Is the New Sarah Palin Just More of the Same?

We have had a pretty hectic past week in politics. Versions of Obama's health plan are being considered in Congress, oil has slid 10%, there was the meeting between the U.S. and Russia concerning nuclear weapons and, let us not forget, Sarah Palin's surprising decision to resign as Governor of Alaska. It is this last bit of news that I am interested in taking a look at today. What is Palin really up to? Is this just more of what the media has been labeling "erratic behavior," or is there more to it than that?

After reading the transcript of Palin's speech in Wasilla, Alaska, I am not ready to side with those who suggest she is retiring or going into hiding. While I am not sure if she is hinting at running for office on a third-party ticket in the future, or if her intention is to speak wherever people will listen, I do believe she is intending to make herself heard in a big way. The question that every Libertarian should be asking themselves is will this be a good thing for us, or a bad thing?

While much has been made of her swing of support from Ron Paul to John McCain, during 2008, what I find more interesting are the references toward smaller government in this latest speech. I am not one who feels that people are who they are and will never change; especially when those people are forced to reconsider their current positions from a new viewpoint. This, I believe, is what Palin has been doing since running on John McCain's ticket as V.P. and dealing with the media's unrelenting assault on her.

If she is a true proponent of smaller, less-intrusive government, as she claimed in her speech, and she intends to run for Presidential office, I feel she is going to have a tough road ahead of her. The problem is that she has already subjected herself to the harshness of the media. Because of this, people now have an opinion of her; a lot of it not so nice. But this doesn't mean all is lost just yet.

The truth is, Palin already has the look. In today's political process, those taken the most seriously are those who look best on T.V. Personally, I feel this is where the Libertarian party has failed in the past. One's ideas can make all the sense in the world, but unless the face of the party is reasonably good-looking those ideas will fall upon deaf ears. It's sad, but true.

Next, one has to be able to speak effectively when put on the spot. Unfortunately, her interview with Katie Couric in September of 2008 really hurt Palin a lot. She was clearly not ready to answer the questions that were raised by Katie. This will probably be the thing she has the most trouble getting past in the public's eyes. That being said, it is far from impossible.

If a presidential run is not in the cards, is it possible that she is looking to make her voice heard through a talk show? This, I would say, is probably the most probable to happen; at least at first. After all, she has already signed a book deal. A talk show would be a great way for Palin to extend her voice after the release of her book. It would also give her a chance to get more people on her side and prepare herself for a future run at President.

Either way, I feel that if she has truly taken the "smaller government is better" belief to heart, then Libertarians should be supporting her. She's already a household name. With a little cleaning up and damage control she just could turn out to be the voice of Libertarian ideals. And, let's face it, with mainstream media ignoring us, we need all the help we can get. We'll just have to wait and see how all this turns out.

Blind Patriotism is Not True Patriotism

"The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance of official policy, but a love of one's country deep enough to call her to a higher standard."
- George McGovern

What powerful words those are. Yet these days patriotism has become synonymous with blindly supporting one's government regardless of its course. It hasn't always been this way. In fact patriotism used to refer to an individual who stood up against domestic tyranny. Such were the men who fought and died for this country's independence from Great Britain. No one would doubt these men were great patriots. What a difference time makes.

These labels have become a strong and effective way to control the populace by turning one group of people against the other. After all, nobody wants to be labeled a traitor. As long as both major parties can continue to label the other as such, the populace will continue arguing over this distinction and not pay attention to the federal government's real usurpation of power. The people have become marionettes for the great puppet master that is government. Because of this, it is important for one to realize government's actual function is to serve the people. That's right, contrary to what one has been raised to believe, the federal government is their servant, not their master.

Since the true purpose of government is to secure an individual's liberty, and liberty is the ability to choose and live one's life as he or she sees fit, as long as it does not infringe upon these same rights of their neighbor, there can be no expectation of blind patriotism. However, this is exactly what the bulk of the American populace does today. They have become lazy in their vigilance and have succumbed to supporting one party or the other because of issues that they are goaded into believing are the most important. They lose sight of what truly matters. And, at the end of the day, the only thing that changes is the size and scope of government; it continues to grow larger and more encompassing. Unfortunately, as government grows it takes from the people the very liberty it was created to protect. Therefore, to blindly follow is for one to give up their own liberty and live their life in servitude.

This servitude, however, clearly goes against human nature. If it did not there would never have been an American Revolution. People would not have given their lives for their liberty. There would never have been laws outlawing slavery and today's culture would be much like that of society a hundred and fifty years ago. But the reality of the situation is that there has been change. People have stood up and demanded their freedom from oppression. And here we sit a better people because of it. So before one blindly follows their government in the name of patriotism just remember that the true patriot is the one who stands up to domestic tyranny before it can oppress his neighbor.

