The fundamentals of Libertarianism.

We Libertarians believe that each human being as an individual, and not as part of a group, posses natural unalienable rights, and that these rights are not handed to them by the any government or authority force, but are innate to our very human nature.

Only the individual can know what is or is not in their best interest, and so the individual alone has sole domain over his body and actions. No individual should be compelled through force or fraud to act in a way they do not wish to act, or to abstain from acting in a manner they believe furthers their own self interest.

We Libertarians believe that the primary, nay, the sole purpose of any governing body is to protect and defend the rights of its citizens against all enemies foreign and domestic. We believe that government can only gain power by first taking it from the citizenry, and that when this occurs the natural rights of the people are violated. Because of this Libertarians seek to limit the role of government to protecting the rights of the people without interfering with the free exercise of the private market.

We believe that no one should ever be forced relinquish the fruits of their labor to provide for another. We believe that each human being is entitled to his property, that no one may take from the individual what is rightfully theirs. We oppose wealth redistribution and welfare programs of any kind on the basis that they violate the natural rights of the people by forcefully seizing their property and giving said property to those who did not earn it.

We Libertarians believe that the best policy for dealing with foreign nations is to seek friendship with all, but alliances with none in the hope that we avoid war, but if one were to break out across seas we would not be forced into it. We take seriously the advice of our founding fathers, especially that of George Washington, who warned of the consequences of permanent alliances. We support a humble foreign policy of non intervention with peaceful and friendly relations with the nations of the world, discarding the arrogance and embracing the diversity of the world. We believe that this nation’s military should only be used in self defense, and that pre-emptive war, in the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, “was the invention of Hitler” and should be abandoned as a policy.

We Libertarians reject force and coercion, in all circumstances, as an acceptable means to promote social and family values. No man has the right to force upon others their moral convictions and should at all times respect the rights of others to live in a manner they see fit for themselves. Force is the tool of tyrants and should be rejected by all freedom loving individuals.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams

Why I won't support Obama.

Reading a few online blogs and visiting discussion forums for politics today, I have come across a disturbing trend.

Reading the post and comments on the thread “I'm conservative, but I'm glad I'm not a Republican”(http://www.amazon.com/tag/politics/forum/ref=cm_cd_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1S3QSZRUL93V8&cdThread=TxO9A2B0MHZ47E&displayType=tagsDetail) in particular from the Amazon.com politics discussion board, I can’t help but take offence to the charge that if I don’t support president elect Obama then I’m somehow “un-American,” “unpatriotic” or even worse, a traitor. This is a very serious charge and a very insulting comment as well, to make. It is also very hypocritical of the left who’ve complained (and rightly so) about being called traitors for not supporting the Bush presidency. I do not believe that people who oppose Bush (like myself) are traitors in any way, it is the people that blindly support Bush simply because he was President who more likely to be traitors.

It was wrong for Bush to accuse his opposition of treason, and it is equally wrong for Obama supporters to call opposition traitors. I will not lend support for Obama. As a Libertarian I cannot in good faith support his presidency, to do so would be to violate my principles and I will not do that. I believe in small government, maximum civil liberties, deregulation, non interventionist foreign policy, etc, most of which Obama is against. Giving these facts, how can I support his Presidency?

I don’t hold any grudge against the man, he’s very intelligent and fascinating. I’d love to sit down with him and just talk. He’s not the anti Christ, he’s not evil, but he is a socialist and believes in big government. I firmly believe that his economic policies will make the country worse, and so how can you possibly expect me to support him? What kind of American would support a President they believe will make the country worse? I’ll tell you what kind, the 20% of us that still support the policies of President Bush. Wouldn’t a patriotic American do whatever is in his power to make sure that doesn’t happen?

I did not vote for either Obama or McCain this election; I cast my vote for Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and I have no regrets for doing so. Had McCain won I would take the same position I am taking now, that I will not support any of his policies that I deem not in the best interest of our country.

Quick question to those Obama supporters who might think I’m a traitor; would you have supported a McCain Presidency if you truly believed he would make the country worse?

Defined by Principles.

America is a very unique and special country. As the political season heats up both MaCain and Obama have been trying to define just what it is that makes America so great, and I have to tell you the rhetoric I hear coming from their mouths is quite funny to hear. What is it that makes America great? Or, more importantly, how is America defined? What is it that makes this country different from all the others around the world?

America is not defined by a culture; on the contrary it is simply a mixture of almost every culture found around the world. There is no American culture except for the mixing of other nations cultures, which adds up into something we call America. Nor are we defined by geography, for we are not native to this land (except of course of American Indians) and expanded our nation continually from our birth to the present day. We are not defined by a language or a common heritage; we are not defined by a grand and ancient history which binds us together, nor by monuments of a last age. America is not defined by its rivers and seas, its mountains, grasslands, wildlife, sunsets and cities. These do not tell us what America is.

This nation is defined not on any of these things, but on the bedrock principles lade out by our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution.; namely the principles that all men are created equal, and that we are endowed by our creator with certain rights, and these rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are the foundation of the “American Way,” the core beliefs on which this nation was created. These beliefs do not simply represent America, they ARE America. The United States without these core values is no longer the same country, not even if it holds the same land, runs the same system of government, and has the same people living within its borders. America without these beliefs is nothing more then an empty shell.

This is why I have maintained a libertarian point of view throughout my posts. I believe in these core values just as our founding fathers did. I believe that government should be used to protect our rights and that if it becomes destructive to those rights we the people have the right, no, the duty to abolish said government and establish a new. The sooner people start to really believe in the values that this nation is founded on the better we’ll all be. Long live the constitution.

Hypocrisy; it’s what’s for dinner.

We all know that hypocrisy is nothing new to politics; we come to expect it from the people who will be running our country. Sad, but true.

But after MaCain nominated Sarah Palin this campaign season turned from a relatively mind one to an absolute circus. One day everyone was gushing over Obama’s acceptance speech of the Democratic nomination the next everyone’s running around in circles with their hands in the air like an asteroid was going to kill everyone alive and there was nothing we could do about it. Democrats seemed shell shocked as they scratched their heads and wondered “who the heck is Sarah Palin” while the Republicans response was “who cares? She’s pro life!”

Now there is some major hypocrisy on both sides of the ail that I want to address here so lets get down to it. First off, the Republicans who, to me, have the biggest share of hypocrisy to take. After Palins nomination the attacks came raining it, as is expected for someone who is potently one beat away from the presidency (especially if that heartbeat we are to rely upon is MaCain’s which may or may not be reliable). But what stunned me was the lengths Republicans would go to defend her. Now I expected a strong defense for their VP, of course, but the levels to which Republicans will go to defend Palin is something I haven’t seen for a VP before. Any attack on Palin is deemed “sexist” and unacceptable by the GOP. Time and time again I hear neo-cons like Sean Hanity ask, how dare they attack her with such frivolous attacks that make should be kept personal and have nothing to do with politics, such as the issue over her daughter. I agree, such attacks are stupid and have nothing to do with anything with politics. But here’s the hypercritical part; how on earth can the Republicans claim the moral high ground in defending Palin from frivolous attacks when they’ve been responsible for their own share of stupid attacks. Claims that Obama is a secret Muslim who’s going to overrun the country, or that he hates America because he doesn’t wear a flag pin or hold his hand over his heart. Ohhh, scary. If frivolous attacks against Palin are sexist and show a lack of morals for Democrats, shouldn’t frivolous attacks on Obama be racist and show the lack of character in Republicans? Ah ha, a double standard I see.

