ForWhichItStood.org

What we do today shapes our future; similarly, what we do shapes the country, and what the country does shapes the future of the world. Decreased freedom and the sacrilege of the constitution defile what our founding fathers intended for our nation to be. As a result, we are propelled on a slow but constant route towards socialism, which will ultimately destroy our country’s values, economy, and general success. The choices made by today’s political leaders influence the individual and their circumstances, worldviews, and future. Current restrictions and proposed laws will have a long-term impact on American thinking; examples include the near inevitable move towards socialized healthcare and the recent smoking ban that’s been passed in many places across the nation.

Many of the leading politicians want to socialize healthcare. If this proposition is eventually passed, it will set a foundation for the socialization of other vital industries in the United States, including banking, transportation, utilities, and communication companies. While their intentions may be pure, the impact of these decisions may have an irreparable impact on America. The socialization of healthcare has been tried throughout the world with varying degrees of success; in Canada, it takes months to get the proper care. Many Canadian doctors move to the United States to treat patients, which shows flaws in the system. History shows that when governments take control and monopolize any business, things turn out for the worse. An accurate example of this is the postal system; while the postal system worked perfectly fine as it was, the introduction of independent postal companies such as FedEx and UPS, revolutionized the shipping industry. With new competition, the U.S.P.S. had to work harder to compete, which resulted in better services for consumers. Competition produces better results in every industry, including shipping and healthcare.

One of the prime examples of decisions made today that will impact our future is the recent smoking ban in Illinois and many other states. This is a major breech on our freedom. However, because many people don’t smoke, they do not fight for their right to do so. While smoking is certainly not healthy, who is the government to tell us that we cannot do it on our own property? If a man owns a business, a bar, for example, he should have the right to allow people to smoke on his property. If other customers do not want to be around smoke, then they should go elsewhere. These choices today shape our future by giving the government more control. We have let them take away this freedom; as a result, more restrictions will follow. Because of this choice, in the future they will have more control over regulating many more aspects of business.

The basic duties of the government are to protect the people from foreign and domestic threats, establish a justice system, and coin currency. Anything beyond that can do little good and only harms the people and economy. Denying basic constitutional rights are only the beginning; socializing healthcare and banning smoking on private property are two choices that have been made today that will shape the future of our country, resulting in an imprisoned society fed, bred and manipulated from the cradle to the grave.

The above is an essay I wrote around a year and a half ago for a local short essay contest about how our choices today impact our future. If I recall correctly, it won 3rd place. This was written before Obama was the President Elect. Notice how I briefly mentioned how socialization in one industry (healthcare) will result in the socialization of other industries (investment/banking, transportation, utilities, and communication companies). While we have not yet passed socialized healthcare, we are beginning to socialize some companies in the banking and investment industries.

The concepts expressed in this essay hold true today. If we give up some of our rights, we’ll ultimately end up giving more. We sacrifice one thing because it doesn’t apply to us; eventually, when rights we care about are threatened, we cannnot do anything about it because we’ve already given up too much. It’s a slippery slope. It may be cliche, but it’s true nonetheless.

It’s been a few weeks since Barrack Obama won the Presidency, and already we’re seeing signs of his pro-government, socialistic tendencies. I’m not saying we’d necessarily see something radically different from John McCain, but Barrack Obama is the current President Elect and we must deal with it for at least four years.

In fact, additional bailouts are already in the making. The Fed has already planned to pump $800 billion more into the economy to stimulate growth. Where will this $800 billion come from? Why, the Fed will print it up, of course. This, coupled with the previous bailouts and the likelihood of more bailouts under the Obama administration will likely result in hyperinflation. Admittedly, it’s not solely the fault of President Elect Obama – this problem has been in the works for some time; some would even argue that it was inevitable because our current monetary system is based on debt and run by a faulty Federal Reserve.

Ryan Sheets, a user on Campaign For Liberty sums it up well:

“If Obama’s 500 billion and this 800 billion goes through, added to the 1.5 trillion from earlier this year we have effectively increased the money supply by 2.8 trillion dollars in a single year. That’s 20% of our GDP in a SINGLE YEAR! Our dollar just lost 16.67% of its value.”

On a more positive side, we’re likely to see less foreign involvement under the new administration. While I don’t think we should radically rush out of Iraq, I think a general reduction of foreign bases and involvement would be beneficial.

We’re likely to see some proposition of stronger national gun control laws, possibly matching those of Illinois. It’s unlikely the Obama administration will succeed, but I would not be surprised if they attempted a repeal of state concealed-carry laws. The fear of increased gun control is widespread. The weak of the election saw a 49% increase on the requests for background checks for new firearms.

We’re also very likely to see the socialization of the healthcare system, which is it’s own can of worms. It would not be surprised to see an increase in government provided services and more government involvement. Because he supports a “redistribution of wealth,” we will undoubtedly see an increase in taxes and regulation for businesses, and more welfare related programs for the poor.

I recently stumbled onto this page that details the promises that Obama made, the one’s he’s kept, and the one’s he’s broken. It’s supposed to be updated throughout his time in office. A big thanks to the All American Blogger for providing this page.

Recently, I wrote a letter to the editor of my school newspaper about the lesser of two evils. While I think I got my point across, I was unable to go into much detail because of the 450 word limit that was put in place. In this post I hope to further expand on the thinking that went behind the article.

