So I started reading the Center for American Progress's budget plan and deficit reduction plan: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/09/thousand_cuts.html and I was taken aback by one line:

"These steps plus our investments in education will reduce the poverty rate to below 7 percent from its current level of over 14 percent."

The CAP actually build into their plan the economic impact of a 7 percent decline in the US poverty rate!!! WOW! That is a glaring flaw in their thinking and perhaps as intellectually dishonest a claim as one could find. Here is why. All budget plans (Ryan plan, CAP plan whatever) are smoke and mirrors because they project earnings and project revenues. In other words, they guess that certain increases in spending ( in the case of CAP) or reductions in taxes (in the case of Conservative plans) will somehow magically raise revenue. Historically, both claims are difficult to prove.

However, the poverty reduction claim is so glaringly misleading it borders on propaganda. The U.S. poverty rate has barely budged on average since prior to 1965 when the US undertook widespread social program funding.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/29/bill-oreilly/bill-oreilly-says-poverty-hasnt-budged-1965-despit/ .

Politifact attempted to give this issue a fair hearing but their liberal bias didn't seem to let them. Additionally the issue is a complicated one since historically poverty rates have decreased without government spending. In other words government spending and poverty reduction are NOT inextricably linked. Economic devlopment reduces poverty not government spending. However, I digress, what I found shocking about the CAP claim is that it puts forward a rationale whereby they extrapolate a reduction in poverty levels down to 7 percent due to government spending alone WITHOUT any actual economic analysis (ie, projected growth, increased employment etc.) This is why I am such an opponent of Economilosophy. I just invented that term, its when "Economists" fall victim to selection bias and generate "theories" to fit their ideological leanings. Paul Krugman comes to mind. The problem with Economics is that at its core it deals with understanding the decisions of human beings. Humans are not molecules or elements on the periodic table and they do not behave in predictable or quantifiable ways.

The reality, as a far as I see it, is that our central problem is our absurd belief that Government is in anyway capable of positively affecting our economic lives outside of enforcing contracts and providing protecting of our personal property rights. Government central planning cannot and will not ever be a tool for growing markets, creating jobs or reducing poverty. Moreover, "poverty rates" are almost always income based. Taking total household income relative to GDP etc. yet often ignore standard of living increases. Here are some interesting facts on "poor" Americans.

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

• Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
• Eighty five percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 35 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
• Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
• The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
• Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
• Ninety-eight percent of poor households have a color television; two thirds own two or more color televisions
• Sixty four percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
• Nearly all have a VCR and a DVD player;
• Forty seven percent have a personal computer,
• Eighty two percent own microwave ovens,
• Sixty percent have a stereo,
• and a quarter have an automatic dishwasher.

Collective Bargaining = Collective Coercion

Fact: The majority of union members are in the public sector.

Fact: Public sector makes 46 percent more than private sector counterparts.

The protests in Wisconsin are showing Americans the true nature of the corrosive effect unionize civil servants can have on our societies. I am not against the right for private citizens to organize unions to lobby their employers. Let me be clear about that.

HOWEVER, public sector unions are a TOTALLY DIFFERENT ballgame because their pay and benefits is funded by taxpayers and taxpayers have zero choice whether or not to fund them. In the private sector unions must strike a balance between asserting their influence on their employers in order to gain better wages and benefits and killing the businesses that employ them because at the end of the day a business must earn a profit to grow. A recent study by the Heritage Foundation perhaps summed it up best.

Unions function as labor cartels. A labor cartel restricts the number of workers in a company or industry to drive up the remaining workers' wages, just as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) attempts to cut the supply of oil to raise its price. Companies pass on those higher wages to consumers through higher prices, and often they also earn lower profits. Economic research finds that unions benefit their members but hurt consumers generally, and especially workers who are denied job opportunities.

In other words, Unions literally kill jobs.

