Further live blogging on hearing

I feel bad that I keep posting real-time stuff on the Supreme Court hearing on Twitter (and therefore automatically on Facebook), and I’m therefore neglecting the blog. So here are some of my recent observations, for your perusal:

Who’s addressing the court now? I was distracted, my video image is dim, and I don’t recognize the voice…18 minutes ago from web

I’m sure the gentleman is quite distinguished, but it would seem the celeb mouthpieces are all on the other side…14 minutes ago from web

Clever young fellow speaking now refers to gov’s “supreme executive authority,” to which I say, “Well, how’d you become king, then?”…9 minutes ago from web

“Really, doesn’t it boil down to a … policy disagreement?” asks Jean. Indeed. So question is, can Legislature make laws?5 minutes ago from web

Jean: “He lost a legitimately engaged-in debate under the constitution, and the rest is purely ministerial.” Amen. Cue the curtain.3 minutes ago from web

Maybe it’s not deep, but I thought I’d give y’all this chance to participate…

55 thoughts on “Further live blogging on hearing

  1. Brad Warthen

    Continuing the stream:

    The question arises, will the governor’s attorneys persuade a SINGLE member of the court? Seems unlikely, at this rate… 4 minutes ago

  2. Brad Warthen

    One last update:

    Dick keeps talking about “Deadwood.” I tried watching it, after I finished “The Sopranos.” Thought it was lousy. Pointlessly offensive.half a minute ago from web

    Oh, wait; he’s talking about a court case. I knew that…less than 10 seconds ago from web

  3. Kathryn Fenner

    Agree with you on Deadwood.
    Love the Monty Python reference–but are you saying the voters of SC are a watery bint?

  4. Kathryn Fenner

    Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how’d you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.


  5. Brad Warthen

    Speaking of Dorothy, that guy from Winston-Salem is probably thinking, “There’s no place like home” right about now.less than 20 seconds ago from web

  6. Greg Flowers

    The Court, as suspected, sluffed over the Governor’s key argument: that the legislative intent of Congress was to give the Governor exclusive authority to decide whether or not to request the funds. Everyone, including the Federal Government, felt that this was so. This reconstruction of the language will allow them to pronounce the decision which they had come to long before the first brief darkened their door. Yes, it will be 5-0. The shame is that it will be a decision dictated by politics and not the law.

  7. Greg Flowers

    I actually thought Ken Childs (a VERY good lawyer) gave a better presentation than Harpootlian.

  8. Lee Muller

    Ken Childs is a meticulous researcher.

    Deadwood is a modern version of the B-grade Western, which is not surprising, considering that the producer is A.C. Lyles, who has done so many TV Westerns.

  9. Brad Warthen

    Ken’s a great guy.

    Greg, show me where I’m wrong but I don’t think it ever occurred to Congress that a governor would have to decide whether to take the money. That was just the mechanism for distributing the money. In no rational scheme would a governor have to decide “whether or not to request the funds.” Only in South Carolina.

  10. Greg Flowers

    The fact that they had not anticipated a particular situation does not diminish the fact that discretionary power was given to the governors. If Congress was horrified, they could have instituted a legislative fix.

    Toal’s spoon feeding of the “harmonizing” theory to Harpootlian was rich.

  11. Greg Flowers

    Regardless, our Court is going to invent law for a political end. Do you honestly feel that the long term further weakening of the executive branch is worth the short term financial gain to the State. To me this flies in the face of the Rule of Law.

  12. jfx

    Our executive branch is fine. Sanford’s arguments are weak, which is why he’s the only governor in the entire nation out there in the twilight zone on this issue. We’re following the rule of law, which does include ALL the branches of government, in getting this thing worked out. That one man can throw this many wrenches into the pipes speaks volumes about the fair health of the executive branch, and the ill health of the brain of the current occupant of that branch.

  13. Lee Muller

    Congress passed this junk load of pork without hearings, without debate, and without any of them reading the bill.

    Then they act surprised that it is full of sloppy legal jargon that doesn’t match whatever intent all 535 of them thought it had.

    They should be required, under oath, to read every word of everything on which they vote, and none of it should come to a vote without full hearings and due process.

