The polls scare me more than anything. I am blown away Americans have once again fell for the propaganda and are voting for bipartisan war-happy candidates. Before invading Iraq, about the same percentage supported the invasion–that set the tone for acceptance. And yes, the war hawks are usually chicken hawks, i.e., Wolfowitz, Cheney, Bush–all evaded their duty when it was time to serve.

Rand Paul introduced an amendment which simply re-stated the Constitution that only Congress can declare war. Remember which party runs the Senate.

If you read the transcript, Paul indicates perhaps they would think differently if they knew we would be fighting against people’s children.

Wars will continue to happen and if it’s up to those two entities, we will be in at least one war or another perpetually. It doesn’t matter how many of our troops die, they’re just a bunch of ordinary guys from ordinary families mostly anyway, so what’s the big deal? It’s not like having one of Dick Cheney’s daughters or George W. Bush’s daughters over there in harm’s way. Those who decide on wars seem to always pay the least personal price for those wars they decide on.

We will be going to war with Iraq if Romney is elected, that’s for sure. And like Iraq, conservatives will get all patriotic and arrogant and sticking their chest out to pound. The war profiteers and oil barons are all licking their chops for a Romney presidency.

Yes, Libertarians foreign policy scare most people away, second to our opposition to the welfare, nanny state. Most Americans can not fix their minds to think that our actions cause some people to be mad and wage war against us. But it is true. Not only is it true but it’s also common sense. Some think people wake up in the middle of the night and decide to hate America. Well, I got news for those people: if they hate us for our freedoms, we would have been attacked after the 19th Amendment, then again after the repeal of Jim Crow laws; other countries would also have been attacked for their freedoms.

If Americans decided to study the CIA, FBI and Bin Laden’s letters (and our relationship with the Middle East and their leaders since the 1950s), they would have a different understanding of this whole “war on terror” and reject the prevailing philosophy FROM BOTH PARTIES that we must be the policeman.

America: A Beacon, Not a Policeman.

Thanks for commenting!

I thought you were a Libertarian until I just read this article.

First, I agree with Ron Paul’s assessment that the drug war needs to end and people should be able to decide for themselves what is good or bad for them.

Still, I do agree also that if what people do affect other people’s lives, then there should be laws to protect the other people affected by the use of drugs.

There are already all kinds of smoking laws on the books to restrict smokers from all kinds of buildings. It’s really difficult to find a place in America that smokers feel welcome to light up.

As far as most of those laws, I’m all for it if it protects non-smokers from having to breath second-hand smoke. I’m also for protecting the rights of smokers the same as I do any drug user as long as that person respects my right not to be affected by their smoke.

As far as what you’re suggesting here; it entirely a Big Brother,watching you all time and a very expensive government intrusion that would take away a whole lot of American’s their rights. So I completely disagree with you.

As far as Republicans supporting you; I had to get a laugh at your expense over that one. Republicans take in a whole lot of tobacco donations and are very supportive of Big Tobacco. They take care of those who donate big to them.

As far as Democrats; we would not support something so intrusive into people’s lives, even smokers.

You don’t know my position on marriage obviously. Marriage predates government, so no level of govt should regulate marriage. And, to quell your worry, with states only controlling marriage, the full faith and credit clause guarantees other states will recognize gay marriages. “United.”

States were not allowed to control entitlements upon their creation so there are no facts to back your comments. In 96 when we block granted welfare to states, people went back to work and Blacks especially benefited from the substantial reform. Though I was born in ’91, I don’t recall stepping over bodies; no, in fact, unemployment was low and families thrived! Remember, Blacks called him the first Black president!

Hey, I thought this post was about presidential endorsements!?

“then the population will go crazy and proclaim ‘these are our rights’

What it always boils down to is what the People want or don’t want. You seem to want to force upon them the Constitution as though it is the Ten Commandments instead. The Constitution is what needs to be changed as the People have changed.

You also want to give too much power to the states. What this does is allow the states to decide if a certain percentage of the population should be hungry or not or if they should have health care or not. And if they should allow gay marriage or not. This would also mean that gay married people who lived in other states couldn’t go to that state and have their marriage recognized. That’s not America; Americans should be able to travel anywhere they wish in these “United States” and have the same very freedoms and the same right to health care.

I also know that social programs like Medicare and Social Security were created because of a need for them; states were not doing a good enough job and if they’re allowed to, some states will continue to not do a good enough job because that will force all the needy to move to other states that do and then the burden is cast upon those states, which in turn pressures them to also stop providing social programs. Before you know it, we’re stepping over dead bodies in the street because no state wants to provide health care, food or anything else to the masses who are without.

We have a federal system to take care of needs so that everyone is treated equally throughout the land.

.

Hahahah oh no. That is a big misunderstanding of the Libertarian philosophy. We want to be consistent with following the Constitution, especially the 10th amendment which grants power to the states that are not expressively authorized by the Constitution to the federal govt. We believe, and the Constitution says, the government should protect rights, liberties and properties of people. When 60-70% of the budget is directly against that, then the population will go crazy and proclaim “these are our rights” and the programs will rarely if ever be rolled back (most recently in ’96; weird, no one at catfood then).

We cannot delegate rights to the govt that we didn’t initially have. If you steal from me and give to a homeless man, the act of stealing is still wrong and immoral. Furthermore, when the govt takes responsibility of every sector of public and private life, private orgs and individual are no longer needed for anything. An economic case can be made against govt intervention. But the Left (and sometimes Right) rarely considers economic effects of their programs–only emotional effects so they can be paraded as caretakers of the under-priveleged.

The philosophy can be explained at length so we will continue this convo via email.