Remembering America’s Future Fallen Heroes
“I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of their way and let them have it.”
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Before it became a holiday of car races, hotdogs, beer, and white sales, Memorial Day was designated as a day to commemorate U.S. citizens who had died in military service. It was a day set aside to reflect on, and honor the sacrifices made by servicemen and women to protect our freedom. Is it still that day? Cynics might say no, optimists yes, but I think deep in the hearts and minds of most Americans - whether they spend the day watching a race, grilling brats, chugging some beers, or shopping for sheets - lies a germ of a recollection of the true meaning of the holiday.
On this Memorial Day, if or when you reflect on those throughout history who have paid the ultimate price to secure liberty, I would ask that you also take a moment to think of those unknown and possibly yet unborn heroes who will someday fall on some distant battlefield in the name of freedom, democracy, humanitarianism, or regime change. Picture the eager young faces of future warriors as they loyally perform the duties and carry out the commands they are given by some future president who commits them to battle. A president who, if the recent past is any indication, will make this commitment without a congressional declaration of war as is mandated by the Constitution, or as in the case of our current engagement in Libya, without even abiding by the provisions of the War Powers Act (which, by the way, might itself be unconstitutional).
Sometime during the festive holiday, I hope you will contemplate how many of these future fallen heroes might be saved if presidents and congresses actually governed within the constraints outlined in the Constitution in which they have sworn to “preserve, protect, and defend.” The Constitution gives Congress, and only Congress, the power to declare war, raise and support an army and navy, and “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal Invasions.” The only thing the Constitution says about the President regarding military action is, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” In short, Congress declares war, and the President commands the troops once they are called into “actual service.” Nowhere does the Constitution explicitly or implicitly grant the President the power to unilaterally commit armed forces for the purpose of spreading democracy, initiating regime change, preventing some perceived threat to national interests, or establishing a “no-fly zone” to preempt a possible humanitarian calamity (or oust the leader of another sovereign country).
The Libertarian Party platform states:
3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression.The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act aspoliceman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service..
3.3 International Affairs
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy shouldemphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoidingforeign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention,including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny anddefend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use ofterrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.
This Memorial Day, remember America’s fallen heroes, past, present, and future.
Next Election Day, protect America’s future military men and women.
Vote Libertarian.
“It has too often been too easy for rulers and governments to incite man to war.”
- Lester B. Pearson
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
You’re Gonna Have to Face It, You’re Addicted to Oil
(My apologies to the late Robert Palmer)
I was recently watching a political policy analysis program on the topic of rising fuel prices. One particularly astute “analyst” stated with such insightful authority that America is “addicted to oil.” She expressed whole-hearted agreement with President Obama’s proposal to eliminate federal subsidies to oil companies and redirect them to renewable energy research. This is just wrong on many levels.
The “addicted to oil” mantra springs up from the left every time oil rises above $100 per barrel as predictably as “radical,” “mean-spirited,” and “extreme” appear when serious entitlement reform is proposed. According to the American Heritage Science Dictionary © 2002, addiction is, “a physical or psychological need for a habit-forming substance, such as a drug or alcohol.” For the past hundred years, and for the foreseeable future, America’s and the World’s economy has been, and will be, dependent on fossil fuels, oil in particular. In its current form, the World’s economy cannot survive without these fuels. My apologies to the ultra-environmental left, but that is just an “inconvenient truth.” To say that Americans are addicted to oil is like saying we are addicted to oxygen. In our current physiological form we are as dependent on oxygen to survive as our economy, in its current form, is dependent on oil.
Therefore, can oil really be called a “habit-forming” substance? That would imply that the substance (oil) formed the habit (driving, manufacturing). Did the early pioneers of modern transportation and industry say, “Hey, what can we make that can run on all this oil we’ve got?” Of course not, they invented, developed, and improved upon devices and processes that could use a new, readily available and relatively inexpensive energy source. Clearly, the substance did not form the habit.
The habitual behavior associated with an addiction is generally viewed as negative, hence the desire to intervene on behalf of sufferers. Addicts become increasingly consumed with a desire to obtain ever greater amounts of the drug to the detriment of their health, relationships, jobs, and lives in general. Is our current “addiction” to the “habit-forming substance” of oil really negative? Many people might reflexively answer with a resounding yes. However, measuring the nation’s expanding productivity and higher standard of living enjoyed over the past hundred years clearly shows that the country and the people are far better off thanks to fossil fuels.
