“BATED breath”, John. You’re an English teacher. Otherwise, fine piece.

Right on. And take up the Holy Rosary of our Blessed Virgin Mary. Pray it every day for her intersession. It was the people of Austria who took up the Rosary that ousted the communists from that country.

  Our nation resembles a monarchy to the extent that the government can buy enough votes to win elections like 2012. But I still have hope that enough Americans will care about freedom to change things.  Obama’s cat and mouse game on the mandate still faces continuing lawsuits and a lack of public support. Especially now that the cost is coming due.

John,
Articles like this are exhibit “A” for why voices like your and other members of the Christianist far right has finally become an embarrassment for our country and relegated to the kid’s table in politics. As every survey of Catholics shows about birth control and use of the pill, you are indeed an extremist crank who is impossible to satisfy. There is scarcely a need for the Obama administration to encourage malcontents like you to appear and spout your shrill rhetoric.
-
It is astounding that a devotee of a religious hierarchy completely absent of transparency, whose top official rules until his death, declared by itself as infallible in certain areas, can refer to our president who explicitly campaigned and was re-elected on reforming health-care as a “monarch”. Or that failing to accommodate the silly beliefs of the small but vocal minority of zealots (with their empty threat that they will shut down all “their institutions”) is comparable to Russian czars seizing Church property.
-
Let’s forget that the Church has already unilaterally shut down parts of its institutions due to declining membership and the need for cash to pay dearly for its gross crimes against children, as the veil on the operations of its revolting hierarchy has been lifted. It has ceded the high moral ground long ago.
-
Sensible discussions on regulating firearms are “using executive orders to round up Americans’ guns”. This, despite The Vatican’s chief spokesman’s recent appeal to members of the U.S. Congress “to limit firearms that are making society pay an unacceptable price in terms of massacres and senseless deaths.”
-
Thank you for self-flagellating your way to further irrelevance.

As Mr. Cuccinelli has said “civil disobedience would expose the HHS mandate Tyranny”.  So I hope everyone is ready for this and not just sitting at home praying and hoping.  Prayer is the fuel that drives the motor of action.

No, we don’t live in ‘something like a monarchy’, or even a tsarist autocracy.  George III was a constitutional, Christian ruler, and Nicholas II of Russia was a Christian martyr.  Obama is a tyrant, who cares nothing for constitutional precedent, and everything for revolutionary egalitarianism.

As I understand it, the latest concession, exempts not-for-profit religious bodies from funding contraception. For-profit companies are not exempt. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/yimcatholic/2013/02/interesting-stuff-i-found-while-reading-the-new-hhs-mandate-rules.html

The cause of the problem is trying to get universal healthcare via private insurance schemes rather than a single-payer scheme which is what the US Bishops preferred. 

The US Bishops support for universal healthcare is closer to Catholic values than John Zmirak’s. Subsidiarity is not the absolute principle of Catholic Social Teaching - there are other values such as Solidarity, Preferential Option for the Poor etc..

From the Catechism 2288 (my emphasis)
“Respect for health.

Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.

Concern for the health of its citizens requires that SOCIETY help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, HEALTH CARE, basic education, employment, and social assistance.”

Pauline Christians should do as St. Paul has taught you in 1 Corinthians 9 :19-23.

As more non -Christian Citizens become familiar with this mess,  I think more will speak out against, it. Maybe not from a pro -life perspective,  but from one that grows from economic necessity.  Touted as the “Affordable Care Act “, this is anything but.  Our families ’ premiums triipled this year.  We are some of the “lucky ones ” who up until this time could pay for a good health care insurance product,  who now are forced to choose between every day necessities or health care.  Defined now as a tax,  we have a choice.  We can pay our mortgage, heat, power bills and food or pay this unfair tax.  We can’t do both.  I suppose we could not pay and then have our wages levied or our home seized and sold to satisfy the tax lien.  There was also supposed to be a panel of 15 to oversee this. No one will serve on this. If no one serves on this, Sebelius alone determines what is and is not covered.  How many trust their lives or those of their grandparents and children to her?  In no other case do we purchase an insurance product without knowing what it will cost and what we are purchasing?  This is flawed in so many ways.  We are now being taxed twice for the same thing.  We pay federal taxes of which a portion already was utilized to provide health care for the disadvantaged.  We are now being taxed again to supplement this so the federal government is double dipping.  We’re supporting not only health care services, but also insurance executives and pharmaceutical giants who gouge the public with over -inflated product pricing while we continue in an unconscionable manner to spend on death machines in the form of weaponry.  This is more than aa battle “over religious freedom, though I agree this is alarming,  it is alarming on many fronts.  The whole American Public has been sold a “pig in a poke “!  What happens once the middle class is eliminated?  This bill,  which btw contains more pages than the Bible,  was rushed through Congress.  No one read it. There is much blame to be had.  It begins with the American People who thinking they were getting something for nothing (and still do)  were far too willing to support it.

“The cause of the problem is trying to get universal healthcare via private insurance schemes rather than a single-payer scheme which is what the US Bishops preferred.”

“The US Bishops support for universal healthcare is closer to Catholic values than John Zmirak’s.”

Absurd non-sequitur.  The Church teaches that there should be SOME involvement of society in making sure people have BASIC necessities, like BASIC healthcare.  Society includes non-profit private organizations, local governments, state governments, etc.  It is only if all of these FAIL at providing these BASIC goods (like emergency health care and basic preventative services) that subsidiarity permits us to move to the federal level.  But America does not have a health care crisis; poor people (even illegal aliens) routinely DO get emergency care.

This tendency, to jump to a government-centralized, federal solution to every problem, if indulged will be the end of freedom in America—if only because the GOVERNMENT IN AMERICA IS SECULAR. That means that the more FUNCTIONS you put in the government’s hands, the more SECULAR values will be imposed on us, using our own tax money to fund it. Really, this is so simple that I do not BELIEVE people fail to understand it. I think they have evil motives.

