I am serious! The voting public in America seems to be asleep or ignoring the reality of eroding our liberties, society’s devolution, and the collapse of our economy. How else can we explain the reelections of the nefarious deviants actively working to undermine all that the Free Constitutional Republic was designed to be and was for at least two centuries?
Is personal animus toward a particular candidate so powerful that the hate for a person makes abetting the destroyers the better action to take? Have we reached the point that identity politics and personal preference are more important than the Republic? I continue to be amazed at the many who vote against a person or supporters of that candidate, knowing that allowing the other side to win will further erode our Republic. Yet, that seems to be where we are.
If it is not personal animus and hate for the candidate, it must be rooted in greed or the mentality of ‘what’s in it for me?’ The increasing welfare and entitlement rolls are not moving our society toward economic recovery but economic destruction. Our Founding Fathers understood this danger and spoke about it. We have largely ignored their warnings on many issues and expressly so on this issue.
In Federalist #41, James Madison spoke about the favorite of the followers of toxic liberalism, the ‘general welfare clause.’ This provision, they argue, allows them a blank check to care for all the needs of those in need or on the dole. It was never intended to be a blank check and does not allow Congress to deem what is in the ‘general welfare’ with no guidelines and restrictions.
Madison explained: “For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.”
The wisdom of Benjamin Franklin is germane and relevant. He said in a 1766 essay titled “On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor.” His succulent argument: “If you argue against government welfare programs, people will automatically accuse you of not caring about poor people. Franklin takes this argument on directly, making it clear he’s not opposed to helping the poor. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.”
He was right! If you point out the flaws and dangers of an unlimited welfare system and government dole, you are deemed to be a hater of the poor and needy. You are considered to be without heart, unfeeling, and uncaring. You want to kill grandma and want the children to starve. I argue that it is quite the contrary and have long contended that it is not the responsibility or the role of the federal government to provide for people’s needs materially.
Taking care of people should first be the responsibility of the family, both nuclear and extended. Second, it should be the church assisting those in need. Then, in a small measure, the government can address the needs in the short term, but only in the short term. Making it possible for people to be professional welfare recipients and making it more profitable and palatable to sit on one’s backside and sip whatever beverage they choose rather than working is destructive.
The most recent Omnibus Bill that Congress floated is monstrous and disastrous. It dooms our children and future generations to be chained to government debt. We are the debt holders of the federal government. We are the ones who will suffer, not those passing those laws and writing those bills. The taxpaying citizens who work for a living will pay the tax. We injure ourselves by allowing this to continue.
When they sneak in or openly place things like $575 million for ‘family planning’ in areas where population growth ‘threatens biodiversity,’ that is sinister. Malthusianism is a disturbing anti-human ideology that should not be in any federal program. It is diabolical.
The fact that they sought to include $1.7 Billion for the IRS to equip it to become a political weapon is insane. Spending taxpayer funds to supposedly save nature by aborting babies is morally evil. You may disagree, but that is my view! Some have suggested that the followers of the toxic liberal ideology see human beings, not of their ilk, as nothing more than a virus.
They seek to make life more difficult by making energy costs so high that many have to choose between food, medicine, and heating or cooling their homes or abodes. The desire to give half a billion for a National Health subdivision to study ‘structural racism’ and prohibiting funds to maintain or expand border security and technology is not in the interest of America or Freedom.
We know from readily available data that unemployment benefits and Obamacare subsidies outpace median income in several states. How does that make sense? In thirteen states, families can receive annualized unemployment benefits worth more than the median household income. Where is the incentive to work? Imagine a system where a family of four earning over $500,000 annually can still qualify for Obamacare subsidies. What is the motive?
Jobs are begging for workers, yet many refuse to enter the workforce because receiving a dole from the government is more lucrative than working. We have higher inflation than in decades and a record number of unfilled jobs; why? What would motivate people to reject gainful employment and opt for a government check? I cannot answer that satisfactorily, but I can state that you destroy incentive when you make it more appealing and profitable not to work than to work.
I cannot miss the declaration of the apostle Paul in 2 Thessalonians 3:10, “If anyone is UNWILLING to work, let him not eat.” The operative word is UNWILLING or WILL NOT. I am very interested in helping people who CANNOT provide for themselves but for those who can but WILL NOT; I am not in favor of using one cent of tax money to support their laziness. Call me whatever you desire.
I have pastored a church, attended college full-time, and worked a 40-hour-per-week job at the same time to support my family. I could have qualified for government subsistence, but my sense of personal responsibility drove me to work to provide for my family. If the government provides for you, it will also control you, which is the ultimate objective. It is time that we throw off their chains and become free.
American, when will we wake up and reclaim our republic? I hope soon, or we will have no republic to reclaim.
God bless you, and God bless America!