    This so-called Stimulus Act is illegal. No one is obligated to obey one word of it, and no future taxpayer is obligated to pay off the bonds sold to finance it.

  14. Greg Flowers

    You say Sanford’s arguments are weak, but if he, as a governor, was given, by Congress, discretion as to whether or not to request the funds, then it doesn’t matter if he was the only one to elect not to or what his reasons were. He acted within the law and now everyone who disagrees with him is scrambling to concoct arguments to circumvent him. The legislature cannot (after the Supremes decision it will be “should not be able to” appropriate funds which are not under State control.

    A proper balance between the branches should not be dependent upon the popularity of the actions of a particular branch. That, in the case of the legislative and the executive is what the ballot box is for.

  15. jfx

    From the news article linked, top:

    ‘State Superintendent of Education Jim Rex in court papers Tuesday said the federal law gives Sanford only the “ministerial act of carrying out the will of the State.”’

    I like that phrase. “The ministerial act of carrying out the will of the State.” That pretty much sums up the governor’s appropriate role in activating the mechanism that brings these particular funds to SC.

    It certainly wasn’t appropriate for him to try to hijack the funds to “pay down debt”, or to waste everyone’s time with disingenuous broken analogies (WINDFALL!). I’m surprised he didn’t carry piglets to the White House.

    And now, a haiku:

    His duty was clear:
    ministerial action.
    But he was a mule.

  16. Greg Flowers

    That’s the point, the federal statute gave him discretion, the ministerial theory was developed late in the game.

  17. Lee Muller

    The law requires that someone who wants to drive a car submit an application for a license – even the Governor.

    That doesn’t mean everyone is required to apply for a driver’s license – not even the Governor.

    The same is true of the Governor being required to apply for the Pelosi Pork Money…. if he wants the money. He doesn’t.

  18. Doug Ross

    Wasn’t there an extra $4 million in the Harrell budget in the stimulus funds add-on that goes to the SC Supreme Court? Is that the going rate for buying a verdict these days?

  19. Lee Muller

    I give Obama until the end of the year to announce a plan to confiscate the 401-k and IRA money to pay for his redistribution of wealth spending spree.

    Of course, it will be sold as “managing your assets for the common good”, to “protect” us from the uncertainties of the stock market, and the “unfairness” of lazy people who don’t work and don’t save money not having any savings.

    This “free money” from Washington won’t look so good, then.

  20. Brad Warthen

    No one thinks this is “free money.” All of us know we’ll have to pay for it. And MOST of us understand that it would be insane to let the money WE will pay for go to another state because of a governor’s whim.

  21. Doug Ross


    So you think that those states that year-after-year pay for South Carolina’s $1.38 federal funds received for every $1.00 paid in taxes should stop giving our state welfare?

    Maybe it’s time we paid back some of the other states. Or paid back our debts. I know, I know… that’s crazy Libertarian talk.

  22. Lee Muller

    Brad, it is not YOU or WE who will pay for this insane spending; it is the children who did not get to vote for the monsters in office.

    Most of the Obama supporters in this state are welfare moochers who don’t pay any net federal income taxes, anyway, so what do they care about waste and corruption, especially when it fills their grocery carts every week?

    This is a mob mentality, looting the Treasury, trying to grab all the money you can before some other looters grab “your share” of the stolen money.

    The insanity will only stop when a few people stand up and refuse to play the game. Governor Sanford, Governor Palin, and several other governors are refusing.

    Frankly, who cares if SC doesn’t get $8 billion out of $800 billion being thrown away on junk projects? Our share of the taxes will only be 1%. It is worth that to me to not touch the dirty money, and to stand in the way of irresponsible legislators.

  23. Birch Barlow

    This is a mob mentality, looting the Treasury, trying to grab all the money you can before some other looters grab “your share” of the stolen money.

    It is worth that to me to not touch the dirty money, and to stand in the way of irresponsible legislators.

    Following your reasoning, will you also personally refuse to accept any Social Security money?

    It being dirty welfare program money and all…

  24. Doug Ross


    I’d give up all claims to any money I have paid into Social Security over the past 30 years if the government will give me back 12% of the 15.3% paid by me and my employer for the rest of my working life. Keep 3.3% to cover widows, orphans, and disabled. Let me own the results of my efforts instead of propping up the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security.

