Topic: Taxation
Famous Last Contributions of an AP Editor Or, Why The Associated Press and the 'Mainstream Media' Are Largely Responsible for the Theft of U.S. Tax Dollars to Subsidize Criminal U.S. and Israeli Warfare-Statismby Dan Alba
(libertarian)
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Following are just a few excerpts you will not find in an Associated Press news report, because if an AP editor allowed such reports to be released, he might eventually be demoted, fired or forced to resign — not because the statements are not true, but because, in fact, they are.
"The U.S. Constitution does not expressly grant the federal government the authority to give financial aid in any form to foreign governments, groups, or individuals."
"The U.S. federal government gives approximately $3 billion dollars every year in military and economic aid to Israel. This aid comes from taxes levied against U.S. citizens. While U.S. officials insist this aid is necessary for the 'war on terror,' the U.S. Constitution does not expressly grant the federal government the authority to do so."
"The Federal Reserve is considered an illegal entity by constitutionalists, conservatives, libertarians, liberals, and others because the U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to create a central bank or print paper money not backed by gold or silver."
"The United Nations is considered an illegitimate entity by constitutionalists, conservatives, libertarians, liberals, and others because the U.S. Constitution does not expressly grant the federal government to concede national, state, or individual sovereignty to international bodies. Moreover, those groups argue that U.S. membership in those international bodies is particularly illegal and immoral because U.S. taxpayer monies are used to subsidize them."
"According to the U.S. Constitution, Congress is not authorized to spend taxpayer money on private enterprises, or use same money to nationalize industry. Nevertheless, banking, finance, and auto industries have been 'bailed out' or 'partially nationalized' in defiance of both the Constitution and a large majority of Americans."
Every day, AP asserts, as fact, innumerable other fantastic conjecture and wrong-headed conventional wisdom; so, why not do the same for the above moral, legal, ethical truths? Here's why: AP and the rest of the Mainstream Mafia have every incentive not to. They rely on the subversion of the Constitution toward the growth and enrichment of the welfare-warfare state, of which they are cogs.
That's why you'll never see the most important facts, such as the above, within the context of, for instance, a story about Bush's or Obama's so-called economic rescue plans (the U.S. president has no constitutional authority to thus "manage the economy" in the first place). Nor will you see them related in terms of all the illegal, domestic and overseas wars and "diplomatic efforts."
And here's something to let sink in: If AP did regularly state those legal and moral realities as fact within their reportage, on a regular basis, how many of their global bureaus would eventually shut down as a result of not having the security of the U.S. or local military and police in those countries where AP bureaus are operating? For example, the Israeli government will not likely be inclined to renew the W. Jerusalem bureau's lease if the bureau were to begin reporting the negative facts about the Israeli occupation and the legal and moral status of U.S. foreign aid to Israel. At the very least, the Israeli military establishment won't be so keen on protecting the bureau and its staff against Israeli settlerists (whose home mortgages, land theft, and other aggressive violence, by the way, U.S. tax dollars also subsidize).
Ponder these things when considering why you never get the whole story out of AP and the MSM; then, you may begin to realize that they are indeed largely responsible for the illegal and immoral looting of your tax money toward the subsidizing of U.S. and Israeli wars, occupations, and colonization.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Dan Alba only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Dan Alba is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
You are assuming there is only ONE way to look at the provisions of the Constitution. Actually, there are two ways:
Restrictive: "Whatever is not explicitally commanded in the Constitution is forbidden."
Permissive: "Whatever is not explictially forbidden in the Constitution is permissible."
It should be noted that none of the major agencies we take for granted, such as NASA, are clearly provided for in the Constitution. So, shall we get rid of them? No, because the Constitution does not say: "There should be no agency for space exploration associated with the federal government."
You are assuming there is only ONE way to look at the provisions of the Constitution. Actually, there are two ways:
Restrictive: "Whatever is not explicitally commanded in the Constitution is forbidden."
Permissive: "Whatever is not explictially forbidden in the Constitution is permissible."
But are you assuming that the Constitution is a document that was not meant to limit the power of the central government over the people or the individual states — or that it wasn't written in the wake of a tyrannical government (British Empire) that did with its constitution exacly what you suggest the U.S. government shall do?
Are you assuming that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments do not exist?
The Ninth: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Tenth: "The powers not delegated to the United States [i.e., the Union, the federal government, etc.] by the Constitution, nor prohibited to by it to the States [i.e., Virginia, New York, etc.], are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
It should be noted that none of the major agencies we take for granted, such as NASA, are clearly provided for in the Constitution. So, shall we get rid of them? No, because the Constitution does not say: "There should be no agency for space exploration associated with the federal government."
Well then, for that matter, the Constitution also does not say: "There should be no federal agency for the controlling of thoughts."—OR—"The federal government can not tax the people as much as it wants to in order to do what it thinks it needs to do to run the country."
The Constitution's prime intent is to explictly limit the central in order that the individual's life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness are preserved and defended. A so-called living Constitution is indeed a dead one, and "implied powers" pave the road to serfdom for you and me.
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-12-30 19:07:02
Dale -
Its probably frightfully obvious whose side I am on here, but consider this thought:
The Constitution provided for a constitutional republic where the government was a pyramid. Bear with me for a sec.
The base (or power) of the pyramid was the local people, who elected their local, state, federal reps. These reps then selected the states US Senators, and even the President via the electoral college. So the top of the pyramid rested on top of all of this.
As Dan says, the economy was in theory as much divided from the government as possible. It is my vision that within my lifetime Western civilization will see the division of economy and government as necessary, just as necessary as the division between church and state, which is more or less accepted today.
Fast forward 220 years.
The pyramid is now inverted. The feds are calling the shots right now, and have all the power. They can take whatever they want of your income, they can send you to go fight and die in wars, they decide how much to tax you on the energy you use to live, the air you breathe, they can decide which sector of the economy gets benefited (bankers) at great cost to the REST of the economy, not to mention taxpayers. (Just read Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson)
And its not even JUST this. As Dan points out, organizations (which the US certainly seeks to control, but does not have FULL control over) like the UN, World Bank, IMF, WTO, NATO, SPP, NAFTA blah, blah, blah all exercise some degree of supranational sovereignty over the US.
Literally we have Atlas holding the globe while standing on his tippy-toes on YOUR skull.
(where Atlas=FED+Congress+Obama, globe=UN+nternational central bankers/orgs, in case you dont have my version of a wild imagination)
Dan is quite correct. The 10th amendment specifically limits the federal government to the powers given to it by the constitution. The problem is that the government doesn't care about the constitution and the people are totally ignorant of the constitution and it's vital importance. So the government gets away with it. True patriots should do everything possible to limit the federal government to its constitutional duties.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