It is becoming like a monarchy in the sense that a monarch is the ultimate source of law, this does not mean (1) that all monarchy is bad, or (2) Obama is rightly called a monarch. He is a tyrant, as Tom Hoover already said above. Monarchs are just men; corrupt monarchs are tyrants, as Aristotle said. And for good measure I’ll remind everyone of St. Augustine’s quote about corrupt kingdoms being large scale robberies. So that’s what you have here. A merciless blood stained (re: abortion) dictator leading a large scale robbery.

“America does not have a health care crisis; poor people (even illegal aliens) routinely DO get emergency care”

Lack of health insurance is associated with about 45,000 deaths each year in the US.
American Journal of Public Health http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775760/
Diabetes, high blood pressure and cancer (to name a few conditions) are unlikely to be detected early or prevented more cheaply or humanely in an ER.

Emergency care is not basic care.

Obamacare will extend health insurance to 30 million of the 50 million uninsured Americans. CDC http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/hinsure.htm

Health-insured Christians who believe that Emergency Rooms and charities are good enough for others in providing basic health care should try it (or imagine it) on themselves the next time they need to visit a doctor and ask if ER good enough for me? “love your neighbour as yourself ...”

Please don’t refer to that vulgar, grasping little man as a king.

Thank you for telling the other side of the story, Leo. I am saddened that so many opponents of the HHS mandate on abortifacients coverage have to bundle it together with anti gun control and susidiarity memes. I oppose the HHS mandate and have gone to rallies against it. Not all of us feel like the author of this article.

No, “basic care” as defined by the secular state now includes everything—up to and including, as Wesley Smith documented in First Things, SEX CHANGE OPERATIONS. But it will NOT include end-of-life care where state authorities don’t find a “quality of life.” It is irresponsible to put these decisions in the hands of a federal government that accepts abortion (and increasingly euthanasia). It is reckless. It is far WORSE than letting people fend for themselves, with the help of the Church and charities. And that is the only alternative now.

It is a positive evil to support national health care given the state of our laws. The health care mandate was not just predictable—it was predicted. Those who favored the Obama plan are culpable for ignoring these obvious implications of the law. Their supposed “good intentions” are irrelevant, a fig leaf, a paltry excuse.

“Basic care” is now being redefined, as Wesley Smith documented in First Things, to include sex change operations. It was always obvious it would include contraception, and anyone who pretends they didn’t realize that is playing dumb. Any public system set up in America would by necessity fund intrinsic evils like abortion and morning-after pills—making a single payer system even WORSE than Obamacare. So I’m glad those socialist bishops who favored that greater evil were disappointed. It is reckless to give a drunk man the keys to a car, or an evil man a dangerous weapon. That evil drunk is the U.S. government, with its anti-human laws and utilitarian worldview. Anyone who favors the growth of such a secular government, the increase of its power at the expense of Christian citizens and families, is reckless at best, culpable at worst. The pink cloud of good intentions that floats around inside such people’s heads doesn’t change the reality of the evil they enabled—any more than Cardinal Mahony’s excuses undo his crimes.

My question is: Is contraception the heart of the culture of death (as JPII and BXVI) have said, or not?  If it is, why is it almost universally ignored by the Church?  It is like having a plague ravaging through the population (I mean the Catholic population especially) and sort of nodding at it.  (Not exactly what Jeremiah would have done, or Jesus for that matter - note today’s readings.)

Can we really blame the president for thinking he can get away with enforcing something that 90% of Catholics have no problem with?  Will the Church ever stand up and attempt to stem the growing cultural tide, at least among its own people?  Even after all the back and forth regarding the HHS mandate, one is still hard pressed to hear a word mentioned about the critical (deadly) problems with contraception.  It is the first step in kicking God out of our lives and ensuring the breakdown of the family.  (And the physical consequences will soon become apparent soon I’m sure.)

WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN HOUSEHOLD!
We cannot continue ignore this problem as if it were no problem.  Unless it is the devil we are trying to please.

Matthew Ogden:
All monarchies are bad in that one’s rights come from the ruler, instead of God. That is a fundamental premise on which the United States was formed. God did not grant power to a few to oversee the many.

“Catholic Poles lived much like this under the sway of the Russian Czar.”

Actually, the Russians did not persecute Polish Catholicism that much. A better comparison would be with the Prussian Bismarck and his “Kulturkampf” when - in the name of promoting secular and nationalistic values - the Catholic Church was officially attacked, its seminaries were closed and several bishops and archbishops jailed. Sounds familiar?

Our nation is secular, not religious. The Church is not being attacked by secularism—it is the opposite: secularism is being attacked by the Church.
.
The Church regards secular humanism the same way Nazis regarded Judaism. Stop using your Catholicism as an excuse to treat others like vermin.

Two quotes from JPII’s “Centesimus Annus.” Apply them to the health care issue in America:

“[A] community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.” (48)

And:

“Such supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom.”

Does a “single-payer” plan which permanently shifts the power to decide our health care to a bureaucracy motivated by anti-Christian principles meet this test? Does Obamacare?

No? Then it’s at best foolish (and at worse sinful) to support it.

‘The Congress isn’t voting on an issue this vital to our liberties—instead, it has granted the president almost arbitrary power to decide.’

Welcome to the fourth branch of government: agencies.

‘Is this the free system my father served in World War II to help preserve? It sure doesn’t smell like it.’

Smelly though it may be, it’s still the same system then-President Roosevelt created and which existed at the time your father served.  Same, but bigger.

FDR created it by bullying the Court, using his populist mandate, and by appointing Justices which agreed with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Sound familiar?

Sandy Malia
Sorry, but this country was founded on Christian principles. It was designed under the premise that rights are God given, thus not provided by the State. In the US, 92% of its citizens are Christian. Why are you in this page, if you do not respect the Christian faith. You Childs but be more misinformed about US history as well as the history of the church. It is very sad.

Sandy Malia
Sorry, but this country was founded on Christian principles. It was designed under the premise that rights are God given, thus not provided by the State. In the US, 92% of its citizens are Christian. Why are you in this page, if you do not respect the Christian faith. You could but be more misinformed about US history as well as the history of the church. It is very sad.