Another bit of hypocrisy is when Republicans defend Palins “experience” and try to make the case that because she has executive experience, however little, that automatically makes her qualified to be president (and please, don’t say “well Obama doesn’t have any experience either” because I’ll address that later). The Colbert Report had a pretty good segment addressing this. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/180273/september-02-2008/the-word---that-s-the-ticket. The actual segment is about three minutes into this clip so you can skip the first part if you want. Look, lets step out of party lines for a moment and face the facts; Palin has NO experience to be President at all. Let’s stop trying to make her into something she’s not. Maybe in another, oh, let’s say ten years, but not now, not yet. MaCain chose her simply to rally his base behind him and nothing more. If Palin was the front runner, would you really vote for her? I somehow doubt it.

Okay, now after I’ve made just about every Republican in the area mad at me, its time to do the same with the Demarcates. Oh, what’s that? You thought I was on your side? Sorry to disappoint.

Yes you democrats are just as guilty of hypocrisy as the Republicans; you don’t have the moral high ground either. Upon hearing of Palins nomination, the first response of many democrats was to attack her experience. Are you kidding me? Now look, I can attack her experience, I’m a Libertarian, but for Democrats who are supporting Barrack Obama, someone who also has almost no experience, how on earth can they turn around and attack Sarah Palin for her lack of experience. Let’s remember now, that although Palin is MaCain’s VP which puts her a heartbeat away from the presidency, Obama is the democratic candidate, he IS the heartbeat! How could you possibly attack Palin for her lack of experience when you support a candidate with arguably LESS experience?

Now I have the best of both worlds, I say neither of them is truly ready to be president because they both lack any sort of experience, although I also believe that judgment is far more important then experience, although that is something they both lack as well. Sorry people, but with Palin having a pregnant unmarried daughter and Obama being a secret Muslim, how can I trust their judgment? ;)

A response to Our Fathers Really Do Know Best - A Declaration of Causes” by Maid of Iron

This is in response to a very good and well written blog by Main of Iron who stated her reasons for not believing in a non interventionist foreign policy. Although I respect her opinion I felt it deserved a reply. To do so I took quotes from her blog and responded to them individually. To save space I have skipped the part about Obama since I more or less agree with her on that issue.
Here is the link to her blog.
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/share/profiles/?slid=e29258e5-b455-ccf4-95c6-804ffe421b9c&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=e29258e5-b455-ccf4-95c6-804ffe421b9c&plckPostId=Blog%3ae29258e5-b455-ccf4-95c6-804ffe421b9cPost%3a34eaef64-3836-4e7f-9447-d5b67b8919bd&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest

“I suppose because you don’t know me, and I am a Republican, you probably picture me as some pasty white, blue haired old lady, cloaking herself in tawdry red Republican Party attire.”
Naw, I have nothing against Republicans and I try my best not to lump everyone into a single Cleche. My problem is with the party, but the people who call themselves Republicans for the most part are very decent people. My parents are Republican, most of my friends are, so I have a very high opinion of most Republicans I know, even if I don’t agree with you on a lot of issues.
“I am with you in spirit, but I am a Republican because I cannot leave my country open and vulnerable, naked to the whims of our enemies, without a realistic plan for National Security, and foreign policy as a whole.”
Foreign policy is always what turns people off to Libertarianism, and I think its probably the biggest misconception about the party and system of beliefs. People get none interventionism and isolatism confused, but if you really believe in small government then none intervention is a logical conclusion, although albeit not the only one. The premise of small government is, to me at least, to keep governments too small to interfere in our daily lives. I don’t want the feds coming in and telling me, or my state, how to run my life. But if our government doesn’t have the right to tell the states and people within its boarders how to behave, what right does it have to tell OTHER nations and the people outside out boarders how to behave? The government that can impose its will upon other nations is one that can also impose its will upon its own people.
“It is not realistic in the time we live in, to expect to live in a Utopia, where what I hear you all calling ‘non-intervention’ is an option. “
No one’s calling for utopia. I have not heard anyone say that if we take a non interventionist policy that all of a sudden the world would be at peace and unicorns will frolic through the meadows. No one is saying that. What we ARE saying, however, is that non interventionism would make our nation much safer then it is as of right now. Where would we be right now if we hadn’t forced our will upon other nations? Look, you can talk about the soviets all you want, but Reagan didn’t bring them down, communism did, and regardless of Reagan they were going to fall sooner or later with or without our intervention. But because of our fear we started intervening in other nations affairs. The results were the Korean War (the first illegal war fought after WWII because congress never declared war), Vietnam, and today’s War on Terror.
Muslims are not inherently evil, they don’t grow up from the cradle thinking “let’s kill America.” We need to realize that people in the Middle East are just regular people who, like us, if provoked, will backlash. Answer this seriously, if China had a military base here in the States how would we respond? Now say that base is built on top of Arlington Cemetery? How would we respond? We’d be pissed, as we should be, but we never take the time to wonder how Muslims may react if we have troops in their countries on their holey sights. Like it or not Saudi Arabia is the holy land for Muslims and to have western troops there is considered an insult to their religion. It makes it that much easier for people like Osama (who we supplied with weapons during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, yet another reason for none interventionism) to recute people for his cause. He doesn’t simply say “westerners are evil and must be killed” no, to gain supporters all he has to do is point to western involvement in the Middle East.
Non intervention has always been an option. Let’s take a look at WWI and WWII to see where non intervention would have worked for the better. If the nations of Europe had practiced non intervention WWI as we know it would have been nothing more than a small irrelevant boarder war between Austria and Serbia, but thanks to alliances Russia intervened, which made France intervene, which made Germany intervene, on and on until millions are dead. The US really had no business being in that war but we got involved anyway. Germany lost because of our intervention and the extremely harsh treaty of Versailles was forced upon Germany. That treaty “planted the seeds of discontent” which would ultimately sprout in what we know as the Second World War Now had we not gotten involved the war might have ended in a truce, the Germans could have won (which really isn’t a bad thing at all, the Germans in WWI were not some evil empire trying to take over the world, and probably would have been more lenient on its defeated enemies then France was to them) or the end result could have been the same, but either way US intervention didn’t make anything any better for anyone.
“I wish this were not so, but the very real threats that face our nation today cannot be ignored or treated as isolated episodes that we have no business “intervening in”. To take this stance is to invite the utter destruction of our nation. Who will fight the war to subdue your enemies so that this modern day Utopia you hope for may be birthed? Our founding fathers laid the foundations for your hopes by fighting a war: It was called The American Revolution.”
Many of the threats we face today are results of our intervention in the world. For instance do you ever wonder why Iran hates us so much? It’s easy to see why when you learn that we overthrew a democratic government that was sweet with the soviets for a dictatorship that was more pro western. The result? The overthrow of our pro western government and the mess we have today. Why are they building nukes? Easy, its not because they wish to nuke New York, they are just scared silly that we might invade. We have troops on all sides of them, and have invaded nations for less (Iraq anyone?) so would it not be in their best interest to seek some better weapons? If MaCain wins we very well could end up in a war with Iran. Plus they see what we did with North Korea when they had nukes, we gave them fuel. So we help out nations because of weapons they do have, but when it comes to nations that might have some or might someday have them we simply attack. So, if you’re Iran, what would you do? If I were them, I’d try to build a nuke ASAP.
And let’s not confuse non intervention with pacifism. Its not the same thing, not by a long shot. For there to be a just war there are a set of guidelines that must be followed that almost every moral philosopher agrees on.
1) It has to be an act of self defense. No wars of aggression.
2) All means of diplomacy must have been exhausted and failed.
3) The proper authorities must declare the war.
This doesn’t mean you can’t fight a war, it simply lays out the guidelines for doing so in order to not end up fighting stupid and immoral wars. Now look at this closely and you’ll see that none of the wars we’ve fought since WWII live up to these standards. In the US only Congress may declare war, and that has not happened since WWII. The present war isn’t consistent with any of these, since it was not in self defense and diplomacy had not yet failed.