In the case of public sector unions there is almost no limit to the spending because as the politicians that back these unions and buy their votes through their patronage are spending other people's money. It is no mystery that the states with the largest unions and most pro-labor laws are also the same states with the greatest budget deficits. This is due to the vicious and dangerous cycle that union patronage perpetuates. Politicians who support and reward unions are virtually guaranteed their votes. As the union benefits grow so do the unions. Liberal politicians who reward unions through funding higher wages and benefits with tax-payer money and pass laws virtually guaranteeing the unions monopoly on the services they provide are thereby guaranteed re-election. It is no wonder most state legislators in big union states tend to be Democrats.

This destructive relationship is terribly damaging to our democracy because it almost literally means politicians can buy votes and this trend is on the rise. Recently the U.S. Bureau of Labor released data showing that for the first time the majority of union members in America were public sector workers.

Not only do public sector unions waste our money but they can do something private sector unions never do. They can hold us hostage. This was made painfully clear in New York city this winter when several people DIED because union workers intentionally and in an organized manner deliberately refused to clear snow covered roads in order to protest reduces in pay and benefits. This is a shocking scenario.

Imagine if police, many of whom are unionized, simply refused to protect our streets because they didn't get a 5 percent pay raise in a year. Or firemen, many of whom are unionized, refused to put out fires. In the case of Wisconsin we have teachers refusing to teach our children due to proposed cuts. If that isn't being held hostage I do not know what is. What is even more infuriating in these cases is that Unions, especially teachers unions, are almost ALWAYS against private sector charter schools. Not only do they attempt to rig the system by supporting corrupt politicians who buy their votes but they also try to rig it further by preventing any mechanism that would break their monopoly on education. This isn't just true of teachers or firemen or policemen. It is true of the entire pro-labor cabal that IS LITERALLY killing jobs in America.

Consider this statement by Intel CEO Paul Otellini

"I can tell you definitively that it costs $1 billion more per factory for me to build, equip, and operate a semiconductor manufacturing facility in the United States," Otellini said.

The rub: Ninety percent of that additional cost of a $4 billion factory is not labor but the cost to comply with taxes and regulations that other nations don't impose."

Cypress Semiconductor CEO T.J. Rodgers elaborated on this in an interview with CNET, saying the problem is not higher U.S. wages but antibusiness laws: "The killer factor in California for a manufacturer to create, say, a thousand blue-collar jobs is a hostile government that doesn't want you there and demonstrates it in thousands of ways."

In the case of California much of the reason for those hostile anti-business practices are a bloated government system that must bleed its people in order to pay for its unparalleled public service sector that enjoys benefits and pay that have driven the state into historic levels of debt.

So what is the solution? Well first of all find a way to support Governor's Christie of NJ and Walker of WI and any other governor with the courage to free taxpayers held hostage by unions.

For a long term solution we must make it firmly illegal for public sector workers to unionize PERIOD. This may seem draconian but consider this. The U.S. Miliary collectively forms the largest public sector work force category in the Federal government yet no members of the U.S. military are unionized.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE		736,592		733,479		+3,113		689,363		687,147		+2,216		72,120		71,919		+201
DEFENSE, MILITARY FUNCTION TOTAL		712,234		708,562		+3,672		665,062		662,284		+2,778		71,379		71,182		+197
DEFENSE, CIVIL FUNCTION TOTAL		24,358	*	24,917	*	-559		24,301	*	24,863	*	-562		741	*	737	*	+4
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY		281,632		280,790		+842		261,342		260,394		+948		21,705		21,755		-50
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, MILITARY FUNCTION TOTAL		257,275		255,874		+1,401		237,042		235,532		+1,510		20,965		21,019		-54
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CIVIL FUNCTION TOTAL		24,357		24,916		-559		24,300		24,862		-562		740		736		+4
CORP OF ENGINEERS		24,285		24,844		-559		24,228		24,790		-562		668		664		+4
CEMETERIAL EXPENSES		72		72		...		72		72		...		72		72		...
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY		190,988		190,281		+707		183,688		182,946		+742		26,851		26,608		+243
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

So why aren't military service members unionized? The answer: because it is totally illegal. In military terms to "strike" is tantamount to "dereliction of duty", "failure to obey a lawful order" or in layman's term "mutiny". This is illegal under the uniform code of military justice and technically punishable by death. WOW huh!? how draconian! Yet think about the logic behind it. Could you imagine a situation where an invading Army sat at our nation's doorstep and a large portion of our military refused to fight because they were unhappy with their pay and benefits?! As a nation we place a tremendous trust in our armed forces to protect us and due to the collective importance of that task military service members voluntarily give up their rights in the service of their country. So why can't this same system work for all of the public sector?

