Posted on 01/02/2005 8:50:12 AM PST by worldclass
The real issue here is whether such so-called Federally-funded disaster “relief” is Constitutional. And the answer is very clear: No, it is not. There isn’t the slightest Constitutional authority for Federal tax dollars to be spent for disaster “relief.” Thus, any such expenditure of Federal tax dollars for disaster “relief” --- foreign or domestic --- is illegal, unlawful.
(Excerpt) Read more at peroutka2004.com ...
Sorry, you're stretching there. I'm first and foremost an American even though Texan is a pretty close second.
I suppose if you define tolerance as an understanding that most people in the world want the same basic freedoms as I have then you have me pegged. Just in case you don't understand my statement, let me explain. Basic freedoms to me are the right to live in peace without fear of persecution, the right to pursue a better life for myself and my family, the right to practice or not practice any religion, the right to those basic human rights the U.S. was founded on.
I regret you see the world in black and white since there are many different shades of gray. You disagree? Ok, one example then. Manslaughter vs murder one vs self defense. If life was all black and white then killing someone regardless of reason would fall under your category.
We do live in a global world. The U.S.'s actions have a ripple affect whether you like it or not.
Am I a citizen of the world? I suppose so but I don't really have much impact on the world other than I live on planet Earth and share it with many other people.
One correction to your statements...if there was truly a one world order then there wouldn't be the everything everyone does is fine.
HitmanNY, can you help me with this one? Thanks!
So, all you have to do is get people elected who agree with you or overthrow the government
Both are being done simultaneous. I'm certainly not alone. We're everywhere and nowhere.
Have a good night.
You can't achieve that by destablizing our own economy,
which is precisely what the Administration has risked with its willful neglect of illegal immigration and the accumulation of another $1.6 Trillion in debt during its reign.
If the Administration had shown more responsibility in managing our domestic affairs, I might be a bit more sympathetic to your point of view. Unfortunately, that is NOT the situation that we're in.
You misunderstood me. I was saying that America doesn't wait to be asked to help. We offer it. I meant it would have been nice if other countries had offered help after the Fla hurricanes. Even if we didn't need it. It would have been nice if they had offered out of friendship.
We have a representative government.
We elect people to represent us.
Bush is representing us.
End of story.
If you are a friend and care about them, yes. Look at all the help we gave the 9/11 victims and they had insurance and all kinds of government help but we gave anyway because we hurt for them and so we gave even if they didn't need it because we cared and it was all we could do.
Thank you and well said!
You make a lot of sense. I hadn't thought about it in that way. Just knee jerk reaction, I guess. I appreciate it when someone takes the time to refute my point with respect instead of attacking me. Thanks for your post.
You can't achieve that by destablizing our own economy, which is precisely what the Administration has risked with its willful neglect of illegal immigration and the accumulation of another $1.6 Trillion in debt during its reign. If the Administration had shown more responsibility in managing our domestic affairs, I might be a bit more sympathetic to your point of view. Unfortunately, that is NOT the situation that we're in.
So then it's illegal immigration and too much spending that you object to.
Foreign aid spent to stabilize foreign countries in the defense of our country in and of itself is a good thing.
Right?
True but we "make nice" to people who hate us all the time like we are trying to buy their love. I guess I'm just tired today and have gotten off the topic of this thread.
Very good words.
Absolutely true. However, quite a number of misguided folks will not welcome your wise message.
On the pulled thread last night, you stated that you didn't have any problem with providing disaster relief to our own (re: Florida hurricane victims). Now you say "right on" to Peroutka's claim that even domestic relief is illegal. Smells like a flip-flop to me.
RE: ONE WORLD ORDER > its about safety, control and convincing you that you are a part of a global community and not just a US citizen. You're gonna love it<
Hopefully tongue in cheek? If not - Anti-Christ, this may be your cue.
Worldclass:
Clearly, you have opened a subject of much interest, which needs to be examined today by Thomas Jefferson's recommended measuring stick for interpreting constitutional matters--that is, if WE wish to preserve the Constitution's intent, as stated in its Preamble: "to secure the Blessings of Liberty...."
He wisely stated:
"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in wich it was passed."
This, of course, is not what "We, the People," have done over the past 200+ years. That's why Congressman Crockett's speech is appropriate to be posted and consulted, for it allows us to see how far our minds have been bent away from the Constitution's original protections for protecting liberty and the people's earnings from the hands of imperfect politicians in positions of power.
Our inner individual personal motivation always should be to be charitable. My inner motivation extends, however, only to the limits of my own ability to give. When I join with my friends to pass legislation to take money from you for ANY noble purpose, no matter how Christ like or benevolent, I am, in reality, violating your right to choose to whom you will give your hard-earned income.
Publius6961 posted herein:
"No one is criticizing charity.
"Can you not see that the Good Samaritan was clearly a personal act born of individual choice?
"State "charity" is coerced, a corruption of a virtue and certainly not even remotely in the same category.
"When forced, it is no longer charity; it is a mugging or extortion. The antithesis of a virtue.
"People can be virtuous. Governments are invariably self-serving."
Publius6961 is correct in his point.
In the Year 2005, however, after generations of neglect and distortion of the meaning and purpose of our Constitution, this question has no simple answers, for our judges, legislators, and executives have taken us far from the original protections envisioned by the Founders--who, by the way, were responsible for the Miracle of America and its becoming a beacon for liberty, a home for the oppressed, and the greatest producer of goods and services to benefit the entire world!
There is one other aspect of this question which has not been addressed here, which may be worthy of our consideration:
When you or I, as individuals, are "good Samaritans," and direct the recipients' attention to the Source of our motivation, then the recipient is apt to turn his/her attention and gratitude to a Higher Power. On the other hand, when governments pass out moneys, they easily become considered impersonal "entitlements" and the recipient is robbed of the privilege of having his attention directed toward the "Giver of all good gifts."
Speak for yourself.
I believe I was speaking for the US government. The US government gives to people who hate us all the time.
Surly you are kiding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.