Christine Smith’s Blog

Getting Your “Fair Share”?

Charity begins where?

Many of us have heard that charity begins in the heart. From a conscious choice within to express goodwill toward another, an individual then lets that decision to be charitable be implemented with the tool of their mind. Action follows.

This, of course, can occur from individual to individual, individual to a group or cause, or from like minded individuals joining together to express charity toward others. It’s always a free will choice to give one’s time, talents, possessions or money to assist another who has need of something you possess.

Contrast that with the rarely challenged and highly government propagandized notion that to be charitable is synonymous with government taking your money (taxes) and distributing it to people who they say need it more than you. To accept this is to 1. Agree that the money you earn isn’t yours at all, but that your work and its income belongs to the collective, a collective to which you have an obligation - enforced by the threat of fines and/or incarceration. 2. Agree that you are incompetent to determine for yourself if and to whom is worthy for you to give your resources to.

I seriously doubt too many people would voice agreement to either point one or two. And, yet, many of these same people will actually defend and support the multitude of government programs, which they pay heavily for, simply because it’s got a good sounding ring to it. But government programs are as far away from true charity as it comes. They are, in my opinion, based on threat, exploitation, greed, power, and control - the antithesis of true charity, even hurting the very ones they proclaim to care for. Add to this that if a private charity operated with the bureaucratic waste and unaccountability that government often does, it being exposed, wouldn’t last for long since few people want to throw away their money to enrich another who simply claims the money is going toward a good cause - most of us want to know the money we give goes predominantly to the cause.

Your fair share

 A few weeks ago, I received a letter (”Presorted First-class postage & fees paid”) which I assumed was the census, but upon its opening, I found it was yet another piece of federal government propaganda notifying me that I would soon be receiving the census and instructing me to “mail it in promptly” because my response was ‘important” so my “community” would get its “fair share” since that “fair share” includes “government funds for highways, schools, health facilities, and many other programs you and your neighbors need.”

Postage was spent to send a preliminary letter letting me know to be ready for the census.

The U.S. Census Bureau has undertaken one of the largest propaganda machines I’ve seen with their “Road Tour” whose intent is “to motivate America’s growing and increasingly diverse population” to mail the census back by appearing at “local parades and festivals to major sporting events like the Super Bowl and NCAA Final Four”, TV and radio ads, a census sponsored race car in the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series races, and PSAs, saying on their website that “The advertising campaign represents the most extensive and diverse outreach campaign in U.S. history, with advertisements appearing in 28 languages,” and that “For every percentage point increase in the 2010 Census mail-back participation rate, the Census Bureau saves about $85 million in follow-up costs with households that failed to return their forms.”

Yet somehow I don’t believe “costs” are much of a concern- what with all their personal visits of census workers, even sometimes to deliver the census rather than sending it by mail. And most importantly, the census has become something far beyond a simple headcount as called for in the Constitution.

Fact is, I “need” nor want none of what the federal government wants me to excitedly and eagerly take from other people, I need only to be left alone with my full share which is everything I earn, to give or keep as I so choose. I’m one who investigates charitable causes, examining their overhead costs with their actual charitable work, and am selective in who and what I support based on my values. I have to trust an organization before I give. I “share” my resources with those I choose to help. The federal government fails to meet my requirements as a trusted entity, and unlike any other organization which must earn a contributor’s trust - it doesn’t ask for money, it demands and takes it by force.

The whole idea of getting a “fair share” is repulsive and despicable because it condones the immoral government sanctioned/imposed socialism and the legalized theft it relies upon. None are of are owed anything from our fellow countrymen, and yet our nation has devolved into acceptance of all manner of taxpayer funded “entitlements” as a way of life.

People wouldn’t be fighting over getting back those dollars if it weren’t taken from them to begin with. Government gives us nothing because it creates nothing - it merely takes what we earn and says they in government know better than we how to spend our earnings.

All I want is for the money the federal government has taken to be given back to the individuals from which it came. Not returned through a “program” but as real money to individuals whose money was forcibly taken from them. All I “need” is to be able to keep all I earn to do with as I please - including providing for my own retirement as well as health insurance free from all government intrusion. What I also need is a state government who will step up and refuse to be subservient to the federal government’s regulations and stipulations which take away the rights and liberties of their citizens; a state government that places individual liberty above any collective want.

The lion’s share

And, with tax time upon us, I marvel sadly at the pathetic people who appear to happily compliment the government for all its help provided taxpayers in getting their taxes paid on time. They speak as if they’d be grateful if, in being robbed, the robber kindly offered to assist them by opening their wallet for them.

Even many of those citizens who complain about doing their taxes will defend that very tyranny when they encounter the libertarian idea of ending the income tax.

Obviously, government propaganda has worked enormously well; decades of indoctrination has made a people forget the origins of this country and the principles upon which it was founded.

