John Tamny Believes The Mad Dream of Libertarian Ideology

Briggs forgets his limitations

"[A]s humans we’re free to do anything we want so long as our actions don’t infringe on the freedoms of others. ... [W]e as Americans have infinite natural rights."

-- John Tamny (link)

Just taken at face value the statements are a self-contradiction because the first logically excludes the second.

To qualify the range of permissible action is to limit the range, which therefore cannot be infinite, by definition. In fact, the very resort to so qualifying the range in the first place is a sort of back-handed compliment to the limitations which the underlying order places on all the constituent elements of the world.

Conservatives recognize in the underlying order the divine, which is the basis of the rights. Accordingly the rights themselves have limitations, just as also do we. As surely as our common end is the grave, no one is at liberty to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre and to hope to escape arrest. The right to free speech is not absolute.

And to qualify infinite natural rights as somehow American reminds one of nothing so much as the unreflective boosterism of the by-gone era of manifest destiny.

Conservatives recognize their own limitations. Libertarians do not. Therefore the latter are dangerous, especially at the movies.

The Feeble-Minded, Libertarian Crank, Rep. Justin Amash Can't Encourage "In God We Trust"

The text of the bill he voted against reads as follows:

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress reaffirms ‘In God We Trust’ as the official motto of the United States and supports and encourages the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions.

There is nothing binding in this resolution whatsoever.

It does not require the motto be displayed, anywhere. It merely supports the motto and encourages its display where and when it happens. A wise man, even an atheist, would regard this as a mere trifle, a sop to the parochial interest of an unenlightened but harmless population, a one-off costing nothing to a politician with any sense.

But Amash still couldn't stomach it. Prudence is not a subject of the law schools, which know with Socrates that virtue cannot be taught, but especially to the ilk it attracts.

That said, it is sheer misrepresentation for Amash to say, “There is no need to push for the phrase to be on all federal, state, and local buildings.”

The bill pushes nothing, unless you're an over-sensitive freak, an un-American ideologue like Justin Amash.

George Washington, on the other hand, not only found it unobjectionable but recommended for the mere American politician to cherish and respect religion and morality:

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports.—In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.—The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.—A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.—Let it simply be asked where is security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.—Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure.—reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.—

I have seen no evidence that Justin Amash cherishes or respects religion and morality as a politician, nor that he understands their priority over him as a Christian legislator and American, which he claims to be.

Rather is it evident that his loyalties are to a narrowly conceived creed of a different kind.

The do-gooder's work is never done.

Libertarians WANT a Revolution, Real Conservatives are Trying to Prevent One

Rep. Ron Paul is at it again, here:

"The country is ripe for a true revolution".

If Republicans know what's good for them, they'll purge these cranks from the party.

Libertarians Are Nuts: Transparent, Principled Representation Is Easily Stopped

Usually by a pair of tits or testicles, or ambition, greed or personal animus.

"Transparent, principled representation—supported by grassroots networks and promoted through social media—is becoming an unstoppable force," says a Republican libertarian would-be star in a fundraising letter.

That's pretty transparent all by itself. Dangle hope, and raise money. Reminds me of a certain prominent Democrat's recent campaign, which is bumping up against the unstoppable force of failure and its discontents.

Like all good ideologies, the libertarian one assumes people are essentially good and will do the right thing more often than not, if the politician but sets a good example and gives everyone all the information. A child of his age is this one, worshipping at the altar of Education, which the more one has, the better one is.

Why, one wonders why the founders bothered separating the powers of government at all, seeing how history teaches us how good men are.

"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

-- James Madison, Federalist No. 51

At least my libertarian has declined to run for the Senate. For now.

Having gone from daddy's business to one term in the state House and one term in the federal House, that would be just too obvious.

Besides, it takes millions to run for the Senate, and right now, the coffers are looking a little light for another House run in a redrawn district which will be more Democrat than before.

Which explains statements like this: "I always vote for the side that increases our personal and economic freedoms—regardless of party."

Tracking left, where the votes are, where he belongs.

George Will Defends the Font of Serial Marriage and Other Destructive Behaviors

Here:

[T]he libertarians' argument. ... The essence of which is the commonsensical principle that before government interferes with the freedom of the individual, and of individuals making consensual transactions in markets, it ought to have a defensible reason for doing so. It usually does not.

