Should government legislate morality?

I want to address something that has been on my mind lately. 

Is it the government’s job to legislate morality? In my opinion, absolutely not. 

In case you do not know, I am a very religious and spiritual person. What does that mean? Well, I was born into a Roman Catholic family. Both my mom and dad are extremely religious, so I have attended mass every Sunday of my life since I was born (except on vacation because the Church pardons it). I really do enjoy being Catholic and accept its teachings whole-heartedly. I admit I am not perfect but I do think of myself as a moral and principled individual.

Getting back to the question, I believe that the federal government should protect life, liberty and property. The state and city governments should take care of the rest. The closer the laws are made to home, the greater likelihood that they will represent the constituents (note: the federal government should step in if the state and city governments undermine life, liberty and property). So, even though I do not personally believe it is the role of the government to legislate morality, states and city governments should have the option to. It is not my goal to impose my views (I’m a libertarian not a liberal, haha), but rather to persuade others that legislating morality does not work. 

Individuals are moral because humans are innately good. Laws that legislate morality (e.g. Thou shall not kill) work well because most people are already moral. If the government chose not to punish murder crimes, would that change the morality of individuals? How many would go out and murder someone just because they would not get punished for it? I’m willing to bet not many. My point is that people are moral because they choose to be, not because the government implements a law. Those who commit murder do it regardless of whether they will be faced with punishment or not. This applies to other crimes as well. Individuals who use drugs illegally do it despite facing criminal charges. The fact that it’s illegal does not stop them. If hard drugs were legalized, I do not believe individuals would start using them just because they can. Perhaps, some would... but that is freedom. Freedom harbors an environment where people can make choices. Sure, individuals will make bad choices some of the time but they will also face the consequences. You cannot successfully protect people from themselves. Fortunately, most individuals learn from mistakes. Despite the fact that bad choices will be made, I think individuals are prone to make more good choices than bad choices. 

Aside from everything I mentioned, I think legislating morality takes responsibility away from the individual. I believe that placing the choice on the individual makes them subject to their own character. Maximum individual freedom allows individuals to choose the type of person the or she wants to be. There is more virtue in choosing to do the right thing than there is in following a law out of fear of punishment. I have noticed that religious people are adamant about legislating morality, but as a religious person, I would argue this is not the stance we should take. Morality should be a choice. In my personal experience, it is difficult to be moral even when highly motivated. What makes us think that people who do not share our religious views are going to embrace our views on morality because it's the law? It won’t work. If anything, it will only be counterproductive because it will create resentment and backlash towards religious folks. No one likes to be imposed upon. I will always stand firmly behind freedom of religion. But I also will respect an individual's choice to not practice a religion or to be atheist. Faith in God comes from the heart and soul, not the government. 

I understand that it is our duty to spread the word of God but I do not believe it should be done by means of government. If we want to spread the word of God and show others he is a great, we should do so through our actions. Some of the biggest cheerleaders of war are pro-life Christians. How hypocritical is that? How will anyone take us serious? 

Gandhi eloquently acknowledged the shortcomings of Christians:  

“I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

“I’d become a Christian if I ever met one.” 

Gandhi's constructive criticism should be a reminder that our actions speak louder than our words. Sure, you can quote the Bible all day long but at the end of the day your actions are what matter most. In my opinion, my religion is beautiful. It inspires me to be a better person. But I realize that not all people share this view. That is fine. My faith is not diminished because others refuse to embrace it. Religion is not something that can be forced upon someone. The Catholic Church teaches free will. Individuals should have the freedom to be good. The beauty of freedom is allowing individuals choose to be virtuous. I am in no way saying that you have to be religious to be virtuous because I know plenty of individuals who are not religious and extremely virtuous (this supports my argument that individuals are inherently good and do not need an entity, such as government, dictating morality). 

Perhaps my views come off as naive and idealistic. But I think that maximum freedom for an individual is still the best way to go about living a fulfilling life. Worst case scenario, individuals will not go out of their way to help others (as libertarians assume) but they also won’t go out of their way to hurt others. 

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I will try to shorten and organize them better.

Secession?

In case you haven’t heard, several states are petitioning the Obama Administration for a “peaceful withdrawal” from the United States. 

I browsed the White House petition page (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions) to take a look for myself. At approximately 10:30 p.m. MST on 11/12/12, there were a total of 83 active petitions and 32 were petitions for secession. In order for the Obama Administration to review and provide an official response, the petitions need to acquire at least 25,000 signatures within a month. 

Here are the totals thus far (Yes, I took the time to write them all down): 

1. Oklahoma - 647
2. Utah - 1,430
3. Wyoming - 1,601 
4. California - 2,613
5. Ohio - 2,618
6. New York - 2,081
7. Delaware - 2,866
8. Nevada - 4,039
9. Pennsylvania - 5,346
10. Arizona - 8,379
11. Oklahoma - 8,578
12. Arkansas - 11,382
13. S.C. - 11,815 (repeat)
14. Georgia - 15,083 (repeat)
15. Missouri - 9,586 (repeat)
16. Missouri - 8,599
17. Tennessee - 14,830
18. Michigan - 10,506
19. South Carolina - 9,319
20. New York - 9,697
21. Colorado - 11,461
22. Oregon - 8,494
23. New Jersey - 8,069
24. North Dakota - 7,399
25. Montana - 8,247
26. Indiana - 10,361
27. Mississippi - 10,205
28. Georgia - 8,163
29. North Carolina - 14,428
30. Alabama  - 15,588
31. Texas - 56,630 
32. Louisiana - 25,040 

The first petition was put forth by Louisiana on Wednesday, November 7, 2012. Currently, the state that has an overwhelming number of signatures is Texas with a total of 54,725 (and counting). That is more than plenty. But we must not forget that Texas has a population of approximately 25,674,681. That means that the petition only reflects about 0.002% of Texas’ population. Further complicating the matter is the fact that non-Texans are signing the petition. 

