It's Time We ALL Vote Third Party!

For the sake of America, we need to end the two party stranglehold on politics in this country.  It is so bad now that even the most independent minded voters parrot the two-party-line that they must not "waste their vote" on a third party.  The thing is, voting for Democrats or Rebublicans is actually wasting a vote because it is just a vote to maintain the status quo.

We voters have been brainwashed into believing that there are significant differences between the two parties - but there are not.  The only real difference is in what they say.  They all appeal to their base - usually promising to spend more money on things their base wants.  As for how they actually govern - well, it's just one big lovefest: both parties in total collusion keeping the war machine going, the big banks happy, and the debt for future generations rising!!!

So why not just do it?   There are more unaffiliated voters in this country than there are Democrats or Republicans.  If every unaffiliated voter refused to vote D or R, that would be it - game over!!  So why don't we ALL vote third party this time around?  It doesn't really matter which third party candidate you vote for - as long as it's not a Democrat or Republican.  Just one election cycle with no votes for Democrats or Rebublicans would be enough to do it.  Congress would be filled with enough new blood, and new ideas, to effectively end crony-capitalism, the military industrial complex, corporate welfare, and all of the other evils perpetrated by the two-party duopoly on America.  If we want to send a loud, clear message to Washington D.C. (and to all our state and local governments as well), then refuse to vote Democrat or Republican.

So vote third party this time - and save America!

Why Amnesty Doesn't Solve The Problem

The Senate recently passed, and the House is currently debating, legislation that would give amnesty to the 11+ million illegal immigrants currently in the United States.  At the same time, it would also increase border security.

This legislation is self-defeating.  What's the point of increasing border security and doubling down on future illegal immigration while at the same time rewarding past illegal immigration?  Talk about sending a mixed message! 

If we really want to allow people to just walk over the border and become citizens - then we should change the law to allow that! - OR - If we really want to keep people from just walking over the border and becoming citizens - then we should enforce the law to stop that!  Stop pussyfooting around!  Take a damn stand!  Quit pretending you're "for border security" if you're really going to undermine it and reward those who got past our Border Patrol.  And quit pretending you have "compassion for those who just want a better life" if you're going to turn around and "get tough" to stop them from now on!   We can't have our cake and eat it too. 

The problem is that those who really want to open the borders don't have the guts to do that and those who really want to enforce border security don't have the guts to do that.  So they all take the 'back door' method: making another "one-time exception" while leaving the existing immigration laws intact.  The system is broken and politicians are cowards.  Until we start electing courageous men and women who will actually say what they really think and stand on those principles, we're destined to see more of this kind of back door, "try to please everyone so I can get re-elected (and not be accused of racism)" legislation. 

That this nation is in serious need of immigration reform is beyond debate.  The system we have in place now is ridiculous.  We have: A) people lined up for years, jumping through hoop after hoop to come here legally; B) people who just walk across the border, settle in and become part of society with no real problem; and C) the same government on the one hand enforcing every jot and tittle of immigration law and on the other refusing to enforce it at all.

We need to decide, once and for all, what it should take to become an American citizen or legal resident alien.  That's the issue.  Congress needs to debate that, change the law to reflect that, then stand behind that.

On Separation of Church and State

I recently had a discussion with another blogger (Tony) over at WWWtW on the issue of separation of church and state.  I was arguing for separation and he was arguing against it (both of us from a Christian perspective BTW).  Unfortunately I was away from my computer for several days and when I returned, the thread had been closed so I never got a chance to respond to his last comment.  (You can read the entire thread here.)

Here's where we left off:

Me:  I think it is possible to have a wall of separation between church and state without one entity having to go away. Sure, the two realms will cross paths, but if their boundaries are set in stone, they can coexist without encroaching on each other.

Tony: Yeah, you think it is possible, and I don't. The matter isn't about whether the "boundaries" are set in stone or more fluid, the problem is that any stated "boundary" between them cannot even in principle work for all cases and scenarios. The reason is that both the civil and the spiritual encroach on each other in the human person, who is subject to both.

