The "General Welfare" Clause Does Not Grant the Government Unlimited Spending Power [Archive] - House of Politics

View Full Version : The "General Welfare" Clause Does Not Grant the Government Unlimited Spending Power

Truth-Bringer

05-05-2008, 08:03 AM

The "General Welfare" Clause: What Does It Really Mean?

By Alan Chapman

There seems to be some disagreement as to what the word "welfare" means with regard to the phrase "general welfare" as it appears in the Constitution. Many on FR use the "general welfare" clause as the basis of their support for government schools and Social Security. I started this thread with the intent to discover the true meaning of the term "welfare" with regard to it's use in the Constitution.

The word "welfare" appears twice in the Constitution. Once in the preamble and again in Article 1, Section 8.

The preamble to the Constitution states:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The preamble is not a delegation of power to the federal government. It is simply a stated purpose.
Article 1, Section 8 states:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

We all know the meaning of words can change over time. In order to more accurately assess the meaning of the word "welfare", with respect to it's use in the Constitution, I consulted a source from that period. I happened to own a reprint of the 1828 edition of Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language. Here is how the word "welfare" was defined 40 years after it was written in the Constitution.

A clear distinction is made with respect to welfare as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states and not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.

Furthermore, Article 4, Section 4 states:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

A Republican form of government is one that is not Democratic. This means that policy cannot be decided based on majority rule. It is impossible to guarantee a Republican form of government and, at the same time, compel people to fund and participate in government programs which are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Rest of Article Here (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aa699b23882.htm)

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 _Madison_ 1865, I, page 546

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constitutents." - James Madison, regarding an appropriations bill for French refugees, 1794

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831 _Madison_ 1865, IV, pages 171-172

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson

For years socialists and statists have declared that the government can do anything it wants in the name of the "general welfare." Clearly, this was deception and fraud on their part. Here we have the "Father of the Constitution" and the author of the Declaration of Independence clearly explaining that the government has no such right under Constitutional law.

Bunz

05-05-2008, 08:22 AM

Unlimited and wreckless spending are modern practices put forth by the hypocritical GOP while claiming to be in pursuit of a smaller government.
Also, I am sick and tired of people saying we live in a Republic and not a Democracy when in fact we live in both and they are strictly non-exclusice.

As for providing for the common defense and general welfare, I am not sure if I agree with the assessment, because for some reason, the actual 1828 definition was not included in the OP. Either way, things like the department of education, have always been there to provide assistance to states and local communities in meeting the shortfalls that are often faced when it comes to funding at those levels.

What are you getting at here TB? That we shouldnt have welfare going to individuals? There isnt much in the way of your opinion here. But either way, just like the meaning of words evolve over time, so does the role of government as circumstances deem them necessary.

I found it interesting also, that you didnt mention much about this part and the hypocrisy from both sides.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

This would mean to me, that all this right wing garbage about free trade with certain countries and tax breaks for certain companies and various industries are as unconstitutional as welfare for poor people. So, why not just come out and say it...
I dont want my tax dollars supporting poor people.

Truth-Bringer

05-05-2008, 09:46 AM

Unlimited and wreckless spending are modern practices put forth by the hypocritical GOP while claiming to be in pursuit of a smaller government.

Well I certainly can't argue about that. The GOP has definitely been quite hypocritical in regards to government spending, except for certain individuals such as Ron Paul who continue to vote against all unbalanced budgets.

Also, I am sick and tired of people saying we live in a Republic and not a Democracy when in fact we live in both and they are strictly non-exclusice.

Actually, we live in a de jure republic that has deteriorated into more of a de facto legislative democracy.

As for providing for the common defense and general welfare, I am not sure if I agree with the assessment, because for some reason, the actual 1828 definition was not included in the OP.

Madison's words and actions are quite clear. He's the father of the Constitution. I think he knows what he's talking about.

Either way, things like the department of education, have always been there

Huh? The Department of Education wasn't created until 1979.

What are you getting at here TB? That we shouldnt have welfare going to individuals? There isn't much in the way of your opinion here.

At the federal level, no. It is not within the enumerated powers of the federal government - neither is corporate welfare of any type. If it's going to be done, legally, it would have to be done at the state or local level.

But either way, just like the meaning of words evolve over time, so does the role of government as circumstances deem them necessary.

Appeal to Novelty fallacy. Should 2 + 2 = 4 evolve to 2 + 2 = 5 simply because the times change?

I found it interesting also, that you didnt mention much about this part and the hypocrisy from both sides.

I fully admit that both political parties are hypocrites on the issue.

This would mean to me, that all this right wing garbage about free trade with certain countries and tax breaks for certain companies and various industries are as unconstitutional as welfare for poor people. So, why not just come out and say it...

I agree. All these trade deals are unconstitutional and should be stopped. We should have a flat tariff. All corporate welfare should be stopped as well. If we're not going to have welfare for individuals, we definitely shouldn't have it for corporations.

Bunz

05-05-2008, 10:14 AM

Huh? The Department of Education wasn't created until 1979.
Ah you cut my quote off, so lets try it again.

things like the department of education, have always been there to provide assistance to states and local communities in meeting the shortfalls that are often faced when it comes to funding at those levels.

I used the department of education, but could have also used transportation, and a few others. Without some federal assistance state and local communities would struggle to provide the services of government at a level on par with other states and communities.

Appeal to Novelty fallacy. Should 2 + 2 = 4 evolve to 2 + 2 = 5 simply because the times change?
Libsmasher would agree with your math on that one, but that is another issue.
You said words evolved, I dont disagree, I also pointed out that the role of government has evolved. But you brought in the math equation that we both know is a stretch for purposes of this discussion.

Truth-Bringer

05-07-2008, 06:07 AM

I used the department of education, but could have also used transportation, and a few others. Without some federal assistance state and local communities would struggle to provide the services of government at a level on par with other states and communities.

Speculation.

