In 1644 Rev. Samuel Rutherford published LEX, REX, The Law & the Prince to demonstrate that the natural law is above the King, Some 364 years later The Invisible Hand Blog is born after a historic election a Reagan Conservative born in the 60's molded in the Reagan years begins this blog to demonstrate the God given Unalienable rights given to every person by God. God bless the truth and let the truth be raised.
Thirteen miles of original Route 66 Portland concrete that is what you hit after driving through the ghost town of Texola, Oklahoma. The Texas state line and the thump, ka-thump of concrete to the journey. After seeing Texola, a town that looks deserted after Interstate 40 was built to the north of Route 66 and Texola. I immediately think back to a line George Bailey said in the movie "It's a Wonderful Life," this is not exact, "it is the small town people that do the most living and dying.".
George Bailey is right, the small town is the heart of our republic and sometimes eventhough it is America's heart, politicians and especially President Obama ignore and legislate laws and policy that impact or destroy small towns. By getting off the interstate and driving the old Route 66 you see the best in America like family, faith, community and work ethic. I also noticed how many Chrysler, Dodge & jeep dealers are in these small communities along with Ford and Chevrolet. I do not have the Chrysler dealership closing list at hand, but I must assume most of these dealers will close or adapt. The impact of the largest business in a small town closing could eventually turn that town into a ghost town.
This is not a gloom and doom post because one thing about those that call small towns home is that they are rugged individualists that work hard and the super majority will adapt. That is the flip side to the problem of over government intrusion into our lives, when government legislates in the name of progress, you must adapt.
When the Interstate system was built it bypassed hundreds of small towns, but only a few died. The reason, the towns adapted, changed focus, so that they would survive and thrive, and this leads me to Tucumcari, New Mexico.
"TUCUMCARI TONITE and On Historic Route 66!" is their slogan and the town has adapted to tourists travelling Route 66.
The town has a handful of 40's and 50's style motels, the oldest is the Blue Swallow Motel built in the 1940's from surplus WW II cabins, but the one I stayed the night is the Motel Safari, just down and across from the Blue Swallow.
The motel is a classic motel that you would expect on Route 66, but it has been updated to modern standards. Wi-FI, flat screen TVs, pillow top mattresses, speakman showerheads, plush towels, & all with small town hospitality. The motel is American owned and is a must stay on Route 66.
Here, is a town and here is a motel that is thriving because they wanted to live, so they adapted, they changed and now they have inspired me, because the point is:
myself, you as an individual, the business owner of Motel Safari, and residents of small towns have more control over their destiny than President Obama has or the government has, we the people do the most living and dying and yes we control our destiny and our lives not the government.
US stocks nosedived today in another grim Monday as shares were hit by bad news that brought equities to historic lows.
The S&P and the Dow Jones both fell more than 4 per cent, bringing their losses for the year to more than 20 per cent, the measure for a bear market.
The Dow traded below 6,800 points for the first time since October 1996 at 6,763.29, a fall of 4.2 per cent. The S&P briefly fell below 700 points and finished down 4.7 per cent at 700.82.
Clearly, the markets have no confidence in Obama or his team.
And now Obama wants to confiscate over a trillion dollars through his catastrophic tax hikes. What do you suppose a tax hike like that will do to the economy?
I do not believe the Dow Jones Industrials or the USA's economy can survive an Obama Presidency, just in 41 days Obama has turned the DJI into the CHA-CHA- SLIDE. He is also giving high productive earners a chance to avert the tax hikes.
President Barack Obama's tax proposal – which promises to increase taxes for those families with incomes of $250,000 or more -- has some Americans brainstorming ways to decrease their pay, even if it's just by a dollar.
In the wake of Obama's tax proposal being unveiled, some Americans are doing everything they can think of to fall beneath the $250,000 mark so they don't have to pay more in taxes under the plan.
(ABC News/AP)
A 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named, told ABCNews.com that she plans to cut back on her business to get her annual income under the quarter million mark should the Obama tax plan be passed by Congress and become law.
It has only been 41 days, how much can the DJI and the USA do when you have the President of the United States bailing more and more and more water into the already water filled ship of the USA economy. I just pray that American's wake-up and at the mid-term elections, fill the house and senate with Conservative politicians, who will promise Grid-Lock to stop the Obama Socialism Train-Wreck.
The Federal Government's Power is LIMITED, it is time for States to Stand Against the TYRANNY of the Federal Government, New Hampshire is trying to fire the First Shot, here is an article by Larrey Anderson of the American Thinker.
The Shot Heard Round New Hampshire
Larrey Anderson Four New Hampshire state legislators have introduced a resolution affirming Thomas Jefferson’s defense of states' rights. House Concurrent Resolution 6 was recently introduced into the New Hampshire’s State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee by Rep. Itse, Rep. Ingbretson, Rep. Comerford, and Sen. Denley.
Interestingly, the authors of the New Hampshire Resolution took most of the language from the document commonly known as “Jefferson and Madison’s Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.”*
Following in the footsteps of the Founding Fathers the New Hampshire Resolution declares:
That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress….
The New Hampshire Resolution boldly defends the state’s (and its citizens') rights preserved under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Representative Daniel Itse, one of the resolutions co-authors, appeared yesterday on the Mike Church Show radio program. A transcript of the interview can be found here.
Representative Itse explained the reasoning behind the introduction of his resolution:
As a statement of the founders’ principle that it is the states who are in charge, and not the federal government; that it’s they [the states] who have the power to interpret the Constitution; and that the federal government has only definite delegated powers; and that any law enacted outside those delegated powers is null and void.
