illegally. But a person is not usually held responsible for what is done after a transaction is completed. It’s somewhat like penalizing gun manufacturers for murders committed by someone who bought their guns. (It’s the same principle, but not taken to the same degree.) I think other governments should be held to this standard, but I would be reluctant to apply it to individuals. On the other hand, the purchase of securities from the Federal Government by the Federal Reserve is, in and of itself, a fraudulent, unconstitutional, inequitable (grants favoritism to a particular group of individuals at the expense of the rest) transaction and should therefore be held to be null and void from the beginning as is indicated in this article.

ARTICLE 11.

PUBLIC DEBT AND ARTICLE 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION

A. BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

WHEREAS, We, the Delegates, assembled as Continental Congress 2009, desire to express our deepest concerns relative to the uncontrolled and unconstitutional spending of Congress; and,

WHEREAS, irresponsible spending by Congress without regard to the Supreme Law of the Land is unconscionable;

This document presents our concerns over the accelerating accumulation of unconstitutional and uncontrolled public debt. Moreover, we demand the extinguishment of this monstrous mountain of debt, which has been created because of government officials' blatant disregard of their Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution and the principles of our American Republic. Due to their lack of understanding, most Americans are not knowledgeable about the Founding Principles of our Constitutional Republic. Congress continues to accumulate this heavy burden without regard to our Constitution. Therefore listen to the warning voices of our Founders on this critical subject.

“Indeed, we cannot too often inculcate upon you our desires, that all extraordinary grants and expensive measures may, upon all occasions, as much as possible, be avoided. The public money of this country is the toil and labor of the people… reasonable frugality ought to be observed. And we would recommend particularly, the strictest care and the utmost firmness to prevent all unconstitutional draughts upon the public treasury.” Instructions of Braintree, Massachusetts to their legislative Representative, 1765.



“As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit… use it as sparingly as possible… , avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt… in time of peace … discharging the debts which unavoidable wars may occasion, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen which we ourselves ought to bear.” George Washington, Farewell Address.

“Persuaded, as the Secretary is, that the proper funding of the present debt will render it a national blessing, yet he is so far from acceding to the position, in the latitude in which it is sometimes laid down, that “public debts are public benefits”—a position inviting to prodigality and liable to dangerous abuse—that he ardently wishes to see it incorporated as a fundamental maxim in the system of public credit of the United States, that the creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment. This he regards as the true secret for rendering public credit immortal.” Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton, First Report on the Public Credit, 1790.

“The issuing power (of money) should be taken from the banks, and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.” Thomas Jefferson.

Our Founding Fathers have sent us a message of warning over the centuries of continuing the present policy on public debt. Suffice it to say, we need to stop our overly burdensome, frivolous constitutional and/or unconstitutional spending now. In times of such severe debt, discretionary spending is unacceptable. Therefore we acknowledge that debt is a merciless master to which we will not submit.

Therefore, the Continental Congress 2009, recommends that within 60 days after the general recess of Continental Congress 2009, citizens be selected from the several States, thoroughly familiar with all the Constitutional Principles relevant to the validity of the public debt of the United States, to come together for the purpose of reviewing the validity of the public debt as authorized by law and for the purpose of preparing a comprehensive report of their findings. This report is to be completed within 120 days of the selection of the individuals. The citizens shall study, determine, and prepare a report with respect to which of the alleged “public debts of the United States” are void and/or voidable under two principles of law, namely:



(i) Under the doctrine of the Supreme Court’s decision in Craig v. Missouri, 29 U.S. (4 Peters) 410 (1830). All contracts, agreements, or other arrangements in which any part of the consideration consists or consisted of the emission of unconstitutional “bills of credit” through or under the auspices of any Federal Reserve Bank, “member bank”, or “depositary institution” within the Federal Reserve System are void ab initio and unenforceable in any court of the United States or of any State.



(ii) All alleged “public debts” of the United States, howsoever made and in whatever form, that have been incurred for the purpose of raising revenue to be expended from the general fund of the Treasury in payment of costs arising under a particular budget of the United States are void ab initio and unenforceable in any court of the United States or of any State in the same percentage that the unconstitutional programs, activities, or expenditures in that budget bear to the total programs, activities, or expenditures therein. Every lender must be presumed to know the constitutional limits on the expenditures of money the general government borrows, to the same extent that every official of that government knows those limits. So, if a lender extends a loan to public officials, knowing that his loan will be used for unconstitutional purposes, or with willful blindness to or reckless disregard of the unconstitutionality of those purposes, he is thereby a participant in a fraud against the American people. And for the repayment of such a loan, the American people cannot be held liable.

B. REMEDIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CONGRESS

WHEREFORE, we, as a Body of Delegates constituting the Continental Congress 2009, hereby instruct our elected representatives to:

1. Cease unconstitutional spending; cease irresponsible spending;

2. Limit the spending to those items as enumerated in Article I, Section 8 or as otherwise specifically authorized by the Constitution;

3. Order the Federal Reserve to re-acquire all of its assets from all foreign banks including the IMF;

4. Order the Federal Reserve to transfer all said assets to the Treasury of the United States;

5. Hold the majority of its reserves in gold, silver or other metal classified as precious in a secure location within the borders of the contiguous forty-eight United States;

6. Repeal and Rescind legal tender laws and not interfere in any way with any private medium of exchange, private script or currency that may emerge;

7. Repudiate any and all public debt that has been unconstitutionally acquired;

8. Preclude the confiscation of any private ownership of gold or silver or any other precious metal (analogous to the confiscation of gold and silver by President Roosevelt, 1933);

9. Preclude the confiscation or prohibition of any private medium of exchange, private script or currency that may emerge;

10. Preclude the adoption of any laws, orders, or directives prohibiting the use of or any private medium of exchange, private script or currency that may emerge;

11. Unmask the deceptive practice of placing some authorizations /appropriations in a hidden off record account and direct specific accountability for all expenditure;

12. Tighter auditing of expenditures to preclude the unaccountable loss of untold billions of dollars;

13. Implement the immediate investigation of the loss of any funds and to begin the immediate prosecution of all persons suspected of involvement or association with the loss;

14. Repeal the Federal Reserve Act and all laws pertaining thereto; and

15. Do not enforce federal income tax withholding laws; rather, adopt legislation requiring that individuals provide any taxes due directly to the federal government.

Further, it is the consensus of the Delegates to Continental Congress 2009, that members of Congress have the inherent and moral responsibility to abide by its tenets, as attested to by their having signed the Oath or Affirmation of Office as required by the U.S. Constitution Art. II Sec. I, and Art. VI.

“Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligation, that which you have taken and so solemnly repeated on that venerable spot, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government.” John Adams

In 1969, the Congress-approved national debt was 286 billion dollars. As a result of congressional irresponsibility, that debt has grown to over $12,100,000,000,000 (trillion), which means that every child born in this nation is instantly shackled with a debt of more than $39,000.00. This means that most families have an annual debt that far exceeds their income. (See chart below) Moreover, various authorities have suggested that the true “public debt” is over $106 trillion dollars. This larger amount represents the inclusion of unfunded liabilities, such as Social Security, prescription drugs, Medicare, off-records appropriations, and unconstitutional spending, etc.

Personal National Debt

Year

Debt

Population

Personal Debt

2020

24 Trillion*

342 Million

70,000

2008

12.1 Trillion

303 Million

40,000

2000

5 Trillion

281 Million

20,000

1980

908 Billion

226 Million

4,000

1969

286 Billion

179 Million

1,900

* This number was based on the best estimate available


C. REMEDIAL
INSTRUCTIONS TO EACH OF THE SEVERAL STATES

It is the belief of the Continental Congress 2009 that our States are being directly and indirectly impacted by the public debt created by Congress. The theft of our finances to pay for unconstitutional and irresponsible constitutional spending on the part of Congress impacts the economy of every individual. The uncontrollable spending by Congress effectively steals monies that could otherwise be used for personal growth by the citizens of the various States, thereby creating a welfare/socialist/fascist State, where the citizens look to Washington D.C. for every aspect of their lives.