I also pointed out that the role of government has evolved. But you brought in the math equation that we both know is a stretch for purposes of this discussion.

No, it is not a stretch. Logic is logic, and truth is truth. They don't "evolve." The role of government hasn't evolved. It's only legitimate function is punishing those who initiate force, fraud or coercion. It has no legitimate authority to control the peaceful, honest, voluntary actions of adult individuals.

"It inconsistent with the principles of civil liberty, and contrary
to the natural rights of the other members of the society, that any
body of men therein should have authority to enlarge their own
powers... without restraint." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Allowance
Bill, 1778. [I](government or the majority has no right to usurp authority that deprives any individual of inalienable rights under Natural Law)

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as
are injurious to others." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782. (meaning government or majority does not have the right to claim any power over people if they are acting in peaceful, honest, voluntary ways)

"Laws provide against injury from others, but not from
ourselves." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776 (meaning the majority cannot make laws punishing victimless crimes such as prostitution or smoking marijuana)

"The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves (as individuals)." - John Locke (the principle influence of the political thought of the Founding Fathers - for example, if you can't steal from someone by force or threat of force as an individual, you can't do it as government)

Federal Farmer

06-09-2008, 04:28 PM

Unlimited and wreckless spending are modern practices put forth by the hypocritical GOP while claiming to be in pursuit of a smaller government.

Bunz, I fear that I must take issue with your characterization. Both the DNC and the GOP today are equally culpable in their reckless, and blatantly un-constitutional spending. It is the same thought process of "bread and circuses" that eventually led to the downfall of the Roman Empire, and like all who refuse to learn from their history, we appear doomed to repeat it.

Also, I am sick and tired of people saying we live in a Republic and not a Democracy when in fact we live in both and they are strictly non-exclusice.

Simply stating that we live in a "democracy" as opposed to a Republic (be it on life support as it is) does not make it so. The founding fathers addressed this very point in Article IV Section IV of the Constitution when they very clearly stated that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...". Further proof of the founding fathers contempt for "direct democracy" can be found in their creation of an Electoral College, which very astutely precludes We The People from exercising "direct" control of the elections of our federal officers.

In a "democracy", or more properly a "direct democracy", 51% of the people may enslave 49% of the people at will, which is why Massachusettensis pointed out in his 5th Essay to "To the Inhabitants of the Province of Massachusetts-Bay" that "...monarchy is apt to rush headlong into tyranny, aristocracy to beget faction and multiplied usurpation, and democracy to degenerate into tumult, violence and anarchy." The author Charles Inglis, in his essay of 1776 entitled "The True Interest of America Impartially Stated" hesitated not to refer to someone who sought "democracy" as "crack-brained zelot". You may also wish to cousult Federalist 10, in which Alexander Hamilton makes it quite clear that not only is our form of government under our Constitution not a "democracy", and that "democracy" is to be avoided at all costs. Even Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that "A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town.", but perhaps my favorite quote on the subject of "democracy" comes from Sir Winston Churchill who said "The strongest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter."

No form of "direct democratic" government has ever lasted, since it is doomed to failure from the outset simply by the fact that it is nothing more than mob rule, where the leaders of the mob are among the least educated, least even tempered, and least interested in what is best for all of the citizens.

As for providing for the common defense and general welfare, I am not sure if I agree with the assessment, because for some reason, the actual 1828 definition was not included in the OP. Either way, things like the department of education, have always been there to provide assistance to states and local communities in meeting the shortfalls that are often faced when it comes to funding at those levels.

I fear you are once again mistaken, or simply misguided. The original Department of Health Education and Welfare was begun as a Cabinet level department under President Dwight Eisenhower in 1953, and from it sprang the modern Department of Education in 1979. The fact that a federal agency was enacted by a government that collects so much in taxes from the citizenry in order to administer a federal agency who's mission is to return, selectively, the money to the States for their own schools boggles the mind, and escapes all attempts at rational explaination. If the States need additional funding for their Schools, there's a very simple solution to the problem, shut down the DE, and reduce taxes accordingly so that the States themselves may collect those monies for their own use, in their own schools, by their own citizens, without having to pay the operating expenses of another high maintainance building occupied by dim-witted functionaries in Washington DC.

What are you getting at here TB? That we shouldnt have welfare going to individuals? There isnt much in the way of your opinion here. But either way, just like the meaning of words evolve over time, so does the role of government as circumstances deem them necessary.

No, there should be no "welfare" going to individuals. The concept of redistribution of wealth is anathema to the principles of any republican form of government. It is also in complete contradiction to the Constitution, on it's face. As far as words changing meaning, I fear that this is a specious argument. Words mean what words mean, unless of course you live in some Alice in Wonderland world where "words mean what I want them to mean, when I want them to mean them, and no longer". If you wish to change the Constitution, the mechanism for doing so is contained in the document, and I invite you to avail yourself of that Right, but that is the only way that circumstances may deem them necessary, otherwise one is constrained to the "original meaning" and "texturalism" of the Constitution, as written, signed, and ratified by the 13 colonies, and all subsequent States as they have joined our country.

I found it interesting also, that you didnt mention much about this part and the hypocrisy from both sides.

This would mean to me, that all this right wing garbage about free trade with certain countries and tax breaks for certain companies and various industries are as unconstitutional as welfare for poor people. So, why not just come out and say it...
I dont want my tax dollars supporting poor people.

I'll say it, I DON'T want my tax dollars going to support ANYONE, including individuals, companies, or industries. The power of taxation, as was clearly expounded by the founding fathers, was to be limited strictly to those items specifically enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution.

Truth-Bringer

06-10-2008, 08:09 AM

Great post, Federal Farmer. I'm always glad to see people on these boards who have a good understanding of the original intent of the Constitution. Welcome aboard.

I think you might also enjoy my thread here on the true Constitutional money system. (http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2725)

Federal Farmer

06-10-2008, 02:54 PM

Great post, Federal Farmer.

Thank you.

