Liberal vs Conservative

post 120

I enjoy a frequent morning conversation over coffee with an elderly gentleman who comes to the Roadhouse Café and sits alone.
I enjoy our conversations not because he agrees with men, but because he does not.
He is of Austrian heritage and German upbringing and now resides in Alaska.
With his strong accent he shares his liberal views with me, and he finds fault with America, as I do, but for different reasons.

I recently sat down with the initial question:
From your desire to grow government, what do you want to see this bigger government do?
He was ready with an answer and gave me a very clear and direct response: We need more regulations to control the corruption of big industry.
Ponzi schemes*1, monopolies, excessively low wages, etc. etc.
Big government is the only means to force compliance of such regulations to combat corruption.

His argument against Conservatives is their "smaller and less government" desires will simply allow more corruption. Republicans in effect want crime to run rampant.

This argument has great merit.
We all, both parties, can see that corruption is a root problem that desperately needs to be solved.
And if the Republicans get there wish to limit the scope and power of government, then of course corruption will increase unrestrained.
This is both logical and practical. And a good argument.

* * *

On the flip side; We all, both parties, can see that government is corrupt regardless of who is in control. Corruption fills all elements of our government today.
The conservative angle is that all government is corrupt, but not all Americans are.
Therefore the regulations implemented by a big government will necessarily bind all Americans to debilitating regulations designed to regulate corruption.
In restraining the corruption, the non-corrupt are also restrained.
The conservative believes that if left alone, the honorable businesses will at least be a good value for America, to contrast the corrupt businesses, as opposed to all power being given to a government, which both sides understands to be corrupt as well.

* * *

The conflict in the argument is the solution to solving corruption.
But it is clear that neither view has that ability.
Now it is only; Whose view is the lesser of two evils?

To nearly all Americans, there are only two choices. Left or Right, Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican. You have to choose, and we evaluate every conversation or thought from which camp we perceive each other to stand in.

My argument is the recognition that neither party can fix our problems. And neither party was designed to. *2
But the one answer that can solve the problem, is the one fully rejected outright, and actively battled against by the supporters of both parties!
It does not fall within the current accepted parameters of the two choice understanding.
A third party cannot help either because the very nature of “party” misses the cause of the problem.
“What causes corruption” is the question that MUST be asked before a solution can be found.

Solving corruption is the desired outcome by both parties, but how to achieve this cannot be done through either party, or government at all.
What the government can do to help, is to encourage the people to return to the days of “the God fearing man”. This is an old phrase to express the recognition that each of us will stand alone before our Creator accountable for what we have done.

Although carefully and intentionally designed religion-less, our government was none the less designed to encourage True Religion among its people by creating schools for the education of the people for the purpose of reading the bible. *3 allowing them to come to their own informed conclusion of choosing that religion for themselves.
Our government has always sponsored religion, as all governments must by their nature.
Where it once sponsored the religion of Christianity, it now sponsors all religions except Christianity, and is now again re-organizing to streamline its sponsorship to the religion of Islam.
Sponsorship of religion is not the question.
Which religion it sponsors is.


* * * * * * *

*1 A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

*2 John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating,
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.

George Washington’s prayer in his resignation letter to all the state governors on June 8, 1783
“I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in His holy protection…that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our Blessed religion, without an humble invitation of Whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation.”

From George Washington’s COMPLETE farewell address: (modern reprints of this speech have censored the four religious warnings)
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars.”

More Farewell Address:
“Let it simply be asked, ‘Where is the security for life, for reputation and for property, if the sense of religious obligation desert (is abandon)?”

Noah Webster:
“The Bible is the chief moral cause of all that is good and the best corrector of all that is evil in human society- the best book for regulating the temporal (that is secular) concerns of men.”
“All of the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from them despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.”
Noah Webster’s schoolbook; ‘The History of the United States’ 1832

Cause and effect:
In People v. Ruggles 1811: (also sited by the US Supreme Court)
“Whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government.”
Interestingly this case was regarding a man who maliciously and capriciously attacked Jesus Christ with profanity in his writing. The court explained that an attack on Jesus Christ was an attack on Christianity, and an attack on Christianity was an attack on the foundation of the country! This man was sentenced to 3 months in prison and $500.00 fine, for attacking the country by attacking Jesus Christ!
Note that this ruling was nearly 20 years after the first amendment was in place. Clearly the first amendment was never intended to separate Christian principles from government.
(notes copied from wallbuilders.com)

On the vanity of increased penal laws in absence of the Bible:
“The Holy Scriptures…can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw (protections) around our institutions.” - James McHenry, Signer of the Constitution, Secretary of War under Washington and Adams.

“As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities.” - George Mason: father of the Bill of Rights.
Speech on the floor of the Constitutional Convention:

Please read again the extensive notes following this previous post:
http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2010/02/point-4-of-4.html

*3
Why the bible should be the primary textbook in school:
Dr. Benjamin Rush, a founding father, signer of Declaration, wrote Americas first chemistry textbook, Started the Sunday school movement, founded 5 colleges, promoted academic education for women and African Americans, wrote an entire book regarding why the Bible should be the primary textbook in schools, in it he wrote:
“In contemplating the political institutions of this United States, I lament that (if we remove the Bible from schools) we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them…For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues which constitute the soul of (our government).” - Dr. Benjamin Rush 1791
(copied from Wallbuilders.com)

One of America’s first education laws:
From The Code of 1650:
“It being one chief project of that old deluder Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures, as in former times by keeping them in an unknown tongue, so in these latter times by persuading from the use of tongues, that so that at least the true sense and meaning of the original might be clouded and corrupted with false glosses of saint-seeming deceivers; and to the end that learning may not be buried in the grave of our forefathers, in church and commonwealth, the Lord assisting our endeavors.
It is therefore ordered that every township in this jurisdiction, after the Lord hath increased them to fifty households, shall forthwith appoint one within their town to teach all such children as shall resort to him to write and read, whose wages shall be paid either by the parents or masters of such children, or by the inhabitants general…
And it is further ordered, that when any town shall increase to the number of one hundred families or householders, they shall set up a grammer school, the master thereof being able to instruct the youth so far as they may be fitted for the university.”
The Old Deluder Act: From Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England II: 203
Clearly this law states that the purpose of public education is that its students might have a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures, believing that Satan used the government sponsored church of England to keep the Scriptures from the common man, which resulted in the suffering of the times prior to the Reformation which they had so recently become free of. (end notes copied from wallbuilders.com)

Please read again the extensive notes following this previous post:
http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2010/01/part-3-of-4-religion-in-government.html