    Repeat after me: it’s not a retirement program, it is a welfare program.

  25. Lee Muller

    I’m with Doug. Give me back my money I have put into the welfare program known as Social Security – 12% sounds fair.

    To be really fair, pay me 8% compounded interest on it.

    Since I have never gotten anything out of any government in my life, why shouldn’t I try to recover some small portion of my taxes from the corrupt Social Security system?

    Or let’s just start phasing it out for everyone, rather than letting it go bankrupt again. The tax rates are already too high, so there isn’t room to raise them any more.

    In fact, all income and payroll taxes are so high that raising them discourages work to the point of the tax revenues actually falling. Clinton tried it and created a recession in 2000. Obama is probably dumb enough to try it now.

    Current welfare benefits will cost $2.0 trillion in 2009.
    Borrowing to cover the deficit spending will be at least $1.8 trillion in 2009.
    The solution is obvious: reduce welfare spending.

  26. jfx

    “Since I have never gotten anything out of any government in my life”

    I love it. Salt of the Earth. Rides only on dirt roads. Refuses postal service. No city water touches his lips. Makes sure to only eat at restaurants that haven’t been inspected. Never, ever pees in a public restroom. Solves and resolves all his own social, legal, criminal, and medical emergencies. And will absolutely refuse any federal assistance of any kind in the event of earthquake, hurricane, fire, flood, war, or terrorist attack.

    He sees the future, and it is the past.

  27. Birch Barlow

    Most of the Obama supporters in this state are welfare moochers who don’t pay any net federal income taxes, anyway, so what do they care about waste and corruption, especially when it fills their grocery carts every week?

    Most? You mean more than half of the people who voted for Obama in this state pay no income taxes? Got any statistics to back that up?

  28. Birch Barlow

    Since I have never gotten anything out of any government in my life, why shouldn’t I try to recover some small portion of my taxes from the corrupt Social Security system?

    Of course you should try to recover as much money as you can from Social Security. It’s your money. Just because you don’t believe in the program itself or don’t believe it works doesn’t mean you should not try to get your money back.

    Likewise, just because the stimulus bill may have been a bad idea or may amount to generational theft, reckless spending and downright stolen money, doesn’t mean we (as a state) shouldn’t try and get our money back.

  29. Lee Muller

    Social Security funds are not “your money”.
    There are no individual accounts.
    There is no trust fund.
    There are no cash assets.

    It is a welfare program, whose benefits can be increased, amended, revised, or abolished for any class of persons, at any time. No one has a legal right to receive one penny from Social Security or any other government welfare program.
    Fleming v Nestor, 363 US 603 (1960)

    At least those of us who actually were forced to pay taxes into this system have a moral right to try to recover as much of the stolen funds as we can.

  30. Lee Muller

    Incidentally, the Court ruled that the federal government had no authority to directly or indirectly require or force the states or any state to set up an unemployment insurance program, or any other welfare or pension program, in ..

    – Steward Machine Company v Davis 301 US 548 (1937)

    And the court ruled that Social Security “contributions” are just taxes, not earmarked to any account, or any purpose, or for anyone. These taxes go into the general Treasury, and can be used for any purpose.
    – Helvering v Davis 301 US 619 (1937).

  31. Greg Flowers

    The Court decided as expected. Ugly legal gymnastics to reach a preordained conclusion.

    Arguments such as “we have to pay it back” should have no relevance in determining the law. I am sad but not surprised.

    I am particularly troubled by Harpootlian’s opening statement that this is a legislative state and the the legislature elected the governor until the wrong sort of people messed that up during Reconstruction. He is correct, this has been a legislative state and will be for the forseeable future. The $700 million is our 30 pieces of silver.

  32. Lee Muller

    Social Security may be bankrupt by 2010.

    Social Security did not have enough cash to mail out all the checks in February 2009. The government borrowed money to cover the checks, but not to repay any of the previous trillions borrowed from SS to finance deficit spending.

    This is from the 2008 SS Trustees report:
    ” Social Security’s current annual surpluses of tax income over expenditures will begin to decline in 2011 and then turn into rapidly growing deficits as the baby boom generation retires. Medicare’s financial status is even worse….
    The reality is that the entitlement problem is a 2009 issue and not a 2032 issue.”