Yan
Good point. The lack of action on the part of the US Congress it the same as granting power to the President as he takes unauthorized unconstitutional pow ers. Sadly, this behavior began as early as 1791 when Washington attacked his people for refusing unfair taxes in whiskey. Later Jackson promoted tyranny with the Alien and Sedition Acts. Lincoln waged war in his own people not over slavery but over land and wealth. Lincoln and the Supreme Court defied the Constitution. Roosevelt both Teddy and Franklin supported only the sovereignty of the central govt, not the states, just like Lincoln. Sadly, the difference today is that most Americans are asleep, and have lost the understanding of the defined and limited role of govt, as well as the meaning of a republic. We simply take what they shove down our throats for the most part. .

“The Church is not being attacked by secularism—it is the opposite: secularism is being attacked by the Church.”

I don’t know what planet you’re living on, Sandy, but on mine, the state has been trying to force my church to pay for abortions.

And the status quo for 223 years is that they’ve never had to face such a threat before.

“All monarchies are bad in that one’s rights come from the ruler, instead of God.”

Ha! Typical American democratic-republic garbage.

First, for the most part, political rights are not absolute. The ones that are derive from human nature, and these are relatively few in number. Yet this waste of a country can’t even get that correct anymore. Second, Aquinas defines “right” as the establishment of equality for the sake of upholding the common good. This can either be absolute or relative: absolute, so many people have an equal amount of something; or relative, so someone gets equal to what he deserves. So most of the stuff we consider “rights” are circumstantial: it benefits the common good for people in this time and this place to have the same of something.

Insofar as rights are an inherently circumstantial concept, they are always and everywhere subject to amendment and change. The only ones that aren’t are because the circumstance itself never changes, not that the right itself is unchangeable. For example: right to life for innocent human beings is absolute because the human nature to which it pertains is constant. Yet the abstract concept of “right” is still circumstantial.

If you expect the United States of Embarrassing Disgrace to be this discerning, guess again. Do you suppose the right to bear arms is also granted by God? No, it isn’t. It may be a good idea for a society, but that’s irrelevant to what I’m saying. There’s no such thing as an “inherent human right” attached to the soul. The soul simply does not admit of rights one way or the other. It admits of a specific nature; and derived from it, specific things that always benefit it in society: but this does not mean there’s an inherent “right” to anything in the human soul. It’s a subtle distinction, I admit, but an important one.

Further, I deeply, deeply resent this American/Western/modern chauvinistic attitude that the only government worth anything is democracy. And its cretin child, the belief that more democracy is always a good thing. I can tell very, very few people who make such assertions have actually given this cogent thought. If you want to believe democracy is the best form of government, fine. I don’t agree. But think about it first before you make a decision.

“All monarchies are bad in that one’s rights come from the ruler, instead of God.”

First, for the most part, political rights are not absolute. The ones that are derive from human nature, and these are relatively few in number. Yet this waste of a country can’t even get that correct anymore. Second, Aquinas defines “right” as the establishment of equality for the sake of upholding the common good. This can either be absolute or relative: absolute, so many people have an equal amount of something; or relative, so someone gets equal to what he deserves. So most of the stuff we consider “rights” are circumstantial: it benefits the common good for people in this time and this place to have the same of something.

Insofar as rights are an inherently circumstantial concept, they are always and everywhere subject to amendment and change. The only ones that aren’t are because the circumstance itself never changes, not that the right itself is unchangeable. For example: right to life for innocent human beings is absolute because the human nature to which it pertains is constant. Yet the abstract concept of “right” is still circumstantial.

If you expect the United States of Embarrassing Disgrace to be this discerning, guess again. Do you suppose the right to bear arms is also granted by God? No, it isn’t. It may be a good idea for a society, but that’s irrelevant to what I’m saying. There’s no such thing as an “inherent human right” attached to the soul. The soul simply does not admit of rights one way or the other. It admits of a specific nature; and derived from it, specific things that always benefit it in society: but this does not mean there’s an inherent “right” to anything in the human soul. It’s a subtle distinction, I admit, but an important one.

Further, I deeply, deeply resent this American/Western/modern chauvinistic attitude that the only government worth anything is democracy. And its cretin child, the belief that more democracy is always a good thing. I can tell very, very few people who make such assertions have actually given this cogent thought. If you want to believe democracy is the best form of government, fine. I don’t agree. But think about it first before you make a decision.

“All monarchies are bad in that one’s rights come from the ruler, instead of God.”

I guess that’s why God gave Israel a king then, eh?

Rights derive from circumstance and are inherently changeable. The ones that are not are such because they attach to human nature, which is unchangeable. But the abstract concept of “right” is circumstantial.

God did not give man any “inherent” rights in the human soul. None; certainly not democratic government. He did, on the other hand, give Israel a king, and refer to His Son as a king; and all stuff about kings.

Weren’t the kings always kings “by the grace of God”? You can still see the abbreviation “D.G.” before the word “Regina” on Canadian coins (probably on the British ones, too, I don’t have one at hand to check) which means exactly that in Latin, “Dei Gratia”.

How unsurprising that my post was censored, you coward. Some “discussion” board.

Matthew Ogden
This discussion thread refers to the type of government and the authority of the state. That was the main issue in my post.. It does not refer to the word king in the context of God and Christ, and the entirety of His Kingdom.  There is a reason that the United States was formed as a republic vs the monarchy from whence the finding fathers seceded .  . You can choose to believe whatever you want, but if you read the early text in various documents, you will find that this Republic for which we stand was based on God given rights.  Moreover, the Bible makes many references, John, Paul, etc.,with regards to the rights and sanctity of . . God help those who believe rights are relative and to be designated by the state. That my friend is not freedom.

It’s also not the definition of a “right.” A right is the establishment of some kind of equality to uphold the common good of society. And this takes two forms: natural and positive. Natural rights is when several people are given the same amount of something; positive rights is when someone gets the equal of what he deserves to get.

