The real problem with Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill

The Big Beautiful Bill is 1,100 pages. Massive. The arguments for and against are deafening. And all miss the point.

“So here’s the thing. Despite all the spending cuts, the Beautiful Bill still increases the federal deficit by $3.8 trillion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.”

—Lawrence Wilson, The Epoch Times

Conclusions based on principle, if that principle is forged on the bedrock of eternal truth, blow away petty arguments, which fall away like chaff.

Prior to our nation’s inception, the masses were taught that the divine spark resides in a pharaoh, a pope, a monarch. In the world of politics and power, the people could approach the Creator only by going through his representative. Or so powerful men thought.

The worlds of religion and philosophy understood that the divine resides in each soul, in each person and that our life path was to reach this realization. Then our founders put the two concepts together and forged a nation based on the divinity that resides in each person.

Our nation is founded on a principle that was stated in the Declaration of Independence: “All men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”

The Founders recognized that divinity resides in every man, not just a monarch. This revelation gives rise to the concept of the sanctity of the individual. This is the principle upon which our nation was forged.

Too philosophical? Consider that the Constitution was built after the Declaration. The Declaration of Independence set the stage by defining principle. The Constitution created rule of law so that the principle in the Declaration could be carried out. The rule of law does one thing: It restricts the ability of the government to step on our individual freedom. It limits the government to well defined, limited powers.

Finally, we come to the practical aspect of applying principle to our government’s actions. Given the preceding discussion, in what altered universe is it granted a government entity to impose $40 trillion (double that if we include unfunded commitments) in debt on every citizen and future generations? It is not granted or allowed, and to impose this burden on citizens is illegal.

Understand that this national debt is paid by (taken from) each citizen who works for a living. The debt burden is just another tax on your right to ownership of property. It is manifestly illegal.

Further, this debt can be easily stopped by restricting government spending.

National debt is caused by congressional spending in excess of tax revenue. This spending leads to depletion of private property, of our inalienable right to hold what we earn.

“It limits the government to well defined, limited powers.”

That line right there, blows the article out of the water. The Declaration was a document to declare our freedom and to establish temporary rules of government. But what governs the country is the Constitution and it has had 27 amendments to change it since it was ratified. The Declaration was written and signed in 1776. The Constitution went into full effect after Rhode Island signed on in 1790 covering all the pieces of the country in existence at that time.

So trying to declare the running of the government after all these years without a living document like the Constitution would have us living well behind out current viability. So American Thinker is either using the document as an excuse to assist the liberals to keep control of the country, or regain it, or they are dumber than a box of rocks. Toss up or both.

wy69

$21 trillion, found in 1990s. Not even, Elon found this much.

https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/the-great-poisoning-decoding-the

In the late 1990s, as Catherine Austin Fitts navigated the corridors of Washington’s financial elite, she uncovered a staggering $21 trillion in undocumentable adjustments missing from U.S. government accounts, a revelation that crystallized her understanding of a financial coup d’état. This systematic siphoning, detailed in her explosive interview with Danny Jones, as passionately endorsed by health freedom advocate Jason Christoff, exposed a “breakaway civilization” funded by mortgage fraud and black budgets, operating beyond democratic oversight. Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing, connects this theft to a 500-year-old central banking warfare model, where printed money, backed by military force, sustains global dominance—a system now faltering as BRICS nations challenge the dollar’s reign. Yet, as she argues in The Invisible Corral: How Central Banking Enables a Control Grid, this financial architecture is but one facet of a broader control grid, integrating digital IDs, cashless systems, and AI-driven social credit mechanisms to enforce compliance. Christoff, that I have also interviewed in Interview with Jason Christoff, lauds Fitts’ clarity, asserting her insights channel a “divine intelligence” that unveils both the mechanisms of control and pathways to resist them. Her critique, sharper here than in her discussion with Tucker Carlson, frames the Trump administration’s acceleration of this grid—through Real ID and stable coins under the Genius Act—as a betrayal of liberty, a point she delivers with unyielding precision despite Jones’ underprepared questions.

