Should Nations Help the Sick and Poor?

[Ziggy]

So basically it's not dependent on who votes but who does the counting.
I agree with that

 

[Ziggy]

There is no Integrity any more.
No accountability.

I suppose the only ones who can change it are the ones who created it in the first place.
That's in the Bill of Rights and our duty to change it when it becomes tyrannical.

 

[Ziggy]

The United States is a constitutional democratic republic because it combines three distinct political elements: power comes from the people via elections. Democratic elections.

Our laws are made by chosen representatives,which makes for it being a Republic.

The entire system is limited by the supreme law of the land,which is our United States Constitution.
Take a look at the so called Supremacy Clause of the USC.
⁠Article VI, Clause 2

I understand that the mechanism by which our elections are held are defined as democratic.
I have a stigma with that word.
Bias even.
You understand?
Mah Democracy is as bad as the Left's TDS.
sorry.
Hugs

 

[Gray_Joy]

How do you feel about the Save America Act?
Do you think Thune will put it on the floor, or will it just go by the wayside until the next Congress?

I stopped my Activist role right after the last election.

I no longer keep abrest of State or Federal Legislation.
Way too much stress for far too little reward given the big picture.

I learned at the end of my stint some things that told me I was in effect tilting at windmills.

I figure I'll ride it out and make my politics personal. And my country ,that is to some degree in my control , that land and home that is beneath my feet.
All else I'll leave to God's will.

Unless Satan's church decides to take my means of defense of family and home. Or, intended to implant us with an ID chip, or limit our access to personal survival in some way.

I pray that not be God's will.

But if it is,I'll fight to the death before me and mine fall beneath cloven hooves.
If we do though,I promise there will be many goats bodies strewn about.


I'll fight on my feet before I serve on my knees.

 

[Ziggy]

I'm fairly restricted as far as any real interaction with the world around me.
I take care of my 91 y/o dad and he's getting on.
I'm disabled been that way since 2015.
So we got each other.
Politics is like driving truck it gets in your veins.
My husband was an otr trucker, we travelled for 10 years watching the cows and corn go by.

And now he's gone, and I suppose the internet is my window on the world, knowing that what you see on there is a take it or leave it reality.

But I'm not going to deny my faith, I will fight, in one manner or another.
Even if it is just typing posts on an internet forum.
I'll use what I have been given.
And if they take that away,
I'll find another.
But I won't give up the fight.

 

[Gray_Joy]

There is no Integrity any more.
No accountability.

I suppose the only ones who can change it are the ones who created it in the first place.
That's in the Bill of Rights and our duty to change it when it becomes tyrannical.

But will we?

I think the COVID 19 lockdown was a social experiment to gauge the likelihood of that very thing.

A test. To see how far we would allow local government to go in limiting our liberties.

Our civil rights are rights! Inalienable rights. Not permissions.

Those rights have been pushed for years with anti-gun legislation.

The worst thing we ever allowed,not that we could control this for the aforementioned other post reasons I noted,was gun registration.

When government knows who has firearms,they know where to go when they choose to seize.them.

Now,there's a State law that violates the inalienable right in the 2nd Amendment. It is a law wherein a citizen must obtain a permit to purchase a firearm. They must have that permit before they can buy guns.

I heard it is being appealed through the courts. If the appeal fails and the law stands , get ready for other anti-gun forces to pursue the same thing.

There's an old saying. The political becomes personal when it stings.

We'll see.

The COVID experiment produced data in its day. The question is,did we the people pay attention? Or,learn anything?

 

[Ziggy]

We've learned a lot about what happened and who is behind it and why.
Just the last couple days Tulsi disclosed evidence, real evidence that proves the Fauci funded the GOF and I believe he released it on the world.
Compliance.
Plus mass extinction.
These people are sick.

These people are sick.
We, the People, are the cure.
Q

I think we're on the right path.

 

[Ziggy]

Now,there's a State law that violates the inalienable right in the 2nd Amendment. It is a law wherein a citizen must obtain a permit to purchase a firearm. They must have that permit before they can buy guns.