The Constitution is Not a "Living" Document

When one refers to the Constitution as being a "living" document they are referring to their ability to interpret the meaning behind the words written as they relate to today's society. This should be the first clue that the Constitution is, in fact, not a "living" document. By reading the debates given at the time by the various Founding Fathers, along with their personal letters, one can see the importance that the individual's basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness held. Therefore, one must ask him or herself why these men would allow for these rights to be usurped by their government. The obvious answer is that they wouldn't.

Those that would have one believe, because times are different and the world is a much more global place than it once was, there is no room for a piece of paper that was written over two hundred years ago are merely employing smoke and mirrors so that they may change the meaning of this great document without having to go through the process of amending it. But why would anyone do this? What do they have to gain from this sleight of hand? By their nature, constitutional amendments are difficult and time-consuming to pass. If one can simply refer to the document as "living" then they are able to bypass the amendment process.

One has to understand that the amendment process was designed in such way as to provide for only the most agreeable additions to be added to the Constitution. In doing this, the integrity of the document, along with its original intent, was guaranteed not to materially change based on the whim of whatever party happened to be in control of Congress at the time. Today, this would also protect the Constitution from being changed by whatever lobbyist group happened to have the ear, or more appropriately the pocket, of a Congressman or woman. The reality of the situation is that the checks and balances system devised by our Founding Fathers has proven to be ineffective in controlling the usurpation of power by the various branches of government. This, however, is more a result of the people's refusal to keep tabs on their government.

When one allows the document to be understood as "living" they are, in effect, giving the Supreme Court the ability to legislate from the bench. The Founders seeing a strong judicial branch as undesirable gave them the least amount of governmental power. As the world has seen, however, the Supreme Court has turned this around, usurping power and quickly becoming the strongest branch. This has allowed the beliefs of a person, rather than the people of the United States, to become law. By working through the amendment process a future amendment has a much greater chance of being rejected. If legislation comes from the bench it only has to be agreed upon by a majority of the nine sitting justices. As President Lincoln warned in his First Inaugural Address (1861), "If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

So, because one cannot refer to the Constitution as a "living" document and expect to be guaranteed his or her rights it is unbelievable that it was ever intended that way by our Founding Fathers. The Constitution is our ultimate protection from a tyrannical government, but we have to be careful to protect it. If we are to continue allowing the usurpation of power and misapplication of the meaning of the Constitution we will be applying our own chains of servitude. As the great German thinker, Johann Goethe, once said, "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

Technorati Post

fvd3rwg2su

Ignore this post. It is required for Technorati.com.

The Time Has Come to Stand Up and Declare Your Independence

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
- Patrick Henry, speech to the Virginia Convention, March 23, 1775

One would be hard-pressed to single out a more significant account of today's situation in America. We are currently facing a recession perpetrated by the very government that we have put into power, with bailouts and social programs engineered to take advantage of this situation and remove a great deal of every individual's liberty. At no time in history has the grab for our freedom been as great other than during the Great Depression. Just as Patrick Henry's speech sparked Virginia's entry into the American Revolution, it must, today, spark the whole of the American people into action.

However, we must all first accept responsibility for what has become of this once-great nation. Only after we realize that we have caused this can we turn it around. We used to be the country with freedoms that dreams were made of. Today, this is happening less and less. We have become that which our ancestors fought so hard to separate from. Whereas Great Britain was the empire of the time, we have now taken its place. The U.S. has involved itself in the personal affairs of every corner of the world. And to what ends? What has this done for we, the people? It has only succeeded in making the world a much less safe place for us to live in.

While we have slept precedent after precedent has been set allowing the government to usurp an incredible amount of liberty from us. If we continue to allow this to happen we will be known as the greatest people to ever live at one time only to have slept while they were chained to the debt of special interests. We will be nothing more than slaves; a mere distant recollection of what once was.

It has come time for us to wake up; to take back that which is rightfully ours. Our ancestors did not die fighting for our freedom just to have us tell them that we are “too busy” with our day-to-day lives to do anything about the loss of it. We owe it to our grandchildren to make sure they do not grow up with chains around their necks. We owe it to everyone past and future to not allow this usurpation of liberty to continue.

