Friends, neighbors and patriots -
I've been feeling a bit overwhelmed lately by so many things not the least of which is all of the bad stuff that is going on with our government and our economy. All of the sudden these past few weeks I've felt a bit burned out and not sure where to focus my thoughts and energies so please excuse as I just ramble for a bit to get some things out of my system.
One thought I've had repeatedly in light of the MIAC and DHS controversies follows. Those controversies of course were where basically anyone of the following characteristics classified as you as a potential enemy of the state to be watched closely for potential extremist tendencies:
(list includes people who are)
Supporters of Third Parties
Supporters or Fans of Ron Paul
Supporters or Fans of Bob Barr
Supporters or Fans of Chuck Baldwin
Ex Military Personnel
[and probably more]
The MIAC situation even suggested law enforcement pay closer attention to people with bumper stickers on their cars in support of the above. Of course, I look at that list and think to myself, "8 out of 9 isn't bad."
But, the point of this is that for all of the people who were so concerned about terrorists, and who mostly still refuse to acknowledge the root causes, that they were not concerned about granting the government all kinds of power via things like the Patriot Act I have the follow questions:
(1) Does it ever occur to you that you should never, ever grant the government power that you would not want your worst enemy to have? Because, at some point (perhaps now?) your enemy will have that power that was so willingly given when the administration seemed less inclined against you.
(2) Do people ever stop to think that at some point, all of this surveillance, wire-tapping, invasions of privacy, no fly lists and other things could be used against the most pro-American, pro-Constitution patriots? Power is granted to reign in the threat of "terrorism" but how many stop to consider that someday, THEY could be the terrorist the government is worried about?
As I've stated many times in the past, I am far more afraid of Congress than I am of "terrorists". Granted, I have the benefit of living in Indiana, not in New York or L.A. but, if the migration of people out of those states is any indication, their people are increasingly feeling a need to escape their own governments and move to more tax friendly and less restrictive environs themselves.
I have been encouraged by the recent surge in activists with the "Tea Party" people. Apparently some of their leadership was concerned that "Libertarians" were against them somehow because of the comments of one person. Why do people try to assign group think to libertarians? I mean, if some Republican or Democrat goes around saying "9/11 was an inside job" I don't assume they ALL think that, even if one of their elected officials were to do so. Everyone does realize that with libertarians running things we wouldn't have had terrorist attacks on our soil, massive FED induced market bubbles and collapses (2 in a decade now folks), massive government debt and a near monopoly stranglehold on a failing education system by government? Right? People do understand this I hope.
Some thoughts on the Tea Party groups and their seemingly growing batch of awesome supporters and volunteers, many of whom seem very sharp.
(1) Remember that most libertarians who have been paying attention and active for many years are pretty much past the point of mild protest. Been there, done those, what's next? When 95% of calls to Congress are adamantly opposing things like bailouts or stimulus packages and they vote for them anyway, waving signs with eloquent speech seems to likely be just as ineffective.
(2) A lot of libertarians and even fiscal conservative Democrats are concerned about things becoming a "social conservative" movement because of a lack of a true understanding of liberty or the philosophical underpinnings. Especially when, in Indianapolis, one of the more visible pro-NeoCon voices is one of the speakers at the Tea Party and laments that, as people wave "boot out all incumbents" signs, some good ones (the Republican ones he's friends with) got tossed in the last couple of elections. Yeah, I'm sure NONE of those guys EVER voted for a large omnibus spending bill. So much for non-partisan but I think the organizers are sincere even though they will likely fall into the two-party system trap and have their eyes opened when things like slating, slating fees, campaign war chests and primaries start getting in the way of getting their candidates on the ballot. Again, we'll just have to see how things go.
(3) It was definitely odd, or maybe it was just perception, that with so many libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, Campaign for Liberty folks, the Republican Liberty Caucus, the Democrat Freedom Caucus (anyone in Indiana?), the John Birch Society and others who have well established lists of pro-liberty and pro-Constitution activists, educators and talent that those resources weren't better included in some of the Tea Party recruiting and planning. But, the fact that all of those factions exists maybe speaks more to the "divided we fail" principle and helps explain some of the lack of progress. Certainly, those groups have been warning us for years, if not decades, about the very things that are becoming crisis now. But now, it seems, being one of those issuing the warning is enough to put you on the DHS "watch list".
(4) A lot of folks are starting to realize that voting isn't working when it comes to protecting the rule of law, our country and our economy. That is exactly why we are supposed to be a Republic (rule of law) not a Democracy (rule of men [aka: mob rule]). Always remember that in a room of ten people, no six should be able to violate the rights or lives of the other four just because a majority decided so. This is a concept called "Tyranny of the Masses" or "Tyranny of the Majority".
One last thought on all of the recent "secession" talk. I've heard the word "secession" in the media and even from elected officials more in the past year than in my whole life combined. It is a fair topic for discussion and debate and just because Lincoln had ego and tax collection concerns with the South seceding doesn't mean that the States don't have that option legitimately. (and please remember the rest of the world ended slavery peacefully and not with the deaths of 640,000 people and tearing their countries apart). I mean, seriously, can you imagine the United States Government going to war with Texas or any other state that desires MORE FREEDOM instead of less?
What a mess.