Thank goodness that kook Ron Paul finally got out of the GOP race. All of that talk about Liberty, the Constitution, Integrity, and Personal Responsibility was really getting old. Now we can focus on real issues affecting America like what Obama's preacher's sermon was about last Sunday, if John McCain had an affair with his assistant, and whether or not Roger Clemens used steroids.
Now that we're on the topic of baseball, have you seen Josh Hamilton? If you haven't, here's an abridged version of his story for you: He was the #1 draft pick in 1999; more than one scout has said without blushing that he's the most gifted baseball player to ever walk the planet; he is the starting center fielder for the baseball team President Bush once owned (Texas Rangers), he's near the top of the American League in batting average and leads the league in HR's and RBI's; he was recently on the cover of Sports Illustrated; he is a devoted Christian, husband, and father of two young girls.
Which really only leads to one question: Why isn't he in prison?
Huh?
Well, you see, what makes Josh Hamilton's story so remarkable is that somewhere between receiving a bonus of over $3 million when he was drafted out of high school in 1999 and chasing baseball's triple crown in 2008, Josh and his parents were in a car wreck. His mom and dad had to go home to Raleigh to heal and Josh was left alone with lots of money, lots of spare time as he recovered from his injuries, and little guidance. So he started hanging out at tattoo parlors and eventually became addicted to crack. Really.
His poor personal decisions got him banned from baseball and coupled with his injuries took nearly four years of his career and his life. In one of the stories he tells, he had to borrow $3000 from his father in law to pay a drug dealer. This is enough money to buy at least 20 grams of crack. Simple possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine carries a mandatory FEDERAL sentence of 5 years. So Josh Hamilton should be serving a 20 year prison sentence now instead of telling his victory story of overcoming addiction, finding Christ, and pummeling baseballs.
So why isn't Josh Hamilton rotting away in prison?
Barack Obama would probably tell you it's because he's white; his preacher certainly would. McCain would probably tell you what a shame it is that Josh waved the "white flag of surrender" and finally gave his problems to God instead of fighting an endless, losing effort on his own while destroying all good will he had built up over the years. And what would some kook like Ron Paul likely tell you? Josh's decision to use drugs should have never put him in prison to begin with, especially a federal prison. But what's the real reason Josh Hamilton isn't in prison? Because he didn't get caught.
And that's a good thing. For Josh. For his Family. For the Rangers. For Baseball. And for America. The first four are pretty obvious, but how is this a good thing for America?
The War on Anything can't be won by the Government. Josh Hamilton got into drugs over 20 years, a full generation, after the war on drugs began. If it were a winnable war, every drug dealer in an entire generation would have been in jail and there would have been no drugs left for Josh to try or become addicted. But Josh Hamilton doesn't blame the federal government for not keeping him safe from drugs; he blames himself for the poor personal decisions he made and takes full responsibility for them. He doesn't blame the people at the tattoo parlor. He doesn't blame the wreck or his parents' not being there to follow him around the minors as a teenager. He takes full responsibility for the decisions he made, and because of that responsibility he is winning his personal war on drugs and is using his freedom to do what he was born to do--smash baseballs.
Unfortunately for Josh, if he continues to do it well he'll receive a big contract. And his government doesn't think that personal responsibility and freedom are the answers to problems. And Josh will get to use millions of the dollars he earns to help fund the failed programs that address the issues that freedom and personal responsibility supposedly aren't strong enough to handle. And should he choose to not fork over that support, he will then assuredly be in prison. The 16th Amendment is one the Government never takes lightly.
Good for America. Josh Hamilton can pay a large part of the $50 Billion of our money the government wastes annually to fight a war that can't be won against people who did get caught making poor personal decisions. And maybe Josh Hamilton can realize that not all people who do drugs are innately evil. Maybe people will realize that it's a personal choice, a very bad one, but still a personal choice that all the billions of dollars in the world can't keep you from making. Maybe people will realize that people normally don't die the first time they take a puff off the ole crackpipe and that if they stop making those choices there is hope and a future.
But since that probably won't happen, it's nice to know that we'll all be safer from those scary drug dealers once Josh is helping foot the bill to keep people like him in prison. Maybe if we just allow our government to spend a few trillion more dollars to protect us from people like Josh Hamilton and we lock away another 20 years worth of drug dealers we'll finally get them all. Maybe if we sit idly by and say nothing while the politicians we elect spend $1.4 Billion to build a fence on the SOUTHERN BORDER of Mexico we (I'm sorry, the government) can keep out all of that crack out of America so young men like Josh Hamilton will be able to enjoy his full career instead of having years of his life ruined by drugs. By the way, if you read that article, did you notice an elected representative pushing the legislation by saying that Mexico's demands should be met or else we could be seen as "letting Mexico down"? Just curious here, but where in the Constitution these representatives are sworn to uphold does it read "The United States Government has the right to give away its citizens' money and acquiesce to the demands of a foreign nation, and do so rapidly if it appears the foreign nation may "feel let down"? Can someone look that one up for me?