The context in which the popes have spoken of “God given” rights is not that the “right” is God given, but that the basis for the right (usually human nature) is God given. Rights as such are not God given at all. You have failed to understand this distinction.

And if they were, why do different countries have different rights? And why did God give us the correct ones and not someone else? The right to bear arms is almost an exclusively American thing. I never heard America showing up anywhere in Divine revelation. How do you explain all of this?

And again, democracy is not the only form of government, nor even the best one. Aristotle gave six forms of government. The good ones were (1) monarchy; (2) aristocracy; and (3) timocracy. The bad ones were (1) tyranny; (2) oligarchy; and (3) democracy.

The reason democracy sucks, the reason Aristotle was right to say it sucks is that it treats people as equals when they are not all equal. Not all people should be allowed to vote. Universal suffrage means all you have to do to weigh in on affairs of state is not commit a felony and maintain a pulse for eighteen years. So you get uneducated people casting worthless opinions on issues they could not possibly comprehend.

If you want elective government, okay, but don’t let the masses vote. They barely know they’re even alive. It’s doomed to fail. And it’s partially responsible for turning the American democracy into a demagogocracy.

Leo,

With your best motives and desire to serve the working people of your country you and thousands like you have been led to a betrayal of these very people.  You are poised on the side of those who seek the destruction of your own country.  Not only are you a tool for the political forces who want world control you are a tool of the mercenary big business forces in the world bent on making a profit from it. 
The Healthcare law is about nothing but control.  If you don’t know history or aren’t smart enough to understand how a tyranny takes control (it’s always for the good of you and everyone else) I’m sorry for you. 

YOU are supposed to help you neighbor NOT the government.  Christ calls us to subjugate ourselves not to forcefully subjugate one another.  There is no utopia and the road to you know where is paved with good intentions.

Sandy Malia,

Sorry Sandy but our country is founded on Judeo Christian Principals.  We are a Christian nation.  The same people who say they’re against organized religion are all card-carrying members of the church of Universal Human equality, which is the best organized,most well funded, and least tolerant mythological system on Earth.

Matthew Ogden:
My friend, I have not failed to understand the distinction, rather my comments are substantiated by untainted history of the founders in such documents as the Federalist, original journals, the Declaration, and Websters first dictionary. I am speaking of unalienable rights - not to be confused with anything else or termed inalienable.  Your argument - and you are entitled to your opinion - in my honest opinion is moot.  I do not mean to be disrespectful.  We are mixing apples and oranges. 

Your comment: And if they were, why do different countries have different rights?  Because the United States is the only Constitutional Republic in the world, except for Israel. Other countries are not founded upon the same premise, therefore the State free to offer and revoke one’s rights, civil and other wise.  Our rights are unalienable.  Websters original dictionary addresses these definitions, as Webster himself was prophetic enough to foresee possible misinterpretations that could lead to unfortunate consequences. Frankly, seceding from that totalitarian monarchy, Benjamin Franklin was brilliant to understand the concept God given rights, which no man may revoke.

You commented: The right to bear arms is almost an exclusively American thing. I never heard America showing up anywhere in Divine revelation. How do you explain all of this?

You do not hear of this in any other country, again because there is no other Republic in the world.  The right to bear arms is intended to protect ourselves from government - period.  The colonies who had just endured the revolution against the British, understood this to be necessary. There are several references in the Bible that speak to man’s freedom over government oppression.  I can not provide these references now, but you call the Institute on the Constitution, in Pasadena, Maryland. Among the many scholars there, one is a Pastor who can readily cite the references in the Bible. And as Pope John Paul II coined the term “social justice”, it has been taken out of context by the left wing progressives.

Your comment: And again, democracy is not the only form of government, nor even the best one. Aristotle gave six forms of government. The good ones were (1) monarchy; (2) aristocracy; and (3) timocracy. The bad ones were (1) tyranny; (2) oligarchy; and (3) democracy.

Tyranny is not a form of government and I agree that democracies are not necessarily good forms of government, especially since many democracies are socialist, which means that government controls all or most of the goods and services, i.e. the economy. Iran can be considered a democracy.  You cite Aristotle’s list, and I cite Benjamin Franklin’s, who said; ” I give you a Republic.”  There is a difference. the United States was formed as a “Compact”, not a nation, where the sovereignty lies within the states ans the central or federal government has limited and enumerated powers. The States, even with their corrupt politicians today, have authority over the federal government if they choose to exercise these powers. the founders believed n Federalism, and wrote the Federalist Papers in order to clear up an misunderstanding and support the idea that individuals can self-govern.

With that said, corruption began while the constitution was being ratified,  Patrick Henry “smelled a rat”, and boycotted the Philadelphia Convention.  It took two years before each colony/ State signed. Check out the “Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions” written by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.  Sad to say, since the early 1800’s the United States has operated more and more like a social democracy.  Samuel Chase was one of the first supreme court justices to ignore the Constitution (Marbury vs McCullough) in its proper interpretation.  Nationalism was becoming more popular during this time as well, and Lincoln was a Nationalist. When Lincoln waged war against his own people in the south, he violated the Constitution.  Any State had and today still has the right to secede. Massachusetts, was the source for slavery in the US.  They bought and sold slaves to the southern states. Southern landowners were the most prosperous in the country, with rich crops and key ports.  As the transcontinental railroad boomed, many northerners feared that the southern wealthy landowners would purchase the best property. To deter this, many states began to make slavery illegal.  Many southern states agreed, but wanted compensation for the money they spent purchasing the slaves. Washington himself in earlier years, gave his slaves freedom if and only if her could teach them a trade and how to read. But the North was interested in control, and would not accept anything less than war.  We are taught half of the truth. Fast forward to the 1900’s and you are right about Roosevelt.  He was a socialist, both Teddy and Franklin. 

