Tom Usher wrote or added | Why reinvent the wheel? I like the following statement in the Wikipedia:
"Some proponents make the case that allowing foreign-flagged ships to engage in commerce in American domestic sea lanes would be like letting a foreign automaker establish a plant in the U.S. which doesn't have to pay U.S. wages, taxes, or meet national safety or environmental standards."
This is very nearly the exact argument that was levied against the dreaded NAFTA. NAFTA was boosted by the globalist, corporatist, so-called laissez-faire capitalists, who didn't give a damn about promoting the General Welfare of the mass of Americans but were interested first and foremost, as always, about themselves. They are seeking to lower the bar everywhere not to enhance the lives of everyone everywhere but to reduce everyone, except themselves, to serfdom under their neo-feudalism known by the misnomers of free-market capitalism and free enterprise.
These same people who are pouncing on this issue in an attempt to erode regulations are doing so on the back of a prime example of horrors inflicted by deregulation: The Deepwater Horizon leak. Hypocrisy doesn't bother them while they are busily further duping the easily duped Tea Partiers and Libertarian little fry — the "lesser people" in Alan Simpson's worldview — lesser for having taken only their fair share of the pie or less rather than having been greedy pigs not giving a tinker's damn about how little is left for the suckers and who, one supposes, don't just shoot all the elitists.
It's one of the main reasons they hate the French Reign of Terror so much. Their kindred spirit of the nobility and aristocracy lost their heads. Well, of course, Robespierre was a maniac, fop himself; but that doesn't alter the fact that he was simply a sped up version of the slow-kill aristocrats whining about the Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act of 1920) right now.
No, I don't think that protectionism is the solution. It's a Band-Aid that is in place solely because the world hasn't fixed the global root cause. The problem is not ever going to be solved by lowering the standards in everyone's mind concerning wage, tax, safety, environmental, or collective-bargaining standards. The problems are only ever going to be solved by doing completely away with selfishness as the incentive. There is no such thing as enlightened self-interest, as the term has been commonly employed, including by Barack Obama.
The real self is the one soul referred to in the Acts of the Apostles. Those Apostles didn't lose their individuality or liberty by living from one purse and even by not ever charging one another for anything. They gained greater freedom from the evil inherent in the medium-of-exchange mentality. They didn't hold out for something in return. They simply gave to each other and shared. That's how the whole world should be and will be if it is finally to be saved.
"And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common." "Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." (Acts 4:32; 4:34-35 KJV)
That's where Marx got it: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Those Apostles got it from Jesus. His sayings and doings jibe exactly with those verses from Acts.
Now, I take it further (as did Marx), but not in the Marxian spirit of violent revolution. I call for the creation of the Christian Commons http://www.causes.com/causes/99753/about
Yes, it does require giving credit where credit is due: to Jesus whose teachings and deeds are the best example so far in recorded human existence, bar none, including, if we are being completely honest, Buddha, Mohammed, and Gandhi, et al. It also requires acknowledging, and accordingly acting to the best of our abilities concerning, all things ultimately harmful versus not. We are to do away with harm.
Where does this leave the atheists and the like? Well, the separation lies with experiencing the Holy Spirit and believing/knowing that it's not been some extraterrestrial trickster. Why are most people never visited? This world is a filter. Those meriting visitation in the good way, get it. Those finally who do not, will be visited by, and be overcome by (cave into), the other spirit that is darkness. Unfortunately, it will be too late for them to repent in this life.
If you haven't done so already, ask, seek, and knock now before it becomes too late for you.
Should Obama have waived the Jones Act via executive order? Of course he should have. He's selfish. The fact that George W. Bush waived it though doesn't make him a genius. He didn't work on solving the root causes either. He waived it for ulterior motives, as anyone who followed along with his very nearly do nothing position of Katrina readily saw.
Leave it to Hoover Institution fellow, Deroy Murdock, to get it all jumbled up though for the sake of those who butter his bread and not yours.
May the real peace and blessings of the real LORD be upon all,
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)