I have joked about being in favor of Texas seceding from the United States because it’s fun to act annoyingly prideful to be Texan. However, now that there is an actual petition to secede, I feel obligated to take this serious. 

The Texas petition reads as follows: 

The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government's neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the US suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it's citizens' standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.

I share the same dissatisfaction as a result of the aforementioned abuses cited in the Texas petition but I do not think that secession is the route we should pursue. Perhaps this petition is not going to actually lead to a secession but we are definitely making history. When was the last time 30 plus states asked to secede from the United States? 

It is also important to note that the Declaration of Independence states: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

In sum, when the people feel that their government is acting beyond its power, which is to secure unalienable rights, the people have the right to abolish the existing government and form a new government. So, when people refer to secession as “treasonous,” I would have to disagree. Secession from the British Empire was how our country was born. Ron Paul has an interesting take on secession, so watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jvliy8rEJDQ. 

Moreover, I disagree with those who are calling petitioners “crazies” and “racists” because that is not entirely accurate. I am not disregarding the likelihood that some people who have signed the petition are doing it because they dislike Obama. But I am saying that a good number of those people are doing it because they are unhappy about the direction the U.S. has been heading for quite sometime. I think Obama getting reelected was the final straw for a lot of people. I can relate to that frustration because Obama has done a lot to undermine our freedom and has not received one-fourth (arbitrary number that popped in my head) of the outcry Bush received. So, yes, there are many individuals who are concerned Obama was reelected despite his horrible record on foreign policy, civil liberties, states rights and the economy. Moreover, this secession talk is nothing new in Texas, hence websites like Texas Secede http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm and the Texas Nationalist Movement (http://www.texasnationalist.com/index.php/about-us/what-we-believe). 

I have chosen not to sign the petition because I think the best way to fix a problem is from within. If Texas secedes, how will we positively influence politics in the U.S.? I am extremely motivated to promote economic freedom, international trade, diplomacy and humane treatment of immigrants. I cannot turn a blind eye. I think nullification is a better route and something I can fully support.  

Election 2012

My thoughts on election 2012 are mixed. 

For one, I am happy that it’s over. I'm not a fan of either Obama or Romney, so I don't feel elated or miserable (as indicated by many fb pots). I disagree with both of them on a lot of issues. 

First of all, Obama and Romney both support the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)! I sound like a broken record bringing this up in most of my blog posts but it is sort of a big deal. I am still shocked that many people do not know about it or simply feel apathetic about indefinite detention of American citizens without due process of law. 

Moreover, neither of them address the unsustainable student loan debt. They both want to provide more ‘aid’ for college students. Taking out student loans to pay for a college education in a horrible economy is a bad idea (but I won't go into that here). If Romney and Obama actually care about college students, they would say something smart. For example, talk about how student loan debt is unsustainable. Financial aid has driven up the cost of college tuition because there is no incentive to keep tuition low when the government is subsidizing the cost (for the meantime). This makes college less affordable.

Also, neither Obama or Romney care to end the War on Drugs regardless of the fact that it is a complete failure. Not to mention, citizens are beginning to realize that marijuana is actually a good plant that can be utilized for medical purposes. Colorado and Washington stood up to the Feds and legalized marijuana for recreational use! Yet, both Obama and Romney refuse to address this cultural shift in thinking. Not that popular culture dictates what is right or wrong, but you'd think politicians (especially these two) would support popular stances. Popularity aside, marijuana is not even that bad of a substance. Obviously, there are powerful machines lobbying to keep marijuana illegal at the federal level. 

I also disagree with both of them on foreign policy. So, even though Romney is more of a war hawk than Obama, I am certain the wars will continue under the Obama Administration. FYI, his administration expanded war and has used more drones than any other president. Not to mention, Obama also has a kill list that includes American citizens. Obama is only marginally better than Romney on foreign policy (that’s not saying much). 

But an issue that really upsets me is immigration. Romney takes a backward stance on immigration. He actually spoke of ‘self-deportation,’ as if that were actually doable. But at least Romney impractical 'solution' is obvious. Obama pretends to be a friend to immigrants. So annoying. In reality, his administration has deported a record number of illegal immigrants (i.e., he has deported more illegal immigrants in his 4 years than Bush did in his 8 years). So, when he talks about the Dream Act, I can't help but hear a hypocrite. The Dream Act is temporary and hardly addresses the problem at hand. Sure, it's 'nice' (liberals like nice things) but not even close to what he should be doing. Especially, considering how many Hispanics look up to and admire him because they think he's pro-immigration. How about a practical immigration policy? In a free society, such as in the U.S., business owners should be able to hire anyone he/she wants to regardless of age, sex, or immigration status. I bring this up because that is the primary reason immigrants cross over illegally. They need to find work and are willing to work at anything to accomplish that. The role of government should be to ensure that the immigrants who are coming over are not criminals (yes, that includes terrorists). Also, this is the humanitarian way to approach immigration because it will stop unnecessary deaths in the Sonoran and Chihuahuan deserts. Allowing immigrants to come over with a work visa will help minimize worker exploitation because the process would be transparent. This includes workers that come over here to do the jobs most Americans refuse to touch. It will also attract professionals from around the world and create healthy competition in the workforce. When there is competition, prices go down and quality goes up. The consumers win. 