I'm always glad to see people on these boards who have a good understanding of the original intent of the Constitution.

I've been studying the Constitution, and the writings of the FF's for over 30 years, and it never ceases to amaze me the utter lack of knowledge on the subject that most Americans today possess. Disheartening doesn't even begin to cover it. What is perhaps worse, for me personally, is when one takes the time and effort to try to help someone understand the subject, and they steadfastly refuse to even make an attempt to do so, relying instead on their own preconceived notions and prejudices, regardless of the volumnes of information to the contrary one provides them. The extraordinary lengths that some will go to in order to maintain their "willful ignorance" is a constant source of awe and wonder to me (I shake my head, mutter "aww" s**t, I "wonder" how this one managed to get past the 3rd grade:rolleyes:).

Welcome aboard.

Again, thank you.

I think you might also enjoy my thread here on the true Constitutional money system. (http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2725)

Noted, and replied to.

ilikeboobs

06-12-2008, 04:44 AM

Here's an example of why the federal government SHOULD NEVER be taking your money and distributing it to unconstitutionally-funded bureaucracies, let alone special interests:

Federal taxpayers are subsidizing a college in New York whose art school is currently displaying works that include a drawing of a man with a crucifix coming out of his rectum, a drawing of a man with a rosary coming out of his rectum, and rosaries decorated with penises. Over the last eight years, at least $4.6 million in federal tax dollars have been provided to the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, which is displaying the controversial artworks. Some of the money has come in the form of grants from the National Endowment for the Arts.

I fail to see how stealing my money and giving it to jackasses who think crosses in butts is "art". And I REALLY fail to see how this would ever be construed as something covered by the "general welfare" clause.

9sublime

06-12-2008, 06:06 AM

Anything that inspires emotion is art, and you getting pissy about a rectum coming out of someones butt is good enough for me :)

Federal Farmer

06-12-2008, 01:00 PM

Here's an example of why the federal government SHOULD NEVER be taking your money and distributing it to unconstitutionally-funded bureaucracies, let alone special interests:

I can give you some better examples.

1) I offer into evidence the words of Thomas Jefferson, one of the original Founding Fathers, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, an Ambassador to France, and our 3rd President, who said in his letter to Albert Gallatin in 1817;
Our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.

2) He had also addressed the issue in 1791, when he said concerning Congress;
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."

3) Shall we consider the words of James Madison, also one of the original Founding Fathers, one of the primary authors of the Federalist Papers, the author of the Bill of Rights, and the 4th President of the United States, who said;
Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made.

Simply stated, Congress does not have proper legal authority to apply money to anything that is not specifically enumerated in Article I Section VIII of the US Constitution, and as these founding fathers clearly stated, only those thing specifically enumerated in Article I Section VIII of the Constitution constitute the "general welfare", and nothing else.

Federal Farmer

06-12-2008, 01:05 PM

Anything that inspires emotion is art, and you getting pissy about a rectum coming out of someones butt is good enough for me :)

Yes, well, unfortunately supporting the "arts" in general is NOT one of the specifically enumerated items upon which Congress is authorized by the Constitution to spend the publics money upon. Only the "USEFUL arts" are specifically enumerated, so perhaps you could inform us all of exactly how you feel that such "art" as described above is in any way "useful"? Oh, and no, getting a kick out of watching someone hurl their lunch when they see such trash is NOT "useful".

GenSeneca

06-13-2008, 05:20 PM

TB and FedFarm,

I'm right there with you guys as far as the idealism represented by our Constitution, I hope to one day return to what the founders had intended for our country.

Problem is... this is 2008. In the last 232 years of politicians trying to make a name for themselves, we have taken on many obligations and responsibilities. Point being, we cannot just take a mulligan and start over without consequence.

Any return to America's Ideal state will take nearly as long as its taken to get to where we are today. I want to get back to a Constitutional Republic but the odds are stacked against those of us holding such an opinion... as you guys well know.

Its very popular to offer federal funds for this or that group, organization or program. How do you plan to fight such populism? I hear a great deal of idealism but not much in the way of solutions that deal with the realities of past obligations.

Thats not specifically pointed at the two of you but Constitutionalists in general.
-----------------------------------------
Someone mentioned Ron Paul, I found him to be disappointing on multiple levels. In particular, Paul's tacit support for Earmarks and Conspiracy theories turned me off to him. He also oversimplifies the problems we face in dealing with our past obligations and commitments, preferring to spout flowery Constitutional rhetoric when he should be proposing rational and detailed measure to begin our return. This leads me to believe he is either not fully honest about his Constitutional positions OR more likely, he does not have an adequate support structure (Think Tanks) for creating such proposals.

One last thing I wanted to address, Corporate Welfare.

Depending on which corporation we're talking about, this is a complete misnomer. Corporations pay a huge percentage of our budget in taxes - thus when they get money back, I see it as being no different than returning money to any other taxpayer who overpaid in taxes.

Of course there are exceptions, the Corn Ethanol industry is the best example of true corporate welfare I can come up with. That entire industry would not exist but for our taxdollars creating and sustaining it.

Anyhow, I look forward to your comments.

Federal Farmer

06-13-2008, 06:25 PM

FedFarm,

Problem is... this is 2008. In the last 232 years of politicians trying to make a name for themselves, we have taken on many obligations and responsibilities. Point being, we cannot just take a mulligan and start over without consequence.

I wholeheartedly agree. Realizing that there is a problem, and what the problem is only represents the first two steps towards a cure. The challenge is that we must be careful in how we approach the problem or it may be a case of "the operation was a success, but the patient died".

Any return to America's Ideal state will take nearly as long as its taken to get to where we are today. I want to get back to a Constitutional Republic but the odds are stacked against those of us holding such an opinion... as you guys well know.

