The Real Intent of the Constitution?

One advantage of working and living overseas, outside of the monetary ones, is that I get to see the way other nations and governments function, and how their people interact with them. Because of that, I am also able to contemplate from afar the way America is today, and how we differ.
With this in mind, it was a conversation with my wife the other day that triggered something that I feel is profound and really defines what our nation SHOULD be about.

Now, I have read the US Constitution, including all twenty-seven Amendments. If you would like to see an excellent website on the document and that highlight those portions that have been amended, I suggest http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html. I have done some study just of the document and am surprised at just how much of our Federal bureaucracy may be unconstitutional. (Interestingly, I have yet to get any answers to my questions concerning the commissioning of Army officer through Officer Candidate School and West Point. See Article. I. Section. 8.)

The thing that really dawned on me was the Constitution's Preamble, or at least a portion of it: "...provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..."

Now, it is clear that the intent was to ensure that the nation could defend itself and promote what was best for all. That conversation with my wife was the moment that the ludicrousness of the American political argument between bread or guns was the most obvious. The COMMON welfare does not mean, nor has it ever meant, nor was it ever meant to be an excuse to give certain portions of the population "free" money. Our forefathers, and those of us who actually read and study history instead of just Us or People magazines, understood the problems inherent in Britain with a system of proprietary payments and stipends to certain groups by the government. It was NEVER meant for the government to pay for anything outside of the expenses for the direct functioning of the government.

One thing that IS certain, is that they did understand that defense was one of those expenses. The defense of the nation is certainly a common interest for all citizens, though it is clear that the founders never intended for a large standing army.

What is also clear is that the modern welfare system does NOT promote the general welfare, in that a small group of citizens see nearly half their tax dollars GIVEN to those who do not earn it. If the receivers of this wealth are actually "the working poor," it seams that they would be better off without paying taxes that they do pay, and not receiving funds seized from others.

One of our founding fathers stated that “We should make the poor uncomfortable and kick them out of their poverty.” That was Benjamin Franklin. The fact is that today's welfare system provides for poor Americans a darn good living. Between rent subsidies, food stamps, utility assistance, and welfare payments, the average poor person in America has a full, modern kitchen, air conditioning, a television, DVD player, stereo, cellular phone, car, Nike shoes, sport-team clothes, and as much liquor as he can buy. And all he needs to do is - nothing.

Does anyone REALLY believe this is what the founding fathers were after?

A Prediction of Evil

When it comes to the Democratic Party of the USA, I am a virulent cynic. Their past three presidential candidates (Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Barack Obama) would never be able to pass a standard US Government security investigation in order to hold a government job. And this is also true of many of their Federal office-holders in both houses of Congress.

Now they have nominated Barack Obama, who his so far to the left that his views line up as more socialist than the one Socialist member of Congress! I’m not kidding – this has been documented but totally ignored by the media. Frighteningly, they have been making huge attempts to convince us that this man is a moderate, middle-of-the-road politician! And the US media is lining right up behind this claptrap. It is truly amazing.

Ironically, he defeated a candidate whose sole claim to fame is the blatant attempt to nationalize and socialize one-seventh of the American economy. Hillary Clinton’s aborted attempt to take over American medical practice is still her dream. Unfortunately, the cabal of she and her husband still hold great sway over the Democratic Party, despite the overwhelming evidence of their self-centered and evil ways.

So, it was with much trepidation that I read that the Democrat’s Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden will drop out and that he will be replaced by Hillary Clinton. Of course, this would be a violent knee-jerk reaction to the nomination of Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin. This is a frightening prospect, though, considering the fate of many of the Clinton’s political foes, and even friends.

With this in mind:

- If Joe Biden drops out;
- If Hillary Clinton replaces Joe Biden;
- If Obama-Clinton win the November election;
- And if they are sworn in:

I believe that Barack Obama will be dead before the end of his first (and only) term and that Hillary Clinton will become president in accordance with Constitutional succession.

Mark these words.