informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/politics/foreign.aid

384 lines
24 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

Initial commit
2021-04-15 11:31:59 -07:00
FOREIGN AID
Look at this strange picture of a grown man with a
white beard. He's wearing an odd looking suit consisting of
blue and white striped pants and old styled cutaway jacket.
He's wearing high hat with stars on it. Why, it's our old
buddy, Uncle Sam.
He's grinning from ear to ear and holding a heavy money
sack in one hand. From the top of the globe, he is throwing
our money all over the earth. He kinda looks like a farmer
feeding the chickens.
Look at all the leaders of the nations with their hands
outstretched. They're screaming at him telling him they
will be happy to be his friend. No wonder he's grinning.
Foreign Aid -- doesn't it have a pleasant ring to it?
Try it again . . . FOREIGN AID. Such pretty sounding words.
A real warm phrase . . . Allows us to buy friends all over
the world. It makes no difference to us whether the country
is a communist block nation or if they support the United
States. No . . . We simply send the grant after our private
discussions and determination.
It doesn't make any difference if the foreign officials
to whom we give the money use it for themselves. There is
an outside chance they might use it for the benefit of their
countries. Look at Marcos as an example. You don't really
think he would take American foreign aid payments and buy
expensive properties in the United States, do you? No, he
wouldn't have done anything like that.
The American people are now conditioned to accept the
foreign aid budget as a legalized expenditure. No one any
longer questions the government. Not even our media raises
any question marks. And it doesn't matter who we give these
monies to because Americans don't understand foreign policy
at all. It's to our advantage if we keep them ignorant on
these issues.
I don't want to be called ignorant any longer. Let's
question their authority to dole out our money from the
Treasury. We hear all this talk about the federal deficit
and being a debtor nation for the first time in our history.
It's time we began our education. The admitted foreign aid
package last year allocated some $15.7 billion. Here's how
it would look if you wrote the figures in your check book,
that's $15,700,000,000! No question that puts a big chunk
into the deficits column!
They throw these billion dollar figures around as
though they were talking about a 10 dollar bill. Let's see
what a billion is. Actually, a billion seconds ago we
didn't even have an atomic weapon. That's a billion! And
now we are hearing the word trillion. One trillion minutes
ago should take us back to the days of the dinosaurs!
Let's begin our search and see if we can find a shred
of legality for these monstrous expenditures from our public
treasury. 
First, we'll look through the Constitution. Is there
any permission to give it to any country whatever story they
give us to justify the expense?
One instance of the word 'foreign' in Article I (the
law making bodies) appears in Section 8. These concern only
the value of foreign money in relationship to our own and
the regulation of commerce with foreign nations.
Foreign shows up again in Section 9 of Article I but
only about any person holding an office of trust under the
United States. He/she shall not receive any present, office
or title from a foreign state.
Nothing so far to show there is any permission to
spread joy around the world via our money. To refresh our
minds, it is the House of Representatives which is respon-
sible to introduce any bill to expend money. (Art 1, Sec 7,
cl 1) Yet our investigation of the entire legislative
branch shows no consent from us to send one thin dime to any
other country. Not even an ersatz dime they force the
people to use today.
Before we chastise the legislative branch for throwing
American money helter-skelter around the world, perhaps
there is authority in one of the other sections of the
Constitution.
Article II concerns the executive branch so let's take
a look-see.
The only thing which shows up which remotely suggests
any international involvement are joint duties the executive
shares with the Senate. The first is the power to make
treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate. The
second duty is to appoint ambassadors. (Art II, Sec 2, cl 2)
And, in section 3, it is the duty of the executive to
receive ambassadors and other public ministers.
Sorry, nothing in Article II to show any legality for
foreign aid. Why do we keep hearing the President talking
about foreign aid? I'm certain I read he often argues with
Congress about money for some foreign country.
Checking the next articles in our constitution, we do
find ambassadors mentioned under the judicial article (III).
Surely judges have no authority to expend public monies.
All Article III says is the Supreme Court will have original
jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors.
Art IV, Sect 3, cl 2 might be something we are looking
for . . ."Congress shall have power to dispose of and make
all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory
or other property belonging to the United States."
Could it be possible our Congress considers all those
countries as our territories? Noo o o o o ... A quick check
of the amendments shows nothing at all concerning the word
foreign or foreign aid.
Do you think it might be conceivable they have
purposely kept us ignorant about foreign policy? Maybe they
have a different copy of the Constitution than we have?
Surely, there must be authorization somewhere for our
elected 'representatives' to approve an expenditure of

