Archive for November 2009
President Obama didn’t provide ‘change’ I could ‘believe in’. He provided change I could be entirely skeptical of. This, kids, is how to tell a lie, and bask in the limelight of public opinion.
As someone commented over at Lewrockwell.com, “apparently they took it to one of the banks he runs now.”
To help differentiate a liar from a truth-teller, I provide the following example of the courage to tell the truth, while everyone around you will attack you for it.
By listening to the current political debates in this country, one would believe that America has turned into a forest of wolves. Should we have a public healthcare option, should we send more troops to Afghanistan, should we curb executive compensation, etc. These questions, unfortunately, seem to hinge on the idea that America is a democracy. The democratic form of government is a complex creature. It is regarded today as the American form of government, which the rest of the world should strive to emulate. However, this form of government touted as civilization’s greatest accomplishment by our leaders today was despised by those who founded our country.
True liberty activists describe democracy as the worst form of government imaginable for one major reason: the majority always gets their way. The American system of governance was formed to keep government under control. Congress was given the power to vote on specific issues, and the rest were left up to the states or the people to decide. Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution lists 18 powers on which Congress has the authority to legislate. There are only 18 powers because the founders did not want a government that could vote on anything they wished. However, due to deceptive propaganda, most Americans believe our government to be ruled by majority vote, and that Congress has the authority to vote on anything the majority finds necessary.
The killings at Fort Hood have received an understood amount of media attention, but one thing that Shepard Smith of Fox News stated yesterday bugged me until I had to sit down and articulate it. In opening an interview with a retired coworker of Major Hassan, Smith stated that Hassan had made “outlandish” comments about America’s foreign policy. As the interview continued, the coworker explained that Hassan had expressed that the United States should not be “over there”–should not be engaged in military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that the native people should rise up against the aggressors.
I’m in no way advocating the actions of the Major at Fort Hood, but I want a moment to examine what his peers knew of his beliefs, and the way that Fox’s Shepard Smith framed the news segment. Is it outlandish to believe that we should not be involved in pointless wars overseas? They cost American lives, and stretch the printing press of the Fed to new levels, destroying our money even further, and for what? To protect us from a people that don’t have navies, air forces, or a unified standing army? How does having a large occupying force in several nations in the Middle East protect us from a random act of terrorism that would be perpetrated thousands of miles away, here at home? As for the “aggressors” comment, let’s propose a hypothetical. If the Chinese had a standing army on our soil, with the goal of making us change our way of life, would it be “outlandish” for us to resist and attempt to overthrow our aggressors? We overthrew the British empire, after all. Is this not an American ideal?
Hassan was said to have felt promise upon the election of President Obama, that our overseas occupations would end, but was extremely disappointed when he did not deliver. I think that’s a very common feeling among those that drank the President’s anti-war campaign Kool-Aid but were left thirsty and wanting. He has escalated these wars, and shows no sign of changing our foreign policy to something more sensible.
We must see past the propaganda machine of the mainstream media and note that these particular beliefs and frustrations perhaps weren’t so “outlandish” after all.