When the States’ pattern their financial policies after the federal government, the result is an increase in taxes on the citizens, thereby exacerbating the People’s burdens. Therefore, we instruct the several States to:

1. Reassert their rights, expressed in the 10th Amendment to act autonomously;

2. Refuse to accept any Federal Reserve Notes;

3. Refuse to give to the federal government any funds that could be used for un-Constitutional spending.

D. RECOMMENDED CIVIC ACTIONS BY THE PEOPLE

The Delegates to Continental Congress hereby express our deepest concerns relative to the uncontrolled and unconstitutional spending of Congress and issue the following urgent notice to all American Citizens:

Our government has plunged us into debt through excessive and senseless spending. Repayment of the portion of this debt, that cannot be liquidated by sale or seizure of public property, or by other means, indicates that it will fall upon us in the form of taxes (including the hidden tax of inflation). In one way, or another, the wealth that is taxed is created by the labor of the people.

THEREFORE, we recommend to the people the following to begin the correction of our economy:

1. If your State has engaged in irresponsible spending resulting in a large public debt, we recommend that citizens instruct their government to cease those practices;

2. Increase our power to produce by increasing our education level; keep our eyes open for changing dynamics and look for new opportunities; learn and develop new crafts/skills; and learn how to create more value for more people;

3. Learn how to be self-reliant rather than government-dependent. Any benefit that the government provides to one individual must be taken from others;

4. Increase your savings by selling fiat currency and buying hard assets; eliminate all forms of personal debt.

5. Introduce the principles of barter and alternative media of exchange and educate your local community;

6. Businesses are encouraged to begin accepting gold or silver as a viable payment for commodity and service exchanges;

7. Work with local businesses to implement an alternative local bartering system or establish a local private medium of exchange;

8. Only vote for candidates for office who are true Constitutionalists and who are committed to reducing government spending and borrowing;

9. Encourage elected State officials to return to the gold and silver standard; pass “sound/honest” money legislation to provide a competing currency to the existing fiat currency;

10. Share the information contained in the Continental Congress 2009 documents with your State legislators, county and local officials, and the media.


Learn more about the subject matter of this Article. Read CONSTITUTION. Read the PETITION to the Federal Court regarding the unconstitutional $85 Billion bailout of AIG in 2008 and Decision. Read the PETITION to the Federal Court regarding the unconstitutional $700 Billion bailout of the U.S. Financial Industry in 2008 and Decision.

(from Articles of Freedom, the Works of the Continental Congress 2009)

Click here to read the next article in this series.

Pray Today for the National Day of Prayer

I am a conservative, born again Christian, but when I look at political issues, I like to keep an open mind and not always take the “Christian side” (Alliance Defense Fund, American Center for Law and Justice, etc.) of every issue. Sometimes I take the other side, but for different reasons than the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and other such organizations.


This being the National Day of Prayer, and the fact that it has recently been held unconstitutional by a
Federal District judge, I decided to research this issue. At first I thought maybe the whole issue was just a big fight over nothing. After all, no one is being put in jail (or could be potentially deprived of rights in any way) by the proclamation of a day prayer. And on the other hand, why do we need the President to make such a proclamation? Couldn’t we just observe the Day without it? Like any other issue, I tried to wipe away my presuppositions and look first to the Bible and then the Constitution, and then to history (mostly Wikipedia) for answers.

While it is clear from Scripture that the religious and civil authority should not be combined into a single institution, the Bible makes it plain that there is nothing wrong with civil leaders giving proclamations to pray or fast. See II Chronicles 20:1-4, 30:1, Jeremiah 36:9, Daniel 6:25-27, and Jonah 3:6-10. Despite the fact that the concept of a civil proclamation of a day of prayer seems so symbolic (as opposed to issues of more substance like abortion and war), the Bible does seem to indicate in these passages that it is important.

It is also clear that the Founders had no problem with proclamations being issued for this purpose. The Second Continental Congress called for, at various times, special days to be set aside for prayer specifically calling on the name of Christ. [1] George Washington, while acting as President of the Constitutional Convention, begged that prayer be held at the beginning of each of its assemblies. [2] During the Quasi-War with
France, President Adams declared May 9, 1798 as "a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer," during which citizens of all faiths were asked to pray "that our country may be protected from all the dangers which threaten it". [3] On March 30, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued a proclamation that designated the day of April 30, 1863 as a day of "national humiliation, fasting and prayer."[4] Woodrow Wilson called for a day of prayer during World War I, as did Franklin Roosevelt during World War II, George H.W. Bush during the Gulf War, and George W. Bush during the Iraq War. In all 34 of 44 U.S. presidents have called for days of prayer during times of crisis.