    On Feb 12, 2009, Trustee Stephen Gross wrote a letter to Senator Robert Bennet, stating that the projected surplus for 2009 is now a -16$ billion DEFICIT. Social Security could be bankrupt by 2010.

  33. Lee Muller

    It is the sort of unintellectual gymnastics we see from Jean Toal and other court toadies that make the law a laughingstock.

    Every time they do this, any people with common sense and a education lose respect for the law, the courts and attorneys.

    Don’t hold your breath waiting for an apology from Brad, Harpootlian, Harrell, Leatherman or the clowns on the court when this money is blown without producing any lasting good for the people of South Carolina.

  34. Birch Barlow

    Lee and Doug, I agree about Social Security being a joke (well, actually more of a nightmare) but that wasn’t really my point.

  35. Lee Muller

    Maybe I took it the wrong way. It sounded like you had bought into Brad Warthen’s mob mentality, that the windows were already broken, and someone was going to take that liquor and plasma TV set, so why shouldn’t it be a South Carolinian?

  36. Doug Ross


    You won’t get your liquor back. In fact, over the next two decades, we will more than likely see you paying even more to the liquor store so other people can have a drink (and a free colonoscopy while they’re at it).

  37. Birch Barlow

    Well Doug, look at the bright side. At least you’ll feel like it was you who got the colonoscopy.

  38. Lee Muller

    Under ObamaCare, it will only feel like a colonoscopy, but there won’t actually be any instruments, physician, or diagnosis – just a City Year employee with a broomstick.

  39. jfx

    Uh, I’m gonna go out on a limb here and speculate that colonoscopies will still be handled by actual proctologists even in the SCARY FRIGHTENING EVIL WORLD OF…..national health care.

    Yes, preventative care to combat colorectal cancer and other ailments, actually available to millions of people who currently aren’t covered for such. Wow. SCARY. Maybe it’s End Times!!!!

  40. Lee Muller

    You might want to check out the annual reports on medical outcomes, especially for cancers, which are so poorly treated by national socialist “healthcare”.

    Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.

    The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

    Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom.

    Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway.

    Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.

    Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher,
    prostate cancer is 184 percent higher,
    and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.

    Diagnosis is poor in Canada, but many patients are saved by coming to the US for treatment.

    France currently denies access to over 300 cancer drugs because they are “too expensive”. That is why those Europeans and Brits who can afford to, about 20%, buy private medical insurance.

  41. Doug Ross


    Is there ANYTHING you think individuals should be responsible for without first looking to the government to provide?

    Ted Kennedy’s latest (and probably final) attempt to ram nationalized healthcare down our throats is both laughable and shameful. The hypocrisy is unbelievable. Why doesn’t he try and address his brain tumor as a Medicare patient only and not a multi-multi-millionaire with the best health plan our tax dollars can provide? Let’s see him wait for appointments, get treatments decided by a bureaucrat, get a semi-private hospital room, and pay for his cancer drugs out of pocket. Why doesn’t he just take 90% of the Kennedy money and use it to set up free clinics for the poor? Oh, yeah, because that would come out of his pocket and not the taxpayer’s.

  42. jfx

    Lee, if you are going to be lazy and copy-and-paste from a website, at least have the courtesy to give credit to the website, or provide the link.

    Especially if you are going to copy-and-paste from a cookie-cutter libertarian “think tank” website.


    How many of these think tanks do you guys have? There sure are an awful lot of “Fellows” sitting around slurping up “donations” in these think tanks.

    These donation levels are hilarious.


    Look whatcha get if you join at the level of the “Founder’s Circle”!

    “Special Exclusive Briefings with NCPA President and members of Congress & Administration”

    Yes, the libertarians are just as slimy and corrupt as anybody else. In the words of the inimitable Randy Newman, “it’s money that matters”.

    I love how, on that list of…errrr…”facts”….one of their references is a Nicholas D. Kristhof opinion piece from the New York Times which is actually in favor of universal health coverage. Of course, the “think tank” doesn’t bother to mention that they are quote-mining something, completely out of context, from an article diametrically opposed to their own position, enthusiastically in favor of the kind of health coverage the NCPA is trying to torpedo to protect entrenched mega-business interests.