On this day, July 4, 2009, we owe it to ourselves to stand up and proclaim that we will not bow down to the tyranny that has become our government. We need to speak loudly and let them know that they will never again have the power to decide our lives for us. It is up to every last one of us to accept responsibility for our own lives; to be accountable to ourselves. Then, and only then, will we be able to take back our liberty and, once again, have our country become the place where dreams are encouraged and the possibilities endless. Only then will we know true freedom.

Individual Rights and the Constitution

In June of 2008 the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment refers to an individual's right to bear arms. Though it has taken 217 years, "Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia [writing for the majority] said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by 'the historical narrative' both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted. [1]" Simply stated, since the same wording in the rest of the amendments refers to an individual's rights it is then correctly understood that the Second Amendment also refers to an individual's rights. But the question remains why are the Constitutional amendments concerned with the rights of the individual?

The Founding Fathers, realizing that some form of government was needed, also understood that, historically, governments had a tendency to outgrow their original intention and become oppressive. Because these Founders had just come from such tyranny it was paramount to them that they protect future generations from such usurpation of power. The tenth amendment specifically states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [2]" This amendment solidified the true meaning of the basis of power in the Constitution.

Unfortunately, 200+ years later, our people find themselves without a true understanding of that very power embedded within those pages. As the years passed, and people became complacent or "too busy" with their daily lives to keep those trusted with our liberty in check, government has grown to an unfathomable size. Now we find ourselves fighting for the very rights guaranteed in the Constitution. It must be understood, the federal government was intended to serve us, not the other way around. Its original intention was to guarantee that the individual's basic rights were protected against all who would try to take it. The Founders purposely limited the power and scope of the federal government because they correctly understood that this government could never effectively oversee such a large area as the United States was to become; that local government better understood its people and their wants and needs.

This is why the original amendments referred to an individual's rights and why it was so important. As can be seen today, power and control is easily usurped when the people do not remain vigilant in its protection. The nature of government is to increase in size and power, which is why the checks and balances were put into place. But even these checks and balances need to be carefully watched over. The Founding Fathers, wise to the ways of big government, foresaw this and did everything they could to protect future generations against encroaching federal power. It was then left up to us to make sure that this new central power was restrained on a daily basis. To this I say we have failed. We have failed to protect ourselves and we have failed to protect future generations. Yet all is not lost. We still have the ability to reign in the monstrosity that has become our federal government.

Regardless of what those in power would have you believe, this central government is still our servant, not our master. But, we must band together today and stand up to it. How much does your freedom mean to you? Are you willing to give up phantom freedom and fight for the real thing; to taste the sweetness that is true liberty? Or are you going to sit there and pretend all is well as you allow the chains of servitude to slowly be tightened around your grandchildren's necks? Their future is your responsibility. The choice is yours.

Works Cited

[1] Associated Press. "Court Rules in Favor of Second Amendment Gun Right." Los Angeles Times. 26 June 2008. 4 July 2009 <http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/26/nation/na-scotus27>.

[2] "The United States Constitution." U.S. Constitution Online. 6 February 2009. 4 July 2009 <http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#am10>.

Obama and His Health Care Scam

The problem with government-sponsored health care, or any government-sponsored program for that matter, is that it is highly-inefficient. Under Obama's plan the government would step in and offer a cheaper form of health insurance, based on the current Medicare system, thereby causing private insurance to be more competitive. At least that's the statement from the President. But let's look at the reality of the situation.

In order to support his claim that his plan will work, Obama starts and ends it based on the misconception that Medicare, not private insurance, has kept medical costs down. The truth is actually a lot more depressing. According to the latest Medicare Trustees report, "(Medicare's) projected unfunded liabilities over 75 years, from 2007 to 2082, are about $36 trillion." This hardly sounds like a model program from which to derive another medical insurance plan. As Shikha Dalmia, senior analyst at the Reason Foundation and writer of a bi-weekly column for Forbes, points out in her article "Snake Oil for Our Health Care Ills," "If current trends persist, by the end of that time Medicare will be devouring 19% of gross domestic product or $3 trillion, an amount equal to the entire U.S. budget right now. It will take a heartburn-inducing 135% increase in payroll taxes to bring it into actuarial balance." She also goes on to add "the Government Accountability Office lists Medicare as a 'high-risk' program, thanks to its long-term financial problems and its vulnerability to fraud." It's difficult to see how anyone can support the creation of a new program which is based on such a high-risk one.

