Beginning
with the FDR
administration's New
Deal and increasing the population's need and
misinterpretation as to what are entitlements during the LB
Johnson administration's Great
Society programs, too many Americans have become dependent
upon the government being brainwashed into thinking government is
better than private sector charity programs.
If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists - to protect them and to promote their common welfare - all else is lost.
Barack Obama
I once thought there was too much poverty for private charity to make much of a difference. Now I realize that private charity would do much more—if government hadn’t crowded it out. In the 1920s—the last decade before the Roosevelt administration launched its campaign to federalize nearly everything—30 percent of American men belonged to mutual aid societies, groups of people with similar backgrounds who banded together to help members in trouble. They were especially common among minorities. Mutual aid societies paid for doctors, built orphanages, and cooked for the poor. Neighbors knew best what neighbors needed. They were better at making judgments about who needs a handout and who needed a kick in the rear. They helped the helpless, but administered tough love to the rest. They taught self-sufficiency. Mutual aid didn’t solve every problem, so government stepped in. But government didn’t solve every problem either. Instead, it caused more problems by driving private charity out. Today, there are fewer mutual-aid societies, because people say, ‘We already pay taxes for HUD, HHS. Let the professionals do it.’ Big Government tells both the poor and those who would help them, ‘Don’t try.’... When you rely on the government to help those who need it, you don’t practice benevolence yourself. You don’t take responsibility for deciding whom to help. Just as public assistance discourages the poor from becoming independent by rewarding them with fixed handouts, it discourages the rest of us from being benevolent. This may be the greatest irony of the welfare state: It not only encourages the poor to stay dependent, it kills individuals’ desire to help them.
And
what Mary
Katherine Ham wrote:
I don’t believe an individual’s commitment to helping the less fortunate can be measured by the amount of money one thinks the government should take from others. Having money taken from you does not make you charitable. Conversely, believing the government should leave people’s hard-earned money alone does not make one uncharitable. Rather, the charity is in the giving... I believe private charity could assuage most of the problems the government purports to solve with programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, and welfare. And it can conquer Katrina, too... Federal and local government programs, of course, is making huge efforts and progress as well. The military and police, needless to say, are always invaluable in search and rescue efforts. I don’t mean to diminish the good work those public servants have done and will continue to do saving and rebuilding lives. What I do say is that private charity allows the generosity and ingenuity of Americans to meet the unpredictability of life head on in a way a staid government program never could.
The
United States Constitution has two references of welfare and it is
worded as: the
General Welfare
(of the People), one being in the Preamble
and the other in the Taxing
and Spending Clause. i
The welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. It is about the egos of the elites.
Thomas Sowell
The
US Supreme Court, in the past, has upheld that the clause in the
Preamble to the US Constitution –
has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments. ii
In
the Taxing and Spending Clause, the Supreme Court determined that it
–
adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. iii
Justice
Story determined that the General Welfare Clause contained in the
General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power, iv
but a qualification on the taxing power v
which includes it a federal power to spend federal revenues on
matters of general interest to the federal government. vi
The
result is that those clauses in the US Constitution are not for the
government to be required to provide welfare to some citizens at the
expense of other citizens and is not considered grants of a general
legislative power to the federal government.
Alexander
Hamilton,
our first Secretary of Treasury, patriot and Founder, coincided with
Joseph
Story's
commentaries and elaborated the taxing and spending powers in his
1791 Report
on Manufactures.
The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy.
Charles de Montesquieu
Within
the US government archives and disclosed by the US Government
Printing Office, p. 161 of the Constitution
of the United States of America – Analysis and Interpretation,
p. 161:
The clause, in short, is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power.
This
may be part of the source where Chief Justice Johnson used to make
his decision not to decide that the so-called ObamaCare
cannot
be legislated because it is not in the power of the government
according to the Constitution of the United States and declaring that
the penalty provided in the clause of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act can
only be constitutional if it is a tax. Or, in his decision, he was
playing the “Devil's Advocate” and making way for the legislative
branch to do its duty and repeal that unconstitutional legislation.