The Utoya Shooter Also Lifted Broadly From The Unabomber

It won't get much attention, since the liberal effort already is to smear Fjordman, Gates of Vienna, Jihad Watch, Pam Geller, Brussels Journal, et alia, but the shooter's manifesto also lifted broadly from the Unabomber, according to Scott Shane for The New York Times, here:

Mr. Breivik’s declaration did not name Mr. Kaczynski or acknowledge the numerous passages copied from the Unabomber’s 1995 manifesto, in which the Norwegian substituted “multiculturalists” or “cultural Marxists” for Mr. Kaczynski’s “leftists” and made other small wording changes.

Don't study mathematics, kiddies. You wouldn't want to grow up to be a terrorist now would you?

And while we are at it, the post-war right in America has never drawn any inspiration from utilitarianism and John Stuart Mill either, unless, of course, you include libertarians on the right. Many of us never have, don't now, and won't in future. One reason being that some of them have a nasty habit of being anti-Semitic, just like the Norwegian Labour Party and its youth wing, the AUF. Another being, for example, Mike Gravel.

Libertarian Swine on David Mamet

A nice Jewish boy realizes he's no longer a brain dead liberal and what do the libertarians find to complain about?

Readers on both sides of Mamet’s current political stance can take issue with his social conservatism. He is, among other things, an unbending proponent of traditional gender arrangements.

Political conservatism presupposes social conservatism, as Phyllis Schlafly pointedly argued here in the wake of the ObamaCare debacle, the most baneful affect of which was the neutering of the Hyde Amendment.

Libertarianism couldn't stand athwart a toy train and yell stop.  

Kish meir Yiddische Tuchus.

Rush Limbaugh Can't Think Before 1913

"Look, in a classic sense, Trump's not a conservative, folks.  You don't promise to raise tariffs on the ChiComs 25%.  That's not conservative.  (interruption) People understand this, Snerdley.  You remember when George W. Bush threatened to raise tariffs on imported steel, there was an outcry.  No, you don't raise taxes, period.  That's not the way to deal with it.  That's protectionism.  Smoot-Hawley.  It's a death wish.  This is why I'm always worried about populism.  Populism is not conservatism."

-- Rush Limbaugh, 27 April 2011 (here)

"Tariffs were the largest source of federal revenue from the 1790s to the eve of World War I, until it was surpassed by income taxes."

-- "Tariffs in United States History" (here)

"The magnitude of the tariff shock in the Smoot-Hawley legislation . . . was simply not large enough to trigger the kind of economic contraction experienced after 1930."

-- Douglas A. Irwin (quoted here)

The baneful influence of doctrinaire libertarianism on conservatism continues . . . in the voice of Rush Limbaugh.

If We Want More Home Sales, Subsidize Home Ownership, Don't Tax It

It's an old principle too often forgotten in discussions of economic policy:

"If you want less of something, tax it; if you want more of something, subsidize it."

We've learned in America that when you don't limit welfare in some way, you'll get lots more people on it. And tax people too much like we did in the 1970s, and you'll proliferate money in tax shelters.

What we need more of right now in America is home sales. 18.4 million dwellings sit vacant in the US, and homeowners all across the country who want to sell and scale down or sell and move up can't, because of the housing slump. Properties go unsold season after season, and people are stuck.

Jonathan Swift put it this way a long time ago:

"Money, the lifeblood of the nation,

Corrupts and stagnates in the veins,

Unless a proper circulation

Its motion and its heat maintains."

Logic tells us that we should subsidize housing through tax policy even more than it already is, but the Obama regime, and a bunch of misguided libertarians, want to do the opposite: recover the "tax loss expenditure" created by the mortgage interest deduction.

In other words, they want to tax home ownership, in the name of tax neutrality, handing the advantage to landlords who can still deduct their mortgage interest, along with the maintenance and depreciation which homeowners cannot deduct. It almost sounds like planned crony capitalism.

If Obama and company succeed, we'll have even less home ownership than we have now, and even lower values, but lots of new politically favored slumlords.