I do know the Supreme Court just shot down Congress's bill to remove the rights of gun owners due to thc or marijane use.
But do the States themselves have the right to regulate?
The Constitution say Congress shall make no law.
And that's we're We the People have the right to determine our own laws in our own state.
It shouldn't be a Federal issue.

And I suppose we uphold our 2nd Amendment rights at the ballot box.
But it is a Constitutional Right which I believe supersedes states rights?

To be honest. I have a little more than a 6th grade public school education.
I may not be academically, let's say book smart.
But I do have commonsense, and I learn as I go.
And I been going for over 40 years, Biblically and Worldly.
And every now and then they both seem to merge.

Almost like prophecy even.
And I love Prophecy.

 

[Ziggy]

Sorry didn't mean to hijack the thread.
resume regular programming

Hugs

 

[Gray_Joy]

I do know the Supreme Court just shot down Congress's bill to remove the rights of gun owners due to thc or marijane use.
But do the States themselves have the right to regulate?
The Constitution say Congress shall make no law.
And that's we're We the People have the right to determine our own laws in our own state.
It shouldn't be a Federal issue.

And I suppose we uphold our 2nd Amendment rights at the ballot box.
But it is a Constitutional Right which I believe supersedes states rights?

To be honest. I have a little more than a 6th grade public school education.
I may not be academically, let's say book smart.
But I do have commonsense, and I learn as I go.
And I been going for over 40 years, Biblically and Worldly.
And every now and then they both seem to merge.

Almost like prophecy even.
And I love Prophecy.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The famed,"Supremacy Clause", as it were.

Federal law itself supersedes State laws. Which is why I think that State gun buyer permit is going to get shot down.
The trouble with it now is,it is in effect until then.

Its not going to be a dull future,that's for sure.

I like prophecies too. They're especially wonderful when I meet people who insist Predestination in the Bible is a myth. lol

 

[Richard Aberdeen]

Luke 12:48 - But someone who does not know, and then does something wrong, will be punished only lightly. When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required.

The wealthy do not work hard for their wealth. There wealth comes from exploiting those who are their employees, do their laundry, cook their food, clean their toilets and mow their grass. The hardest working people in America are immigrants and also, among the poorest.

Do you actually believe that a CEO, who sits in an air condition office, flies in a private jet, takes two hours to eat a very expensive lunch and hires people for a fraction of what he or she earn, to do all of their grunge and dirty work, actually words hard??? Baloney !

 

[Rockerduck]

The wealthy do not work hard for their wealth. There wealth comes from exploiting those who are their employees, do their laundry, cook their food, clean their toilets and mow their grass. The hardest working people in America are immigrants and also, among the poorest.

Do you actually believe that a CEO, who sits in an air condition office, flies in a private jet, takes two hours to eat a very expensive lunch and hires people for a fraction of what he or she earn, to do all of their grunge and dirty work, actually words hard??? Baloney !

Jesus said this, I didn't. Stop yelling at Jesus.

 

[Gray_Joy]

The wealthy do not work hard for their wealth.

Nonsense.
It sounds like you're here promoting Socialist talking points cloaked in the anti-wealth movement and the Workers Over Wealth activists.

Neither of you know of what you speak.

There wealth comes from exploiting those who are their employees, do their laundry, cook their food, clean their toilets and mow their grass. The hardest working people in America are immigrants and also, among the poorest.

Do you actually believe that a CEO, who sits in an air condition office, flies in a private jet, takes two hours to eat a very expensive lunch and hires people for a fraction of what he or she earn, to do all of their grunge and dirty work, actually words hard??? Baloney !

"The trouble, problem, with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Britains Leader of the Opposition party, Margaret Thatcher. Thames Television's, This Week , 5 February 1976.

 

[Wrangler]

Apparently to justify their undying support of the Republican so-called 'free' market agenda, Evangelical and other conservative Christian leaders have invented an axiom seemingly taught religiously to their congregations, that only individuals and, not nations collectively, should help the sick and poor.

That is my position also. The purpose of government is not charity but to help people protect their property rights, PERIOD, FULL STOP.

Anyone can give to charity to their hearts content and there are many excellent charitable organizations.

 

[Wrangler]

The wealthy do not work hard for their wealth. There wealth comes from exploiting those who are their employees

No coveting there!