Christians generally believe that the human person is ordered to a civil order and also to a spiritual order, but that this bi-fold directedness is ITSELF ordered: the one is related to the other as superior to inferior. (If that weren't the case, there would be no guarantee that the two directions are mutually and universally compatible, there would logically be the possibility that one direction results in a fundamentally incompatible requirement compared to the other.) In particular, the spiritual end of man is his permanent, eternal end, whereas the civic end is for this life only, which leads to the eternal end, and so the latter is subservient to the former.

This ordering principle, however, is more integrated into man than merely referring to those actions that are about his final end(s). Man attains his spiritual good even in and amidst attaining his civic end, because ALL of his human acts are spiritual acts. To make a truly human voluntary choice is to act using the spiritual aspect of man, his reason and his free will, and to do so with some recognition (or moral failure thereof) to choose in reference to one's final goal - either comforming [sic] to the final goal of unity with God or in adhering ultimatelhy [sic] to some created which is incompatible with union with God alone. Thus, regulating one's daily civic life is, itself, a spiritual act.

This affects all of civic life, in little ways as well as big. For example: The state sees it as a common good that all citizens be educated. In order to be able to mandate this, the state sees it as necessary to have schools paid by the state. But (in our case) the state considers itself forbidden to actively promote any specific religion, and mandates that its schools refuse to promote any religious perspective at all. The net result, then, is promotion of an ANTI-religious perspective in state schools. It is literally impossible to have a complete educational system from grades k to 12 that fails to promote some perspective about human nature, and if it fails to promote one that says humans are ordered to an end with respect to God it will perforce promote the opposite.

More generally, civic life as a whole and laws in particular have to be molded to be in conformity with the ends that society and the government see as the ends for its human beings. Because humans are integrated, the ends for civic government must be made and maintained as compatible with the spiritual end of man, which requires constant reflection back and forth between the two to keep them working together.  

My response then, is this:
 
Sure, humans are spiritual creatures with both a spiritual and a civil end, and sure, everything we do has some spiritual component to it...  BUT... that does not mean that we need the government to meddle in areas of spiritual behavior and beliefs in order to have civil order.

This notion that the two are somehow "inseparable" if we want to have civil law and order is demonstrably false.  We know, for instance, that there are people who have no regard whatsoever for God's law, and have no inclination at all towards the "spiritual good", yet prove themselves perfectly capable of adhering to a civil code of conduct every day.   The most die-hard atheist may well live his entire life having never once been arrested, or reprimanded, by civil authorities.  This without spiritual foundation.

We know also that there are governments all over this world that are completely without Christian foundation and yet manage to maintain civil order quite admirably - despite this deficiency.   This too, we see demonstrated every day.

So the notion that you cannot have one without the other is entirely without basis.

In this, we find scripture in agreement as well.  Look at Paul's words from Romans 13:3-5:

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.  Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority?  Then do what is right and you will be commended.  For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.  

Now what kind of government did Paul have in mind when he made this statement?  Surely his readers would know that he was referring to the Roman government circa 40 AD (or thereabouts).  This was a pagan government, not Christian in any sense.  Yet Paul called them "God’s servants" and commanded that his readers submit to their authority.  Did that mean that Paul thought that Christians should get their spiritual direction from the Roman government or that he recognized the Roman government as authoritative on spiritual matters?  Obviously not!  If so, he was a hypocrite for it is a matter of record that Paul and the early Christians were often jailed for disobedience to the spiritual directives of the various civil authorities in the region.  No, Paul did not hold or teach that civil magistrates were to be submitted to in spiritual matters.  He was specifically talking about civil authority over civil matters and advocating adherence and submission to civil laws.

So we do find a scriptural basis for separation of church and state in Paul's teaching and in the early church's way of life.  We also find that, when church and state combine, as has often happened in the past, a theocratic nightmare often ensues - with civil authorities making declarations of "heresy" and the like, and with punishments doled out for all manner of "incorrect" beliefs.