The following is an excerpt from John C. Weicher's "Repealing the Mortgage Interest Deduction? Hold the Applause!,"  found here, which touches on some of these issues:

The President’s budget for 2012 proposes to take a small but significant step in the same direction.  The value of the deduction would be reduced for families with incomes above $250,000.  These are the same taxpayers for whom Mr. Obama wanted to raise taxes back in December - “the rich.”   

But the deduction isn’t a particular benefit for rich people. ... they only account for about 20% of all mortgage interest reported on tax returns, according to the IRS.

Most of the benefit of the mortgage interest deduction goes to households who are not “rich,” households with incomes between $75,000 and $200,000.  These are middle-class families, reasonably well off, but working, and working hard. ...

Repealing the mortgage interest deduction will make it harder for young families to become homeowners.  Repealing the capital gains exclusion, another Commission recommendation, will make it harder for older families, when they want to move to a retirement home or move to be near their children and grandchildren. 

Present-a-tive Justin Amash Bucks His Freshman Peers As He Did His Party In Michigan

Politico has part of the story here:

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) voted against the class 30.1 percent of the time, including the five times he recorded himself as “present” rather than supporting or opposing an amendment outright.

We had the other part, here, on February 27:

In Michigan Amash's record meant that he went against his own party almost 36 percent of the time (472 votes), which makes perfect sense of the rhetoric to get more Democrats and independents into the Republican Party (without the singular "libertarian" votes, Amash voted against his own party 30 percent of the time). His election night remarks in that regard were jarring and startling in a year marked by one of the biggest partisan Republican victories nationwide in decades, but play well in a district full of Democrats and independents and union members. The clarion call of the Tea Party was not bipartisanship, but that's often the ploy of libertarians, whose small numbers keep them forever in need of allies. It's smart politics, not but it's not principled conservatism.

Amash promoted himself as consistent, principled and conservative in his campaign for the MI-3 House seat. So far, he's batting a thousand on consistent. The question is whether the voters will decide next time that consistency is, after all, merely the proverbial hobgoblin of little minds if he too often sacrifices his conservatism, and his principles, to it.

Rep. Justin Amash: How About Some "Re-" In Front of That?

Politico.com has a story generating considerable interest about how Republican freshman Rep. Justin Amash (MI-3) has been voting "present" a number of times, even on some serious matters like de-funding the abortion provider Planned Parenthood:

In total, Amash has voted present on roughly 4 percent of the legislation that has come to the House floor in the 112th Congress.

Amash has voted "present" five times, which calls to mind Obama's voting record as a state senator in Illinois, where he voted "present" 129 times, about 3 percent of the votes he cast.

Obama's record attracted the attention of Nathan Gonzales in 2007 because Obama also had cast such votes on several controversial issues like partial birth abortion:

For example, in 1997, Obama voted "present" on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. ...

[I]n 1999, Obama voted "present" on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill.

In 2001, Obama voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. In his book, the Audacity of Hope, on page 132, Obama explained his problems with the "born alive" bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote "present" on the bills instead of "no."

And finally in 2001, Obama voted "present" on SB 609, a bill prohibiting strip clubs and other adult establishments from being within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and daycares.

It's not like people weren't warned in Amash's case, either, since he had a famous reputation here in Michigan as a state representative for reporting his votes in real time on his Facebook page, and for voting "present" now and again.

Still, you'd like to think that a guy who graduated from law school could come up with a better excuse for voting "present" than not having "a reasonable amount of time to review the legislation." (Gee, I'm sorry, Professor, my dog slobbered all over my homework at breakfast). Besides, he's getting paid an awful lot of money if all he's going to do is "present" us. How about some "re-" in front of that?

In the Planned Parenthood case, Amash said he doubted the constitutionality of the language. Well, then didn't he have an obligation to vote "No" instead of "present"?

If most Americans could go back and listen to candidate Obama on the stump talking about how he and his supporters were going to transform America, I'm sure it would elicit a shudder now, knowing what they know about the carnage his policies have wrought in America. Which is exactly what I felt when I heard Justin Amash thank his supporters on election night in November 2010:

In his victory speech at Kent County GOP election night headquarters, he said the party should work to bring more Democrats and independents into the party to "transform this state" and "transform this country."

Yep, just what we need. More transformers. More Democrats.

