Christine Smith's Blog

PEACE

I deeply appreciate this quote from St. Austin. It makes me all the more seek development love of all and God and what that entails in humility, giving, and zeal for being apart of furthering what is right and true. It is the peace I want to maintain and develop no matter the circumstances in life. When it is not present, I become aware it is because I have mistakenly strayed from trust and faith and thus loving actions.

“Peace is the serenity of the soul, the tranquillity of the mind, the simplicity of the heart, the bond of love, and the union of charity.” – St. Austin (from The Manual of The Holy Catholic Church – Embracing Light from the Altar, James J. McGovern, D.D. (Copr. 1906 by James J. McGovern, Copr. 1920 by Joseph R. Gay)

Colorado Newspaper Interview with me

I was interviewed by the Canon City Daily Record newspaper, and invite you to read it. I was happy to share about my path to and understanding of libertarianism during the interview.

The article appeared in their Friday, May 14, 2010 print/hard copy newspaper and is also available to be read online:

CLICK HERE.

Television Interview With Me (Video-approx. 3 minutes in length)

I was recently interviewed on a Colorado television station.

The interview, on KENY TV, was aired on Colorado television: Alamosa CH 39, Bressnan Ch 20, and throughout the San Luis Valley on Valley-wide Channel 67.

The interview (approx. 3 minutes in length) may be viewed at the station’s website-Click Here.

Photo – May 10, 2010

May 10, 2010.

Photos: Daffodils blooming, springtime in the mountains

What I just saw and felt walking outside…daffodils,standing beautiful, strong despite snow twice and wind gusts of 40mph in the past few days…snow on mountains on a cool cloudy May afternoon…invigorating breeze carries the scent of the daffodils my way.

Immigration Socialism versus Freedom and the Free Market – by Jacob G. Hornberger

This article says it all.  I highly recommend it! 

Immigration Socialism versus Freedom and the Free Market

by Jacob G. Hornberger

Film Recommendation “Five Minutes of Heaven,” and Thoughts on Righteous Indignation vs. Anger

Last night I viewed the film “Five Minutes of Heaven,” a powerful story of mistakes, immaturity and maturation, anger, vengeance, and forgiveness. Developed from the true event of the 1975 killing of Jim Griffin by Alistair Little in Northern Ireland, the story revolves around the fictionalized what-if of the killer meeting the witness (the brother of the deceased who was 11 at the time of the shooting) 33 years later.

The sadness and tragedy of the violent unrest between Catholic and Protestant in Northern Ireland is communicated well through this  incident, with its years of affect between those involved becoming the fictional continuation.

I found this well-made film and the fictional story which evolved from that tragedy to be thought provoking and engaging. I recommend it. Liam Neeson and James Nesbitt do a fine job.

The film illustrated well the peril and misery of accepting anger as justified, which in my opinion, always leads to more misery, harm, and sadness.

Again, I highly recommend the film “Five Minutes of heaven,” – it is a most interesting story and character study.  (Link to its Amazon page)

On a personal note, I distinguish between righteous indignation (and thus a devotion and commitment to justice or as close to justice as is humanly possible, which at times may never occur in certain human situations) and anger (which is allowing oneself to be controlled by emotionalism). I believe anger is never justified, as it is a feeling from the emotion of fear and leads to serious mistakes of conduct and behavior which though may seem justified at the time, can later in more rational and ethical examination, be seen for the mistake it was. Righteous indignation, on the other hand, is that intense call to action to stop an evil and to in whatever capacity we have to bring light into an area of darkness, to alleviate suffering, to expose what is wrong or corrupt, and to put a stop to it. It does not entail resorting to evil to fight evil because it is based in the strength of love.

Fear brings anger, hatred, and attack and rationalization of attack; love brings a strength to realize that revenge is never the answer regardless of the provocation. In fact, I believe those motivated and inspired from a spiritual basis of love are far more effective at achieving whatever justice is humanly possible than those who succumb to the baser feelings.

Allowing anger within leads us to the wild uncontrolled imaginations of our mind, but allowing love to make our decisions leads us to see what justice (if any) can be found without becoming that which we say we reject. Therein lies the difference between self-defense, for example, and offensive violence…or between stopping a person from harming another again and revenge which seeks to punish rather than halt more evil behavior. Evil does not justify evil.

Neither does relinquishing anger mean one must try to reconcile with the one who has wronged another, it simply means one does not seek to exact punishment, but when needed seeks only to prevent oneself or another from being harmed by the other again.

Resolution within and its inner peace is obtained when one relinquishes the feeling of revenge, which brings me to recommend a previous article I wrote addressing that common question of whether the end ever justifies the means?

In the many issues facing society, a common rationalization for committing wrong, immoral, unjust or unethical acts is that if the greater good is served the relative harm necessary to gain such a supposed good is justified. In essence, people say doing bad can result in good, thus they assert bad becomes good. This has become commonly accepted in politics (as well as within people’s personal and business lives).

Consider issues such as immigration, taxation, abortion, capital punishment, torture, and the use of military force. All present a multitude of possible scenarios and situations in which the use of force is argued or disputed. Must we, then, live our lives in a state of flux, constantly having to analyze each and every situation to determine what is ethical? Are there times when commission of a wrong act is the best choice because the result may be better for the majority? Is morality relative? Can an immoral or unethical act sometimes be the right thing to do if the outcome is deemed favorable?

I believe the final result of an action cannot and must not be the determiner of right or wrong, and I explore this point in my previous blog article “The End Does Not Justify The Means” which I invite you to read. 

My path to libertarianism – Interview

I was interviewed on the “Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock”morning show April 30, 2010. Jet Lacey (who fills in for Hancock on Friday) conducted an excellent interview with me – I enjoyed it. We discussed libertarianism and the path my life took to it. (One hour audio.)

You may listen
HERE.

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.”