Position Statement

I recently read a piece about the Operation Politically Homeless, which I have to admit, strikes at something for me. I'm absolutely positive at this point that I'm no longer a Conservative, if this is bailout plan what Conservatives are. And of course I've never been a Liberal for one second in my life. So where does that leave me? Somewhere in the middle? I don't think so.
The mainstream way of thinking in this country would have us believe that if we're not one or the other, then we're throwing away our votes. If we're not either Democrat or Republican, we're part of some fringe movement, destined to perhaps sway the vote a little, one way or the other.

But I say this: If you don't vote according to what you really believe, then what exactly are you doing with your vote? This is neither the time nor the place for compromise. Our solemn mandate, our sworn promise, and our absolutely vital DUTY is to take a stand.

So with that in mind, here's a breakdown of my political views as I presently see them (at this point in their evolution). Let's see if you agree.


1. FOREIGN POLICY
A. Iraq
The United States was partially correct in its initial assessment that Iraq possessed, and possibly planned to use (again), banned weapons. These weapons included chemical weapons and medium-long-range delivery systems, but not the biological weapons or nuclear weapons materials that the US cited at the time. To clarify: Iraq did possess banned chemical weapons immediately prior to the US invasion in 2003. I realize this makes me sound crazy, but I base this belief on certain things I saw first-hand in Iraq in 2004, which I won't delve into here.
The United States was right to invade Iraq in 2003. Don't get me wrong, was is NEVER a good thing. But the objective of that invasion was the complete removal of the B'aath regime, for both humanitarian and regional-security reasons. That mission was accomplished. Shortly thereafter, however, the mission changed to one of provision of military security in Iraq, and the whole thing fell apart, as such things are wont to do (especially when led by particularly incompetent people).
Now, toward the end of 2008, the future of Iraq is much less uncertain than it was three or four years ago. In my opinion, the way forward lies in the reintroduction of private enterprise into the Iraqi socioeconomic structure. Because the first difference between a terrorist state and a free state is economic standing (the abolition of universal abject poverty), private entities from all corners of the world need to invest in Iraq's future, in order to secure a strong economic foundation upon which the Iraqi nation can build, going forward.
In order to invite the foreign investment that I think will save the Iraqi people in the future, the world needs to see a measure of political and military stability in that country. It is for this reason that I continue to support sustaining a US military presence in iraq. Not an open-ended committment, and not the present troop strength, but also not an artificial, arbitrary "pull out now" attitude. Gradually reduce US troop strength in Iraq over the next three or four years, until only a light, advisory contingent remains. But also, I feel it would be important to maintain a force capable of returning to a security role in Iraq if necessary in the future.

That said, I should also point out here that my support for our mission in Iraq - and in Afghanistan, as you'll see in the next paragraph - shouldn't be misunderstood. I feel that we have accomplished our objectives in Iraq, at least as well as can be expected. I also feel that this is the right time to begin the scale-down phase of our involvement there. I am not a pro-war person, as very few Americans are really "pro-war" anyway, and I scoff at some people's weak attempt to describe themselves as "Anti-war". All people are anti-war (at least, the overwhelming majority of Americans are). But this doesn't mean that we have to be so blind that we can't recognize situations that MUST be dealt with.

B. Afghanistan
The reconstitution of anti-American paramilitary insurgent groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan constitutes a clear and present danger to the United States. As such, the government of the United States has a solemn, sworn duty to destroy that danger by whatever means necessary. It's just that simple. Go after them, and destroy them. Remove the threat with the use of rast, decisive action. This is a perfect example of why we have a military in the first place.
Then leave. As soon as our military objectves are met, our next responsibility is to extricate our military personnel immediately. Building and/or rebuilding is the responsibility of the Afghan / Pakistani people, although American private enterprise should be encouraged to find creative ways to invest in the region.

2. DOMESTIC POLICY
A. Marriage
The ability to decide who should and who shouldn't be eligible for marriage is in the hands of all the wrong people. Evangelist Christians, activist judges and pandering politicans should have absolutely NOTHING to do with who gets married, in any place, at any time, or for any reason. ALL matters pertaining to marriage should be left entirely to the people who are directly involved in the marriage (ie the couple to be married), and government, the Church, etc. should be removed from the formula.

B. Abortion
I see abortion as a dinner table issue, and not a legislative issue. In fact, this is a good example of an issue that has been used by both the Republicans and the Democrats as a divider, to purposely drive an ideological wedge down the middle of American society, for their own political purposes. But it's really a matter to be decided by the individual(s) directly involved, with the help of family, friends or whatever social network (support structure, whatever) that individual has in place. NOT the government.

