The Preamble Does not Contain a "Moral Obligation to help the Poor in the World" Clause

In the Detroit News today, there is a story about how the Obama administration wants to spend $63 billion to fund world health.

At some point, our political leaders decided that the best way to protect my life, liberty, and property was to support the creation of a fund that would fight global diseases and help children's health. I'm looking at the Constitution right now- I can't figure out how more American taxpayer money to people in other countries for prenatal and postnatal care helps create a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, or promote the general welfare of the people of the United States.

Probably this legislation when it was passed talked about how the creation of this fund would go towards helping the common defense- that spending American taxpayer money on providing healthcare for someone in another nation would make him feel more supportive to the United States. I suppose the argument was that I would be better protected against crime and death if money were spent to create a global perception that the United States cares, and this might lessen the draw of terrorism or something. I disagree with this argument, and I feel the money could be spent better elsewhere to accomplish the goals of protecting me and keeping me free, but I can see the argument.

In fact, under the Bush administration, these very arguments were made- there was an effort to provide funding to improve health in the world's poorest places, as some argued that these efforts could improve the United States' image and security. I get it- I don't agree, but I get it.

But, what I do not agree with or get is the idea that my hard-earned and hard-worked for taxpayer money should be diverted to another nation because of "a responsibility to protect the health of people... reducing suffering, and support the health and dignity of people everywhere." That's not in the Constitution, Mr. Obama, and I do not support expanding US efforts to fund healthcare for the world by over $63 billion.

When actions like this are undertaken, purposefully separated from their legal and moral justifications, they become illegal and immoral, and thus any patriot should oppose them, and that is exactly what Obama has done- he has said that the reason why we should spend this taxpayer provided government money to compete against private healthcare around the world is not to provide for the common defense, but to "moral obligation to help the world's poorest and most threatened populations". There is no such obligation in the Constitution, Mr. President. There is however a clearly written obligation to follow our Constitution as written- you ignore that when you follow this 'moral' obligation to take my money to 'help the world.'

At what point do we find it necessary to remove this guy from office? At what point will voters realize that Obama does not see them as free and equal people, but rather slaves to his personal desires and wants? At what point will I be provided with decent respect for my views and my work, and not be mocked or threatened? Just exactly who does Obama think provides liberty and prosperity- the government or the people? Why does Obama think that government has been provided with power- to go off fixing every problem in the world, or only to protect my life, liberty, and property? I ask you, fellow patriots and readers of my blog, at what point are the evils of this man's presidency too sufferable?