I do realize this, but I disagree in your prognosis as to the amount of time necessary. I've looked at this for several decades, and given some serious people, in positions of serious power and authority, it should take 50-60 years max. I say this advisedly because the current state we're in is primarily a result of the highly Socialist programs promulgated by FDR. It's not unlike weening an addict off of herion, you can't simply cut them off cold-turkey and expect an optimum outcome. You have to start by slowly cutting back on the amount of the drug (in this case, all of the Socialist programs), and returning ourselves to a strictly Constitutional economic policy.

Its very popular to offer federal funds for this or that group, organization or program. How do you plan to fight such populism? I hear a great deal of idealism but not much in the way of solutions that deal with the realities of past obligations.

Thats not specifically pointed at the two of you but Constitutionalists in general.

The first requirement would be to simply start holding our representatives (employees) CRIMINALLY responsible for violating their Oaths of Office, and the Constitution. The Constitution is quite clear on what the Congress may and may not spend our money on, and any Congresscritter who fails to uphold that Oath should be impeached, and then charged and tried for their (felony) CRIMINAL actions (Article 1 Section III, and Article 1 Section VI). I'm currently working with a group in my home district to bring charges against our Representative for just this very thing, and if successful, it could very well set the precendent we've been looking for, since apparantly nothing else has gotten their attention.
-----------------------------------------
Someone mentioned Ron Paul, I found him to be disappointing on multiple levels.

The biggest thing that completely turned me off about RP is the fact that a sitting Congressman, with as many years of experience as he has, and who harps about the Constitution as much as he does, could be so willfully ignorant about it, particularaly in his screeching about OIF being "unconstitutional". The man is a barking moonbat who needs to be hooded like a falcon! The Constitution does in fact give Congress the 'authority' to declare War, but it does not require Congress to do so. He also conveniently ignores the fact that the Joint Resolution concerning Iraq was in fact a declaration of war. There is no constitutionally prescribed form that a "declaration of war" must, or even should, take therefore such a declaration is immediately in effect the moment the Congress authorizes military force to be used against any foreign State or power provided it passes both chambers like any other Bill, and receives the signature of POTUS, or in case of a veto, is overridden, as prescribed in the Constitution, by Congress.

One last thing I wanted to address, Corporate Welfare.

Depending on which corporation we're talking about, this is a complete misnomer. Corporations pay a huge percentage of our budget in taxes - thus when they get money back, I see it as being no different than returning money to any other taxpayer who overpaid in taxes.

Completely agree. "Corporate Welfare" is 'lib speak' used to describe their jealousy because they never had the intestinal fortitude to start and run their own business, and build it to the point where incorporating was adventagous. Simply put, the ones screeching about "corporate welfare" are nothing but a bunch of whinney assed, cry-baby slackers who are envious of, and want to stick it to, "the man".

Of course there are exceptions, the Corn Ethanol industry is the best example of true corporate welfare I can come up with. That entire industry would not exist but for our taxdollars creating and sustaining it.

Anyhow, I look forward to your comments.

Corn ethanol is one of the biggest Red Herrings ever foisted upon the American people. Anyone with even half a brain, a fourth grade education, and the ability to operate a calculator can quickly see that even if we were to convert every arible acre of land in the entire United States to corn production, we wouldn't be able to produce enough to satisfy half or our current fuel usage. One can only grow so many bushels of corn per acre, I don't care how much nitrogen you dump on it, and one can only get so much ethanol out of each bushel of corn, I don't care how hard you squeeze it, so even thinking about using corn ethanol is a non-starter right out of the gate, and the fact that the government would even consider funding it simply proves that any time "government" is the answer, it has to be a REALLY stupid question.

GenSeneca

06-13-2008, 07:13 PM

Sounds like we agree about a great many things but to keep this from becoming a discussion devoted to patting each other on the back for our wisdom and use of relevant quotes on the subject, I would like to focus on the areas where we disagree.

Now I don't have your years of experience on the matter but going through the courts sounds like a pretty difficult path - Particularly if you're appearing in the 9th Circus Court of California. BTW, Where are you doing this? I would like to keep an eye on how things progress.

Another point of contention I would have is on your timetable... We have many long term treaties and trade obligations to consider. Forgive me for not remembering the specifics off the top of my head but Bush recently renewed a 100 year agreement with another country - or one of our provinces. (hearing he signed a 100 year agreement is what sticks out and I can look it up later if necessary)

And speaking of American Provinces (such as Puerto Rico - who to my knowledge is not actually a state but votes in our elections anyway) perhaps you could enlighten me as to the Constitutionality of such provinces and where they would fit into a Constitutional re-organization of America.

Thanks for sharing your expertise and no offense to TB but you're much more pleasant to chat with. TB seemed more interested in proving intellectual superiority on the subject, rather than dealing with the types of questions I have posed to you, hopefully the kind that lead to realistically applicable solutions.

Federal Farmer

06-13-2008, 07:49 PM

Sounds like we agree about a great many things but to keep this from becoming a discussion devoted to patting each other on the back for our wisdom and use of relevant quotes on the subject, I would like to focus on the areas where we disagree.

That's fine, I find I learn more from playing the Devils Advocate with like minded people than I do from standing around having a Mutual Admiration Society meeting.

Now I don't have your years of experience on the matter but going through the courts sounds like a pretty difficult path - Particularly if you're appearing in the 9th Circus Court of California. BTW, Where are you doing this? I would like to keep an eye on how things progress.

No worries there, I'm on the East Coast and south of the Mason Dixon. If we are able to get his sorry butt dragged into court, I'm sure that you'll hear about it.

Another point of contention I would have is on your timetable... We have many long term treaties and trade obligations to consider. Forgive me for not remembering the specifics off the top of my head but Bush recently renewed a 100 year agreement with another country - or one of our provinces. (hearing he signed a 100 year agreement is what sticks out and I can look it up later if necessary)

Please do, I don't recall hearing anything about any 100 year treaty extensions. As to our Treaties and trade obligations, they would be uneffected by getting rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, Section 8 houseing, the Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, Department of Labor, Department of Transportation, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and breaking up the Department of Homeland Security. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps and WIC chew up more than 56% of our $3 TRILLION dollar budget, every year, when less than 20% of the population regularly benefit from these programs, that they are simply unsustainable, period, end of discussion.