UPDATED Sunday February 27, 2011:

Unlike doctrinaire libertarians who think they are always right about everything but are in consequence thereof not free to admit it when they are wrong, we must retract the following:


[Amash] had a famous reputation here in Michigan . . . for voting "present" now and again.


Amash never voted "present" in the Michigan legislature.

But his voting record was noted for its "singularity." Of 1315 votes cast, there were 76 in which his was the lone vote against legislation which otherwise obviously overwhelmingly passed. That's 5.8 percent of his votes. It is useless to speculate how many of these would have been cast as "present" if he had been permitted to do so, as he is now in the US House, where, however, it is becoming clear that after just two months his record in Michigan is a kind of proxy for how his record in DC has already shaped up.

This does not mean Amash was wrong, of course, in every instance, but it does show that he marched to the beat of a different drummer. That drummer was distinctly libertarian. His singular votes often reflected an aversion to using legislative power to single out groups for special favors or penalties. Sometimes it appears to have courted the stoner vote. Other times it disdained regulatory intrusion on private industries, and otherwise steered clear of do-gooder legislation, such as protecting "endangered species" or senile old women in danger of freezing to death in their homes because they forget to pay the gas bill.

In Michigan Amash's record meant that he went against his own party almost 36 percent of the time (472 votes), which makes perfect sense of the rhetoric to get more Democrats and independents into the Republican Party (without the singular "libertarian" votes, Amash voted against his own party 30 percent of the time). His election night remarks in that regard were jarring and startling in a year marked by one of the biggest partisan Republican victories nationwide in decades, but play well in a district full of Democrats and independents and union members. The clarion call of the Tea Party was not bipartisanship, but that's often the ploy of libertarians, whose small numbers keep them forever in need of allies. It's smart politics, not but it's not principled conservatism.

Methinks thou dost protest principle too much.

With the "present" vote on de-funding Planned Parenthood, one suspects Amash is taking a page out of Obama's unprincipled playbook.

"Suddenly" coming to the conclusion that DOMA is unconstitutional, Obama has instructed the DOJ not to defend it in court. But at the same time he is going to enforce this "unconstitutional" law until the courts have done with it. Instead he should be using his own Executive power to preserve, protect and defend the constitution as one of its co-equal representatives by not enforcing DOMA, which he views as a threat to it. In this Obama plays a cowardly slave who is in thrall to the courts, and doesn't have the courage of his own convictions. He is a weak president, of very poor character, but it does shore up his street cred on the left.

Expressing doubt that voting to de-fund Planned Parenthood would be constitutional, Amash was content to let de-funding pass unopposed by him, hiding in the half-way house of "present" and putting the constitution at risk. He too is guilty of ceding his co-equal authority, in this case of the Legislative power in which he shares. It was a moment of weakness. He may have escaped the anger of the left in his constituency, but his so-called conservative principles were sacrificed.

I say it was cowardly.

"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."

How Doctrinaire Libertarians Co-Opt the Tea Party Illustrated

The latest example comes from Senator Rand Paul, son of Representative Ron Paul. Republicans, maybe. Libertarians for sure, who, like all our collectivist enemies, believe in permanent revolution:

Half of CPAC This Year is Libertarian, Heckles and Walks Out on Dick Cheney

The Libertarians hate the Department of Defense and the US military more than they hate the much larger, arguably unconstitutional, social welfare state erected by FDR.

Bunch of queers.

Story and video here.

'Conservatives' Compromising with the Devil

Not that I make it my business to follow this sort of thing very closely, but, well, there it is in USA Today:

Andrew Breitbart, a conservative blogger, says in a headline on his website that Palin "throws support behind GOProud." He has posted a clip from Palin's interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network in which Palin wonders whether conservatives should reach out to those with opposite views and "allow for healthy debate" on issues. Breitbart is on GOProud's advisory board.

More here, and here.

Sarah Palin knows what side of the bread the butter's on. She isn't going to alienate a big part of her base. Half of the Tea Party is libertarian, which means half of the Tea Party is ok with gay.

As is Roman Catholicism. That's why a Tammy Bruce can fill in for Laura Ingraham, no problemo. That's why Andrew Breitbart and Ann Coulter can be chums.

That's why repeal of DADT was off the radio radar screens on Bill Bennett's show, Ingraham's, Hannity's, etc.

