A Response to Obama’s 12/6/11 Speech

Here is a link to the speech:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/06/politics/obama-speech/?hpt=hp_t1

Let me begin by sharing my hope for success as I travel the quest in search for the ever elusive brevity.

Before I begin my responses, you should know the intention behind those beliefs which guide my approach to everything.  Four quick points ought to get us there. We should have the smallest and weakest government possible because ultimately we were founded on knowledge that governing is always a use of force against the people.  That force quickly leads to power, which corrupts through corporatism enhanced by an entrenched two party system, which shuts out almost all competition and therefore true choice and change.  Secondly, government must adapt and unfortunately grow with changes in our nation and society.  Thirdly, this growth must be designed and implemented through legislation in such a way as to always maximize the value and minimize the size of every bureaucracy created.  Congress must also find ways to limit the growth, and often the existence, of each agency.  This means limiting power.  Next I would point out that charity can be and should be part of our governmental system.  However, I think that 90% of this should come from the states.  We must focus one thing ultimately if we are to return to a country which can provide us with prosperity and liberty; remembering that our government has wasted trillions of our dollars since it began promising us benefits and fairness if we would just give it the money to do it.  Now I’m not mean, I’m not impractical; I wouldn’t do anything rash without a fair transition for those reliant upon assistance.  But the philosophy must drive each piece of legislation in order to assure the eventual goal of liberty and a fulfilled society.  Lastly, liberty is not just a word to chant out at Tea Party rallies.  (For the record, I went to two, they were the original Tax Day party and the following one.)  Liberty is the goal of our country.  It is the goal of each and every person here.  Financial liberty, personal liberty, professional liberty and the list goes on.  Just go tell an American they HAVE to do something and watch what they say.  Ask any Joe or Jane walking on the sidewalk if they think the government is too expensive and see what they say.  We agree more than we think we do.  The choices we are presented are never the right ones anymore.  Almost no one makes the right suggestion or offers a truly new way (except in stump speeches) because the system supports them all.  It isn’t in their best interest to offer true change and a return to the America became the  defined example of a free and prosperous people.  To make my point and end this prattle, I will simply point out that not one serious offer is on the table to limit the cost of our government for the debt reduction issue (nor the payroll tax increase but we’ll get to that.).  That is ridiculous

-"It's not a view that we should somehow turn back technology or put up walls around America," Obama said in the 55-minute speech, which frequently prompted applause. "It's not a view that says we should punish profit or success or pretend that government knows how to fix all society's problems.

"It's a view that says in America, we are greater together -- when everyone engages in fair play, everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share."

--- Technology progresses faster and better in the free market.  Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were pushed to their limits in order to keep up and attempt to out-due each other. 

---Saying you aren’t going to put up walls doesn’t provide us with a choice.  You are saying you won’t put up a wall, but you aren’t telling us what you WILL DO (both sides love this trick). 

--How about you punish the ridiculous health benefits and retirement packages of members of Congress before you talk about raising taxes on even Bill Gates?  How about you bring home troops from the foreign bases that haven’t been attacked for over 40 years?  How about you tell the FBI, CIA, NSA, State Police, County Sheriffs, City Police and all the rest to get on a network run by Zuckerberg?  Sweet, now we can get rid of Homeland security and save billions!!!!

--- You can’t logically pass a bill that LITERALLY gives the power to an appointed bureaucrat (Secretary of Health and Human Services—is that Hamiltonian or Jeffersonian LOL) to set the requirements for every single health insurance policy in the country and then force people to buy it, while claiming government is not your solution to just about everything.  If you are willing to take that kind of power, how can anyone believe you are not willing to make much smaller power grabs by the hundreds or thousands with another four years?

-          It sounds nice doesn’t it?  Preaching fair play is saying you are going to ignore the rule of law.  How?  WE ARE FAIR! The law says so.  Every time we are told that the government is going to change the rules to make things fair we must be very careful.  Whatever good has come from the progressive agendas dating as far back as you would like to go was ultimately a recognition of liberties that had been denied until that point.  Those are examples of the fantastic growth our nation is capable of.  They are not symptoms requiring the growth of government or the removal of any liberty. Legislation pursuing fairness ignored the rights of those being polluted upon and justified (regulated) it for a fee.  Now we have waited to create the technology and allowed the polluters and their politicians to corner the market and make things difficult.  We should have held them accountable at the time thereby encouraging the development of new technology for profits.  Everyone would have won the game already!  The philosophy drives the approach. Just enforce the laws that we were given and most of the time you’ll have your solution.

“He framed the issue as a choice between making vital investments in future growth or the Republican position he characterized as maintaining "tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our country." “

--Same old crap from each party.  Once again, come talk to me when you have stopped overpaying bureaucrats compared to the private sector and giving them life benefits on my dime.  You know, they buy votes with that crap.  They are stealing money in order to pay people benefits FAR beyond the private sector, Those people don’t ultimately believe in smaller government or turn a blind eye so they are reliable voters.  They can safely vote for either party and never threaten the system! Bought and paid for! Confront the military empire as mentioned.  Look up the words efficiency and consolidation, say them in the mirror everyday for a month, remember them and use them and then come talk to me about how much money you really need to govern. 

"This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and all those who are fighting to get into the middle class," the president said. "At stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, and secure their retirement."

What is at stake is if the government can set standard to your aspirations here.  Fairness through legislation requires them to decide for you what a “modest savings” is or what constitutes “enough” money to raise your family on.  Ask yourself, do you want that?  That is a rare moment where Obama actually said what he believes instead of babbling. Think about that.  Why isn’t someone saying “You really need keep your money so I paid us only double the median income and matched the best retirement package I could find.  We saved enough to pay for the payroll tax. Without leaving Washington even!”

"This is the height of unfairness," Obama said. "It's wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker (who) maybe earns $50,000 should pay a higher tax rate than somebody raking in $50 million."

---Don’t need to say much here.  To be extreme, the Constitution didn’t allow for an income tax until Congress changed it.  To be realistic, if they would just stop changing the laws for favors, taxes would be simple and fair.  Stop giving favors out and the law can be concise, clear and fair. 

“Why? Does anyone here think the problem that led to our financial crisis was too much oversight of mortgage lenders or debt collectors? Of course not." “

---Yes I do.  The combination of the banks, the Federal Reserve and the politicians gave us the force of law, which brought idiotic loan standards, whose bubble was partially filled with theft through monetary policy and inefficient social programs, and who also managed to make us poor and holding the tab in the end!   By the way, all along the way you ignored your duty to enforce contract laws in order to pull your schemes.  Don’t tell me you need more authority,  you can’t use what you have already!

I’m going to stop here because I imagine no one made it this far.  If you are interested in more, check out another article or leave a question.  I’d be glad to respond to just about any question or comment.

