As with abortion for conservatives, gun control seems to be a definitive issue when considering one’s level of liberalism. I read the Second Amendment as an American’s right to possess a firearm for whatever reason they deem necessary. If guns are outlawed, then only those who already run afoul of the law will have them. Disarming eligible citizens makes them targets, waiting for an inept police force to “serve and protect” them after they have been victimized.

I find myself at odds with many liberal Democrats over their love of unionized workplaces. In my opinion, unions serve three purposes, to weaken an individual’s relationship with their employer, to force an employer to pay the most money for the least amount of work, and to line the pockets of the union bosses with dues. The idea that more union involvement in the American economy would be beneficial is laughable. They have done more for outsourcing jobs overseas than any horribly capitalist CEO. Also, the union mentality of owning the jobs their workers labor for brings about an interesting question. Do the unions and the employees develop the skills for a position and take applications from and interview different firms for which one will be the most beneficial for the job? I did not think so. Oh yeah, America is NOT a manufacturing economy, no matter how much people complain about manufacturing jobs being sent overseas. That was two economies ago, and nations that have developed beyond agriculture have cost and efficiency advantages over the high-priced American labor force. Now is their time to perform those jobs and create those products, while America innovates in the information economy and beyond.

I do not believe in the oppressive, progressive taxation on income, where those that earn more money pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes. I think that income, inheritance, and capital gains taxes punish achievement, while a consumption-based tax system will lead to lower prices and more choice among taxpayers. They will be able to decide how much they pay in taxes based entirely on how much they consume, and the social engineering built into the current tax code through incentives, deductions, and credits will be eliminated. I think that eliminating the 16th Amendment and implementing something similar to the FairTax will provide the best method for assessing and collecting taxes, while shifting a vast amount of influence and power away from lobbyists and legislators and back to the citizens where it belongs. The punishing taxation of corporations will be over, and many will return their headquarters and operations back to the states.

Health care is not a right, nor is it a privilege. Successful people make the right choices with their lives and finances to assure that their health will not be their downfall. Whether it means to take a job that they hate with good benefits or choosing to work independently and choose their coverage. Insurance companies offer the same policies to everyone in a group plan due to governmental regulations, and that carries over to private individuals seeking a policy that meets their needs. Does it make sense that I am covered by my company’s insurance for pre-natal care and delivery with no way to drop that coverage, even though it’s biologically impossible for me to carry a child? Interestingly, that same policy also covers Viagra (which I am not old enough to be considering use of), while it does not cover a vasectomy or any birth control medication for my partner. Since I am pretty young and in relatively good health, my needs for an insurance policy vary greatly from a chronically ill woman in her fifties that may work in the same office, though we are offered the same coverage and premiums. Since the government has no faith in my choices for what I may need, the insurance company is forced to cover us equally. Also, my financial choices allow for health care coverage before my cable and internet, my cell phone, even my vehicle, and rather than living beyond my means, I save money beyond my retirement accounts for a disastrous situation.

On that note, I am fully aware that my contributions into Social Security will be returned to me with a negative rate of return in the best-case scenario. I contribute to a 401(k), a Roth IRA, and a high-yield savings account to ensure my financial future, both immediate and long-term. I have made these choices over living in a more expensive home, driving a newer car, and buying every new doodad and whatsit that comes along. I also believe that anyone that does not make those same sacrifices is a fool. Social Security was never meant to be anyone’s retirement, but rather a short-term safety net for those affected by the Great Depression that would not be collecting their pensions after they found themselves unemployed in the worst financial situation the nation ever faced.

In terms of safety nets, I think they should be handled privately. There are many quality programs that will assist those in need for a short period without the need for federal funding. In my opinion, we have far too many people able to work that have found an easy way to game the system, especially as the “stigma” of welfare and food stamps has been eliminated by the use of direct deposit and EBT cards. The government sets high hurdles for charitable organizations, barring entry to new players and adding administrative costs to existing charities. The citizens of the United States have proven to be the most charitable in the world, flush with foundations and other organizations that raise far more than any other nation in the world. With more money in the pockets of the citizens with the aforementioned tax plan, that is likely to widen that gap even more.

