Clinton Denounces Reforming Republican Party

Bill Clinton recently made comments about how the GOP is shifting too far to the right (read: too far away from increasing the power of the State).  Clinton also said the changes make George Bush appear to have been a liberal president, according to FoxNews.com.

The GOP is not shifting too far to the right; it is, hopefully, due to new involvement, switching away from the position of both parties, that of increasing government power in nearly any way possible.  The Tea Party was originally about downsizing government, although unfortunately due to some involvement of more mainstream pundits, it has shifted away from this focus.

The problem with Clinton's comments is, from the perspective of some of the up-and-coming leaders in the GOP, Bush was too liberal.  Bush gets much of the same unfair reputation as Hoover for being a "conservative president."  Hoover was far from conservative, more than doubling taxes on the highest bracket for one of the largest peacetime increases in history.  Bush, meanwhile, thrust America into two wars we never should have been involved in, only perpetuating our problems in foreign affairs by entangling us more overseas.

Election of members of the "Tea Party" is a sign that Americans are fed up with the consistent growth of government and its intrusion into their lives.  Hopefully, these newly elected candidates will stick to the "Tea Party's" original goal: that of shrinking the State.

Freedom of Speech - With or Without Restraints?

About a week ago, a friend gave me a line I'd heard several times before.  "The freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want."  This may sound so illogical as to not even make sense, but I got his point.  You can't say something that is going to hurt anyone, etc.  It's the same old argument as to say "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre."  This is correct up to an extent, however the logic is flawed.

In Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court struck a blow against free speech, one I think all contributors to this site would disagree with.  However, in the ruling, the concept of "shouting fire in a crowded theater" was mentioned.  The argument was that one should not legally be allowed to do this.  I wholeheartedly disagree.  Legally, this is the freedom of speech and you should be able to say whatever you want.  Where I do think this issue comes into play is in property rights.  If I was the owner of a movie theater, and someone said this, I would kick them out.  Because they are voluntarily on my property, I have the right to kick them out for any reason.  They must understand this in coming on my property and buying a ticket.

Freedom of speech alone can hurt nothing but a person's feelings.  If someone makes a death threat, that isn't good, and they should be watched, but they can say whatever they want.  If they never act on that, no crime has been done.  The second they take action and actually commit a crime, I support taking full action against them.  But free speech in itself is no crime.  The far worse crime is not allowing free speech.  As Voltaire once said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

The Case for Joe Sestak

This is a brief article I wrote that was recently published in the Courier Times a daily newspaper based in Bucks County.

Republican senatorial candidate Pat Toomey continues to criticize President Obama's economic policies. He is wrong.

Toomey claims that the stimulus package from 2009 failed the American people. According to a report from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus has saved nearly three million jobs and prevented the unemployment level from rising to almost 12 percent. Additionally, 95 percent of working families will receive a tax cut this year, stimulating spending and small business growth.

Toomey's plan, calling for Wall Street tax cuts and fatal deregulation, would outsource desperately needed jobs and steer us closer to a double dip recession.

Democrat Joe Sestak supported the economic stimulus package, saving 300,000 Pennsylvania jobs and providing tax breaks for small businesses. Toomey voted against working families and small businesses in favor of corporate interests.

Joe Sestak has always supported working families and will continue to as our next senator.

My Philosophy

I wanted to start off my giving an overview of my philosophy.  While ever-changing, I currently most align myself with the philosophy of voluntaryism, which is the notion that all agreements between people or groups should be voluntarily, and mutually agreed upon by both parties.  In this way, I believe that both sides will always win out, since man's self-interest will tell him what he wants and lead him to make the agreements he believes are best suited for him.

However, this being said, I realize we will not undergo a change like this immediately.  So, in seeing this, I would call myself a constitutional libertarian, or a classical liberal.

I also want to give a brief rundown of my thoughts on some issues today:

Foreign Policy:

I think America needs to revert back to the foreign policy of our founders.  We cannot have troops in well over 100 countries across the globe.  Doing so will only lead to our downfall, following the paths of empires throughout history, such as the Romans and British.

Taxes:

I am 100% against the income tax.  I want the 16th amendment repealed.  I would prefer a flat tax, but no income tax is even better.  I stand against other taxes as well.

Gun Control:

I am against gun control in all forms.  People should be able to buy any firearm from anyone, and they should be able to legally concealed-carry without a permit.  The second amendment ensures we keep all the others.

War on Drugs:

I am completely opposed to the War on Drugs.  This includes alcohol as well.  It is your choice what you put in your body.  If you harm anyone under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you should suffer the consequences, but if you can maintain a calm, polite demeanor while under the influence, you should be able to do what you want.

War on Poverty:

The war on poverty has failed.  Subsidizing the poor only makes them dependent on the government.  Aiding the poor should be left to charities, and no one should be forced to help anyone else.

Social Security:

Social Security differs from Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme in only one way: it is compulsory, and because of that, much bigger and more immoral.  We must wean ourself off this.  Cut payments into the system but pay out to people what is owed to them.

Healthcare:

The main factor keeping healthcare costs up is regulation.  We must deregulate.  Obamacare is only driving us further towards socialism.

Gay Marriage:

If homosexuals want to get married, that's fine.  This should be a states' issue according to the tenth amendment.  More importantly, I don't even see why the government should at all be involved.  Marriage is a religious issue and should have nothing to do with the government.

Immigration:

If people want to come here, let them.  One of the kinds of people I admire most is someone who is willing to come here and work hard.  As long as we still have to pay for social security, income tax, etc., then these people should not be exempt.  However, in an ideal world with absence of government, the borders would not matter at all.

Monetary Policy:

The Federal Reserve is destroying our currency with its inflationary policy.  This allows the federal government to spend itself into oblivion.  We must end the Fed and go back to a hard money to avoid the ills of fiat currency.

These are my basic views.  Obviously there are more issues than this, and it's more complicated than this, but this is just a basic idea.