The point is that non intervention doesn’t mean you can’t go to war, what it means is that if we DO go to war we do it the right way, not willy nilly like we’ve done for years. It’s supposed to be a big deal to send troops into battle, but these days it’s treated as simply a matter of fact. Don’t like this nation? No problem, just use your US army visa card and take it out. And as to your question on who will defend this nation, I believe I will as I plan on joining the Air Force early next year. So yeah, I take defense seriously, but our troops deserve better than being the answer to every problem we have around the world.
“For as surely as the fathers invoked “non-intervention” policies as a tenant of their foreign policy, they were equally prepared to defend the United States from threats abroad. “
Good, you see then that non intervention doesn’t mean you are a pacifist, only that we shouldn’t be telling other nations what to do all the time.
“Our policy, however, angered both sides. It nearly caused a war with France, and contributed to one with Britian - The War of 1812 - where the British, once more on American soil, burned Washington, DC.”

Sure, when we don’t do what other nations want we might get them angry at us, that doesn’t mean though that we should just give in and do what they say. Funny though how Britain and the US have switched sides over the last couple hindered years.
“The Monroe Doctrine advanced the right of the United States to take action of both defense and deterrence, in the face of European intervention in North America and the Caribbean Basin, and if memory serves me, the Western Hemisphere as a whole.”
The Monroe Doctrine was nothing more than a good sounding policy that meant almost nothing. If a European nation really wanted to create new colonies in America we would not have been able to stop it. But by this time Europe had pretty much been kicked out and given a bloody nose so the threat of them coming back was small.
“Had we not done so, Germany who was eyeing the prize, was fully prepared to step in. Had they succeeded, they would likely have risen in might and power to a level that might have changed the outcome of World War I.”
I have to ask, why would it have been so bad if Germany had won WWI? They weren’t the evil nation they were in WWII, they were just like all the other major powers of that time, so why does it even matter to us who won? If we never got involved we would have had no stake in it. Besides, where does this “right” to intervene in Latin America come from? Just because Roosevelt said we had it doesn’t make it so.
· Every nation, including the United States, has the right of "self-preservation". The principle of self-preservation underlies the Monroe Doctrine. The primary purpose of the Doctrine was to protect Latin American nations from intervention by European powers, not to victimize or oppress Latin American nations.
So, European intervention bad, US intervention on the other hand okay. See a problem here? Hey it’s great for us, but how has it worked out for Latin America? Yeah, and we wonder why people there hate us so much.
“On a side note: I feel no need to go in depth over what led us into either of the World Wars. In both we tried to exercise “non-intervention”. The sinking of the ocean liner “Lusitania” by Germany in 1916 began to draw us into World War I, and in the midst of a "non-intervention" policy the attack on Pearl Harbor thrust us front line into World War II.”
We should never have been involved in WWI at all. The Lusitania was BRITISH ocean liner and was carrying military weapons to England. Germany had every right to sink it because of this. Also, prior to the sinking the German government posted adds in American newspapers warning Americans that ships going near England would be sunk. Any person that went to England in a time of war was going at their own risk.
WWII may not have happened had we not intervened in WWI, but that’s for alternate history writers to figure out. When it comes to WWII though there are reasons why Japan attacked us.
1) They wanted the Philippians, which isn’t a very noble goal, but we wouldn’t have had the Philippians had it not been for the Spanish American War, which was an unjust war as well. It would have been Spain’s problem, not ours.
2) We cut off their oil. Once again, great intentions, but it did provoke an attack.
Now I’m not saying we were responsible for the attacks, Japan’s ambition and lust for power was the main responsibility, but there were reasons and many of those reasons rest in past interventionism. Plus, don’t forget we didn’t declare war on Germany after the attacks, we only declared war on them AFTER they declared war on us.

The point is that non intervention is not to be blamed for WWI and WWII.
“So there is a bit of historical backdrop on how we evolved from pioneers who founded a country, to protectors of our great nation. Our founding fathers never advocated the role of "non-intervention" in the face of threats to our national security. They advocated non-intervention when appropriate, and a firm stance of national defense and self preservation when circumstances dictated. “
Great, but that’s not what the Republicans want. Republicans LOVE to fight wars these days, even when there is no real reason to. Iraq is simply the best example. You can’t honestly say the Republicans follow these beliefs because of what they’ve done when it comes to war. On the other hand, this is EXACTLY what Ron Paul and the Libertarian party represent. Neither would hesitate when it comes to defending this nation, Ron Paul voted for the war in Afghanistan just like everyone else, so he’s not completely anti war, but he voted against the Iraq war. Why? It didn’t have anything to do with national security and was simply getting us into another useless war. Seems like we was right. So let me say again, Libertarians are NOT pacifists, but we don’t believe war to be the first solution to every problem. War makes more problems than it solves.
“They have brought us through two world wars and a cold war that would have destroyed a lesser nation. In so doing, they delivered not only our nation, but millions worldwide, from death and tyranny at the hands of evil men such as Stalin and Hitler. “
We defeated Hitler because he declared war on us, not because of some sense of duty to our fellow man. Remember that our mission in Germany was to defeat the Nazis, not save the Jews. And we never freed anyone from Stalin, we were ALLIES with him if you remember, and he died of old age still killing millions of his people. Communism destroyed the USSR, not us. We may have lit the spark, but they were already soaked in gasoline.
“And they have enabled us to promote worldwide, the freedom and liberty we so cherish. That very significantly lessens the threat to our own nation, and free societies everywhere, from those who advance tyranny as a way of life. To do less, would be to watch tyranny lay claim to the worldwide neighborhood and still expect to remain independant and free. Mr. Rogers is no match for "Dear Leader" Kim Jong and Mayberry will not survive unmolested and at peace beside the Killing Fields of the Khmer Rouge.”
Tell me how teaching people to hate the freest nation in the world in any way promotes freedom. We fought a war for liberty, France did as well with no outside help, how is it then a foregone conclusion that without our help freedom around the world would die? We must stand as an example to the world of what a great society is, not get bogged down in stupid wars. And let’s not make the mistake of thinking that the Iraq war was in any way fought to promote freedom. Plus we never ousted Kim Jong Ill and didn’t stop the killing of the Khmer Rouge, so how can you use those as examples? We’re still here despite that.
So, in closing, if you REALLY do love peace, I can see no way you can support the present Republican party who fights undeclared wars for faulty reasoning without satisfying the conditions of a just war. Are you a supporter of the Iraq war? If so do you think our founding fathers would have invaded a small third world country because they suspected they might possibly have WMD’s? Somehow I doubt it. I see the need for defense, which is why I plan on joining the military, but I think we should only fight wars in, ahh, defense. What a concept.

Live free or let me die.

“Those who would give up a few essential freedoms for the sake of safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

-Ben Franklin.

“Give me liberty or give me death.”

-Patrick Henry.

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty then those attending too small a degree of it.”

-Thomas Jefferson.

What is the standard by which a country is to be judged? What measuring stick do you hold up to a nation to determine whether or not that nation is successful? Is it the wealth of a nation? Its influence? Its military might? Do you judge it by its culture, its diversity, its contributions to the world, or by its history and traditions? What is the measure of a successful government?

The United States of America was founded on the ideals of our founding fathers, the ideals first theorized by French and English philosophers, namely John Lock who wrote that the role of government is to protect the individual rights of its people, amongst which are life, liberty, and property. Our founders, Gorge Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Patrick Henry, Nathan Hale, Paul Revere, to name a few, read this and decided to fight a war to promote, protect, and establish a government which would exist for the purpose of protecting these rights.