Anyway, the good thing about Obama winning reelection is that I can look forward to a liberty ticket in four years, such as Rand Paul & Justin Amash. There is a fiscal cliff nearing and if Romney had won, people would have further reason to blame free markets for the horrible economy (even though Romney is not a true free market advocate because he believes free markets require regulations). If the economy is still subpar (to say it nicely) and unemployment remains high, I doubt people will still believe it was because of Bush. God help us if they do. 

I do hope the best for President Obama and I hope our economy does get better. I would obviously like a healthy economy and strong workforce since I will graduate with my master’s this coming spring. Ahem, I want a job so I can stop being a ‘pretend adult’ and so I can begin paying off my student loan debt. 

So, liberals, conservatives and libertarians may have their differences but I know that we all want what is best for our country. We just have different solutions for achieving our shared goal. Obviously, I think my way is the right way or I wouldn't promote it so intensely. The bickering can get intense but humans will be humans... and that involves emotions. 

Anyway, our country because it was founded on maximum individual freedom. I love that notion and continue to promote it. Even though we have lost a lot of our freedoms, we are still amongst the freest societies on the planet. Hence, the reason I am not in jail for constantly criticizing Obama and Romney, amongst other politicians (though, I am convinced I am on some sort of list). 

I will stop here because I do not like long blog posts. 

Reclaiming the Moral High Ground for Capitalism

Review: Morality of Capitalism

Through the publication of The Morality of Capitalism, Students for Liberty is sharing essays from individuals around the world who promote free market capitalism. Most importantly, this collection of essays reclaims the moral high ground for the economic system—and given that they have added so much to my ever-growing intellectual foundation as a classical liberal, I strongly recommend reading them.

I was very intrigued by the virtues of entrepreneurial capitalism. There are several incorrect, mainstream opinions regarding capitalism. One, for example, is that capitalism facilitates “survival of the fittest” competition that undermines human rights. It is true that competition is a component of capitalism; however, it is competition towards providing value to customers. Successful companies tend to be headed by creative and innovative individuals who can be labeled as “fit” or "survivors" as a result of these qualities. With this better understood, I contend that competition is a great thing! It enhances the quality of products and services while simultaneously reducing prices.

I have a personal experience with competition that I would like to share.

I took a challenging class my senior year of my undergraduate career called Psychobiology. In this class, there were two individuals who were biology graduate students. These individuals had a clear advantage over the rest of us, who were only psychology undergraduate students. Why? They had already taken many classes in biology and chemistry—knowledge regarding theses two subjects was essential to Psychobiology. These graduate students had a strong foundation, to say the least, demonstrated by the fact that they never scored lower than 100 on all the exams!! This bothered the majority of the psychology undergraduate students because the majority had little hours of chemistry and biology classes under their belt if any. My minor in biology had required me to take 18 hours on the subject of biology, but I had only had 8 hours of chemistry classes, so I was sort of in between. 

I was devastated because I really wanted an A in the class. I knew that if those individuals had not signed up for the class, I would not have to work extra hard for the A. But there I was faced with two choices: drop the class to ensure my GPA would not drop or try harder.

When my professor said he would replace the first exam grade with the second exam grade if, and only if, I received a B or higher on the second exam, I did what any determined student would do. I prioritized my time and perfected my study habits. I read my textbook, recorded the lectures (listened to each lecture twice), took diligent notes, and recited everything aloud to anyone who allowed me to. All of this helped me retain the information better for the next exam. I ended up getting an A on the second exam, surpassing my expectations! Most of the other students still failed the second exam though. In a class that started out with 60 students only about 15 remained past the drop deadline.

I am proud to say that I ended up getting an A for a final grade. However, what I value most about the aforementioned experience is the knowledge and lesson I took from it. Those individuals, by virtue of pursuing their own self-interest, unknowingly motivated me to push myself beyond my limits. In addition, since my professor refused to hand out unearned A’s, I was also motivated to study a lot more than I had intended on. Is it not amazing how competition and self-interest can lead to positive results?  

Moreover, I would like to share my understanding regarding what free market capitalism is and is not. A true free market does not contain government interference. The mainstream evaluation of the free market is based on a fallacy—that it favors the rich and suppresses the poor. However, it is understandable that individuals would confuse true free market capitalism with crony capitalism or corporatism. The government bailouts are a prime example of what should not be done in a free market. Through government bailouts, politicians are basically choosing the winners and losers. It is definitely not fair that a company should be saved by taxpayer dollars while another is left to fail. That is not to say that companies will never fail in a true free market. Reality check: failure is an essential part of life. But at least failure in a pure free market would be as a result of the voluntary choices made by consumers, investors, entrepreneurs, and workers—not the government! Do not worry, though, since failure causes individuals to innovate.

William Edward Hickson said it perfectly:

'Tis a lesson you should heed:

Try, try, try again.

If at first you don't succeed,

Try, try, try again.

