Building an Empire

The other day the Fox News Channel's show The Independents ran a segment on "costs of another conflict abroad and the inner workings of the military". Trying to advertise the segment they posted to social media a blurb and photo showing a map. This map had every country represented that the US military had a presence and the very few that had no presence at all. It was a stark reminder that even today empires are being built, they are being expanded.

There are many people who dismiss the idea that what the United States Government and by extension its arm of force, the military, are in essence building and expanding the largest empire in the worlds history. Larger the Attila the Hun's, Larger than Cleopatra and the Egyptian empire, even larger than the Roman and Persian empires. So what does it take for some to see it for what it is. 

Defined by Merriam-Webster it is "(1) :  a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially :  one having an emperor as chief of state 

(2) :  the territory of such a political unit

 :  something resembling a political empire; especially :  an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control

 :  imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion

capitalized [Empire State, nickname for New York] :  a juicy apple with dark red skin that is a cross between a McIntosh apple and a Red Delicious apple."

Under these definitions it should be easy to recognize how some see it as an empire. The US Government makes it a point to be the hand of Aid, humanitarian or militarily, or it makes a point to be a main aggressor in affairs in an attempt to gain favor and control from other governments and its own people.

When under the rule, and in this case the threat of violence or better stated annihilation, the entire world is set as an empire under the United States. The US engages, first in the humanitarian aid and relief efforts for various nations, takes on health related issues abroad, engages in wars, intervention, removing political leaders and general mayhem making around the world, all with the implicit approval of the American Taxpayer, who is the wallet and bank for such ventures.

But why?
Why do other nations put up with embassies, military presence, intervention, despotism and meddling in international affairs? Money is one answer. Foreign monetary payments, meant for aid, is the bribery most governments accept for these actions. Fear is the another answer. The US has an aura of violence, of brutality, of annihilation. The world witnesses this day in and day out, yet most don't even bat an eye. The world watched as the US dropped the only atomic bombs to ever be used in warfare on largely civilian population in Japan in World War 2, and then gave them the ability to determine who could and couldn't have such weapons.

It doesn't take much to realize that the US is an empire, though I assume most would rather not believe it or accept it as so. We live in a dangerous time, in a dangerous place and with dangerous people. 

The Ability to kill American Citizens

The ability to condemn a citizen to death without trial is one that will find very little resistance  in the wake of the ever-long battle in the Middle East and the persecution anyone the Government *thinks* is a threat. There does not need to be any proof, there doesn't have to be any trial, it is just this ability to kill and justify it through the rules of engagement or to completely write it off as security measures. This action will not be met with much resistance from the public, as the years of fear programming, hate education and misinformation makes its way to the public eyes through media and a preposterous White House Press Secretary.

The recent release of documents relating to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) openly admits that the government of the United States of America considers itself able to kill its citizens without trial or conviction. These powers they have delegated to themselves stems from the apparent belief that the US Government is above the moral and acceptable practice of allowing a person to defend themselves legally and to submit to the courts a defense of accusations against them.

This request was entered in an attempt to gain information on the drone strikes that killed Anwar Al-Aulaqi; his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi; and Samir Khan in Yemen September 2011. These strikes were carried out by CIA and other Federal departments along with the military and its drone pilots and crews. The claim that any of these three citizens posed a risk or imminent threat, to the US or any of its interests has never before be substantiated by evidence, just the reports and words of officials within the government and its military. Drone strikes being a preferred method of killing in the Middle East by the American government, many foreign people have lost their lives to these machines, the issue America has at the moment is the way to justify killing an American Citizen in contrast to the United States Constitution that has provisions outlined for the rightful trial by jury and knowledge of charges.

"It is a dangerous notion when your government can make you believe its enemies are yours"

This is not the first time the United States government has killed citizens without trial. Two other cases, The Ruby Ridge Shootout and the Attack on the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco Texas stand as the predecessors, along with many other instances, to justifying murder of citizens. These two incidents are all but forgotten to most and the events leading up to both are the same as the drone strikes that killed these 3 American Citizens.

Each of these cases has the same question. Why is a Government allowed to kill citizens and justify it one way or another. If the Constitution stands as the great tool Conservatives say it is, why then has the Government not answered for its trespass of Amendments securing rights of trial?

