A Modern American Crisis (With Apology to Thomas Paine)

These are indeed the times that try Americans’ souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot have avoided the fundamental obligations of being an American, to defend freedom and liberty. But, there are those who continue to stand and fight for these principles; these Patriots will deserve the love and thanks of the future generations. These Patriots stand not for fame or glory, they may not be remembered when the history of this time is written, but they do it because they love Freedom.

The current attempt to transform America, like hell, will not be easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. Whether people want to admit it or not, the current generations of the American people have not valued their Freedoms or Liberty, they have received these blessings too easily and unfortunately they have taken these blessings for granted. It is this preciousness that gives everything its value, whether that value is material or a principle, such as Freedom. God only knows how to set a proper price for these goods; and it would be strange indeed, if our GOD GIVEN RIGHTS, such as FREEDOM and LIBERTY should not be highly valued and protected. This current administration, with its cadre of minions, the lame stream media, unions, courts (including the Supreme Court)  and a Congress that itself violated the Constitution by abdicating its duty and thus has become completely irrelevant, have put in place a form of government that I pray most Americans would not desire but have quietly embraced.

This administration has basically declared that they have THE right not only to tax and spend but to issue edicts in the form of Executive Orders, ignoring laws passed by current and former congresses and have even shirked the duties of protecting this great country; all of these actions will bind us and future generations.

IF being bound by these edicts and laws “for our own good” against our will in this manner, is not a form of slavery, then there no such a thing as slavery. Any attempt for unlimited power, any attempt to destroy our basic Rights and Liberty, is a total disregard of the fundamental principles of America. This unlimited a power belongs only to GOD, from which all NATURAL Rights and Liberties have come.

I will not now enter into as an argument as to whether the American people have been asleep or have waited too long to get involved in the fight to save our Liberty and Freedoms; my not so humble opinion is that this takeover and fundamental transformation of America has been in process for generations, and if the American people would have realized that this was happening earlier, it would have been so much better.

Unfortunately, the people have not made proper use of the information, the technology or even the education that has become so much a part of our lives. Instead, some have allowed themselves to become a dependent state. They have become dependent on the “talking heads”, the Lame Stream Media or a T.V. or radio personalities to set their opinions and ideas. However, the fault, if there is to be one, is all their own; they have no one to blame but themselves. But all is not lost yet; with everything that this administration and an irrelevant congress have been doing or not doing, at the speed or a slowness they have been doing it is not only to transform America, but to demoralize and in turn, conquer the American people.  Unfortunately for those in power, the spirit of some American citizens has begun to surface, IT is being noticed, the enemy is now aware and is afraid of this growing spirit and they know that with time and resolution, America may recover.

I may not be the most religious person, but my feelings has always been and still are, that GOD Almighty will not give up on a people, who have maintained a belief in Him and the Rights that he has generously granted our nation, to the destruction by those who have chosen to ignore His will. Nor do I believe that He will leave us to perish under the burden of a big government, a socialist agenda, we who have so earnestly and so repeatedly sought to be the beacon of Freedom for the rest of the world. Neither do I believe that HE has relinquished the government of the greatest nation in the world, and given us up to the care of devils; I cannot see on what grounds this President, his administration, or an irrelevant congress can look up to heaven for help against us: A common murderer, a bank robber, or a housebreaker, has as good a chance as they.

I do not find it surprising to see how rapidly a panic and despair runs through the people of America. All peoples of the nations of the world, though the ages have been subject to them. Yet panic and despair, in some cases, have their use; they can produce as much good as hurt. Their duration is always short; the mind soon grows through them, and acquires a firmer commitment than ever before. But their peculiar advantage is that they are the touchstones of sincerity and hypocrisy, and bring things and men to light, things which might have otherwise lain forever undiscovered. In fact, they have the same effect on secret traitors, the same way an imaginary apparition would upon a private murderer. Panic and despair sift out the hidden thoughts and feelings of man, and hold them up in public for the world to see. Many a disguised progressive and people with agendas have been and are slowly being exposed.

I know that there are a number of us who have worn the uniform of our great country and fought against an outside enemy. During that fight, we too have experienced despair and low morale. We have seen the things that are going on in America and may wondered, has it been worth it? We have seen that America was slowly (now rapidly) changing, but we held to our cause, the cause of Freedom and Liberty. Now, a number of us are fighting again, this time against an internal enemy. An enemy that wants to completely change the country we love. The one big difference is, the people of America may be waking up and they are joining in the fight. Some realize that this is an ongoing battle and we will face some defeats, which we already have; I will not elaborate on them. I have seen that with each of these “defeats”, a form of panic and despair has slowly infiltrated the movement. Some may completely stop trying. Some have halfheartedly continued to fight. Others have even said privately, “Why bother, they (Congress) are not listening?” So, what do you do? What do you say in those quiet moments?