The idea of an annual National Day of Prayer was introduced by the Rev. Billy Graham, who suggested it in the midst of a several-weeks crusade in the nation’s capitol. Members of the House and Senate introduced a joint resolution for an annual National Day of Prayer.


On April 17, 1952, President Harry S. Truman signed a bill proclaiming that a National Day of Prayer must be declared by each following president at an appropriate date of his choice. In 1982 a National Prayer Committee formed to coordinate and implement a fixed commemorated day of prayer. In 1988, the law was amended so that the National Day of Prayer would be held on the first Thursday of May. It now reads:


The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.

-36 U.S.C. § 119 [5]

On October 3, 2008, the Freedom From Religion Foundation sued President George W. Bush, Jim Doyle, Shirley Dobson (chair of the National Day of Prayer Task Force), and White House Press Secretary Dana Perino at a Madison, Wisconsin federal court, challenging the federal law designating the National Day of Prayer. The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is defending Shirley Dobson and the National Day of Prayer Task Force. The Obama administration asked U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb to dismiss the case in March 2009. The administration argued the group has no legal standing to sue and that the tradition of the National Day of Prayer dated back to 1775. The suit was then amended to include President Obama and Press Secretary Gibbs.


On March 1, 2010 U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb stated that FFRF's lawsuit can proceed forward because the plaintiffs had shown that they suffered "
concrete injury" that can potentially be remedied by judicial action. Justice Crabb stated about those supporting the federal law designating the National Day of Prayer, "adopting [the] defendants' view of standing would allow the government to have unrestrained authority to demean members of any religious group without legal consequence. The federal government could declare the 'National Day of Anti-Semitism' or even declare Christianity the official religion of the United States, but no one would have standing to sue because no one would have to 'pass by' those declarations." [6] This was in regards to the defendants' position that the plaintiffs did not have standing to engage in the lawsuit. Mr. Bolton, legal counsel of the Freedom From Religion Foundation stated, "The Foundation has never been opposed to nongovernment parties designating and participating in their own Day of Prayer activities. Here, however, government officials have too often adopted the religious perspective of Mrs. Dobson and the National Day of Prayer Task Force as the official public statement and position of the government. To the extent that Mrs. Dobson and the Task Force, operating from the Focus on the Family campus in Colorado Springs, concentrate on the private sphere, that is their prerogative. FFRF is concerned about the government's respect for the separation of church and state, which the court intends to address."[7]


On April 15, 2010, Judge Crabb ruled that the statute establishing the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional as it is "
an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function".[8][4][9] However, Crabb stayed her ruling pending the completion of appeals.[10] In her ruling Judge Crabb stated the following:

In my view of the case law, government involvement in prayer may be consistent with the establishment clause* when the government's conduct serves a significant secular purpose and is not a "call for religious action on the part of citizens." McCreary County, Kentucky v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844, 877 (2005). Unfortunately, (section) 119 cannot meet that test. It goes beyond mere "acknowledgment" of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context. In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience. "When the government associates one set of religious beliefs with the state and identifies nonadherents as outsiders, it encroaches upon the individual's decision about whether and how to worship." McCreary County, 545 U.S. at 883 (O'Connor, J., concurring). Accordingly, I conclude that (section) 119 violates the establishment clause.

It bears emphasizing that a conclusion that the establishment clause prohibits the government from endorsing a religious exercise is not a judgment on the value of prayer or the millions of Americans who believe in its power. No one can doubt the important role that prayer plays in the spiritual life of a believer. In the best of times, people may pray as a way of expressing joy and thanks; during times of grief, many find that prayer provides comfort. Others may pray to give praise, seek forgiveness, ask for guidance or find the truth. "And perhaps it is not too much to say that since the beginning of th[e] history [of humans] many people have devoutly believed that 'More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of.'" Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 433 (1962). However, recognizing the importance of prayer to many people does not mean that the government may enact a statute in support of it, any more than the government may encourage citizens to fast during the month of Ramadan, attend a synagogue, purify themselves in a sweat lodge or practice rune magic. In fact, it is because the nature of prayer is so personal and can have such a powerful effect on a community that the government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual's decision whether and when to pray.[8]


*“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…

Of course, Judge Crabb’s judgment is way off, the simple issuance of a proclamation of a day of prayer cannot be unconstitutional because it doesn’t come close to establishing a religion and the Founders would never have put something in the Constitution which would disallow something that is held to be of such great importance in the Scriptures. There obviously shouldn’t be a “National Day of Anti-Semitism”, but there is nothing in the Constitution which would prevent this from happening--no document, not even the Constitution, could ever prevent (even if it were always enforced) every wrong thing from happening, especially since no powers are really being exercised here (but see the next paragraph).