The Attack on Branch Davidians, more commonly known as the Waco Siege, took place on April 19, 1993 after 51 days of negotiations. Koresh was accused of practicing polygamy and abusing children, but that wasn’t what the Government was concerned with. The ATF had been tipped off by a UPS driver that had made earlier deliveries that some of the packages contained what looked like hand grenade casings. While owning inert grenade casings is not a crime in of itself, the ATF procured a warrant to search the Church and compound for “illegal” weapons.  When the Davidians refused entranced into their compound the ATF and Local Police used a military type vehicle to punch holes into the sides of building and inserted CS gas. Later in the day, after heavy exchanges of gunfire by both sides a fire erupted killing 75 of the remaining women, men and children.

This attack has been debated heavily over the ensuing years and has never satisfied the questions. Does a government have a right to search an individual’s personal property, whether with a warrant or not? Does a government have the right to initiate an attack on a religious compound? Why does this government have a right to kill citizens without trial? Could this event have been avoided?

Similar to The Waco Siege and not too long before another attack on citizens took place; this time ending the lives of a mother and a son, along with a Federal Law Enforcement Officer.  The Ruby Ridge Raid was again perpetrated on the belief in illegality of weapons and the sale of those weapons. So many events leading up to the siege made this a contentious affair.

All of this leads back to the question. Does Government, any Government have the authority and justification to kill its own citizens without trial or conviction? Since the value of life and the difference in opinion on the legal and philosophical view of this matter varies so drastically it cannot be answered by one person, but rather should be self reflected on. Ask yourself the questions: When did it become permitted that any enemy of a government should have the right to stand trial stripped from them? When did it become permissible to kill a man without his knowledge he is even considered a threat? When did our government stop relying on its own form of inter control and instead subject themselves as a higher moral ruler than the natural rights of man? How long will it be before those that I associate with, or even myself, are considered a threat to the government and are snuffed out without standing to our accused?

With this said and with these questions put out to your own reflection I will offer this last statement . I vehemently oppose any form of government the ability or justification to kill a man, anywhere in the world, from any foreign or domestic place, of any creed or color, of any religion or preference without the ability to defend himself in a court of resolutions. I see this as a violation of natural rights and a gross violation of a moral and civil society. 

Right to Life and the Right to Die: Rethinking what that means.

What does it mean to be Pro-Life? In the popular definition it is the protection of life, usually meant in the ways of protecting an unborn child from the choice of abortion. I wrote previously about that choice as I see it as the individual rights of the mother and father to make that choice up to a defined and measurable heartbeat of the fetus. But what I want to talk about is not about the choice of abortion or even the choice of being Pro-Life. What I aim to highlight is a discrepancy I see in the train of thought of some of those that claim to hold a Pro-Life moral philosophy. It is without a doubt a worthy venture to protect human life, and I do not see anything wrong with that philosophy, what I do see though is certain disconnects in the Pro-Life mindsets of some people I have conversed with recently.

I make the case that if you are Pro-Life for the life of a child you should carry that philosophy all the way through the life of the individual. This would be a consistent and principled stance in the protection of life in all instances, rather than an exclusionary and emotional response.

 Three areas I see in conflict with this proposed philosophy are (1) the approval and endorsement of acts of war and violence in certain circumstances and under the guise of government acts or employ, (2) calling for death penalties and the lifelong incarcerations of individuals, and (3) has to do more with the choices within the timeline of life and the ultimate choice in life that some take is to voluntarily end theirs, the ability to live a life they see fit without hindrance or opinionated laws restricting them.

Can you be Pro-Life and Pro-Death?

The war screams and pro-military intervention crowds really confuse me. These groups seem to be made up more from people who hold a Pro-Life stance, odd as that might be. It’s as if the concept of death escapes by some sort of justification or moral high ground. It is this missed concept that confuses me. If one holds a belief that life should be protected and nourished, then it should stand to apply across the board, that ALL life be protected. Unfortunately it is, in the minds of many, exclusionary, it holds an asterisk* to the end of a sentence, it includes only those that the believer holds as superior or more important in having this life that is protected. If the Pro-Life believers were true to their claimed philosophy they would be against all forms of killing, whether in the employment of a government or not. As governments around the world push harder and harder to either remain sovereign or to remain in their place of self-indulging and self-proclaimed superiority they employ forces of individuals to do their deeds. In these deeds is often the chance to either kill or be killed while serving. As a supporter of a mindset that all life should be protected, these acts should be overwhelmingly opposed by the Pro-Life individuals. But what is reality? Reality is a far cry from a firm stance on that philosophy.