And speaking of American Provinces (such as Puerto Rico - who to my knowledge is not actually a state but votes in our elections anyway) perhaps you could enlighten me as to the Constitutionality of such provinces and where they would fit into a Constitutional re-organization of America.

Puerto Rico? They've got 5 more years to either become a State, or they get kicked to the curb, and the same for the rest of our "protectorates". If they can't get their **** in one bag in 5 years, they're beyond our help, and we don't need them. Article IV Section III provides for the admission of new States, and as such, they have to come from somewhere, so Territories and "protectorates" are Constitutional (especially given the territories west of the original 13 Colonies that were ceded to us by the British following the Revolution, and prior to the ratification of the Constitution).

Thanks for sharing your expertise...

My pleasure. Any "expertise" I may have on the issue comes strictly from decades of study. Once upon a LOOOOOONNNNNGGGGGG time ago, I took an Oath to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." and I felt it incumbent upon me to actually learn something about the document specified in that Oath. While I may no longer be serving in uniform, I was never relieved of that Oath, so I still take it quite seriously.

GenSeneca

06-13-2008, 09:21 PM

First, thanks for the info on Puerto Rico and for your continued service to our country. Don't let the Haters get you down! :)

Please do, I don't recall hearing anything about any 100 year treaty extensions.
Went back and found the article I was thinking of... It was from several months ago and I was flubbing the relevant numbers, so my appologies.

Still, what are our troop commitments and other related treaty obligations to countries like Germany and Japan? Japan in particular is forbidden from having a military so there would have to be some arrangement made concerning this issue. Additionally, our obligations at the UN... Hopefully our Constitution allows us to bail out of such useless, America-Hating, organizations.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps and WIC chew up more than 56% of our $3 TRILLION dollar budget, every year, when less than 20% of the population regularly benefit from these programs, that they are simply unsustainable, period, end of discussion.
You may like this pie chart - I have used it many times to point out how badly the Left lies about Military spending and the like:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/dd/Fbs_us_fy2007.png/600px-Fbs_us_fy2007.png
----------------------------------
Concerning the Entitlement Programs, I see privatization as greatly speeding up the "weening" process where these are involved. Slowly, generationally, decreasing involvement in these programs. Is this akin to your theory or do you have something else in mind?

Federal Farmer

06-14-2008, 04:05 AM

Still, what are our troop commitments and other related treaty obligations to countries like Germany and Japan? Japan in particular is forbidden from having a military so there would have to be some arrangement made concerning this issue. Additionally, our obligations at the UN... Hopefully our Constitution allows us to bail out of such useless, America-Hating, organizations.

As your pie chart shows, our total military expendatures account for 17% of our current budget, (with GWOT, OIF and OEF going on) which is among the lowest it's been since WWII, and much lower than WWII, Korea, or Vietnam, so our current commitments in Europe and the Far East are a comparatively inexpensive (minor) part of that budget. A bit of trivia that you may not be aware of, but throughout the Cold War, the budget of the Strategic Air Command, and that was only one command in the Air Force, was higher than the budget of the entire United States Army, every year, for more than 40 years!

While Japan is forbidden from having a standing Army, they do have a quite formidible Defense Force (akin to an active National Guard). Now, to deal directly with the question at hand, re: our constant presence at overseas bases, they were quite necessary during the Cold War, and those that are still of use in support of our national interests abroad are still in operation, and those that are not are being closed down. In Germany for instance, we have less than 1/4 of the bases operating there that we did at the height of the Cold War since they simply aren't necessary any more. Even in Japan, we've reduced, or even ceased our presence at many of the bases we previously had a high presence at.

The UN? Shut it down, ship 'em to Geneva, and rent the building out for Office Space and apartments. As far as our continued presence in the UN? So long as we are the worlds sole "super power" we do need to maintain a presence there, but we do NOT need to keep on paying the lion's share of the tab.

You may like this pie chart - I have used it many times to point out how badly the Left lies about Military spending and the like:

Yes, thank you. I make it a habit every year of actually reading the US Budget from the OMB, which is how I came up with my numbers, which your chart confirms, I just hadn't considered putting it in pie chart form.

Concerning the Entitlement Programs, I see privatization as greatly speeding up the "weening" process where these are involved. Slowly, generationally, decreasing involvement in these programs. Is this akin to your theory or do you have something else in mind?

Exactly. There's nothing that we can do as far as cutting Social Security for those who have already paid into their entire working lives, and are now recuperating their "contributions". Contributions? Isn't that like saying that you're "contributing" to a muggers household when he robs you? Anyway, I digress, Firstly, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid should be immediately "means tested". If you've managed to do well over the years and don't "need" it, you shouldn't get it, period. That may sound harsh, and I know someone is going to bring up about "they paid into it, they're 'entitled' to get their money back" but that's not how it works. We all pay our taxes in support of schools, but unless you're between 5 and 18, you don't get to go to the government schools do you? Of course not. We all pay our taxes in support of our military, but unless you've joined, you don't get uniforms to wear do you? There are always 'conditions' with everything that we pay our taxes for, this would simply be another condition, and it would free up resources for those who actually NEED them.

I've been paying into the system for over 40 years, but you ought to see what happens when a "white male" tries to collecting anything. A close associate of mine (a few years older) was forced to 'retire' early a couple of years ago because of health issues (emphazema, COPD, and extremely high blood pressure) and he has consistantly been turned down for any 'assistance', yet we've had a couple of 'pigmentally challenged' females at work who were drawing full benefits for themselves and their illigetimate children, while still working, and bragged about it, which is why they no longer work for us (don't sit there and brag out "getting over" with MY money and expect to not get turned in for it). If it weren't for the fact that we decided to keep our friend on the company health plan by letting him come in and work a day here and there as he feels up to it (usually 1 or 2 days a week), he wouldn't be able to afford his treatment and medications! If it weren't for the fact that his home is paid for, and he's able to live and pay his property taxes on the few investments they've made over the years, he'd be SCREWED! They even told him that one of the reasons he was turned down is because he owns his home! Talk about punishing the hard working and rewarding the slackers!