The fundamental question then is this:  Do you really want the government involved in settling spiritual matters for us?  Do you really want the government teaching our kids (their version of) man's spiritual ends? 

I don't!

We Live in a Libertarian World

One argument I’ve often heard against libertarianism goes something like this: “we’ve never seen a libertarian government in actual practice, so there’s no way to know if it would even work”. Well, I think I may have an answer (and a big one at that!)

My answer? Well, to understand my answer we first have to lay some groundwork. Traditionally, libertarianism has been all about the individual and the relationship of the individual to the government. But, libertarian concepts also apply as we go up the ladder of the various levels of government. A county government’s relationships to its constituent cities can be libertarian, for instance, if the county gives the cities freedom to do as they choose. Likewise, a state government can be libertarian in its relationship to counties, and the federal government in its relationship to the states. So libertarian principles apply - not only to the individual - but also wherever there is the possibility for one group to have authority over another.

Which brings me to my answer: the world government. But wait, you say, there is no world government! Well that’s kinda the point. Because there is no central government for the entire world (though some are pushing for one) the world essentially runs on libertarian principles between the constituent nations. Now some would say that "no government = anarchy", but that’s not really what we have. There are several “one-world” organizations like the U.N., the W.T.O., etc., but these organization’s power is derived solely from the willingness of the participating nations. In other words they are like private, voluntary organizations that take the place of a strong central government – just like libertarians advocate for. If enough nations decide to ignore a U.N. or a W.T.O. “order”, and if there are a few powerful nations among the dissenters, the order goes unheeded.

So the world basically runs on libertarian principles –chief among them, the principle of a market driven society: If a nation gets along well with other nations and produces things other nations want, their status as a nation goes up – if they don’t get along or are unproductive, their status diminishes. These are libertarian concepts – only “the individual” (the cornerstone of libertarian philosophy) is replaced by “the nation”. Yet we can see working in the macro what could also work in the micro. In the world, nations have to form coalitions; they have to come to agreements and sign treaties, they have to learn to work together without a behemoth centralized government forcing them to do so.

That, my friends, is libertarianism.

Why I’m a Libertarian

I frequent a conservative Christian website called “What’s Wrong With The World” (WWWTW) where my Libertarianism is often challenged on the basis of Natural Law theory, the “common good”, or on some other philosophical footing.  Now I have to admit that their views of Libertarianism are so worked out that most of them describe it in terms completely foreign to me.  I’m often confronted with “doomsday scenarios” where, in some theoretical Libertarian society, all societal structures break down (even the family) and all that is left is individuals battling other individuals in a barren wasteland.  (The only thing missing is the zombies!)  Now, I’m only a recent convert to Libertarian thinking and as such am not well versed in its history or philosophical underpinnings.  I will say this though: the Libertarianism I have learned about from Libertarians themselves differs dramatically from that described by the WWWTW sages – so I’m not sure what exactly they’re against, but I’m fairly certain what I am for…  For simple-minded me, Libertarianism is all about the nature and proper role of government. 

First, the nature of government:  Government is the only entity in society (other than parents) that can legitimately exercise coercive control over individuals.  The government can come to your house, break down your door, confiscate your property, drag you and your family into the street and beat you to a pulp if you resist – all with relative impunity (even if it turns out later that it was the wrong address).  Individuals (even parents) cannot legally do that.  We, as a society, have collectively agreed to submit to an authority with the power of life and death over us.  We do this because we believe in the necessity of government for order and peace.   Everything the government does (and this is important), ultimately resolves in the threat of lawful force if resisted.  Even the most innocent of crimes---say parking tickets---if ignored long enough will result in the government forcing its will upon you.  The nature of government then, is ‘legitimized tyranny’.  Or, in the words of Thomas Paine, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