What would bother me, if anything does, about the legislation is that it is an (apparently binding) command given to the President by the Congress where no explicit authority to do so is mentioned in the Constitution (thus, an apparent violation of the 10th amendment). In the past, such proclamations were made at the discretion of the President. I do not believe that these proclamations themselves are a violation of the 10th amendment because they are not binding on anyone, i.e. it is not an exercise of power. The Congress could instead pass a non-binding resolution that a Day of Prayer be proclaimed.

Another thing that bothers me is one of the defenses being used against the judge’s decision. The argument that such proclamations go back to 1775 is fine, but to say that the plaintiffs have no standing would be to reinforce a dangerous precedent. (But it seems hypocritical of the courts to apply this when someone is legitimately trying to hold the government accountable to the constitution and not apply it to frivolous cases like this.) I hope that none of the attorneys fighting for this will resort to using arguments that the NDP is immune from the Establishment Clause because it serves “a secular purpose”. A law for a religious purpose doesn’t violate the 1st Amendment as long as it does not exercise powers (or effect them in any way) which are solely and rightfully within the jurisdiction of the Church or prohibit religious exercise.

References (mostly from Wikipedia)

1. http://www.constitution.org/brief/historical_test_brief.htm

2. www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc-1787.txt

3. John Adams, "A Proclamation," March 23, 1798; printed in thePhiladelphia Weekly Magazine, March 31, 1798.

4. Richmond, Todd (15 April 2010). "Federal judge rules Day of Prayer unconstitutional". Associated Press. Retrieved 18 April 2010.

5. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/36/I/A/1/119

6. http://www.ffrf.org/uploads/legal/dayofprayer_standing.PDF^

7. http://www.ffrf.org/news/releases/court-ffrf-suit-against-national-day-of-prayer-can-proceed

8.http://www.wiwd.uscourts.gov/assets/pdf/FFRF_v_Obama_Order.pdf

9. Gilgoff, Dan (16 April 2010). "Federal judge strikes down National Day of Prayer statute". CNN. Retrieved 16 April 2010.

10. Richey, Warren (15 April 2010). "Federal judge: National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 17 April 2010.

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

Reflection on the ’10 Primary Election

.
REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER!
.
Looking at the results of the 2010 Primary election in Ohio I make a few observations.

First, the two major issues on the ballot, something called the Third Frontier, an alleged job development scheme, and a constitutional amendment to move the Columbus, Ohio casino location from a downtown location to a poor, depressed area of town, were both approved by the voters. What the majority of voters, I was not one of them in either case, approved was an increase in an already staggering debt burden potentially contributing to economic collapse on one hand. On the other hand, the voters sanctioned the encouragement of continuing moral degradation and collapse in an already economically and morally vulnerable area of town.

Second, as far as the Republican statewide races, the GOP machine with its wealth defeated the Tea Party endorsed or sympathetic candidates. In several cases the GOP backed or endorsed candidate, who coalesced the Tea Party ideals and principles as their own, while never intending to put those principles to action. What we have is the proliferation of Mike DeWine RINOism in several statewide races The GOP has apparently not learned anything from their defeats in 2006 and 2008! Like the Democrat Party the GOP, too, has not heard the outcry of the Tea Party or Town Hall participant.

Third, a few hopeful signs from this post election vantage point is the strong possibility that the current Democrat Governor will be ousted this fall. There is also a possibility that a few of the Democratic U.S. Congressmen such as Steve Driehaus (OH-1), Zack Space (OH-18), and John Boccieri (OH-16) will be replaced with somewhat conservative Republicans. From the little I know about Republican candidate Rob Portman, he may be another George Voinovich (RINO-OH), which is not good.