Hungry For A Better Game--a book review

Okay, I don’t normally do book reviews as both of you who follow this already know.  Yet I feel compelled to depart from the normal political bitching to share a few words about a recent perusing.  At the request of a local teacher, I read “Hunger Games” by Suzanne Collins.  For those of you who haven’t read it, I won’t ruin the book but I must provide some sort of context for the article.  Imagine the children violence of “Lord of the Flies” combined with the political essence of “Animal Farm” or “Fahrenheit 451”, then mix them with the context of the movie “Running Man” and you’ll have the general idea.  Ah, I was incomplete.  You must also add a healthy dash of a love story as challenged as in “The Fountainhead”.   So I’m guessing you are either confused as hell or right where I was trying to put you.  Either way I can’t change it so I’ll go on.

     The only other sort of review I will offer is of style and story.  I found the characters well developed, the story line engaging, the ending satisfying (if a little predictable) and the fact that I read it cover to cover in a day must say something good as well.  Certainly I became emotionally attached to the main character, a positive trait in any book.  After reading the novel, I spoke to my teacher friend quite quickly and offered her my thoughts on the age-appropriateness of the story, as requested.  Yet it was later, during a conversation with another dear friend, that I discovered the crux of my opinion towards the first book of this trilogy.   It was the choice.  It always comes down to choice.

     I must admit some of my favorite books maintain a common thread of social or political commentary, some which must be found and some overt.  The titles listed at the outset provide a perfect imparting of the tone to which I refer.  (Just for the record I also enjoy “brain candy” from the likes of Dan Brown, Clive Cussler and Steven Brust, to name a few.)  My point is when I read a book which obviously makes political and moral statements; I judge my reading experience a bit more critically than with other types of novels.  So while I enjoyed the story and characters and thought the book was well written it is on a perhaps more persnickety point I wish to offer my observations.

     Why tell the story in the first place? I’m struck by this most basic question.  One could easily read “1984” and derive a much more vivid context of the “Big Brother” message.   You could read “The Giver” and find a more original world with the same themes.  “Animal Farm” would present the dangers of an authoritarian’s unbridled control with more clarity.  So, why write the book in the first place?  Ostensibly, the prose purports to provide a new generation or new audience with the lessons provided by the other books in the past.  While I understand and even find this goal both admirable and desirable,  I must protest in this instance.

     Don’t we have enough violence in the world?  Don’t we have enough drabness in the country?  Don’t we offer an alarming amount of violent fantasies through video games, movies and television?  So why choose an arena of violence to display a timeless message?  While I acknowledged that “Lord of the Flies” was among my favorite books in the educational fiction genre, the fact that the lessons and storyline both rely on violence being committed by children offer a formidable defense against a comparable protest.  In a time where the departure from traditional values focused on individual liberty is alarming, I welcome any medium bringing a warning of the abuse of power by a government.  Yet I am troubled that we are choosing to encourage a book which wraps the pure message in a cloak of darkness and violence.  Don’t get me wrong here, I enjoyed the book and would even suggest it to other adults.  You must remember, the context of my experience began and ended with a teacher and the implied students.  Why are we encouraging children around 14 to read such a book in our schools?  Couldn’t they read one of the classics I have mentioned and learn the same lessons within a more positive environment of a reading experience?  If you don’t like that idea, I would suggest watching BookTV for a myriad of ideas.  While I think our nation (and indeed world) would benefit from authors providing more uplifting themes for their books,  I am  a dark person by nature and can appreciate the experience from an adult point of view.  We have plenty of chances to present our children with the darker side of humanity and society.  Why don’t we teach a more complete and accurate history of our country for instance?  Perhaps we could teach them economics without assuming a fiat currency must be involved and let them see the truth?  We could teach them about the freedoms our government has taken away over the last 200+ years and offer them a true chance to question which decisions were wise and which were not.  That might scare the hell of them, right?  At least it would produce a generation with the tools to think for themselves and better society for future generations, tools we don’t currently utilize or focus upon in our schools.  Within this society, with the problems we SHOULD be talking about with our students, we instead to choose to promote a depressing story line to developing minds gaining nothing extra from the violent theater.  If we are to teach violence in school, wouldn’t it be better to use it to teach about the lessons of violence?  “The Hunger Games” offered no remarkable lesson concerning violence.   Perhaps the time for lessons containing violence should be found in the history classes which could provide more applicable lessons and better stories than almost any piece of fiction could strive for.  

Deficit Committee's 1st hearing

A clear choice must be made in order to watch the first hearing held by the deficit super committee.  In her opening remarks Ms. Murray, Co-Chair, stated the topic of this initial hearing to be the history and drivers of our deficit and debt.  It is within this statement where we find the choice we must make.  Are we to believe the crux of the habitually repeated financial failures in our past remains elusive to those in Washington? Or shall we accept the hearing is an act and that her statement merely exists within the playbook of good Washington politics?  To be honest, I winced inside as I felt the stab of pain resulting from the impression of a hand being placed upon my cheek.  How can the American public withstand treatment more suited for 3 year olds?  Our government blatantly acts stupid in order to appear working steadfast towards a grand solution to our problems.  ---I should pause momentarily to make mention of the nearly half-trillion spending bill Obama just handed to Congress.  More wasteful spending and you haven’t even spent the first 800 billion yet? No politics allowed huh? Then what are you doing?  The point is I shouldn’t expect more from Congress days after Obama plays such idiot politics with more stimulus money we don’t have in order to get the taxes on the rich he wants. Typical Washington, nothing ever changes. --- How many people outside of Washington already know the major contributors?  I would think a great majority.  I bet if you ask non-economist adults nationwide you would get some pretty smart answers, mixed in with ideological spending priorities of course.  Let us consider: they spend too much, they try to do too many things, they write laws in order to gain or reward campaign donors and they claim to have moral authority over us (and the world) when our Constitution was provided in order to establish a people free from coercion and force.   They ignore established laws in the first place in order to create unneeded regulations and their bureaucracies in the second!  So while I admit my culpability in falling for it once again; I only pray the hearing gets better from here.

                Damn! Well, that hope was dashed with haste.  For the next few minutes Xavier Becerra (D-CA) lashed out at those with money both business and citizen.  He blamed the tax cuts for the debt (which as often as that is said, you wonder if Bush didn’t plan it this way….) and asked if it was the young or the poor who benefited unfairly from the tax cuts.  While this argument ends up supporting a flat tax or consumption tax ultimately we’ll leave that for another time.  To blame the tax cuts is to blame Washington.  The companies and individuals are now set up to get fleeced in order to justify more spending when we can’t afford the spending we already have and borrow 60% of our funds.  You can take all the money from the corporations, billionaires and millionaires and I mean ALL of it and it won’t make a dent in our problem.  (Google it if you don’t believe me!) We should be worried about all companies paying the same percentage in order to remove corporatism instead of trying to pick out some for financial punishment (which ironically seems to happen to those our government helps the most).  To blame the wealthy in any way is to demagogue the very financial success which most aspire to.  How is this palatable to anyone with common sense?  Blame those who wrote the tax code! Blame the relationship between them!  Blame yourself for not voting with this most essential priority.  Raising taxes on the rich in order to fund a new program is treating the people as moronic.  How can we raise the debt ceiling, form a committee to cut 1.2 trillion off of our automatically increasing spending in the FUTURE, and propose more spending supposedly funded by new taxes on the rich and spending cuts which will never pass Congress?  If this is the beginning of something new it must have been planted in the manure of the old because it stinks in here and suddenly I need some tall boots.