The good news is that we still have the foundation for a Republic, and as the state give power to the central govt. they can just as easily take it away via nullification, Sheriff’s interposition, Article V, and as a last resort thoughtful planned secession.  Since the media is in the hip pocket of those in DC - dcvers, no one hears about this and in some schools the Constitution and the Federalist Papers are no longer taught. There are good people out there doing amazing things.  Over 30 states have article V initiatives now, as well as nullification of just about everything Obama is trying to do.  Even the Sheriff in my county, the top executive in any county, as with counties all over the country, has stated he will arrest any Federal Agent who attempts to penalize or arrest a citizen which infringes on their constitutional rights.

I believe that we can self-govern. I believe in this Republic and will do what I can to preserve it. We all have not been fully taught about our sovereignty and authority. See the organization redefining government,the 10th amendment Center, and the Institute in the Constitution. I think we want the same things. The answer lies not in DC, in fact they want Americans pitted against each other…see Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals.”  DC is full of DCvers.  Nothing they are doing now is Constitutional, and the Supreme court has established its own doctrine.  See; How To Interpret the Constitution, and How Not To” Michael Stokes, Yale Law Review.

As for the Constitutional Monarchy, England is the best example.  most people pay as much as 70% of their income in taxes.  And the VAT is 20 % on all purchases.  That is induced slavery in my opinion.

Nell Bowen:  your post - Well written! spot on !

Matthew Ogden:
My friend, I have not failed to understand the distinction, rather my comments are substantiated by untainted history of the founders in such documents as the Federalist, original journals, the Declaration, and Websters first dictionary. I am speaking of unalienable rights - not to be confused with anything else or termed inalienable.  Your argument - and you are entitled to your opinion - in my honest opinion is moot.  I do not mean to be disrespectful.  We are mixing apples and oranges. 

Your comment: And if they were, why do different countries have different rights?  Because the United States is the only Constitutional Republic in the world, except for Israel. Other countries are not founded upon the same premise, therefore the State free to offer and revoke one’s rights, civil and other wise.  Our rights are unalienable.  Websters original dictionary addresses these definitions, as Webster himself was prophetic enough to foresee possible misinterpretations that could lead to unfortunate consequences. Frankly, seceding from that totalitarian monarchy, Benjamin Franklin was brilliant to understand the concept God given rights, which no man may revoke.

You commented: The right to bear arms is almost an exclusively American thing. I never heard America showing up anywhere in Divine revelation. How do you explain all of this?

You do not hear of this in any other country, again because there is no other Republic in the world.  The right to bear arms is intended to protect ourselves from government - period.  The colonies who had just endured the revolution against the British, understood this to be necessary. There are several references in the Bible that speak to man’s freedom over government oppression.  I can not provide these references now, but you call the Institute on the Constitution, in Pasadena, Maryland. Among the many scholars there, one is a Pastor who can readily cite the references in the Bible. And as Pope John Paul II coined the term “social justice”, it has been taken out of context by the left wing progressives.

Your comment: And again, democracy is not the only form of government, nor even the best one. Aristotle gave six forms of government. The good ones were (1) monarchy; (2) aristocracy; and (3) timocracy. The bad ones were (1) tyranny; (2) oligarchy; and (3) democracy.

Tyranny is not a form of government and I agree that democracies are not necessarily good forms of government, especially since many democracies are socialist, which means that government controls all or most of the goods and services, i.e. the economy. Iran can be considered a democracy.  You cite Aristotle’s list, and I cite Benjamin Franklin’s, who said; ” I give you a Republic.”  There is a difference. the United States was formed as a “Compact”, not a nation, where the sovereignty lies within the states ans the central or federal government has limited and enumerated powers. The States, even with their corrupt politicians today, have authority over the federal government if they choose to exercise these powers. the founders believed n Federalism, and wrote the Federalist Papers in order to clear up an misunderstanding and support the idea that individuals can self-govern.

With that said, corruption began while the constitution was being ratified,  Patrick Henry “smelled a rat”, and boycotted the Philadelphia Convention.  It took two years before each colony/ State signed. Check out the “Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions” written by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.  Sad to say, since the early 1800’s the United States has operated more and more like a social democracy.  Samuel Chase was one of the first supreme court justices to ignore the Constitution (Marbury vs McCullough) in its proper interpretation.  Nationalism was becoming more popular during this time as well, and Lincoln was a Nationalist. When Lincoln waged war against his own people in the south, he violated the Constitution.  Any State had and today still has the right to secede. Massachusetts, was the source for slavery in the US.  They bought and sold slaves to the southern states. Southern landowners were the most prosperous in the country, with rich crops and key ports.  As the transcontinental railroad boomed, many northerners feared that the southern wealthy landowners would purchase the best property. To deter this, many states began to make slavery illegal.  Many southern states agreed, but wanted compensation for the money they spent purchasing the slaves. Washington himself in earlier years, gave his slaves freedom if and only if her could teach them a trade and how to read. But the North was interested in control, and would not accept anything less than war.  We are taught half of the truth. Fast forward to the 1900’s and you are right about Roosevelt.  He was a socialist, both Teddy and Franklin. 

The good news is that we still have the foundation for a Republic, and as the state give power to the central govt. they can just as easily take it away via nullification, Sheriff’s interposition, Article V, and as a last resort thoughtful planned secession.  Since the media is in the hip pocket of those in DC - dcvers, no one hears about this and in some schools the Constitution and the Federalist Papers are no longer taught. There are good people out there doing amazing things.  Over 30 states have article V initiatives now, as well as nullification of just about everything Obama is trying to do.  Even the Sheriff in my county, the top executive in any county, as with counties all over the country, has stated he will arrest any Federal Agent who attempts to penalize or arrest a citizen which infringes on their constitutional rights.

I believe that we can self-govern. I believe in this Republic and will do what I can to preserve it. We all have not been fully taught about our sovereignty and authority. See the organization redefining government,the 10th amendment Center, and the Institute in the Constitution. I think we want the same things. The answer lies not in DC, in fact they want Americans pitted against each other…see Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals.”  DC is full of DCvers.  Nothing they are doing now is Constitutional, and the Supreme court has established its own doctrine.  See; How To Interpret the Constitution, and How Not To” Michael Stokes, Yale Law Review.