Good Catholics all.

And that's why Elton John was treated so graciously by Rush Limbaugh at his (fourth) wedding.

The Protestantism that gave us that work ethic thingy that Pat Buchanan remembers made America so great?

It's in the rear view mirror and getting smaller every day. Mainline Protestants like the Episcopalians, the Methodists and the Lutherans have all loosened their sphincters for gay and lesbian preachers in their pulpits. Traditionalists have fled in droves to non-denominational churches, or to lonely isolation.

The left doesn't need to trouble itself with dividing the opposition on the right. Its minions masquerading as conservatives are doing the job all by themselves.  

Arizona Democrats Stirred the Libertarian Pot Loughner Drank From

Was Jared Loughner moved to kill because he thought fellow Jew Gabrielle Giffords' political tactics were manipulative?

He certainly thought the US government was manipulating people through language, through math, through fiat money, even through religion, the message of which is represented on coin and currency. That's why Loughner said he wouldn't use money not backed by gold and silver to pay debts, and why he wouldn't trust in God. The entire structure of reality was manipulated as far as Loughner was concerned, including 911, a conspiracy of lies orchestrated by the government.

So did Loughner discover that Giffords, too, had manipulated the election in their own district? Is that why he waited to buy his gun until almost a month after Giffords won?

Consider that Giffords' fellow Democrats barraged her district late in October 2010 with a mailing promoting the third party Libertarian candidate, who ended up bleeding off over 10,000 votes in the race, which Giffords won by less than 3,700 votes over Republican challenger Jesse Kelly.

The Arizona Daily Star broke the story here, reporting on it just days before the November 2010 election. In it, it quoted Jennifer Johnson, spokeswoman for Arizona's Democratic Party, as saying:

“It’s about letting voters know their choices, and when it comes to tea party ideals and knowing the Constitution, Jesse Kelly doesn’t hold a candle to Steve Stoltz. So we are simply letting voters know about their choices in this race.”

The strategy obviously worked . . . a little too well, for Giffords and her fellow victims.

WBZ-TV Claims Blogger Who Wrote "1 Down, 534 to Go" is a Libertarian

First we have Bush-hater and truther-inspired son of a Jewess Jared Loughner spouting atheism and hard money, ideas commonly conjoined only in Libertarian circles, and now we get a self-described Libertarian applauding the shooting of Jewish Congresswoman Giffords in a blog post entitled "1 Down, 534 to Go."

And still no one is calling attention to the Libertarian connection, because the left wants to paint the whole right with that broad brush, and because the right knows that the Tea Party is half Libertarian but needs its support.

Libertarianism is soulless, and neither left nor right should make a pact with that devil.

Read the WBZ-TV story and watch the video here.

NY Times Paints Loughner and Hard Money Libertarianism as Right Wing Extreme

The leftist ridicule offensive continues, designed to preoccupy the opposition and get the right fighting amongst themselves over who belongs and who doesn't, while the left presses on for new gun control measures and suppression of free speech.

Notice the elision going on in the first passage here:

He became an echo chamber for stray ideas, amplifying, for example, certain grandiose tenets of a number of extremist right-wing groups — including the need for a new money system and the government’s mind-manipulation of the masses through language.

Libertarians generally hold to hard money ideas, but that hardly makes them right wing, witness the long war of traditionalists like Russell Kirk against what he called "the chirping sectaries." The hard money idea is subtly paired with mind-manipulation conspiracy theory by the Times, whatever that means, without support and simply by assertion. Having been a fairly well-informed conservative since the late 70s, one is hard-pressed to know what the Times is even talking about. There you go again, one of our own might say now. We've had our Truthers and our Birthers. Now we've got our Minders, I guess.

One suspects the Times knows full well its only plausible case is in the Libertarian hard money ideology, as here:

A few days later, during a meeting with a school administrator, Mr. Loughner said that he had paid for his courses illegally because, “I did not pay with gold and silver” — a standard position among right-wing extremist groups. With Mr. Loughner’s consent, that same administrator then arranged to meet with the student and his mother to discuss the creation of a “behavioral contract” for him, after which the official noted: “Throughout the meeting, Jared held himself very rigidly and smiled overtly at inappropriate times.”