In a show of extreme dedication to their cause they stood against the most powerful nation to ever exist, an empire the sun never set upon. Many, including Nathan Hale and Patrick Henry, didn’t live to see the day when the American flag would fly over the capitol of our new nation proudly proclaiming to the world that we are free.

It has become a disturbing, frightening, and heartbreaking trend in this modern day nation when Americans, cowed into submission by war propaganda and the fear of terrorism, reject the ideals our founders, and many who’ve followed in their footsteps, fought and died to protect and become willing to sacrifice basic civil liberties in exchange for the façade of safety and protection. Under the present administration violations of civil liberties have not only become common place but acceptable to a large portion of the population as a necessary tool to combat terrorism and prevent another attack. The most disturbing part of this, however, is that so many people are willing to believe it. It saddens me every time I see someone on the news talk about how we need warrentless wiretapping to keep us safe or how holding foreign prisoners, who may or may not have anything to do with terrorism, in confinement in Cuba without given them a day in court to challenge their imprisonment.

Do we really devalue our liberties and the liberties of others so much? When did it become acceptable to trade our freedoms for safety? When did the saying “give me liberty or give me death” be replaced by “just keep me safe”? Do we believe in what it means to be American anymore? And if not, can we really call ourselves Americans?

The standard for whether a nation is a good one or not is not by its wealth or power, but by its freedom. No nation can ever be great unless it is free, no matter how rich or how big a military it may possess. Our nation for years was a beacon of light in a sea of darkness, calling out to the world, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Our culture is steeped in the tradition of personal liberty. To me it is what sets America apart from every other nation in the world, that we “hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

I for one am not willing to sacrifice my American identity to gain the illusion of safety.

A Fair Compromise.

As the debate on gay marriage continues, it would seem that both sides of the spectrum are adamant in their positions and refuse to give in. Well let me try to brake the ice a little bit and find a middle ground that would not compromise my own personal beliefs and would satisfy the conservative and liberals alike.

The first option I’ve heard is the abolish marriage all together. This, to me, would be an option worth considering but for the majority of people the idea of abolishing marriage at a state level is way too radical to even consider. I may consider this, but I know that no one would go for it. Also for this to be effective every state would have to do likewise, otherwise it would be useless.

Here is a more acceptable solution to the problem. First, abolish the word marriage as a legal term and call what we now call marriage civil unions, regardless of the couple. Every straight marriage we have now would legally become a civil union but the same benefits and privileges would apply. Legally, there would be no such thing as a marriage. Second, open civil unions for anyone who wants to have one. It’s not a religious anymore, it is simply a legal institution ordained by the states. This way you can have your cake and eat it too; we can finally enjoy equality for gays and the term marriage can take on a strictly religious meaning. Thirdly, marriage, no longer being a legal term, is whatever people want it to be. The Christian church can marry anyone they wish, as well as any other religion out there. Any two people can say their married, it just wouldn’t be ordained by the state.

Lets play make believe.

2050, the US has fallen even further into debt by borrowing money from China and other nations while spending a fortune on welfare programs. China, seeing the ever decreasing value of the dollar has called our debts and demand we repay them in gold or Euros, but alas we spent all our money on Social Security. We cannot pay them back, but China doesn’t just want to ruin us because they get a lot of food from us. But they still want our money. What’s a solution?

What would you say to China, instead of demanding we pay them, opens a military base on US soil; but not only that, lets say that they not only get to open a base in the US, but on holy ground such as Arlington Cemetery. Does that get your blood boiling? What would you do if such a travesty were to occur?

The scenario leading up to this isn’t really what’s important here (although I will be discussing the national debt in some other post), the real issue is the prospect of another nation, any nation, opening a military base on US soil. How wrong would that be? How much anger would be created towards the nations to hold a military presence here? We’d be pissed off, as we should be.

But that’s just the thing of it; we get all hot and bothered thinking about a foreign military presence on our own holy soil, but we like it when we’re the ones occupying the sacred soil of another. I of course am talking about our military presence in Saudi Arabia. The problem with this particular military base that is much more pressing then any others is the fact that Saudi Arabia is the holy land for the world’s second largest religion, a place reserved for Muslims and Muslims alone. Just as many (not all, but many) Americans would react violently if China were to open a base right on top of Arlington, many in the Middle East have reacted to our presence on their own soil. Believe it or not, but Bin Laden didn’t one day decide he wanted to be a terrorists, one of his main motivations for creating Al Qaeda and carrying our attacks on the US is what he sees as our “occupation of the holy land.” The result? 9/11.

Now don’t get me wrong here, blame for the attacks needs to be put in the hands of those who committed the crimes, Bin Laden, but to think that the US can do whatever it wants around the world without creating resentment and inviting scorn and hatred is naive at best. We have to realize that opening military basis in places people the people don’t want them is going to, ultimately, do us more harm then good. Just put yourself in their shoes and think of how you’d react.

American Empire

I love my country; I love it so much that after the next semester of college I plan on joining the Air Force and serving for at least four years. But this country, as it is at this moment in time, is heading towards a ruin which could be avoided if we only took out heads out of the sand and looked around. No, I’m not one of those doomsdayers who think the world will fall because us darn kids are listening to hard rock and wearing baggy pants, I’m not going to start making predictions based on revelations on when the horsemen of the apocalypse are going to kill everyone; what I will say is that this country is digging its own grave every day.

The problem with America I’ll speak out against today is what I call the “American Empire.” In the days of Columbus and again pre WWI the European powers (and the US for a short period of time) sought to spread their influence around the world b building for themselves empires, conquering colonies in order to enrich themselves and prove their superiority over those “lesser” then they. The sun was said to never set on the British Empire because its possessions stretched all across the world.

But empires are nothing new. Ever since ancient times ruthless kings have fought for and built empires; Egypt, Babylon, Greece, Rome, etc, for as long as civilization has existed empires have as well. Today we have the American Empire, and it is as large and powerful as any empire to ever exist. Today this new empire stretches across the entire globe, with military basis in over 50 different countries with 730 active military basis around the world. Take a look at this map to see what I mean, http://www.ppu.org.uk/pm/usbases.html. I’m with Ron Paul on this one; we need to end this silly notion of building and trying to maintain an empire outside our shores with needless military installations which in many situations only manage to increase hatred for America overseas which results in terrorist attacks such as 9/11. Lets face reality, Osama Bin Laden wasn’t able to gain an army of supporters through ideology alone, one of his main selling points was the US presence in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim holy land, the most sacred country in all of Islam. It’s called blowback, when a nation like ours imposes itself on other countries that creates resentment which ultimately threatens our national security. Example, lets examine Iran. Why do they hate us? Well many would have you believe that they hate us for our freedom, for our way of life and such, but is that really a reason to fear and hate us? Personally I think Iran has much more pressing reasons for seeking nukes and being all around anti American. Back in the 50’s Iran was ruled by a democratically elected government, run through the consent of the governed. Unfortunately this Iranian government wasn’t too friendly to the US, so what did we do? We overthrew this democratic government and replaced it with a pro western dictatorship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat. And we wonder why Iran hates us.

Even now we have troops on both boarders of Iran, battleships off their coast, and a candidate for president who seems to be leaning pro war. Given the fact that we aren’t even considering attacking North Korea for the weapons they already have and are considering war with Iran for weapons they might sometime get, wouldn’t the Iranian governments best interest be to build a nuclear weapon as soon as possible? Its not a hatred of the west and a desire to destroy us that motivates Iran, it’s a desire to self preserve in the face of possible, maybe even likely, US military force.