Granted, just as our economy transitioned from being fueled by wood and whale oil to coal, oil and nuclear, it may someday transition to alternative, renewable energy sources. Will we then be accused of being addicted to wind, solar, and bio-fuels? This transition, just as the transition from whale oil to fossil fuels, should be left to the free market not government intervention. I agree with the esteemed “analyst” in one respect, President Obama should eliminate the subsidies to oil companies (and all other subsidies, for that matter), but he should not then transfer those subsidies to “green” energy. While he’s at it, the President should also reduce regulations and other impediments to oil, natural gas, and nuclear development. Alternative energy sources should compete with fossil fuels and nuclear in a free and open market. When they become reliable, plentiful, and cost effective they will replace fossil fuels as naturally as coal replaced wood and oil replaced whale oil.
I was recently watching a political policy analysis program on the topic of rising fuel prices. One particularly astute “analyst” stated with such insightful authority that America is “addicted to oil.” She expressed whole-hearted agreement with President Obama’s proposal to eliminate federal subsidies to oil companies and redirect them to renewable energy research. This is just wrong on many levels.
The “addicted to oil” mantra springs up from the left every time oil rises above $100 per barrel as predictably as “radical,” “mean-spirited,” and “extreme” appear when serious entitlement reform is proposed. According to the American Heritage Science Dictionary © 2002, addiction is, “a physical or psychological need for a habit-forming substance, such as a drug or alcohol.” For the past hundred years, and for the foreseeable future, America’s and the World’s economy has been, and will be, dependent on fossil fuels, oil in particular. In its current form, the World’s economy cannot survive without these fuels. My apologies to the ultra-environmental left, but that is just an “inconvenient truth.” To say that Americans are addicted to oil is like saying we are addicted to oxygen. In our current physiological form we are as dependent on oxygen to survive as our economy, in its current form, is dependent on oil.
Therefore, can oil really be called a “habit-forming” substance? That would imply that the substance (oil) formed the habit (driving, manufacturing). Did the early pioneers of modern transportation and industry say, “Hey, what can we make that can run on all this oil we’ve got?” Of course not, they invented, developed, and improved upon devices and processes that could use a new, readily available and relatively inexpensive energy source. Clearly, the substance did not form the habit.
The habitual behavior associated with an addiction is generally viewed as negative, hence the desire to intervene on behalf of sufferers. Addicts become increasingly consumed with a desire to obtain ever greater amounts of the drug to the detriment of their health, relationships, jobs, and lives in general. Is our current “addiction” to the “habit-forming substance” of oil really negative? Many people might reflexively answer with a resounding yes. However, measuring the nation’s expanding productivity and higher standard of living enjoyed over the past hundred years clearly shows that the country and the people are far better off thanks to fossil fuels.
Granted, just as our economy transitioned from being fueled by wood and whale oil to coal, oil and nuclear, it may someday transition to alternative, renewable energy sources. Will we then be accused of being addicted to wind, solar, and bio-fuels? This transition, just as the transition from whale oil to fossil fuels, should be left to the free market not government intervention. I agree with the esteemed “analyst” in one respect, President Obama should eliminate the subsidies to oil companies (and all other subsidies, for that matter), but he should not then transfer those subsidies to “green” energy. While he’s at it, the President should also reduce regulations and other impediments to oil, natural gas, and nuclear development. Alternative energy sources should compete with fossil fuels and nuclear in a free and open market. When they become reliable, plentiful, and cost effective they will replace fossil fuels as naturally as coal replaced wood and oil replaced whale oil.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
The Literal Literary Horror of Big Government
Constitutional Moment of the Day
If you don’t like what is in the Constitution, or want to grant more or fewer powers to any branch of the government or privileges to the citizenry, then this is what you have to do.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The Framers deliberately made the process difficult. They wanted the Constitution to be a rock for the ages not to be chipped away or re-sculpted based on the whims and fancies of the moment. But, that is exactly what has slowly happened over the years through the decisions of activist judges, executive orders, and unchallenged Congressional legislation.
