When people have asked me who I voted for, I invariably reply that it wasn’t for Obama OR McCain. I am always rewarded with the “Deer in the Headlights” stare. Their faces glaze over, and I can almost hear the gears turn in their heads as they try to comprehend how someone could vote, and yet not vote for either Obama or McCain. It had obviously never entered their minds that it was even possible to vote and yet not vote for a Republican or Democrat. Nobody ever questions me about this, they just back away slowly, as if I suffer from some mental illness and obviously can’t give coherent answers to simple questions.
Those who are able to comprehend, usually say something along the lines of “So, you threw your vote away.” If I’m in a fiesty mood, I respond “You voted for McCain. Did you throw your vote away too? He didn’t win either.” They somehow don’t get the point, and take offense.
How did we get to the point where people think that the opposite of “Democrat” is “Republican?” The end result of either party being in majority is barely discernible. As seen from the living rooms of America, they are interchangeable. While both of them give stirring speeches which refer to “individual liberty” and “smaller government,” the bills they introduce in congress, and the programs they champion seek to quash any vestige of individual liberty by vastly increasing the size and reach of the federal government.
The federal government was never intended to have any jurisdiction over ordinary citizens except under very specific and narrow circumstances, yet the federal government, and both parties, seek to have ultimate control over every aspect of citizens’ lives. As an example, consider the federal “Hate Crime” law. If some moron robs a store and murders someone in the process, they will be (and should be) tried in state court of the state where they committed the crimes. They will serve, on average, 12 years in prison. If, however, it becomes known that he happens to not like the race of the person he killed, it then becomes a federal Hate Crime, and his sentence is much much stiffer. First off, why is the federal government prosecuting a state crime? It has no jurisdiction or authority over citizens of a state, and has no jurisdiction over non-federal property located within a state’s boundaries. If the reasoning behind this is that state sentences are too lenient, then that should be addressed as an issue at the state level, although it should be pointed out that the sentencing guidelines were written by the federal Department of Justice and propagated to the state courts. In other words, the federal government considers the guidelines they wrote themselves to be inadequate and reason to usurp the authority of the states. Or perhaps the harsher sentence arises out of the fact that the federal government considers it to be somehow worse to murder someone you don’t like, than someone you have no dislike for whatsoever. Under this logic, it should only be a misdemeanor to murder someone you love.
Of course, if you assault a Police Officer, you get a much more serious sentence than if you had assaulted A Citizen. This is because a Police Officer is a symbol of the State, and it is much worse to show a lack of respect for The State than nearly anything you can do to A Citizen. The State DEMANDS respect for it’s agents. It feels it is above having to earn respect. The days of Officer Friendly are long gone.
Gay marriage is another current hot topic where the federal government is determined to intervene. I don’t care what anyone thinks about gay marriage, the truth is that the federal government has no authority to legislate matters of love, or whatever passes for it in too many modern marriages. I see no paragraph in Article 1, Section 8 of the federal Constitution that gives congress authority or jurisdiction over weddings. It is enough of a travesty that people have allowed the states to require people to get permission from The State before marrying through licensing requirements, but to allow the federal government to get into the act is even worse. For people to actually demand that the federal government legislate this subject shows an immense ignorance of the authority of the federal government in relation to the states and those states’ citizens, and the restrictions placed on the federal government by The Constitution. This again is a state issue (as is EVERYTHING that has to do with individuals). If The People of a state decide that this issue is important enough, let them amend their state constitution. If people are upset with their state’s requirements/restrictions, let them move to a state which more closely aligns with their beliefs. Better yet, since the issue at the heart of the matter, as I understand it, is availability of health insurance, maybe those groups should exert free market pressure on those insurance companies. If those groups have a popular enough position so that scores of people also exert pressure on the insurance companies (i.e.- a boycott) that the companies realize that they have a clear economic disadvantage because of their policies, they will soon adopt policies where if you pay the health insurance premiums on someone other than yourself, the insurance company must provide that insurance – whether that person is your wife/husband, girlfriend/boyfriend, partner, or neighbor three doors down the street. As soon as a few insurance companies find out that they will lose money by rejecting clients because of who they choose to live with, they will soon “see the light.” Let’s not let the fact that the insurance companies spend most of their time trying to figure out ways to not pay what they owe turn into a cry to increase the reach of the federal government into even more areas which it is barred from entering (read the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution if you doubt this). Both major parties want to weigh in on this subject. They both want federal laws written. There are only two reasons for this: either they want to attract more people to their party (and thereby increase donations), or they simply want to increase federal power, and this is yet another popular subject that brainwashed people will gladly cede The People’s, and the states’, authority to the federal government.
According to the US Constitution, if authority is not explicitly granted TO the federal government by the Constitution, then that authority rests with The People OR the states. In other words, The People have ALL authority If the states laws are silent on an issue. Why are people so anxious to give away their rights, authority, and power? There used to be a saying: “Power to the People.” Well, guess what – that power is already WITH The People. They just have to have the brains and the guts to not voluntarily give it away, because it cannot be taken away from them without their consent. If someone supports EITHER of the two major parties, they are giving their consent for that party to take their rights. It’s a trick, and it’s time we stop falling for the same trick, year after year.