384 lines
24 KiB
Plaintext
384 lines
24 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
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!
|