C. Taxes
All taxes are too high.
On the national level, income tax is heavy-handed and oppressive, because funds gained through income tax are frequently used in ways that don't represent the best interests of the American People, from whom those monies were taken in the first place. This alone could be construed as taxation without representation, and is itself grounds for the abolition of the federal income tax.
On the local level, oppressive tactics are used to extract taxes in the form of property tax paid to school districts (by taxpayers with no children in those schools), double-dipping government agencies like departments of transportation (who collect one tax for roads and bridges, etc, per year, and then also profit from state monies, and then require annual registration payments from motorists - not to mention government-operated toll roads), and others.
All taxes should be minimized, and would be, if the government itself would only limit its functions to those tasks specifically mandated to government. The upkeep of roads, bridges, highways, etc., should be funded privately, not publically. This would result in better efficiency, better quality work for a lower cost, completed in a more timely manner.

D. Health Care
Privatized. Period. Look at it this way: What has the government ever done as well as a private company could? By "as well", I mean as cost-effectively, as hgihg quality, and in as timely a manner?

E. Corporate Welfare
Instead of the federal government forking over $85 billion bailout of a private insurance company (AIG), I would propose (I cannot take credit for this, but it's brilliant):

I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a "We Deserve It" dividend. To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bona fide U.S. citizens, aged 18+. Our population is about 301 million counting every man, woman and child. So, 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up. Now, divide 200 million, 18+ adults into $85 billion - that equals $425,000.00 each! Yes, my plan is to give that $425,000 to every adult as a "We Deserve It" dividend. Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So, let's assume a tax rate of 30%. Every person would pay $127,500.00 in taxes. That sends $25.5 billion right back to Uncle Sam! It also means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. A husband and wife would have $595,000.00!

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00?·

Pay off your mortgage? – housing crisis solved·
Repay college loans? – what a great boost to new grads·
Put away money for college? – it'll really be there·
Save in a bank? – create money to loan to entrepreneurs·
Buy a new car? – create jobs·
Invest in the market? – capital drives growth·
Pay for your parent's medical insurance? – health care improves·
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean?

Remember this is for every adult U.S. citizen, 18 and older (including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehmann Brothers and every other company that is cutting back) and of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces. If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it! Instead of trickling out a puny $1,000.00 economic incentive. If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U.S. citizen!! As for AIG – liquidate it! Sell off its parts. Let American General go back to being American General! Sell off the real estate! Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it out. Because if the government has a bailout responsibility, it's to the American people, not to some private company.

F. Outsourcing
Oustsourcing is a function of private enterprise operating in a free-market economy, and as such, is a good thing. It creates healthy competition and removes government involvement in tasks that the government lacks the ability to perform efficiently anyway.

G. Second Amendment
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly stipulates that our right to carry weapons shall not be infringed. Sorry if it offends anyone, but that sounds pretty straightforward to me. IF we as a nation decide that we need more stringent gun controls, we'd need to first do a few things. First, we'd need to abolish all existing gun laws. Second, we'd need to amend the Constitution to redress the Second Amendment. And third, we'd need to forge an entirely new set of gun laws, and actually enforce them according to the law itself.
Or, we could just leave the Second Amendment alone. While recognizing that nuclear weapons, for example, are not covered under the Second Amendment, we should also recognize that "assault rifles" (an entirely arbitrary and meaningless term) are covered.

H. Crime and Punishment
I'm concerned about violent crime. I'm also concerned that the police are more interested when my neighbor smokes a joint than they are when someone breaks into my house. I don't condone drug use, but some things are just more important than others. With that in mind, I'd like to reorder the legal priorities of this country. I'd like to impose a moratorium on non-violent and non-theft cases (violent cases including threats, coercion, trafficking-in-persons, etc) until such time as the legal backlog in this country has been sufficiently dealt with.
I would also insist that illegal immigration be stopped at once. One of the most basic responsibilities of government is the protection of its people from foreign incursion, but the legal establishment in this country is too busy chasing small-time dope peddlers.

I. All Other Issues
Where at all possibly, the private individual should hold the majority of power in this country. I believe this is what men like Jefferson and Adams had in mind. I also believe that the present order of things is this country approaches that which might have been seen in England before people started breaking away from that particular oppressive regime in the 18th century. Therefore, I feel that any step toward a return to privatization of the economy, personal choice in matters that don't concern the government (or shouldn't, anyway) like abortion and marriage, and upholding of the Constitution, is a good thing.
All efforts by others, Democrat, Republican or otherwise, to move this country further toward a Socialist, big-government agenda, especially at the expense of the simpler, more basic and fundamental responsibilities of government, must be resisted through whatever legal, political means are available to us. Vote, write letters, that kind of thing. Get involved, and maybe we can still take our country back from special interests and heavy-handed government panderers.

Why I like Sarah Palin

Yes, she does.


Yeah, it's about change, to an extent. And yeah, there's reason for hope. But when the rhetoric dies down, people - real, non-Washington, non-pop-star people, people like Sarah Palin - will get to work, following tried and true leaders with a known, demonstable record of real change and reform.


Obama - whether you're talking about the Reverend Messiah Lord Utmost Obama X (Barack Obama) or Q. Crackhead the Pop Star (the crapper...I mean, uh, rapper who has changed his name from P. Diddy to So-Rock Obama) - doesn't have the slightest plan for the future of this country, beyond pithy catch phrases and an elaborate website full of pie-in-the-sky promises that neither he, nor anyone else, can pay for.