Darren Hutchinson, you are relieved…part 1

Darren Hutchinson, you are relieved…

Please make sure to read this article before reading mine, otherwise it won’t make sense!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/darren-hutchinson/five-reasons-why-ron-paul_b_947004.html

When writing a critical piece against someone in politics it is easy to become confused about ethics. For instance, the trend in campaigns for the last couple of hundred years tells us that if we merely attack someone enough then the veracity of the accusation need not be upheld in order to have the desired effect. I've written many opinions and I’m sure some were plainly wrong. No one is perfect, but Darren my friend; here are the reasons you shouldn't write such things:

“Paul is charismatic. He also comes across as a straight shooter. Some of his ideas -- like his opposition to militarism and the War on Drugs -- appeal to many voters, including liberals. His arguments about lower government spending and taxation sound good to folks who worry about budget deficits.”

Counterpoints.

Having a charismatic President is a good thing. We agree here.

Perhaps he is a straight shooter as his record indicates…..perhaps you will provide an example of where he isn’t instead of just suggesting it wrecklessly?

So his policies bring left and right together on issues such as national defense and the millions wasted on the war on drugs. Those seem like more good things. (even if you disagree with legalizing any drugs, the money was still wasted because we are losing worse than ever….at least we can agree the money could be better spent I’d say.)

So far so good….although the tone of the writing indicates he isn’t a fan of Dr. Paul’s he has been fair in representing him at least.

“Paul's arguments, however, often lack an empirical basis. History has already demonstrated that many of Paul's proposed solutions will never work. Thus, while some of Paul's ideas sound solid in the abstract, they crumble once they are subjected to widely accepted theories about government and society.”

I’m not sure where this paragraph is going. It ignores that Dr. Paul readily admits that he is not proposing anything new. The principles, priorities and philosophies that he represents are those that allowed us to become the most powerful nation on earth. The first 150 years of our nation were founded on the teachings of smaller government, individual responsibility, self-reliance, low taxes, thoughtful use of military force and above all liberty and those are the same lessons you will hear if you listen to Dr. Paul. 

Where did history demonstrate that these ideas wouldn’t work? America is a unique country with a unique founding document. Name one place that history has shown it doesn’t work, because it sure as hell isn’t America. We feed over half the world. Even nations that hate us come to study within our borders before going home to plot against us. Such a statement ought to at least give reference to some point in history which proves his accusation. Saying it doesn’t make it so. 

Ahhh the best part for last….. So his ideas “crumble once they are subjected to widely accepted theories about government and society.” So these principles Dr. Paul professes provided us with America and its constitution, yet they don’t stand up to the accepted THEORIES about gov’t and society. What the hell does that mean? The principles of those who support the status quo are the same as those that have brought this crisis in morals and economy to our doorstep. Ron Paul doesn’t want to give you more of the same crap, he wants to give you your freedom back and return our government to its lawful role in our country. The historical founding of our nation upon individual liberty and small government is fact. These “theories” that supposedly debunk Dr. Paul are just that; the accepted theories of a failed philosophy struggling to remain in power.

“ Paul would restrict abortion based on anecdotal "evidence," rather than science.”

Counterpoints:

I don’t even have to copy any more of this paragraph to prove my point. You can still read it at the link, I’m certainly not hiding it. 

Ron Paul has never said he wanted to restrict abortion in anyway. He is prolife and personally believes that is the right choice. However, any fair examination of his comments on abortion always point to his belief in State’s rights and the unconstitutional ruling by the Supreme Court. 

If anyone took your rights to abortion away from you under Ron Paul’s Presidency it would be your neighbors voting against it. If your state outlaws it and you don’t agree, you are free to move to a state more to your liking and yet still be an American; kind of a cool system right? I can’t force you into complying with my opinion, you can’t force me to comply with yours and the governmental structure supports both our opinions as valuable. Now we can still be Americans and yet disagree. Damn, what a country!

“Paul has dreadful views regarding personal liberty and fundamental rights”

Since you couldn’t find anything else to pick on him about, I guess you had to throw abortion back at him twice, Darren? Yes, we get it, Ron Paul opposes abortion. That in no way means he opposes your right to it within the confines of the law. Why don’t you quote him to prove your point? (oh, you can’t?)

Anyway:

The entire point of being a Republic is to have control as decentralized as possible. If Utah allows polygamy and New York doesn’t so be it. 

This section is typical fear-mongering. Statements such as “Undoubtedly, many state courts would sharply curtail liberties currently recognized by the Supreme Court.” come out of nowhere in order to frighten us away from the reality that the States would actually only remove those liberties we voted against. Once again, if the people don’t support it, you won’t get it. When you pay attention to the big picture, which includes removing the relationship between business and government, Ron Paul allows for more equality and liberty than anyone else and it isn’t even close. 

Darren, you act as though rights are handed out by our courts and politicians. They are not. America was founded upon the belief that we are born free and our government takes our rights away little by little. To act as though the centralized power we now allow in Washington is historically American is to rely upon the uneducated masses following you like the sheep beckoning your dreams. 

I’ll finish this tomorrow I can’t take it anymore for the moment.

Phlegm

The Forgotten America

It seems to me that somewhere along the way the American population forgot what America stands for.  We forgot what made America different and have replaced those differences with an assumed arrogance without being able to support such a claim (not to mention without continuing the traditions that actually made us “better”).  Why?  How? Was it merely the removal of a strong family unit within the priorities of our nation?  Is it evil capitalism?  Is it education?  Is it inevitable? 

Education is perhaps the easiest culprit to find.  Rarely do schools produce critical thinkers rooted in an unrevised history of their country anymore.  We teach based on how to feel good about yourself instead of how to actually accomplish goals in life WHICH WILL IN RETURN MAKE YOU FEEL GOOD! I’d love to spout off about the infiltration of collectivism, Marxism, and socialism into our system; yet in the interest of time and space I would merely offer a book titled “None dare care it treason-25 years later”  for you to read if you are open to a well sited and eye-opening read.  Education used to be the responsibility of the parents and LOCAL school authorities.  We have allowed politicians to convince us that we are not able to educate our children anymore.  They have stolen the right of self-determination away from the rearing of our children.  How can it be that in a “free” society we are forced to pay taxes for our schools when we might not have children, or perhaps we want to send them to a private school?  Lord forbid that we want to send them to a religious school; for then we are told we have to pay the taxes for schools we don’t use because of the separation of church and state.  This is ridiculous.  The separation of church and state was put into place to prevent the state from forcing religion upon us.  It was written in order to ALLOW, in fact, everyone to worship in their own way.  What about the GI bill being used at a religious college (which it can be)? How is that any different?  The real question shouldn’t be about religion, or test scores, or budget levels, or the frigging teachers’ union (who represent themselves more than any teacher and certainly more than any child).  The real question should be: why are we letting Washington take our money in order to build a system of bureaucrats who justify their jobs and growing budgets with their own failures?  If we believe that one party, or one President truly changes much we are falling for the systems’ primary defense.  It is the existence of the system that we need to fight, in other words, the bureaucrats.  Those people rarely change and they are the ones left to interpret and, more importantly, implement the supposed coming “changes”.  No child left behind failed just as the next promised “solution”.  They will have a few success stories to tempt us with, but overall the system will continue to waste our money and line the pockets of the bureaucrats, unions and politicians while leaving the schools, parents and teachers to take the blame. How is that logical?  Looked at in another light, what if they truly solved the problems?  Our grades shot up, international competitiveness improved, colleges were filled to the brim…..what then?  How do they justify growing their budget and continuing most of the jobs they have “created” ?  How much longer would they need the infrastructure they have built up?  Is it truly in their best interest to solve the problem in the first place?  My father once told me that it is the nature of a bureaucracy to always grow.  I have thought about that a lot since he said it decades ago.  Look at our government.  How much money have we spent trying to solve social issues in the past 50 years only to see the problems get worse every decade?  Education is at the heart of these issues and must therefore be the first we solve.

