Sunday, October 28, 2012

Why, yes I am.

Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

I am not a Republican. They are a bunch of sell-outs and hypocrites.

I am not a Democrat. They seem to believe that government programs are the only fix for any problem.

I'm not a Libertarian. I don't fit into their little box of anarchy.

I'm definitely not a socialist or communist. Socialists haven't met a totalitarian government they don't like, and both socialism and communism murder individual effort through their confiscatory tax programs and punishments for those who choose to excel.

Only a fool votes a straight ticket. I know Dems with whom I agree more than their counterparts, and I throw my pitiful little one vote behind them to the best of my ability. I can safely call myself a non-aligned conservative. Hear me out one time, and I'll tell you why.

I believe in the power of the individual in a free market economic system that rewards those who work harder or create goods and services that meet a demand. Yes, Mr. President, those small business people did build that. They created their own opportunities, picked themselves up by the bootstraps in most cases, pushed harder than their peers, and did what it took to make their businesses or ventures successful.

I think most unions are the bane of a free economy through their favoritism based on seniority rather than performance, and their determination to create and foster conflict between labor and management. Line factory work isn't a career. It's a stepping stone to something better. Union interference creates a culture that rewards mediocrity.

I believe life begins at conception, and renaming something in court for the sake of insulating oneself from consequences of one's actions is a crime of the highest order. They call them "Fetal tissue masses." "Fetus" is Latin. In context, it means "Offspring" or "Brood." That seems like another word for "Child" to me. Taking that life, terminating a pregnancy, should not be a legal matter, but a medical one, established to prevent the imminent death of the mother. It's a serious matter, the taking of a life. It needs to be taken more seriously than an idle "choice" based on convenience or some arbitrary, inconsistent standard.

I believe that our government has become too overbearing and burdensome, and if our founding fathers saw what our federal level has become, they would declare another revolution. Over-regulation handcuffs fairness by applying the same standards to small business as large business. Our government taxes business at such a punitive rate, it forces companies to leave the country, and then punishes them for doing so. The federal government forced banks to make risky loans in the '90's that resulted in the Freddy Mac/Fannie Mae collapses, and then they blamed the banks for the collapse. Government attacked those who bought RV's, and when they stopped buying RV's, those who made RV's lost their jobs because nobody bought them anymore. Then the Government moaned and howled about the employment crisis they themselves created (anyone remember Elkhart, Indiana?).

I do remember Henry David Thoreau's famous quote: "That government is best which governs least."
Our own constitution lays out the responsibilities of government:
1.) Establish Justice (Provide a legal system for civil and criminal justice and police to enforce laws)
2.) Insure Domestic tranquility (keep the peace)
3.) Provide for the common defense (set up our military to protect us from outside invaders)
4.) Promote the general welfare (Create a fair and even playing field so anyone who wants to can better themselves).
5.) Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Liberty means the freedom to choose our own destinies. Ben Franklin said, "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security." Does this mean no one should be responsible for those who cannot provide for themselves or have fallen on hard times? God forbid! But there's a big difference between a hand up and a handout. And our government seems to specialize in handouts, especially those with strings attached. There are hundreds of private organizations who could manage assistance programs a thousand times more efficiently that our government, but they are handcuffed by regulations to the point of strangulation.

I believe a person's relationship with their God is theirs, whether I agree with them or not. But when someone's religious beliefs include harming me or my family, or anyone within the borders of my country, I have the right and responsibility to defend my family and countrymen to my last breath or bullet if need be.

I believe a military organization needs to set its own rules on engagement. The job of the military is to kill people and break things. It's a hell of a job, but someone has to do it. We need to let the military be military, not handcuff them with rules of engagement that result in more of our boys and girls coming home in body bags. When the military is given a job, they need the freedom to do it.

You might not agree. That's fine. We can disagree and still be friends. That's what makes America the greatest nation on the planet. We still have a semblance of liberty left, and I for one do not intend to let it go the way of the dodo.


  1. Good post, Cyrus, but I think you're more of a Libertarian than you admit, or understand.

    You're in favor of most issues Libertarians agree upon, except perhaps the military. You imply you're in favor of military aggression on foreign soil (or at least you don't seem to oppose it) i.e.-"We need to let the military be military, not handcuff them with rules of engagement that result in more of our boys and girls coming home in body bags."

    I read that to mean you don't oppose our military fighting in foreign countries, which government has twisted around to mean "defense" in the last half-century or so. Libertarian advocate a military for the express purpose of defending American soil, not pre-eimptive strikes in the name of defending America.

    Libertarians in general (and the Libertarian party in particular) do not advocate anarchy, merely minimal government. There is a huge difference. As huge a difference as there exists between the Libertarian Party and the DemoPubs.

    I believe you expressed the views of many disgruntled voters who despair at the lack of choice, and difference, between Democrats and Republicans. There are millions of closet Libertarians out there who have been propagandized into believing that they only have two viable choices come election day, so they hold their noses and vote yet again for the lesser of two evils, thus insuring that some form of evil ends up in power in Washington.

    If you or any of your readers are interested, here's a link to the Libertarian Party website:

  2. Hello, Cyrus.
    Quite an elephant, that.
    All I can say is vote. Anyone who wants to make a differentce, stand up and be heard on Election Day!
    Cheers, Kelly

  3. I agree. It doesn't matter if we agree with each other on all issues. What's critical is that we make educated, thoughtful choices at the polls. The stupidest thing I ever heard at a poll was one person who said, "I don't know anything about any of these guys, so I'm just going to vote all XXX Party." I wanted to shake them until spit flew out of their mouth, went around and smacked them in the back of their own head.