Playing the game - UPDATED


and hiding the sides
As I write this introduction paragraph, it's been more than two years since I wrote this piece. I am going to leave this at the top until after the 2008 election. So now, from February 20, 2006, an explanation of the political party game.
—NW
_____________

There are games and there are games.

The Republican's problem is that they are not acting like Republicans. Aside from the War on Terror, the Republicans don't have anything going for them really. They had a tax cut, sort of, back in 2001. But they haven't done anything else really Republican since.

They spend money like water. Republicans have peddled influence and earmarks with the worst of them. They've used the War on Terror to increase the size and scope of the Federal government in ways that would have made FDR weep for his lost country.

And as any well-read libertarian can tell you, FDR was one of the biggest threats to personal freedom in the history of the United States.

The Democrats are different. It's not that their policy objectives or goals are all that different from the Republicans, it's that Democrats aren't calling the shots. That's enough to make them furious at George W. Bush.

There is no practical difference between the two major parties. Oh, one makes noises about the War on Terror, but that is only because their guy wasn't elected to make the decisions.

Both have abused government power in the past. And given the smidgen of a chance, both would embrace abusing power in the future.

The problem isn't the parties you see. The problem is government power.

Let me share one of my favorite examples. The government has equated campaign spending with free speech, and passed laws to regulate that speech. Some of the most objectionable relate to who can spend money to say what just before an election.

Here is what the First Amendment of the United States Constitution has to say on the subject of free speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That seems pretty cut and dried. Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

But maybe I have overlooked something. If you will check here, you will see the powers of Congress clearly defined. There is absolutely nothing about speech or the press there.

Here's one that always gets me, the often forgotten Tenth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, Congress has no power to regulate free speech or the press. It can not give that power to any agency of the Federal government. That power belongs to the individuals and ONLY to individuals.

That doesn't mean that the power doesn't come without responsibility. Libel and slander are still part of the law. Freedom to speak doesn't mean freedom from consequence.

But it does mean that Congress can't regulate free speech or the press without breaking the Constitution. And incidentally, the oaths of office that the Members swore.

Which means technically that every single Congressman who voted for the McCain-Feingold Bill or any other law to regulate political speech committed treason.

As did George W. Bush when he signed McCain-Feingold into law.

So there it is. A reason to impeach. An unassailable, undeniable, incontrovertible smoking gun. Signed by his own hand in front of witnesses and part of the public record.

The question becomes "Why haven't they?"

Because most elected Democrats think that McCain-Feingold is a fine idea, at least in principle. Of course it backfired on them during the 2004 election cycle, but that is a mere technicality. You can bet that if THEY were in charge, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act would only serve democracy and freedom by making sure that mostly Democrats were elected.

And because of that. Democrats are willing to overlook little questions of legality. Even if it means they can't use this reason to "get Bush." Other things get overlooked too.

Like the Constitution.

There is not a single hot button issue that isn't a Constitutional issue. And the Congress and the President consistently violate it. Not just this President and this Congress.

So don't fall for the nonsense about how it is the "other party's" fault. There is no other party! Just factions of the elected.

I could go on and on.

But for now I will offer four things that I believe would be a step towards reigning in the monster.

First, None of the Above should be a choice on every ballot. No candidate should be elected without at least 50% of the registered voters. Not the ballot, but the registered voters. Not voting is just as valid a political statement as voting as well as being a comment on the current government.

Second, any Federal law sunsets after ten years unless a majority of the states vote to keep it another ten. That is States, not Congress. It may only be renewed if a majority of the states vote to keep it another ten.

Third, the 16th Amendment should be repealed and the Federal Income tax abolished. Let taxes be uniformly applied (and clearly marked) to all products and services. Let people see what they are paying for, and let them feel the pain as they pay.

Finally, I firmly support L. Neil Smith's idea that the first Ten Amendments of the Constitution be strictly enforced.

You can't depend on the government cleaning up it's own act. You can't depend on political parties. You can only depend on American individuals who have decided to do something about it.

Can you depend on you?

— NeoWayland

Posted: Mon - February 20, 2006 at 11:06 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved