Redheaded Politics

Blog has moved

webadmin@joplinglobe.com — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:13:37 GMT

This blog has moved to jessicaschreindl.wordpress.com

�Buckle up, it�s the law�

webadmin@joplinglobe.com — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:17:15 GMT

Nazism, Fascism, Socialism and Communism are simply different �isms� based on the philosophy of collectivism. The so-called �debate� that rages today between conservatives and liberals, right vs. left, Democrat and Republican, is simply a distraction which feeds off of these labels and their emotional associations. In reality, all differences stem from two different philosophies: collectivism and individualism.

Collectivism, as stated above, has manifested itself in totalitarian regimes. It is the idea that the group is more important than the individual. And, if necessary, the individual should be sacrificed for the �greater good.�

In contrast, individualism stresses independence and self-reliance while opposing most external forces on one�s choices, whether by society, or any other group or institution. Individualists, such as myself, do not believe in the force or coercion that collectivism proscribes. Instead, we hope to �shape� society by persuading and appealing to the intellect of others -- having faith in their reason and charity.

An example of this is seatbelt law. While the collectivist uses the force of law to protect others, the individualist allows for the free choice of the individual -- having faith in her reason.

Affirmative action is another example. While the well-meaning collectivist, once again, uses force to create a fair work environment, the individualist allows for the free choice and charity of the employer. The individualist believes only true charity is voluntary and that a free society creates such charity.

While individualists and collectivists may be at odds over how to best shape society by moral means, they are alike in their intent. For both collectivists and individualists care deeply about themselves, their families, their friends, their communities, their country and human kind as a whole.

Sometimes, a collectivist will tend to view the �rugged individualist� as callous and elitist, caring only for herself. In reality, this is the case with objectivism, as touted by Ayn Rand. Objectivism is at odds with altruism (the unselfish regard for others). Individualism is not. Just as there may be collectivists who are self-absorbed, so may there be individualists who are self-absorbed.

I am an individualist because I am an altruist. For me personally, the two are inseparable.

The nation within: Lakota people declare their sovereignty

webadmin@joplinglobe.com — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:51:28 GMT

We once forced the American Indians to adapt to our way of life -- often claiming it was for their survival. The day may come when some Americans find themselves adapting to the American-Indian way of life for, what they�ll perceive as, their �survival.�

On Dec. 17, 2007, a delegation of Lakota Indians went to Washington D.C. to declare their independence. The "Freedom Delegation" delivered a letter to U.S. State Department, withdrawing from all treaties with the United States government. The Lakota are looking to reclaim their original land guaranteed to them by U.S. Treaty.

Russell Means, one of the delegates, said, "We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us. This is according to the laws of the United States, specifically Article 6 of the Constitution.�

Events leading up to the Lakota�s 2007 declaration were set in motion in 1974, when the International Indian Treaty Council brought together more than 5,000 delegates representing 98 Indian tribes and nations from North and South America. At the council, the tribes/nations signed The Declaration of Continuing Independence -- a �Manifesto representing the wisdom of thousands of people, their Ancestors, and the Great Mystery supports the rights of Indigenous Nations to live free and to take whatever actions necessary for sovereignty.�

And in 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an award of $105 million to eight tribes of Sioux Indians as compensation for taken land in United States v. Sioux Nation. The Court�s decision was in response to the United States Court of Claims ruling which concluded land was unlawfully taken from the Sioux and that the tribe was entitled to just compensation under the 5th Amendment. The Supreme Court however, refused to award land. To date, the Lakota people have refused the money, instead reasserting their indigenous rights to the land. Accruing compound interest on the settlement has brought the value of the claim to over $400 million as of 2008.

The Lakota say their claim to sovereignty is lawful under U.S. law. Because the United States illegally seized land and continually broke U.S. treaties, the Lakota claim the land is still legally their�s. Some of the Lakota have gone so far as to reject their status as American citizens.

Russell Means, the controversial �figured head� of the Lakota, was among the delegates in Washington D.C. in 2007. He envisions the "Republic of Lakotah" as a sovereign nation with laws radically different from current United State�s laws. The new Lakota government, according to him, will be one solely based on consent. There will be no income tax or property taxes. He says everyone one is welcome in the Republic of Lakotah; including Americans who reject their citizen-status. It�s likely a small percentage of the American population would find the Republic�s invitation appealing.

However, the movement is not immune to inward conflict. In 2008, the Lakota Oyate Lakota branched off from the original �Freedom Delegation� -- claming the movement had been high-jacked by one of the delegation members.

So far, the U.S. government and the Bureau of Indian Affairs have ignored the Lakota. According to the Lakota Oyate and Lakota Republic, Gary Garrison of the BIA stated the group's withdrawal "doesn't mean anything" and said "When they begin the process of violating other people's rights, breaking the law, they're going to end up like all the other groups that have declared themselves independent - usually getting arrested and being put in jail."

While the return of sovereign Indian nations may be unlikely, it�s none-the-less, something to work toward. The struggles of the Lakota and other indigenous people for their freedom are encouraging to behold.

Time Magazine asks Ron Paul about the Fed, marijuana, media bias

webadmin@joplinglobe.com — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:34:36 GMT

Recently, on Time Magazine�s �10 Questions,� Rep. Ron Paul was asked ten questions submitted by readers. A total of 220 questions were submitted.

In the interview, Paul talks about his new book, End the Fed. Paul�s �Audit the Fed� bill, HR 1207, has received the support of two-thirds of the House of Representatives.

Addressing the current financial crisis, Paul tells the Time reporter:

�The Federal Reserve is the culprit and if we can get an audit we could reveal exactly what they do. Because they deal in trillions of dollars of extending loans to special interests, special banks, special corporations, they make deals with other central banks and other governments of the world. So they�re a government to themselves and they print their own money.�

Watch out (again) for Ron Paul in 2012.

Finding something good in those we disagree with

webadmin@joplinglobe.com — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 08:20:03 GMT

Source: Reason TV

I�ve had a hard time forming an opinion about the Tea Party movement. On one hand, I really like its message of liberty and reduced government spending. On the other hand, Fox News� and Glenn Beck�s involvement in the movement makes me more than a little nervous.

But the ceaseless attacks on the so-called �tea baggers� by much of the media and my peers, has spurred me to come to their defense. I�ve grown tired of hearing the childish, thoughtless rhetoric directed at the tea partiers. Labels such as �tea baggers,� �crazies,� �radicals,� etc. ignore the sincere intent of these protesters.

Take, for example, the 9-12 march on Washington D.C.

While I�m sure some protesters showed up because Glenn Beck convinced them President Barack Obama is a communist, the majority attended in defense of themselves, their family, and what they consider American ideals. Many flew/drove miles just to attend the event; spending their hard-earned dollars on a conviction.

Maybe you don�t like the tea partiers. Maybe you hate what they stand for. Be glad they�re taking a stand. Appreciate the sincere, concerned actions of your neighbors.