I've never been McCain's biggest fan. I can promise you that I would NEVER, EVER, EVER support a candidate simply because of party affiliation, and I can assure readers (if there are any) that I am NOT a Republican. But the bottom line here is that all of our present problems are caused by Big Government - specifically the kind of cradle-to-grave Big Government involvement in our daily affairs that Obama and his ilk espouse. It is for this reason alone that I have until now supported McCain and his campaign.

Now, though, while I still don't like McCain that much, I do have someone to look up to in this campaign. Sarah Palin is the ONLY major-party candidate in this election who's more American Way than Washington Beltway. Perfect? Of course not. But given the choice between the two major-party tickets, I have to say, I think the choice is pretty clear. Only one of those tickets has a real, non-Washington, non-business-as-usual name on it.

Little Boy Likes Obama

Aww, ain't that cute. Lookie what I found while researching Sarah Palin and Alaska politics.

The Reverend Messiah Lord Utmost Obama X has a brand-new campaign "headquarters" office, smack in the middle of downtown Anchorage: Obama campaign office

This guy's name is Jeff Giertz or Geirtz or something like that. I think I'll call him Jeffy. And, complete with his fresh-from-the-mailing-tube Obama posters, he's ready to take on the world!

It was just too cute not to post. Must...resist...Power Ranger...jokes...

Almost Can't Believe It

This is so good, I almost can't believe it:

I wondered how this Sarah Palin thing would turn out. And so far, it's been better than I'd dared to hope. Ol' Reverend Messiah Lord Utmost Obama X is just beside himself. He just can't believe it. John McCain has stolen his thunder - and his claims of being the "reformer" who will bring "change" to Washington.

HA!!!!

I can't believe it either. I can't believe people like P. Diddy,


who shall henceforth be known here on LNDA as Q. Crackhead the Pop Star, has actually changed his name (again). This time he's calling himself So-Rock Obama. And this rapper-turned-Burger King shill has even released a statement, saying (in part):

(Q. Crackhead the Pop Star to Sen. McCain): "I had to check in with you to tell you, you are bugging the f*ck out...You got a running mate from Alaska. Alaska? Alaska. Alaska!" (sounds to me like he's trying to figure out if it's a real place)

(Q. Crackhead the Pop Star to Gov. Palin): "You are not ready to be no vice president. What is the reality in Alaska? There isn't even any crackheads in Alaska. There isn't any black people in Alaska, no crime. There isn't even any foreign policies in Alaska. You need to get versed on black policies. We are the future."

Now, I ask you: Is this the future of American politics? Is this who you want influencing your vote? How about your kids' votes, once they're of age? It's pretty pathetic, isn't it? People like this deserve to be ridiculed into oblivion, not lauded and applauded for their quasi-political nonsense. But Q. Crackhead the Pop Star has vowed, evidently, to rustle up a million "Yoofs voters" (I think he means youth voters) for Obama in November.

Somehow, I think things are taking a turn toward the surreal.

And now for a taste of the real Alaska:

Governor Sarah Palin has enjoyed the highest approval rating of any governor in the United States since the day of her inauguration in 2006. Presently she stands at 86%. She has been the governor of our richest, most diverse (not to mention largest, by land mass) state for one year and eight months.

Check out this article by Alaska news KTUU.com, channel 2 in Anchorage: Spotlight on Sarah Palin.

Actually:
Unlike the Reverend Messiah Lord Utmost Obama X, Governor Palin has actually brought real, visible, measurable political reform to a nationally-visible elected office. She has changed the politics of her state. She has actually done something about corruption, even within her own party. Her limited experience includes actually taking on the oil companies (in a state where the oil companies used to reign supreme); actually fighting crooked incumbents in both the Republican and Democratic parties (and other, lesser-known political entities in the state of Alaska), including seriously dug-in, long-time political machines; and actually finding room for compromise in the issue of same-sex union.

Obama has done none of that. Nothing even close to it. Not one time, ever. He's never balanced a state (or municipal, no matter how small) budget, never had to meet the actual expectation of serious political reform - and to assert that such reform is even possible within the old Chicago Political Machine is simple silliness.

See, for all his rhetoric about change, hope for a new future, and all that, Obama is a product of a very old, very firmly established political structure. He was recruited, vetted, groomed and led by the hand, by people who have been in power in the poorest parts of Chicago for decades. And in all that time, not the slightest hint of meaningful reform has ever been seen, either within the Machine or without.

If this country were a true meritocracy, Sarah Palin would have Barack Obama beat hands down, all by herself. She is an all-around better person, with more serious accomplishments, and more (and more important) experience. Sarah Palin doesn't use being of a particular color or from a (supposed) particular socioeconomic level, etc, as a smokescreen to hide having only 143 days on the job before running for another office. She doesn't pretend to be on banking committees, or claim undue influence in foreign affairs. She goes to work and actually makes things happen.

And I have yet to hear an effective argument against that.