I would like to see them start allowing a voluntary "opt out" of Social Security for anyone under 40, and a mandatory removal of anyone under 30. Most anyone over 40 has already spent too many years "contributing" to the system to be able to start any type of serious savings or investment to ensure their 'retirement' years, while those under 30 should have no problem doing so. Everyone can do something towards their retirement, but they will have to be TAUGHT how to save and invest (diversification is essential) for their own futures, regardless of how long they've been working.

Another thing that needs to be addressed in the "retirement age". Why do we have a "mandatory retirement age"? My grandfather worked until he was 80, when he finally retired because of government regulations. He wasn't ready to retire, he was FORCED to retire, and because of his specialized skill-set (developed in over 60 years in his industry), it took the company he worked for over 3 years to find someone to replace him, so he had to go in quite regularly, and on the QT, to help them through some of their tougher challenges. The only good thing about it was that the company offered him a months salary, in cash, no records, for every week he came in, so he made out like a bandit! So long as someone can work, wants to work, and is still contributing to their company, there's no logical reason in the world to force them to retire.

Welfare, food stamps and WIC should be completely done away with over the next 25 years. When cities, counties, and States realize that they're no longer going to be able to simply ignore the lower and lower middle class in their communities, without having them living on their streets, and starving to death on their door steps, they'll once again be forced to incentivize business in their communities where their citizens can earn a 'living wage'. Today there is no incentive as they know that anyone who isn't, or can't make it can simply go "on the dole", so they ignore the problem. The same for Section 8 and HUD housing. It's the responsibility of city and county government to incentivize business for their citizens to be able to work and earn a "living wage" so that they can provide for their OWN housing. Someone brought up China, and obviously overlooked the 800 lb. gorilla in the room, but the first thing that has to happen is to make it worth it for a business to manufacture those things here, without punishing them for providing the jobs that put money into the economy! A business cannot operate efficiently, and provide more and higher paying jobs if they're constantly overwhelmed with government regulation and taxed into obscurity. If you want to see some REAL "corporate welfare", I'd propose eliminating ALL business taxes, and all personal income taxes for that matter, and impliment the FairTax immediately. That way, everyone, regardless of income pays their fair share every time they make a purchase, and it eliminates the "underground" economies that go completely untaxed, which would bring billions into the government every year.

Anyway, that's all I've got for now (as I'm off to work), so I look forward to seeing responses to my humble proposals when I get home this evening.

Your humble & obt. svt.
Federal Farmer

GenSeneca

06-14-2008, 07:35 PM

Farmer, check your PM's...

GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus

06-15-2008, 09:22 PM

How does this play into things?

Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment

In response, Congress proposed the Sixteenth Amendment (ratified by the requisite number of states in 1913[3]), which states:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), indicated that the amendment did not expand the federal government's existing power to tax income (meaning profit or gain from any source) but rather removed the possibility of classifying an income tax as a direct tax on the basis of the source of the income. The Amendment removed the need for the income tax to be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. Income taxes are required, however, to abide by the law of geographical uniformity.

Some tax protesters and others opposed to income taxes cite what they contend is evidence that the Sixteenth Amendment was never "properly ratified," based in large part on materials sold by William J. Benson.

In December of 2007, Benson's "Defense Reliance Package" containing his non-ratification argument which he offered for sale on the internet, was ruled by a federal court to be a "fraud perpetrated by Benson" that had "caused needless confusion and a waste of the customers' and the IRS' time and resources."[4]

The court stated: "Benson has failed to point to evidence that would create a genuinely disputed fact regarding whether the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified or whether United States Citizens are legally obligated to pay federal taxes."[5] See also Tax protester constitutional arguments.

GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus

06-15-2008, 09:25 PM

I can give you some better examples.

1) I offer into evidence the words of Thomas Jefferson, one of the original Founding Fathers, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, an Ambassador to France, and our 3rd President, who said in his letter to Albert Gallatin in 1817;the problem with arguing original intent and then having the unmitigated gall to use Jefferson as a sourced justification is that it makes one look smart if the audience is in the dark---ignorant.

using Jefferson as a justification for putting things back to the way they never were --- and using his old words, is amusing.

Jefferson's dedication to "consent of the governed" was so thorough that he believed that individuals could not be morally bound by the actions of preceding generations.

This included debts as well as law.

He said that "no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation."

He even calculated what he believed to be the proper cycle of legal revolution: "Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it is to be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."

He arrived at nineteen years through calculations with expectancy of life tables, taking into account what he believed to be the age of "maturity"—when an individual is able to reason for himself.[39] He also advocated that the national debt should be eliminated. He did not believe that living individuals had a moral obligation to repay the debts of previous generations. He said that repaying such debts was "a question of generosity and not of right."[40]

Federal Farmer

06-16-2008, 02:13 AM

the problem with arguing original intent and then having the unmitigated gall to use Jefferson as a sourced justification is that it makes one look smart if the audience is in the dark---ignorant.

using Jefferson as a justification for putting things back to the way they never were --- and using his old words, is amusing.

Then allow me to turn on a light for you so that you can see the part where I also quoted James Madison, who was politically diametrically opposed to Jefferson, but where they both agreed on this one point, that the Generally Welfare meant ONLY those things specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

It would also help you understand what Jefferson was getting at, and the reasons behind his thinking, if you had read his entire letter to Madison (http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl81.htm), and then you may not be quite so quick to attempt to paint him as some form of anarchist.

Now, you were saying... what?

BTW, when you quote sources, I believe you're supposed to give appropriate credit by including a link to your source, even if it is Wiki.

