want to see it removed from the platform, but I don’t lead
with that issue for the simple reason that it’s only one
example of the overall problem - government trying to do too much.
And there are so many more pressing and widely understood example
of that over-reaching that the message is really starting to get
out there. Too much government is hazardous to your life.
SH: If you are elected Governor of Georgia, how will you deal with
the Homeland Security’s intervention into states rights and
decision making at the local level?
GMH: The intrusion of Homeland Security is just one more example
of a Federal Government gone wild with its own power. For a people
who were badly scared by the events of 9/11, it is an unfortunately
popular intrusion, because it’s been sold as making us safer,
when in fact it does little or nothing to do so. The Federal
Government has a constitutionally mandated duty to defend the States
against invasion, which duty it is most definitely not doing at
our national borders.
The technique that Congress uses for these intrusions is an old
and effective one. Instead of limiting themselves to the powers
enumerated in the Constitution, they have created a new and almost
limitless set of powers by their use of taxation. What they do
is very simple - they take huge sums of money from the people through
the tax system, and then send it back through the State governments
with so many strings attached that it looks like an octopus’s
attempt at macramé. “If you take this money
for schools, you must do these 5,732.4 things the way WE tell you
to do. Otherwise, we keep your money.”
There is absolutely no basis in the Constitution for that practice. It’s
a purely invented power which the Congress has conferred on itself,
and that’s where we need to take the fight.
SH: Along those lines, now that the fingerprint law has been repealed
in Georgia, do you feel that as Governor, you would be able to
keep the Federal Government from enforcing their own fingerprint
I.D. card which would effectively nullify this repeal?
GMH: Again, it’s all about the money. State politicians LOVE
the federal practice of stealing money and passing it back through
the state governments. It let’s them tell people, “Look
what we got for you from Uncle Sam!” without having to be
honest about the fact that it was taken FROM the people to begin
with. We have to be willing to stand up and say, “Hey! That’s
OUR OWN MONEY to begin with. You can’t take it away
and then pretend to give us a ‘gift’, but only if we
play by your rules.” We need to pass on the monetary
gift and make it clear to both the people and to Congress exactly
why.
SH: How do you feel about the government’s involvement in
foreign alliances such as CAFTA, NAFDA etc?
GMH: Free trade should be free trade. If you need a detailed
treaty to have something you call free trade, |
then it’s not very free, is it?
Instead, we get these detailed agreements that contain very little
about actual free trade, and in fact contain little poison pills
like CAFTA’s language that would place food and drug ‘purity’ in
the United States under the control of some vaguely defined,
unaccountable international organization. (editors note CODEX)
SH: What is the Libertarian Party’s stance and your own opinion
of The United Nations?
GMH: I’ll speak just for myself on this one. I’m
a very big proponent of international cooperation and understanding,
but the UN is NOT the way to achieve that. Many people cite
the anti-American biases of other countries in the UN as the reason
we shouldn’t play. That’s a valid concern, but it’s
not the major reason why I oppose the UN. The UN is an essentially
unworkable institution because it’s based in a fundamental
mistake.
Diplomacy is based on the idea that nations have different interest
at different times, and that those interest more often conflict
with each other than overlap. Diplomats seek to enhance the interest
of their own country by finding the areas of overlap and exploiting
them for temporary gains.
Governance, on the other hand, is based on the idea that a group
of people in a particular area have enough in common that their
interests more often overlap than conflict with each other. That
commonality forms the basis for laws and institutions that those
people can live with and, hopefully, flourish under.
The UN is an attempt at governance using the tools and approaches
of diplomacy, and as such it can never work. It will never produce
the results that its supporters hope for, any more than a hammer
and saw will produce a soufflé in your kitchen.
Once again, the Supreme Court has ignored the clear language of
the Constitution and substituted sophisticated bunk in its place. If
the “public use” defined in the Fifth Amendment’s
takings clause can be interpreted to mean “anything that
indirectly benefits the public”, then what are we to make
of language like “a speedy and public trial” guaranteed
in all criminal cases by the Sixth?
SH: What do you think of the Supreme Court’s ruling on eminent
domain?
GMH: The court has set the stage for the end of the private property
rights as we have known them for the entire run of our nation. Public
means PUBLIC, and the Supreme Court has again done violence to
our language, our society and its own reputation among a people
who increasingly view their own laws and government with suspicion. Instead
of upholding American values, the court has instead imposed an
almost monarchical interpretation that says our ‘lords’ may
decide what is best for us. What’s next - ‘prima noctur’?
|