The problems we face today in terms of everyone hating us, even our allies, are the result of this empire building policy. As you saw in the map we have troops all over the Middle East, encircling it in a wall of firepower. Some may see this as a good thing, as we can hit enemies any time we want; I on the other hand see it as a bad thing as we wouldn’t have nearly as many enemies if we’d left the Middle East alone to begin with. Do we not realize that every time we support one group of people over another that group we’re giving weapons to will eventually turn on us? During the soviet invasion of Afghanistan we supplied the Taliban and Osama with weapons to fight to soviets with. During the Iran Iraq war we supplied Iraq with weapons to fight Iran. When we interfere in the affairs of other nations we’re the ones who ultimately lose.

So I say lets end it. Close the military basis around the world and bring home our troops. Why do we have troops in Europe anymore anyway? What possible purpose do those troops serve? They were once used to deter a possible soviet invasion, but now their simply a drain on our economy. Close them, along with the basis in Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Korea. In fact, let’s close them all. And let’s not interfere with the affairs of other nations anymore. No more secretly planning to overthrow a government, no more sending troops to police the world, no more playing one nation against the other. Its time we take care of our own nation without having to worry about the rest of the world all the time.

Conservatives are not for limited government.

For the last 7 years, nearly 8, this country has been lead by a Republican conservative, a man who won his office on the back of good old conservative ideals, which at one time, believe it or not, stood for limited government and civil liberties. Now look where we are, 7 years after a “conservative” took the white house, with a Republican Congress for most that time. What has the “great” GOP gotten us? An unconstitutional war, illegal and warrantles wire tapping, the biggest defect since, well, Reagan, subsidies to large corporations (unconstitutional BTW), and a failing economy. We are far less free today then we were on January 20, 2001, when Bush took the White House away from that supposed evil that was Bill Clinton, whose greatest blunder was having an affair. Man how I wish the current administration would have such problems instead of the ones plaguing it today.

Despite what we’ve been led to believe by the likes of Fox News, Sean Hannity, and Rushy, conservatives most definitely DO NOT stand for the ideals of limited government and human rights, if the Bush administration and the crony congress he once enjoyed are any indication. Looking at the GOP I no longer see a party that stands for Libertarian principles, but one that has allowed the power of DC to go to its head. Moral conservatives run the party, those who base their political principles on religious practices and then try to force their way of thinking onto the country, often fabricating political reasons to back their view.

The “conservatives” are no better then the liberals. Where liberals take away the wealth of the American tax payers to give to the poor, conservatives like to take away our wealth to subsidize industry. Once again, as I stated before, to take away the wealth of one person to benefit another person who didn’t work for that wealth is morally wrong. To steal away my income to give to the poor in a sort of forced charity is wrong, but it is even more wrong to give my hard earned cash to large corporations, which is what many of the “conservative” mindset approve of. Corporate welfare must end.

Republican/Democrat; Conservative/Liberal, they’re really just the flip sides of the same coin. Both support expanding the role of the federal government and decreasing that of the states, both support building and sustaining the American Empire we have around the world, both spend beyond their means which builds up the national debt, and both support welfare only disagree on who should get it. There is no fundamental difference between the two, only silly disputes over certain policies. Few on either side question the right of the government to impose the drug war on the states; few advocate withdrawing our troops from all foreign soil, including Japan, Germany, England, etc, and bringing them home; few wish to cut spending, few advocate shrinking the federal government by eliminating unnecessary and unconstitutional departments and programs, and the few that do (such as the great Ron Paul) are barred from the discussion because they don’t fit neatly into convenient labels and stereotypes.

Wake up people and realize that the so called “conservatives” we elect every few years into public office do not have your interests in mind. Each election we are subjected to the same inane choices, support the expansion of the federal government through the social welfare state or through the corporate welfare state.

I suspect many of you already know, or at least suspect, this, but the only people really advocating real fundamental change are the Libertarians, not Obama or MaCain. That is why this November I’ll vote for Bob Bar, for although his chances of winning are slim, he and his party stand for my principles, which counts for more then anything else.

The welfare lie.

We as a people are so bitter, so easily swayed by fancy politicians in expensive suits and bright ties. We don’t see beyond our own boarders and the walls of our houses to see a broader world, one where real people suffer everyday. Why do we close ourselves off from this world? Is it because we are evil people who care nothing about it? Is it because we are indifferent to the suffering and death that surrounds us? No, I don’t believe that. When given a chance these zombified mall dwellers become the most caring givers in the world.

But we are led to believe that we don’t have to care for our fellow man, because it’s being taken care of us by our well meaning and always benevolent government. Why donate to charity when our dully elected officials are using our tax dollars in an unconstitutional fashion to fund welfare programs such as social security?

Wake up people and realize that the politicians that make up our government have nothing but their own self interest in mind when coming up with these programs. Oh, not all of them, some might actually believe that welfare may end poverty or such other nonsense as that, but most use the promises of welfare to gain votes from the poor and middle class, as well as promising corporate welfare to large businesses to obtain a little extra money. These are scams people; they are pandering to the voters to gain extra votes. In reality there is no constitutional justification for any such programs, but such an inconvenient fact is lost on our political elite.

Those who think the poor would simply starve without the aid of welfare need to take a good long look at the American people. Do you really think we’d allow the poor to just die in the streets because the government won’t take our money to give to them? Don’t people support these programs out of a desire to help the poor and less fortunate? We don’t need government to care for our poor, elderly, handicapped, and under privileged. What kind of sick notion is it that without our government there to make sure we’d care for one another, we’d be too selfish to lift a figure to help our fellow man? We the American people spend more money on charity then anyone else in the world. We will not allow the poor to simply starve while we sit at home watching TV; we will not allow the elderly to wander the streets with nowhere to go, but we don’t need governments to make sure we don’t.

I have every confidence in the American people’s ability to care for our own. Welfare of any kind is unconstitutional and puts and undue bourdon on the American taxpayers. It discourages charity and builds this nations national debt to unacceptable levels. Don’t fall for the welfare scam anymore, if you want to help the poor then do it, but no one should be forced to do so. I believe we can help the needy without our government. Care to take me up on the challenge?

Gun ban unconstitutional.

All men raise your hands and celebrate, for this day the Supreme Court has done its intended role and protected the US constitution from those who wish to ignore it. Today is a historic day, a Washington DC ban of handguns has been stuck down. Here’s what the constitution has to say on the matter.

Amendment 2.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Amendment 14.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United State; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

The tenth amendment guarantees the right of this nations citizens to “keep and bear arms” and the fourteenth amendment says the rights guaranteed by the constitution may not be infringed upon.

Why is there even a debate about whether or not Washington’s gun law is constitutional or not? It’s clearly against it, the constitution could not be anymore clear. Many point to the clause about a militia being necessary to the security of this nation as reason to ban guns from those not in the militia, but that is quite a stretch. First off, that has nothing to do with the right of people to bear arms; it only states the reason why the right to bear arms may not be infringed. Secondly, nowhere does it state that “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

There is no question that the founding fathers didn’t just intend for the militia to be able to bear arms, they intended for the people to bear arms, and the constitution should be interpreted that way. If you don’t like it, change the constitution, read Article 5 to find out how.

But the anti gun crowd knows they could never get a constitutional amendment, limiting the right to bear arms to only the militia, passed the states. There are few things that people would take to the streets for these days, but I guarantee you that if such a thing were ever to occur people would literally be up in arms about it.

The courts are 2-1 right now in my opinion, right to provide habeas corpus (sp?) to those in ghitmo, wrong to overturn a state law giving the death penalty to child rapists, and now correct to uphold the second amendment. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, period.

