| « (12.1) Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section (14.1) » |
“Welfare”... Theft of a Nation
By Christopher Holloman Hansen
This is not a story about the abuses of Aid to Dependent Children, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps, unemployment compensation; federally subsidized housing or any of the other federal “Welfare” projects. This is a story about a most diabolical yet ingenious plan. It is about a conspiracy to steal an entire form of republican government based on liberty and individual responsibility and changes it into a socialistic oligarchy. It is about the theft of Christian duty through love and charity by a Satanic plan of forced redistribution of wealth.
It is a story about “Verbicide” and the cold-blooded murder of the English tongue.
This is also a story about the violation of the real “wall of separation between church and state.” It is socialism and hereditary bondage clothed in the guise of charity. It is a filthy satanic counterfeit of Christian duty. It is government-enforced slavery and theft sold to Americans at a time of government created desperation and depression that changed sovereign Citizens into federal beneficiaries and therefore slaves.
We will herein discuss the history of how liberty was sacrificed on the Satanic alter of false security. How the word “welfare” gave foundation to a bloodless coup and this metamorphosis that has turned our God given Constitution into a worthless scrap of paper. This was done by simple verbicide and intentional usurpation of limited authority.
Verbicide is a relatively new English word. It means the murder of a word or its intentional misuse. It was first coined by the famous English author and Oxford professor C. S. Lewis, but its dangers have been recognized for millennia. Confucius circa 500 B. C. is reported to have said:
When words lose their meaning, people will lose their liberty.
The foundation of this conspiracy is based on the verbicide of the phrase “general welfare” that the authors of the anti-federalist papers warned us about and that Plubius, (James Madison, Federalist Papers) said could not be misinterpreted. Madison said the anti-federalist arguments could “have no other effect than to confound and mislead” and that their warnings were an “absurdity.” The United States Supreme Court in 1937 in HELVERING v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 619 embraced this “absurdity” by completely rejecting Madison’s (the father of the Constitution) argument and turned a Constitution clearly establishing a limited Federal government into an oligarchial tyranny limited only by congressional interpretation of what was “necessary and proper” for the establishment of the “general welfare” and congressional rejection of the “ancient phraseology” replacing them with “modern” definitions.
Senator Sam Ervin, of Watergate hearing fame, understood this verbicide and its possible effects on law and the Constitution. He said:
[J]udicial verbicide is calculated to convert the Constitution into a worthless scrap of paper and to replace our government of laws with a judicial oligarchy.
The presidential, congressional and judicial verbicide was so complete that not even the anti-federalists could have predicted the specific bastardization of the term. We believe that the changes were so subtle, so invidious, and spread out over such a long period of time that its only author could have been none other than Satan himself.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. understood the dangers of verbicide. He said:
Life and language are alike sacred. Homicide and verbicide-that is, violent treatment of a word with fatal results to its legitimate meaning, which is its life-are alike forbidden.
How can the simple misuse of a word honestly be compared to homicide, a mortal sin? And what does this have to do with welfare and liberty? Men of legal understanding have long understood that the meaning of words in the law must be interpreted, as the authors of the law understood the words.
In a letter to Henry Lee, James Madison wrote:
I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution... What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in the modern sense.
In a letter to William Johnson, Thomas Jefferson echoed Madison’s sentiments:
On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
The Founding Fathers understood the importance of language. Single words, their placement within the Constitution and even punctuation were debated. They also understood that the meanings of words could change or be maliciously and intentionally misinterpreted.
When modern Americans hear the word “welfare” most think of, “relating to, or concerned with welfare and esp. with improvement of the welfare of disadvantaged social groups” and “receiving public welfare benefits.” (Merriam-Webster’s 10th Collegiate Dictionary)
That definition of “welfare” would have been unknown in 1776. Welfare was, in truth, the exact opposite of poor relief. If you have “welfare” today you would be on the government dole. If you had “welfare” in 1787 you had health, wealth and happiness. Such a system of government aid would only have been known as “poor relief” and a law requiring a tax to support “poor relief” would have been called a “poor law.”
“Poor laws” were first enacted in England following the Reformation, and because of the loss of church property the government established the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601. The Speenhamland System of 1785, continued on with the poor laws. It was a system of out-door relief contrived by the Berkshire Justices of the Peace meeting at Speenhamland. The Elizabethan Poor Laws provided the pattern for the poor laws in the American Colonies, and the original thirteen states.