Instead of challenging the wasteful, immoral, evil, and certainly unconstitutional ways the money taken from them is used for, many instead concern themselves with getting the so called “fair share” for their state and community from the federal government, while the monstrous federal government smugly takes the lion’s share for itself.

The only source of charity

Many seek to feel good without choosing to do good. There’s a big difference between abiding or complying with what you’re legally forced to do in this society, and making a conscience decision to take a particular action, of your own free will, to benefit another. Without choice, there is no virtue. There is nothing particularly virtuous, and certainly nothing charitable, in simply obeying the laws.

True charity is a voluntary giving, it comes not from the actions you are forced to comply with (whether you agree with them or not). It neither begins nor can ever come from any government agency or program because the funding was taken forcibly thereby eliminating all free choice to love or not. The only “share” you’re ethically entitled to is that which you earn or that which is voluntarily given you.

I began this blog with a question: Charity begins where?

The answer is, of course, in your heart. Some say “at home.” Same thing. It begins with the free will choice of an individual to help another. It is void of all coercion. In fact, it’s such a strong force it comes to the rescue of all people and all causes, often with relief, provision, and even abundance. There is no scarcity, only a government which manipulates with fear (including the fear of scarcity) to deceive the people into accepting they need government to provide “charity” for their every need.

Despite the fact so much of our money is taken from us by government, we’re still a most generous, compassionate charitable nation. Even when the effects of government intrusion into our economic lives is at its worst, with the repercussions being suffered nationwide, we’re still a charitable people. We give to our friends and family in times of their need, to our favorite charities, our churches, and even to worldwide relief in times of disaster. We open our hearts first, then our wallets. And when we’re on the receiving end, be it someone volunteering their time or a tangible item or a monetary gift to help us, we experience gratitude because we realize that person or organization didn’t have to help - they weren’t forced to help - they helped because they wanted to.

That being the case, just think what we could do to help others if we were able to keep the money currently taken from us by government - if we kept all or most of what we earned. Imagine the increase in contributions for every cause you care about. The homeless and the ill…the struggling, hurting, alone or hungry…to the arts and education and environment…no matter the cause, there’d be no more talk of trying to get back a “fair share” from the federal government because the money would have been kept with those who earned it. Those who choose to give could give so much more from their earnings, resulting in no artificial limit - because there’s no limit to the capacity to love within the human heart - the only source of charity.

Individual Rights, The 10th and 17th Amendments, & States (audio)

“Transparency” in Government (radio interview audio)

Today, Feb. 2, 2010, I was again interviewed on Paul Molloy’s Freedom Works! radio show (heard on WTAN (TanTalk) Radio – 1340 AM in Tampa Bay, FL – as well as on KLRG – 880 AM – in Little Rock, Arkansas…with WTAN covering “more than 3,000,000 people in and around” the Tampa Bay, Florida region and KLRG heard in “Little Rock, Arkansas; Memphis, TN; Branson, MO; and parts of Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana.”

Topic: “Transparency” in Government.

I invite you to listen (audio approximately 20 minutes).  CLICK HERE.

Highly recommended reading: Trust Freedom, Not Statism by Jacob G. Hornberger

Highly recommended reading: Trust Freedom, Not Statism by Jacob G. Hornberger

My Campaign Website

http://www.ElectChristineSmith.com

(audio) Radio Interview - healthcare reform (with discussion of The Tenth Amendment)

 Today, Jan. 12, 2010, I was interviewed by Paul Molloy on his Freedom Works! radio show (heard on WTAN (TanTalk) Radio - 1340 AM in Tampa Bay, FL - as well as on KLRG - 880 AM - in Little Rock, Arkansas…with WTAN covering “more than 3,000,000 people in and around” the Tampa Bay, Florida region and KLRG heard in Arkansas and  “Memphis, TN; Branson, MO; and parts of Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana.”

Topic: the debate over healthcare reform (including a discussion of The Tenth Amendment).
I invite you to listen. (audio approximately 15 minutes).

“The End Does Not Justify The Means” in The Newjurist International Law Magazine

The Newjurist International Law Magazine has published my article “The End Does Not Justify The Means.”

Email Malfunction

NOTE: The “christine@christinesmith.us” email malfunctioned. Those interested in contacting me regarding my political campaign may telephone (719) 966-4788. If you have previously sent an email within the last three days to email above I will not have received it. The campaign website (and email) will be available shortly.

The Road Waiting to Be Taken

Excerpt from my article:

“Reading Friedrich A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, one is amazed that a book published 64 years ago could paint such an accurate picture of where the United States is headed today. Hayek’s warning of the dangers of centralized planning and his cautioning that well-intentioned planning can degrade into tyranny describes the road the United States embarked upon several decades ago and has traveled ever since. We now live in a nation where many people give only lip service to the free market and its fruits of economic and personal freedom…”

I invite you to read my article, The Road Waiting to Be Taken, published by The Future of Freedom Foundation.