In the same vein of military the increasing amount of cases of death at the hands of police should be noted as a discrepancy as well. For too long now we have seen the ever increasing brutality of the world’s police forces, for too long now these killings by police officers have gone somewhat hidden or unnoticed by the public. Not so much anymore. With the rise in technology in cellphones the capability to take video and to make it public instantly has become a nuisance to police and a help to those who call for accountability and transparency. The act of killing a person in the line of duty has long been associated with the job description of police officers, and there are many reasons why this is so, but this should not give them unrestrained abilities to murder without recourse. This should not give them amnesty in the eyes of justice. It should not grant them the blindness and permit to take life from the Pro-Life believers.  If it is wrong for one to kill it is equally wrong for every other person no matter what clothes you wear, no matter what taken not granted authority you claim to have.

Can you be Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty?

The Death Penalty has been a mainstay of execution methods for well over 100 years in the US. It is without a doubt the second most controversial discussion of social order aside from abortion. It comes from a line of thought that states and federal governments should have the legal authority and moral judgment to adjudicate a person to die by various means in government run institutions. Looking at some polls and opinion survey results from different groups and institutions it seems Americans in particular are keen to the death penalty and see it as a moral means to the subjective idea of social justice. In the comment sections of local and national news I see daily comments that support the state’s ability to kill a person for a transgression it was not harmed in; unless we count the case of murder as an act of taking a revenue source from the state as the act that which is being punished. In the minds of these commenters there is the ability to convey an idea that justifiable murder can take place in the case of agents or agencies of the government committing the act. Like the other instances of the discrepancy in the line of thought of Pro-Life thinkers, can you really claim to protect a life in one circumstance and reject this thought in another? Can you say that humans can lose the ability or favor of being important enough to be spared from death? At what point would a person lose this ability? Can one re-gain the lost ability or favor by any means; repentance, restitution, admitting guilt and wrongdoing? Can one ever regain the protection of their life?

The difference in being Pro-Life and being Pro-Living.

Many people I have talked to have a thought that Pro-Life is only the idea to protect the actual life from being destroyed, but what about the act of living that life, what about the actions and choice in that life? Shouldn’t those also be protected from interference and hindrance? What if the action or choice was so out of the norms that it goes against the position of being Pro-Life but is in line with being free to make decisions for one-self? What if a person’s choice was to voluntarily end their own life? I know suicide is a not too talked about topic in the right to life or Pro-Life circles, but does it not conclude that the right to life would also include the right to end that life by choice? In my personal opinion this choice cannot be made for another person, as well as it cannot be stopped by any person. The right to life and the right to live a free life includes a right to cease to live. Voluntary removal from the situation and circumstance too big to handle for some is nothing new, it should neither be banned nor openly endorsed, it is a choice and rightfully should be made only by individuals. This is the case of protecting the act of living over the act of life itself, the act of making choices rather than living by someone else’s standards, the act of remaining free over remaining caged by societal norms and traditions.  

I know this seems in contradiction to what I have written above, but consider a new way of looking at the issue of life. Being alive does not guarantee happiness, it does not guarantee equality, it does not afford us fairness and sometimes that is just too much for someone to take. The act of protecting a life may in the best case be to let it go.  To let the choice be made and to exit in the time, place and situations they may choose. So in the end the position to be Pro-Life must at some times be to be Pro-Choice. It must sometimes be to embrace the act of death for one to live a life worth living.

Right to Life and Pro-Life labels being thrown around leaves a lot to be defined.  Let this be my contribution to the thought of what it can mean to be Pro-Life in all instances, what it means to take a serious, principled stance for the protection of life under all circumstances. 

If you like your gold you can keep your gold…Or can you?

Originally Published by and Written for TorchMedia.org

Remember when you were a kid and would find something, you would yell out “Finders Keepers!” Yeah, that doesn't work anymore.

A family in California is finding this out the hard way. The couple found a stash of 8 cans filled with gold coins while on a walk on their property in what is known to Californians as “Gold Country”. For the couple the location truly lives up to its name. The cans contain a total of 1,427 coins dating from the mid to late 19^th century, with face value of $27,000. What is being called The Saddle Ridge Hoard could possibly be “one of the greatest buried treasures ever unearthed in the United States”.

But the story isn't likely to bring tears of joy for very long, as tax experts are claiming the couple could have to claim their finding to the IRS. Another story coming out of this is that these coins may have been part of a series of bank robberies and heists in the California area in the late 1800’s, while a Mint Spokesman, Alan Stump has stated, “We do not have any information linking the Saddle Ridge Hoard coins to any thefts at any United States Mint facility”. He went on to say that all the surviving records from the agency have been retired to the National Archives and Records Administration. This will likely be a long drawn out affair between the couple and the Federal Government

This brings to mind a similar case involving lost gold coins and the government dictating what should be done with them.