[EDIT] And for the record, I'm arguing "original meaning", not "original intent". Since it is impossible to properly ascertain, and impudent to assume, that 55 men, locked up in a room in the sweltering summer of 1787, had a single "intent" other than to establish a Constitution. The fact that so much compromise was required in the drafting of the Constitution in itself precludes the possibility of assuming a singular "intent" on their part, so one must restrict oneself to their "meaning", in the words used in the actual document that was ratified by all 13 of the original States.

Truth-Bringer

06-19-2008, 01:04 PM

Problem is... this is 2008. In the last 232 years of politicians trying to make a name for themselves, we have taken on many obligations and responsibilities. Point being, we cannot just take a mulligan and start over without consequence.

But there are ways to repeal taxes, cut spending and return to a Constitutional government without hurting anyone in the process. Such plans have usually been put forward by Libertarians, such as Harry Browne, (http://www.harrybrowne.org/hb2000/stands/natldebt.htm) but they are feasible.

Someone mentioned Ron Paul, I found him to be disappointing on multiple levels. In particular, Paul's tacit support for Earmarks and Conspiracy theories turned me off to him.

Ron Paul has allocated earmarks - but his rational is the same one you're using for corporate welfare below. He is returning money to his constituents, who are losing lots of money to taxes. And he informs everyone in his district that he will be voting against the final budget. He has a perfect record of voting against every unbalanced budget and every single tax increase. He votes against his own earmarks, every single time.

As for conspiracy theories, what conspiracy theory do you allege that Ron Paul supports? He does not believe that the government planned and carried out 9/11. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g08WCZTc6VU)

He also oversimplifies the problems we face in dealing with our past obligations and commitments, preferring to spout flowery Constitutional rhetoric when he should be proposing rational and detailed measure to begin our return.

He has proposed several specific plans and introduced legislation. (http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml) Is it his fault that the socialists in Congress always vote against him?

One last thing I wanted to address, Corporate Welfare.

Depending on which corporation we're talking about, this is a complete misnomer. Corporations pay a huge percentage of our budget in taxes - thus when they get money back, I see it as being no different than returning money to any other taxpayer who overpaid in taxes.

True. I would end all corporate welfare, but I would also repeal corporate taxes. However, one of the main reasons people form corporations is for legal tax avoidance, so you would see the "influence" of corporations wane if you repealed the income tax and other business related taxes.

Truth-Bringer

06-19-2008, 01:07 PM

Thanks for sharing your expertise and no offense to TB but you're much more pleasant to chat with. TB seemed more interested in proving intellectual superiority on the subject, rather than dealing with the types of questions I have posed to you, hopefully the kind that lead to realistically applicable solutions.

I have no desire to prove "intellectual superiority" over anyone. As the saying goes "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own set of facts." And you guys are ignoring volumes of facts.

If you want "applicable solutions" then stop voting for Republicans (except for Ron Paul) or Democrats.

Federal Farmer

06-19-2008, 04:16 PM

I have no desire to prove "intellectual superiority" over anyone. As the saying goes "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own set of facts." And you guys are ignoring volumes of facts.

No, we're ignoring YOU, and your "version" of the facts. You consistently use facts to support your preconceived conclusions rather than drawing your conclusions FROM the facts.

If you want "applicable solutions" then stop voting for Republicans (except for Ron Paul) or Democrats.

RP is a flaming BARKING MOON BAT who needs to be hooded like a falcon. Anybody with as woefully ignorant a comprehension of the Constitution has absolutely NO business being allowed anywhere NEAR 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., even as a TOURIST!

GenSeneca

06-20-2008, 01:27 AM

Ron Paul has allocated earmarks - but his rational is the same one you're using for corporate welfare below.
Not quite... Corporations that receive his earmarks are already getting tax rebates. He is seeing to it that Corporations in his district pay as little in taxes as possible to make them as competitive as possible.
Earmarks are a violation of the LP platform, which is why he's a Republican.
As for conspiracy theories, what conspiracy theory do you allege that Ron Paul supports? He does not believe that the government planned and carried out 9/11.

North American Union and the NWO:
_ccxQRaLIOM

Truth-Bringer

06-20-2008, 08:35 AM

No, we're ignoring YOU, and your "version" of the facts.

If my facts or logic are flawed THEN PROVE IT or STFU. Saying something isn't true and proving it are two different things, foolish one.

RP is a flaming BARKING MOON BAT

Appeal to Ridicule. Your constant use of logical fallacies is really rather pathetic. Do you have any valid arguments at all?

Truth-Bringer

06-20-2008, 08:56 AM

Not quite... Corporations that receive his earmarks are already getting tax rebates. He is seeing to it that Corporations in his district pay as little in taxes as possible to make them as competitive as possible.
Earmarks are a violation of the LP platform, which is why he's a Republican.

Regardless, he has a 100% record of voting against all the final spending bills. Name another Congressman who allocates earmarks who does that.

And what about the constituents in his district? They're paying income tax and other federal taxes. You left them out of your analysis. They would benefit from some of the earmarks also.

Here's piece from the conservative Club for Growth (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/10/ron_pauls_record_on_economic_i.php), which, after factoring in all the evidence (including earmarks), concludes:

“When it comes to limited government, there are few champions as steadfast and principled as Representative Ron Paul.”

Obviously, I think they’re wrong on their negative assessment of the earmark amendments, because they did not acknowledge his up and down votes. Again, Ron Paul's record on final votes is 100%. But they don’t mention that. And that's a flaw in their otherwise very thorough report.

North American Union and the NWO:

There do appear to be plans for a North American Union, and that was reported on CNN. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo)

There's are lots of various groups who want to see a North American Union:

Look first at the website of Arizona State University: Home | NACTS (http://www.asu.edu/clas/nacts/bna/)

Then look at the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America:
2006 Report to Leaders (http://www.spp.gov/2006_report_to_leaders/index.asp?dName=2006_report_to_leaders)

Here is an interview with a senior vice-president of a prestigious international investment firm regarding the new common currency for America, Canada, and mexico.

