The absurdity of these claims against Barr is astounding. It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to see why someone would change their political views so quickly in the wake of the Republican party sinking into neoconservatism. It doesn't surprise me one bit that Barr has left the Republican Party and has taken up the principles of libertarianism. I was not unlike Barr just two years ago. I was a neoconservative in my own right, but then it just took a few subjects to quickly change my view on the insane ideology that the Republican Party seems to be embracing. Once I left the Republican Party, my views starting to fall into place, and now I am a minarchist. I'm not the only person to do this that I know of. An online buddy of mine has done the same in leaving the Republican Party for the Libertarian Party. It doesn't take the stretch of the imagination to figure that Mr. Barr could very well have done the same.

What brings me to write this is Christine Smith's (and countless others') attack on Bob Barr's previous voting record while a Republican. I believe we should all hold people accountable for their pasts, but we cannot continue to make assumptions about them simply because of it. Again, I would still be looked at as a moral crusading conservative, but that's just as about as far from the truth as one could get. I would dare people to try to claim that I am not a libertarian. Besides my pro-life stance, there is not a single issue that I wouldn't side with the majority of libertarians on. I do subscribe to the minarchist school of thought, and claiming that I am not a libertarian is a baseless claim. While Barr is a bit more conservative than I am, he still cannot be discounted as a libertarian simply because of his previous voting record.

Christine Smith, a libertarian presidential candidate for 2008, has decided to leave the Libertarian Party because of the Libertarian Party's "abandoning" of libertarian principles. I say that we don't need people like her in the party that is going to suddenly abandon it because the party chooses a more mainstream candidate that is more capable of getting votes. Yes, we lose some of the hard-line libertarian principles, but Barr still upholds the basic libertarian principles that would help create a smaller government. Most Americans doesn't want a radical change, but they do want a change.

Smith goes on to claim, "No true libertarian would support (or defend) the selection of Bob Barr." I find that insulting. As I said above, I would dare someone to claim that I am not a libertarian, yet here I am supporting Bob Barr. This comment, obviously, does not sit well with me. The claim that I can't possibly be a true libertarian because I support a candidate that she dislikes is a moronic thing to suggest. Smith seems intelligent, so I cannot imagine that this usage of ad hominem is typical of her, and it certainly isn't appreciated.

Perhaps my favorite paragraph that she writes is the following:

The libertarian principles which made this this the party for me have been abandoned. The party has become an end in itself, but I believe the cause of liberty trumps any party. Barr's campaign will certainly attract more interventionists, more anti-immigration and more anti-freedom conservatives like himself to the LP, so the delegates may get their growth (and perhaps increased vote counts in November) they so eagerly seek, but the cost is that true libertarians now have no political home since the LP chose as its standard bearer a man who is the antithesis of libertarianism. No matter how the LP delegates and Libertarians who supported this may rationalize it to themselves, they sold out their libertarian principles.

I did not sell out my libertarian principles. I allowed them to be stretched a little to provide the LP with a candidate that can support libertarian ideologies, but also bring in disgruntled conservative voters. Barr is the candidate that can help to fuel the revolution that Ron Paul has created and bring liberty back to Americans. While the liberty that most libertarians desire won't be given to us immediately, it's a certain step in the right direction.

Ultimately, I think this whole issue comes down to the fact that Christine Smith doesn't like Bob Barr. She is too hung up on his previous voting record to see what changes he has made to his ideals and what good can come of his candidacy. She conveniently ignores the concept that people change and opts to use ad hominem towards Barr's supporters. Instead of attacking the reasons as to why someone like me may support Barr, she just decides to insult us instead by claiming that we're not true libertarians and that we have sold out our libertarian principles. Even if the LP is wrong in choosing Barr as their candidate, they did one thing right by not choosing her as the candidate.

Reading further into the book, I came across a quote by Henry Hyde. Paul doesn't mention him by name, but after a little searching, I discovered that it was Mr. Hyde who said the following, in reference to Ron Paul's "radical" idea that Congress be the one to declare war: "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time, Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. We are saying to the president, use your judgment. [What you have proposed is] inappropriate, anachronistic; it isn't done any more."