 

[talons]

I agree. I recommend helping the poor directly. I do not recommend giving money to a church.

Hmm , yes helping the poor directly I agree . But no money for the church to help the poor ?

Trump's defunding of foreign aid has already cost the lives of over 750,000 people and is projected to cost the lives of over 9 million.

No money for the Church but here you are complaining about money not being sent to who knows where and who will most likely have less scruples than the church as to what they do with the funds or food donations . The funds or supplies likely going to the foreign government that does not even give the aid to the poor in their country .
I do think we would be better off funding the aid operations the churches have estabished in the foreign lands , the odds are better the poor would get their needs met , I surely hope .

 

[Ziggy]

What would be ideal is if every country was able to be prosperous and supply the needs of their own people.
We been living in a system that has a real bad habit of taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
Colonialism really took a toll on a lot of places.

Notable Former British Colonies​

• North America: The Thirteen Colonies (later the United States), Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador .
• Caribbean: Jamaica, Barbados, Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago.
• Africa: Ghana (formerly Gold Coast), Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Botswana, Sierra Leone, and others.
• South Asia: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar (Burma) .
• Southeast Asia: Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Myanmar.
• Oceania: Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Solomon Islands.
• Middle East: Iraq, Palestine, Jordan, and parts of the Arabian Peninsula.
  In total, around 65 countries have gained independence from the British Empire, with independence dates ranging from the 18th century (United States, 1776) to the late 20th century (Hong Kong, 1997) .

And then Hong Kong lost it's Independence to China.

And you look at the condition they are in today. Are they any better for it?

And so we set up NGO's and Humanitarian Outreach Programs, Red Cross, USAID, and you have to ask yourself,
Where does the money go?

It's not like America doesn't have a big heart. And when it comes to charity most Americans are on the giving side.
But it's really hard to remain charitable when the Government is taking your money and giving it back to themselves.

So what can you do?

We help them help themselves. We open up trade so they can buy and sell on the market. We can help provide them tools and equipment so they can grow their own farmlands. We could send in people that know how to get the water running.
Maybe help them with energy issues, like electricity or even nuclear powered plants.

Help them become prosperous so they wouldn't have to depend on a meal that may never come.
Or medicine, help them build schools.
We don't have to run them. We just have to help them grow them.
And once they become established, then you don't have to worry about the Government stealing your money for things like that in the future.

Just a thought

Hugs

 

[David A.J.]

A functional civil society relies upon the community to care for the needy. The government is not the nation, the people are. The government taking these roles from the people leads to a decline in the community as a whole. And the government's standard of care is impersonal and beurocratic in nature. What once required care and generosity becomes a 9-5 desk job.

I live in a country which has a "socialist" government and national medical insurance (but also allows private medical insurance). If there was no national medical insurance, I would be dead. Three years ago, I was diagnosed with a very fast-growing and extensive cancer. The total cost of the chemo, radiation and operation (to say nothing of physio, blood transfusions, plasma pumps etc. etc.) cost well over a million dollars, the lion's share of which was paid by the government. Private expenses came to a total of about $300. Thank God for government medical insurance!!!

 

[David Lamb]

What would be ideal is if every country was able to be prosperous and supply the needs of their own people.
We been living in a system that has a real bad habit of taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
Colonialism really took a toll on a lot of places.

Notable Former British Colonies​

• North America: The Thirteen Colonies (later the United States), Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador .
• Caribbean: Jamaica, Barbados, Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago.
• Africa: Ghana (formerly Gold Coast), Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Botswana, Sierra Leone, and others.
• South Asia: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar (Burma) .
• Southeast Asia: Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Myanmar.
• Oceania: Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Solomon Islands.
• Middle East: Iraq, Palestine, Jordan, and parts of the Arabian Peninsula.
  In total, around 65 countries have gained independence from the British Empire, with independence dates ranging from the 18th century (United States, 1776) to the late 20th century (Hong Kong, 1997) .

And then Hong Kong lost it's Independence to China.

And you look at the condition they are in today. Are they any better for it?

And so we set up NGO's and Humanitarian Outreach Programs, Red Cross, USAID, and you have to ask yourself,
Where does the money go?