This leads us into another component of free market capitalism: cooperation. In order for a free market to work, individuals have to cooperate. Consumers must cooperate with entrepreneurs in order for transactions to occur. For example, Steve Jobs (R.I.P.) created products that many people consider to be valuable—worthy of paying a lofty amount to acquire. What some do not understand is that consumers determine the price Apple charges for its products. Individuals are willingly purchasing Apple products at the price they are being sold. Is this not cooperation? No one is forcing anyone to purchase Apple products. If people were not willing to purchase Apple products at the current price, then Apple would either have to lower its prices or go out of business. Peoples lives have been made easier, and once you insert competition into the equation they also pay less. That is the way the free market works. If entrepreneurs are wealthy, it is through their ability to create products of value to the consumers—not because they are evil and greedy (not all of them). Not only did Apple create a product that is valuable to consumers, it harbored an environment for healthy competition. How? Apple released an attractive smartphone—the iPhone—which caused other manufacturers to create similar smartphones. This essentially lowered the average price of smartphones, making them accessible to a broader array of individuals, and enhancing the quality of smartphones every passing year. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

Another common misconception is that most wealthy people nowadays have inherited their wealth, not worked for it. That may be the case in some situations but not all cases. It should not matter even if it were the case. Envy is not healthy for the soul. Take me for example—I am the daughter of two first generation immigrants. My parents both grew up in relatively low income families in Mexico. My grandparents sought to provide the best for their family, so they immigrated to the United States back in the late 1970s when my parents were in their late teens. Why? Because free market capitalism provides opportunities and upward mobility in general, especially for those who are willing to work hard. My paternal grandfather was a cook at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, and my maternal grandparents sold vitamin. Neither side became extremely wealthy but they built a foundation for their descendants. My mother is a psychology instructor at a junior college, and my father is a medical technologist. My elder sister is the market research analyst at a local credit union, and my younger brother is studying physics at the university level. Me? Today, I am trying to promote economic freedom. Tomorrow? Who knows.

As a daughter of first generation immigrants, I am essentially learning American and Texan culture (I love Texas!) from scratch—even though my parents have assimilated quite a bit. I come from a culture that tells me to put my family above my career. This could be considered a disadvantage. At the end of the day, though, I have the freedom to make the choices I want to make. I can evaluate what I want and prioritize my time so that I can achieve my goals. 

I am not denying the fact that some individuals have a relatively easier life than others because of financial freedom (more money). Life is not perfect. However, if we want to allow people to have more income mobility and move upward, free market capitalism is the perfect tool. There will always be a wealth gap; however, capitalism has allowed the United States to become richer as a whole. The average poor person today is many times wealthier than the average poor person 100 years ago. 

Milton Friedman said it perfectly, “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” Let us give true free market capitalism a chance.

What is a feminist and why is birth control relevant to female equality?

What is a feminist?

According to a couple of sources, “a person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism” [1], and/or someone who advocates “social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men” [2].

I have been called a feminist before. I’m not too sure why but based on the latter definition I can see the parallels between a so-called feminist and myself. However, I have never considered myself a feminist because of the issues attached to feminism nowadays (e.g., pro-choice abortion advocates and free birth control). If you know me, I clearly do not champion most of the mainstream issues the modern feminist does.

However, though, I recently had a conversation that made me take a second look at feminism. I spoke with a professor who told me she considers herself to be an individualist and ‘traditional’ feminist. What does that mean? According to her, it is a female who believes men and females should have equal rights; however, she pointed out, there is a clear difference between being equal and receiving special treatment. She went on to say that the leaders of the feminist movement today have highjacked the movement using victimization of women in order to further their agenda. Hmmm.. I don’t like to use the word ‘agenda’ because it’s overused and often an exaggeration. Regardless, I agree with her. There is no pride in victimizing women in order to attain a particular goal. How is receiving entitlement birth control equality? As ‘independent’ women who champion equality, shouldn’t we want to be able to take care of ourselves? After all, we are capable and successful.

I would also like to address the infamous ‘War on Women’ supposedly lead by the Catholic Church and Republican Party.  In my opinion, we shouldn’t be having this conversation because there are more pressing matters (i.e., our country is on the verge of an economic collapse as a result of our national debt and endless spending habits). But people are shouting about this from all angles (e.g., feminists, religious freedom advocates & Democrats), so I am going to acknowledge it. The ‘War on Women’ is just a bunch of propaganda used to get women riled up about their equality. If you want to see inequality, go to some areas in the Middle East where women are mutilated and treated like criminals if they disobey men. Women have it made in this country! When did ‘special privileges’ become ‘equality’? When did religious freedom no longer matter? Why should the Catholic Church be obligated to provide free birth control in their insurance plans for employees if it violates the teachings of the Church? The First Amendment is pretty clear about religious freedom. As for the Republican Party, well they are the Republican Party and of course they are going to oppose anything that violates the Bill of Rights. 

And, no, I do not believe individuals are ‘entitled’ to health care. I believe there are three things an individual is entitled to in a free society: life, liberty, and property. So, you won’t sell me on that argument. Sure, free healthcare would be nice but what are the consequences? If the government forces citizens to use its health care via a particular insurance company, there’s no competition. Competition is good because it provides products or services of value for the best price. I’m not even kidding.

Check it out. Do you remember how they sell overpriced hotdogs and water bottles at football games, movies, or any type of event that is enclosed? The ones where you’re not allowed to bring outside food or beverages? Things are overpriced mainly because there is no competition. The people selling food and water can charge whatever prices they want because people have no choice other than to purchase it or stay hungry/thirsty. If there were additional vendors that charged less, people would purchase their food and water with the additional vendors. Then, the original vendors would have to lower their prices in order to get people to purchase their food and water. It’s actually really simple. The aforementioned example is not even that bad of a scenario because at least people can choose not to purchase these overpriced items in the absence of competition. Obamacare takes it to another level and forces citizens to purchase health insurance or else... taxation. Come again? This is in the land of the free? Aha. Anyway, do you see what I am saying? Competition is a good thing because it allows for reasonable prices.