_3jdQxDC7pA

From there, look at a study that was done by a task force from the Council on Foreign Relations:

Building a North American Community - Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102)

Building a North American Community- Report of the Independent Task Force:

Building a North American Community: Report of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America - Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.cfr.org/publication/8138)

Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010:

Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010 - Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.cfr.org/publication/7914)

At this point, a short bio on Robert Pastor (reputed as being the architect of the NAU) would be suggested.

Meet Robert Pastor:
Meet Robert Pastor: Father of the North American Union - HUMAN EVENTS (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16189)

Robert Pastor is a director at American University, here is what he is "directing":

Center for North American Studies:
Center for North American Studies (http://www.american.edu/ia/cnas/index.cfm)

Here is a book he has written-
Toward A North American Community: Lessons from the Old World for the New

Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics Bookstore (http://bookstore.petersoninstitute.org)

Here is a model for a North American Parliament: FINA-NAFI - The North American Forum on Integration (http://www.fina-nafi.org/eng/fina/presentation.asp?count=eng)

FINA-NAFI - The North American Forum on Integration:

FINA-NAFI - Triumvirat 2007 (http://www.fina-nafi.org/eng/triumvirat07/)

This is the corridor being used to open our borders with trade-NASCO's Inland Ports Network:
North America's SuperCorridor Coalition, Inc. (http://www.nascocorridor.com)

Here is info on the mexican owned distribution center in Kansas City where all those mexican truckers will go:

http://www.kcsmartport.com/pdf/SmtPrtOneRoute.pdf

Below is an article that puts favorable light on the integration of mexico with america- HISPANICTrends.com - March/April 2006 - Regional Report

Hispanic Online (http://www.hispaniconline.com)

Here is a report done by a mexican official regarding the integration. It is lengthy but worth reading, especially starting at "The fly in the ointment' segment". Apparently not all Mexicans are gung -ho about this-

IRC Americas Program | Trinational Elites Map North American Future in "NAFTA:

IRC Americas Program | Trinational Elites Map North American Future in "NAFTA Plus" (http://americas.irc-online.org/am/386)

Here is an article by a Canadian paper regarding a recent meeting with Chertoff and Rice. Canadians aren't thrilled with this either:

CNW Group | COUNCIL OF CANADIANS | High-level meeting aimed at integrating North America says Council of Canadians (http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/February2007/09/c6604.html)

This is the resolution to stop the SPP/NAU/NAFTA that has been introduced into legislation by Congressman Virgil Goode - H.CON.RES.40:

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HC00040:@@@P)

This is a list of the States and their links to legislation to stop the SPP/NAU/NAFTA:

http://www.stopthenau.org/Current_Activities.htm

Here is a link to PRO-NAU organizations, etc:

North American Union Links--AmeroCurrency.com Security and Prosperity Partnership, SPP (http://www.amerocurrency.com/naulinks.html)

This is an article about the ranchers in Texas who stand to lose their lands over the proposed Trans-Texas Corridor:
AIM Report: U.S. Borders: Going-Going-Gone! - December B (http://www.aim.org/aim_report/5102_0_4_0_C/)

Dr.Who

06-20-2008, 07:05 PM

GenSeneca

06-20-2008, 09:04 PM

There do appear to be plans for a North American Union
There is a difference between people talking about what could one day happen, and people actually in power making it happen.

North American Union (NAU) is a theoretical regional union of Canada, Mexico and the United States similar in structure to the European Union, sometimes including a common currency called the Amero. Officials from all three nations have said there are no government plans to create such a union,[1] although the idea has been discussed and proposed in academic and scholarly circles, either as a union or as a North American Community (see Independent Task Force on North America). The formation of a North American Union has been the subject of various conspiracy theories. --Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union)
This would not come about without the public demanding and supporting it... and I can't imagine a circumstance we would want to merge with Mexico and Canada. Well, Obama could do it behind our backs and say Bush did it.
The rumor is sweeping the Internet, radio and magazines, spread by bloggers, broadcasters and writers who cite the "proof" in the writings of a respected American University professor, in a task force put together by the Council on Foreign Relations and in the workings of the Commerce Department.
As do many modern rumors, fears of a North American Union began with a few grains of truth and leapt to an unsubstantiated conclusion. SeattleTimes (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003713518_rumor19.html)
Sound familiar?
If you haven't heard about the NAU, that may be because its plotters have succeeded in keeping it secret. Or, more likely, because there is no such thing. Government officials say a continental union is out of the question, and economists and political analysts overwhelmingly agree that there will not be a North American Union in our lifetimes....Republican presidential candidate and Texas congressman Ron Paul has made the North American Union one of his central issues. --Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/25/america/25Amero.php)
Poor Ron... He needs to drop all the CT's to become a national candidate but the bulk of his supporters belong to one CT or another... So he's stuck. I actually agree with his assessment of a 9/11 conspiracy - cover up on the failures is much more likely than a cover up of involvement.

Truth-Bringer

06-24-2008, 01:08 PM

There is a difference between people talking about what could one day happen, and people actually in power making it happen.

All of that begins with people talking about it.

This would not come about without the public demanding and supporting it...

The American people are incredibly ignorant and gullible. They can be led to believe a great many things that are harmful are actually beneficial, such as the income tax. Who in their right mind would support going from being free to keep all that you earn to giving government complete control over what percentage of your income it will take? Who in their right mind would hand over individual rights to the majority, to let the majority decide what rights one will or will not be given? The majority of people once believed the world was flat. Their demands and support can be quite irrational and misguided.

and I can't imagine a circumstance we would want to merge with Mexico and Canada.

Just because you can't imagine it, doesn't mean it can't happen. Politicians can always find a way to sell what gives them more power and prestige.

actually agree with his assessment of a 9/11 conspiracy - cover up on the failures is much more likely than a cover up of involvement.

If he did a little more reading on that subject, he'd probably change his mind.