As for the Constitutional Monarchy, England is the best example.  most people pay as much as 70% of their income in taxes.  And the VAT is 20 % on all purchases.  That is induced slavery in my opinion.

@Matthew Ogden,

It was Aristotle’s teacher, Plato, who said that “dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.” How very true! We are witnessing now the rising dictatorship of minorities (especially homosexuals) precisely in the name of democracy.

@Mr. Zmirak: Don’t hold your breath.  We can’t put our faith in men, and the Constitution is even less substantial, and so we should put our faith in that even less.  God-given rights should not be subject to a piece of paper, especially one that can be amended.  What we have right now is NOT a monarchy, as a true monarchy would be our best defense against a dictatorship—but our Founding Fathers fought a violent revolution against the last monarchy we had.

Matt Ogden and Maruisz,

The founders were well aware of the shortcomings of democracy during the classical era.  That is why they called their project a republic, and did not make each branch to be subject to democratic pressures in an equal way.  The House is the most democratic institution, the Courts the least. 

I find it ironic that Americans lambaste their Congress more than any of the branches.  Since all the members of the House are subject to election every 2 years, Americans have the most control over House members.  It is the most democratic, and it is also the most unpopular institution of gov’t.

However as ‘faithful follower’ adduces supra, our historical trajectory has nevertheless chartered and followed an inexorable arc in the direction of democratization.  Some of the fears of some of the founders in this regard have been realized.  More such fears are probably soon to be realized.

I say, like it or lump it.  America is still pretty good.

Matthew Ogden:
I am referring specifically to unalienable rights; I have not failed to understand any distinction.

Your Q;  why do different countries have different rights?  Because no other country in the world, except Israel, is a Republic.  A Republic is different from a Democracy.  We are a Compact not a nation, where sovereignty lies within the individual states. We have operated more like a social democracy, it is true, but authority still exists through Nullification( 10th amendment), Article V, and sheriff’s interposition.  Also as a last resort secession, well planned and formulated is also possible.

Your post: The right to bear arms is almost an exclusively American thing. I never heard America showing up anywhere in Divine revelation. How do you explain all of this?

The right to bear arms was intended to protect the individual from government - period. Those who fought against the British understood this.  And those countries overrun by totalitarian despots, understand this as well. Tyranny is not a form of government, nor is socialism, but both have plunged much of this world into darkness. Men have the right to protect themselves from the out of control govt. It was not intended that we become subservient to the ruler or ruling class.

Aristotle may have his list, yet I am referring to Benjamin Franklin’s;  “I give you a Republic.”  The Constitution does not give us our rights in a Republic, nor does the State.  Unalienable rights by definition come from God.  The Republic also is framed around the concept that man can self-govern. Have a look at Webster’s first dictionary, which was written to define several terms regarding the structure of our government.

Our problem is that we do not learn true history, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers.  Reading these, as well as the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, and original journals of the framers make it all quite clear.  Democracy is often used in place of the term Republic, yet it is very different by definition.  We are not a democracy, we are a Republic. DC is also full of deceivers, who for centuries have mislead Americans in order to support their own agenda. Thankfully many states are fighting back.  the media in the back pocket of the progressives does not report much of what is happening in the states. There are several Article V initiatives in the majority of states, as well as nullification of many unconstitutional initiatives, and many Sheriff’s have sworn to arrest any Federal official who seeks to impose such laws.

I had written to you earlier in more detail, but it is under review.  Perhaps NCR will post it tomorrow. It may make more sense.

Having read the comments thus far there are those who seem to hold to the position of the supremacy of the state over the Catholic Church, kind of like how the Church is treated in mainland China. This smacks of the idolatry of government. The HHS mandate is taking the social welfare state in the direction of being the meat offered to idols as is covered in First Corinthians. The Catholic Church in America is just as badly divided as the Church at Corinth was. St. Paul was a major part of the Church hierarchy of his day. In First Corinthians St. Paul was asserting his Apostolic office in giving guidance, and correction, to the Church at Corinth.  The Catholic Church in America is in as great a need of such guidance, and correction, from the Apostolic successors in the American Church hierarchy.

It doesn’t take much research for an inquiring Catholic to understand that America was certainly not founded on Christian principles. Our two founding documents, the Declaration and the Constitution, while recognizing certain Christian truths, are utterly non-Christian. The wording of the Declaration is solidly Deistic, and the Constitution is purely secular and deliberately godless. Disdaining Anglicanism and Catholicism, the Framers sought to create a State with no religious claims upon it, one that elevates State power above any and all religions. By acknowledging religious liberty as an unalienable right and enshrining it into the Constitution, the Framers cleverly relegated religion to a secondary (and ultimately powerless) role in public life. This accomplished the primary goal of the Deistic Framers (many of whom were Freemasons) regarding religion in the pluralistic new nation—its neutralization. This radical change in the concept of State power, one free from the influence and control of any religion, made America the first experimental secular power in the Western world, fostering a relentless advance of federal power from the get-go. 

Where is Christ in our Founding documents?

That Obamacare was found to be Constitutional is no surprise when seen in the light of the purely secular wording of that founding document. That the HHS Mandate is part of Obamacare is no surprise when seen in the light of the purposely godless wording of the Constitution that now finds abortion lawful. That American government has evolved from its pseudo-Christian, Enlightenment-influenced, Deistic origins into modern atheistic secularism, violating all manner of Christian principles, is no surprise given the intent of the Framers to create a nation “free” from the constraints of any one religion. That a nation founded in Liberty and Individualism is now stripping liberties from its citizens, all the while, apparently, never violating the Constitution, is no surprise given that a lasting liberty is unachievable when deliberately severed from the Truth that makes us free.