Announcement of My Decision to Seek Political Office in 2010

NOTE: The “christine@christinesmith.us” email malfunctioned. Those interested in contacting me regarding my political campaign may telephone (719) 966-4788. If you have previously sent an email within the last three days to email above I will not have received it. The campaign website (and email) will be available shortly.

I share the following letter which I wrote to Colorado Libertarians with my readers.

I welcome support from libertarians nationwide. Thank you!

Colorado Libertarians:

I am seeking the Colorado State House District 60 seat in the 2010 election representing the counties Chaffee, Custer, Fremont, Park, Pueblo, and Saguache.

As a libertarian, I cherish individual liberty. I am devoted to freedom (rejecting the control of economic and social affairs by the state). Free markets, private property, and a greater ability to keep one’s earnings built this nation and this state, and I seek to help make Colorado better by working to restore the principle of limited government. I will not compromise libertarian principles. I believe all people should be able to live their lives as they choose, as long as they harm no other. This applies to every issue - no exceptions.

Having lived in Colorado for 24 years, I understand the concerns which matter to the people in my district as well as the rest of our beautiful state, and believe libertarian principles applied to every issue will bring freedom (and its fruit of greater prosperity and well being) to our citizens.

I will campaign diligently, as the key to this election will be meeting with as many citizens in this region as possible. Many in my district are receptive to ideas of liberty to extricate themselves from the bureaucratic, big spending, intrusive control of the government. People are upset about the taxation, greater fees, infringements of their rights, and regulations they currently suffer under. I will bring the message of libertarianism and its solutions to my district by campaigning to be a voice for liberty in our State House.

Simultaneously, I want to share the Libertarian Party of Colorado with them, as I believe libertarians joining together at the state/local level is the means to gain political power to advance liberty. I am one who believes that the sharing of ideas on liberty and the libertarian philosophy is very powerful, but I also know to affect political change we need to join together as a political party in our state to accomplish that. Friends of mine have urged me to differentiate between what we libertarians joining together in our state through the LPCO can accomplish, and my disillusionment with the National Libertarian Party/Libertarian National Committee in past years. I agree, and realize that together we have an opportunity to accomplish so much for individual liberty through the LPCO, and I want to join with my fellow Colorado Libertarians to see what we can do together to make this a freer state. I realize that each state LP chapter is an autonomous entity which can be a powerful tool to work for individual liberty. (Formerly, I was a candidate for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination in 2008. During my campaign, I was gratified to receive support from many Libertarians nationwide (including receiving a landslide victory over the other LP candidates in the California primary on Super Tuesday,) and appreciated the opportunity to speak at LP conventions in eight states.)

I have spent the past three weeks speaking with others about issues in my region, and the strategy my campaign will pursue. I (and others I have spoken with) believe my campaign for this office is winnable. There are many libertarian-leaning voters here, they might not (yet) have an “L” by their name, but they desire greater freedom and liberty - and that’s what I promise to work for in the Colorado State House of Representatives.

In the month of January 2010 my campaign website will be up and running. It will be a well-made political website focusing upon my platform in regards to issues of concern in my district and my statement of principles, and will be able to accept monetary contributions to my candidate campaign committee.

I seek to now hear from all Libertarians who are interested in helping achieve this goal. I welcome your input and assistance. I want to learn from you. And, those who may be interested in volunteering - please let me know your ideas, suggestions, and availability to share your talents and abilities with my campaign. I want to listen to your ideas, and answer your questions. Throughout this campaign, I want to work together with fellow Colorado Libertarians, and I welcome hearing from you now. You may telephone me at (719) 966-4788. Thank you!

Meanwhile, to learn more about me, I invite you to my personal website: http://www.christinesmith.us
(Again, shortly I will be announcing the campaign website, but meanwhile, as an introduction to you, I share my personal website. As soon as the campaign website is functional, an announcement will be placed upon my personal website homepage linking to the campaign site.)

I begin campaigning throughout the six counties of my district in January (and could use your help in those counties!). I welcome your volunteer assistance, ideas, advice and financial support.

I look forward to working with individual Libertarians and the Libertarian Party of Colorado throughout this campaign.

I want to fight for our liberties in Colorado as a Libertarian in the State House of Representatives. Will you help?

Thank you,
Christine Smith
From personal website (brief bio, audio & video clips, articles):
I invite you to visit the “About Christine” page.

El Batallón de San Patricio : One Man’s Hero…

…as the phrase goes, is another man’s traitor.