I share Paul's sentiment, in the next paragraph, which mentions how it's such a relief [note: sarcasm] that we have politicians who are keeping us updated on what's "relevant" in our Constitution. One question, though, isn't it up to the people to decide what's relevant? That question then begs the following: are we really losing this much control of our government? The sad answer is a resounding "YES!"

It bugs me how overgrown our government has become and all in the name of freedom. It really creates an oxymoron out of "government protection". Yes, by giving up our liberties, we may be more likely protected from poverty and foreign governments, but those are the things that should worry us least. The thing that we should be protected from the most is the one thing that our government can't and won't protect us from... itself. I'll admit, it'd be foolish for the government to want to relinquish the power it has.

As individuals, we must give up power in order to gain order and protection from external threats, but a government has no such threats and need for protection, so the idea of giving up its power doesn't make much sense. That's why it was important that our government's powers be limited in the Constitution. The Constitution wasn't written relevant to those specific times. It was written because they knew what a government would do with no restraints. They saw it with England, and we get to see the same thing with our ever-growing government.

We, as Americans, are no safer from terrorism than we were pre-9/11. Our government has its agenda to uphold, so they're going to make all of these claims that the eroding of our civil liberties is working to protect us. Sadly, people are wiling to buy into this propaganda. There is no doubt that our government has thwarted terrorist attacks since 9/11. I, just, don't believe that the Patriot Act and similar legislation has had anything to do with that. We thwarted terrorist attacks prior to 9/11, as well. We can't all be naive to believe that the only terrorist attacks planned were successful ones. The extra protection given to us, if any, is not worth the civil liberties that we are continuing to lose.

As long as neocons and liberals continue to see an increasing need in government intervention whether it be at home or in a foreign nation, our liberties will continue to dwindle while we see no reasonable increase in security, but a decline in protection from a tyrannical state that our Constitution was meant to prevent. If we allow our politicians to continue to shit on the document that has given us the ability to stand up and fight, then we have turned our backs on founding fathers and on what it means to be free. We have turned our backs on what it means to be American. We weren't meant to be free of hardship and pain. We were meant to be free of a government that offers us no protection while actively working to take away what liberties that we are willing to give up before fighting back. We need to restore our Constitution. We need our elected politicians to respect the document that our nation was founded on, that they took an oath to uphold, and that millions of Americans have fought and died to protect.

If you don't know what I'm ranting about, I'm talking about the clip cut from the Fox Republican debate just recently that showcases Ron Paul dishing out a whole truckload of whoopass on the idiotic idea that he is not electable as if he's not a real conservative. He rips into the hypocrisy that is the neo-con ideology of borrowing money from China to fund wars and dictatorships all in the best interest of the acquisition of foreign oil for corporate benefits.

I am beyond livid with the obvious slant that Faux News takes and claims to be "fair and balanced". Not that this is a new revelation, but I didn't think they'd be out to try and censor a TRUE conservative candidate. I guess this just goes to show you how fucking pathetic "journalism" is today and just how much people are afraid of a genuine ideology that is spoken about by Ron Paul. If you don't like his message, get the fuck out of my country because you don't belong here. My opinion will be heard at the election booth, and idiot neo-cons WILL regret the day that they wrote off Dr. Ron Paul.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION!

The rest of the debate was mainly Guiliani, Romney, McCain, and Thompson entangled in a cat fight between the lot of them. It really was kind of pathetic, and they always managed to squeeze in how they are all "conservatives" and how they "respect" each other. It was quite pathetic, and I really couldn't get behind anything the four of them said. They all tried to justify bs, and they were all trying to pull some shit out of their asses saying that we need to preserve "marriage" as being between man and a woman for our children's sake. Right, because homosexuals and bisexuals are COMPLETELY incapable of raising children. I mean, they're not human, right? How could they POSSIBLY know how to raise a kid? Oh, wait...