I am a strong believer in the Constitution as it was adopted in 1787, and it has survived since as a living document. Beyond the Bill of Rights, it has been amended seventeen times to change with the times, the most recent to limit Congressional pay raises. One of the most perfect amendments in my view came about in the Bill of Rights, and it is the Tenth Amendment, which delegates powers to the states not governed by the previous nine. Unfortunately, the process for making changes to the Constitution is not easy enough for some, and they have decided to seek out like-minded judges that will “interpret” the Constitution to add more power to the Federal Government’s duties. This bypasses the procedures set forth for changing the supreme law of the land, setting judicial precedent for future Supreme Court and lower court decisions.

The theorists in support of global warming have not presented enough evidence to include me among its believers, let alone someone who wants the government to dictate what toilet they can buy, car they can drive, or degree they can set their thermostat. Environmentalism has changed from a movement truly about preserving life on this planet to a plan to systematically destroy capitalism led by someone who wants you to do as he says, not as he does, in Al Gore. I think that the ideas of conservation, alternative fuels, and recycling are great for the community, but more importantly, for the individual. There is no need for the government to intervene here.

It seems to me that the liberal agenda revolves around group identity, with many programs being designed for “the poor,” “the elderly,” and “the children,” while vilifying programs viewed to be benefiting “the rich.” What this thinking fails to consider is the efforts of the individual. I may be white, male, straight, and from the South, but I know that my life is different from many others who fall into those same groups. Thinking based on group identity splinters society into different races, genders, age, and religions, segregating each group from sharing commonalities with anyone from another classification. This leads to special considerations being made for only certain classes of people, where the recipient group gets special treatment in certain situations, like hiring with affirmative action programs or crime with “hate crime” legislation. These types of group thinking makes one group more important than another, in the interest of “fairness,” when it actually provides an advantage or disadvantage to someone based on something they have no control over.

Most important to me, liberal thought automatically looks to the government to provide solutions to every issue, eventually moving on to preemptively address issues that are not present. Big government does not solve everything, in fact, I believe that it causes more problems than it solves. Personally, the idea of freedom and liberty, unencumbered by government, providing solutions on its own sounds like an ideal situation to me. “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”  Ronald Reagan certainly had it right when he joked about those being the nine most terrifying words in the English language.

It is my belief that I have done one of two things with this two part article. Either I have thoroughly alienated everyone who has read them, or there are more liberty-minded individuals than I realize, and I have woken them up from their lives as sheep. Here’s to the latter…

In the first part of this two-part series, I will be discussing why I am not a “conservative.” Since my belief that the government should be held accountable for fiscal responsibility is viewed as fiscally conservative, I can accept that label. The national debt, deficit spending, and a desire for lower taxes are issues that most people with whom I have discussed something political would classify me as such.

In the 1970s and 1980s, groups like the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, and the Christian Voice took advantage of elite southern Democrats that were disenfranchised by desegregation and social programs like the War on Poverty and sought a new political home. Eventually, due to the numbers these groups were able to produce in the areas of fundraising, voter turnout, and grassroots campaigning, they took control of the Republican Party.

One of the biggest issues to exclude me from the conservative club is abortion. This is probably the issue that I have the most concise and simple opinion. Seeing as I do not have a uterus, I will never be responsible for making this decision for myself with my family and my doctor, but if I did have that anatomy, I would not want someone not intimately involved in the cause making the decision for me.

I believe that the Declaration of Independence is one of the most perfectly written documents of all time and in it, Thomas Jefferson asserts that all men are created equal. To me, this means that all people, regardless of gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation, are entitled to their lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness. While I do not believe in the Federal Government’s involvement in the marital and personal lives of its citizens, they have seen fit to insert themselves into the act of marriage by using marital status to determine income tax withholding and liability, as a method of gaining citizenship, in probate actions in the absence of a will, and in employee benefits packages. I applaud Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut in their efforts to treat all of its citizens equally, and I would certainly like to see more states and the Federal Government follow suit. We all know that single and married people pay different tax rates, so I will not focus on that, but have you ever thought about the naturalization process for someone who falls in love and wishes to spend their life with the soulmate they have found? In a heterosexual relationship, those soulmates can marry, and the non-citizen is well on their way to American citizenship. In a homosexual relationship, that path to citizenship is blocked. The same principle applies to couples when one partner dies before the other, and there is not a will to dictate the inheritance and a probate court decides. In employment situations where domestic partner benefits are offered (which is QUITE rare outside of industries without a predominantly gay workforce), the employee must pay for those benefits with post-tax money, rather than families as defined by the Federal Government, who can pay with pre-tax money.