Even if it means that the government has to spend billions of our dollars, I suppose it's necessary since we can't let other countries down. Above all, we (once again, I apologize, that whole we thing is an easy trap to fall into--I meant the government, not "we") have to protect our young athletes from the horrors of drugs.
But what if the government can't pull it off? What if Josh Hamilton and drug addicts like him still find a way to get drugs? What would have happened had Josh not stopped using drugs not named Jesus? He probably would be dead now. And that's the part of freedom that most people can't swallow. If you make decisions that kill you, you make decisions that kill you. And it isn't the government's fault, or your parents', or your friends'. It's yours. But is even more your fault if you allow your government to ruin people's lives using your money in your name and you don't do something about it.
But be careful not to say too much or too little. Especially if your are called to testify about your personal decisions in front of Congress. Even if you are forced to give up your 5th Amendment Right and incriminate yourself in order to help the government you pay take away the freedom of someone who sold you something you wanted, you should do it. Even if the crime for which the person is being tried shouldn't be a crime because the federal government has no power to create the law this criminal has broken because the Contract between the People and our Government (popularly known as the Constitution of the United States) doesn't give them the power to create such a law. Even if the "necessary and proper/elastic clause" in Article One, Section Eight of that contract has been bastardized to give them such power, the Tenth Amendment makes it pretty damned clear that they still don't. Even if what they sold you was made illegal in 1990 because a Canadian sprinter won the Gold medal in the 1988 Olympics and something had to be done to protect the integrity of the games and the health of the young athletes.
Even if you really didn't use the drugs, it's better to just say you did. Because if you don't you will spend your life fortune defending yourself against IRS special agents with access to all of your personal information (even without a warrant) spending unlimited money of which you gave them part to take away your freedom because you lied to your government and were completely justified in so doing. Just ask Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens how this works if you don't believe me.
At least if you admitted to using the drugs but were never caught, you might get a second chance. And then you could go on to be a true American Hero. Like Josh Hamilton. Or even win the Democratic Party nomination like Barack Obama.
And I ask you this: are you more afraid of crack cocaine and steroids or does the thought of an organization who thinks it's okay to take your money (or just print what they need which devalues yours--this is why gas is $4 gallon, by the way) and use it to rip the freedom away from highly productive members of society for breaking laws which we never agreed that it was okay for them to create (consent shown through Amending the Contract) disturb you more?
If you chose the latter, you are not alone. And we are getting ready to do something about it. Ron Paul won't be the President in 2008. But if you want America to be the land of freedom, responsibility, and opportunity it was created to be the time is rapidly approaching where serious choices must be made and the time for "pastimes" will have passed. Will you stand with us and knock one out of the park like Josh Hamilton, or will you do as you're told?
This isn't about drugs. It's about freedom and an overreaching federal government who will do whatever it takes to protect you from yourself or from unspeakably evil people, like Josh Hamilton and Roger Clemens. Even if they have to take away all of your freedom to do it.
Join www.campaignforliberty.com today and help us Restore the Republic.
Your Fellow American,
John Armstrong
strongarmedjohn@yahoo.com
Unlike the NFL, the author not only allows but encourages any repostings, descriptions, or accounts of this article in part or full for the causes of Liberty and the Restoration of our Republic.
©2008 John Armstrong, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Last modified: Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of John Armstrong only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. John Armstrong is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by John Armstrong of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By John Armstrong |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: J. Thomas
Date: 2008-06-18 10:46:32
John,
My only question, How do we get the people to want to take responsibility for themselves? It seems to me most of the people don't want any personal responsibility.
I think it is the lack of wanting personal responsibility that bothers me most. I guess I like accountability to much. I always understnad my actions will have consequences whether good or bad. It is the end result that makes our decisions what they are. It would be great to be able to make some decisions like a 'free person'
Posted By: Hot hot female
Date: 2008-06-18 11:06:50
Yeah, all of us that will take responsibility will march right out of what is left of this land and go to Russia or Romania. They can spot a commie from 100 miles away, they understand. Then idiot america can have their drama stories and their income tax and everything else they love so much. You know, personal responsibility hurts peoples feelings. :-)
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-06-18 13:24:15
J. Thomas,
I don't know that you can ever get someone to want someone to take responsibility for themselves. And you are right in your assumption that most people don't want any personal responsibility. That's why--by definition--"most" people are "average."