Finally, the biggest positive that I take away from this election is my involvement in the campaign of fellow-blogger Sam, who ran for Ohio State Rep. Sam and several of his friends and brother attended candidate forums, developed advertising and/or distributed campaign literature door-to-door. With limited resources and being referred to by one news reporter as being “just a truck driver” Sam tirelessly participated in the process. First getting on the ballot and then walking many towns in his district. He was a winner, even though he may have garnered only 7% of the vote. He tried to bring real change and real hope in a district, a state and a nation that truly needs it.

REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER!

Tuesday, May 04, 2010

Take a hike, Mr. President!

Hat tip to K.C. who forwarded the photo below, which complements today's NewsBusted item noted below.
.
“Arizona just passed a law reinforcing the current federal law making it a crime to be in this country illegally.

"So, take a hike, President (Soetoro a/k/a) Obama!’”

- - - NewsBusted, Episode 5/4/10

NewsBusted is a conservative comedy webcast about the news of the day, uploaded every Tuesday and every Friday. Their newest NewBusted episode includes the excerpt above.

Monday, May 03, 2010

Which disaster is worse, the Gulf or Washington?

..
Cartoon by Gary Varvel as found on Townhall.com 4/30/10
.
.
It is Washington, by far, that is the bigger disaster. The trillions of wasted spending the past year or so. The regulations that will pour out of the EPA and the Secretary of Health and Human Services Office and other agencies will suffocate the live out of this nation and its businesses. The needless bailouts, pork, crony-capitalism, Alinsky radicalism that has crept into all areas of our government, that is the real deadly disaster - a man made disaster - that has been unleashed on America. It was fomenting even prior to the current regime's ascendancy to power. However, what the current administration or regime is doing to America makes the oil spill in the Gulf look like a drip or drop in the bucket.

Arizona's Principled Stand

.
Cartoon by Glenn Foden as found at Townhall.com 5/3/10


Congratulations to AZ for taking a courageous stand against all odds both numerically and politically. They have introduced sanity into this ridiculous problem. The Federal government under both the Republican Bush and the Democrat Soetoro/Obama have dropped the ball big time. They have shirked their responsibility and have caused an exacerbation of the problem by their abuse of the law. Now, AZ is demonized, when it should be emulated and praised. The world is turned up side down, thanks to the crazed 'hope and change' blarney billowing forth from the occupier of the White House.
.

Sunday, May 02, 2010

What we should look for in our political candidates?

Sam is running for state representative in the 81st District in Ohio. His essay deals with what to look for in a candidate running for office.


WHAT ARE THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR HOLDING OFFICE?

As people campaign for an elected government office, voters look for various things in a candidate. The following are some of the things that voters desire in their candidates.

There are those who demand promises from the candidate. Some want these promises in writing signed by the candidate himself, as in pledging no higher taxes. Others are happy with the spoken promise as in the promise of “change” or “hope” which means something (anything) different than the present situation.

Many people want candidates that will support their particular cause. Those in favor of abortion want candidates that favor abortion. Those against abortion want candidates who oppose abortion. Unions want candidates that will give unions dominance over the worker and the business owners or municipalities, state, and federal governments. Others want a candidate that will limit the power of the union. Veteran organizations want candidates that provide help for veterans and security for the nation. There are those who desire to limit the strength of the armed services.

Some people want candidates that will provide for them financially. Social Security is usually a must since many millions of Americans depend on it as their only means of financial support. Businesses want legislation that will provide contracts to them for goods and services. Governments and charities want grants that will help them meet their financial obligations. Government workers tend to want higher taxes and higher spending.

Some politicians (and whole political parties) seek to develop a group of people, who are dependant on the government so that these people will always vote for them.

What a candidate believes and stands for is often considered by voters.

Experience is often looked for in a candidate; legislative for a representative or a senator and judicial for a judge. Leadership is always a trait looked for in a candidate.

THE ULTIMATE TEST OF A CANDIDATE

What I do not hear is what God calls for or requires in a person or a candidate. God says that a person who rules men must be just and rule in the fear of God (2 Samuel 23:3).
.
BEING JUST

What is just is determined by the character of God. He has put what is right and wrong into law, which is found in the Holy Bible. This includes the Ten Commandments and other scriptures which define what is moral conduct and what is not moral conduct. God has also put His law into people’s minds so that they are born with a conscience. Paul writes that those not having the written law of God but obey it anyway are a law unto themselves (Romans 2:14, 15). When people disobey their conscience for a long enough time what is moral may seem immoral to them and what is immoral may seem moral. God says woe to those who call evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20).

