StaddonFamily.com

posted by Michael on 01/20/10

This morning part of our regular Bible reading was Daniel 4, in which God deals with the pride of king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, who then acknowledges the power and supremacy of the Almighty.

“At the end of twelve months… there fell a voice from heaven, saying, ‘O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee…’

“And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honored Him that liveth forever, Whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom is from generation to generation: and all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, ‘What doest Thou?’

“Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, all Whose works are truth, and His ways judgment: and those that walk in pride He is able to abase.”

4 Comments » | posted in Historical Glimpses, Politics

posted by Donald on 12/3/09

“Why is it, Friends and Fellow Citizens, that you are here assembled? Why is it, that, entering upon the sixty-second year of our national existence, you have honored with an invitation to address you from this place, a fellow citizen of a former age, bearing in the records of his memory, the warm and vivid affections which attached him, at the distance of a full half century, to your town, and to your forefathers, then the cherished associates of his youthful days? Why is it that, next to the birth day of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? — And why is it that, among the swarming myriads of our population, thousands and tens of thousands among us, abstaining, under the dictate of religious principle, from the commemoration of that birth-day of Him, who brought life and immortality to light, yet unite with all their brethren of this community, year after year, in celebrating this the birth-day of the nation?

Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon the earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfilment of the prophecies, announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before? …”

-John Quincy Adams, July 4, 1837

Oration

for the people of Newbury, Massachusetts

(Opening paragraphs)

1 Comment » | posted in Politics

posted by Donald on 11/19/09

 Understanding is the ability to differentiate. You know that you understand when you are able to tell the difference between two given objects or ideas that have surface similarities. Now, in the “age of indefinition”, it is imperative for us to understand the following three terms for they are indeed different.

Definitions follow the Random House Dictionary, College Edition

Socialize–”1. to make social; make fit for life in companionship with others.  2. to make socialistic; establish or regulate according to the theories of socialism.  3. Educ. to treat as a group activity. . . .  4. to associate or mingle sociably with others.”

Sociable–”1. inclined to associate with or be in the company of others.  2. friendly or agreeable in company; companionable.  3. characterized by or pertaining to companionship with others.”

Socialism–”1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of industry, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole.  2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.  3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism.”

Notice that “socialization” by definition can bring both positive (definition number 1) and negative results (definition 2). Secondly, notice that “sociable” has no negative connotations at all–Being friendly and developing the skills of communication and thoughtfulness for others is a virtue, acknowledged by all civilized peoples. I hope that all of us are growing in that area. “Socialism” is a subtle danger to beware of. In theory it is perfectly idealistic because it is based on the lie that man is without sin. But in reality, if you think about it, socialism should actually need no single leader or any government control. What then is the motive of those who are so eager to introduce it to our country? We would logically conclude that it is for control, not service. They will speak of serving the people as long as it helps them to achieve their end and expand their control. Then once they gain enough power they use that power to take control and socialism becomes communism. Notice now that the second aspect of “socialization” in it’s very definition, definition 2, serves as the lead-in for socialism.

The next time you hear someone mention socialization, see if you can differentiate whether it is being used honestly to describe the virtue of sociability or as a cloak for socialism.

7 Comments » | posted in Politics

posted by Michael on 10/9/09

After reading HR 875, the “Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009“, I had to conclude that it fails to conform to the United States Constitution. Article IV of the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Furthermore, Article VIII says that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed…” As George Washington said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

HR 875 is a new bill, now in committee, that would establish a “Food Safety Administration” headed by a “Food Safety Administrator”. The duties of the new Administrator would be to develop a “national food safety program” and ensure that anyone who produces, processes, or distributes food meet the responsibility to minimize food safety hazards – sec. 201 (a). Should that really be the responsibility of the Federal government?

The Administrator would be given control over “food production facilities”, defined as “any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation” – Sec. 3 (14). These terms themselves are not defined. Could Grandpa’s half dozen apple trees be called an orchard? Could a few rows of raspberries and a chicken pen and a few beehives be considered a farm? According to sec. 206, all such Food Production Facilities would be required to set practice standards according to government regulations, keep food safety records, and permit the government to visit and inspect the facility and view and copy records. Federal regulations would control growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal  encroachment, and water”. As of yet there is no exemption for any operation, no matter how small, even if the production is intended  only for family use. Do we want the Federal government telling us what we are allowed to grow and how we are allowed to grow it, harvest it, and store it? These are not just recommendations either, but full-blown regulations enforced by the Administrator.

A violation of any regulation, no matter how small, could result in fines of up to a million dollars, and there is no mention of any consequence to the Administrator if the fines are excessive.

This bill seems like a free ticket to tyranny. What is there to hold the Administrator in check from extreme decisions? In addition, the ability to “establish interim performance standards” for newly identified contaminants” could too easily be misused in the event of a “big scare”. Furthermore what would prevent big GMO and pharmaceutical companies that are already trying to dominate science and industry from dominating and influencing the Administration’s “advisory committees” that develop recommendations for performance standards and inspections? – sec. 103 (d).

Other writers report that HR 759 (“Food and Drug Administration Globalization Act of 2009″) and HR 814 (“TRACE Act of 2009″) are even worse, and more likely to be considered by congress. Food safety is important, but most of this regulation at the Federal level simply isn’t needed.  States are more qualified to supervise mass food production and more likely to represent their constituency. At the lowest and safest level, where local produces sell seasonal products directly to consumers, the best and most efficient regulation comes from intelligent, informed customers and neighbors. The Federal government does have a role in food safety, especially over imports, but not in the backyard of small or private businesses. Why assume that the American people are so untrustworthy and careless that they need such regulation? Aren’t people naturally drawn to responsible, sanitary facilities? Cannot a mother find the cleanest place to buy food for her family? Food is power. If the Federal government can control the food you eat they have absolute control over you. I would encourage anyone who reads this post to track these bills, watch for amendments, and of course contact your representatives and let them know that you would like them to represent you by opposing HR 759, HR 875, and HR 814.

7 Comments » | posted in Politics, Possessing the Land

posted by Michael on 08/25/09

The most obvious problem with all this “health care reform” or “health insurance reform” stuff is that that there is no possible way the government can pay for it. Creating a commission of “health experts” to oversee Medicare might squeeze out a couple billion dollars of waste to help out, but that’s not much compared to the trillion required. “Spend more money.” That’s getting to be an awfully overused solution to a problem that didn’t really originate from a lack of money. The government can’t keep just giving everybody what they want.

But the deeper problem with the whole thing is more government control. I don’t want the government to force me to get insurance if I don’t want it. I don’t want the government to mandate what has to be covered. I don’t want an assigned doctor deciding what services I am to receive. If the government can mandate what’s in a basic care package, what will stop their intentions of mandating something that is morally wrong in the future?

We might need change: if people are going to get better care, we’re going to have to come up with more caring people; people who will follow their consciences and live by the Golden Rule that Christ gave us rather than a sole motivation for money. America, if we give Uncle Sam a grip on health care, we’re just making the hole in the dyke a little bigger once again. It is not wise to put your trust in man for help.

5 Comments » | posted in Politics