      It is enough to point out that all learned values, behaviors, ethics and knowledge are either positively or negatively affected by the parents and family.    I don’t care who works in a family.  I don’t care if you both work.  I don’t want to tell you what to do or how to do it.  I’m merely saying that choices have consequences and when we stopped producing a strong family unit (which happened for many more reasons than just dual working parents).  When we left behind the HUMAN (not American) tradition of a strong family unit we stopped creating not only the best children but the best environments in which to produce those children.  We have become the selfish consumers our government has been pushing us to be.  This attitude of “me first” supported by our government’s policies of tax exceptions, welfare and bailouts has encouraged us to ask the wrong question again.   If we truly valued the liberty our country was founded upon we would place our efforts to the task of continuing that tradition through the production of well taught, well raised, respectful children and not more cars, bigger houses and better vacations.   Perhaps if the value and history of the liberty our country provided was taught better (not to mention if it was still there) then we wouldn’t have the amount of single parent families either.  Perhaps you wouldn’t have some people refusing to have kids in “this world” as well. 

     The “me first” mode of living is not going to allow freedom to continue.  By allowing our federal government to take as much money as they want (which they can due to the IRS) we have in turn become a nation fighting against each other for what we are allowed to keep.  We have let immorality creep into our lives and the absence of morals has assisted us in finding justifications for abhorrent behavior.   Whether it is men fathering children for whom they do not care, women murdering fetuses in lieu of responsible sexual behavior, domestic violence, drug addictions, gambling problems, narcissism or whatever other issue you care to name; these problems will always exist but the proliferation of these situations is inexcusable.  We allow the inevitability of a few problems to justify the immoral behavior of the majority.  We relinquish control over our lives to a federal government while we can blame them for our failure and troubles.  Meanwhile the government gives us reasons to segregate ourselves from both each other and the unifying principle of liberty.  We fall for it every time.   Perhaps instead of this “me first” culture, it ought to be a “we” first culture.  That is what produced America and what can save it from itself.

     Finally, a quick work about capitalism.  Don’t blame it because we don’t have it.  We have a partially socialistic and partially corporatist state.  When industry and government get together (lobbyists) to write laws benefitting each other (profits or campaign donations/support) then there is no capitalism.  I will close with an example I love to use.  If we had capitalism we wouldn’t have issues with oil and its pollution such as we do.  If our government were protecting the people through enforcing the laws on personal property and harming others then the free market would have been held accountable decades ago with the resulting price of oil forcing industry to take another path from the oil dependent one on which we find ourselves. 

I hope that in 2012 people vote for their nation’s health and for their grandkids’ liberty.  Look at their records of accomplishments and CONSISTENCY.  Look at who pays for the campaigns of our candidates.  Look at who runs the negative ads.  Then realize that there is one person who runs on principles.  There is one person who runs on a record that never varies.  There is a Republican who wins in a Democrat district with common sense and logic.  There is one person that runs for the people and just because the media and establishment hate him ought to get you to at least take a look at him.

RON PAUL 2012 

Government funds don't equal success

In yet another example that funding from our government doesn't equal success, it was reported today that the solar panel company Solyndra is going bankrupt.  After receiving direct support from the White House and hundreds of millions of dollars in financial backing; the company turned away workers with seemingly no warning.  When will we learn that the government can not create demand in the market?  Whether or not solar energy is environmentally responsible, financially profitable, or morally preferable to oil; simply throwing money at the industry will never guarantee viability.  Without the damage done to individual liberty by requiring the usage and/or purchase of alternative fuels our government will not be able to force an industry upon us.  Perhaps a better way would be to produce domestic oil while placing an import tax of some sort on foreign oil.  Perhaps that would push private companies to invest in changing their business model when the end is actually in site.  Better yet, why not enforce the laws we already have and punish companies who pollute through the defense of property rights (the rights of everyone else, whose property is being polluted).  The free market will work folks.  We just have to punish companies who damage our health and our property while removing the relationship and rewards our current corporatism-style government structure provides. 
Phlegm
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/massive-taxpayer-backed-solar-panel-manufacturer-goes-bankrupt/

http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/22/panel-green-jobs-company-endorsed-by-obama-and-biden-squandered-535-million-in-stimulus-money/

http://venturebeat.com/2010/05/26/obama-stumps-for-climate-bill-at-solyndra-giving-it-a-pre-ipo-lift/

Is peace a bad word?

In the article attached below this post, Gov. Perry leaves open the door to the possibility (and I should say probability) of yet another war-happy President.  While claiming to support using troops only for defensive reasons, he hides behind the old slogan of "our vital interests" being threatened.  This is tantamount to the often heard claims of secrets within government due to "national security".  Sure, our leaders must have secrets but the phrase is abused far too often.  But back to Gov Perry; to be honest I find it difficult to write much even though another candidate certain to promote war finds me disagreeable.  Not once did he make mention, at least where I looked, of bringing any troops home in general or specific.  Not once did he talk about a reasonably sized military or number of bases.  Not once did he talk about Europe's role in providing their own defense.  I heard no call to the world's leaders to share the responsibility of protecting those who are innocent and helpless throughout the world.  I heard the familiar call of war for profit, for defense of profit and business (what they call our vital interests.....for if our government is owned by the bureaucrats and corporations then theirs are the interests of which he speaks) and the defense of preemptive war (what they call the moral authority).  I hear the toll bell and it is ringing for any country unwilling to be humble, be respectful, stand strong,  demand fairness and promote liberty by example rather than force.  We can not afford more financial or moral debt, it is just that simple. We can not help future populations around the world if we do not first ensure our country's continued survival, prosperity and dedication to liberty through restricted government.