Some examples of this kind of correct or godly thinking are obvious: profit is good and debt is not good. Those who say otherwise are not just. New life begins at conception. Those who believe otherwise, or do not know, are not just. Homosexuality is an abomination worthy of death for its participants and annihilation of the society in which it is allowed. Those who believe otherwise are not just. We are to love God. Those who do not love God are not just.

TO RULE IN THE FEAR OF GOD

To rule in the fear of God means to acknowledge God in every action, decision, and law a public servant undertakes. It means to put God and country before one’s own selfish interests. It means to respect, to be in awe of, and to be obedient to God.

Ultimately God is the One who is just, and He justifies those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. He, above all else, must be honored. You must believe that He is God in flesh, born of a virgin, sinless, and that He died for you on the cross and rose again. If you believe this and desire to be just you can confess to God that you are a sinner and invite Jesus into your heart. Whoever comes to Him will be saved. A sample prayer is, “Lord Jesus Christ, forgive me of my sin and come into my heart.”

Saturday, May 01, 2010

Ohioans, vote NO on Issues 1 & 2 on 5/4/10

ISSUE 1 – NO TO MORE DEBT

The following editorial was written by businessman David W. Johnson and can be found in its entirety at
www.AmericanRoundtable.com.

“There is a $500 Million ticking time bomb of debt that may well balloon by an additional $700 Million if the voters of Ohio are duped into approving Issue One on the May 4th Primary ballot. This ballot issue would extend the life of the Ohio Third Frontier program which has already spent almost $1 Billion supposedly transforming the “intellectual property” of Ohio’s universities into new high tech ventures at a multitude of corporations in Ohio and at some headquartered outside of Ohio.

“As noble a goal as this may be, Ohio can ill afford to continue to spend billions and billions of dollars that it doesn’t have. Though Issue One is billed as merely a “bond issuance”, and not a new tax - what is a state bond issuance if not a pledge of future tax revenue and perhaps future tax increases?

“With Ohio already facing a $7 Billion structural deficit…plus a projected $4 Billion unemployment loan to the federal government due in 2010…you would think that our elected officials would pull in the reigns and exercise fiduciary caution. But clearly this has not happened. Of course, it’s not their money. It is yours and mine…and future generations…that will be stuck with the tab long after the current politicos have retired and are enjoying their rich (unfunded pensions ...”


Read more at
Vote No on Ohio Issue 1 - Ohio’s Third Frontier: Ticking Time Bomb of Debt.

ISSUE 2 – NO TO GAMBLING & TO MISUSING THE CONSTITUTION

The following information is an excerpt of an editorial written by Dave Zanotti, President of American Roundtable and also found on
www.AmericanRoundable.com.

“It took casino consultants 22 years of defeats and over $100 million in wasted campaign spending to figure out that the way to win in Ohio was to cut the number of players at the ballot box. Casino gambling passed in Ohio because the amendment making it legal was placed on the 2009 off-election year ballot where voter turnout was fractional. Now the casino owners, with the willing help of the General Assembly, are placing a constitutional amendment on the May 2010 primary election ballot where turnout will be even smaller.

“The casino “big-dogs” got themselves in a jam in Central Ohio. The people there don’t want a casino. A handful of well-connected people there don’t want the casino near their business development either. So, Penn National agreed to move the casino to “the other side of town” and a much larger facility. Only problem is – the constitutional amendment Penn National wrote in 2009 prohibits the move. So in 2010, Penn National is using a primary election vote to erase their mess up and move their bigger casino into somebody else’s neighborhood.

“The casino industry, with the willing help of the General Assembly, has painted Ohio into a corner. The state constitution and the ballot box are now part of Penn National’s business plan. Even sadder, Penn has figured out that to expand their empire, all they have to do is place an amendment in a primary election where the majority of Ohio voters do not vote because they have no reason to vote …"

Read more at
Vote No on Ohio Issue 2 - Give the Constitution a Break.