Without responsibility, you have to just be happy with whatever scraps life throws your way because that's all you're going to get.
You can't force someone to be responsible, but in the America of today where it's not your fault that you didn't pay your mortgage--it's 'predatory lenders'--it's not a parent's responsibility to feed their kids healthy food--it's the overmarketing of products by junkfood companies and the lack of healthy menu items--etc, it's hard to convince a nation of the advantages of being responsible (although they are numerous and wonderful).
One way to help the nation see this is to take away the economic incentives of being irresponsible. If you choose to not buy health insurance, you get sick, you still get treated--but you pay the bills, appeal to a charity, or you go bankrupt.
By creating all of these things people have a "right" to have, we've created a society where people who don't take responsibility for their lives are given a free ride from those that do because the "government pays for it." That would be a great deal if the government actually had money of its own.
I digress.
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-06-18 15:26:00
I found a couple of good discussions going on on other sites about this article. I'll post the links under my response as to why I wrote it which follows below:
I wrote the article because
I love Josh Hamilton. I’m flying to Dallas next week to watch the Phillies series. I own two of his Jerseys. He was in high school in Raleigh when I was in college at Chapel Hill.
I hate paying taxes (both real and in terms of lost dollar value) to support programs designed to address issues rather than deal with problems.
I love freedom. The Constitution was put in place to limit the federal government’s power and protect that freedom. When they ignore it, they put the very thing that makes America great-not our “moral foundation”-our Freedom at risk.
I am an American. And while the only Americans seemingly affected by nonsensical policies like the war on drugs are “bad people” now, we will soon be paying the toll for all of these idiotic government decisions that have been made without the consent of the governed unless people start saying something about it. I have gone from a family who earns $30,000 to someone who pays more than that in taxes by using my freedom fully. I’m not okay with having that freedom taken from me or you, and if you won’t say something about it for you, then I will.
Josh Hamilton definitely shouldn’t be in prison. If he hadn’t used drugs, he’d probably be on his way to Cooperstown. But he did use drugs that shouldn’t even be available if the war on drugs actually worked. But it doesn’t. And neither do 99% of the policies that Washington comes up with to save us from the evil of the day.
However, Hambone took responsibility for his decisions and turned his life around-had he been caught with all of that crack and put in jail because he was such a “danger to society”-he wouldn’t have had that option.
It wasn’t the most eloquent article I’ve written, but you need to read the whole thing and some more of the stuff I’ve written to really get it.
Are you really okay with your government using your money to go after Roger Clemens because he refused to incriminate himself (a 5th Amendment right) in front of Congress when he was testifying to your employees (your government reps are YOUR employees-you pay their salaries) about something the Constitution in no way authorizes them to get involved with to begin with?
By the way, if you missed it in the article, steroids became illegal in 1990 as a reaction to Ben Johnson winning the gold medal at the Olympics. It seemed like a good idea at the time to “protect the integrity of the games and the health of the athletes” but now those same laws are being used to justify spending millions of taxpayer dollars to deliberately go after otherwise very productive American Citizens and rob them of their freedom. The lesson isn’t “If you do steroids, you ruin your life.” The lesson is, “No matter how much money you have, don’t mess with the federal government or you are screwed.”
This has just gone too far. I’m not okay with it. I was overly dramatic for effect. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear enough in my writing, after watching Josh Hamilton videos all night, I just felt like writing.
http://www.lonestarball.com/2008/6/18/554281/ummm-what
Posted By: blakmira
Date: 2008-06-19 09:58:58
I like how you tied together Ron Paul (the only non-corrupted politician telling the truth, therefore he won't be our President), the War on Drugs (yep, it's really working - NOT), baseball (not into sports myself but respect other's right to enjoy it), drug rehabilitation (how about replacing some of those new prisons with rehabs?), the IRS (a criminal organization) and the Campaign for Liberty!
Great article with valid points. Just one disagreement -- Jesus isn't a drug. However, some religions can make you stupider than smoking crack.
Posted By: a knight
Date: 2008-06-19 11:38:39
But Ron paul Voted FOR the border fence. He just hasn't figure out how he's going top pay for it once he ends income taxes...
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-06-19 15:27:26
a knight,
One of the proper functions of our federal government is to protect our borders. Oddly, by ending income taxes we wouldn't really need a border fence. Why? The income tax would be ended by slashing all of the idiotic government programs that create an economic disincentive for Americans to work (either through direct handouts or being taxed-directly or indirectly-at such a high rate) and an economic incentive for Mexicans to risk their lives to cross the border (healthcare, education, no taxes, etc.).