Such was the case of the fascinating true story told in the 1998 film One Man’s Hero (starring Tom Berenger, Daniela Romo, and Joaquim de Almeida, and directed by Lance Hool) which chronicles the plight of Irish Catholic immigrants who came to America to escape dire poverty, disease and starvation in Ireland resulting from The Great Famine (a result of a blight upon the potato crop they relied upon).

Thinking that the United States of America and its promise of a better life (citizenship for them and their families if young men entered the U.S. Army) was the answer, many young men joined up as a means to provide a better life for themselves and their families.

But the U.S. government cared less of its treatment to the Irish Catholics than setting its sights on building empire.

Mexico had fought long and hard for its independence from Spain, and its citizens weren’t about to passively let the “Manifest Destiny” desire fueling the expansion of the United States in its acquisition of more and more land the Mexican government viewed as its own.

Seeing an opportunity to strike Mexico during a weak point (while Mexico was suffering from instability preoccupied in its own inner revolution, struggles and political turmoil), the U.S. took it - apparently not to just to (re)acquire or protect the land agreed to by a former treaty (unratified by Mexico) but to advance as far as possible westward (and as it turned out southward). In short, the United States government would take it as far as they could without regard to the Mexican government and people, and escalated hostilities by placing troops near the Rio Grande River which was viewed as a hostile/aggressive action against Mexican territory. The Neuces River had long been recognized as Mexico’s northern boundary prior to the independence of Texas.

The complexities of this war pertaining to Mexican sovereignty, Texan independence, its annexation, and Polk’s agenda require far greater in-depth research (which I recommend to you). Both Mexico and the United States claimed it was a war for defensive purposes. Numerous battles ensued, and this part of U.S. history is fascinating to research. There are volumes to be read on battles, economic factors, and the interactions and decisions made between and by both nations (including learning more of Santa Ana and Polk), as I share but a general broad overview here. There was opposition within the United States to the war against Mexico, with some calling it “Polk’s War,” viewing it as a war of aggression in an invasion of Mexico rather than a defense of Texas.

The St. Patrick Battalion

My focus here is on El Batallón de San Patricio, The St. Patrick Battalion, consisting primarily of Irish Catholic immigrants to the United States who deserted the U.S. Army and who joined the Mexican Army to fight the United States in the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). They fought bravely and gallantly in several major battles.

The Irish Catholics were persecuted within the U.S. Army due to discrimination (prevalent against immigrants at the time, especially those who were Catholic). The Mexicans shared two essential qualities with the Irish: Catholicism, and a desire for freedom.

The film, One Man’s Hero, tells the story of St. Patrick’s Battalion and their leader John Riley.

It’s an interesting film and story…with numerous quotations made throughout the film regarding the spirit of man and his yearning to be free which are reminiscent of every such battle now taking place in our world. The film’s telling of the story makes for a most interesting historical drama. I think that anyone who values liberty will find this film enjoyable and appreciate it on a number of levels. I shall refrain from sharing the outcome of the San Patricios’ mission, since if you’re not familiar with the story, the film will adequately illustrate how the U.S. government dealt with the “problem.”

The San Patricios are honored as heroes each month in Mexico (here’s an online photo with some details of the St. Patrick Battalion Memorial plaque in Mexico), as well as special commemorative ceremonies on September 12 and on St. Patrick’s Day.

As I viewed the film, I couldn’t help but consider the sad fact that the U.S. government has made imperialism its policy for so long (perverting and ignoring the founder’s intentions and warnings); that despite persecution and suffering the spirit of man is strong against injustice and doesn’t surrender to tyranny; and that a government cannot continually mistreat and abuse its soldiers without repercussions.

I recommend the film One Man’s Hero (its Amazon page), as well recommend Americans delve deeper regarding this part of our history which has been so long neglected.

Issues of Life: This Catholic’s spiritual & libertarian perspective

All my life I have meditated upon the sanctity of life and reverence for all life.

But only in the last year and a half, as my devotion to seeking understanding in my Catholic faith has become paramount in my life, have I felt an inner understanding as never before regarding certain issues.

In years past I wavered, torn between trying to use my mind to logically analyze matters and a deep heart sense of what I felt was truly spiritually and morally correct. Any discrepancy between what I felt deep down or believed true in years before (and have come to believe or return to again) and what I had sometimes expressed or condoned came to pain me. I allowed a wondering about certain beliefs to cause me to wander away. I’ve always been sincere, but as I look back, sometimes sincerely wrong.

Such is the weakness of letting only one’s mind and intellect guide them, rather than letting their heart and its devotion to God lead and then using one’s mind to implement the divine guidance provided. Reconciliation/confession, prayer, and sharing through my writing and personal conversations of what I realize spiritually has brought peace from that pain.

libertarianism

Since reading those such as Frederic Bastiat and Leonard Read, my understanding of freedom, liberty, and my personal faith has been clarified. It’s entirely consistent to practice or abstain from something yourself and not try to impose it upon others through the force of government.