In 2003 Joan Langbord and her two grandsons took 10 coins they had found in an inherited safety deposit box to the Philadelphia Mint for authentication. The Mint seized the coins and refused to return them to the Langbord family. The Mint claimed that these coins were removed from their possession illegally. The coins in question are 1933 Saint-Gaudens double eagles and were originally valued at $20 each. After the US abandoned the gold standard, Executive Order 6102 signed by President Roosevelt, a majority of the 445,000 double eagles were melted into gold bars by the Treasury. How they came to be in the possession of the Langbord family is by Joan’s father Israel Swift who had received them from a Mint cashier after the Executive Order was signed and the cashier, not identified, knew they would be destroyed. Israel Swift was a coin collector and dealer in the Philadelphia area.

Skip ahead to 2011, where a jury decided that the coins belonged to the government as they were illegally removed, the family decided to appeal this decision. Hearing the appeal Judge Legrome Davis of the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania, affirmed the jury’s decision and reasoning.

“This is a case that raises many novel legal questions, including the limits on the government’s power to confiscate property” Says the family’s attorney Barry Berke.

Personally speaking, I see the reasoning of the jury to determine that the coins were removed in a manner not in accordance to law; theft is still theft and should still be treated as such. Though I have my own question, not to harken a certain politician but at this point what difference does it make if the family possesses these coins. Has the government been hurt by this for 70 years now? Have they searched for them or were they just waiting for them to turn up in time?

http://www.torchmedia.org/#!Finders-Keepers-Not-With-the-Federal-Government/c1fud/3DCB42A4-0AE3-433E-942C-C49B92CB5903

Arizona and the Discrimination Law?

Arizona became a hotspot for news earlier this month due to its highly contested “Religious Freedom Bill” or as the opposition calls it “The Anti-Gay bill” or “The Freedom to Discriminate Bill”. What is Arizona Senate Bill 1062[1]? How does it affect the populace? Is it Constitutional? Is it a way for more people to find an excuse to discriminate? Let’s take a look at it from a view angles and you can make up your own mind.

Is Arizona Senate Bill 1062 Constitutional?

The United States Constitution DOES NOT lay out specific stipulations or protections for the lifestyle choices of individuals. Why Not? The US Constitution is a blanket document, meant to encompass every single person regardless of race, creed, nationality, or preference. The only mention of the separation of creeds is the Commerce clauses in regards to Native American Tribes. The Constitution does however lay out some other protections and stipulations. The 10^th amendment spells out that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution shall be retained by each individual state, States Rights, but is this issue of state’s rights. Yes and No in my opinion. The Arizona Government should not in any way interfere in the religious or business practices of any individuals or groups. Do they have the power to? Absolutely, that power has been vested to them by the citizens of the state. Constitutionally speaking the entirety of this bill is admissible by the First Amendment , “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Is it a discrimination bill?

Kate Kendall [2] of the National Center for Lesbian Rights notes, “It’s a flat out violation of well-established protections against discrimination based on race and gender”.  First let’s define discrimination. Merriam-Webster [3] defines it as: the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people

: the ability to recognize the difference between things that are of good quality and those that are not

: the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing

The latter 2 definitions sound like decision making or comparative value to me. The first definition is a little more complex. Discrimination due to variances of color, creed, nationality, gender whatever is not new, actually it is very old, and it is part of the human condition. To analyze and value each separate thing or person differently is a matter of unconscious thought and conscious action. The ability to differentiate subjective values is what drives everyday human existence. Red car or blue car? Bagel for breakfast or eggs and toast? This job or that one?  All of these and more are small discriminations or choices based on previous knowledge, experiences or beliefs. Is this to say that actions that lead someone to treat others differently for preferences or uncontrollable circumstances are wrong?  Moral thought is to the individual’s subjective value or relative value; you cannot collect nor legislate morality or popular opinion without discriminating or leaving someone out.

Where does religion come into this?