But that is not the purpose or required task of a Supreme Court
Justice – the nine justices are chosen (or should be chosen by
proper appointment) on the basis that they protect the integrity of
the articles and amendments of the Constitution and interpret
it only to clarify judgment in individual cases brought before them
for their decision. Instead, like the two other branches of
government, the Supreme Court has become a legislative entity
operating from the judicial bench instead of their sworn oath
purpose; using foreign laws in their decisions as well as public
opinion or current political philosophies.
The
argument whether the penalty clause in the ObamaCare legislation is a
tax is moot because the legislation in itself is unconstitutional and
outside the prescribed limitations of the federal government within
the law of the land – the Constitution of the United States and its
amendments. American citizens are as much to blame as those operating
OUR government on OUR behalf, for they have come to believe that
entitlements established unlawfully are their right. Therefore, we
must endeavor to encourage that all Americans know THEIR Constitution
and its amendments in order to help safeguard its integrity and its
implementation. The US Constitution, for the most part, is written in
understandable language and does not require a law degree or a BA in
political science to understand its articles and amendments.
Therefore, it is every American citizen's duty to self educate
themselves in knowing their Constitution in order to ensure that it
is being adhered to by the elected officials in government, both
state and federal, for the maintenance and preservation of the
republic as a free nation For
the People and
By the People.
[See
Also: Constitution
vs. Modern Welfare State
by Larry
Elders,
published by WND.
UN
ARMS TREATY
Recently,
another important issue has come to the forefront of discussion: the
United
Nations Arms Treaty
that is to be decided during the month of July with a vote on July
27th
for national leaders of nation members to sign. In the United States,
that treaty, as in all treaties, must be ratified by the Senate of
the US Congress.
Before
I begin my reasons of protest concerning this treaty, I would like to
denounce chain email misinformation that has made the Internet
circuit passed on by people who do not look for reputable sources
before forwarding.
First,
US Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton,
while advocating US involvement in this treaty and agreeing with
President BH Obama,
has not signed the United Nations Small Arms Treaty.
Second,
despite questionable actions of President BH Obama in circumventing
constitutional procedures, no treaty can bypass the normal
legislative process of Congress because it must be approved by a
two-thirds vote of the US Senate before they are considered to be
binding.
Thirdly,
while it is feared that this treaty, if signed by the President of
the United States and ratified by the US Senate will be a prelude to
mass gun control violating the
right to keep and bear arms
guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957
US Supreme Court case of Reid
v. Covert
declaring that the US Constitution supersedes international treaties
ratified by the US Senate.
And
finally, there is email stating that Australia passed gun control
that gathered up personal firearms and destroyed them with outrageous
statistical figures that do not correspond to factual statistics.
See Snopes
on
that subject.
Amnesty
International,
Oxfam,
and International
Action Network on Small Arms (leader
of the Control
Arms Campaign)
advocating this treaty provided the effects of what the Arms Trade
Treaty would interpret as:
- be used in serious violation of international human rights or humanitarian law, or acts of genocide or crimes against humanity;
- facilitate terrorist attacks, a pattern of gender based violence, violent crime or organized crime;
- violate UN Charter obligations, including UN arms embargoes;
- be diverted from its stated recipient;
- adversely affect regional security; or
- seriously impair poverty reduction or socioeconomic development.
Loopholes,
according to this plan would be minimized because it would include:
- all weapons – including all military, security and police arms, related equipment and ammunition, components, expertise, and production equipment;
- all types of transfer – including import, export, re-export, temporary transfer and transhipment, in the state sanctioned and commercial trade, plus transfers of technology, loans, gifts and aid; and
- all transactions – including those by dealers and brokers, and those providing technical assistance, training, transport, storage, finance and security.
The
treaty must be fully clear in its implementation, but considering the
United Nations history, their effectiveness in enforcement and abuse
of the treaty remains questionable. Indeed, there has been corruption
and violation within the United Nations non-elected members where
even they violated their own embargo and/or sanction mandates – as
against Saddam
Hussein in
the Oil
for Food Programme
scandal.
The
most damning element against this UN treaty and the United Nations
itself is that nations that are guilty of human rights and violations
of sanctions for weapons proliferation are part of this endeavor to
control guns worldwide. So it is no wonder that the American people
and people who believe in freedom and the right to keep and bear arms
for the purpose of self defense and legal hunting are concerned that
this is just a facade for the long-term goals of the United Nation
member body. Indeed, being an international body in order to solve
differences between nations and punish rogue nations who violate
world peace and human rights, its original purpose, have nation
members who are tyrants and against all the principles of freedom and
human dignity as part of their legislative body.