I will ask you to think about this: from January 1776, to December, 1776, George Washington’s army faced defeat upon defeat, and the future American people were facing panic and despair. YET they persisted and with the aid of Thomas Paine and his American Crisis 1 in December 1776 (from which I borrowed words and thoughts for this commentary), the American people rallied as did Washington’s troops. The rest, as they say, is history.

Now, are you going to be a summer soldier and a sunshine patriot who will avoid the fundamental obligations of an American, to defend Freedom and Liberty; because we have faced some defeats, like the SCOTUS decision on Arizona and Obamacare? Or will you continue to stand and fight for the principles that have made this country great? Will you take a stand and be willing to sacrifice, thus deserving the love and thanks of future generations or will you submit to the despair of a few defeats. Will you allow those defeats to determine the worth of the fight or will you pick yourself up, brush yourself off and continue to fight? That is between you and your God.

I stand with Patrick Henry when he said. “I know not what others may choose but, as for me, give me liberty or give me death.” Will you?

Semper Fi

As with this and many other posts, I wish to thank Igor, my “partner in crime”, colleague and friend for his suggestions and editing his editing skills.

Bringing Home the Bacon, Use and Abuse of The “General Welfare Clause” – Part 1

With all the talk of the recent primary win by Thad Cochran down in Mississippi, I noticed a common theme. That theme, talking point was that Cochran brought home the "bacon". Now, add this bacon to the trillions of dollars of pork from other states and America continues to speed closer to the “fiscal cliff”.

Even IF conservatives DO take control congress there will still be a fight to gain fiscal control of our beloved country. This fight will be the Socialist/Left and Lame Stream Media spreading the same old propaganda about how the Conservatives don't care about the children, poor people or the environment.

When they do, why doesn't a Conservative just look them in the eye and ask the simple question, “Just where in the Constitution is any funding for the various social entitlements?”

Maybe they don't because like me, I already know the Left’s knee jerk reaction, “It is in the ‘General Welfare Clause’” [“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence [sic] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1)].

Unfortunately, this propaganda is quickly believed by the sheeple and others who do not know the Constitution or its history. These same sheeple also do not realize that when the States accept federal funds, for schools, police, fire and welfare (just to name a few) that the States are advocating their rights to the federal government, something that was NOT the intention of our Founding Fathers.

Now, there are some out there that will say, just who is this Old Marine and why does he THINK he knows what the Founding Fathers thought when they were establishing the Constitution? To those, I’ll say, “I don’t know what they were thinking”, BUT I can read and as Glenn Beck said years ago, “Go to the original source.”

The History

For those who know American history, they know that the Constitution didn't just magically appear, there was no magic dust sprinkled over the Constitutional Convention; instead there were heated arguments, debates and objections and one state in particular,New York, was opposed to the Constitution from the very beginning.

In 1787, when the Continental Convention sent the proposed Constitution to the various States for ratification, [1] needless to say, not all States were as enthusiastic about the proposed new form of government as those at the convention. This lack of enthusiasm was expressed by a series of articles, essays and papers (Anti-Federalist Papers) published throughout the States, urging that the new Constitution not be ratified. While these Anti-Federalist Papers were being published, Governor Clinton of New York, called a convention to debate ratification, of those in attendance; three fourths were opposed to the proposed new form of government. Although there were a number of other objections, which would eventually be addressed, however, the major point of contention, not only in New York, but in the other States as well, was the “General Welfare Clause”. It was these three words that Clinton and others who opposed the Constitution felt gave Congress and the Federal government unlimited powers. They felt that the States would eventually be swallowed by the central Government (Sad to say, that 225 years later it is so true...OM).

In order to strengthen the argument for ratification and counter the Anti-Federalist Papers, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, wrote a series of 85 papers, collectively known as the Federalist (today we refer to them as the Federalist Papers). This series of papers was primarily addressed to the people of New York, and were the explanation of the Constitution and an attempt to convince them that their “objecting convention” should ratify the new form of government. [2]

The Anti-Federalist Papers expressed the many concerns thatNew York and other States had, but the major concern was the power and authority that was granted to Congress by “the general welfare clause.

In Defense of Ratification

The “charges” put forth in the Anti-Federalist Papers angered Madison who wrote in Federalist 41,

“No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections than their stooping to such a misconstruction” (By “stooping” Madison clearly meant that those who objected knew better and were being unfair in their opposition to the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution).[3]


Madison, continuing to explain the language under the established rules of interpretation, explained that there had been no enumeration of powers other than for taxing and spending. 