Phlegm

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/perry-offers-basics-of-his-foreign-policy-approach-1804523.html

Pigford Part II...theft and corruption funded by your tax dollars

For those that don't know, Pigford vs Glickford was a case against the USDA for discrimination against black farmers by unfairly denying them government loans. We'll leave aside the issue of the government taking money from us in order to choose who we should have loaned it to.  At the time the bill was written which funded the reparations, it was the opinion of the authors that approximately 3,000 people would be filing for awards under the law.  It was originally funded to the tune of about 100 million dollars. A hundred million tax dollars to pay in penalties to farmers who had been discriminated against by our government officials at the USDA while loaning our money to others.  Seems to me I could make a great case for removing the interference of the USDA in our farmers finances and thereby avoid such situations all together.  Regardless, at the time the bill was written there were warnings voiced by some members of Congress that the bill would open the door to far more money being spent than intended as well as promised by the authors.  They were told that the 100 million was a ceiling and would pay all outstanding issues within the lawsuit.  As is often the case, those projecting future spending were correct.  Consider the following facts brought to the floor of the House today:
1.  projected 3,000 recipients turned into over 80,000
2.  The USDA found less than 40,000 TOTAL black farmers in the nation, from which the 86,000 claims came
3.  The 100 Million has now turned into almost 1.5 Billion!
4.  The requirements only state that a non-relative must support the claim that the claimant COMPLAINED the were discriminated against.  NO PROOF IS REQUIRED
5.  Claims were encouraged if there was a farmer in past generations (which assumes they must have been unfairly denied a loan, but doesn't have to show they even applied for one)
6.  In at least one district where discrimination claims were made, the USDA was managed by all blacks....how could that be discrimination?

I've saved the best for last.  The most astounding fact about this whole scam is that NOT ONE person in the USDA (the agency at fault and responsible for approving subsequent claims) has been found guilty of discrimination. 
So twice as many black farmers as there are in our country were all discriminated against by no one.
How is that possible?
How are there twice as many claims as there are black farmers in America?
If the USDA acted with such rampant discrimination, shouldn't management from the top down be replaced?
Doesn't this type of discrimination (which did occur to be sure) and the resulting fraudulent scheme provide us with another reason to keep our money and limit our federal government?

As long as Washington continues to support ridiculous legislation such as Pigford II, we need to laugh when they talk about reducing the debt or spending.  If we take them seriously we will never remember to replace them when we vote.  It is sad when the problems they hide rise to the level of corruption such as this example.  Truly votes have been paid for through a program such as Pigford II.

The biggest tragedy though?  The democracy is weaker for its implementation.  We have built up the idea on the left that it is okay to steal from others in our society and we have given the right a reason to find the left biased and immoral.  We have supported the idea that the government can force morality in its people.  The arguement over whether it should or not is a waste of time; it simply can not force moral behaviour.  We have split the populace into two groups AGAIN and ensured the future of our two parties.  We have made the issue about white vs black instead of allowing the banks to handle financing while enforcing the laws of equality upon those banks.  Government can not steal in order to act morally on our behalf, it can only enforce equality without using any labels in the process.

Ethanol Tax Credits and Storage Funds

While Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) rambled on about the issue of subsidizing the ethanol industry I thought about the irony of his speech.  He decried the support of oil through hidden expenditures such as military operations to keep the water passageways flowing for the delivery of oil out of the middle east.  He talked about the volatile price of corn, ad that it wouldn't stay as high as it is now.  He argued against the logic of food prices rising due to corn being used for fuel and not food.  He lumped the food industry in with the oil and gas industry by accusing them of raising their prices needlessly only to never lower them proportionally when the corn price goes back down.  According to Sen. Grassley, roughly 70% of the benefits go to 10% of the farmers, the "mega-farmers" or corporations instead of small and medium size farms.  He then went on to relay how horrible it was that the legislation was being used to reward the largest farms instead of helping the small guys.  According to him, the law was written to provide a safety net for "those that need it".  So let me get this straight, the Senator from Iowa wants to re-direct subsidies going to large farms in the direction of small farms.  Brilliant!  One of his closing remarks mentioned that this wasn't part of the budget where Washington should be seeking to save money, that surely there are common sense areas that would be agreeable to all.  This is about the 20th time I have heard a member of Congress say something like this.  Either about oil, WIC, FEMA, ethanol, the military or a myriad of other issues.  Let's remember, it was only last December when Congress PASSED the ethanol subsidies they are now trying to revoke.  This whole mess reminds me of a scene from Mel Brooks' "History of the World Part I"; "politics, politics, politics!"  Such crap out of Washington!  So they won't cut oil subsidies, nor ethanol monies and they are heading in the direction of raising the Pentagon's budget.  Our leaders are incapable of seeing the real issue and they are certainly incapable of solving it.  Isn't it obvious that Washington should never choose the winners and losers in the economy? Yet it is hard to find a segment of our country that hasn't found some sort of favor within Washington through lobbyists and supporting campaigns.  Perhaps I should write about the portfolios commonly held by our leaders and their financial interest in continuing to prop up banks and oil companies. The answer was and always will be to break the tie between industry and government.  If they don't write exemptions within the tax codes the private sector can't garner favor through legislation or taxation.   Break the mutual interest by removing the ability to impart favors on both sides of the equation and we just might have a chance at the return of the free market system which propelled our nation to the most powerful economic engine in the world. 

Tiara Over A Trophy?

As I watched game 7 of the NHL Playoffs (Way to go Bruins!!) tonight I was playing flipper during a commercial break and noticed a new reality show.  This show took the American reality TV society to an all-time low.   The entire show was built around toddler beauty pageants.  No, I didn't watch it.  I didn't have to.  This is coming from the same society that has taken the word win out of youth sports?  This is coming from the same country that doesn't want anyone to lose because they might get their feelings hurt?  What idiocy!  Instead, we put our daughters on TV to be pranced around like some sexual object because that makes better sense right?  I realize the people killing the competitive spirit in American youth are probably not the same as those parading their daughters on stage but it is still hard to believe that one country could screw both of these things up at the same time.  We are afraid of competition so we try to force rules of fairness everywhere.  Hate crime laws attempt to make things fair, although they, by both definition and enforcement, value one life higher than another.  Affirmative action, although well meant, places race over accomplishment.  We've seen expectations reduced so that women can become firefighters (just hope they don't get stuck carrying the man of the house down the ladder).  Now anyone who knows me will realize I support fair opportunity to all in all cases.  This does not mean unfair ground rules in order to affect the outcome.  I suppose it should come as no surprise that after producing those ideas that we now weaken our children by removing the idea that sometimes they will win and sometimes they will lose. Perhaps this is done to make parenting easier, I don't know.  I'm sure that the lesson of expecting an award instead of earning it will serve them well when they hit the real world of business and life.  Of course, at the rate we are going, the governmen will be taking care of them anyway.  Surely it isn't their fault that no one handed a house or retirement or a new car to them.  After all, one must only participate (or in this case be born) to deserve the prize, right?  Instead we exploit little girls in beauty pageants for God knows what sick reasons.  It is sad that some would use our liberties to defend toddler pageants after leaving a youth baseball game where they don't keep score anymore.  Why practice?  Why work hard?  What is there to celebrate? What the hell is this country coming too?  Surely the far left's attempt to convince us that all will be wonderful as long as those in power force what they consider to be fair by theft and brute force.  Doesn't anyone remember how our country came to be anymore?  I could have sworn it was founded on the liberty to compete.