Can you think of any organization more worthy of a pension than the military? Probably not. Yet, military pay and benefits pale in comparison to that of their civilian counterparts in the public sector. So why do they join? Well I can tell you from my experience it has a lot to do with wanting to serve and taking pride in their service. Service members still can lobby for their rights. They can write letters to congress and belong to lobbying organizations that work on their behalf. This is largely why benefits for the military continue to increase. They ask and taxpayers decide. Its all about choice. The choice to volunteer and the choice to reward those who volunteer to serve.

So if it is good enough for those fighting and dying for our country its good enough for lazy government workers, unionized teachers and all public sector workers, especially those whose inactions endanger our lives. Let's put meaning back in the term "public service" support legislation that bans collective bargaining for public sector workers NOW!!!!!!

Apocalypse Beck?

In a timely and well written editorial in the current issue of the Weekly Standard, William Kristol, a stalwart conservative, has redrawn battle lines in the war for the soul of conservatism by accusing Glenn Beck of "marginalizing himself" and being overcome by "hysteria" in his latest batch of conspiracy theories. Bill Kristol is right!

I have been watching Glenn's slow decline into hysteria recently attempting understand what I view as his terribly misguided and tragically self-defeating interpretation of recent events in the Middle East. Glenn's obsession with paranoid Islamaphobic theories is a significant distraction from the Tea Party and Libertarian revival in America and its goals of limited governance. It is also a tragic waste of America's opportunity to claim its rightful role as an important catalyst for democratic change in the region. See my recent post on this for an explanation.

Bill Kristol was absolutely right when he asserted at the end of his piece that "the Egyptian people want to exercise their capacity for self-government. American conservatives, heirs to our own bold and far-sighted revolutionaries, should help them."

He was also right when he stated that the "the most hopeful aspects of the current conservative revival is its reclamation of the American constitutionalist tradition." It is this tradition that makes America great and free and make no mistake this is a tradition that was founded by men who often declared the danger of mixing religion and politics as Glenn Beck is doing now.

James Madison declared in an 1822 letter that "An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government.

James Madison, the progenitor of our Constitution and political philosophy made an important point much more significant than to merely call for a separation of church and state he also declares the need for a separation of civil and ecclesiastical matters. Unfortunately, Beck risks violating this tradition through his stubborn and hysterical interpretation of events in the Middle East.

In his most recent show Beck equates the Islamic "Mahdi" to the Christian anti-Christ.By wading into the murky waters of religion to justify his views while condemning those of his political rivals or even America's enemies Beck is risking violating our founding principles.

Now let me be PERFECTLY CLEAR: I am not criticizing Beck for attacking the danger of radical Islam. He is right to highlight the incredible danger Iran poses to the world. He is also not entirely wrong in pointing out the potential danger that radical interpretations of Mahdist doctrine could pose if its adherents chose to act on their beliefs. However, his reaction to the recent events in Egypt and stubborn and ideologically inconsistent defense of Israel belie his apparent religious bias and makes him guilty of hypocrisy and intellectual laziness.

However, what really makes his rhetoric potentially dangerous is that this type of paranoia feeds a vicious self-perpetuating cycle of ignorance wherein our religiously-based fear of radical Islam only emboldens and strengthens the converse radical fear of Christianity and Judaism held by some Muslims. This happens because when we enter the realm of religion to justify our politics in the public square those whom we disagree with abandon reason and embrace their own religious justifications. In other words, Religion does not require logic or even consistency. It simply is what it is: truth in the eye of the beholder.

This self-perpetuating cycle fueled the Crusades and every other war fought over religion and this cycle will inhibit and may even destroy the potential for a desperately needed secular democratic movement in the Middle East.

