Libertarian?

2010 is coming to an end. For me personally, it will be the year I redefined myself from Conservative to Libertarian. Why did I do this? It has little to do with my own personal values. They have pretty much remained unchanged. I am a Christian, with very Christian values. What I am really truly beginning to understand is that the fight here isn't about values, values is what brings the left to do what it is they are doing. The fight here need only be about one thing: LIBERTY.



In order to fix our catastrophic problem of a sinking economy, one only needs to realize one thing. Government is not the answer to represent your values. If people on the left want to help the poor (a pretty good value for one to have). They need to understand that government will never be the answer to that. People can help people far better than the one for all answer that government can offer. The same rule applies to Conservatives. If you think we have a massive drug problem, the government will never be the answer to resolve that problem. We have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the war on drugs is an absolute failure. The problem here is that because you have a state, of course their answer will be they need more. More resources, more money, more more more more more. The war on drugs despite absolute failure has done nothing but enlarge itself to the point of hundreds of government agencies have been created and thousands of people employed full time spending billions of dollars, yet drug use has remained relatively unchanged since the inception of the war on drugs. We have to realize, government does not need to protect people from themselves. If someone wants to use drugs, it may be wrong, but it is not for government to decide that. Government is only supposed to protect liberty. If someone spends their life on heroin, it doesn't hurt any ones liberty. the fact is that since drugs are illegal (which they shouldn't be) has jacked up the price to the point that addicts steal from people thus removing their liberty to their property. So the end result is that government has actually removed liberty with its war on drugs. It has removed the liberty of the person to be on drugs if that is what they want., and it has removed liberty of those people that get robbed and killed either from drug cartels or drug users. What is governments answer, no it will never be to reverse its direction and stop the war and legalize, it will always be to follow its natural progression of more more more. We can win the war on drugs, we just need to hire 299 million of the 300 million Americans to fight it.



This is the natural progression for government to deal with their own failure. More! State education is failing our children, The state needs more money for education. Whats that? its still failing and kids are not testing well? We need a massive federal department of education! Whats that? Its still failing. Well then, teachers must need life long medical insurance and unfunded pensions that allow them to retire at 58. Whats that? Test scores are even lower than before? Have you considered a 2 1/2 over ride so we can build new schools? That's it, we have too many in a class room, we need a new school. Whats that? scores still suck and kids are dropping out. Have you considered giving teachers tenure so they cant be fired?



The state has a natural progression to enlarge itself. This is exactly why the founders made constraints on it at the federal level. Of course that couldn't last forever. States have a natural progression towards higher control. If a law is passed to correct a problem and by correcting this problem they started 3 new problems what would the natural progression be? To remove the existing law, or make 3 new laws to fix the new problems.



The answer is Libertarianism. You don't have to compromise your beliefs to be a libertarian. For example, if you want to help the poor, take some damn money out of your pocket a help. Want to do it on a massive scale. Go ahead make a charity and do it. In the form of a charity you can change constantly to your peoples needs, have no law in the way of who gets what or how much. Liberty will fix all our problems! (I am talking about the real problems, not global warming!). It will fix our economy. It will fix our poverty.



The one thing that stands in the way is the fact the currently we have close to a majority that is receiving from the government and doesn't understand they can create more wealth themselves than the government could ever hope to give them. There are something like 40% of Tea Partiers that don't understand that social security and medicare account for most of the federal budget. they stand up saying they want smaller government, but don't think that it needs to mean social security. Social security is the majority if the big government your complaining about. We need our own Tea Party members to completely swallow the red pill and understand that all social programs are hurting us and social security is the big hurt. Yes I have been paying into it for over 20 years too. But the sooner you realize it was stolen the sooner you can move on towards libertarianism. The sooner you stop saying I want smaller government, but I still want my social security check and medicare, the sooner we can win this. All politicians wont cut S.S. because they know that it will keep them out of office. so you can stop blaming the politicians and start blaming ourselves. Rand Paul needs to be able to look us in the eye and say "I am going to cut your social security" and not have to get voted our because of it.



If all government was gone tomorrow and you woke up in the wildiness, could you survive? Do you depend on the government to live? Are you willing to live without anything offered by the government except protection? If so, perhaps your libertarian?

Megan Kelley and Rep. Weiner

Here is a terrific example of how Progressives/Leftists/Liberals/Democrats simply assume the false premise of the "death tax" debate. Even Megan Kelley allows Rep. Weiner to keep his assumption, thereby allowing him to even have the slightest hint of being right. The false premise is simly that when you die, your money is simply going back to its rightful owner, the Government.

Why does the government have the right to tax your estate after you die? Whatever happened to private property rights? Remember, the Leftist doesn't believe in private property rights. It's all theirs to begin with.

But let's go ahead and grant the false premise in Weiner's argument that the inheritance is unearned income for those who inherit money. Megan made the solid point that the estate is being taxed prior to anyone inheriting the money. In other words, a person is taxed upon their death, plain and simple.

To use an illustration might be of service. Let's say I am worth $100,000 when I die. I happen to leave behind 10 heirs, who each earn $15,000 per year from their normal jobs. Do you really believe Rep. Weiner would tax them each on their income taxes at the $25,000 rate after receiving the $10,000 I left each of them? Hell no. The death tax could be at 50% no matter what prior to anyone else receiving money. For some reason, Weiner believes unearned income belongs to the government. Why? Remember, we are the property of the state. The Almighty State is God.

Therefore, this is not viewed as unearned income to my heirs and Rep. Weiner knows it (making him a liar). It is going after and seizing private property, which is a clear and outright violation of the U.S. Constitution (as if Liberals care about that silly document anyway). This is something government officials do to empower themselves. It is not about revenue. It is about power over your life and property.