There were other “poor laws” and poor reliefs of the time. None were ever called “welfare.” Two of them were known as “The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834,” and the “Formation of Dungarvan Poor Law Union - In 1838”
Now let’s take a look at the meaning of “welfare” and “general welfare” as the Founding Fathers understood them and their metamorphosis and verbicide.
“Welfare” is defined in Noah Webster’s original 1828 Dictionary as:
WEL’FARE, noun [well and fare, a good going; German wohlfahrt; Dutch welvaart; Swedish valfart; Danish velfoerd.]
- 1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
- Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.
Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary comprised of the 1864, 1879 and 1884 issues updated and revised and published in 1904 and the Revised 1913 edition defines “welfare” with no obvious substantial change in its meaning except that the distinction between “applied to persons” and “applied to states” has been removed. This is an important distinction as both of the Constitution’s “general Welfare” clauses are only “
1904 edition:
Welfare, n. [Well + fare to go, to proceed, to happen.] Well-doing or well being in any respect; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; exemption from any evil or calamity; prosperity; happiness.
Webster’s 1913 Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
Wel”fare’, n. [Well + fare to go, to proceed, to happen.] Well-doing or well being in any respect; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; exemption from any evil or calamity; prosperity; happiness.
Government doles such, as Social Security and Food Stamps were not even a part of the “welfare” definition. The term “Welfare work” is reported as first being mentioned in 1903 in Review of Reviews, stating:
The term “industrial betterment”, or “welfare work,” is used in a wider sense to include all of those services which an employer may render to his work people over and above the payment of wages. It has even been used to include the provisions of homes for employees, kindergartens, schoolhouses [etc.]
Even this definition was not about government dole but private employment benefits.
Then in 1904 Century Magazine said:
The Welfare worker of a large retail establishment.
This Century Magazine quote is recognized in Webster’s 9th and 10th Collegiate Dictionaries:
Welfare adj. (1904) 1: Of, relating to, or concerned with welfare and esp. with improvement of the welfare of disadvantaged social groups {~ legislation}
2: Receiving public welfare benefits {~ mothers}
And in Webster’s 10th Collegiate Dictionary:
welfare adj. (1904) 1:of, relating to, or concerned with welfare and esp. with improvement of the welfare of disadvantaged social groups {~legislation}.
2: receiving public welfare benefits {~families}.
Note again the subtle change from just mother’s to families. The lie just grows and grows but only in very small almost imperceptible steps. It is also interesting to note that “welfare” has become an adjective. It had historically been a noun.
Franklin D. Roosevelt understood all of the above. He was a master of politics. He said:
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, it was planned that way.
It was Roosevelt who, more than any other man in American history, used this verbicide so effectively to bypass the Constitution (he was sworn to uphold) and usurp authority by increasing federal power without properly amending the Constitution. President Washington warned us in his Farewell Address that such usurpation is the customary weapon to destroy free governments:
If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
Let us look into the very act of usurpation as seen in HELVERING v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 619 USSC (1937).
The crash of 1929 was an intentionally created depression following the alleged adoption of the income tax and the anti-constitutional Federal Reserve. This is a demonstration of a manipulated power grab. First they claim there is a Constitutional question. Then they take unemployment from an individual problem and made it “general.” Then they recognized that since this same problem, which now became general, is similar to the problems of old age and disability that Congress has the right to tax one segment to the population and give it to another because this will benefit the “general welfare.” And just like that America became a Socialist State. Hereditary bondage was imposed. The Constitution became a “worthless scrap of paper” and Liberty was essentially lost because the World War II generation, unlike the Founding Fathers, were more concerned with their own temporary security than with the liberty of future generations.
Here is what the court said:
The purge of nation-wide calamity that began in 1929 has taught us many lessons. Not the least is the solidarity of interests that may once have seemed to be divided. ...Spreading from state to state, unemployment is an ill not particular but general, which may be checked, if Congress so determines, by the resources of the nation. If this can have been doubtful until now, our ruling today in the case of the Steward Machine Co., supra, has set the doubt at rest. But the ill is all one or at least not greatly different whether men are thrown out of work because there is no longer work to do or because the disabilities of age make them incapable of doing it. Rescue becomes necessary irrespective of the cause. The hope behind this statute is to save men and women from the rigors of the poor house as well as from the haunting fear that such a lot awaits them when journey’s end is near.
When money is spent to promote the general welfare, the concept of welfare or the opposite is shaped by Congress, not the states. So the concept be not arbitrary, the locality must yield.