The bill is being touted by some as “The Religious Freedom Bill” and as it is written it would seem this is the driving force behind its existence.  The bill allows business owners, pastors or any individual to assert religious beliefs when refusing service to gay, lesbian, and transgender people; among others. As written can  this bill can be construed to allow discrimination between faiths, as to say that those of Jewish faith could refuse service to any other practitioners of any opposing religion and vice versa.  Religious Freedom is a cornerstone to this country and to millions of people across it. It has been the foundation for numerous civil cases and appeals since its inauguration into the Constitution. It is an inherent right to be able to practice whichever faith one chooses without hindrance. This bill does not in any way stop that right but furthers the right of refusal based on religious beliefs. As written it would only protect those business owners in court who based on their religious beliefs refused service to someone.

Is this a case of Private Property Rights?

When this story first broke this was my assessment. The right of any property owner to refuse or allow whatever actions to take place on such property is the foundation for private property rights. This bill would allow these business owners to thereby escape from any suit in regards to this refusal of service on the basis of religious right. Is this discrimination? Yes and No. It is the sole decision of the property owners on how to handle their business. If a property owner dislikes tall people and makes a policy to not serve tall people he has reduced his marketable share in the economic sector, this is true of any restriction or regulation placed by business owners, on the other hand government does this without regard to marketable shares to very business with their ever increasing amounts of regulations and red tape politics. Private Property is a key element to a free society and as such should be protected by those who strive for free markets and economic prosperity.

What this bill is not.

In reading this bill and its amendments I have found no reference to gays, lesbians, same sex couples, or any other group of people. I have not seen in its pages any regards to any specific lifestyle choice or even religious choice. It is completely ambiguous in its terminology and meanings and would be highly contested if allowed to pass.

Think about this for a moment.

This bill, which was vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer, was a perfect storm of emotion over logic and fear over reason. Any discrimination that could go on with its passing can still go on after its veto, though the property owners run risk of civil suit if they attempt it. In my mind it is simply a case of property rights and owner’s discretion over religious beliefs or any form of discrimination. But I leave it for you to decide.

[1] http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

[2] http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/arizona-bill-controversy/push-behind-arizona-religious-freedom-law-has-long-history-n38611

[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination

Image Link https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=MyaeCqzn8lHymM&tbnid=bcyM1Fv0GRui9M:&ved=0CAQQjB0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fuptownmagazine.com%2F2014%2F02%2Farizona-governor-vetoes-sb-1062-transcript-remarks%2F&ei=eQ8VU96CJ82fkAeU4YHACQ&bvm=bv.62286460,d.eW0&psig=AFQjCNFrPthdy52DOPMPN9uPKknaUCaZ1Q&ust=1393975513306556

Other links:

http://m.blogs.christianpost.com/time-for-everything/transcript-of-arizona-state-bill-1062-20253/

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/02/jan-brewer-veto-speech-in-arizona.html

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20140227arizona-spotlight-swings-new-bill.html

A defense against mandatory GMO labeling.

I am against any mandated action to label foods that use GMO products.
Now let me explain my reasoning.

There are many people that will yell at the top of their lungs, "We have a right to know what's in our food!", and of course they are correct. But they are not correct to assume that they can legislate compliance by food manufacturers through the use of government force. The business owners ultimately have rights to run their company they see fit. Through the means of market pressure these GMO activists can call for a protest of these products and can change company procedure in that way. The use of government to create laws and mandates on business owners and producers always has the effect of raising prices, lowering production or altogether closing a company up for good. This reduces market choice for everyone, even those that do not care whether their foods have GMO's in them or not. Your right to know doesn't supersede their right to not care.

Also, as an individual you have the right to produce your own foods. By planting foods you and your family or neighbors consume you now have taken back control of knowing whats in your food. Local farmers markets are full of people that have started small scale farms and home businesses off of this very platform, why can't you? This is quite possibly the best alternative to retailers as you can create a relationship directly with the producer, sometimes able to barter for goods and supporting local economies.

I am not advocating the use of GMO's in any way, I look at them the same as those activists, but I refuse to try and impose my want on any business by government force.

The Libertarian Utopia Charge

One of the most prevalent claims against libertarians is that their ideas are Utopian in nature, but this can only be construed as a bad thing if you use the definition given by Sir Thomas More. The word Utopia first came about in the 1500’s through the philosopher and author Thomas More. If one examines the book they would find that the mythical place described in the book Utopia is nowhere near its present day meaning and by all accounts would never form in a libertarian society. Presently defined as an ideal place or state it would fit the vision of libertarians. It is here that the separation of definition takes place from the fiction story to the present day definition.