I also do not crusade for the position that all non-Christians, especially Muslims, are inherently evil and out to destroy “our way of life.” I am in staunch opposition to the War on Terror, and the legislation and spending that have been brought about since it commenced after 9/11. I believe that our interventionist and imperialist foreign policy decisions were the catalyst for radical groups of people to send us a message about our presence in THEIR SOVEREIGN NATION. How would the American people feel about foreign military bases and the installation of a theocratic state taking place on our soil? They have a way of life that has sustained them for thousands of years, but we are forcing upon them a democracy that we do not ourselves practice. In the same vein, America was not conceived as a “Christian nation” as so many in the conservative fold would like to tell us. The Founding Fathers were clear to prevent theocracy in the way that our nation was drawn up in the Constitution. In fact, the most influential Founder and author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, felt that organized religion was destructive and could be classified as an agnostic, along with the majority of the other Founders.

I believe strongly in the free market, but a truly free market, not one filled with corporate tax breaks, bailouts, and subsidies. A company should operate or fold based on its business decisions, not the decisions of lobbyists and legislators in Washington. Austrian (supply-side) economics makes sense, and if we could move BACK TO THAT, we would not be in the financial disaster we are currently facing. Yes, it will hurt. No, everyone will not be successful. THAT is how capitalism works.

I support immigration reform, but only reform to ease the process for those that contribute to our economy. I think that if people wishing to emigrate here are not carrying disease, are not criminals in their home countries, and want to be citizens, they should be allowed to do that. America is not some holier than thou land where only those born here and lucky enough to work through the immigration maze can pursue the American Dream. It is the American Dream, because for several hundred years, immigrants sold themselves into indentured servitude, crammed themselves onto freight ships, and moved in the middle of the night across some imaginary line to achieve it.

Finally, I do not support the War on Drugs, since the government has no role to tell me what I can do with my body. The cost savings, in lives, in violent crime, and monetarily are nothing to scoff at. We currently hold down many economies in the South American continent by killing their agricultural products and their labor force by flying crop-dusters over their fields and poisoning them. This is done to “stop the problem at its source.” We then pay these nations off with billions of dollars in aid, since we have committed the acts of damage that keep their economies from flourishing. Here, we target millions of black and Hispanic people for merely possessing something that was recently legal. Since the prohibition of each of the illicit drugs, we have seen dramatic jumps in violent crime in the following years. We saw that this did not work in the 1920s with Prohibition, but we continue to outlaw substances and furthering ourselves into a wave of crime, far exceeding the levels necessary for the repeal of Prohibition. With opium, our legislators opined that the Chinese were luring white women into a life of drug-induced prostitution in the opium dens. With marijuana, they suggested that a plant, when smoked, would lead Mexican men to raping white women. With cocaine, a similar assertion was made about black men and white women. The War on Drugs is racist, and as long as it continues, those ridiculous ideas that scared Washington into banning each substance will still be held as truth.

In summary, I do not want the government in my life, telling me how to live my life. I have made choices, and I want to be responsible for those choices, without someone trying to force their idea of morality or goodness upon me. I am not a uterus-grabbing, gay-hating, religious zealot poised to force my beliefs on you, and I would appreciate it if you could do the same in return.

Cross-Post: United Liberty

1. Bob Barr
2. Chuck Baldwin
3. Alan Keyes
4. Barack Obama
5. Ralph Nader
6. John McCain
7. Cynthia McKinney

Any surprises there?

McCain’s plan calls for a larger average tax cut across the board, focusing on those that are already shouldering a very significant burden of the taxation under the graduated tax brackets, being forced to hand over more than thirty cents of every dollar of earned income. Obama focuses his plan on the bottom of the income scale, giving the largest decrease in tax liability to the bottom 60% of taxpayers.

Obviously, they are appealing to opposite ends of the taxpayer spectrum. The only positive I see in McCain’s campaign is his understanding that the individuals who pay the most taxes will be unable or unwilling to support more of their income being taken by force every April. These people are the small businessmen and women who are continuing to achieve today, despite the overwhelming burden of taxes. They are also the small businessmen and women that provide 56% of all jobs, and 90% of America’s new jobs are created by them via the 27 million firms they own.

Sounds like someone is creating a tax plan for the greater good of the economy while someone else uses their tax plan to buy votes. I know what I think, but I will let you decide who “someone” and “someone else” are.