EVIL RICH PEOPLE! HERE COMES THE REVOLUTION!!!!!!!

Ladies and gentlemen I’ve seen the light. After discussing politics for the better part of a year now I’ve finally come to the perfectly sane conclusion that I was wrong all along for my support of a free economy and liberties for this nations citizens. I now know what the biggest problem facing this nation is; rich people.

Yes rich people, those snobby good for nothing car dealers who force us to buy their cruddy gas guzzling cars; those greedy bankers who deceive us into taking risky loans we’d never take unless they made them more affordable, and the oil executives who make money by selling us their products, how dare they? No my fellow Americans, its not the fault of the worlds consumers that oil prices are rising, I mean honestly, who really believes in supply and demand anymore? This is the twenty first century people, get with the times, do you like living in the past? That nonsense may have been perfectly good for our ancestors but by God we’re smarter then the founding fathers!

We have allowed the rich to take over this country despite the government’s best attempts to stop them. Just look at all the regulations the feds force onto corporations and you’ll see a disturbing trend; these rich people are taking advantage of the governments regulations for their benefit. Who would have thought that putting the power to make a company succeed or fail in the hands of our government would make those same companies do their best to influence the government? Finally I understand. The government decides who can succeed or fail and those greedy punks lobby for their own self interest in order to gain an unfair advantage over smaller businesses. I never saw that coming.

So what is the answer to this mess? No you darn libertarians, shut up, the answer is not less regulation and allowing more economic freedom, that would be crazy and stupid. What we need to do is use the old “two lefts don’t make a right, but three do” logic and instead of deregulating the private market we need MORE regulations.

1. Set a national maximum wage. Depending on the amount of labor you do, the government will make sure you don’t earn more then what they deem your fair share. Anything more then you deserve to earn will be forcefully taken away from you by the government. What right do the rich have to be rich?

2. Tax, tax, tax. The maximum wage isn’t enough my friends. If I am to believe my liberal friends at one time, under President Eisenhower, there was a 90% income tax for Americas rich. Ladies and gentlemen I propose we bring back the 90% income tax for anyone making more then what the federal government, in their wisdom, decides to be fair. We must stick to our principles here, what rights do the rich have to the fruits of their labor? What lawful right do they have to keep what they earn? I say they have none, and I base that logic on the fact that they have more then me.

3. We need more welfare. As I said before, what rights do the wealthy have to the fruits of their labor? None, but the poor have every right to it. We need to throw away the ideas of economic freedoms and protection of private property. No man has the right to own a big screen plasma TV with surround sound as long as there are people in this nation who can only afford a black and white TV set. It is unacceptable that the wealthiest people in this country get to fly private jets while the rest of us pay off the loans we took out for spinners on our new cars. It’s downright un-American. So I propose we take the money that the wealthy earn and give it to those who did not earn it, that way we can teach self reliance and responsibility to the nations poor. Nothing teaches people to work hard better then living off someone else’s money.

My fellow Americans, it is time we stand together as one, with one voice and shout at the top of our lungs that we will take it no more. We need to make certain that our politicians know where we stand. How dare people like Ron Paul, the craziest man alive, use the constitution to stop this movement? How dare he suggest we live in absolute accordance with it? It’s just a piece of paper after all, why can’t we ignore it if we want? It may have been fine for our founding fathers, but we’re so much smarter then they ever were. With the superior education we have these days, thanks to the great department of education, we posses wisdom beyond what they were capable of. Our government schools have made this generation smarter then any other, why must we live our lives according to rules written by our founding fathers?

History has shown us that freedom does not work. Just look at examples in history and you will see that the more socialist a nation is the more likely it is to succeed. The predictions of Carl Marx are right on the money; if we allow freedom to flourish the oppressed will rise up in a bloody revolution and create for themselves a perfect workers paradise. It’s going to happen, just hold your breath and wait.

By what authority?

It’s the lost amendment in today’s political thought, the one that is ignored by politicians when it is inconvenient as well by the public at large; but it is also one of the most important amendments we have in this countries constitution. I am referring to the 10^th Amendment which reads as follows…

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.

What does this mean? What is means is that the federal government’s power is limited to the duties prescribed to it by the constitution of the United States and that any authority not given it is to be delegated to the several states and the nation’s citizens. This is a beautiful amendment, for it limits the power of the government only to what is written in the constitution and no more.

I would love to see the government show me the constitutional justification for half the things they do. For instance, what justification is there for the war on drugs, or the “legal plundering” of people’s wealth to benefit the needs of others? What constitutional authority is given to the US government to give out welfare, or bail out incompetent businesses such as the airline industry?

I call for the next president of the United States to require congress to show what constitutional authority they posses for whatever bill they are trying to pass, and to veto any bill which overstretches their constitutional power. What are the powers of congress? Read Article 1 of the constitution, and pay extra attention to section 8. There you will find the powers of congress spelled out pretty well and straight forward. Nowhere will you find a justification for the drug war, nor for the countless welfare programs and corporate handouts they approve.

Now some of you will point to the general welfare clause as proof that congress has the right to take money away from Jo Blow and give it to John Dough. What this amounts to, in the end, is the complete disregard of the constitution. Anything could potentially be justified as “promoting the general welfare,” but if this is what our founding fathers intended when they wrote the constitution why would they bother detailing the powers of the government? If we are to interpret the “general welfare” clause as an open invitation for the government to do whatever it wants, why bother having a constitution in the first place? We might as well ignore it completely.

Now understand that if the federal government does not provide welfare for its people that does not mean that the states may not do so. I’m sure that if welfare were to end then several states would create own programs. Although I’d be against the passing of any such welfare programs in my own state, it is the right of the states to enact welfare if they so desire and if the people were to want it. Stats also have the right to criminalize drug use if they so desire, although once again I’d be against it. At least the power to make such decisions would rest in the hands of the several states, where it’s easier to enact change and negative consequences do not affect the entire nation.

Our government does not seem to respect the constitution, do you?

Politicians lack principles.

People always complain about politicians and how they seem out of touch with the rest of America, hypercritical, and easily swayed by what they feel at the moment. Well people are correct to assume most politicians are spineless; that is undoubtedly a fact. But what is the problem with modern politicians? What is it about these good for nothing presidents, congressmen and senators that puts them below 25% in approval ratings?

I believe the problem we have in the modern political sphere is that most politicians lack a set core of values and principles which they rely upon when making decisions. Can anyone really tell me what the core principles which make up Obama’s political philosophy are? How about MaCain’s? What are their core political philosophies? What do they believe?

And that is the problem with modern American politics. Its not simply the special interest groups and lobbyist, its not just the system of two parties which mirror each other in almost every fundamental way, its not about politicians being bad people who care only about themselves (on the contrary I think most politicians really do care a lot about this country, even if I think their plans are wrong), the problem is that most politicians lack those core principles from which to build the rest of their political philosophy. They sway like grass in a breeze, voting one way this day and the other the next based on what is popular and many times their own personal feelings. Without a core sense of beliefs how can one be consistent?

Politicians need to answer some core questions before entering Washington and back up their words with actions, refusing to back down from their principles. What is the role of the federal government, how is the constitution to be treated, fundamental questions such as these. But answers to these questions aren’t enough, politicians must also provide rational behind their answers and explain why and how they came to those conclusions. I’m not looking for feelings or intuition, I want real answers.

