Tasine wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The government, as it is, has failed, solely because of corrupt politicians and lazy citizens and dumbed down voters. It has failed and it is bankrupt. Because of the bankruptcy, eventually it, government, will stop. Banks are failing. One day we will wake up with no electricity, no water pumping, etc. It will be a miracle if it doesn't happen. Once this government falls, if we can prevent somebody else from stealing it as we allowed the collectivist religion to take it and destroy it, we can implement somewhat the same with a few major changes that keeps the feds far, far away from our money and property.
I hope you will visit another site I am active in and read some articles there from time to time.
http://no-ruler.net/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ br The government, as it is... (
show quote)
If we got back to our constitution and stuck to our guns we could rectify it but we have to stop twisting the bible and Jesus's words to imply something they don't. Following is a lesson from Davy Crockett.
Davy Crocketts Lesson for Liberals
Written on Friday, May 9, 2014 by David L. Goetsch
Liberal advocates of big government view your money as their money. Since the United States Congress was first established there have been Congressmen who want to spend your money on their projects. In fact, the authority to spend other peoples money has long been too great a temptation for many who serve in Congress; especially those of the liberal persuasion. But one Congressman learned the hard way that spending other peoples money can backfire on an elected official. Congressman Davy Crockett learned this lesson many years ago just in time to save his seat in Congress.
Before gaining immortality at the Alamo, Davy Crockett served in the United States Congress (1827 1831 and 1832 1835), but his philosophy concerning spending other peoples money is even more relevant today than it was all those years ago. He came to his philosophy after a misstep in which he voted with his colleagues in Congress to use taxpayer dollars to help private citizens in Georgetown recover and rebuild after a devastating fire. According to Edward S. Ellis, author of The Life of Colonel Crockettabiography published in 1884Crocketts charitable vote did not go unnoticed by one of his more influential constituents. This particular constituent was well-informed on current events, such as Crocketts voting record, knowledgeable of the Constitution, and set in his beliefs concerning the responsibilities of a Congressman. Had he lived today, he would have been a member of the Tea Party.
Crockett was home stumping for re-election when he happened upon this particular constituent plowing a field. When Crocket approached the man and asked for his support, the farmer sternly refused. It seems he knew all about Crocketts vote to use public funds to help the residents left homeless by the Georgetown fire recover. Crockett was taken aback by the mans attitude and claimed
certainly nobody would complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there you would have done just as I did. This is when Davy Crockett learned a lesson that saved his seat in Congress. It is a lesson todays Congressmen on both sides of the isle would do well to learn.
The farmer replied, It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for legitimate purposes
The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power than can be entrusted to man
While you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. The farmer went on to tell Crockett that if he and his colleagues in Congress wanted to give money in a charitable cause, they should have given their ownnot that of American taxpayers. Speaking of the practice of spending public funds to relieve the burdens of private citizens, the farmer said: You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give to charity. The farmers message to Davy Crockett was clear: tax dollars are not yours to give. They are collected to finance specific government responsibilities as stated in the Constitution and nothing more.
Properly chastened, Crockett agreed with the man, apologized, and enlisted his help in getting re-elected. Needless to say, with the help of this constituent Crockett won his re-election campaign. Further, the next time Congress voted to devote public dollars to relieve the suffering of a private citizen Crockett not only voted against the motion but challenged his colleagues to each give one week of their own salaries to take care of the person in question. Thanks to Crocketts impassioned speechjust a more eloquent a recital of what his constituent had told himthe vote to use taxpayers dollars for public charity failed.
I have known of this story for many years. I suppose it to be true, but dont really know. Only two people know: Davy Crockett and his biographer Edward S. Ellis, and they are both long since dead. However, regardless of the storys authenticity its message is both true and prescient. What the farmer in the story feared has come true in spades. When it comes to welfare, food stamps, and the 100 plus other programs that make up the governments misnamed War on Poverty, the trillions of dollars that have been spent by Congress were not theirs to give. I wonder what Davy Crocketts constituent, a simple farmer who knew the Constitution better than his Congressman, would think of the entitlement society America has become and the use of public funds by liberals in Congress to create and maintain a dependent and, hence, loyal constituency.
The Constitution prescribes specific uses for the taxes collected by the government. There is nowhere in the Constitution a requirement or even an allowance for using tax dollars for charitable causescoercively using one mans money to benefit another man is not charity, it is robbery. Further, using tax dollars to get people hooked on government handouts so they will dependably support the politicians who give them the handouts is not just un-Constitutional, it is unconscionable. Davy Crockett learned this lesson from a simple farmer. It is too bad more members of Congress dont have constituents like this simple farmer.