A concurrent resolution lacks legal authority. It is a non-binding expression of the intentions of the legislature. Nevertheless, these four New Hampshire state legislators have shown much courage by introducing (or reintroducing) these precious principles that have been the bedrock of our republic.
Maybe HCR 6, the shot heard round little old New Hampshire, will inspire more Americans to realize the desperate need to free ourselves from an overreaching federal government. In which case, the shot heard round New Hampshire might become the next shot heard round the world.
*Thomas Jefferson was the chief author of the Kentucky Resolutions and Madison was primarily responsible for the similar Virginia Resolutions. Both men may have worked on each set of resolutions.
Pastor Rick Warren Appeared on Fox Hannity & Colmes on December 3, 2008, "The Legitimate Role of Government" was one of the issues discussed. Here is the discourse between Sean Hannity and Pastor Rick Warren:
HANNITY: But we're born in a fallen condition.
COLMES: We are?
HANNITY: I mean, so human beings are imperfect.
WARREN: Yes.
HANNITY: All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. OK, so with that understanding, there's always going to be human evil. The question is, can you eradicate it. In other words, the whole issue came up. Can you — can you talk to rogue dictators.
Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, wants to wipe Israel off the map, is seeking nuclear weapons.
WARREN: Yes.
HANNITY: I think we need to take him out.
WARREN: Yes.
HANNITY: Am I advocating something dark, evil or something righteous?
WARREN: Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped. And I believe...
HANNITY: By force?
WARREN: Well, if necessary. In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers.
HANNITY: I'm just gotten, thanks to my wife, who you know, you know, been reading the Old Testament. Because as a good Catholic growing up, I studied more the New Testament.
WARREN: Just ignored that part.
HANNITY: I ignored the Old Testament. But what about King David? What about the — all the battles, all the conflict, you know, going back - - you know, Abraham — Adam and Eve and their children, going forward?
WARREN: The point is, there are some things worth dying for. There's no doubt about that. And I would die for my family. I would die for my freedom. I would die for this country.
HANNITY: If somebody broke into your house, you would be justified to kill them?
WARREN: I would be justified to protect my family. Absolutely.
HANNITY: And if it took killing them?
WARREN: Absolutely.
HANNITY: But it's not murder at that point?
WARREN: No. Murder is not self-defense.
HANNITY: Yes.
WARREN: And the Bible also says that governments can do things that I'm not supposed to do as an individual. God has authorized — God has not put the law in my hands. He's put the law in the government's hands.
Responding to Hannity’s assertion that “we need to take him [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] out,” Warren agreed, saying that stopping evil “is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers.”
I believe Rick Warren was referring to Romans 13:1-3, which states, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power?"
If you read the blogs all has been negative about this exchange, however if you go back to the Founding Fathers, many if not all, correspond and agree with Pastor Rick Warren's view of his analysis of governmental authority and jurisdiction. "To Execute the Sword," and punish evil-doers is a legitimate role of government. The Declaration of Independence echos this thought, "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. Who is the Government? "We the People. . ."
David Barton of Wallbuilders, in an article, WAS THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION A BIBLICALLY JUSTIFIED ACT?, talks about the two interpertations of Romans 13 and how the Founders Held Fast to the interpertation that the general institution of government has the right to execute the sword, but if it becomes destructive, wicked, evil then it is the right and duty of the people to change, disobey and even put in place a new government.
Here, are the two sides of Romans 13--interpretations representing a debate that has existed among American Christians for centuries.
On one side was the belief that when government speaks, God requires us to obey. This same theological position resulted in the "Divine Right of Kings" philosophy which reasoned that since the King was chosen by God, God therefore expected all citizens to obey the King in all circumstances; anything less was rebellion against God.
The other interpretation of Romans 13 was set out in a 1579 work by Frenchman Philippe du Plessis Mornay, which was printed in English as "A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants." This treatise took the position that government being ordained of God was referring to the general institution of government rather than to each distinct government.
God ordained government in lieu of anarchy. Yet, there clearly have been governments in recent years that promote anarchy, rebellion, and wickedness (e.g. Qadafi in Libya, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Idi Amin in Uganda). Has God endorsed those governments? If so, He has contradicted His nature and is commanding submission to the very things that He hates--which isn't possible.
Most Christian denominations during the American Revolution all believed that Romans 13 meant they were not to overthrow government as an institution and live in anarchy, but that this passage did not mean they had to submit to every civil law. (Note that in Hebrews 11, a number of those who made the cut in the "Faith Hall of Fame" as heroes of the faith were guilty of civil disobedience--including Daniel, the three Hebrew Children, the Hebrew Midwives, and Moses.) Furthermore, the Apostles in Acts 4-5 also declared they would obey God rather than civil authorities.
The real key to understanding civil disobedience and Romans 13 under this latter view, then, is to determine if the purpose of opposition is simply to resist the institution of government in general (which would be anarchy and would promote a rebellious spirit), or if it is to specifically resist bad laws, bad acts, or bad governments. The American Founding Fathers embraced the second interpretation of Romans 13, and therefore strongly opposed "Divine Right of Kings" theology, which was derived from the first interpretation of Romans 13. For example, Founding Father James Otis in a 1766 work argued that the only king who had any divine right was God; beyond that, God had ordained power to people.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
This follows that "to execute the sword," is a legitimate power if that government is legitimate. So that begs the question is the USA's government legitimate, if not, as I write gun sales are going through the roof.
Recent Comments