This paradigm is largely the reason for Iran's militancy because it was anger and hatred of Israel predicated on religious belief that has fueled an Iranian hatred that is borne of fear. We judge Iran in the context of its most radical leaders yet we fail to apply the same judgement on Israel. While I would not argue they are equivalent....they certainly are not...any discussion of these issues should pay proportional attention to radicals in Israel who also use religion as the justification for racist bigotry and justification for advocating genocide. For instance, high ranking orthodox rabbis in Israel have repeatedly stated over the years that it is permissible under Jewish Law to kill non-Jews. Case and point: In 2009 the Haaretz Newspaper in Israel reported the following

Rabbi Yitzhak Shapiro, who heads the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva in the Yitzhar settlement, wrote in his book "The King's Torah" that even babies and children can be killed if they pose a threat to the nation.

Shapiro based the majority of his teachings on passages quoted from the Bible, to which he adds his opinions and beliefs.

"It is permissable to kill the Righteous among Nations even if they are not responsible for the threatening situation," he wrote, adding: "If we kill a Gentile who has sinned or has violated one of the seven commandments - because we care about the commandments - there is nothing wrong with the murder."

Don't take the newspaper's word for it or mine watch this video of radical Rabbis in Israel saying it in their own words:

A surprisingly balanced report by Al Jazeera English on the same subject.

Other radical religious leaders in Israel have stated that the "only reason goyim [non-jews] were created was to serve Jews." This notion stems from a radical interpretation of the Talmud that cites that the lives of Goyim are equivalent to that of beasts. In October 2010 the Jerusalem post reported:

The sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews, according to Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the head of Shas’s Council of Torah Sages and a senior Sephardi adjudicator. “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel,” he said in his weekly Saturday night sermon on the laws regarding the actions non-Jews are permitted to perform on Shabbat. According to Yosef, the lives of non-Jews in Israel are safeguarded by divinity, to prevent losses to Jews. “In Israel, death has no dominion over them... With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant... That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew,” Yosef said. “Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why gentiles were created,” he added.

Now for a much more thorough perspective:

In the end, Glenn would be smart to find his way back to a secular argument based on America's constitutional principles of man's inalienable rights to life liberty and property. If we use these arguments to confront radicals wherever they may be and condemn ANY government that denies its people freedom we may find we have allies within the people of Egypt and Iran who eagerly await our support in seeking their freedom.

“Guns don’t kill people knives kill people”

Normally I try and avoid wading into a “fact-based” argument in support of gun-rights because the right to keep and bear arms is perhaps the most essential inalienable right because it allows for the protection of liberty, property and life. That cannot be said of any other right. However, I will wade into the anti-gun ideological swamp for today’s post. The argument that gun-control could prevent violent crime, especially mass murder by mentally unstable violent offenders is illogical, not based in science and anyone advocating it is not intellectually honest. Case and point:

A few days ago America woke up to the horrific story a stabbing spree in New York City. The killer managed to murder 4 people in a few short hours while also injuring many others. His weapon of choice was a typical Kitchen knife and a car. AP reported: ‘Maksim Gelman, 23, was armed with a bloodied kitchen knife when he was taken into police custody at about 9 a.m. Saturday after a nightlong manhunt from Brooklyn into Manhattan.’ Gelman murdered his step-father, mother and girlfriend as well as a bystander during his rampage.



This case stunned many. Clearly, Gelman is not in possession of a sound mind yet it is interesting that none of the tired logic used following mass shootings was applied too this case. No one asked: "how did we allow a crazy person to get a knife" or "why weren't his parents forced to keep their knives locked up".

One might say, that this is an anomaly “well most mass murders occur with guns”. While this might be true (not sure about the data on that) a lot of mass stabbings have occurred leading to deaths of upwards of 7 people as occurred in Tokyo in 2008 (picture below) In fact, stabbing deaths are on the rise in nations where firearms are inaccessible, such as the UK, and the numbers of individuals killed is actually quite shocking and on par with most mass-shootings. For instance, in Bristol a man successfully stabbed 10 individuals. In the United States where guns are more accessible than most countries in the developed world stabbings can account for nearly as much violent crime as shootings.