    Ah, yes, I see that General Tommy Franks is on the NCPA’s rather obese Board of Directors, along with a bunch of other blokes whose backgrounds are really only in business, and who don’t know jack squat about science or medicine. Mark Sanford will be on this board soon enough.

  43. jfx

    Doug, thanks for making a great point. Arlen Specter had a similar experience, where he was able to get exceptional care to save his life, because he is an exceptional person in a privileged position.

    Interesting to note that people like Specter and Kennedy are keenly aware of how exceptional their level of care is, and also how perfectly inaccessible that level of care is to the vast majority of citizens they represent, which is what they’re working to change.

    The point is that there are millions of people who have no BASELINE level of care. Affluent people are always going to be able to pursue options beyond a baseline level of care. There’s a whole universe of specialists and private care options for people who want the Mercedes instead of the Camry. But let’s at least have a baseline health care standard as a common right of citizenship. It would be nice…some might even say “moral” or “ethical” or “Christian”… for anyone who has a tumor to be able to get some level of care other than the ER option of last resort.

  44. Lee Muller


    Those numbers came from the UN. They are FACTS.
    It doesn’t matter if they are reported by NPR or Rush Limbaugh.

    You are being lazy and dishonest to not recognize that last year, I posted dozens of other medical outcome stats from the annual UN reports. The USA is superior in healthcare to every other nation in every category.

    There are only 7,000,000 Americans without health insurance over a long period of time, and most of them can afford it, but choose to spend the money on vacations. The other Americans are only without it while changing insurance plans.

    30,000,000 of the “uninsured” are illegal aliens. They don’t count.

  45. Doug Ross

    jfx: “It would be nice…some might even say “moral” or “ethical” or “Christian”…”

    So it’s up to the government to enforce those behaviors, right? Because people are not moral, ethical, or “Christian” without mandatory government enforcement?

    I have a higher opinion of people than that. The people I know are all of the above in spite of the government, not because of it.

  46. jfx

    Doug wrote: “So it’s up to the government to enforce those behaviors, right? Because people are not moral, ethical, or “Christian” without mandatory government enforcement?”

    It’s not up to the government to enforce any “behaviors”. But as a society we do have to consider whether some sort of baseline, backstop health care is a privilege or a right. At the moment, we don’t have an adequate solution for a situation where, for example, someone gets some sort of awful cancer through no fault of their own and can’t afford the treatment for it. What’s the better ethical position on that? Do we tilt more in favor of “competition” and “the markets”, and look the other way with respect to uninsured cancer victims? I don’t think it’s an either-or thing. I think there’s probably a reasonable overlap between common civic decency and government regulation.

    Don’t see it that way? Then here’s my question, looking from the outside in, on “libertarianism”. I can’t figure out whether libertarians are Christians, or Social Darwinists. On the one hand, many of them are devout believers with respect to faith, and the selfless, charitable, humble teachings of that faith. On the other hand, there’s an equally fervid devotion to “the market”. I can’t figure out which is the more powerful God in the libertarian universe….the Messiah, or the Market. Do you guys believe in giving up all you have to follow Christ, or grabbing all you can in the dog-eat-dog world of unregulated free market competition?

    Those are rhetorical questions. Obviously I’m suggesting an inconsistency and hypocrisy in the libertarian position, and I don’t expect that you fall to either extreme, absolute Christian, or absolute Social Darwinist. But isn’t it a philosophical predicament? For example, that libertarian think tank site I linked to a few comments back….if you donate $50,000 or more to that group, you get “pay to play” access to members of Congress, and maybe even a Republican president. Money talks. Is this ethical? So we’ve got this situation where libertarians profess a kind of moral self-reliance and desire for “limited government”, and yet meanwhile they’re busy feeding the beast and greasing the government machinery with huge donations and privileged lobbies.

    Another thing that bothers me is how libertarians treat “government” and “the market” as sort of external, alien organisms with minds of their own. “Government” is the evil alien, and “the market” is the good alien. Yet, governments and markets are just human institutions. They were invented by humans, and they are cultivated, sustained, and regulated by humans. And they are comprised of humans. It’s up to us, the humans, to regulate ourselves. It’s up to us to vigorously monitor and regulate our own system of capitalism. And it’s up to us to recognize that our governments and markets are all subsets of a larger organism, a sweeping modern civilization that competes on a planetary scale. That’s just a fact. At some point we have to consider whether our “national healthcare” is an integral part of “national security”.