Respecting the freedom of every individual to make personal choices, free from government coercion, allows all to reap the consequences (whether negative or positive), leading to personal responsibility which is an essential part of liberty.

In my opinion, the majority of politicians (regardless of political party affiliation) have no such respect for the freedom of the American people. Thus, government gets larger, more powerful, and uses its force to make laws resulting in more government intrusion into our lives. Rather than focusing on their job of upholding the U.S. Constitution, they meddle into people’s private lives, poking their heads into bedrooms, deciding what people can or cannot ingest, what we can or cannot see, and deciding who can “legally” take our private property. They behave as if they are the epitome of righteousness with the right to judge, condemn, and define for us what is moral or immoral, healthy or unhealthy, productive or non-productive, and thus what should be legal or illegal.

If one in or seeking public office feels they cannot uphold loyalty to the U.S. Constitution (or state constitution depending upon the office) because of religious beliefs, they should have the integrity not to seek elected office. As for me, my spiritual and religious beliefs govern my behavior, not the behavior of others. I respect the freedom for others to live as they choose as long as they harm no other. I would see no contradiction between my personal beliefs and my upholding of the Constitution.

Respecting Free Will

The legitimate use of law is for recourse when an injury has been caused to another. But as we know, many laws wrongly criminalize personal behavior.

Just as you would not want those with differing beliefs to force you to accept their values, you cannot condone the government forcing the beliefs you have upon others.

Personal behavior choices, social issues, and research are not a legitimate business of the federal government to determine what is permissible, discriminate against (or for), legislate, punish, or fund with taxpayer money.

Issues not within the Constitutional realm of the federal government (and very few are) should be left to the individual states. Can you imagine a nation where states were free from the many federal mandates/restrictions they now abide by? We could have a nation of states with their own distinct “personalities,” each operating primarily as its own sovereign power under their state constitutions yet as a state of The United States, where citizens of like-mindedness could vote, keeping many decisions closer to the people as they should be.

As a Christian, I share my beliefs with others and I willingly give to causes, charities and people I want to help, but I part company with many Christians because I do not want the government involved in legislating morality nor using taxpayer money for welfare, and I oppose the federal government stepping beyond its enumerated powers to dictate what states may do.

Sex & The Humanae Vitae teachings

As a Catholic, I seek to live in God’s will for my life. I want to learn and grow in faith; my devoutness comes from adhering to the teachings of the Church and is strengthened in prayer. My faith is integral to the way I live my life in every area.

Amazingly to me, I now feel a deep understanding inside (beyond mere mental understanding) of matters which perplexed or confused me before.

I can give you a direct example of where my eyes have been opened. It is in my understanding of the Humanae Vitae teachings found in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI in 1968.

Although all my life I have always regarded life as beginning at conception, I couldn’t understand how (artificial) contraception would contradict God’s will. It seems so apparent to me now. But for much of my life, I couldn’t grasp it.

Though I don’t have to consider contraception now since I am single (and believe sex to be a sacrament reserved for marriage), it’s still a matter I’ve given thought to understand. Now, I see it as directly a matter of trusting God. Just as I trust God to provide for me in life, so I would not exclude His will from a matter as sacred as to determine whether or when a new life should be brought forth. Likewise, very importantly and completely interrelated to that, I would want to keep nothing (not even temporarily) of myself artificially from my husband.

Unlike many of my friends and associates, I’ve never felt an urge to have a child as if it it were a necessity to my life, but always felt that if it’s meant to be, it would occur in a marriage to a wonderful man. The idea of having a child has always been inextricably linked to a deep desire to love a man whom I would respect, admire, cherish and help in every way I could…only within the idea of the prerequisite of being in such a relationship have I ever been able to imagine the possibility of having a child.

With that, has always come a knowing I would respect what the man finally chose in all matters of importance, not my own will. I am first subject to God, and secondly would be subject to the man whom I loved and married since he would also be one who puts God’s will first, and as such I would have a trust in his judgment above mine.

Unlike many other females, I don’t spend any time thinking about my “biological clock”; I simply trust and gratefully accept that which naturally happens in my life as God’s will for me. Whether I have a child, or if I never do, is in God’s hands, it’s not a matter I will try to artificially control one way or the other. If I were to marry, I would trust God’s omnipotence and omniscience to determine whether I would become pregnant or not. The blessing of being entrusted with giving birth to the child of the man God would have given me would be a great honor and responsibility - I trust God to determine whether that experience is meant for me or not. God would know what is right for us. Whoever I would be and the man would be when brought together in matrimony, (paraphrasing what the wedding vows say whether we’ve come together in sickness, health, prosperity, difficulties, fertility or not, or any other life circumstance), we would come under God’s hands and intentions to love one another as we are and to help each other grow.