billions!
All Senators, Representatives, ALL executive and judi-
cial officers take an oath to support our Constitution. Is
it likely they are all violating their oaths and breaking
the law? One day, those who have said "So help me, God" and
in the same breath have denied that oath will have to
explain that to someone.
A possible answer to these questions came innocently
from the pen of one of our freshman Congressmen. In
personal correspondence, he said when an issue on which they
expect to vote concerns constitutional issues they don't
take the initiative to check our Constitution. Instead,
they refer the issue to a committee with an impressive name,
the Committee on Constitutional rights. Isn't that
outstanding?
If that august body doesn't say it's unconstitutional,
the bill will sail through the Congress. How does that grab
you? We demand they take an oath to support the document
and they don't even know what it says. Nor do they make the
effort to find out what it says! And they feel we are
ignorant.
We must be mistaken. Certainly they wouldn't break the
law? They keep telling us that ignorance of the law is no
excuse . . . what do you suppose is their excuse for this
ignorance?
A look through The Federalist Papers is in order.
Perhaps there is something in the old writings to point out
where they have permission to throw our money away.
James Madison points out in paper No. 42 ". . powers
lodged in the central government consist of those which
regulate the intercourse with foreign nations, to wit: to
make treaties; to send and receive ambassadors, other public
ministers, and consuls; to define and punish piracies and
felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against
the law of nations; to regulate foreign commerce, . . ."
(All references to 'paper no.' means The Federalist
Papers.)
Well, so far we have found where the government is to
regulate foreign commerce. Yet not a word about throwing
our money at them. Let's keep looking.
John Jay in paper No. 64, speaks of the integrity of
the Senate and the President to make treaties. He rambles
on a bit but says nothing about any permission in the
Constitution to give, grant, donate or lend money to any
foreign country.
In paper No. 53, James Madison states: "A branch of
knowledge which belongs to the acquirements of a federal
representative and which has not been mentioned is that of
foreign affairs. In regulating our own commerce, he ought
to be not only acquainted with the treaties between the
United States and other nations, but also with the commer-
cial policy and laws of other nations."
The Founding Fathers NEVER considered they could take
our money from public funds and give it to a foreign power

no matter how puny.
We know the House of Representatives and the Senate
have "Foreign Relations Committees." We hear enough in the
media from individual members when they want to interfere in
the internal affairs of another country. This is not only
immoral, it's also without authority in our Constitution.
And they have much to say about foreign aid.
Another point we should consider . . . it sure gives
these clucks a reason to hop on an aircraft for a foreign
junket (vacation) at out expense, doesn't it?
If these "foreign affair" committees were concerned
with foreign trade and treaties it would be in keeping with
the intent of the powers which were bestowed. Hypocrisy
abounds in Washington. Must be a special meal in congress-
ional dining halls!
Our former ambassador to the UN, Jeanne Kirkpatrick,
wrote an article which appeared in the national press
entitled "The Foreign Aid Puzzle." She makes the following
observation: "Obviously, foreign assistance is one of the
instruments of foreign policy that can be used along with
diplomacy, information, and military strength to accomplish
our nations purposes and protect our national interests."
Is that statement designed to make us feel stupid or
does it show their ignorance of our supreme law? Isn't it
unique whenever they want to justify something, we are
protecting our national interests? This the muttering of
idiots and pure gobbledegook.
Our national interest (which should be their national
interest also) is the preservation of our Constitution and
the Republic.
How can they justify protecting our national interests
when they propose to give $25 million to help Marxist
Mozambique? Or $25 million for Zimbabwe which is a
one-party state that arrests and tortures its opponents?
Zimbabwe consistently opposes US foreign policy. It's
obvious what the result was concerning our foreign policy
towards Saddam. One might ask, just what is our governments
conception of our national interest?
Cow paddies. The great American scam is still in
operation.
This idea of foreign aid really began in earnest during
the reign of Franklin Roosevelt. They called it the
"Lend-Lease Program." Can you please define the term lend-
lease? What in blazes does it mean? Was it intended to be
conditioning for future foreign aid shenanigans? And this
gobbledegook continues unabated!
The Lend-Lease Act was passed March 11, 1941. "In
President Roosevelt's words, this act made the republic the
arsenal for world democracy." Tough to find a statement
that sounds more stupid. It does point to the conditioning
of the American people to accept the word democracy.
George Washington in his farewell address recommended
we observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Also
we should cultivate peace and harmony with all. Does this

unlawful expenditure of our money lean toward those sugges-
tions? How about the meddling in the internal affairs of a
foreign nation? Hardly!
He also strongly urged the United States to steer clear
of permanent alliances with the foreign world. Another
admonition ignored.
He spoke eloquently about our republic and its future.
It requires repeating because of the operation of our
government today . . .
"To the efficacy and permanency of your union a
government for the whole is indispensable . . . This
Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced
and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature
deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the
distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy,
and containing within itself a provision for its own
amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your
support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its
laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by
the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our
political systems is the right of the people to make and
alter their constitutions of government. But the constitu-
tion which at any time exists till changed by an explicit
and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory
upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the
people to establish government presupposes the duty of every
individual to obey the established government." (Messages &
Papers of the Presidents, J. D. Richardson, 1898.)
It is the responsibility of everyone to obey the
established government. It doesn't exempt those who work
for government. Washington pointed out the constitution
exists till changed by an EXPLICIT and AUTHENTIC act. Until
then it is a sacred obligation on all Americans.
The Constitution cannot be changed unless you and I
agree to the change. The amendment process (Art V) is in
place and they must follow it before ANY process of our
government can be modified.
The Tenth Amendment, the last one in the Bill of
Rights, forbids the federal government from taking on ANY
power which we did not specifically delegate. No ifs, no
ands, no buts!
Each reader should write his Senators and Representa-
tives and ask where they find authority to dispense foreign
aid. Point out to them voting for foreign aid is a
violation of their oaths to support the Constitution. It is
the Supreme Law of the Land. The violation of the trust we
gave to them when we elected them to office is official
misconduct. We MUST remove them from office as soon as
possible. This comes under the definition of malconduct
which Hamilton spoke of in paper No. 79 which makes them
subject to impeachment.
To quote Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers
No. 78: "There is no position which depends on clearer
principles than that every act of a delegated authority,

contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is
exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary
to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to
affirm that the deputy is greater than his principle; that
the servant is above his master; that the representative of
the people are superior to the people themselves; that men
acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers
do not authorize, but what they forbid."
There has been much talk lately about the foreign
policy of the president. It has become the prerogative of
the president to conduct foreign affairs. In reality it is
the designated job of the president in cooperation with the
Senate since it is their joint function to appoint ambas-
sadors.
The president is authorized to receive ambassadors yet
as pointed out in the Federalist Papers, this requirement is
more a matter of dignity than of authority. The framers
felt that it would be easier for the president to perform
this function than to call the entire Congress into session.
The Framers of our Constitution were so certain that
the Congress would have nothing to do that they included the
requirement in Art I, Sect 4, cl 2: "The Congress shall
assemble at least once in every year. . " This was the
reason they felt that it would be a problem to call the
entire Congress into session to receive ambassadors.
Today we can actually feel safer when they are not in
session passing some unconstitutional law to take away more
of our rights and liberties or raising taxes!
Do you really feel that these people do not realize
that they have no authority in the Constitution to dole out
these huge sums? It is possible I suppose, yet on the
other hand, more than likely that's not probable! They do
know and don't give a damn if we do find out!
Just another one of those practices that has gone on
for a long, long time. Since they feel it buys friends,
let's continue it. The American people don't understand
foreign affairs and foreign aid anyway.
To see how foolish this idea of giving the executive
the power to commit troops to a foreign country without
Congress declaring war as required in the Constitution, we
don't have to look far! How about Vietnam, Lebanon or
Granada or this fiasco with Saddam?
Care to total the number of our young men that died in
these illegal uses of power? It doesn't take much courage
for an old man to send a young man into battle. If
constitutional requirements had been followed, much of this
wouldn't have happened!
There is no argument that the president is the command-
er-in-chief of the military forces. However, ONLY when the
Congress has declared war, not when they have delegated
their authority to the executive branch.
It is not suggested any where in the Constitution that
the president can commit troops!
George Washington suggested strongly that America never

become permanently allied with any foreign nation. Another
point he brought out firmly was that we should "observe good
faith and justice toward all nations."
Has this advice been followed? How about our present
attitude toward South Africa, China, Iran, Libya or Iraq?
What business is it of our government what the internal
policy these nations follow? Are any sanctions, implied or
real, an illegal and immoral use of power?
Is this "good faith and justice" toward South Africa?
The same question could be applied toward Rhodesia. That
country is solidly in the communist camp now and this
happened because of our government meddling in the internal
affairs of that country. By what right? Simply because
they say it is in our interests? Special money has now
been allotted to the CIA to 'get rid of Saddam Hussein'. He
went into Kuwait . . . what business is that of ours? Is
this blood money? Find one iota of right in our Constitu-
tion to say we can assassinate a leader of another country.
These people have gone mad. It this what Bush wants in his
'New World Order'?
Now we have a Secretary of State who advocates the use
of the military in attacks on "terrorist bases" even before
they have committed any acts of terrorism. It would not
matter, according to him, if innocent civilians would be
killed or injured in the 'pre-emptive' attacks.
It's hard to believe that a high ranking official of
the executive branch could even suggest such a barbarous
act. Even the Secretary of State has to take an oath to
uphold the Constitution. So where does he suggest the
authority for such acts are found? Can you find any?
There seems to be genuine concern for terrorist
activities. Much of what is going on today is a result of
past actions of our government.
There is no doubt that some situations are dangerous
yet to ignore constitutional authority and limitations is
also dangerous!
Look at their concern about the terrorists . . . They
have built all sorts of barriers in front of government
buildings around the world. More of our money at work.
Must protect our 'leaders' they say. No one has forced them
to work for the government. If they feel it is too
dangerous, go back home and go to work! We won't miss them.
All this talk about the terrorists and terrorist
activity is strangely reminiscent of Boston in 1774 when the
British called the people who were causing problems 'incen-
diaries.' They were inciting trouble hence the name incen-
diaries. The British reacted with 'pre-emptive' strikes and
look at the result of that! Their pre-emptive strikes were
without authority also!
Do We The People create deficits? Of course not.
IT'S YOUR MONEY!
Any wonder why they revised the tax laws to increase
their revenues? Now the talk is to raise taxes again in
spite of the talk about tax cuts. WAKE UP!