We in America have gotten so used to voting for a person or a party that we’ve lost almost all our power. What difference is there between a Republican and a Democrat these days? They’re really just the flip side of the same coin. Bigger government, more war, more regulation. It won’t change no matter who wins. So here’s a crazy idea, how about instead of voting for a man, or a party, we vote for a set doctrine of principles. There are several reasons I like Ron Paul, but the one thing I admire about him the most is not his personal opinions on certain issues but his willingness to stick to his principles no matter what even if it means being the only dissenting vote in Congress. Even if you don’t agree with his ideas and policies, you must admire a man who in this day and age is willing to stick to his beliefs and is more then able to defend them with sound reasoning and logic as opposed to crafty one liners and slogans. I’d respect such a man even if he were a hard core socialist. Such a politician, who votes his principles, not his feelings, can be relied upon to do what we put him in office to do; this kind of politician will not compromise his beliefs for the sake of public opinion; this politician cannot be bought by special interest groups. This is the kind of President we need, one who has and stands by principles.

The Case for Gay Marriage 2.

Yes, gay marriage is a very hotly debated subject in America these days, especially with it becoming legal in California earlier this year. I am in full support of the legalization of gay marriage, for the fundamental reason that I believe that people should be allowed to act in a manner which they desire so long as they do not impede on the rights of anyone else. The United States national government exists for the purpose of protecting our rights, as our founding fathers wrote down in the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

As we can see from the very beginning of our nation the founding fathers latched on to the principles first championed by John Lock who argued that human beings have rights, and among these are life, liberty, and property, and that it is the goal of governments to protect those rights.

I simply put forth that gay marriage does not, in any way shape or form, impede on the rights of anyone else and affects no one but those willingly participating in it, and therefore it is unreasonable for a free society to outlaw it. Marriage is a contract between consenting adults and the state as well as a symbolic gesture of showing ones lasting love for another human being. I see no reason to exclude gays from marriage besides simple bigotry and misunderstanding. Here are a few arguments against gay marriage I've heard that I will try my best to discredit.

1. The slippery slope theory.

This argument is the first to come out when from someone is opposed to gay marriage. The argument simply states that if homosexuals were allowed to marry then any form of marriage, from children marrying adults to adults marrying animals, must also be allowed. This argument may sound correct at first, but fundamentally it undercuts itself in a way most people don't even realize. To argue the slippery slope theory one must first acknowledge that people have a legal and legitimate right to fairness under the law, and that what legally applies to one person or group of people must also, in all fairness, apply to all other people. The slippery slope theory is not a valid argument against gay marriage, what it really is, is an argument against ALL state sanctioned marriage. If we are to believe that allowing gay marriage means we also have to observe the right to marry animals, what rational is there to claim that heterosexual marriage doesn't automatically mean we must also recognize homosexual marriage? It defeats itself; either you must acknowledge that not allowing homosexuals to marry because of simple fairness, or you must admit that no one has the right to marry.

Plus the argument is simply ludicrous. No animal on this planet is capable of rational thought and free will, and therefore they are incapable of entering into a marriage with a human being. No creature other then human beings can stand in front of a pulpit and say "I do" or sign a marriage license to consent to a marriage. Animals also, under constitutional law, have no recognized rights, so to say that their rights would be violated would be absurd to say the least.

2. The Problems with Raising Children.

A) Homosexual households would raise homosexual children. Even if there were a shred of evidence to support this, even if the facts that EVERY gay person on this planet was the offspring of a straight couple, even if I were to accept this as fact, I ask you, so what? People seem to think that this might lead to depopulation of our nation, but I highly doubt that heterosexual relationships would end or even decrease if this were the case, so there really is no problem.

But I don't accept the premise of this argument. All gay people on this planet are born to straight couples, and almost all were raised by heterosexual parent/s. If children raised by heterosexual parents can turn out gay, why is it then a forgone conclusion that children raised in homosexual households would be gay? There is no real reason to believe this.

B) Marriage is about having children. This argument states that since the primary purpose of marriage is to have and raise children, and because homosexuals cannot have children of their own, a homosexual marriage serves no purpose to the state and therefore should not be recognized.
-Premise A, marriage is about having and raising children.
-Premise B, homosexuals cannot have children.
-Conclusion, homosexuals cannot marry.

Premise A is a complete falsehood. I defy you to show me any marriage law which states that the primary purpose of marriage is to have and raise children. Even if this premise were true then there are a lot of heterosexual couples being married who, under this form of logic, have no right to marriage. Infertile couples who biologically cannot have children, or couples who chose not to have children, do not serve this supposed primary function of marriage, should we not recognize their right to marriage? Should we demonstrate, lead marches, and purpose constitutional amendments to stop these people from defiling the sanctity of marriage? Somehow I doubt that would garner much support.

Premise B is only half true. Lesbian couples can have children, so that argument goes right out the window. So under this argument we should allow lesbians to wed, but not gays, but that seems a bit unfair.

But the scary thing about this argument is that, if the state can really state the marriage is all about having children and those who cannot don't have the right to marriage, then the state can also force provisions onto married couples to ensure that their investment in marriage provides some returns. No using birth controls or condoms, sex only to have children, etc. THIS is a slippery slope I'm afraid of.

3. Marriage is a holey sacrament ordained by God and is the business of the church.

This may be so, but since this nation is built on the principle of separation of church and state you cannot use religious reasons to outlaw something. You can't say to someone they can't do something because your God said so, you need to use a political and legal reason, not a religious one. As for marriage being the business of the church, that might be so, and states shouldn't give any privileges to married couples, heterosexual or no, but since it presently IS in the business of marriage it must be fair in allowing homosexuals to marry as well. Sorry, but marriage is a political matter in this country, not merely a religious one.

4. Churches may be forced to hold gay marriages against their will.

I can understand the fear of this, I really do, but there is no reason to believe that just because gay marriage would be legal means that your church will be forced to hold one. But if that does become the case, sign me up to stop it. Churches have the right to hold marriage ceremonies for anyone and to deny doing so for anyone. Homosexual couples can find plenty of churches that will marry them without forcing themselves on those that won't, and there is also the option of a justice of the peace.

5. Its unnatural.

First off, I will admit that I don't know what makes a person gay, but from what I've read and seen the idea that homosexuality is a choice is most likely false. Why would a straight person, who likes women, wake up one day and just decide to like men? I can't imagine the thought process of such a person. A naturally heterosexual person just deciding one day their going to sleep with another member of the same sex? That just doesn't make ANY sense at all. Again, I'm not a scientist, I don't know for sure, but it's far more likely that homosexuality is natural, and not chosen.

Secondly, even if homosexuality WAS a chose and NOT natural, what difference does that make? We do lots of things that are unnatural and we don't blink an eye at it. You think a human being flying in the sky in a giant tube is natural? You think taking pain medications to stop arthritis is natural? You think computers pop out of nature? No, yet you still use one. What difference does it make if it's natural or not?

5. It would ruin the sanctity of marriage.

How? How is allowing a loving couple who just happen to be of the same sex to marry one another an attack on traditional marriage? Your marriage license won't be revoked; your rights to do as you please won't be infringed upon, what's the problem? Does a 50% divorce rate not ruin the sanctity of marriage? I don't see anybody advocating a constitutional amendment outlawing divorce.

No matter how you swing it gay marriage is not in any way wrong from a legal standpoint. I've asked people who are against the idea a million times who's rights are violated by two people of the same sex getting married, and then always come out with the same predictable answers, which always boil down to, A) It's disgusting, or B) God doesn't like it. Neither or those beliefs are reason enough to outlaw something, to do that you must show that someone's rights are violated by the act, and in this case you cannot. If you truly believe in a free society then you must also believe in gay marriage.

Vote Your Convictions or not at all.

