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.