All government "charity" is unconstitutional, says

Posted: Jul 8, 2017

As only a handful of constitutional conservatives, like Ted Cruz , Mike Lee , Rand Paul , argue for the full repeal of Obamacare, something that was promised by all Republicans for seven years, and as Democrats have no answers for disastrous Obamacare other than more government control — what destroyed the health insurance marketplace in America in the first place and caused prices and deductibles to unnecessarily skyrocket — we should be reminded that ALL involvement of the federal government in the healthcare business in any form or fashion, or redistribution schemes pushed on taxpayers under the guise of “charity,” are highly unconstitutional and therefore illegal. Moreover, the very same legislators in either political party, who raise their right hand, taking an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, are instantly violating same oath by pushing any involvement in healthcare, whether it be Obamacare, Hillarycare, Trumpcare, or any other do-gooder vote-buying scheme which entails money being taken from the pockets of one taxpayer who earned it and “redistributed” to someone else who didn’t earn it. But don’t take my word for it. Take the words of the U.S. Constitution and the interpretation of those words by the Founding Father who wrote those words so that there is nothing arguable. After all, who better to ask what he meant by his writings than the person who actually wrote them, correct? The “Father of the Constitution,” the Founding Father considered its main author is James Madison. Under Article I, Section 8, are outlined what is referred to as the Enumerated Powers, those powers the various states delegated to the federal government in its creation. All other activities — if there are not listed in this section — were retained by the states and the people, as described in the 9th and 10th Amendments. Nowhere within Article I, Section 8, is anything regarding healthcare or welfare or subsidies or insurance company bailouts — as progressive leftists in both parties are currently pushing for — authorized by this section. Again, do not believe me, believe the author of the U.S. Constitution James Madison, who proclaimed: “The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” Progressives and their communist cousins — even RINOs (Republicans in name only) will argue the “General Welfare” clause is somehow being authorization for the federal government to spend on anything members of Congress dreams up. James Madison, in his brilliance, anticipated this argument, of course, and shot it down on several different occasions: “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” In other words, if the words “general welfare” meant going outside of the enumerated powers, there would have been no reason to even write the enumerated powers in the first place! Madison further imagined where Congress might stretch the General Welfare clause if it were misinterpreted to be open-ended: If Congress can apply 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 establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads. In short, everything, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare. The above sounds familiar except, in actuality, ambitious legislators, hungry to buy votes with other people’s money to fund Utopian schemes that have never worked anywhere in world history, have expanded further than even the Founding Fathers could have imagined. There is virtually nothing that the federal controlists are not in some way taxing, controlling, regulating, all for the benefit of their own power and narcissistic belief that they and the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats are gods. Our brilliant Founding Fathers, who had wisdom unlike almost all of today’s leaders, knew that government “charity” would lead to national bankruptcy. That it could always be argued that there isn’t enough government benevolence and therefore, even more taxpayer-funded government spending is needed. It’s an endless cycle that has led to a $20 trillion national debt and by some estimates, over $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities that can never be repaid. Ronald Reagan, easily the greatest president since Calvin Coolidge, might have said it best when he said: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'” and “Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.” While the above all sounds very conservative or libertarian on principle — it is — there’s a silver lining for liberals in this country. States are not limited to try whatever government “charity” or redistribution of wealth schemes that they wish. So if Bernie Sanders can convince Vermont to implement 90 percent tax rates against the “one-percent” in that independent state, they can go for it. If California wants to implement their Commie Care plan — socialized medicine — for everyone in that state, including the illegals (if they don’t get deported first), even though it costs more than twice its entire state budget, they can run with it. But when those policies fail and their successful entrepreneurs and employers all move to Arizona and Texas, or other more free market-oriented states, those state governments must suffer the consequences of their Utopian central planning and hopefully learn from their misguided governmental actions. For all of the reasons above, with the Democrat Party all but merging with the Communist Party USA and the Republicans, led by big government RINO’s Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, only wanting slightly smaller and just barely less unconstitutional than the Democrats, I strongly support both the Convention of States and the Federalist Party. Both parties are arguing which can bastardize the U.S. Constitution the most. We know that the Democrats will always be the most aggressive in this venture but the Republicans are not far behind. ;