It's not like America doesn't have a big heart. And when it comes to charity most Americans are on the giving side.
But it's really hard to remain charitable when the Government is taking your money and giving it back to themselves.

So what can you do?

We help them help themselves. We open up trade so they can buy and sell on the market. We can help provide them tools and equipment so they can grow their own farmlands. We could send in people that know how to get the water running.
Maybe help them with energy issues, like electricity or even nuclear powered plants.

Help them become prosperous so they wouldn't have to depend on a meal that may never come.
Or medicine, help them build schools.
We don't have to run them. We just have to help them grow them.
And once they become established, then you don't have to worry about the Government stealing your money for things like that in the future.

Just a thought

Hugs

Just a point of fact from your post. The British Empire has not existed as such since the late 1940s, so Hong Kong did not "gain independence from the British Empire" in 1997. The Empire was replaced by the British Commonwealth. The Commonwealth's website, Our history says:

"The Dominions and other territories of the British Empire gradually became fully independent of the United Kingdom.

India became independent in 1947. India wanted to become a republic which didn't owe allegiance to the British king or queen, but it also wanted to stay a member of the Commonwealth.

At a Commonwealth Prime Ministers meeting in London in 1949, the London Declaration said that republics and other countries could be part of the Commonwealth. The modern Commonwealth of Nations was born.

King George VI was the first Head of the Commonwealth, and Queen Elizabeth II became Head when he died. But the British king or queen is not automatically Head of the Commonwealth. Commonwealth member countries choose who becomes Head of the Commonwealth.

Speaking on this new association in 1953 Her Majesty the Queen said: “Thus formed, the Commonwealth bears no resemblance to the Empires of the past. It is an entirely new conception, built on the highest qualities of the spirit of man: friendship, loyalty and the desire for freedom and peace. To that new conception of an equal partnership of nations and races I shall give myself heart and soul every day of my life.”

 

[Ziggy]

Just a point of fact from your post. The British Empire has not existed as such since the late 1940s, so Hong Kong did not "gain independence from the British Empire" in 1997. The Empire was replaced by the British Commonwealth. The Commonwealth's website, Our history says:

"The Dominions and other territories of the British Empire gradually became fully independent of the United Kingdom.

India became independent in 1947. India wanted to become a republic which didn't owe allegiance to the British king or queen, but it also wanted to stay a member of the Commonwealth.

At a Commonwealth Prime Ministers meeting in London in 1949, the London Declaration said that republics and other countries could be part of the Commonwealth. The modern Commonwealth of Nations was born.

King George VI was the first Head of the Commonwealth, and Queen Elizabeth II became Head when he died. But the British king or queen is not automatically Head of the Commonwealth. Commonwealth member countries choose who becomes Head of the Commonwealth.

Speaking on this new association in 1953 Her Majesty the Queen said: “Thus formed, the Commonwealth bears no resemblance to the Empires of the past. It is an entirely new conception, built on the highest qualities of the spirit of man: friendship, loyalty and the desire for freedom and peace. To that new conception of an equal partnership of nations and races I shall give myself heart and soul every day of my life.”

Economic and Trade Influence​

Britain and India have strengthened economic ties in recent years, particularly through the India–United Kingdom Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) signed in 2025. This deal aims to double bilateral trade to USD $120 billion by 2030 by eliminating tariffs on key goods such as Indian textiles and British automobiles and whisky, while also covering services, innovation, government procurement, and intellectual property rights. The agreement is expected to create thousands of jobs in the UK and boost its GDP, reflecting Britain’s economic leverage in India.

Britain maintains influence through the Indian diaspora, which numbers over 1.5 million, and through educational and cultural exchanges. UK universities are expanding campuses in India, and initiatives like the “fintech corridor” and collaborative film projects strengthen people-to-people ties. These soft power channels allow Britain to maintain a presence in India’s social and cultural spheres.

My point was, helping countries build themselves up, instead of building up the one's that supposed to be helping.
Leverage, soft power, Trade deals, don't always work in the recipients best interest.

That's why we got rid of USAID. The programs we set up to help other countries ended up becoming one big fraudulent slush fund as well as influencing their cultures. Trying to make them dependent on the ones giving, then becoming independently stable.

Good Morning


Hugs