How To Balance The Budget





In a recent conversation, a member of Congress told me that he thought the original Constitution was flawed because it did not require a balanced federal budget. Therefore, he was in favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment and saw this as a way to limit the runaway spending of the Congress.

I bring up this conversation as an example of what you might call “overlooking the obvious”—or “not being able to see the forest because all the trees are in the way.”

Here’s what I mean:

The Constitution clearly says that Congress can only tax and spend money for certain things. These things are contained in Article One and Section 8 of the document. If this prohibition on spending isn’t clear enough, our founders added the Tenth Amendment, which even more clearly says that if a power was not specifically delegated to the federal government, it is reserved to the States or to the people.

Today, the federal government pays no attention to this limited list of its authorized activities. It spends recklessly and lawlessly, doing many things that it has no authority to do.

It doesn’t do any of these things well, but that’s not really the point. The legal point—the Constitutional point—is that it has no authority to spend money on education or health care or social security, just to name a few.

If we could just limit the Congress and the President and the Courts to the lawful activities listed in the Constitution, there would be no spending problem—and no deficit.

But, if Congress won’t follow the plain, clear, unambiguous spending limitations in Article One Section Eight, what makes you think a Balanced Budget Amendment would make them behave?

Learn more about your Constitution with Michael Anthony Peroutka and his Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.





The False Claim Of Civil Rights





It was only a little over seventeen minutes in length, but it is said to be the most remembered and the most memorized speech in American History.

Fifty years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. addressed a crowd of 250,000 people gathered in Washington, DC. He called on the people of the various states, and the government of these United States, to live up to the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence.

But it was not, as many have falsely claimed, a call for “civil” rights. In fact, in my view, Dr. King was not a champion of “civil” rights. He was a champion of God-given rights.

Dr. King made clear in his famous address that the liberty and equality before the law that he was demanding did NOT originate in human government. The right to equality before the law is not a “civil” right. It is a right ordained by God, and therefore a right that civil government has a duty to protect and defend.

Dr. King quoted from the Old Testament Books of Amos and Isaiah. He also made subtle references to Psalm 30 and the New Testament Book of Galatians. When he said that he hoped his children would be judged not by the “color of their skin but by the content of their character,” he was applying God’s fixed, eternal standard – not a malleable man-made one.

Unlike many modern day welfare state proponents, Dr. King’s demands were right because they were based on a righteous pretense.

In both private and public policy, we must remember that God created only one race – the human race. Therefore, all elevation or denigration of individuals or groups based on skin color is immoral and shameful because it violates the Law of Nature and of Nature’s God.

 

Learn more about your Constitution with Michael Anthony Peroutka and his Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.





Children Are The Path To Successful Tyranny…





You can’t subjugate a Christian people. They won’t stand for it! A Christian culture will recognize and reject tyranny before tyranny can get a foothold. This is because a Biblically-literate and devoted people will not allow their civil government to tyrannically usurp the jurisdictions of self-government, family government, and church government.

A Christian people, by virtue of their understanding of God’s creation, their knowledge of history, their comprehension of the divine origin of law, and their assurance of heavenly citizenship, will never suffer earthly leaders who do not speak and act lawfully. A Christian people would not be so foolish as to allow those who mock law and justice to lead them.

In order, therefore, to subjugate and enslave a Christian people, you must first de-Christianize them. You must remove, from the culture, that which prevents you from conquering them. Piece by piece, Christian beliefs must be removed, along with the memory of those beliefs, from the minds of the people. This will take time.

You must concentrate on the children. You must take them away from their parents and everyday, day by day, indoctrinate them to reject and forget the Christian ideas and habits of their fathers and their mothers, their grandfathers and their grandmothers. This is precisely what government schools were designed to do. This is what they have done and continue to do.

Once the people are de-Christianized, you can take away their rights. You can take away their property. You can take away their weapons. You can tell them lies that they will believe. You can kill them . . . or let them live, if it suits you.

You can’t conquer a Christian people. But if you can steal their children, and train them to believe that there is a wall of separation between God and government, then you can enslave them—or rather—they will have enslaved themselves.

Learn more about your Constitution with Michael Anthony Peroutka and his Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.





The Supreme Court: Just Another Wizard Of Oz





Remember when arguments were made before the Supreme Court both for and against the constitutionality of what is known as “ObamaCare”?

You probably heard much of the screeching and shouting about this topic in the news. But I would like you to think about something that you probably didn’t hear – and maybe haven’t thought about – concerning this issue and other issues that come before the Supreme Court:

No matter what opinion the Supreme Court issues in this case, or in any case before them, that decision does NOT have the force of law.

Though a Supreme Court ruling is not unimportant, it is legally binding and enforceable only with respect to the parties in this particular case!

That means that it doesn’t affect anyone else. It doesn’t become law! With respect to the particular parties involved, it’s a ruling. But with respect to the rest of the world, it’s just an opinion!

Here’s the important implication of that truth:

The governor of each and every state retains the full right, and the duty, to determine whether or not the individual mandate (within “ObamaCare”) complies with the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, each governor should determine whether or not the whole scheme of “ObamaCare” complies with the Constitution, rather than allowing it to be accepted as law in his or her state.

I believe that all the fanfare, and all the radio and TV coverage, is a lot of “smoke” designed to convince you and me that the Supreme Court is the “GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ,” and that it is the final arbiter of the constitutionality of this matter and, indeed, of all matters in the country.

But if we look behind the curtain, we find that this simply is not true.

Why am I so sure of this? I read the Constitution. So can you!

 

Learn more about your Constitution with Michael Anthony Peroutka and his Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.





Separation Of Church And State, Not God And Government





Under the true, original American View of law and government, all law, and therefore all rights, originate in God.

Therefore, what is not in accord with God’s Law is not law.

The acknowledgement of this first principle of law and government is foundational to our lives and to our liberties.

We are informed of this principle in Scripture, and we are the beneficiaries of centuries of application of this view by those on whose shoulders we are are privileged to stand.

We can see evidence of this as far back as the 9th century, when King Alfred the Great codified English law.  This code actually began with a recitation of the Ten Commandments.

Later, Bible-believing Puritans in England fought against and overthrew the tyrannical view that the king was above the law and thus could do no wrong.  These same Puritans bequeathed to us our legal views on free speech and free press, free exercise of religion, privilege against self-incrimination, the independence of the jury, and the right to not be imprisoned without cause.

These same Bible-believing people preserved the view that we have the right to choose those who would govern us.  In our American experience, this view ultimately led to American independence when colonial preachers made the Biblical case that King George, III was a tyrant whom the people had a right and a duty to resist.

All this leads to a point that must be remembered by those who desire liberty.  While it is true that the Church and the State are separate institutions, and that they have different functions given to them by God, it is NOT true that government is separate from and owes no allegiance to God and His Word.

To the contrary, God’s Word — the Bible — is the ultimate law book and the ultimate guide for all actions of civil government at all levels.

Learn more about your Constitution with Michael Anthony Peroutka and his “Institute on the Constitution” and receive your free gift.