So, it’s not the end of the world if you do not have health care. Back in the day, churches and other ‘individuals’ helped each other out. The government’s role is actually intended to be very limited according to the Constitution. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for helping one another. I just believe in doing it through individual, voluntary efforts. Force should never be used in a free society. People make fun of Romney because he infamously said, “Corporations are people.” Well, I do not agree that corporations are people but I would like to point out that governments are not people either. So, how is it that government is going to do something that only people can actually do? Who is specifically accountable for the efforts of the government if it fails at providing ‘free’ stuff? (Nothing is free, for the record). The taxpayers will surely feel the consequences because the government uses taxpayer money to fund government programs. And guess what, government has a record of being inefficient and ineffective at doing things. For example, ‘No Child Left Behind’ is a total failure. Need I say more?

Anyway, what I'm basically trying to say is that I know it is possible to live without free birth control (i.e., the pill). In fact, I was told to get on the pill for health reasons but I declined. Why? For one, I don’t like the thought of taking in additional estrogen. Second, I don’t like to take things that are unnatural. So, whatever did I do? I did some research on the Internet (so convenient sometimes) and found out that regular exercise and a healthy diet would actually do the trick. Who would have thought? I also found minerals that helped out too. See, there are alternatives to the pill in the scenario of health. Sometimes a little research will do the trick. Now, I am no medical doctor but I am certain that there will be a condition out there that does require the pill. Obviously, if it’s life or death… I’m sure you will make the right choice. But that's the beauty of freedom. People like me don't have to take the pill and others can if they choose to.

I'm aware I have digressed.

So what is my point? My point is that feminists do not have a case for free birth control. I also hope that you realize victimization of women, and minority groups for that matter, is not empowering at all. Let us stop grouping ourselves and just live life as individuals who like freedom FOR ALL. Sure you might experience sexism or racism. But guess what, there are ignorant people in the world. Be very thankful that you are not prejudice. Moreover, you may believe you are being a good person by supporting Obamacare but wouldn’t it make you an even better person if you actually did something at to help out personally? Just putting that out there. 

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/feminist

[2] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminist?s=t

Where should the Ron Paul Revolution go after the RNC?

Where should the Ron Paul Revolution go from here? I have often said I would write in Ron Paul if he did not win the Republican nomination. My rationale? When else would I get the opportunity to vote for such an amazing person that I agree with on almost every issue? Now that I am faced with reality, I am not so sure that would be the wisest move.

It is Ron Paul himself that made me realize governments are not supposed to tell us what to do. Individuals are perfectly capable of being autonomous and living out his or her own life. I am not an anarchist because I believe government does have a role. Its role is to protect our life, liberty and property. Simple. See, the reason Washington is so corrupt is because it has so much power. Lobbyists lobby because they have something to gain. If they had nothing to gain, why bother? “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Anyway, there is speculation amongst the liberty movement about where we should go and what Ron Paul would suggest for us to do. What does our wise leader suggest? That’s a good question. As Ron Paul has said many times, “Do what you want.” If you want to write-in Ron Paul, then do it. If you want to support Mitt Romney because you think four more years of Obama will be detrimental, then do it. If you want to vote for Obama to spite the GOP, then do it. If you want to vote for Gary Johnson to make a statement or because he is the closest candidate to your political philosophy, do it. It would be inconsistent of Ron Paul if he were to tell us what to do next. And we all know he is Mr. Consistent. As liberty minded individuals, we need to make up our own minds. We are all free to do what we desire. However, I would like to point out that going in separate directions will definitely not help us move forward. That’s certain.

What am I going to do? I have decided to look into Gary Johnson because this movement is about our liberty and Gary Johnson sympathizes with the message. Ron Paul did an amazing job of delivering the message to masses of people, but the movement is not about him. I have nothing but respect and admiration for Ron Paul but I know that voting for Gary Johnson will help me send the message I want to send, which is that I am not content with either Obama or Romney.

Let the r3volution continue! My experience and thoughts about Rand Paul's endorsement.

Last week I attended the 2012 Texas Republican Convention in Fort Worth, Texas. I was a delegate for SD 29/CD 16. The convention started off well since I got to listen to Ron Paul speak twice on the first day, once during the convention and again at a concert later that evening. It was a thrilling experience to say the least because Fort Worth was filled with enthusiastic Ron Paul supporters from all over Texas. It was made apparent by the creative Ron Paul attire, bumper stickers, signs, super brochures, pocket Constitutions, and freedom corvette! If any of us were incognito, it must have been a small minority. Anyway, it is always a pleasure to be surrounded by other enthusiastic Ron Paul supporters because, since we share the same fervidness for the message, I feel normal again!

After the concert, though, I was disturbed by the rumor that Rand Paul had endorsed Mitt Romney. Since I was out having dinner with fellow Ron Paul delegates, enjoying the closing of our first day at the convention, I disregarded the rumor. However, I was not able to ignore it for long because my twitter timeline had blown up with tweets about it. So, I watched the infamous interview with Sean Hannity and confirmed its truth. The news was obviously disappointing because it was completely unexpected. I decided not to bad mouth Rand Paul simply out of respect for Ron Paul. Since I would not appreciate somebody speaking badly about one of my family members, I assumed Ron Paul would not either. 