The reality, however, does not get any better. In fact, it continues to get much worse as one learns that it is precisely because of government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, that private insurance is so expensive. Simply telling a company to lower its costs does not make it any less expensive for the company to do business, yet this is exactly what government insurance does. Unfortunately, someone has to pick up the tab for these underpayments, and that someone is the private insurance holder. According to a study performed last December by Milliman Inc., which was referenced in Dalmia's article, "underpayment by Medicare and Medicaid accounted for nearly an 11% increase in the health care costs of private plans. This means that on average a privately insured family is forced to pick up about $1,800 extra every year of the government's slack. Private plans, all in all, are subsidizing government programs to the tune of $90 billion annually." That's a heck of a lot of money for you and I to be paying when we're already working as hard as we are just to do what we can to take care of our own families.

Free-market competition is the only true catalyst for efficiency. The resulting fallout from this government-sponsored medical sham is the loss of private insurance and the explosion of costs associated with this loss. Once private insurance is gone we will all be required to pay into the State's coffers and accept what they choose to give us, which won't be much. Remember, nothing is truly free. There is always a cost. In this case, the government will require personal information in return for this insurance, and once they have this they will be able to determine who is allowed to use what portion of the medical system at what point. Central planning only begets more central planning. I, for one, would much rather retain my right to choose whom I see, for what, and when.

On Government Manipulation

Though manipulation of society is commonplace among governments, whether they be Democratic, Collectivist, Totalitarian, or otherwise, it should never be tolerated. Individuals must always remain vigilant in the protection of their neighbor's liberty, for that is the only way to ensure their own. The dirty truth is that when people lobby for government manipulation it is usually done for one of only two reasons: 1.) the law being considered will give them a significant advantage over their counterparts or 2.) it will force others to live their lives as the lobbyist sees fit. Neither of these constitutes an acceptable excuse for government intervention and manipulation. Liberty is the ability to make decisions concerning one's own life and accepting the responsibility for these decisions. As long as the individual is not infringing on those same rights of his or her neighbor, then government should not be intervening.

This abuse of power is becoming more and more difficult to curb with every passing day, however, as people have learned that if they claim the proposed legislation is for the "betterment of society" then most of their contemporaries will accept this excuse without fully considering the ramifications of what they are allowing. Who gets to decide what "morals" society should be forced to live by? And what makes one person's "morals" higher than another's? By allowing government to force others to do what her or she wants, the lobbyist is also giving the government the ability to do the same to them. At no time in history has any government ever resisted the opportunity to usurp more power. Given a foot, they will always take a mile.

Unfortunately, the only time the full scope of this reality becomes apparent to those advocating government manipulation is when their own rights are infringed upon. Then instead of working to repeal the over-reaching legislation that was passed in the first place, they do everything they can to pass even more legislation, and this cycle continues; each party using the government as a tool to Lord over the personal lives of their neighbor. In the end, the only true winner in this scenario is the government. With each passing law this leviathan increases its size, scope, and power. It reaches its tentacles ever deeper into the personal lives of every man, woman, and child, making sure to take from them their last vestiges of liberty until all that is left is a society of slaves. And where, I ask, is the morality in slavery?

Libertarians

Thomas Jefferson once said, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” Unfortunately, too many a good man has stood idly by as those in power have continued to erode, from the people, essential liberty. It is precisely this liberty which guarantees one's right to make mistakes, and gives one the opportunity to learn from them. It is not in the truest character of man to be “saved from oneself.” And there is not a more competent teacher than failure. But these days one must fight for that which one was once expected to embrace.

America, as great as she once was, has become a country whose very morality is grounded in welfare and warfare; a society in which it is believed that might makes right and military supremacy equates to moral superiority. We are a country that has allowed herself to be governed by special interests, both corporate and religious, and as a result are no longer for the people by the people. Our election process, originally installed as a guarantee of liberty and for the protection of the smallest minority, the individual, has become the battleground for the unceremonious coercion of acceptance of one's beliefs by the rest of the nation through threat of force. As long as those in society who believe in this are left unchallenged we will continue to drift down this river of inequity.

Thankfully, the presidential election of 2008 showed us that there are a great number of people willing to stand up, in the face of ridicule, and defend their right to liberty against the tyranny that our government has become. These people accept the challenge of defending their neighbor though their neighbor may not even understand what it is they, themselves, believe. It is not Republican versus Democrat as our two-party system would have you believe, rather it is Liberty against all challengers. Their voices for freedom are strong for they continue to be heard even though corporate-owned media refuses to acknowledge them. They are not willing to accept the loss of society's liberty under the guise of “security.” These are the people that understand that to continually force our will upon the rest of the world only results in the rest of the world retaliating against us; that we would do the same thing if confronted by such nonsense. War is not safety, nor is ignorance bliss. I proudly stand up and count myself as one among this great group of revolutionaries. We are the true patriots.