Ron Paul got the most boos out of everybody else there. It was quite sickening. I mean, he was just being honest about how 70% of America wants our war in Iraq to end. He got boos from that, even though it's clearly statistically correct. Just because they didn't want to hear it, they were booing the man. The truth hurts, I know. He was also booed for pointing out that previous presidents have ran against being invasive in foreign policy. He mentioned that even Bush supported staying out of international affairs, and that's the way the party needs to go back to. The truth yet again? Boos for the truth? Yup, that's the Repugnant Party for you (not that the Democraps are any better).

I'm not going to go through everything that everybody was talking about. Truthfully, I only paid attention to a quarter of the debate because most of it was just stupid bullshit between the four front-runners. I tried to listen to them, but it was just so... pointless and arrogant and off in a stupid direction for America. As I said, the only two that were any impressive were Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee; the candidates that actually want change, and not just votes (though, they do, else they wouldn't be running).

One thing that I found hilarious was how the candidates (read: front-runners) were milking the audience for applauses by mentioning "Hillary" and "Hillary-care". Some of it was relevant, but for the most part it was just pointless to bring up. They were just trying to get positive reactions from the people for being against Hillary. Well, no shit. Every other candidate besides Hillary, herself, is running against Hillary. Let's try to focus on the issues, shall we

As far as the "winner" of the debate, hands down it was Ron Paul. That's not just me talking, either. Out of the text message votes that the candidates received, Ron Paul received 34%, Mike Huckabee received 25%, and the next was one of the idiot front-runners, Rudy Guiliani. I'll admit that most of the people who know how to text message aren't exactly the older generation, who probably would have sided more with Guiliani and the front-runners, but still... 34% is pretty impressive when there were 7 or more candidates debating, and he received over 1/3? That's a decisive victory.

In conclusion, Republicans suck complete ass, and Democrats are just that much worse. Vote Ron Paul or vote Libertarian. Either way, you're going with a viewpoint that's right for America and WILL bring about the change that's needed. Neither the Republicans or Democrats can do what a Libertarian could do, and that's promote respect and compassion WITHOUT the invasiveness of an overbearing and tyrannical government.

Republicans

I'll take my anger out on the right-wingers first. I, generally, have a bias towards conservatives because much like libertarianism, conservatism views liberty to be more important than the flawed viewpoint of equality of results. However, there are still plenty of flaws that I have an issue with, and I intend to rip them a new one.

First of all, the Christian-right has to go. I have nothing against Christianity, being a Christian myself, but it has no place in politics. This whole ideology of regulating morality is absurd. I understand the concept of wanting to create a better world for everybody. I desire that for people, too, but regulating morality isn't the way to do it. I mean, nobody shares the same morals, so how could you possibly be right on what morals are for the "common good"? Simply put, you can't. It's just NOT possible. Just let me live my life the way I want to live, and I'll let you live the way you want to live. As long as we don't impede on each other's rights, there should be NO reason why we should be regulated.

For instance, the issue of Gay Marriage seems to be a hot button issue for a lot of America, especially the right-wing. I, like many Christians, disagree with homosexuality. I still feel that it's a lifestyle choice, but that's a different argument for a different day. While I may disagree with their lifestyle does not mean that I should be able to decide that they can't live their lives the way they see fit. I know most wouldn't agree with the way I live my life in its entirety, and I know most won't agree with the way you life YOUR life in its entirety. Who's right or wrong? Again, as long as I don't impede on your rights as defined in the Bill of Rights, you have no place to tell me how to live my life as I don't have the right to tell you how to live yours.

Another example of this morality crusade is the War on Drugs. While I understand the dangers of drugs, and I do not do drugs, I see no reason why others should be kept from doing what they want with their bodies. What people do in their homes and to themselves is none of our business. We don't have to like it, and we don't have to do it ourselves. We should just let it be and live OUR lives the way we want it, instead of deciding on how someone else should be living theirs. What if vegetarians were the majority and decided that eating animal meat should be illegal and they pass a law against eating meat? What would right-wingers think of that then? I know they wouldn't like it. After all, it's their bodies that they're putting the meat into. It's their bodies that are digesting the meat. Why would the right-wingers be putting up such a stink about this (and would rightfully be doing so)? Because it's not the vegan's right to tell the right-wingers how to live their lives and to regulate what is fine for human consumption. It's time right-wingers get off of their morality trip.