They changed the original meaning of welfare and established, what would have been unimaginable to the Founding Fathers, a Welfare State, and then encroached on State’s rights all in two short rulings on the same day. (USSC May 24, 1937: Steward Machine Co., supra and Helvering v. Davis)
The following Court stated clearly what the Congress; the usurper President Franklin D. Roosevelt and a traitorous Supreme Court did concerning welfare:
State vs. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. St. 459: “When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it.” (See 16 Ma. Jur. 2d 177, 178)
The Supreme Court rejected the words of Jefferson, Madison, Noah Webster, Adams and other Founding Fathers in creating the “absurdity” (see Madison) and a fraud of the Welfare State. President Washington also warned us of such innovations:
Toward the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts.
Abraham Lincoln also understood what could happen if the court became tyrannical:
If the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court... the people have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
Since the passage of the “Welfare laws” the Federal Government has been in constant violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution because they have encroached upon a responsibility and jurisdiction of religion and family-Charity.
Today we often hear about how religion must stay out of government and that the separation of church and state must be absolute and that Christianity has no place in American Government. The lie of that accusation becomes obvious with even a cursory reading of the first four presidents’ inaugural addresses. The restriction was never upon the involvement of religious people, nor the abandonment of morality and virtue but was to keep the government from forming a national religion.
In fact, the federal government has spawned its own secular humanist religion by substituting the theory of evolution; and using taxed financed government school buildings as churches; and paying its clergy, the government school teachers, to preach this dogma: The federal government has clearly violated the separation of church and state. Only the doctrines of the Statist Religion, such as “Environmentalism,” “Peace through War,” Freudian physiology, Keynesian economics, condom based sex indoctrination, ad nauseum, are preached in the Government Church indoctrination centers euphemistically verbicided as “public schools.” Christian prayers, Christmas and Easter celebrations, the Ten Commandments, Christian morality and virtue have been expatriated from the secular humanist “education” rites. The name of Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible are religiously excluded from the government schools.
When we consider that voluntary “Charity” is one of the major doctrines of Christianity we must examine what would happen if the federal government encroched upon other traditionally religious functions.
Education was one major function of Christianity. Harvard and Yale were originally divinity schools. Morality and religion were to be taught in schools. Can you imagine what would happen if those doctrines where taught in government schools today? Yet Article III. of the Northwest Ordinance says:
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged...
Free government schools along with the redistribution of wealth are required in the Communist Manifesto.
Government has now infringed upon two of the most important historical duties of Christian Churches... charity and education. What screams of terror would we hear from America’s far left if Christian Churches were placed in charge of any two of the major functions of the Federal government or even just shared that jurisdiction? How about establishing Post Offices and post Roads; and to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures. Do you think that the Supreme Court would allow such an action? Of course not. The Churches have their duties and the governments have their duties, and if either entity encroaches upon the others duties then the First Amendment has been violated. Congress has violated the separation doctrine by stealing the domain and duty of the Christian Churches.
Christianity is the religion of the United States of America. Without it, America will lose its liberty and its republican government. Noah Webster said it unequivocally:
If there is a possibility of founding a perfectly free government, and giving it permanent duration, it must be raised upon the pure maxims, and supported by the undecaying practice, of that religion, which breathes “peace on earth, and good will to men.” That religion is perfectly republican... The universal prevalence of that religion, in its true spirit, would banish tyranny from the earth. Yet this religion has been perverted, and in many countries, made the basis of a system of ecclesiastical domination, which has enslaved the minds of men, as political power had before enslaved their bodies. To correct these evils, a set of fanatical reformers, called philosophers, charging that oppression to the religion itself, which sprung only from its abuses, have boldly denied the sacred origin of Christianity, and attempted to extirpate its doctrines and institutions. Strange, indeed, that the zealous advocates of a republican government, should wage an inveterate war against the only system of religious principles, compatible with rational freedom, and calculated to maintain a republican Constitution!
The care of the poor and needy is the obligation of churches and families; for it must be a voluntary act or it becomes tyranny. Satan is the master of lies and establishes his counterfeit plans to imitate those of Christ. Even when they appear to be built upon principles that appear at first glance to be “specious,” if they contain forced charity their author is Satan and must be avoided at all cost. If they are embraced, they will prove the downfall of both the individual and the nation.
Christ is the author of liberty, and Satan is the author of slavery. Choose you this day whom ye will serve!
| « (12.1) Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section (14.1) » |