He said, “...than there might be some color to the objection that of Congress would be without restraint – though that would be an ’awkward way of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases.’”

Madison then asked, “But what color can the objection have, when the specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and not even separated by a longer pause than a semi-colon?"

Basically, the Constitutional granting of the power to tax and spend for the “common Defence [sic] and general Welfare” is followed in the same sentence by all the other “powers”, to borrow money, to regulate commerce, and so on. The first “power”, to tax and spend, is inseparable in the context from all the other “powers”. The “power” to tax and spend was granted to fulfill all of the seventeen preceding paragraphs of clauses as well as the one in which it appears.[4]

Madison would once again address question of the “common Defence [sic] and general welfare” clause during the meeting of the First Congress, but let’s “hear” what Hamilton and others had to say about this clause.

Alexander Hamilton, the only representative of the New York delegation to sign the Constitution during the Convention, wrote in Federalist No. 83,

“The plan of the Convention declares that the power of Congress, or, in other words, of the National Legislature, shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excluded all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.”

Just as James Madison was one of, if not the most knowledgeable historian attending the Constitutional Convention, James Wilson, a scholar from Edinburgh, was the most knowledgeable lawyer attending the Convention.[5]

Wilson would explain the taxing and spending power in a course of lectures at what would become the University of Pennsylvania. In this series of lectures he said in part,

“The National Government was intended to promote the ‘general Welfare.’ For this reason Congress have power to regulate commerce . . . and to promote the progress of science and of useful arts by securing for a time to authors and inventors an exclusive right to their compositions and discoveries.”

Using this he would move on from the Patent and Copyright Clause [ Article 2, Section 8, Clause 8 – “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;” to explain all of the other clauses in Section 8 granting power. He would clearly explain that Congress was to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare” by exerting the powers granted to it in the seventeen paragraphs following the first, by which it was authorized “to lay and collect taxes.”

Now, these three members of the Constitutional Convention, Madison, Hamilton and Wilson wrote and spoke out concerning the purpose of the General Welfare Clause. And none of them believed the Clause gave any power to Congress beyond the bounties set forth in the eighteen paragraphs of Article 1, Section 8.

However,Madison would once again have to explain the General Welfare Clause during the very first Congress of the newly formed Government.

The First Subsidy [6]

One of the first duties Madison had to face as a member of the House of Representatives had to faced was to gather and formulate the twelve leading objections to the Constitution that had been received from the ratifying conventions in the States for submission as amendments, ten of which were ratified and is now known collectively as the Bill of Rights.

Later during this first session of Congress, the first idea of a “subsidy” made its appearance in Congress and once again,Madison had to clarify what was meant to the “common Defence and general welfare” clause.

A bill was introduced to pay the cod fishermen a bounty, or to basically subsidize a private interest.

Madison spoke out against this bill, stating that those who wrote the Constitution and those who ratified it did not conceive that it would not be an indefinite Government, but a limited one,

“...tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define general terms, If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” (Has this not happening today, Common Core, teacher's unions, out of control welfare?...OM)

Madison should be considered a major prophet for, “The consequences of the misapplication by Congress of the money of the taxpayers — a scourge of mounting debt and cumulative deficits.”

Later in 1798 during the 5th Congress, Abraham Baldwin of Georgia, who had been a member of the Constitutional Convention, said in Congress that:

“to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare” had “never been considered as a source of legislative power, as it is only a member introduced to limit the other parts of the sentence.” 

That is, it limits the purposes for which Congress can “lay and collect taxes” and exerts its other granted powers. [7]

However, though four brilliant men, all who attended the Constitutional Convention, explained the General Welfare Clause to the satisfaction of the States and even though Madison had explained the Clause during the first session of the first Congress, it would be Thomas Jefferson, who would brilliantly define the General Welfare Clause in 1817.

[1] Norton, Thomas James, Undermining the Constitution A History of Lawless Government, the Devin – Adair Co, New York, New York, 1950. Pg 184

[2] Ibid. Pg 185

[3] Ibid. Pg 187

[4] Ibid. Pg 187

[5] Ibid. Pg 190

[6] Ibid. Pg 188

[7] Ibid. Pg 189

Thomas Jefferson and Other Presidents Define the “General Welfare Clause” – Part 2

Even though Thomas Jefferson was in Paris and not able to attend the meeting of the Constitutional Convention. He was in contact, such as it was, with Madison and other delegates. Even though Jefferson was not present, he knew the Constitution and that knowledge would later serve America well.