In the morning, I was able to process the situation a little better. After listening to Jack Hunter’s take on Rand’s endorsement and speaking to other Ron Paul supporters, I was able to come to terms with it. As I was sitting in a small conference room, awaiting my SD caucus to begin, I pulled out my legal pad and wrote two quotes on it.

“Any soldier knows that you have to strategically lose some battles to win the war.”

“Elections are short-term goals, revolutions are long-term projects.”

When bad news arises, I try to remain positive. But I could not help thinking that Rand Paul’s timing was horrible. How could he announce his endorsement for Romney the very first day of the Texas Republican Convention? Didn’t he know that my friends and I had invested so much time, money, and effort in making our way to Fort Worth to become delegates for his father? Why did he have to rain on our parade? 

Now that I have had time to process this a little more, I realize that there is never a good time to deliver bad news. Rand Paul did what he had to do, and in hindsight, it was perfect timing. In fact, being around Ron Paul supporters at the Texas Republican Convention was very therapeutic because the Ron Paul signs and stickers did not go away. Nothing changed from the day before other than Rand Paul’s endorsement. This is great because it is a type of foreshadowing. Our positions and involvement in the Republican Party are independent of the outcome of the election! Republicans often questions Ron Paul supporters about what we are going to do or where we are going to go once the election is over. Personally, I am not going anywhere. You will see me at your GOP meetings, parades, and the next convention in two years. While I admire and have nothing but respect for Dr. Ron Paul, I realize that the message is greater than the man. And that is a compliment to the message because Ron Paul is a valuable, rare man.

I had plenty of conversations with Ron Paul supporters from other districts in Texas, and I perceived that we were all on the same page. The message Ron Paul champions is truly the goal of this revolution. Even though the chances of Ron Paul being our next president are getting slimmer and slimmer, he will always remain the man that inspired an intellectual revolution. Promoting freedom on all levels and teaching about the importance of adhering to the U.S. Constitution should remain amongst our main goals. Oh, and of course auditing and ending the Federal Reserve. END THE FED!

Ron Paul has been championing his message of freedom (e.g., free market capitalism, freedom of religion, small government, etc) for almost 40 years. Most of us have barely scraped the surface of this message, but that should only motivate us to continue educating others and ourselves. You cannot always get what you want but you can choose to appreciate the good that has occurred as a result of him running for president. I cannot deny that I had hoped Ron Paul would become the next president of the United States, but now I can see that what he has done is far more valuable. He reignited the revolution our Founding Fathers began over 200 years ago.

“It’s not like I’m just trying to win and get elected. I’m trying to change the course of history.” – Ron Paul

Are you voting for Obama or Romney? Allow me to persuade you otherwise. Vote Ron Paul.

I reach out to you today as a concerned U.S. citizen. I have not always been politically involved, but as my yoga instructor says, “We have to start somewhere, because if we don’t… we’ll get nowhere.” I understand that it is much easier to be apathetic about the political mess that exists today. But as Americans, we should value and treasure our freedoms because someone fought and/or died for us to enjoy them.

For those of you who know me, it is no secret I am a Ron Paul supporter. I do not consider myself to be anti-Obama or anti-Romney. However, I would like to address some of my concerns about the aforementioned candidates and the current political system.

I am going to start with Obama simply because he is the incumbent. First of all, I have one very good reason not to vote for Obama this coming November and it is Section 1021 of the NDAA. Obama is apparently okay with the indefinite detention of American citizens without a trial. He said that he wouldn’t use the power, but the truth is that he has already ordered the killing of American citizens without a trial before he signed this provision! That point aside, does he think it is wise to grant the executive branch (1 person) the power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens in a foreign prison without a fair trial? I recall Obama speaking about the importance of habeas corpus and due process of law in the last election. Didn’t he speak about closing Guantanamo Bay, too? That’s still open. Didn’t he speak of bringing the troops home and ending our aggressive foreign policy? Well, the troops are home but why do we still have contractors there? Why did we build an embassy larger than Vatican City if our goal is to leave? Why did he expand wars? I think these are valid questions and hopefully they make you think twice before voting for him. If you think Romney is the answer to Obama, I beg to differ. Romney has openly endorsed an interventionist foreign policy and is on record saying that he too would have signed the NDAA.

Candidates on both sides lie through their teeth. The Democrats say they protect personal freedom, advocating for same sex marriage and free contraceptives for women. The Republicans say they protect entrepreneurship and economic freedom, advocating capitalism. But does either party act according to their supposed principles? Our president, which is a Democrat, signed indefinite detention into law. Let me get this straight, I can marry whoever I want and receive free contraceptives, but I can also be indefinitely detained if I am perceived as a threat. How is that protecting our personal freedom? It is almost like being offered an oxygen tank for your lungs in exchange. With regards to Republicans, many of them supported the bailouts despite the fact that they say they believe in free market capitalism. That is inconsistent with free market principles. In a true free market, government does not interfere at all. So if a corporation fails, you leave it alone and the market will correct itself. If you bail out the so-called “losers,” there is no end to the cost. And who is left with that cost? The taxpayers. It is better to hold people accountable for their actions because they will be more careful with their decisions. The “crony capitalism” or “corporatism” that we’ve seen in the past several years is not capitalism. Moreover, were you aware that Goldman Sachs is a major campaign contributor for both Obama and Romney? That’s probably a good indicator that the people making those types of decisions at Goldman Sachs really don’t see a difference between the two candidates, and will be okay with whoever wins. I wonder why that is.