Another reason no fence would be needed is that our country would become so prosperous so quickly once the burden of government was lifted that we would welcome immigrants because we'd need more workers to fill all the new jobs.
I don't know what's so hard to understand about this.
Posted By: a knight
Date: 2008-06-20 05:38:17
@ John ArmstrongRon Paul claims that he desires a return to original understanding of The Constitution, and swears that he has never proposed or endorsed legislation that is oppositional to it. Both of these claims are false when held in the light of his immigration policies.
The Original Understating of Expatriation
When I use the term "expatriation" here, I am not referring to its most modern-day usage, but an older commonly understood connotation of it. From Webster's 1828 dictionary: "Expatriation...the forsaking one's own country, with a renunciation of allegiance, and with the view of becoming a permanent resident and citizen in another country."
Expatriation was assuredly believed to be a Natural Human right by many of the Nation's Founders, because without it being a right that is preeminent to the state, the Declaration of Independence was not a radical assertion of personal liberty, but instead was an audacious written confession of guilt by treasonous subjects of the English King. The concept of expatriation as a Natural Human Right is an essential element in legitimising this Nation's birth.
A citation from an early Supreme Court case also offers illumination onto the concept of expatriation as a Natural Right:
"This involves the great question as to the right of expatriation, upon which so much has been said in this cause. Perhaps it is not necessary it should be explicitly decided on this occasion; but I shall freely express my sentiments on the subject. That a man ought not to be a slave; that he should not be confined against his will to a particular spot, because he happened to draw his first breath upon it; that he should not be compelled to continue in a society to which he is accidentally attached, when he can better his situation elsewhere, much less when he must starve in one country, and may live comfortably in another: are positions which I hold as strongly as any man, and they are such as most nations in the world appear clearly to recognize."
Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, Talbot v. Janson, 1795
Note the date. This case predated even the Alien and Sedition Acts. Thomas Jefferson believed expatriation to be a Natural Right also:
"My opinion on the right of Expatriation has been, so long ago as the year 1776, consigned to record in the act of the Virginia code, drawn by myself, recognizing the right expressly, and prescribing the mode of exercising it. The evidence of this natural right, like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of kings. If he has made it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own happiness, he has left him free in the choice of place as well as mode ; and we may safely call on the whole body of English jurists to produce the map on which Nature has traced, for each individual, the geographical line which she forbids him to cross in pursuit of happiness. It certainly does not exist in his mind. Where, then, is it? I believe, too, I might safely affirm, that there is not another nation, civilized or savage, which has ever denied this natural right. I doubt if there is another which refuses its exercise. I know it is allowed in some of the most respectable countries of continental Europe, nor have I ever heard of one in which it was not. How it is among our savage neighbors, who have no law but that of Nature, we all know."
"The Writings of Thomas Jefferson; Definitive Edition", Albert Ellery Bergh, Editor, Copyright, 1905, By The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association. Volume XV; pp 124,125
Is the good Dr. Paul woefully ignorant of this. and as such unsuitable to hold political office, or is he a dishonest politician, making false claims only to secure electoral support, and as such, an unsuitable choice for political office?
Immigration was Originally a Power of The Individual States
Both of the resolutions against the Alien and Sedition Acts enacted by two states, were grounded in the concept of Immigration Control as a State Right:
You claim that, "One of the proper functions of our federal government is to protect our borders", and imply this includes a Federal Power to dictate immingration in the individual states. Am I to understand that you do not believe in a limited government, which can only legitimately act within the framework of a written Constitution? Ron Paul has stated many times that this is his belief. Another of his laughably absurd assertions, given his stated immigration policies. The power over immigration was originally considered to be a state power. The Federal Power over immigration ends with its duty to standardise the process of naturalization throughout the Nation. If the Founders had intended this to be a power of the Federal Government, they would have listed it along with their listing of Naturalization laws:
- Kentucky Resolution : 1799
- Virginia Resolution - 1798
U.S. Constitution; Article I; Section. 8;
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power...
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of NaturalizationThe Constitutional is tellingly silent about a Federal Power to control the flow of immigration.
Paul plays the "States' Rights" strategy in much the same odious fashion that rabid segregationist southerners did when responding to Civl Rights initiatives: as a bar to individual liberty, not as a defense of it. Paul uses it to rationalise the prohibition against same sex couples freely entering into contractual living relationships, and blocking womaenfrom exercising control over their own reproductive processes, and then, when immigration comes up to the plate, Paul eeps on throwing his doctored spit-balls, but they start to break in the opposite direction.
Posted By: Sher
Date: 2008-06-21 12:36:35
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ON TARGET!
Excellent!! Keep it up.
Sherry Baker