How is this tyranny?  Congress passed a law; it is now up to the relevant federal agencies to issue directives about how that law will take effect.  The recourse, if one or more of those directives is unconstitutional or illegal, is the courts.  If the directives are not illegal but ill-advised or unjust, we can try to persuade the administration that this is the case, or attempt the repeal of the law, which Congress is free to do.  This is what our system of government does.

Greg,
In many ways this is tyranny. First of which legislation at this level is beyond the “limited and enumerated” powers of the federal govt. When Congress does pass a bill, which is then signed into law,you are correct the supreme court should determine its constitutionality, however, since Marbury v. McCullough in 1861-don’t quote me in the year-the Supreme Court had begun interpreting the Constitution based on its own doctrine and specific cases instead of its actual text and the Federalist Papers. The federalist was written for the purpose of interpretation. The Tyranny began long ago in incremental steps.

With that said, the supreme court is not the law of the land nor the last check and balance.  Union and Republic was established on the basis of Compact Theory, which essentially recognized the  sovereignty of the individual states. The States represent the final check and balance. Sadly, Americans learn little about this in the classroom and add a result of biased media. In a nutshell, the central govt’s authority is given by the states and through nullification-the 10th Amendment-can just add easily take it away. The role of the federal govt is to ensure an even playing field for all Americans, and to carry out duties of which the state may not be able to perform and the state deems appropriate.

The founders believed that people can self-govern. In fact no govt agency has authority to enforce laws that are deemed unconstitutional by the state. The County sheriff is the executive and may arrest any govt agent who attempts to enforce a federal law.

When we learn our history and understand the correct interpretation of the constitution and the declaration of independence, then Americans will no longer ask, “how is this tyranny?”  We must wake up. Voting is only 10% of our civic duty. Today’s govt is a result of a hundred years of incremental steps, bolstered by propaganda, to usurp authority. I suppose it is the weakness of man to abuse power. DC is filled with DCvers. See the Avalon project online free, for copies of all documents, the federalist, anti-federalist and original journals. See the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, and learn why it took two years for all states to ratify the constitution and why Patrick Henry refused to attend the Philadelphia convention. He smelled a rat.

Posted by Leo on Sunday, Feb 3, 2013 2:42 PM (EDT):

Health-insured Christians who believe that Emergency Rooms and charities are good enough for others in providing basic health care should try it (or imagine it) on themselves the next time they need to visit a doctor and ask if ER good enough for me? “love your neighbour as yourself ...”
****************************************************************
Leo,
Thanks for your comments.I’ve personally tried this raising 8 children with no health insurance.We used the emergency room on a few rare occasions,used the local health dept for vaccinations, & a Christian doctor at a walk-in clinic allowed us to make monthly payments & gave us free samples for medications.Our country dentist was very reasonable & also allowed monthly installment payments.Still,each illness presented a stressful time.
Each state has income-based children’s health insurance that is paid for on a sliding scale & I used this for my youngest 2 children.It also covers dental & vision care.
I certainly think our healthcare system needs work but that doesn’t mean that Obamacare is the correct amswer.

Greg:
Your comment that several here within this thread, see the authority of the state to supersede the authority of the Catholic church…....
Not at all. I was merely discussing the structure of our Republic and how it translates to a govt of the people, and by the people. It was understood that a higher moral code must be embedded intrinsically, as liberty is defined as the freedom to do what one ought. John Jay wrote extensively about this, and Fredrick Bastiat’s Rule of Law speaks to a sense of right and wrong, as well. The founders, coming from an Anglican background, and respecting freedom of religion-i.e. the robust expression of religious beliefs in the public square, would not have specifically named the Catholic church as the sole authority. It would have been counter productive to what they intended to accomplish.

We have an employer based health insurance system due to govt mandates during WWII. Employers were not allowed to increase wages. Since unemployment was less than 1%, it was difficult to recruit and retain workers. In collaboration with Duke University, the insurance based system was devised and instituted via govt as a means to attract employees. Blue Shield was established. The idea of getting care for free was used to market the program as an added benefit of employment. The system was flawed from inception. Roosevelt was a nationalist, even admired Hitler at one point. Roosevelt supported socialist programs.  Catastrophic care IMO, requires insurance. I believe there are many other viable options for everyone’s specific needs.

What a surprise!  You Republicans hate the revision of the mandate proposed by the administration of a Democratic president whom you loathe.

Reggie on Saturday, Feb 2: “people of Austria who took up the Rosary that ousted the communists”
I hadn’t known that; quite an accomplishment. When was this?
Pity they didn’t go further and pray for a perfect replacement: “Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth, even Austria, as it is in heaven.”

First, you did fail to understand what I said. There are no “inalienable rights” because such a concept is self-contradictory. If it’s a right, it’s determined by circumstances. You can to some degree have “inalienable rights” if the right itself hinges on something that does not change. But “inalienable right” as such is practically a contradiction in terms.

Second, I’m well aware of the need to bear arms. Once again, you missed the point. My point was that different states have different rights. The right to bear arms was just one example. And I still remind you that God did not grant the United States the American Constitution of 1789 from on high.

Third, you don’t know what a republic is. For that matter, dictionaries are often wrong. This is why philosophers often debate these things. “Republic” = “res publica”: “public thing.” Its synonymous with the word “state.” That’s all it means. Technically even a monarchy is a republic in a sense, though we don’t think of it that way.

Fourth, as others on here have said, the United States is not a Christian nation, and many of the Founding Fathers were not Christians themselves. Many Americans would be quite surprised to find how hostile republicanism has been in the past (and is becoming in the present) to Christianity. And for that matter, even more so to Catholicism. The United States has a long and storied history of anti-Catholicism: good old red, white, and blue ant-Catholicism. Burning churches and convents, double taxation, and so on.

Fifth, constitutional monarchy is not the reason Britain has high taxes. You can blame the Labour Party for that. And add the increasing leftward movement of the Conservative Party to boot. It’s certainly not the queen’s fault. She has little or no power left. Which is one of the most unfortunate things about the British government: they took a great system and turned it into another repulsive democracy.