2012 IRS Budget Request Hearing

In case you are disappointed with the comedy selection on T.V. tonight, the 2012 IRS budget request hearing is probably going to be replayed on C-Span tonight. Watching the blame game between the IRS Commissioner and the Congressmen and women is actually humorous if you are a bit twisted such as I am.   Douglas Shulman, the IRS Commissioner, gave testimony today to justify his budget request and to answer questions.  There were a few note-worthy moments with regard to the budget itself, the Affordable Care Act (Obama care) as well as the very structure of the way we pay taxes. 

            Let’s start with this; the 2012 IRS budget request was for 12 billion dollars.  We pay 12 billion dollars to run the tax collection system.  Mr. Shulman was quick to point out that the need for additional funds over and above the 12 billion in order to properly invest in technology.  With all the debating over how to reduce the budget and deficit isn’t this an obvious place to find a contribution?  Luckily, congress removed one of the most glaring examples of insanity within the Affordable Care Act requiring business to file a 1099 on almost every business with whom they deal in a years’ time.  If memory serves me right, I believe a 1099 was required for any business relationship which procured a 600 dollar transaction record within a year.  Over 20 million dollars was saved when the IRS canceled their plans to prepare for this ridiculous portion of the health care law.  It is curious how the measure related to the issue of health care but I think it has become more and more evident over the last year and half that the bill really isn’t about health care anyway.  Yet I digress.  One recommendation to the Commissioner was to find a way to remove the hidden additional tax for the average American resulting from the need to pay someone to file their taxes for them.   Mr. Shulman, however, was very resistant towards the IRS offering a free web site where taxpayers can file their tax return without paying Turbo Tax or someone similar.   He admitted it was a political and philosophical discussion within the agency and that the creation of such a website would only require additional funds to build the database needed to support such a service.  He also pointed out that the Congress is historically guilty of funding enforcement over customer service.  Big surprise there!  It is curious that the IRS would not support the web site idea, although if we consider the health of the bureaucracy and the jobs within it; it is no wonder that the IRS, indeed any agency, doesn’t support such programs.  It is in the interest of the citizen to reduce costs within the IRS or fees paid to ensure compliance; it is certainly not in the interest of those working to keep both their job and their overly-complicated tax collection system. 

            The lack of real regard towards the citizen was evident in the testimony and questions during the meeting today.  The percentage of phone calls answered when an actual human was requested fell 15% from 2004 from 89% to 74%.  Although as Mr. Shulman pointed out, he contributes part of that differential to the effective system they put in place warning the citizen how long the wait is and suggesting they hang up and call back during a slower time.  Oh, how helpful.  Mr. Shulman refused to lend his support to a free system for the people to utilize when filing their taxes.  Mr. Shulman considers the IRS a “financial serves company”.  As a citizen I take offense that he believes his agency in any way serves me.  It may help me stay out of jail by explaining their rules perhaps.  Yet, this fails to pass my test for service.  The IRS is an institution founded to do nothing but take our money and it does so in such a convoluted and complex way that 6 billion man hours are spent each year seeking to file within the rules.  Over half of the country hires someone to file their taxes out of either the fear of doing it wrong or the justified ennui induced when considering tackling the task alone.  If we take into account how many people don’t file, are on government support of one type or another or aren’t required to pay taxes, the estimated 60% of the population hiring a tax service seems even more remarkable.  I must admit, Mr. Shulman seemed to genuinely desire offering the best customer service possible.  He said all the right things, regretted all the right mistakes and certainly stated worthy goals of improvement.  The case might be made that the system does not lend itself to simplicity.  As one of the Congressional Representatives pointed out, although the tax code is written by Congress, the implementation, collections and interactions are up to the IRS to develop.  Certainly the removal of a revenue tax would be ideal, yet in place of that somewhat utopian ideal perhaps we should settle for investing a few tens of millions of dollars into a system allowing citizens to pay their taxes safely and directly and at no cost to them.  It is hard to believe that the issue is considered a political one by the commissioner.  Certainly they could serve us better while costing us less.  At least it would be a start towards some common sense in our government. 

              Without delving deep into the abyss of idiocy which I consider the Affordable Care Act to be, I would like to mention a couple of statements and questions with regard to the IRS and its involvement in enforcing and implementing the law.  Already they are working on the collecting the taxes from additional revenue streams such as the new levy on tanning salons or the additional tax against our drug companies.  Another task currently under way concerns the subsidies towards small businesses and the start-up of that “benefit”.  (Any true solution would require neither subsidizing employers nor the numerous waivers which have already been granted.) Yet Mr. Shulman described the biggest concern and challenge as the implementation of the full law in 2014.  Consider the task ahead of the IRS and the most glaring flaw of the law becomes readily apparent.  The IRS is responsible for setting up the exchanges with the States and ensuring compliance.  Both insurance companies and individuals will be part of a data base allowing both communication and financial transactions.  This data base will offer information to the citizen on the status of their eligibility with regards to health insurance tax benefits.  This same data base transfers money between all three parties in various ways; from health insurance credits, to payments, to expenditures relating to compliance on behalf of the insurance companies.  Surely our streamlined, omnipotent and always benevolent government and IRS won’t screw this up at all.  I’m quite sure I’ll never hear a testimony saying the task was too complex and that the IRS needs additional funds and resources to fix the implementation issues which are sure to come our way.  I doubt we'll ever hear about the government either losing track of money or holding it without good cause, surely not the IRS!  They perform so fabulously at present; this must surely be the time to tack on such an additional responsibility as the health care system of the nation.  Never mind this massive amount of financial and health information being gathered into a central data base.  Never mind the additional intrusion into your life by the IRS under the guise of improving the delivery of health care in our nation.  What is the cost of this program of insanity?  As I mentioned before, the removal of just the 1099 issue was going to cost us over 20 million in just 2012.  Unfortunately, no one asked the Commissioner how much the rest was running up the tab. 

            I’ve been called crazy, nuts, stupid or worse when I speak about the need for less government with perhaps more zeal and passion than most people.  Yet every day it seems the government makes my case for me.   As my father told me many years ago, it is the nature of any bureaucracy to always grow in size in order to continually justify its existence and to offer advancement to those within it.  This simple observation offers us a deep insight into why Washington spends and borrows so much money.  Surely these issues of waste and agencies more concerned with survival than service are not a left or right issue but an American one. 