Another one of my dislikes about the right is the new neo-con ideology that we need preemptive war to stop our would-be attackers. Do you know how silly that is? Should I shoot someone on the street because they don't like me, and there's a “chance” that they could do bodily harm to me? Just because someone wants to do me harm doesn't mean that they will. Threats are not to be taken lightly, but deciding on a whim that these people are too much of a threat to be taken lightly and attack them makes us just as bad as them. Their ideology says that they're trying to protect their way of life, so they're fighting their oppressors. Isn't that what we want to do, as well? Don't get me wrong, I think their idea of us oppressing them is absurd, but it's their viewpoint, and if we attack them first, we just prove their thoughts to be correct, and THEY have no respect for themselves, so they're going to go all out and take as many of us as they want. Even if we start a war with them, they're going to harm us. The only thing we're doing is giving them even more of a reason to do it.

Yet another big issue I have with the right-wing goes along with what I was talking about before: preemptive strikes against would-be criminals. Again, sure it sounds like a good idea. Who wouldn't want to stop bad things from happening before they did? However, infringing on the rights of people is not the way to go about doing this. How dare my government spy on me and my family? The whole idea that it's protecting me is a farce. No, it's not protecting me. It's treating me like I'm a criminal. I don't want to be video-taped. I don't want my conversations listened upon. I don't want to be under the suspect of trying to commit an act of treason because I speak ill of my overbearing and unruly government.

The whole argument that if I'm not doing anything wrong, I don't have anything to worry about is just ridiculous. Yeah, if I am not doing anything wrong, the government will pass me over, and I'll be able to continue to live my life accordingly. However, that's not the problem. The problem is that my privacy was being invaded. I am not sure about everybody else, but I don't want my phone conversations or IM conversations listened to and read even if it's nothing more than a casual conversation about sports. It's the principle that the Bill of Rights is being ignored. I was given those rights by our fore fathers for a reason. I was to be able to speak ill of whatever I see fit whether or not the government or someone else likes what I'm saying. Why is the government now scrutinizing what I'm saying and possibly my words against me? That's not what our fore fathers intended. It was my actions that I am supposed to receive due process of law for, not my words or intentions. Just because I may intend to pay my bills this month doesn't mean that I am. Therefore, not only is my government capable of spying on me, but they're capable of arresting me for my words that are protected under my Bill of Rights. Something's wrong there, and the right-wing is ignoring it.

Just like the left wing, the right wing desires to increase the size of our government. As if our government isn't big enough, they want our government to now be a bigger police state to protect us. It's fine to want to be protected. We do have to give up some liberties in order for our government to protect us, but our privacy is not one of them.

Regardless, if our government knows everything about us, we may be "safe" from outside threats, but what about us being safe from our government? If our privacy is invaded and we put our lives in the hand of our government, we put our lives in the hands of inept and corrupt politicians who are only looking out for themselves, and certainly not for us. Not only do we then lose our privacy, but then the rest of our freedoms seem to fade. What's to stop our government if we, The People, no longer have the element of surprise? If the right wing doesn't want their freedoms, then they're free (how ironic) to give them away to whoever or whichever government they want to. I just don't want them making the decision for me to give up mine. I like mine, and I'm not about to lose them.

Overall, I think the right wing wants what's best for our nation. They want people to live a free life and one without worry, but they're misguided on how to achieve this. They want to give up essential liberties just so they may feel a little extra safe at night. That's fine if they want that, but I don't, and it's not their right to make that decision for me or anybody else. Our founding fathers gave us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They said this for a reason, and thanks to the right-wingers, they are probably turning in their graves.

Note: I no longer consider myself to be a Christian, nor do I view homosexuality as immoral or even a choice.