    It’s a fallacy that universal health coverage is part of a sweeping conspiracy to intrude government into all aspects of private life, or that it’s a slippery slope that will inevitably lead to outright all-encompassing socialism. I’m certainly no heel-clicking socialist. I abhor many large-scale federal actions that are initiated ostensibly for the “greater good”, such as our ridiculously costly and ineffective “War on Drugs,” or our preemptive wars of choice (not necessity), such as the Iraq debacle. I believe in the right to bear arms, especially the right to carry concealed weapons, and I am no fan of the IRS or a host of other intrusive and convoluted regulatory bodies. I am not in favor of “Selective Service”, which is in effect “The Government” putting young people on notice that they may be forced to fight and die whether they believe in a cause or not.

    But, yeah, I do believe in a healthcare “backstop” for all citizens of this country. I think that, out of a sense of common decency, we can find a way to make that happen, even against all the rabidly entrenched mega-business lobbies that are pumping money into right-wing think-tanks to try to keep it from happening. Having univeral health coverage won’t cripple capitalism. Just the opposite. It’ll make it healthier. Literally.

  47. Lee Muller

    No one has a right to healtchare, or any other goods or services, until the do something to earn that right – like paying the provider.

    For politicians to declare that certain people have a right to material wealth they did not earn, requires simultaneously declaring that other people have an obligation to provide those goods and services without proper compensation, or even forcing them to do so. That is slavery. It elevates some people while degrading others.

    That violates the basic concepts of individual liberty and equal rights on which America is founded

  48. jfx

    Interestingly, our USA was not founded on “laissez-faire capitalism”. Democracy, yes. Capitalism, no. We’ve had what’s known as a “mixed economy” for virtually the entire existence of our nation. Our founding documents deal extensively with both individual liberties AND collective responsibilities.

    It’s up to all of us, working through our elected representatives, to sort out what will be public, and what will be private, and the will of the majority is subject to change over time, dependent on historical context. We certainly do not live in a rigid hypercapitalist system where every consideration in life is a business transaction. And the notion of that as an American founding principle is pure mythology.

  49. Birch Barlow

    Those are rhetorical questions. Obviously I’m suggesting an inconsistency and hypocrisy in the libertarian position, and I don’t expect that you fall to either extreme, absolute Christian, or absolute Social Darwinist.

    A thought-provoking post all the way around. Nice. You raised many good topics for discussion.

    Is there a conflict between so-called libertarianism and Christianity? I would say there is and there isn’t. If someone is one of those “libertarians” who thinks the absolute free market will lead to the best economy, the most jobs, and the most prosperity for all in this country, then I would say there doesn’t have to be a conflict in holding onto both philosophies.

    If someone is one of those “libertarians” who believes in the absolute rights and liberties of the individual on a moral basis, then yes I think there is some conflict between the two. One philosophy is based on the individual and the other on a body of people. But even then, I don’t think the conflict is absolute because you can personally follow the tenets of Christianity and even be a part of a community that takes care of others — of course that the community is the Church and not America.

    I would say the real conflict (or hypocrisy if you want to go there) is between Christianity and the American way of life. Face it, a driving philosophy (if not the driving philosophy) of this country is individual liberty and rights.

    That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

    That statement sounds more like America than this one:

    They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

    Even the most generous Americans probably think of their own comfort before the needs of others more often than not. That’s just the way our entire society is — not just “libertarians”, but everyone. Maybe the “isms” people pretend to believe in profess to be about meeting the needs of the whole, but in reality each person’s comfort always comes first. Christianity will always take a backseat.

    I say this without intending to argue the actual merits of “libertarianism”, Christianity, or the American way of life.

  50. Lee Muller

    America was not founded on democracy.
    The Founders rejected democracy, because it quickly disintegrates as demagogues pander to the laziness of voters to rob the Productive Minority.

    America is a Republic, with the representatives elected by democratic methods.

    There is no legal authority for Congress to create Social Security, Medicare, or any national health care system.

Comments are closed.