Reacting to the recent tsunami disaster from his Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, Texas, President Bush said he and Laura were shocked and saddened by this terrible loss of life. He said: "We pledged an initial $35 million in relief assistance." He noted, proudly, that in 2004, the U.S. Government had provided $2.4 billion in food, cash, in humanitarian relief, to cover disasters the previous year. He said that providing 40 percent of all the "relief aid" given in the world in 2003 shows "we're a very generous, kindhearted nation."

"We?" Did Mr. Bush mean he and Mrs. Bush have pledged $35 million? No. Mr. Bush meant that $35 million worth of your hard-earned Federal tax dollars and mine have been pledged. In an interview on the CBS "Early Show," Secretary of State Colin Powell said that to deal with the tsunami disaster the U.S. was sending nine P-3 reconnaissance planes and a dozen C-130s. He added: "I think a lot more aid is going to be needed."

In another interview, on NBC's "Today" show, Secretary Powell was asked: Is the United States prepared to send aid which might be as much as $1 billion? He replied: "I can't answer that yet." In yet one more interview, on the Cable News Network, he said: "The United States is not stingy. We are the greatest contributor to international relief efforts in the world."

Understand now, that to use the term "the United States is" in this context grammatically refers to the corporation known as the United States Government.

At the risk of being misunderstood, and being falsely accused of being cruel, and hard-hearted, what must be said must be said. The issue here is not whether the American government is "stingy." And the issue is certainly not whether the people of these united States are a "generous" people. We most definitely are. Even now in a spirit of generosity, many of us are personally giving of our time, talent and fortune to help those affected by this terrible disaster.

The real issue here is whether disbursement of such so-called Federally funded disaster "relief" is within the powers granted by the Constitution. 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.

Pondering what Mr. Bush and Secretary Powell had said, one needs to think about Tennessee Congressman Davy Crockett (remember him?). In the early 1800s, the U.S. Congress was considering a bill to appropriate tax dollars for the widow of a distinguished naval officer. It seemed that everyone in the House of Representatives favored it.

Then Rep. Crockett spoke. He began by expressing his respect for the deceased. But, he insisted, such respect must not lead to an act of injustice against those still alive.
He continued:

"I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity, but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.

"Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Sir, this is no debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

There was silence on the floor as Rep. Crockett took his seat. When the bill came to a vote, instead of passing unanimously as had been expected, it received only a few votes.

Well, that was then and now is now. President Bush has said what he said and is doing what he's doing. Mr. Bush, however, is wrong and Rep. Crockett was right. To spend Federal tax dollars on disaster "relief" is the grossest corruption because it is blatantly un-Constitutional. It has not the semblance of any Constitutional authority. We must pray that God raises up more Davy Crocketts to serve in our Congress and all other branches of all our civil governments.

Like Davy Crockett, we admire and appreciate the charity of Americans and their leaders. But Congress is not authorized to be "charitable" with your money. Only you are. Think about it.

Thanks to Michael Peroutka for the inspiration

From one president's promise to another's admonition

Perhaps without consulting the Constitution, Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat president of the United States, introduced the Social Security Program in the 1930's.
He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary.

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program.

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year.

4.) That the money the participants contributed would be put into an independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program.

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income and,

6.) That the social security number never be used for identification.

Choose which of the above 6 promises are still in effect today. Of course, the answer is "None Of the Above". Although some believe otherwise, a president cannot lawfully make a promise that Congress will do his bidding. And so, over the years the Social Security program in its original form has been abrogated and is an instrument of a breach of trust on the part of the general government that has become a troubled political football to be sure.

Our future is in the hands of God and managing our old age should be our own business. Governments should have no authority to dictate to us how we shall be kept up in our old age nor do we agree that they have any authority to "allow" us do this or that with our own money. If we want to invest it personally, that is our business. The booming economy that would come with this righteous windfall would be enormous.

Every tenet of our contract with the Federal Government has been broken, as you can see. The Social Security Number has become a form of ID, and a laughing-stock indeed. It has deprived good citizens of their natural rights to the extent that they are unable to function as a sovereign person of liberty.

And so, in the name of the God of our Fathers, should we dare to cry out, let our people go and let us out of this old-age tyranny? Remember what God did to Pharaoh when he continually refused that request so many years ago? The same God is with us today.

"If the Government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have."
Gerald R. Ford, U.S. President

Thanks to June Griffin for the Inspiration