So, given the tyrannical nature of government, the question then becomes “over what areas of society should we grant such tyrannical authority?”  In other words: “what is the proper role of government?”   The pure Libertarian answer is that the role of government is solely to protect the innocent from force and fraud.   Coercive force, in a Libertarian society, is legitimate only for keeping the peace and protecting the innocent.  A Libertarian State then, would have departments of Defense, Corrections, Law Enforcement, and not much else.  Other shades of Libertarianism will add other areas into the mix such as Immigration, Environmental Protection, or whatever.  But each area added moves the State one step further from pure Libertarianism.  (Of course you'd still have an independant Judiciary and a Legislative branch - though the legislators would have much less to do in a Libertarian society!)  For me then, the answer to the question of 'areas to grant tyrannical authority over' is: “as few as possible”.  I’m not a pure Libertarian.  I think that a nation should have borders and an immigration policy.  I also think there needs to be environmental protections of some sort.  And, I know that many Libertarians are pro-abortion – I’m not.  I think that the primary function of government is to protect innocent life.  For me, that means life at conception (see: Science, more specifically: Biology, even more specifically: Genetics, for further information).

So where are we at in this country?  Well, currently in this country, we have allowed the government tyrannical access to so many areas the list is dizzying!  (For a list of just the federal departments of government see here.)   We have collectively agreed that we are willing to submit ourselves to coercive force in the areas of health care, transportation, agriculture, retirement, education, commerce, the environment, housing, wages, labor relations… the list goes on and on and on!  And, if you doubt that these departments would ever use force against us, think again.  Many of these departments have “enforcement divisions” consisting of armed officers.  The Department of Education, for instance, has its own law enforcement arm (the “U.S. Department of Education Office of Inspector General” or “OIG”) that, on June 7, 2011 broke down a door to a Stockton, CA residence, dragged a man and his three children out of their home, handcuffed the man and detained all of them for several hours in squad cars for the “crime” of living in the previous residence of the man’s ex-wife (who was wanted on some warrant having to do with student loan fraud).

Such is the nature of government.  Something as seemingly innocuous as the Department of Education can, when provoked, turn quite ugly!

Interestingly, the one area from which the government has voluntarily withdrawn its tyranny is in the area of the US currency.   This, in spite of the constitutional mandate stating that “only Congress” can coin money and set its value!  So who does the government trust to create currency and set its value?  Believe it or not it has given that power over to the banking industry!  Yes, the Federal Reserve Bank (a private bank over which the government appoints officers – but oddly refuses to audit) is in charge of the money supply in this country!  It’s a little like letting the fox guard the hen house.  (Of course that's another issue worthy of its own thread!)

So - build a house without a permit: the government steps in, condemns your house and kicks you out on the street; forget to pay your parking tickets long enough: they haul you off to jail; arbitrarily devalue the US dollar so your buddies in the banking industry can profit: government winks, extends their open hand and looks the other way! 

This then, is the nature and role of government in this country.  It’s time people, to think Libertarian thoughts and get ourselves free!

I'm Out!

No, not in that way.  I am officially out of the Republican party.  So what did it?  Well, the straw that broke the camel's back for me was the GOP's shameful treatment of Ron Paul, and by extension all of his followers (which includes me!)  Why should I be part of a political party that actively campaigns against the things I hold dear?  That's just stupid - right? 

So I am now a registered Libertarian.  It was only a matter of time anyway.  I've been attracted to the Libertarian party ever since I read the voter's pamphlet entry by the Libertarian candidate for President back in 2000 (who I voted for by the way).  He said (paraphrasing) "we have a Department of Transportation that doesn't transport anything, a Department of Energy that produces no energy, a Department of Agriculture that produces no crops..." well, you get the idea.  All of these government agencies tend to get in the way of the producers who want to transport things, and give us energy and food.

Now, I don't agree with everything the Libertarians believe (I am decidedly pro-life) but I agree with way more Libertarian ideals than Republican ideals (do they have any?)