Parallel to this financial predation runs what Fitts terms the “Great Poisoning,” a deliberate assault on human health through vaccines, contaminated food, pharmaceuticals, and environmental spraying, as explored in The Poisoning. This slow-kill strategy, she contends, serves dual purposes: reducing life expectancy to ease government benefit burdens and generating profits for industries that poison and then treat the afflicted. Since the 1995 budget deal’s failure, U.S. life expectancy has plummeted, a divergence from other industrial nations that Fitts links to fiscal policy’s grim arithmetic—fewer retirees mean fewer payouts. Her analysis, uniquely tying biological harm to financial motives, resonates with the author’s prior reflections on systemic poisoning. Fitts’ reference to Joseph Farrell’s work, that I have also highlighted in Babylon’s Banksters and Financial Vipers of Venice, grounds this poisoning in historical context, tracing its roots to Venetian banking models and post-WWII Nazi integrations into global power structures. Farrell’s scholarship, which Fitts amplifies, reveals a breakaway civilization wielding advanced technology, funded by stolen trillions, that considers itself above humanity. Yet, as Fitts notes, their technological supremacy is a facade, vulnerable to collective withdrawal of consent.

This interplay of financial extraction, biological sabotage, and spiritual warfare forms the crux of Fitts’ paradigm-shifting narrative, which Christoff heralds as potentially “the most important interview” of our time. She posits a universe alive with intelligent plasma, inherently resistant to centralized control, as Robert Temple’s work suggests, and influenced by interdimensional forces—demonic intelligences driving anti-human policies versus divine ones empowering freedom. Her call to action, rooted in Farrell’s cultural preservation ethos, urges individuals to redirect money from criminal banks like JP Morgan Chase to local institutions, as detailed in her building wealth curriculum. “Freedom is an all-or-nothing thing,” she declares, a sentiment echoed in [Babylon’s Banksters], where Farrell underscores the power of collective righteousness. By weaving state-level constitutional resistance with personal economic choices, Fitts offers a blueprint for dismantling the control grid, inviting readers to question the legitimacy of institutions masquerading as protectors. This article, building on her interview, unravels these threads, exposing the mechanisms that enslave and the moral courage required to reclaim sovereignty.

This is a necessarily long article.

With thanks to Catherine Austin Fitts.

““The Constitution created rule of law so that the principle in the Declaration could be carried out.”

The Constitution was written to cover laws and determine the way we were going to handle our laws setting the benchmark for our justice system. The Declaration only covered the abolishing of government for any cause determined by the people and displayed a broad ideology of freedoms concerning the people. And many of those freedoms have been changed or abolished depending on who you talk to. The Constitution is a separate document in itself that defines the Declaration wish list as at that time, they had no federal governing for the people. Laws were based upon local jurisdiction and many times contradicted each other due to lifestyle, religion, areas needs, resources, and many other factors. It was a group grope that for a short time was very unorganized and dangerous. The Constitution even in it’s changing values was their answer to that.

wy69

So you can I no way see how the Declaration of Independence was a (not the only) source document for the writing of the Constitution?

Here are some examples,
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,...”

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

“He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only”

“He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.”

“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury.”

“For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.”

“He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.”

All of the above declarations are addressed and codified in the Constitution.

You wrote, “The Declaration only covered the abolishing of government for any cause determined by the people and displayed a broad ideology of freedoms concerning the people”

That is not true. The causes given for seeking independence from England were very specific as opposed to just any reason. I am not sure what you mean by a “broad ideology of freedoms.” The Declaration does have a philosophy of rights and out of those “unalienable” rights arise the defined self determined (but not limited to.)rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Even so it does seem to me that some limit on personal freedom was anticipated. Why else establish a government with the authority to decide which freedoms could be tolerated and which would be regarded as insults to established order and the good of the nation?

The Declaration was hardly a “wish list”. It did not pull those rights and grievances and the reasoning on them out of thin air with the hope it would all come true just out of the desire it be so. At its core the Declaration is not just one of Independence but of War. They knew the monetary and strategic value the colonies had to England. They knew King George III was not going to just hand over the keys. It was and is a solemn document which dared to defy one of the greatest military powers of the time. That is not a wish list.

The laws in the colonies of England would have been based on English statutory and common law. They would indeed be amended to address local religious practice, education, and other conditions. However that did not mean it was a “group grope which was very disorganized and dangerous.” The courts of the colonial era were very busy handling not just criminal matters but civil suits such as land disputes. Which were many. No lawyer starved in that era.

If travel had been easier perhaps the contradictions from one area to another might have lead to the chaos you suggest but it wasn’t. I’ve not fully studied all or even very many accounts of that time so perhaps I missed people from Richmond finding themselves under arrest in Plymouth for failure to follow Puritan Sumptuary laws.

One law they all had in common was prohibition on public drunkenness. Which kept the magistrates very busy. Some things never change.

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.