Found a good "BBS Text" link? Let Us Know!

This paper is presented in an historical context and is indicative of the various rants, raves, treatises, etc., that were prevalent in the old BBS (Bulletin Board Service) days. Content has not been changed, though formatting changes may have taken place to make it more presentable. (Spelling, sentence/paragraph structure, etc.) Wherever possible, credit is given to the originating source.

 Return to BBS Text Files

FOREIGN AID

Look at this strange picture of a grown man with a white beard. He's wearing an odd looking suit consisting of blue and white striped pants and old styled cutaway jacket. He's wearing high hat with stars on it. Why, it's our old buddy, Uncle Sam.

He's grinning from ear to ear and holding a heavy money sack in one hand. From the top of the globe, he is throwing our money all over the earth. He kinda looks like a farmer feeding the chickens.

Look at all the leaders of the nations with their hands outstretched. They're screaming at him telling him they will be happy to be his friend. No wonder he's grinning.  Foreign Aid -- doesn't it have a pleasant ring to it?

Try it again . . . FOREIGN AID. Such pretty sounding words. A real warm phrase . . . Allows us to buy friends all over the world. It makes no difference to us whether the country is a communist block nation or if they support the United States. No . . . We simply send the grant after our private discussions and determination. 

It doesn't make any difference if the foreign officials to whom we give the money use it for themselves. There is an outside chance they might use it for the benefit of their countries. Look at Marcos as an example. You don't really think he would take American foreign aid payments and buy expensive properties in the United States, do you? No, he wouldn't have done anything like that. 

The American people are now conditioned to accept the foreign aid budget as a legalized expenditure. No one any longer questions the government. Not even our media raises any question marks. And it doesn't matter who we give these monies to because Americans don't understand foreign policy at all. It's to our advantage if we keep them ignorant on these issues. 

I don't want to be called ignorant any longer. Let's question their authority to dole out our money from the Treasury. We hear all this talk about the federal deficit and being a debtor nation for the first time in our history. It's time we began our education. The admitted foreign aid package last year allocated some $15.7 billion. Here's how it would look if you wrote the figures in your check book, that's $15,700,000,000! No question that puts a big chunk into the deficits column!

They throw these billion dollar figures around as though they were talking about a 10 dollar bill. Let's see what a billion is. Actually, a billion seconds ago we didn't even have an atomic weapon. That's a billion! And now we are hearing the word trillion. One trillion minutes ago should take us back to the days of the dinosaurs! Let's begin our search and see if we can find a shred of legality for these monstrous expenditures from our public
treasury.

First, we'll look through the Constitution. Is there any permission to give it to any country whatever story they give us to justify the expense? 

One instance of the word 'foreign' in Article I (the law making bodies) appears in Section 8. These concern only the value of foreign money in relationship to our own and the regulation of commerce with foreign nations.

Foreign shows up again in Section 9 of Article I but only about any person holding an office of trust under the United States. He/she shall not receive any present, office or title from a foreign state.

Nothing so far to show there is any permission to spread joy around the world via our money. To refresh our minds, it is the House of Representatives which is responsible to introduce any bill to expend money. (Art 1, Sec 7, cl 1) Yet our investigation of the entire legislative branch shows no consent from us to send one thin dime to any other country. Not even an ersatz dime they force the people to use today. 

Before we chastise the legislative branch for throwing American money helter-skelter around the world, perhaps there is authority in one of the other sections of the Constitution. Article II concerns the executive branch so let's take a look-see.

The only thing which shows up which remotely suggests any international involvement are joint duties the executive shares with the Senate. The first is the power to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate. The second duty is to appoint ambassadors. (Art II, Sec 2, cl 2) And, in section 3, it is the duty of the executive to receive ambassadors and other public ministers. 

Sorry, nothing in Article II to show any legality for foreign aid. Why do we keep hearing the President talking about foreign aid? I'm certain I read he often argues with Congress about money for some foreign country.

Checking the next articles in our constitution, we do find ambassadors mentioned under the judicial article (III). Surely judges have no authority to expend public monies. All Article III says is the Supreme Court will have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors.

Art IV, Sect 3, cl 2 might be something we are looking for . . ."Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States."

Could it be possible our Congress considers all those countries as our territories? Noo o o o o ... A quick check of the amendments shows nothing at all concerning the word foreign or foreign aid.

Do you think it might be conceivable they have purposely kept us ignorant about foreign policy? Maybe they have a different copy of the Constitution than we have? Surely, there must be authorization somewhere for our elected 'representatives' to approve an expenditure of billions!

All Senators, Representatives, ALL executive and judicial officers take an oath to support our Constitution. Is it likely they are all violating their oaths and breaking the law? One day, those who have said "So help me, God" and in the same breath have denied that oath will have to explain that to someone. 