So that's it.  34 years (plus or minus) as a Republican.  Seems weird.  I think I'll get used to it though.

Stripes on a Zebra

Obama and Romney are like stripes on a zebra: different color - same animal.

Both support undeclared, unauthorized, illegal wars.
Both support massive increases in government size (and power).
Both support corporate welfare to the tune of $trillions.
Both support fractional reserve banking, the Fed and the inevitable monetary collapse they will cause.
Both support government intervention to permanently enslave the poor, destroy the middle class, and reward the financial industry.
Both are beholden to the military industrial complex.
Both support extreme interventionist foreign policy.
Both support sending billions in US dollars abroad.
Both support spending billions on the racist "war on drugs".
Both will do nothing to curb illegal immigration.
I could go on, and on, and...

When will Americans wake up?

When will we vote for someone that corporate-owned media has NOT picked for us?

Write in Ron Paul.

Why I Support Ron Paul

1.       Politics:

Ron Paul doesn’t play politics.  He’s unique in that he has principles that he doesn’t veer from – whether it is politically expedient for him or not.  He’s been saying the exact same thing for over 30 years (the political world just finally caught up to him!)  In short – he won’t flip/flop and he can’t be bought.

2.       Monetary Policy:

Ron Paul wants to restore the US dollar to a fixed value (the gold standard) and end the Federal Reserve’s power to print (inflate) money.  He argues that every time more money is printed, the dollar is devalued and everybody loses!

3.       Size and Scope of Government:

Ron Paul is the only candidate who I can guarantee would shrink the size and scope of government.  He is a strict constitutionalist who believes that the federal government should not be involved in half of the things it has involved itself in.  He is advocating ending whole departments.  He would end the Department of Education (created in the 70’s… just look at our test scores to gauge its effectiveness!) and a whole host of other departments.  His budget plan calls for $1 trillion in cuts the first year.  And these are not “cuts in growth” that politicians falsely call “cuts”; these are real cuts in spending.

4.       Foreign Policy:

Ron Paul is a non-interventionist (he is not an isolationist.)  What that means is that he wants the US to butt out of other nations affairs, but he does not advocate that we restrict trade between private US businesses and other countries.   He is also against all foreign aid. 

5.       Militarism:

Ron Paul would end our military presence in all 130 countries we are currently in (almost 900 bases!) and bring all the troops home to defend our own borders.  He also would not deploy troops unless there is a constitutional declaration of war (something that hasn’t happened since WWII!)  Once there is a constitutional declaration of war however, he would fight that war to WIN IT!!  There would be no long troop deployments with undefined mission goals under a Ron Paul presidency.  (This is probably why he receives more donations from active duty military than all the other Republican candidates combined!) 

6.       Israel:

Ron Paul would end all aid to Israel’s enemies and agree to never sell weapons to a nation hostile to Israel.  He would also cut the apron strings and quit trying to control Israel.  Many have called him “anti-Semitic” because he would end foreign aid to Israel as well, but they don’t consider how our foreign aid hinders Israel’s efforts to attain peace on its own terms.  He is the only candidate who would honor Israel’s sovereignty and allow the Jewish nation to live in its region, amongst its neighbors, in a way that only the people of Israel have a right to decide.

7.       Drugs:

Ron Paul would end the federal “War on Drugs” (States would still have the right to do as they wish regarding drugs.)  His policy would end ridiculous situations like the one in California where federal drug agents are raiding medical marijuana facilities that are legal in the State of California.  One lesson that we failed to learn during prohibition is that whenever you outlaw something popular, a black-market will immediately pop up to profit from it.  When we outlawed alcohol, gangsters made money running booze.  As soon as we legalized it again, the black market disappeared.  We have spent trillions on a war we can’t win and drug cartels are the only entity to profit from it.  It’s time to end the war on drugs.

8.       Other:

There are lots of other reasons I support Ron Paul, but I’ll leave it at that for now.  Any discussion on these issues is welcome!