Why libertarian? Part III

Twice, in the first two portions of this article, libertarians were described as humble and the parties in power as arrogant.  The easiest way to understand why libertarians are more humble than their American political adversaries is at the very heart of the libertarian philosophy.  One of the most basic tenets of the libertarian point of view is that leaders are not wise enough to tell the rest of us what to do or think.  I am no better than you and you are no better than I.  We should be equal in the eyes of the law regardless of race, creed, gender, opinion or anything else.  If we deny our federal government the ability to write legislation which labels citizens we would not have, or had, legislation which supported racism or sexism.  We also wouldn’t allow Washington to tell us who we can or can’t marry.  The subscription to the libertarian point of view requires one to admit that their opinion is no more important than their neighbors’.   This admission is empowering because once a person removes their biases against those neighbors, they can begin to see past the issues used to divide us and focus on our common goals.  That is the essence of our federal government to the libertarian.  Washington should stop focusing on issues that divide us and leave those to the States.  Washington should be a place where politics brings us as together as possible.  Congress is a place to argue, debate and generally disagree with each other through our representatives.  Instead of sending our officials to Washington in order to fight over social topics that can never be solved, let us send our politicians to Washington to fight over the best foreign policy method.  Let us send them to fight over sending troops to roughly 65-70% of the nations on earth! Let them fight over how best to address immigration finally!  By removing the issues behind which they hide, such as regulating any action possible by both person and business, we can force them to actually address the needs of the nation instead of the wants of their constituents.   The libertarians are not afraid of this scenario.  Both Republicans and Democrats avoid the true issues and have done so for decades.  The libertarian wants to remove the ability of the government to print money through its incestuous relationship with the Federal Reserve.  The ability to rob the people by devaluing currency in order to fund wars and social programs is beyond atrocious.  Does no one remember the crisis in Germany less than a century ago?  Should we trust our government officials when they laugh off such a scenario out of pure ego and self-interest? The arrogance of the left and right shown in their constant efforts to either take care and protect us or make our decisions for us is perpetrated with the permission of the populace.  We vote them in.  We believe in their benevolence through our active choice of ignorance.   Vote in a libertarian and you will see that they value an opposing opinion equally when it comes to legislation.  This is not the description of a weak person; just the opposite.  Someone who is comfortable with not being considered “right” is capable of far more when representing a population that can’t all agree with him or her.  They don’t have to pander to one side of a debate.  The libertarian politician can be strong willed because they constantly respect the limits of their power and opinion. 

It is quite possible that one could describe a libertarian as more concerned with the future of the individual rather than the country.   However, if a country establishes a rule of law protecting the greatest amount of personal liberty possible, a libertarian would certainly do everything possible to protect both individual and country.  No political philosophy is perfect to be sure.  In point of fact, it is doubtful that any one philosophy is even possible.  Socialism would be grand if people were motivated by patriotism as much as personal gain.  As long as competition produces better economic results than nationalism, socialist nations will come in a distant second to the ingenuity of the free market society.  Communism might be desirable if one could trust the government to act as a benevolent and omnipotent God.  Capitalism would work if a society could prevent the collusion of government and business.  The track record of pollution (i.e. the government’s failure to protect the citizen from the abuses caused by the motivation of business, namely profit) is enough to show America failed in this regard.    A libertarian’s utopian society can’t exist either.  People are not perfect and we always fall short when attempting to avoid judging each other.  Humans always form into groups thereby creating the support for labels.  Labels strip away liberty once they leak into legislation or perhaps even merely a public’s lexicon.  People always want to be “right” and we can’t always “agree to disagree”.  These are some of the issues with the libertarian school of thought.  However, I would rather fall short of the goal when aiming at individual liberty than to fail in an effort to control industry and society as both our parties attempt to do.  To fail in the desire to get out of your way seems much more honorable and less harmful than to fail in the attempt at engineering your future.  Perhaps the most glaring weakness of the libertarian point of view is that it doesn’t promise anything except liberty.  Without the time to explain how true liberty can break the cycle of generational welfare, how could a libertarian hope to convince those voters to live without the programs they currently rely on?  Without the attention of the farmers, how can a libertarian convince them that farming subsidies are actually hurting their profitability?  I can’t help but mention that Ron Paul did just that in Texas.  It is possible.  The issues of legislating beyond the constitution and giving gifts paid for through taxes are entwined beyond separation.  On the one hand, we should not allow Washington to legislate beyond the scope provided by the constitution but on the other hand how many are willing to give up that ability at the cost of personal gains through such legislating?  Not only that, how many people would lose their civil servant job if we abolished needless programs such as the department of education?  The abolishment of useless and counterproductive bureaucracies such as the dept. of education lie at the heart of the libertarian point of view, yet they can’t be simply stricken without giving thought to the consequences.  When facing voters in an election, the libertarian is challenged with such difficulties under the guise that the current tax dollars are actually contributing to the improvement of such fields as education.  Such a claim is so far from the truth, yet the fear that our all mighty federal government might not provide education for our children is enough to scare people away from actually thinking for themselves in depth about the topic.  The lack of local control over our schools is equal to the lack of parental involvement.  I’m not saying we don’t have good parents out there.  I’m saying they are the exception, not the rule.  In fact, I am currently “facebook friends” with several people with whom I politically disagree, yet am constantly impressed at how much time and effort they give to their children and schools.  Obviously they are people of character.  Why should we desire a political system which chooses winners and losers through social engineering instead of one which respects the positive attributes of everyone?   Are we so sophomoric in our desire for “winning” that we lose the respect of those we debated with in the first place?  The libertarian message is one of respect and humility; unfortunately, it is a message drowned out by the promises of gifts and caretaking offered by the establishment. 

Coming in Part IV

The reformation of Washington

Why anyone can be a libertarian (unlike Dems or Reps)

And MAYBE....a conclusion :)

Why Libertarian Part II

            Being a libertarian offers several advantages for both the individual and the country.  One of the advantages for the nation is a stronger president.  Another benefit is the rise of respect and friendship between current political adversaries. Although there are several more benefits to list, it must be recognized that the libertarian party faces its own issues and problems.  Somewhere between the benefits and risks lies the individual’s choice to become a libertarian or retain the status quo of current politics in America.

            So how does the libertarian philosophy offer us a stronger Commander in Chief?  Perhaps the question should be; why would a libertarian even want a stronger President?   Our President is weakened by the deals he must strike to gain the political support needed to get into the Oval Office.  Whether they are left or right, the financial backing needed for victory in our current system guarantees that most opinions and goals of the President are necessarily congruent with the views of those who provided support during the campaign.  The President of the United States of America ought to be able to think on their own and make decisions based on the facts and not the political mindset of campaign contributors.  We should be electing Presidents based on their ability to deal with the unforeseeable, not in order for them to pass social legislation promised during campaigns.  We should not be electing Presidents based on social engineering goals in any way. The more we bog down our President with legislation which properly resides within the individual states, the less he is able to coalesce the nation and the more he contributes to the divisive nature of our current political system.  A libertarian point of view would allow our President to be stronger in terms of foreign policy, immigration issues and national defense for several reasons.  Obviously the first reason comes from the focus on national issues which are the constitutional responsibility of the President and Congress.  A second reason is the movement towards defining the President as a unifying presence instead of the divisive one we have seen for decades.  If we restrict the powers of Washington to those provided in the constitution we might see that Americans agree more often than not when it comes to national defense, immigration, fair economic competition between states or foreign policy.  This focus on constitutional demands upon the Congress and President would allow our President to avoid the alliances which prevent him from acting as a true executive.  Is it not preferable that our President lead the country rather than his party?  Is it not wise to distribute the power of government to as many places and people as possible to avoid the corrupting influence power so often brings?  If a President has fewer responsibilities, doesn’t it seem logical that the focus on those issues would be far greater?  Some of our best Presidents followed their heart, their character and their beliefs instead of their party.  Lincoln was far from popular, even with his own party, yet he ensured the future of a nation and the eventual end of the deplorable retention of freedom from the black community.  Washington was not popular for his stance on the war between France and England, yet by not giving in to the popular opinion, he kept our fragile infant nation out of a war that could have weakened us to the point of collapse.  Of course he was just as unpopular over the whiskey tax, but no one is perfect and the taxation example only shows one of the problems of taking state issues and making them national ones.  The President would be a more powerful office in regard to the world if he actually focused on the international relationships for which he is responsible.  The President would be a more powerful domestic influence if the limitations of his power were enforced so that his focus remained on the good of the nation and not the good of his party.  By avoiding the current addiction to legislating everything from cell phone bills to health care insurance, the President could rise above the fray the Congress produces and unite both the parties and the country.  Finally, by limiting the power of Washington to legislating only that which constitutionally falls under their charge, the relationship between industry and government would be weakened thereby allowing the corrupting influence of money to lose its place at the legislating table.  The freedom procured by removing personal gain would allow the voters to base decisions in the booth upon character and ideas instead of alliances and campaign bank accounts.  Only a President with a strong character could survive an election based on philosophy and debating skills and a President with a stronger character would undoubtedly make a stronger leader. Beyond that, only a person of strong character would want the office of the President in the limited capacity provided by the Constitution.