The Hundred Year War Ended?

The media is constantly telling us how we needed Obama Care in order to save our American Economy because we are spending too much on health care. We all know that Obama has publicly stated that the current law is designed to get us to single payer in a few years. Yet some of my friends just don't believe that is what Obama is trying to do.

In a recent discussion with a friend, I pointed out the fact that the Destruction of the iInsurance Industry Act is not about health care and saving money. I pointed to an obvious fact that this has been a dream of the Left, Socialists or Progressives for over a 100 years. His response was basically, "What?"

Well, for in case you need more evidence, here is an admission by President Obama yesterday proving this is not about cost. It is about socialized medicine and granting more and more power to the Almighty State. As stated in this article,

"This notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much -- this is the public option debate all over again," the president said. "We pass something that Democrats have been fighting for for over 100 years, but because there was a provision in there that they didn't get...somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise."

If you love liberty, you must learn to fear the State and its natural tendency to accrue power and become despotic. Besides, as Obama says about extending the current tax rate here, we can't afford it.

"In the long run, we simply can't afford them," he said during an afternoon press conference. "And when they expire in two years, I will fight to end them, just as, I suspect, the Republican Party may fight to end the middle-class tax cuts that I champion and that they've opposed."

What is disappointing about this entire debate about taxes is that so-called Republican conservatives grant the bogus presmises of the Political Left. The Left never has to justify its own position or its presuppositions. Our money is theirs, plain and simple. As Bernard Baruch stated in a 1917 speech,

We are now living in a highly advanced stage of socialism. The state is all. The individual only matters if he can serve the state.

Private property rights are fundamental in a free society. The fight over health care is about far more than your health or insurance. It is about liberty and freedom. These things are worth keeping the war on for another Hundred years.

The Guardian On Global Warming Wiki Leaks

This story in the Gardian UK explains some of the Wiki leaks revealed facts about the politics behind Global Warming. This paragraph says what we all knew.

Some countries needed little persuading. The accord promised $30bn (£19bn) in aid for the poorest nations hit by global warming they had not caused. Within two weeks of Copenhagen, the Maldives foreign minister, Ahmed Shaheed, wrote to the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, expressing eagerness to back it.

In other words, the Global Warming tax...I mean Carbon tax...I mean the UN empowering itself via new taxes...oh I don't know how else to put this...is just another welfare game for small countries and dictators. What's new about that?

As they say, "Follow the money."

If Only Joe Could Spit The Other Direction

Democrats have a problem. The most-talked-about figure in the DNC is a pop show star who was elected. And yet the same leaders who fret that President Obama could devastate their party in 2012 are too scared to say in public what they all complain about in private.

Enough. It’s time for the DNC to take the testicles out of Hillary's lock box and man up.

Everybody knows that Obama is a busy man. The former half-term senator from Chicago stays so busy taking overseas trips these days that one wonders how this President of the greatest nation in the history of mankind manages to juggle pop shows and commercial appearances, follow his eldest daughter’s latest weight loss clinic by their mother and launch his latest frenetic book, The audacity of Hating Iran, while still finding the time to insult and blame Bush.

You’ve got to admit his is a breathtaking high-wire act.

What man or mouse with a fully functioning human brain and a résumé as thin as Obama’s would flirt with a presidential run in 2012? It makes the political biography of Jimmy Carter look more like Winston Churchill’s, despite the fact that the 39th president breezed into the Oval Office as little more than a glorified peanut picker.

Still, Obama is undeterred, charging ahead maniacally while declaring his intention to run for the top office in the land if “Hillary can't, I will.” Adding audacity to this dopey dream is that Obama can’t stop himself from taking swings at Republican giants such as Joe the Plumber. In the first few months alone, Obama has mocked the Boston police dept, insulted Nancy Reagan, and blamed George W. Bush for wrecking the economy.

Wow. That’ll win ’em over in Iowa.

One can only guess what comes next on Obama’s bizarre road show. Maybe the publishing world’s favorite pop star can keep drawing attention and selling billions of books by spitting on John Wayne’s grave or “manning up” by shooting an American bald eagle.

Or how about this? Maybe Obama could show up on Fox News and build his weak résumé by tearing down Bush’s.

Oh, wait. Been there, done that.

When Sean Hannity asked Obama whether being on every TV show possible diminished his standing to be president, the former one-sixth-term senator mocked Bush's biography, dismissing him as “a back-woods hick.”

Sounding like every blueblood elitist politician, who ridiculed Reagan for decades, Obama sneered that he could be president if the feminist, who still lives in the 60s managed to become the First Lady.

Hillary biographer Alfredo Alvarez dismissed the remark as “ignorant, even for Obama.” Alvarez reported that Hillary loyalists were outraged that Obama would stoop to using the old Jesse Jackson's race card jab.

Alvarez noted that Hillary walked into the White House as far more than a
Feminist, she was the First Lady President to own a President's testicle lockbox.

The 44th president first bought off a major American labor union through massive TARP funds, toured factories of General Motors after seizing company assets and firing the CEO and was Chicago’s senator for almost three full terms during the White Oak State’s most momentous times of chicanery. Obama then challenged a former president's wife from his own party by pretending he didn't hear preacher Jeremiah's racism and calling her a racist without the help of the GOP establishment or the conservative movement.

After Obama mocked Hillary’s credentials, the pop tv rock star took aim at the 41st president and his wife. Borrowing again from old Blueblood Republican attacks that Republicans used against GOP conservative presidents, Obama channeled Ann Richards by bashing Bush and his wife as “conservatives” who had wrecked America.