The
United Nations headquarters should be removed from US soil and notice
be given to vacate within a prescribed period of time – and the US
government, its legislative body and executive administration should
seriously consider dissolving our involvement with that corrupt
entity, especially in the form of funding. In an economic crisis this
would be one of the prudent things to do in order to get a handle on
the national debt, as well as standing up for principles that the
United Nation non-elected members do not either understand or wish to
comply.
It
is clear why We the People of the United States and free-thinking
people of other nations are concerned about this proposed
international treaty when it comes to firearm/weapon control. Our
Founders knew full well what happens when a government implements gun
control that eventually leads to confiscation – every statistic points to the uselessness of such a
political ideology; and indeed points to the ulterior motives behind
gun control and outright banning of means of self defense from the
citizens of any nation.
Crimes
against humanity are not deterred or stopped because of gun control
and/or confiscation by government authorities.
History
provides clear results:
- 1911 – Turkey (Ottoman Empire) established gun control and from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated.
- 1929 – Soviet Union established gun control and from 1929 to 1953 approximately 20 million dissidents or anyone considered dangerous to the government were unable to defend themselves and were exterminated and/or sent to Siberian work camps.
- 1935 – The Nazi regime of Germany established gun control and 13 million Jews and other ethnic and political people were exterminated.
- 1935 – China established gun control at the same time Nazi Germany did and the Chinese people were unable to defend themselves from tyranny at home and invasion by Japanese. From 1948 to 1952, when Communism was implemented, people were sent to political reeducation-work camps and/or exterminated.
- 1956 – In Cambodia, gun control was established and from 1975 to 1977 one million “educated” people were exterminated.
- 1964 – Guatemala established gun control and from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan natives were exterminated.
- 1970 – Uganda established gun control and from 1971 to 1979, 30,000 Christians could not defend themselves and were exterminated.
- Today – North Korea has gun control in effect for some time, and now has the largest concentration camp in the history of the world, surpassing the size and scope of the Nazi death camps. I could not find sufficient data to reveal how many have died from the tyranny of North Korea's regime over the decades.
A
government that insists that citizens not have the right to keep and
use firearms for self defense against
foreign and domestic enemies cannot
be trusted. If the Second Amendment is dissolved, so then, in turn,
will the other amendments of the Bill
of Rights dissolve,
one by one.
Our
government was established by wise and visionary men who not only
established a Constitution to limit the power of government and
prescribe what its powers are, but included amendments that is called
the Bill of Rights
that is written to ensure that all citizens have certain rights and
liberties, especially the basics of life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
In
conclusion, I fully understand the desire and need to keep firearms
out of reach, or less likely to obtain, by organized crime elements
and criminals in general; however, gun control laws in American
history has shown that harassing and violating rights of lawful
citizens only creates the scenario where only criminals (and
police/military) have firearms – and the police and military cannot
be everywhere at one time. Self defense measures require quick
consideration and action, long before any law enforcement agents can
arrive on the scene. Most police reports are made of crimes after the
violent act has been committed instead of writing a report of a
citizen defending his/her property, life, and the safety of family
and fellow citizens. It is long past due for the time for mainstream
media to include with reports of crimes using firearms mixed with
reports of citizens saving lives and defending themselves using a
firearm.
It
is the main problem with media bias and manipulation we have today, along with its manipulation of political news that results in misinformed voters.
It would be an hypocrisy of our government to sign a treaty that is against our principles of government and the articles and amendments of the United States Constitution.
ENDNOTES
iv
Story, Commentaries, §919. "A power to lay taxes for
any purposes whatsoever is a general power; a power to lay taxes for
certain specified purposes is a limited power. A power to lay taxes
for the common defense and general welfare of the United States is
not in common sense a general power. It is limited to those objects.
It cannot constitutionally transcend them."
v
Story, Commentaries, §919–24
vi
Story, Commentaries, §972–75
You better update this
ReplyDeleteKerry Signed the Amrs treaty yesterday September 25th 2013