Quote of the Day
"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
- George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
- George Orwell, “Animal Farm”
The Literal Literary Horror of Big Government
The recent release of the motion picture adaptation of Ayn Rand’s masterpiece, “Atlas Shrugged” started me thinking about other literary depictions of the horrors of Big Government.
Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”, “Anthem” by Ayn Rand, “1984” and “Animal Farm” by George Orwell, “Fahrenheit 451” by Ray Bradbury are all dystopian novels describing oppressive central governments that exert their will on the people, stifle the natural rights of citizens, and smother free will, independent thought, and individuality. In short, each is a warning against relinquishing too much control to the government. These are but a small sampling. I could list hundreds of novels, novellas, and short stories with similar themes.
Liberals - I’m sorry they like to be called Progressives now (it’s a bad sign when you have to change your name in order to sell your ideas) - for years have championed more government involvement in our lives through new entitlement programs, increased regulations in almost every area of human existence, and censorship under the guise of political correctness. Conservatives have sought to impose their morals on society by fiat, abridge constitutionally protected civil liberties in the name of national security, and entangle the nation in unconstitutional and seemingly limitless military adventures around the world. Libertarians believe in the supremacy of natural rights, strict adherence to the Constitution, limited government, low taxation, minimal regulations, free market principles, personal responsibility, and the power of the individual.
So, my question is this. If big intrusive government (espoused by Liberals/Progressives and Conservatives) is so great, why have scores of writers throughout history penned horrific tales prophesizing the inescapable outcome of such governments? Where are all the nightmarish stories and prophetic warnings of the evil things to come when limited, unobtrusive governments (advocated by Libertarians) run amuck? The message is clear; an ever expanding central government ultimately leads to deprivation, oppression, and despair. Small, limited government fosters prosperity, personal freedom, and self-fulfillment.
“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficial. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greater dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
- Justice Louis Brandeis
“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” - James Madison
To combat these “gradual and silent encroachments,” be vigilant, stay informed, ask questions, and never fear speaking your mind.
If you don’t like what is in the Constitution, or want to grant more or fewer powers to any branch of the government or privileges to the citizenry, then this is what you have to do.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The Framers deliberately made the process difficult. They wanted the Constitution to be a rock for the ages not to be chipped away or re-sculpted based on the whims and fancies of the moment. But, that is exactly what has slowly happened over the years through the decisions of activist judges, executive orders, and unchallenged Congressional legislation.
Quote of the Day
"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
- George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
- George Orwell, “Animal Farm”
The Literal Literary Horror of Big Government
The recent release of the motion picture adaptation of Ayn Rand’s masterpiece, “Atlas Shrugged” started me thinking about other literary depictions of the horrors of Big Government.
Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”, “Anthem” by Ayn Rand, “1984” and “Animal Farm” by George Orwell, “Fahrenheit 451” by Ray Bradbury are all dystopian novels describing oppressive central governments that exert their will on the people, stifle the natural rights of citizens, and smother free will, independent thought, and individuality. In short, each is a warning against relinquishing too much control to the government. These are but a small sampling. I could list hundreds of novels, novellas, and short stories with similar themes.
Liberals - I’m sorry they like to be called Progressives now (it’s a bad sign when you have to change your name in order to sell your ideas) - for years have championed more government involvement in our lives through new entitlement programs, increased regulations in almost every area of human existence, and censorship under the guise of political correctness. Conservatives have sought to impose their morals on society by fiat, abridge constitutionally protected civil liberties in the name of national security, and entangle the nation in unconstitutional and seemingly limitless military adventures around the world. Libertarians believe in the supremacy of natural rights, strict adherence to the Constitution, limited government, low taxation, minimal regulations, free market principles, personal responsibility, and the power of the individual.
So, my question is this. If big intrusive government (espoused by Liberals/Progressives and Conservatives) is so great, why have scores of writers throughout history penned horrific tales prophesizing the inescapable outcome of such governments? Where are all the nightmarish stories and prophetic warnings of the evil things to come when limited, unobtrusive governments (advocated by Libertarians) run amuck? The message is clear; an ever expanding central government ultimately leads to deprivation, oppression, and despair. Small, limited government fosters prosperity, personal freedom, and self-fulfillment.
“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficial. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greater dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
- Justice Louis Brandeis
“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” - James Madison
To combat these “gradual and silent encroachments,” be vigilant, stay informed, ask questions, and never fear speaking your mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)