A possible answer to these questions came innocently from the pen of one of our freshman Congressmen. In personal correspondence, he said when an issue on which they expect to vote concerns constitutional issues they don't take the initiative to check our Constitution. Instead, they refer the issue to a committee with an impressive name, the Committee on Constitutional rights. Isn't that outstanding?

If that august body doesn't say it's unconstitutional, the bill will sail through the Congress. How does that grab you? We demand they take an oath to support the document and they don't even know what it says. Nor do they make the effort to find out what it says! And they feel we are ignorant.

We must be mistaken. Certainly they wouldn't break the law? They keep telling us that ignorance of the law is no excuse . . . what do you suppose is their excuse for this ignorance?

A look through The Federalist Papers is in order. Perhaps there is something in the old writings to point out where they have permission to throw our money away. James Madison points out in paper No. 42 ". . powers lodged in the central government consist of those which regulate the intercourse with foreign nations, to wit: to make treaties; to send and receive ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; to define and punish piracies and  felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; to regulate foreign commerce, . . ." (All references to 'paper no.' means The Federalist Papers.) 

Well, so far we have found where the government is to regulate foreign commerce. Yet not a word about throwing our money at them. Let's keep looking.

John Jay in paper No. 64, speaks of the integrity of the Senate and the President to make treaties. He rambles on a bit but says nothing about any permission in the Constitution to give, grant, donate or lend money to any foreign country. 

In paper No. 53, James Madison states: "A branch of knowledge which belongs to the acquirements of a federal representative and which has not been mentioned is that of foreign affairs. In regulating our own commerce, he ought to be not only acquainted with the treaties between the United States and other nations, but also with the commercial policy and laws of other nations."

The Founding Fathers NEVER considered they could take our money from public funds and give it to a foreign power no matter how puny. 

We know the House of Representatives and the Senate have "Foreign Relations Committees." We hear enough in the media from individual members when they want to interfere in the internal affairs of another country. This is not only immoral, it's also without authority in our Constitution. And they have much to say about foreign aid. 

Another point we should consider . . . it sure gives these clucks a reason to hop on an aircraft for a foreign junket (vacation) at out expense, doesn't it? If these "foreign affair" committees were concerned with foreign trade and treaties it would be in keeping with the intent of the powers which were bestowed. Hypocrisy abounds in Washington. Must be a special meal in congressional dining halls!

Our former ambassador to the UN, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, wrote an article which appeared in the national press entitled "The Foreign Aid Puzzle." She makes the following observation: "Obviously, foreign assistance is one of the instruments of foreign policy that can be used along with diplomacy, information, and military strength to accomplish our nations purposes and protect our national interests." Is that statement designed to make us feel stupid or does it show their ignorance of our supreme law? Isn't it unique whenever they want to justify something, we are protecting our national interests? This the muttering of  idiots and pure gobbledegook.

Our national interest (which should be their national interest also) is the preservation of our Constitution and the Republic. How can they justify protecting our national interests when they propose to give $25 million to help Marxist Mozambique? Or $25 million for Zimbabwe which is a one-party state that arrests and tortures its opponents? Zimbabwe consistently opposes US foreign policy. It's obvious what the result was concerning our foreign policy towards Saddam. One might ask, just what is our governments conception of our national interest? Cow paddies. The great American scam is still in operation.

This idea of foreign aid really began in earnest during the reign of Franklin Roosevelt. They called it the "Lend-Lease Program." Can you please define the term lend-lease? What in blazes does it mean? Was it intended to be conditioning for future foreign aid shenanigans? And this gobbledygook continues unabated!

The Lend-Lease Act was passed March 11, 1941. "In President Roosevelt's words, this act made the republic the arsenal for world democracy." Tough to find a statement that sounds more stupid. It does point to the conditioning of the American people to accept the word democracy. George Washington in his farewell address recommended we observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Also we should cultivate peace and harmony with all. Does this unlawful expenditure of our money lean toward those suggestions? How about the meddling in the internal affairs of a foreign nation? Hardly! 

He also strongly urged the United States to steer clear of permanent alliances with the foreign world. Another
admonition ignored. He spoke eloquently about our republic and its future. It requires repeating because of the operation of our government today . . .

"To the efficacy and permanency of your union a government for the whole is indispensable . . . This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government."
 
(Messages & Papers of the Presidents, J. D. Richardson, 1898.)

It is the responsibility of everyone to obey the established government. It doesn't exempt those who work for government. Washington pointed out the constitution exists till changed by an EXPLICIT and AUTHENTIC act. Until then it is a sacred obligation on all Americans.

The Constitution cannot be changed unless you and I agree to the change. The amendment process (Art V) is in place and they must follow it before ANY process of our government can be modified.

The Tenth Amendment, the last one in the Bill of Rights, forbids the federal government from taking on ANY power which we did not specifically delegate. No ifs, no ands, no buts! 