My focus in marriage would be caring for and being a helpmate to the man in the authentic love God would have him receive.

Not Lonely, Though Alone

I am not lonely, but alone (in regards to the marriage sacrament and its unique blessings); I rest peacefully that if it ever be God’s will for a man who puts God first who would benefit from my companionship, and I from his, in serving God together, it would happen naturally, (probably) mysteriously and wondrously since I certainly am not someone who tries to meet others to date.

I’m busy and happy living my life, doing the work God has put before me and blessed me with. I trust God’s guidance and His timing if such a relationship were ever to happen. And if it did occur, I would want nothing to come between myself and the man God would have given me and given me to, for marriage is “by appointment of Jesus Christ, a sacred sign and symbol of his indissoluble union with his Church…” (The Manual of The Holy Catholic Church,  Rev. James J. McGovern, D.D., “The Sacred Bonds of Matrimony”).

Sex, as physically pleasurable and enjoyable as it is, is a gift meant to emanate from a spiritual union of two individuals. It represents God’s spiritual union with us. It is a sacred communication, joining, and sharing…a physical expression of the joyful spiritual union of two individuals giving themselves first to God, then to one another. It’s beautiful. Sexual desire is natural.  Its sharing with another individual is a gift from God for both. As such, I personally believe sexual union to be only for marriage.

I find this Scripture beautiful: “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.” (Mark 10: 6-8, KJV)

In Conclusion: Share What You Believe

A number of those I know are perplexed by my perception and personal choices when they discuss such matters with me. They speak from what they accept (what they consider a practical, pragmatic worldly approach) to life, but I have chosen (and that choice of faith has been strengthened continually inside my heart and in life) to “…walk by faith, not by sight.” (2 Corinthians 5:7 KJV)

Similarly, some of religious faith are also perplexed by my perception because they do not draw the line between their moral choices and respecting the the fundamental right of others to choose differently.

But the more I’ve shared of my faith, in addition to sharing my libertarian political stances, the more I’ve found there are those of us out there who adhere to both a religious faith and are simultaneously devoted to freedom and liberty. We may not be as rare as it sometimes seems. Perhaps all that is needed is for more of those who do live this way to make it known occasionally, so that others don’t automatically only associate Christians with those often vocal ones who have an inability to respect the freedom of people to live their lives as they choose.

For example, recently I had a happy experience of meeting someone at a political gathering who reached out and motioned toward my necklace (The Miraculous Medal which I always wear) while asking me if I were Catholic. When I replied yes, the lady was most insistent that we speak together before we left. We did: regarding our faith, our parishes, ministries we participated in, and what experiences we each had regarding sharing our liberty views with fellow believers and vice versa. Turned out she was a state representative. It was a most enjoyable sharing!

I think it’s important those with spiritual and religious basis for their life, who are libertarian, let others know; for that in itself can dispel many false assumptions among believers and non-believers.

As for one’s personal spiritual and religious choices - It takes courage and steadfastness; it requires forsaking mere intellectual arguments that exclude the reality of a spiritual life; it means putting total faith, trust, and love of God in one’s heart and then following your heart (and asking for guidance from God when questions or temptations arise) realizing that “Temptation is necessary to us to make us realise that we are nothing in ourselves.” - The Cure D’Ars - St. Jean-Marie-Baptiste Vianney, sermon “We Are Nothing In Ourselves.”

U.S.Govt. Busy Building Walls While World Celebrates Fall of Berlin Wall Anniversary

 The capacity for human beings to repeat serious mistakes astounds me.  One needn’t have suffered serious consequences themselves in order to learn from the experiences of others. 

But wisdom isn’t a word applicable to the U.S. government, nor it appears to many of the American people.
 
For if wise, this nation wouldn’t be hurrying to build walls between ourselves and the rest of the world.

One of the major breakthroughs for freedom celebrated across the world is the tumbling of the Berlin Wall.  And yet, it is the United States who, although vocal in its lip service to commemorating this triumph, rushes forward to build up such walls physically, economically, and spiritually. 

Metaphorically speaking, this nation has built an enormous wall akin to that of the Eastern bloc’s through its militaristic oppression of peoples worldwide, its economic trade wars, and even an actual border wall. 

The invasions and occupations of sovereign nations, the torture, the sanctions, the discrimination against immigrants, and other forms of repression…these are all building a mighty wall between our country and other countries and their people worldwide. 

The discrepancy between the message of freedom and liberty this government proclaims proudly versus the reality of its anti-freedom, anti-liberty policies domestically and internationally is an ever increasing chasm.  Yet the American people have long contributed to this hypocrisy with their unquestioning “patriotic” platitudes which make them feel good about themselves without actually being good.