In a June 16, 1817 letter to Albert Gallatin, Thomas Jefferson discussed the General Welfare Clause after President Monroe had vetoed a bill for the improvement of the Cumberland Road (Monroe did not believe the work fell within the scope of the General Welfare Clause):

“You will have learned that an act for internal improvement, after passing both Houses, was negatived by the President. The act was founded, avowedly, on the principle that the phrase in the Constitution which authorizes Congress ‘to lay taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare,’ was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, you know, was the Federal doctrine. Whereas our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the Federalists and the Republicans, that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but was restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have meant that they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation on the purposes for which they may raise money.

I think the passage and rejection of this bill a fortunate incident. Every State will certainly concede the power; and this will be a national confirmation of the grounds of appeal to them, and will settle forever the meaning of this phrase, which, by a mere grammatical quibble, has countenanced the General Government in a claim of universal power. For in the phrase ‘to lay taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare,’ it is a mere question of syntax, whether the two last infinitives are governed by the first, or are distinct and co-ordinate powers; a question unequivocally decided by the exact definition of powers immediately following.”

After Jefferson’s explanation (possibility one of the most enlightened ever made) which was applied to an actual case in legislation, an educated person should find this early interpretation of the General Welfare Clause conclusive.[1]

However, six years later, Jefferson would once again revisit the subject:

 “I have been blamed for saying that a prevalence of the doctrine of consolidation would one day call for reformation or revolution. I answer by asking if a single State of the Union would have agreed to the Constitution had it given all powers to the General Government? If the whole opposition to it did not proceed from the jealousy and fear of every State of being subjected to the other States in matters merely its own? And if there is any reason to believe the States more disposed now than then to acquiesce in this general surrender of all their rights and powers to a consolidated government, one and undivided?”[2]

Later, President Andrew Jackson, believing in what Jefferson, as well as Madison, Hamilton and Wilson felt about the General Welfare Clause, vetoed every bill for public improvements that was not clearly for National welfare, as distinguished from local or State advantage.

Saying:

 “We are in no danger from violations of the Constitution from which encroachments are made upon the personal rights of the citizen . . . . But against the dangers of unconstitutional acts which, instead of menacing the vengeance of offended authority, proffer local advantages and bring in their train the patronage of the government, we are, I fear, not so safe.”

Throughout the 1800’s many river and harbor bills were vetoed by Presidents Tyler, Polk, Pierce, Grant, Arthur (although a bill appropriating $19,000,000 was passed over Arthur’s veto in 1882) and Cleveland. The Presidents looked at the appropriations as largely benefiting local purposes rather than National Purposes.

President Arthur put it:

 “…beyond the powers given by the Constitution to Congress and the President.” Declaring that when the citizens of one State found that money of all the people was being appropriated for local improvements in another State they naturally “seek to indemnify themselves . . . by securing appropriations for similar improvements,” he concluded: “Thus as the bill becomes more objectionable, it secures more support.”

President Cleveland, evidently seeing that Congress seemed to be moving towards measures that would “bring home the Pork” gave them a lesson in constitutional law during his fourth annual message:

 “The preservation of the partitions between the proper subjects of Federal and local care and regulation is of such importance under the Constitution, which is the law of our very existence, that no consideration of expediency or sentiment should tempt us to enter upon doubtful ground.

We have undertaken to discover and proclaim the richest blessings of a free Government, with the Constitution as our guide. Let us follow the way it points out — it will not mislead us.“[3]

It appeared that Congress did not take this “lesson” to heart.

The following year he vetoed a bill appropriating money from the National Treasury for the purchase of seed wheat to relieve the farmers in a drought-stricken area. Again, in a message to Congress, he defined the meaning of the General Welfare Clause as Madison and the others interpreted it:

 “Under the limited and delegated authority conferred by the Constitution upon the General Government the statement of the purposes for which money may be lawfully raised by taxation in any form declares also the limits of the objects for which it may be expended. . . . This ‘general welfare of the United States,’ as used in the Constitution, can only justify appropriations for national objects and for purposes which have to do with the prosperity, the growth, the honor, or the peace and dignity of the Nation.“[4]

In 1921, President Harding addressed the General Welfare Clause, saying,

 “Just government is merely the guarantee to the people of the right and opportunity to support themselves. The one outstanding danger of today is the tendency to turn to Washington for the things which are the tasks or the duties of the forty-eight commonwealths.”

This tendency would begin in 1933 in earnest as America drifted towards Socialism.

[1] Norton, Thomas James, Undermining The Constitution
A History of Lawless Government, The Devin – Adair Co, New York, New York, 1950. Pg 191

[2] Ibid. Pg 192

[3] Ibid. Pg 194

[4] Ibid. Pg.194