Of the many themes in More’s description of Utopia; I want to compare two major areas as they are the very basis to individual liberty and Libertarianism as a whole; Private Property and Self-Ownership. These two points in Thomas More’s fiction story are meant to lead to a Utopia or perfect world, but error on the basis on individual liberty. This is where the charge of Libertarians being Utopian by the book's definition in their ideas and vision is completely false. 

Private Property

“In More’s novel Utopia has no money or private property and there is therefore no greed, power struggles, corruption, or vanity, and very little crime. Everything is held in common and everyone's needs are supplied” [1].

     

This is nowhere near a Libertarian stance. The existence of property owned by the state has never been a view expressed by the Libertarian philosophy. Private ownership of property leads to the owner feeling a sense of personal investment in the maintenance and improvement of that property. When the ownership is transferred to the state that investment is not realized and the property is subject to abuse and quickly falls into disrepair and dilapidated. Simply look into your local public housing projects to see this effect in comparison to a area of high private home properties.

In the modern day definition of utopia, a libertarian society would be centered around the Right of Private Property and its protection.  As Ludwig von Mises once stated,"If history could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization." Private ownership of property is one of the fundamental tenets of Libertarianism. It leads to the production of goods and the means of labor to produce those goods. It is this ownership that allows individuals to create homes and businesses.

Self-Ownership

In More's description of his utopia he includes the custom of owning servants or slaves, Labeled as "bondmen", these unfortunate people are owned by others to be put to work in the home and wherever else needed.

This absolutely in no way represents the Libertarian view of self ownership. The belief that you and you alone can own your body and the fruits of your labor and toil is a vital, central axiom of Libertarianism and cannot in any way be construed to include any sort of servitude or bond to another person.
Another point in this issue is the way in which in More's Utopia there are authority figures set into every community and city, eventually leading to a central ruler and its court. This point is a little different in the Libertarian stance. Libertarian is broad and a very large tent term. It contains those that believe in the minimal amount of outside governance while some believe in no governance but self rule.

Define your meaning of the word Utopian.

With the charge that Libertarians are Utopian in their ideas one would have to differentiate the term from the classical to the modern.

In the classical sense, in no way, shape or form would that type of Society exist or even begin to exist under the Libertarian stances of Private Property and Self Ownership.

In the modern day definition, a more perfect world, yes a utopia could exist under a libertarian society. This begs the question, shouldn't this be wanted by all, shouldn't this be embraced by everyone?

With the modern day definition being what it is I must ask, If libertarians are utopian in ideals, what does that make the other party's ideals. What is the purpose of all the added regulations, laws, rules, restrictions? What are they working towards? Is it all for the ultimate goal of total control? Of course these are rhetorical questions, I already know the answers.

Who is to blame for a government shutdown?

     Of course this is a simple question and it's answer even more so. Democrats blame Republicans, and vice versa, but who is it really to blame? Honestly they are both to blame.

     Both have shown an unwillingness to scale back spending, both have increased the burden and theft of taxation upon the citizens of this country and both have refused to recognize this problem for what it is.

     It is not subject to explanation that in the course of the last 200 years Americans have enjoyed the hell out of getting their all too important "Free Lunch" and it serves well that now in the wake of one of the largest bouts of unemployment the boundaries have been hit, there simply is not enough money to give them their undue wants. Even with the massive haul the government takes in through legalized plunder they label taxation, there simply isn't enough putting into the system for those that take from it.

     One key aspect to the GIANT amount of spending comes from the United States interventionist foreign policy. Spending trillions yearly to advance the empire of American influence into every crevice of the world.

     Another aspect of the current situation is the new healthcare provisions and exchanges are set to roll out in a matter of weeks. With some, I use the term economists very cautiously, labeling this new debacle the financial meltdown point that we may not recover from anytime soon.


     Is it only the Government's fault that we are here? To say so is foolish and naive.

     I believe that is ultimately the people who have failed. Failed to right the situation. Failed to recognize the system that enslaves them. Failed to react to the clear threat of terrorism that is the United States government.

     Now, what Senator Ted Cruz from Texas showed last week is that DC isn't listening to their slaves, Now imagine that! Senator Cruz I will warn you now, that rhetoric is not gaining you any influence in the government, but it is slowly gaining a following with the flock.

     SO whats the solution, that is what everyone is looking for right? It can be explained simply. Stop wanting the handouts, subsidies and special rules. Stop allowing wars and military occupations to continue to drain the coffers of the hard earned money of our people. End the Central Bank that is devaluing our currency and causing inflation.