Matthew Ogden:

I do understand the points you are trying to make. As much as I would like to have civil debate with you, I find your answers a bit smug.  You are gravely misinformed. I have yet to see any concrete substantiation for your comments and observations. 

Actually there is a difference between unalienable rights and inalienable, although no dictionary today will clarify such.  Although I respect your observation, again I am writing about something else.

The right to bear arms…. I answered the question you posed in an earlier post. And as of yet, the individual States have implemented this differently, you are correct.  It is not the role of the Federal government to drill down to that level of legislation.  And it is not the role of the State to dictate to the County.  If this right has been infringed upon, and it has, it is due to the fact that individuals do not understand their level of authority, the law, and liberty.

I do not know what are Republic is?  Really?  My friend, you obviously have never read the many documents that I have cited earlier.  Actually, none of us have been taught untainted history in school.

Re: Christianity.  Actually 92% of Americans are Christian and Catholic services alone represent 30% of all charitable services, regardless of what others have said on this thread.  These stats come from Pew Charitable Trusts and others - very reliable sources. 

I am not trying to convince you of anything by the way.  I merely posted the facts.  Have a good evening.

A republic is what the word means. If the word does not mean what it says, use a different word. A republic, as a form of government, is susceptible to many other forms. Monarchy is the same thing; these are not mutually exclusive concepts. Britain is often called a parliamentary democracy within a constitutional monarchy.

And what history classes have to do with this, I frankly don’t know. What I do know is that Americans have this obnoxious habit of reifying the American constitution of 1789 as some magnificent gift from above. It’s not. It’s a rather ludicrous document, if you ask me. Okay, they had some good points; I can admit that. But Americans have turned this document, whatever its objective value, into the idol of a civic cult. That’s what gets on my nerves. If need be, the American constitution of 1789 can be thrown out at any time. Other countries realize this is how constitutions work. The French constitution only dates from 1958. If we wanted in this country, we could dispose of the 1789 constitution at first notice.

For that matter, I’m not as opposed to democracy as I may come across. But I feel the need to take down democratic-republics a few notches, especially the American one, because I hate with a fierce passion this idolatrous treatment of a manmade creation. Whether the government, the president (regardless of the party), the Founding Fathers, their ideas, and so on: idolatry is a terrible thing, and people need to know that.

That’s the last I’m going to say on this matter.

Once again Matthew Ogden you make biased unfounded assumptions and misinterpret history to suit your own contentions. You are correct in your position that many Americans believe that the Constitution is sacrosanct. I am not one of them. The US is a constitutional republic found upon Christian principles with a Constitution written by men whom believed and behaved as inspired by God.  Indeed the history you wish to ignore has relevance. Perhaps you might begin to explore why it its important.  I do understand what you are saying. The problem is that I disagree with you based on good reason and sound documentation.  Again you are entitled to your observations. Good luck .

Thank you. You have spoken what I have been thinking in part. I feel that we are watching the rise of a new dictatorship.Evil wins when good people do nothing.

Why don’t you be like me?!
Why don’t you stop and see?!
Why don’t you hate who I hate, kill who I kill to be free?!/

Don’t let’s forget that every time the government cares for the poor, the following things happen:

1. The recipient feels entitled;

2. The bureaucrat or regulator feels empowered;

3. The elected official uses the threat of decreased handouts as a way to ensure that recipients vote for him and against his opponent…and in the process stirs up class hatred and division;

4. Elected officials have to select someone to administer distribution of the goods and services and funds, and naturally selects from amongst supporters and contributors

5. The Church is marginalized in society;

6. People who don’t carefully do their tithing on pretax income (as everyone should) end up with less “left over” for the Church and her charities, thus reducing further her ability to minister to those in need;

7. The culture of private almsgiving is undermined, and personal charity to one’s neighbor by one’s own initiative is replaced with (at best) redistribution one doesn’t bother to think about or (at worst) evasive maneuvers to lower one’s taxes to prevent legalized theft by one’s needy neighbors.

8. The additional spending on benefits for the needy, over time, does not in fact add to private almsgiving, but rather supplants it. The needy are no better off; and the society is more centralized and state-focused.

9. In short, the needy man learns that God is irrelevant in his life; his needs are met by the state: Man lives by bread alone. (Oh, and free condoms and needles.) And he learns that he can take what others have, if he pulls the right political strings. The wealthy man learns to resent his needy neighbors and to be clever about how he files his taxes. The politician learns the art of Us-vs.-Them.

In a culture where almsgiving is voluntary,

- The recipient is grateful, and more likely to “pay it forward” if/when they are one day in a position to help someone else who is in need;

- The giver exercises generosity and direct involvement, and class divisions and resentments are thereby reduced;

- The Church, not a bureaucracy, is typically the face of charity to the needy;

- Elected officials don’t have redistribution programs as a goad to class warfare, an opportunity for cronyism, or a fiefdom to dominate.

In Europe they’ve nearly killed off the culture of voluntary almsgiving. This is why Europeans typically give less than 2% of their income to charity. And in the U.S., the left has very little left of that culture: People and states who vote left-of-center are typically very stingy, giving 2-3% of their pretax income. In right-of-center culture in the U.S., they not only volunteer more and donate blood more, they also give twice as much, as a percentage of pre-tax income, than the left does. And that’s true at every single tax bracket. In short, they care more: Because they retain the culture of private almsgiving. They don’t think that caring for the needy is “the government’s job.”

We need more of that culture of private almsgiving. We need the Church to be the beacon of charity in society, and for neighbors to help one another.

But government resents it when other loci of power exist in a society. That’s why they keep trying to do everything. They keep saying, “We’re from the government, and we’re here to help.” Sometimes they even believe it.

But don’t you believe it.

The problem is that people, including good orthodox Catholics, do not understand evil. Why wouldn’t the Democrats ram Obamacare down our throats. Sodomite “marriage….abortion…euthanasia…anything that is evil. OF COURSE THEY ARE GOING TO DO THIS.

What don’t you people get about evil?

(Not you Dr Zmirak…you clearly understand.)