Notice the effort to paint gold and silver backed money as "a standard position" on the right. It isn't, and it hasn't been as long as conservatism has been resurgent since the 60s and Milton Friedman style monetarism and devotion to a strong dollar captured people's imaginations.

Clear-headed thinkers on the right, like George Will, have well noted the Federal Reserve's failure to maintain a sound currency partly because its mandate was divided in 1978 to include maintaining full employment. Instead, hard money ideology has been an enthusiasm prevalent on the fringe, among Libertarians, in the post-war era in view of the fact that the monetarist consensus has been breaking down due to its failures, and because the gold standard used to be, well, the law of the land, all the way up until . . . FDR.

The dishonesty of the presentation coheres with the view of the Times that, for most of its history, America has been a veritable right-wing nuthouse. They ought to know.

Gabrielle Giffords' Democrats Promoted Libertarian as True Conservative to Divide Vote on her Right

The following excerpts come from the website of the Libertarian Party candidate, Steve Stoltz, whom the Democrat Party (yes you read that right) promoted in its literature as the true conservative running against the Democrat incumbent Gabrielle Giffords, shot in Tucson on Saturday, to bleed off votes on the right from the Republican challenger Jesse Kelly:

As a Libertarian, I am socially liberal, compassionate and humanitarian, but I am also fiscally conservative and principled.

The United States should have sound money that is backed by gold not the “monopoly money” of a fiat currency that is essentially counterfeited by the printing presses of the Federal Reserve which causes massive inflation.

As a Libertarian I believe that everyone owns their own body and can do ANYTHING they want with it, so long as they do not infringe upon someone else’s life/health, liberty or property (the 4rth amendment of the constitution says that people have a right to be secure in their person).

Government has no authority over the nature of a person’s consensual sexual relationships - even if they desire to engage in promiscuity and immorality.

The government has no right to tell a person what food they can eat, has no right to restrict their access to vitamin and mineral supplements, has no right to prevent a person from taking experimental drugs or getting medical treatments they feel will cure them of disease.

It is ironic that laws limit access to drugs, while the FDA has permitted poisonous/toxic substance like aspartame to be introduced into beverages.

Drugs like marijuana should be legalized, with increasing amounts of regulation and taxation applied to the more addictive drugs.

Society should lift prohibitions, but should regulate drugs the way alcohol currently is.

Lifting some drug prohibition could have a positive impact on national security.

Marriage is a legal contract protecting the rights of two individuals who decide that they want to live together and share property.

The state’s sole role is to enforce the property rights of the union, without placing stipulations on the nature of the union, whether it is between heterosexuals or homosexuals.    

The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment says that every US citizen shall enjoy the equal protection of the law.

Since no group should be given special treatment relative to over another, the military’s current policy of “Don’t ask don’t tell” is un-Constitutional, and should simply be reduced to “Don’t ask”.

The military should not expel a member who has already proven they can do the job merely because that person has identified himself/herself as homosexual.

I believe the government must respect the 2nd amendment, and place absolutely no restrictions on gun rights.

Although I am totally opposed to violence, I find it amazing that those who would place restrictions over a private citizen’s access to guns also seem to place blind faith in the integrity of the police, merely because they are agents of government.

Social security ... The system should be restructured so that younger persons invest in a privately held account, the way the government originally sold it.

I do not believe that it is moral for a wealthy person to hoard their wealth without trying to use it to help people.

[I]t doesn’t make sense for the government to document illegal aliens.

I do not believe that illegal aliens who give birth in the United States should instantly be granted citizenship (i.e. “anchor babies”).

I don’t believe illegal aliens should enjoy special access to entitlements relative to US citizens.

[W]hile it might be unfair for the children of illegal aliens who don’t pay property tax to receive a free education in US school systems, they nonetheless fall under the same category as the children of US citizens who receive a free education because their parents rent and don’t pay property tax.

The illegal alien problem is a multi-faceted social problem that can’t be solved merely by erecting a fence.     

Female reproductive rights/abortion – I am pro-choice.    

The focus of the military should be primarily to defend the nation’s borders against invasion.

As a Libertarian, I believe that in order for anything to be regarded as a crime, there must be a victim.  Civil fines for traffic violations that do not result in an accident or property damage or personal injury, and merely raise money for the state represent victimless crimes.