Graph from The Washington Post

Cross Post: United Liberty

In case you made it this far without passing judgment on “yet another child pornographer,” the girl charged is fifteen years old, her “criminal tool” was a cell phone and MMS (multimedia messaging service). Her “illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material” were nude photos of herself. Putting those together, you can deduce that she took nude photos of herself with her cell phone. The Licking County prosecutor, Ken Oswalt, has received reports of 20 similar cases among school age teens, and he has been traveling to the area schools with an assembly program that discusses the consequences of such actions.

While the teen girl who sent these nude pictures of herself to others via MMS is not alone, she has been the only person arrested. She also spent a weekend in jail awaiting arraignment and a bond hearing. The statute she has been accused of breaking has exemptions in place that allows parents and/or guardians to take pictures of their naked children for a list of acceptable purposes. Interestingly, the statute does not provide the same exemption for the child themselves. While the consequences for her have already been laid out by the prosecutor in the charges, the recipients of her messages may be also facing prosecution for their passive role(s) in this incident.

One thing that falls on the side of the accused girl is the discretion of the judge in the case, since the defendant’s age allows for flexibility on the “sex offender” label. Unlike most mandatory sentencing guidelines, this case allows the judge to decide based on the situation, rather than the black and white handcuffs placed on most public servant decision makers. At least the Ohio lawmakers had the foresight to build in judgment when considering sentencing, even though they omitted an exemption in this law for individuals to possess nude photos of themselves.

What is going on in Licking County, Ohio? There is apparently a wave of teens taking and sharing nude photos of themselves and only one girl has been arrested? There are concerns among area residents that this girl is being subjected to the prosecution due to her status as a foster child. Without biological or adoptive parents to provide the resources necessary for an adequate defense, this case may be a slam dunk for the prosecution. What better way to show your are doing something about child pornography than to railroad this girl to prison for two felonies and a sex offender tag for the next twenty years?

The story here is not only the child pornography law in place to “protect the children,” but the ill-written legislation that did not account for a person’s right to possessing pictures of themselves. It also sounds like Ken Oswalt seeks a name for himself by singling this girl out and prosecuting her, while ignoring approximately 20 others. As an act of principle, I would like to see her cleared of all charges, the law itself re-written, and an investigation into the county prosecutor, as this smells somewhat similar to the Duke rape case.

Cross-Post at United Liberty

1. Liberty-based Voting Record – Lawson does not have a voting record; therefore per guidelines the score is a 3. Score: 3
2. The Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy – Lawson supports instituting competing currencies, and badmouths the Federal Reserve any chance he gets. He doesn’t advocate abolishing it, like Ron Paul, but does advocate more transparency and accountability. Score: 4
3. Foreign Policy and Iraq – Lawson is a non-interventionist and advocates a safe and immediate withdrawal from Iraq.  Score: 5
4. Taxes – Supports efforts to transition to a point when income taxes are unnecessary. Supports some flavor of consumption tax, but has concerns about the Fair Tax. Score: 4
5. Government Spending – Lawson supports a balanced budget amendment and ending deficit spending. Score: 5
6. Privacy and Civil Liberties – Lawson says “no thanks” to the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Real ID, and FISA just like Ron Paul. Score: 5
7. Immigration – Lawson is against amnesty for illegal aliens and points out that we need to end the welfare/economic incentives that encourage illegal immigration. Score: 5
8. Gun Control and Second Amendment – Lawson is very close to Ron Paul here. He supports the 2nd Amendment and concealed carry laws, but is not completely explicit on ancillary gun control issues like trigger locks, background checks, and waiting periods. Score: 4
9. Internet Regulation – Lawson does not support federally regulating Internet gambling. Lawson has stated that he supports Net Neutrality which is not something Ron Paul supports because he views it as more regulation. Score: 2
10. Adherence To The Constitution – Lawson calls the Constitution the “rule book” for our country. Score: 5
11. Religion vs. Public Policy – Lawson rarely, if ever, invokes religion in his rhetoric and policy positions. Score: 5
12. Environment – Lawson advocates utilizing the court system and property rights as a defense for the environment just like Ron Paul. However, he also favors a Carbon tax which Ron Paul does not support. Score: 4
13. Energy Policy – Lawson supports drilling wherever necessary and also recognizes that it isn’t the only solution. He does not speak out against Nuclear power and suggests we use all means to obtain more energy. Score: 5
14. U.S. Sovereignty – Lawson does not seem to ever mention the NAU, but does mention protecting U.S. sovereignty. That is not good enough to score points though due to the stringent guidelines for this item. UPDATE: We received word from the Lawson campaign that he is 100% opposed to the NAU, therefore we update his score. Score: 5
15. War On Drugs – Lawson advocates ending the war on drugs, leaving drug regulation to the states, and pardoning non-violent drug offenders just like Paul. Score: 5
16. Education – Lawson advocates getting rid of the Department of Education and advocates more choice and home schooling. Score: 5
17. Welfare Programs – Lawson advocates gracefully reducing welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. He also advocates ending corporate welfare. Score: 5
18. Abortion – Lawson is pro-life and will leave the decision of legalizing or prohibiting abortion to the states per the Constitution. Score: 5
19. Health Care – Lawson is a Ron Paul twin on health care. He is against any nationalized plan and advocates free market approaches and returning medical decisions back to doctors and patients rather than health insurance companies. Score: 5
20. Ability To Spread The Liberty Message – Lawson hands out pocket Constitutions during his campaign events. He is a very visible candidate campaigning throughout his district in North Carolina. There is no questioning his dedication to the liberty message. Score: 5

