Get the exclusive (almost) Weekly Digest.

    Playing the Harlot with Mr. President

    March 22, 2010 by Brandy Vencel

    I have made an effort lately to remain silent on politics. This may not seem apparent, as I’ve mentioned or alluded to various issues, but believe me when I say that it has taken an effort to not fire off a post every time I read the Drudge Report or Flashreport. For instance, when the President was lauded for his beer summit, when he seemed to be partying hard in the Beltway, when his own doctor suggested he take it easy on the alcohol, do you know many times I wanted to post this verse?

    It is not for kings, O Lemuel,
    It is not for kings to drink wine,
    Or for rulers to desire strong drink,
    For they will drink and forget what is decreed,
    And pervert the rights of all the afflicted.

    Proverbs 31:4-5

    I’ve been thinking about that one for over a year, and never said a word.

    But this health care bill passage has me over the edge.

    It’s not what you think. I mean, it is what you think {i.e., I am a freedom-loving American who, among other things, knows it is unconstitutional for the Congress to mandate the purchase of a commercial product}. But it also is not what you think.

    I was sick when I heard a representative from our area, Democrat Jim Costa, who was listed as “undecided” magically announced a yes-vote shortly after it was publicized that the U.S. Department of the Interior was going to turn on the water, an announcement that typically would not be made until March 22nd, but was mysteriously done on the 16th instead. If you do not live here, you may not realize that water is the number one political issue in our area, and the lack of water has some towns upward of 35% unemployment. Turning on the water is a big, huge deal.

    When we couple this with other mysterious happenings, such as Bart Stupak changing his no-vote to a yes-vote due to Obama issuing an Executive Order {an unconstitutional governing by fiat in direct conflict with the written legislation} and also in the wake of the U.S. Department of Transportation announcing a grant of almost $730,000 towards airports in Michigan.

    This process had already seemed suspicious when earlier on we saw the supposed “Louisiana Purchase” where Senator Mary Landrieu actually had an exemption for her own state written into the text of the Senate bill.


    Quickly, let’s define bribery. In 1828, Noah Webster wrote this description:

    The act or practice of giving or taking rewards for corrupt practices; the act of paying or receiving a reward for a false judgment, or testimony, or for the performance of that which is known to be illegal, or unjust. It is applied both to him who gives, and to him who receives the compensation, but appropriately to the giver.

    Of a bribe, Mr. Webster wrote:

    A price, reward, gift or favor bestowed or promised with a view to pervert the judgment, or corrupt the conduct of a judge, witness or other person. A bribe is a consideration given or promised to a person, to induce him to decide a cause, give testimony, or perform some act contrary to what he knows to be truth, justice or rectitude.

    The list of these “coincidences” goes on and on.

    There are two options here: either certain legislators allowed their votes to be purchased with bribes, or they wanted to vote yes anyhow, but held out in hopes of getting extra goodies for their own states. Either way, this is corruption at the highest levels.

    Separation of Powers

    Federalist Paper No. 46 quotes Montesquieu when it says:

    There can be no liberty where legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body of magistrates.

    The Federalist Papers themselves never argue for complete and total separation, but they make it clear that the Constitution takes great care to make sure that the powers which belong to one branch of the government do not, in turn, belong to another. The branches, in other words, are to mostly stay out of each other’s business save when they exercise their power to hold one another accountable. Federalist Paper No. 47 speaks more clearly what I am getting at:

    It is agreed on all sides that the powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident that neither of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.

    Not only is the bill itself inherently displaying the “encroaching nature of power,” but the process does likewise. The favors, both those which appear to have influence over votes, and those which are of obvious influence by being written into the bills or “fixing bill” themselves, are revealing the encroachment of the executive powers upon the powers of the legislative branch.

    In other words, the President went beyond his authority {not to mention disregarding his one vow, which is to serve and protect the Constitution of the United States–how one can be expected to protect something which one does not love is beyond me} and inappropriately attempted to influence the legislative process.

    My husband suggested that the President should not be allowed so many private meetings with members of the legislature when they are getting ready to vote upon a bill in which he has a vested interest.

    Logical Extension

    There are a number of legal challenges this bill will face. Lawsuits by states and other organizations are imminent. What should we expect? Is President Obama going to nominate the relatives of judges to government positions? Will he promise them an executive order for one of their pet causes?

    You see, when we put it in this light, showing the President bribing judges, it seems so obviously wrong, but since we have tolerated it in the entire process, who in the world is going to stop the behavior?

    The Change I Hate to Believe In

    Obama said he’d remake our country {revealing his disdain for our history, I might add}. He said it’d be different than “politics as usual.”

    And he is and it does.

    This is a whole new magnitude of corruption. It is evil to govern a country in this manner.

    And thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous.

    Exodus 23:8

    Gather not my soul with sinners,
    nor my life with bloody men:
    In whose hands is mischief,
    and their right hand is full of bribes.

    Psalm 26:9-10

    And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.

    I Samuel 8:3


    Sinners in Zion are terrified;
    Trembling has seized the godless
    “Who among us can live with the consuming fire?
    Who among us can live with continual burning?”
    He who walks righteously and speaks with sincerity,
    He who rejects unjust gain
    And shakes his hands so that they hold no bribe;
    He who stops his ears from hearing about bloodshed
    And shuts his eyes from looking upon evil;
    He will dwell on the heights,
    His refuge will be the impregnable rock;
    His bread will be given him,
    His water will be sure.

    Isaiah 33:14-16

    Get the (almost) weekly digest!

    Weekly encouragement, direct to your inbox, (almost) every Saturday.

    Powered by ConvertKit

    No Comments

    Leave a Reply