Yet, we rarely hear calls for "banning knives" in the U.S....at least yet.

The example of the United Kingdom's idiotic and misguided crackdown on handguns shows where America would be if Coercivists, Liberals and Statists had their way. Since the UK has banned handguns gun related crime and knife crime have BOTH INCREASED. Today, due to the rise in Knife crime British legislators are actually calling for mandatory arrests on "anyone carrying a knife". Literally, they are proposing jailing anyone caught carrying a "knife". Banning hand guns didn't make them safer and now they are practically calling for banning knives!? Teh Telegraph reported:There has to be a presumption that anyone caught carrying a knife should expect a custodial sentence. There must be real deterrents to carrying and using knives." (Gelman used a Kitchen knife in his New York rampage.)

The fact is banning weapons DOES NOT make us safer at least not if we want to be free.

Furthermore, in true exploitative fashion, the ideological anti-gun contingent in the U.S. has called for banning high-capacity magazines for handguns following the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in another mass murder perpetuated by a deranged individual. For instance, Kelly Obrien, the fiancee of a congressional staffer killed along with five others in the shooting that severely injured U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was put in front of a microphone earlier in the month to call for bans on high-capacity magazines. Obrien said: "Extended magazine clips are currently an easily accessible weapon for troubled individuals to use in mass murder."

I mean no disrespect to this woman who has suffered a horrible loss but the argument that banning high capacity magazines would somehow reduce the ability of crazy individuals to commit pre-meditated mass murder is based on demagoguery, an ignorance about firearms and NOT facts. Despite firing 31 shots Loughner only killed 5 people. The recent rampage in New York killed 4, the tokyo knife rampage killed 7 and on and on. Yet how exactly are high-capacity magazines the catalyst for Laughner's ability to kill 5 people?

Authorities said Jared L. Loughner, who is charged in last month's shootings in Tucson, used a high-capacity magazine to fire 31 shots in 15 seconds from a pistol he purchased legally.

Perhaps even more offensive is the fact that these proposed laws; whether banning people from even carrying knives, as in the UK, or this absurd bill banning high capacity magazines, are presented to the public as being "reasonable" or "common sense" when clearly they are absurd reactionary laws written in wake of tragedy. They achieve no tangible effect short of finding new ways to incarcerate law abiding citizens and allowing criminals who scoff at our laws to have the peace of mind to know that their potential victims are unarmed.

The reality is that we can't legislate away crime. Banning something doesn't make it and the problems associated with it simply disappear. We ban guns, dumb criminals use knives, we ban knives and they use their clubs, we ban clubs and they use rocks and on and on and on. Smart criminals simply use all of the above since they don't care to abide by laws anyway and have the means to acquire illegal weapons.

Finally, I'll end with final fact, something most coercivist statist liberals either ignore or do know know.

In December 2004 the National Academy of Sciences released a report following an extensive study of gun control in the United States. The panel had been commissioned by the Clinton Administration, presumably in the hopes that they would uncover how gun control championed by Clinton had reduced violent crime. However, the panel of largely liberal academics were grudgingly forced to conclude that there was no empirical evidence that gun control reduced crime. "Forced" being the operative word since the data was so overwhelmingly against their anti-gun bias that they largely ignored the mountain of empirical evidence that showed that cities where citizens carried concealed weapons legally had lower rates of gun-violence, especially gun violence carried out against citizens (robbery etc. vs. criminal on criminal violence).

In conclusion, guns don't kill people--criminals kill people and good people with guns can defend themselves against criminals.

“We don’t thank the French on the Fourth of July”

History is a funny thing. We accept our interpretations of it to be tantamount to fact yet, the reality is that the context in which we view history is always incredibly distorted by our collective biases. So how then will history view America’s involvement in the Middle East? More importantly, how will the people of the Middle East view our involvement 50 years from now as they reflect back upon the beginning of their own internal revolution and adoption of democratic principles?