William “BJ” Lawson’s final Paul-O-Meter Score: 91 out of 99 possible points.

A score of 91 sounds to me like BJ lives up to his nickname of “Ron Paul Jr.”

Having met BJ at Ron Paul’s Rally for the Republic and having spoken with him about the issues, I can honestly say that if I lived in the Fourth District of North Carolina, I would be voting for BJ on November 4^th.

A typical foreclosure timeline is outlined for us by the State of Ohio, where a home can be foreclosed on and sold 150 days (approximately five months) from date of first delinquency. I have compiled statistics on foreclosures for the past seven fiscal quarters, which dates back to January 1, 2007, a time well before cries of a “crisis” were heard. To give the distressed homeowners and John McCain the benefit of the doubt, I chose to use a source whose business is getting people to use their product to purchase a home or investment property, RealtyTrac. Naturally, you would assume that this company would be on the “high end” of estimates, since numbers of this magnitude across the country would be difficult to track, AND it is in their best interest to show that the foreclosure market is booming.

Here are the RealtyTrac numbers for the year of 2007, and quarters 1 and 2 of 2008:

2007 – 1,285,873 (Interesting side note: CNN Money estimates that 405,000 homes were actually repossessed by lenders in 2007.)
2008 Q1 – 649,917
2008 Q2 – 739,714

Since the third quarter statistics are not yet available, I thought it would be fair, after all of the benefits I have given to my doubts, to select a number that is larger than 2008′s second quarter by the same percentage that the second quarter exceeds the first quarter. My math is as follows:

2008 Q3 = (739714/649917) x 739714 = 841,918**

If you find that method to be unacceptable, I will be happy to rework this article once RealtyTrac has released the third quarter numbers for 2008. For now, it is a figure I will use and note as an estimate. The last seven quarters have yielded a TOTAL of 3,517,422 homes in foreclosure in the United States. To put that in perspective, according to a Census Bureau release in 2004 (another statistic benefiting the homeowners and Senator McCain due to its age) shows the total number of households in to be 113,146,000. This means that in the last 21 months, 3.1% of American households have been faced with foreclosure.

Keep in mind that the figures I have used to illustrate the size of the “mortgage crisis” are largely “benefit of the doubt” numbers. When you take into account that the plan would not include the approximately 1 million properties already repossessed by banks, 2008 household data, and the qualifiers in place by the McCain Resurgence Plan, how small is the percentage of households being given a handout by this plan?

Given that the projected cost is $300 billion and that there are about 300 million Americans, what could you do with the $1000 that could be forcibly seized from your wallet?

**This figure is an estimate as RealtyTrac has yet to issue a press release of the 2008 third quarter figures.

Cross-Posted at United Liberty

The video below is from his appearance on a panel at the Cato Institute on 9/11/08.  The panel was entitled “Should No-Knock Police Raids be Rare-or Routine?” that also included Radley Balko.

More information on the event, including a podcast and video of the entire event in RealPlayer here.

Why can’t more of our legislators take the time to learn about the economic problems that we face?  Why don’t they ACTUALLY believe in the free market?