            Our nation is a union among people who disagree.  This has been the case since its inception.  Whether it is the Federalists and the Republicans, the followers of Jefferson or Hamilton, or the North and the South; our nation is built upon the idea that even though we can’t all agree we can provide for ourselves a nation which allows for both the variety of opinions and the common good.  Part of the common good is the protection of those different opinions.  Legislating behavior at the federal level goes against this founding principle of our country.  By allowing the States to handle social issues we create a form of government which allows those who fiercely disagree on social matters to unite for the common good of our country at a national level. This unity at the federal level ensures the protection of all of our opinions by protecting the future survival of our country. The rule of law is dependent upon the ability of government to act as an agent of brutal force and coercion.  If our government can’t hold us in jail, fine us, or take away our rights; then the law becomes impotent.  Based upon this fact, isn’t it wise to formulate our social laws at the most local level possible in order to allow for those groups of people who disagree to live within their own beliefs while still retaining status as a valuable part of our country?  How many federal laws are ineffective due to the inability of our federal government to enforce them?  How many laws made within a city, county or state are more effectively enforced due to the support of the community?  How many social laws only serve to divide our nation?  For instance, does anyone actually believe that the issue of abortion will ever go away?  It will be used to divide the nation into left-wing and right-wing voters until the country realizes that these beliefs aren’t going anywhere.  Why shouldn’t we take such an issue and delegate it to the States, where it belongs, and allow for pro-life and pro-choice Americans to vote based on what is good for the country instead of voting in order to try to force their opinion upon those with whom they disagree?  By allowing States to become truly reflective of their people instead of trying to create a nation of one belief system, we could make ourselves allies to each other and thereby form the more perfect union we should constantly seek.

Coming in Part III

The problems of being a libertarian (as well as the problems for the party)

Why anyone can be a libertarian (and why anyone can’t be a Dem or a Rep)

A Party of Humility vs. parties of arrogance

The reformation of Washington

Why consider being libertarian?

                So why should you consider becoming a libertarian? If it is so great, why isn’t it a viable third party in our country?  What does the libertarian philosophy offer that the other two parties can’t?  What does it offer you as an individual both in and out of the political arena?  Why is the libertarian movement seeing a rise in strength and numbers? 

                Quite possibly the most attractive part of being a libertarian is the lack of judging.  Our political parties waste an awful lot of time and effort judging people.  When we are aligned within the political system according to moral beliefs we are judging people by seeking to control morality through legislation.  Libertarians do not seek to control people at the federal level.  Our two political parties are great at preaching about morality but fall short more often than not when practicing those same beliefs, yet we continue to listen to them, why?  Being a libertarian offers people the choice to lead their lives according to their morals without judging those who hold different beliefs.  Libertarians are often cast as supporting some form of anarchy.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Libertarians must believe in the rule of law more than their political opponents because it is the law which protects us from each other as well as citizens from their government.  However, the rule of law must stop our government from offering the temptation to voters to control those with whom they disagree.  The prevention of social engineering demands the support of the population and today that support comes from the libertarian belief and its supporters. 

                Libertarians can show what politics should be like.  Today’s politicians are experts at the empty response.  How many times do you hear a politician answer a question with a great speech while never answering the question?  Libertarians don’t need this skill.  Libertarians rarely change their stance on a subject for two reasons.  Firstly, we don’t have as many opinions to push because we believe the vast majority have no place on the federal level.  If we are talking a local or state election there will be more to say due to the responsibility at that level, yet the principle remains the same and actually would allow more local control to the voter over the type of person writing legislation based on morality.  The second reason libertarians don’t often change their opinion is that it isn’t rooted in polls and election cycles like the other two parties.  The libertarian bible is the constitution and it doesn’t change.  The libertarian debates the application of constitutional responsibilities such as the application of military power or protecting our borders.  Those debates can occur with more honesty and more clarity if they aren’t polluted by the parties’ effort at herding us according to moral beliefs.    Once you let go of the stump speeches and tag lines you can begin to learn what a candidate really believes.  Their philosophy becomes clear when they aren’t giving sound bites along party lines.  Yet it is still politics.  You still need votes and supporters.  So how does a libertarian use their philosophy as an advantage in these areas?  The first way is to speak to the concerns of the audience.  Libertarians have an easy job in this regard if they stick to their beliefs.  As explained above, it is easier for a libertarian to be consistent from audience to audience.  It is also easier to be convincing because freedom and liberty are easily understood and highly desirable.  All a libertarian needs to convince a voter of is that they are a capable human being.  Libertarians always give as much power to the individual as possible; so it is logical that if you can convince someone they can take care of themselves you can offer a philosophy which leads to retaining as much of that power as possible.  The libertarian philosophy also offers the only serious plan to reduce spending, taxes and the deficit at the same time.  By reducing the bureaucracy in Washington we can allow state and local governments to control issues such as education with far more efficiency and effectiveness.  Libertarians don’t support the concept of a central bank so not only would you have more money in your pocket, but it would be worth more as well!  These are issues which the Washington politicians refuse to address seriously.  With the humble platform built on offering people more power over their lives and more sound money in their pocket, a libertarian doesn’t have to play gutter politics because they actually have something to say of value.  A libertarian doesn’t have to point out an opponent’s faults, only the faults of his political beliefs and how they rob the voters of power and money.  None of this explains why we don’t have a libertarian Washington though.  Perhaps that has something to do with the media outlets promoting the two parties which offer favors to the conglomerates which own them.  You know; companies such as G.E. for instance. 

                Coming in part II:

How being a libertarian creates friends out of enemies

Why ANYONE can be a libertarian

The problems with being libertarian (and the problems for the party too)