Devotion to truth will bring far more peace between the American people and the peoples of the world.  Such truth seeking and ending of the unjust workings of this government and the evil it has perpetuated against others worldwide for decades is part of true patriotism…blind acceptance or apathetic ignorance is not.

As millions hail the end of the infamous Berlin Wall twenty years ago (as of November 9, 2009), let us as Americans use its 20th anniversary not for mere lip service to the triumph of the human spirit and its quest for liberty, let us use it rather as a motivator to fight the development of any such tyranny from our own government - be it perpetrated toward us or toward others (which in reality is one and the same). 

Once any degree of tyranny is accepted, it is so much more difficult to extricate a nation from it.  And, yet, such behavior has been accepted for decades, making it all the more critical that those who value liberty reject and expose these affronts against the natural rights of human beings, restore liberties lost, and march forward in strength and control of government - making sure it exist purely for protection of rights not subjugation thereof.

To this goal, let us join with the rest of the world in remembering the fall of the Berlin Wall.  To the goal of tearing down our government’s own walls requires a relinquishment of the walls within which keeps people from identifying with others who suffer at the hands of our government. 

Do not be fooled by the honoring praises of U.S. politicians regarding the falling of the Berlin Wall, for it is likely many of those speaking such fine-sounding words will  be some of those who have either condoned or are responsible for acts which egregiously contradict their words of appreciation for freedom.  Love of freedom and respect for liberty cannot be divided…you cannot say you care about freedom and individual liberty for certain groups of human beings to the exclusion of others.  And, yet, that is precisely what many U.S. politicians do, as the policies they support deny respect for the freedom and liberty of others and their sovereignty.

Just as the citizens of East and West Germany were able to come together once the totalitarian government lost its power to exert control, a reunification of the American people with our brothers and sisters of all nationalities, cultures and traditions will bring prosperity and harmony through peaceful coexistence and connections, trade, and immigration.  What will it take for that to happen?  Perhaps the same factors which brought about and contributed to the collapse of the Berlin Wall: a strong courageous people and an economically strained  government which could no longer feasibly continue its oppression against a people yearning for freedom.  

As Berliners commemorate with a “Festival of Freedom,” let us orient toward the day when we will have our own such festivity….a time when all the artificial walls constructed and maintained by the U.S. government forcing a barrier between Americans and the rest of the world are gone…a time when we’ve returned to a Constitutional Republic which respects the fundamental rights of all human beings…a time when we will celebrate with our own Festival of Freedom. 

Fort Hood Tragedy

 Following the shooting at Fort Hood yesterday, there was discussion of the incident on Colorado’s 50,000-watt 850-AM KOA radio station (heard in 38 states and in Canada and Mexico). 

A number of callers put forth their speculations of the accused shooter - how he was able to accomplish so much violence and what his possible motive might have been. 

When one caller condemned the accused shooter as a “coward” who “didn’t want to do his job,” I decided to call in to share my perspective.  I found it disgusting that one would use these tragic murders to express unquestioning “patriotism” and support for the U.S. government military actions.

The “thing to focus on” is not, I believe, as a previous caller had stated that the man doesn’t want “to do his job” and is thus a “coward.” The focus for all Americans is to ask “Why?”  Why did this soldier, obviously a good military man who reached the rank of Major, apparently “snap” and express such violent rage?  What is causing our military men and women to have high incidences of suicide, domestic abuse, other violent or disturbed behaviors and divorce?  Why are we seeing so many disturbances?  Perhaps, I said, it is due to effects from our insane foreign policy. 

Think about this military psychiatrist and all the horror stories, the post traumatic stress disorders, he has encountered in his work…being placed in a system which forces him to do something perhaps he felt was wrong…which he disagreed with, and to which he didn’t want to subject himself again…perhaps feeling enraged and trapped in such a system caused a sad horrible reaction.  Whatever the rationale may have been in no way justifies murder, but what may have brought him to such a desperate point should be thought about.

It’s speculation at this point, but addressing the causation of what may have led the man to such a deplorable sad violent act would be far more productive than simply condemning him as a “coward” and propping up the government and its military actions worldwide by saying the man “didn’t want to do his job.” 

It’s time we as a nation question the reasons behind this sort of violence, and that questioning must address the foreign policy we have which is obviously subjecting our military to a degree of stress we haven’t witnessed before. 

Mine was the only voice with that perspective, and I and the host had a heated exchange after my initial comments. 

The host objected to my reference to our “insane foreign policy” and accused me of giving the shooter an “alibi,” to which I simply said, no, I do not excuse such a horrible evil murderous act, that evil does not justify evil, that such murders are not justified, but I do believe it’s important we examine the reasons which could lead a man to this degree of disturbance.  To seek what might have caused such a reaction is not to excuse it.