I'm not one of those "you have to vote, it’s your duty" kind of guys. I say voting is a right and if you chose not to use it then that’s fine by me; that’s not what annoys me. What DOES annoy me is people voting for someone just because "he's the lesser of two evils." Man I hear this one a lot. I heard back in 2000, and in 2004, sure candidate A is a lousy good for nothing whose going to make the country worse, but hey, candidate B is even worse, so I'll suck it up and vote for Mr. A.

At this rate we'll never break out of this idiotic two party system we're in right now. Both parties can nominate complete idiots (like the last two elections) and one of them will get in. Both parties mirror each other anyway, so what difference does it make?

Here's my request people, vote for whoever you like come election day, whether that be Obama, MaCain or whoever, but don't just vote because the other guy is worse, vote because you think your candidate will make the country better; vote because your candidate represents your values; vote to make the country better, not because your candidate might do less damage then the other guy.

Personally I don't agree with either major candidate so I'll cast my vote for Ron Paul, even though he won't be our next president. You may say I'm throwing my vote away; no, I'm voting my convictions and my beliefs, not the party line. That is all I'm asking people, vote your convictions or not at all.

Morality from Responsibility.

I’ve already established that there are two levels of morality which are acceptable in society, moral rightness, which means showing love to your fellow man, and moral neutrality which is simply respecting the rights of others; love is acknowledging, respecting, valuing, and protecting the rights of others; also it is seeing the rationality of all people and not impeding upon it; it is a conscious effort to better the life of another before yourself, and it is living for something other then your own selfish desires.

But say that you were in a situation where there were two people and you were forced to violate the rights of one of them. Say you were faced with a situation where you had to choose between the life of a friend and that of a total stranger, who do you have a moral obligation to save and why?

Although all human life is equal in value, we do have a moral obligation to look after certain people before others. For instance, you must protect your family even if it means violating someone else’s rights, but why is that? Why is your family more valuable then a stranger for instance? The answer is responsibility. You must prioritize the people who you must protect by the amount of responsibility you have to each person. There are several different ways to judge if you have a responsibility to someone.

1) Social and/or personal contract. When you make a contract with someone, either a social contract or a personal contract, you are in fact taking the responsibility to abide by the rules of said contract to the best of your ability. You are taking on a responsibility along with the other person to fulfill said contract as a willing and knowing participant. When you take a public position, either elected to office or appointed by an elected officer, you are in fact taking on a social contract with the people who gave you their power and you have a responsibility to perform your duties to the best of your abilities. When you marry you are signing a social and personal contract with the state and your partner. Contracts which are personal and social bare more weight then just one or the other.

2) Birth. When you are the parent of a child you have brought life into the world, and therefore automatically have an obligation to protect said life. As the creator of life no one but yourself has an obligation to sustain the life that came from you; you brought power into the world and until that life is strong enough to strike out on its own you must defend it. You also have a responsibility to those who gave you life. A child can no more escape the great responsibility of caring for those who gave them life in the first place then a parent can escape the responsibility of caring for them.

3) Time/effort committed. When you commit your time and or effort to another human being you are in fact slowly and by degree taking on a responsibility to that person. The more time and effort you pour into the well being of another person the more responsibility you take in the protection of their natural rights.

4) Time/effort committed to you. Time and effort isn’t just a one way street, when someone devotes time and effort into your own well being, rest assured that they aren’t the only ones who take on responsibility; as long as you accept their help and commitment without objection you yourself will develop a responsibility to them as well.

5) Your natural responsibility to your fellow man. Of course we have a moral responsibility to each man alive, as stated in the first paragraph of this essay. You must always respect the rights of your fellow man and if you wish to be a moral being you must also love your fellow man.

A Note for Our Futrure President.

To President to be John MaCain/Barrack Obama. As future leader of this greatest nation, it will become your responsibility to ensure the continued peace and prosperity of these United States of America. As the end of one of the worst presidencies in history draws near, we can only hope and pray that the next four years will see a return of responsibility, accountability, honesty, and integrity to the white house and Congress.

Although I do not personally agree with your positions on many issues and will therefore cast my vote for a third party candidate, I know that one of you will become our nations next president, and I wish you luck in returning our nation back to greatness. There are many problems which plague this country, and although I know that welfare cuts might be a little too much to ask, I will endeavor to create a list of what needs to be done.

1. End the war in Iraq. Let’s face it; we have almost nothing to gain from this war and everything to lose. Most Americans oppose the war, with the exception of the far right who seem to think that if we just stay for five, ten, twenty more years, that we can win and create an American ally in the heart of the Middle East. Unfortunately that is little more then a pipe dream at this point. The war is taxing our economy, driving wedges between ourselves and our allies, and most important of all, killing our brave men and women who serve in our nations military. BRING THEM HOME! We still have a war in Afghanistan that was fought for legitimate reasons, don’t take troops from there to put in the Iraqi quagmire.

2. Cut spending. With a record deficit and a multi trillion dollar debt, this nation is in more peril and going bankrupt then it is of suffering a devastating blow at the hands of terrorists. Osama Bin Laden could never in a hundred years do as much damage as our own government has done. Whoever becomes the next president MUST cut spending, (and not just for welfare programs, the military doesn’t need two new fighter planes which cost millions of dollars each, the F-15 is STILL the best fighter in the world) and begin paying off our enormous debt. Veto any bill that goes through congress which contains pork spending.

3. Get out of the private market. The private market is an incredible thing. Leave it on its own and almost always it will run itself magnificently. Unfortunately the government as of late doesn’t trust the private market and so has regulated and taxed it to the point where we can hardly call it a capitalistic system anymore. With Americas growing economic problems, now is the best time for the government to get out of the private market and let it run its own course. Look at almost any economic problem and most of the time you’ll see the government intervening in one way or another.

What follows is a list of smaller issues or issues that realistically don’t have a chance of happening but I would like for our future president to consider.

-Education is the role of the states, not the federal government. Acording to the 10th Amendment, powers not given to the federal government by the constitution are given to the states and the people. Education is not mentioned. Ban the Department of Education.

-End the war on drugs. It costs too much and impedes on the rights of the people to make their own decisions.

-Work towards the recognizing of gay rights. Gay marriage is going to happen people, and why not? Why is it so wrong for gays to marry?

-Reduce or end welfare programs. Giving to charity is great, forcing people to give to charity is not, which is what the government does essentially.

-Work towards the end of abortion, except in the case of rape or if the mothers life is endangered. Yes, I am still a libertarian, but here’s my case. A person is legally dead when their heart stops beating, so shouldn’t you be alive when it starts? No, a fertilized egg is not a human being, but if human life begins and ends with the beating of the heart then that unborn baby has rights as well.

-Increase state rights.

-Don’t fund any project which doesn’t benefit multiple states. If a project, such as a road or bridge, only benefits one state that state should foot the bill, not the federal government.

-Total freedom, total responsibility. We live in a free society, therefore people must be held responsible for their own personal actions.

-Enact a loser pay rule. If you take a lawsuit to court and lose you must pay the defendants bill. This would decrease the number of frivolous lawsuits and help bring the prices of medical treatment down.

-Protect our constitutional rights to bear arms.

-Pull out of the United Nations. We provide about a quarter of the UN’s total funding while other veto members of the Security Council, China and Russia among them, pay almost nothing. Save a few bucks and allow an incompetent and corrupt organization die.

-Re-enforce our boarders and reform immigration laws.

-Re-establish good relations with our allies who we’ve fallen out of favor with because of the Iraq war.

-Abolish hate crimes and affirmative action. All crimes are hate crimes and all people regardless of race should be treated equally, regardless of if their a part of a minority or not.

And of course, obey the constitution at all times, respect the rights of your citizens, and reside over the office of the Presidency with honor and integrity. I wish our future president luck and hope that come 2012, they will have proven themselves worthy of my vote.