Throughout this entire freedom movement in the Middle East in Tunisia now Egypt I can’t help but see a connection to Iraq…and more importantly…the direct and indirect effects of U.S. policy in Iraq. Is it fair to ascribe even some positive relationship between the U.S. ousting of Saddam Hussein, the subsequent implementation of democracy in Iraq and the recent wave of pro-democracy demonstrations throughout the region? In my mind it is and I believe historians decades from now within the region and outside it will, if not grudgingly, acknowledge that a catalyst for change in the region was the U.S. Invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein thereby allowing Iraq to become the region’s first truly democratic country.

While the resulting violence in Iraq has led to hundreds of thousands of casualties and civil war the end-product for Iraq is democracy and a growing civil society that even prior to Tunisia and Egypt were clamoring for more rights, accountable government and secular institutions that honor the values of Iraqis while respecting their diversity. This is apparent if you are an observer of Iraqi affairs. I have spent the better part of the last decade living in Iraq, studying its development and working to help develop its civil institutions. However, I first began that journey as a young Marine Lance Corporal wielding an automatic weapon against Saddam’s Fedayeen during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Today, I continue the mission as a civilian working in a multitude of public advocacy programs designed at bolstering Iraq civil society and increasing and enhancing dialogue within Iraq and between Iraqis and the United States. In all this time I have seen a change as Iraqis have slowly begun to climb out of the rubble of their war ravaged country and acknowledge the potential and power of the nascent democracy they have been building.

The most free and fair elections to ever occur in any Arab country occurred in Iraq in 2010. This is an immovable fact. Despite their celebrations and jubilatation the Egyptian people cannot claim that victory. Today they remain under martial law and lack the democratic rights Iraqis have today and while the peaceful nature of the Egyptian revolution is something truly historic, it does not change the fact that the beginning of true democracy in the Arab world has begun already in Iraq with the assistance of U.S. Forces working alongside the Iraqi security forces to provide the necessary security to allow for the people of Iraq to exercise these rights. Yet, you will not hear that analysis in the media. You will not readily hear the Iraqi or Egyptian people acknowledge this truth—and perhaps this is how it must be. Revolutions are meant to be are about the people even though they never occur in a vacuum. In America we know this truth all too well because our story is much the same.

The American colonists who built the world’s first successful (so-far) Constitutional Democratic Republic would likely have lost their fight against the British Imperial Army were it not for the critical support of the French Navy and Army. Were it not for France’s support of America’s revolution the spark of revolution and freedom could have easily been snuffed out under the superior might of the British Army occupying the colonies and the British Navy blockading their ports. Yet, we Americans rarely praise the French for their role. Our history books make only a passing reference to it because we want to focus on what we did, our heroes, and our revolution. Deep down we all know we owe our success in our war of independence to the assistance of the French. So too will the historians of a modern Middle East recognize that the liberation of their own societies was due, in part, to the sacrifices of thousands of American service-members who gave their lives to breathe life into a free Iraq.

"The Muslim Brotherhood will not hijack this cause"

Watch this video. We need this guy to be the voice of this movement or else it will fail.

GOP still doesn't get it

Dear GOP,

I suspect today was an embarrassing day for you. Your majority leaders in Congress just had a fast-track vote of the Patriot-Act renewal legislation kicked to the curb. I am sure you are at a loss for words. How can this be? Clearly you do not understand that the victory of the Tea Party was greatly the result of a tremendous growth in the American people's rediscovery of Libertarian values...or perhaps more accurately defined as American values but I digress... You see GOP, Libertarians like Freedom. We aren't you like Republicans with your rhetoric about freedom while you use signing statements to circumvent legislative oversight or when you engage in corporatism and legislate morality. No, we Libertarians, are principled. We believe that men have certain inalienable rights of life, liberty and property and government only exists to protect those rights. So we Libertarians, many of whom helped you win your majority in Congress will not tolerate business as usual.

Dear Democratic Socialists (a.k.a DNC),

Thank you for not voting to renew the Patriot Act. However, please spend a few minutes today engaged in some introspective thought on how paradoxical it is to believe in Civil Liberties of privacy while not believing in the most essential right of property. How can you see any difference between the immorality of illegal wiretaps and redistribution of wealth through government armed coercion? and please don't say the "ends justify the means" you'll start sounding like those you claim to be against.