So, where am I going with this? See, there’s this congressman from Texas named Ron Paul and I want you to look into him. Remember Obama’s admiration for the Constitution and peaceful foreign policy talk in the last election? Well, Ron Paul is the “Champion of the Constitution” and has been speaking out against our aggressive foreign policy for thirty years. If you like Romney’s praise about the private sector and free market, Ron Paul voted against all the bailouts, predicted the housing bubble collapse five years before it happened, and has been advocating a free market for the past thirty years. How can we know that Ron Paul is not just saying these things like the other two candidates? How can we know Ron Paul is different? At the risk of sounding redundant, Ron Paul has a consistent, pristine record backing him up.

So I ask you, are you voting for Obama because you’d drop dead before voting for a Republican? Are you voting for Romney because he can supposedly beat Obama? Are you choosing not to vote because you dislike both options? I am here today to tell you that you do not have to compromise yourself by voting for the person you perceive to be the lesser of two evils. We have a GREAT candidate. We have a genuine, authentic person running for office this presidential primary, which is probably a once in a lifetime event. Thanks to him, I was able to vote based off on my principles and beliefs. I hope you will look into him via YouTube, or even better, read his books “Revolution: A Manifesto,” “Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues that Affect Our Freedom,” “End the Fed,” and “The Case for Gold.”

I hope Ron Paul’s genuineness becomes apparent to you. Maybe you won’t agree with him on all issues, but I assure you he will make you rethink a few things. I truly believe that Ron Paul’s candor is a rarity and great start towards restoring our Republic. Give his ideas a chance. I did, and it revolutionized the way I see the world. This movement has been termed the “Ron Paul r3VOLution” because Ron Paul has the ability to cure the apathy felt by so many U.S. citizens nowadays. This revolution is rooted in love and propelled by ideas. This revolution emphasizes individual liberty. One exception to maximum individual liberty is when one individual infringes on another individual’s liberty. So, you cannot murder someone because, aside from it being wrong, you are infringing on that individual’s right to live. Ron Paul said it best, just because you endorse freedom does not mean you endorse what people do. I can accept that people have the freedom to make their own choices, whether I agree with them or not (e.g., drug abuse). However, just because I believe it is their right to make that choice does not mean I agree with their actions. I can advise them to stop, but at the end of the day I cannot force that person to listen to me. Free will is a human right and it is what distinguishes us from all other species on this planet. The fact that we have the freedom to make our own decisions is what makes our good behavior virtuous.

Finally, I want to briefly mention that I was very touched by something Ron Paul’s wife, Carol Paul, said the other day during a radio interview. She said that Ron Paul should be relaxing and enjoying his grandchildren at this point in his life. So, why is he running for president, enduring all the stress and drama that comes with running for office? According to her, this is a message that is engraved in his heart. Ron Paul is a firm believer that once you become aware of wrongdoing, you have a moral obligation to do something about it. That is exactly what he has done and continues to do. What will you do?

My RT interview on 4/30/12

Ron Paul's secret weapon - the delegates

Late night thoughts...

Some people say all is relative and nothing is absolute. But how does that make sense? Relativity, by definition, means “the absence of standards of absolute and universal application.” Saying all things are relative is admitting that there is at least one absolute, which is that all things are relative. This can easily get confusing. So, the point I want to get to is that I believe there are absolute truths. What kind of world would we live in if there were more than one truth? Perhaps what people might mean when they say all is relative is that perspective is relative. For example, there can be five individuals that witness the same exact car accident. However, their perception of the event will vary based on their perspective. What influences perspective? A lot of things do (e.g., experience, personality, culture, etc). So, if you ask those five individuals about the car accident, I guarantee that each one of them will recollect the story differently. Perhaps, one of the individuals was distracted and did not catch the first part of the car accident. Just because that individual did not see what happened at the beginning does not mean that it did not happen. There is the truth and then there is perspective. So, it could be said that perspective is relative.

Anyway, I am thinking about this because I had a long conversation with my friend Jon earlier about government’s role in our society. We disagree about a lot of things. But he asked me an interesting question. He said, “How do you know you are right and I am wrong?” Up until that point, I had not put thought into why I thought I was right and he was wrong. I am clear on why I believe these things, but I had never thought of why or how I was lead to believe my perspective is correct. It’s pretty obvious I fervidly support libertarian ideals and believe that limiting our government will help solve a lot of the problems we see today. It will not solve them immediately and it will not solve all of them, but it is a great start. Anyway, I realized that I do not know how to show people, like Jon, I am right. I talked about the way history shows us that large governments, fiat currency, empires, and private central banks (e.g., Federal Reserve) are ingredients for a collapse.