I was then irrationally criticized by a subsequent caller for not having appreciation for the right I have to speak as a woman when I wouldn’t be allowed to talk that way “under Sharia law”   Such irrational reactions I expect, but was pleased to have had the opportunity to raise the question we should be addressing as a people for the many listeners to the radio show.

Cause and effect must be considered. But herd mentality doesn’t even want to consider that our government’s foreign policy might be causing psychological problems among our military; herd mentality simply waves the flag in a “my country right or wrong” platitude. 

Prideful statements of  “patriotism” were sentiments I heard repeatedly on other shows as well as throughout the night, along with all sorts of strange references to terrorists’ plots, Al-Qaeda, and Muslims. 

All too often, Americans permit emotionalism to cloud their judgment.  They let their sorrow, sadness, and outrage disintegrate into vindictiveness, hatred, and even pride in their not having committed such a violent act.  Many take pride in having “served their country” and eagerly condemn and dismiss the disturbed actions of a fellow soldier when, more than anything, such behavior should cause the military itself to examine the situation.

An incident as this sure exposes the degree of the sad pathetic state of lack of critical thought among the American people. I guess it’s easier to judge and condemn another rather than logically and rationally examine what the root cause of such violent disturbing behavior among our returning soldiers might be.

As I said in my call, something is terribly wrong when we see such incidents as this. 

(My approx. 5 minute phone call may be heard at the 850 KOA website:  visit the 11-5-09 6PM listing on The Ride Home show page, “the discussion on the mass shooting at Fort Hood continues” segment.  My call begins at approximately the 18-minute mark.)

“National Emergency” Declarations

So Obama has declared a “national emergency” over the H1N1 “swine” flu.

The main threat I see is government…not flu.  But that’s the way it’s often been with “national emergencies.”

I view this latest “crisis” as yet another excuse for big government to come in and supposedly save the day.  Predictable, but nonetheless ominous, in my opinion. 

What would constitute a “national emergency” to you?  An armed military force invading our towns?  A deadly mystery virus that’s suddenly killing off thousands of Americans?  Certainly it would have to be something that poses a substantial risk to Americans, right?  Think again.  It appears that for U.S. presidents, it takes a whole lot less to circumvent Congress so that they can proceed with their agendas.

Bush sure had his “national emergencies,” take a look at them.  From excuses such as Cuba, Iran, weapons of mass destruction, and terrorism, he didn’t miss many opportunities to use those powers.

Now take a look at Obama’s “national emergencies,” from the “Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to the Stabilization of Iraq,” to the recent (Oct. 16, 2009) “Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered in Colombia,” Obama behaves no different than Bush.  He continues the “national emergency” regarding North Korea, the Western Balkans, the Congo, etc.

While you’re at it, take a look at the “national emergencies” declared between 1976-2001 (see page 16 of the CRS Report for Congress pdf).  See much threatening your security and safety?  Anything justifying the bypassing of the legislative branch of our government? 

Look at all the trade barriers erected by presidents, without congressional approval, solely by declaring a “national emergency.”  Use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act by presidents results in restrictions on humanitarian aid, and freezing of assets…all because one man, whomever holds the office of presidency, decides to do so.  What a convenient way to wage war.  (Remember Clinton’s assault on Yugoslavia? It was done the same way using a declaration of “national emergency.”)

When I view Bush’s and Obama’s list of national emergencies, or the list from 1976 to present for that matter, I see little if anything at all that posed any real threat to Americans which couldn’t have been brought before Congress, but what I do see are numerous excuses to use our military might and economic sanctions against other nations and their peoples. 

As for Obama’s current declaration of another “national emergency,” do the “swine” deaths compare to anything else that kills Americans every day?  Is yet another flu strain something unforeseen?  About 36,000 people die annually in the United States from seasonal flu.  Ever had a “national emergency” declared for that?  About 37,000 people die annually (based on last 5 years statistics) in the United States from motor vehicle accidents.  Ever had a “national emergency” declared for that? Of course, not!

But, the “swine” flu has every element the federal government needs: a fear factor which is easily manipulated because it’s about something that sounds different…easily leading to panic…which in turn makes the people look for the government to “save” them.  How convenient for Obama.  Now he’ll come in with his federal flu government websites, public announcements, and discretionary emergency powers to “protect” everyone.  Take a look at the latest flu presentations especially for the children from this White House administration. 

Perhaps, and I only speculate,  this latest “crisis” will be used to soften everyone up to Obama’s “healthcare reform,” or facilitate “forced” vaccinations (forced meaning if you don’t get it, you’re quarantined for example) which could provide an excuse for martial law used domestically.  Restrictions on travel could be implemented. 

Or perhaps it’s just another convenient ploy to prop Obama up as a national “savior,” as it distracts Americans from the real national emergency: the loss of our constitutional republic and our liberties.