Let's redistribute our wealth to Israel...

Some of the most ludicrous logic I have come across in listening to talk radio conservatives lately is that we cannot vote for Ron Paul because he would stop giving aid to Israel. For some reason all support for private charity and opposition to the Marxist ideology of re-distributive wealth just go flying out the window. What is most astounding about it is that even the most constitutional and paleo-conservative types practice this ignorance.

From a personal level, as a Christian, I see the need to support Israel.  The Bible clearly states that those who bless Israel will be blessed. That being said, how does it reflect on us if the only way we support Israel is through the government confiscating our money and paying it on our behalf? That is no more charitable or Christian than a man who steals from you at gun-point so he can give your money to the soup kitchen or put it in the offering plate. It makes neither the person who the money was stolen from or the robber any more moral.

It is quite frustrating to see so many people who can spot the Marxist ideology in every government program except for when it is in the foreign aid to Israel. I think if we really believe in Liberty, we need to stop giving up our individual duties and responsibilities up to the government. When we believe that we need to "stand with Israel" as Glenn Beck would put it, we need to put our money where our mouth is.

Ron Paul IS electable

The statement that Ron Paul is not electable more than baffles me as of late. I could understand that four years ago when people were still in a stupor, proclaiming the line of propaganda that "the fundamentals of  our economy are healthy".  After the market crashed and gold shot through the roof the Federal Reserve should have been revealed for the scam it is and Ron Paul the near-prophet he is!  These things (and the odd lack of attention from the media towards such a man) forced me to take a second look at the candidate that I once accepted as fringe. I researched his policies from A to Z (In his book, Liberty Defined, he literally defines his position on the issues in alphabetical order) and I quickly became a Paul-tard as the Levin-tards (see what i did there?!) would so eloquently put it.

Ron Paul has accurately predicted the expansion of government in every area. Each predictions have happened in the time-frame he gave for them as well!  He pointed out the abuses of the Patriot Act, future legislation such as NDAA, PPACA (that's Obummer-care for you Levin and Limbaugh listeners!), TARP, multiple wars and military adventurism and unstable conditions and the overthrowing of governments as what happened with the Arab Spring. All of this incredible foresight from a man that is so easily written off as un-electable.

On top of that many who call him fringe and kooky, are quick to support candidates like Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. What is the problem with that you might ask? Ron Paul is very literally more electable than both!  He consistently does better than each candidate in polls comparing them to Barrack Obama. What's more is that if any candidate deserve the title "un-electable" it is these two!  They have failed to qualify for the ballots in multiple states while Ron Paul is on the ballot in every state!

Whether you like it or not, Ron Paul IS electable. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are not. Live with it. 

First they came for Awlaki...

I have been contemplating the recent events surrounding the assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki and its relevance to our 6th amendment rights. While I lack any respect for Awlaki, I do however hold our constitution in high regard. If we are to lift the blindfold of justice for even the most vile people, it makes it that much easier to lift it for those who are less and less reprehensible. This reminded me of the poem "First They Came..." by Martin Niemöller. The poem reads as follows....

First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

The historical context of this poem comes from the atrocities that took place in Nazi Germany.  We all know that they largely targeted the Jewish population but the first thing they did was take out the communists. This was the easiest target as the national socialists were always at odds with the communists (which has always been difficult for me to understand because of their natural inclination towards overly-centralized government). Their unpopularity in Germany made them an easy target and from this point the poem's relevance should be clear.

If Awlaki had been tried, I have no doubt that he would have been convicted and sentenced, but since the executive branch of our government decided to bypass this right, nothing more than an accusation stands in the way of the executive branch of our government assuming the role of the judicial branch. Today it was Awlaki who had connections to the Fort Hood shootings and the failed Times square and "underwear bomber" attempts. Tomorrow, the executive branch may direct its new-found might towards a private militia or even those "hateful" and "vitriolic" tea party protesters. All they need is an accusation. There is no need for pesky trials when you have the power of fiat on your side.

New focus.

Since starting this blog, I have decided that the things I intended to post may not have been interesting enough for me to keep up with. I'm going to stop kidding myself and the main focus will be politics as I see it from my libertarian point of view. There may be an article about something of non-political interest from time to time but I intend to keep the topics political and non-dinner table friendly. Hope to see plenty of challenging and thoughtful comments.