The truth is that there is no way to prove I am right to him if he cannot perceive what I perceive provided all the information I have gathered over the past few months. While I cannot prove to someone else that what I believe is the truth, I can most definitely know in my heart and in my being that it is. What do I mean by that? Well, I believe that individual liberty is God given. If God gave us freedom of choice, the government has no right to take it away. The government did not grant us our freedom. That is totally false. The government’s role is to protect our liberty. From there, life goes on. The government does not exist to appease all our problems (e.g., welfare, universal health care, financial aid, etc). Why are we trying to rid ourselves of the natural human struggle? I realize that some people are born into rich families and do not have to struggle with financial issues. I agree that money provides people with the opportunity to do what they please, providing a sense of freedom. But money is not everything and it most definitely does not make you happy. Just look at the rich reality TV stars who are famous for being rich. What is that about? Some of those people are very dense, not much substance there. I must say, though, some have good hearts but that does not take away from the fact that a large portion of their lives revolve around superficial thoughts and aspirations. I would much rather have a struggle or two and grow wiser if I had to choose. In fact, some of the most valuable lessons I have learned have been as a result of my struggles. Every struggle of mine has helped me become a better, stronger, wiser person. I would never take back any of those struggles. It is what makes me real. If we receive entitlements, there is no deeper satisfaction. How can you ever be confident and sure of your ability to do something great if everything is handed to you? Life is an everlasting struggle but that is not a bad thing. It’s just life. So, like they say, you cannot taste the sweet without the bitter.

Anyway, I always go off on tangents. But I would just like to say that I believe a free society is the best type of society. Some people mistake the United States for a democracy. Well, that is almost true because we are a type of democracy. We are a representative democracy. Therefore, we the people elect others to represent us. That is where the executive and legislative branches come in. Nowadays, people are apathetic about politics and our government is really not a representative democracy anymore. We have basically become an oligarchy, which is when a group of elite individuals have power over the government. So, that sucks. From my understanding, our Framers intended us to have a republic, a free society ruled by the law, not by people who can misinterpret the truth.

Anyway, back to my original thought about free societies. So, we may not agree with some choices people make (e.g., drugs, prostitution) but that does not mean that we will be forced to join in. Ron Paul said just because you endorse freedom does not mean you have to endorse what people do. I completely agree with the great doctor. We cannot start picking and choosing what we will allow in a free society. If people make bad choices, they will be accountable for those choices. You are free to do what you want as long as you do not infringe on another person's liberty. So, murder would definitely be considered infringing on another person's liberty, which is the right to their life. Moreover, if we allow the government to start regulating what individuals do in their private life, even if we agree with the government’s stance, it can always backfire. One day, the government might regulate you and you will not like it.

Do politics, or politics will do you!

Some people don't mind being a sole product of their environment. I do mind. But don’t get me wrong; I am aware of the large role environment plays in shaping personality. However, I am also aware of the immense role our mind plays. Therefore, I am not amused by the apathy, denial and neglect shown by so many citizens, including some of the smartest people I know. Why is it cool to be indifferent? Why is it cool to only care about things once everyone else cares about things? Why is it important to be up-to-date with the latest fashions? Why are the details of a celebrity’s life so important? Why is a concrete reward necessary to motivate people to do something? Why is our society extremely superficial?

Well, it goes back to my original thought. Nowadays, most people allow their environment to shape what they think, believe, trust and care about. With all do respect fellow citizens, use your brain, turn off your television, and pick up a worthy book. I don’t care if you disagree with me about certain topics. In fact, I like debating people who disagree with me on nuances regarding our liberty because it polishes my views and helps me keep an open mind. I am using liberty as an example because I do not personally know a person that espouses tyranny. There are many perspectives regarding liberty but liberty itself is pretty simple. Liberty is freedom and independence; everyone should have a right to live according to these ideals.

Yes, I understand there will be subjective differences regarding what liberty entails. But it is fun to discuss. I am still shaping my personal beliefs regarding the government’s role regarding discrimination and related topics. But one thing I will never be swayed about is letting Obama off easy for signing the most obvious “Big Brother” provisions to the not infamous enough National Defense Authorization Act [1]. This legislation is obviously attacking our liberty, regardless of our personal beliefs. This is why every single person in this country is outraged and no one will be voting for Obama come November, right? Wrong.

Apparently, people are okay with indefinite detainment without habeas corpus or due process of law. How scary does the legislation our government officials pass have to get for people to start protesting? Oh wait, that is also illegal per the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 [2][3]. I suppose that is why no one is protesting. It makes complete sense that people would not want to risk going to jail for knowingly or unknowingly protesting in an area where there is Secret Service protection. Not to mention you might be sentenced to jail for 10 years if you are carrying a “deadly or dangerous weapon,” which I would not take so lightly since nail clippers and tweezers are not allowed on airplanes.

You have to understand that the harmful legislation being proposed, including SOPA, PIPA and CISPA [4], is beyond vague and will allow for all sorts of dangerous interpretations. This type of legislation can be interpreted in any form necessary to punish someone regardless of whether he or she actually poses a threat or is just speaking out in disagreement with what our government is doing. I do not blame people for not protesting on the streets. I know I do not have the time or energy and it is just not my style. But there are other ways. Spread the word or become involved in local politics. Even simpler, do a little research over the Internet about politicians, and do not support or vote for politicians who endorse legislation that takes away our liberty. I am a lot more concerned about what they are doing over at Capitol Hill than in the Middle East. Do not get me wrong, there are some dangerous people in the Middle East but I think we should be more attentive and fix the problems we have locally (i.e., Washington D.C.) instead of letting ourselves be fooled into giving up more liberty in exchange for supposed safety.

Anyway, remember what good old Pericles said a looooong time ago? It was true then and it is still just as true today. Goes something like, “Just because you do not take an interest in politics, does not mean politics won’t take an interest in you.” But I also like the more modern version, “Do politics or it will do you.”

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxNpTbhYpyk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=777ZX5f3BTk

[3] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/text

[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO6J5lu9GwQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player