Each reader should write his Senators and Representatives and ask where they find authority to dispense foreign aid. Point out to them voting for foreign aid is a violation of their oaths to support the Constitution. It is the Supreme Law of the Land. The violation of the trust we gave to them when we elected them to office is official misconduct. We MUST remove them from office as soon as possible. This comes under the definition of malconduct which Hamilton spoke of in paper No. 79 which makes them subject to impeachment.

To quote Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers No. 78: "There is no position which depends on clearer
principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principle; that the servant is above his master; that the representative of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."

There has been much talk lately about the foreign policy of the president. It has become the prerogative of the president to conduct foreign affairs. In reality it is the designated job of the president in cooperation with the Senate since it is their joint function to appoint ambassadors. 

The president is authorized to receive ambassadors yet as pointed out in the Federalist Papers, this requirement is more a matter of dignity than of authority. The framers felt that it would be easier for the president to perform this function than to call the entire Congress into session. The Framers of our Constitution were so certain that the Congress would have nothing to do that they included the requirement in Art I, Sect 4, cl 2: "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year. . " This was the reason they felt that it would be a problem to call the entire Congress into session to receive ambassadors. Today we can actually feel safer when they are not in session passing some unconstitutional law to take away more of our rights and liberties or raising taxes! 

Do you really feel that these people do not realize that they have no authority in the Constitution to dole out these huge sums? It is possible I suppose, yet on the other hand, more than likely that's not probable! They do know and don't give a damn if we do find out! Just another one of those practices that has gone on for a long, long time. Since they feel it buys friends, let's continue it. The American people don't understand foreign affairs and foreign aid anyway.

To see how foolish this idea of giving the executive the power to commit troops to a foreign country without Congress declaring war as required in the Constitution, we don't have to look far! How about Vietnam, Lebanon or Granada or this fiasco with Saddam? 

Care to total the number of our young men that died in these illegal uses of power? It doesn't take much courage for an old man to send a young man into battle. If constitutional requirements had been followed, much of this wouldn't have happened! 

There is no argument that the president is the commander-in-chief of the military forces. However, ONLY when the Congress has declared war, not when they have delegated their authority to the executive branch. It is not suggested any where in the Constitution that the president can commit troops!

George Washington suggested strongly that America never become permanently allied with any foreign nation. Another point he brought out firmly was that we should "observe good faith and justice toward all nations."  Has this advice been followed? How about our present attitude toward South Africa, China, Iran, Libya or Iraq? What business is it of our government what the internal policy these nations follow? Are any sanctions, implied or real, an illegal and immoral use of power? 

Is this "good faith and justice" toward South Africa? The same question could be applied toward Rhodesia. That country is solidly in the communist camp now and this happened because of our government meddling in the internal affairs of that country. By what right? Simply because they say it is in our interests? Special money has now been allotted to the CIA to 'get rid of Saddam Hussein'. He went into Kuwait . . . what business is that of ours? Is this blood money? Find one iota of right in our Constitution to say we can assassinate a leader of another country. These people have gone mad. It this what Bush wants in his 'New World Order'?

Now we have a Secretary of State who advocates the use of the military in attacks on "terrorist bases" even before they have committed any acts of terrorism. It would not matter, according to him, if innocent civilians would be killed or injured in the 'pre-emptive' attacks. 

It's hard to believe that a high ranking official of the executive branch could even suggest such a barbarous act. Even the Secretary of State has to take an oath to uphold the Constitution. So where does he suggest the authority for such acts are found? Can you find any? There seems to be genuine concern for terrorist activities. Much of what is going on today is a result of past actions of our government. There is no doubt that some situations are dangerous yet to ignore constitutional authority and limitations is also dangerous!  

Look at their concern about the terrorists . . . They have built all sorts of barriers in front of government buildings around the world. More of our money at work. Must protect our 'leaders' they say. No one has forced them to work for the government. If they feel it is too dangerous, go back home and go to work! We won't miss them. All this talk about the terrorists and terrorist activity is strangely reminiscent of Boston in 1774 when the British called the people who were causing problems 'incendiaries.' They were inciting trouble hence the name incendiaries. The British reacted with 'pre-emptive' strikes and look at the result of that! Their pre-emptive strikes were without authority also!

Do We The People create deficits? Of course not. IT'S YOUR MONEY! Any wonder why they revised the tax laws to increase their revenues? Now the talk is to raise taxes again in spite of the talk about tax cuts. WAKE UP!

 

Please Read The Website Disclaimer!
Copyright 1986-2009, The Survival & Self-Reliance Studies Institute (SSRsi), All Rights Reserved
Site conceptualized, designed, created & maintained by MEG Raven
Snail Mail: SSRsi, PO Box 2572 Dillon, CO. 80435-2572