If you live in America, chances are you’ve often heard of the term the “lesser evil.” In politics especially, people are constantly referencing “the lesser of two evils.” The philosophy is this, essentially; when given two poor choices for a leader (the president), people (the voters) chose the candidate who they think will do the least damage. This school of thought is not restricted to our current election where voters “must” chose between McCain or Obama; this way of thinking has existed for at least a century. Unfortunately, mainstream America followings this voting philosophy. The problem with voting for the lesser evil is that this philosophy is fundamentally flawed.

When a voter votes for what they consider the “lesser evil,” they’re still voting for evil. Evil is evil is evil. Regardless of which of the two they vote for, they’re still choosing a candidate they feel is inadequate for the position. When one of the options is considered either the lesser or greater evil, both choices will hurt the country. In such – this is essentially the definition of such a philosophy. In such a situation, we cannot expect overall improvement; rather, we will experience backwards progress. Instead of solving problems and bettering our once-great nation, with a lesser evil in a leadership position, we will be creating more problems than we are solving. This collectively results in negative progress; perhaps some problems may be worked out; some solutions might be found; however, these solutions will either be inadequate or overshadowed by newer, direr problems that the new administration would create. The result of electing either “evil” is a nation that decays.

When presented with two bad choices, do not vote for the choice you think is less bad. Evil is evil, wrong is wrong, a bad choice is a bad choice. One might be slightly better than the other, but in the end they’re both going to do more harm than good. By following this school of thought - that there is a lesser evil - you’re giving in to a false dichotomy. The truth is you do have a choice. You can chose between more than two in such a situation, which should void the lesser evil philosophy.

In modern politics, people often have to choice between a Republican presidential candidate and a Democratic presidential candidate, often when they dislike both choices. In such a situation, rather than choosing the lesser evil, the voter could choice to vote for a third party. Many Americans would rather vote for a third party candidate, but fear that such a vote would be a wasted vote. The reality is if all Americans that thought this way voted for a third party, a third party would likely have a viable chance at winning the election. Moreover, if we are to peacefully reform the electoral process, it probably will not happen overnight. Gradually, we will gain a foothold.

In reality, the Republicans and Democrats have duopoly on the political system. One of the few instances in which they work together is when they work together to keep third parties out of the system. If you’re a candidate for a third party, it is extremely difficult to be listed on state ballots and nearly impossible to appear in the political debates. The reason for this is because the two major parties are the ones who set the standards for entrance into the debates, which they set ridiculously high. By doing so, they make the chance of a third party appearing to discuss issues virtually nil.

I encourage voters to break away from the mindset of voting for the lesser evil. I suspect this is the majority of Americans. Not only is this mindset a flawed way of thinking, it degrades our country, slows progress, and only strengthens the two parties’ hold on the system. If we ever want true change, voters need to wake up and stop voting for more of the same. We need to stop voting for the status quo. As voters ,we need to choose a new party, such as the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, or Independents. We need to demand a change to the electoral system; we need to destroy the duopoly’s grasp on how things are run. Rather than have a two party system, we need a three party system, a four party system; we need a system that allows equal access to an infinite amount of parties. Voters should vote for a candidate who truly represents their values and ideology, rather than a candidate who is, allegedly, “less evil.”]

In modern times, most politicians will tell people what they want to hear, rather than what the candidates themselves believe. I suspect that one of the main reasons the two leading parties try so savagely to keep other parties out of the debates is to keep their voices from being heard; by having the opinions of third parties heard, the Republicrats would be forced to address issues of real importance. Rarely do we hear a “viable” candidate address issues such as sound money, smaller government, non-interventionism, abolition of victimless crimes or returning to a Constitutional government. Were a third party to directly confront a candidate of either the Republicans or the Democrats with such issues, voters would likely see through the shallowness of the candidates of the Democrats and Republicans.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Voting for the lesser evil is a vote for the status quo; it is a vote for backwards progress, and it is a vote for a candidate you dislike. A system that is restricted to a duopoly is a broken system, and the first step towards fixing such a problem is to stop voting for the lesser evil and to begin voting for a candidate who represents the values one holds dear.

Recently, Ron Paul’s Campaign For Liberty surpassed its 100,000 member goal. While the group didn’t meet its goal by September 2nd as it hoped, it only fell short by a few days. Thi100,000 member mark is yet another milestone in our fight for freedom.

The fact that the Campaign For Liberty has gained so many members in such a short time is evidence that the message of freedom and liberty continue to resonate in the hearts and minds of the American people. We need to unite today to spread the message of liberty and to elect officials that share our view of freedom.

Additionally, the Rally For the Republic drew over 84,000 viewers from 91 countries. This shows that the message of liberty isn’t exclusive to the United States. The actual event, held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, drew over 12,000 people. Ron Paul’s Rally For the Republic speech was one of the greatest I’ve ever heard, and is bound to be a historic event. Please take time to watch it here.

Additionally, the Campaign For Liberty released a notice saying that Ron Paul will speak at the National Press Club at 10:00 am this Wednesday. This will be a “special announcement.” The CFL states, “Dr. Paul will announce his intentions for the fall presidential election and will be accompanied by several special guests.” Ron Paul supporters are already speculating on what that could mean. Most likely it will involve the next step of the Campaign For Liberty. He may endorse Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, or both of them. Some people have suggested that this could be an even bigger announcement; the Constitution Party and the Libertarian party could merge, or Ron Paul could run for President. Both of these are extremely improbably and nothing more than wishful thinking. Regardless, hopefully Wednesday will be something big enough to shake the foundation of this two party system. Several other third party candidates will be attending, so it seems likely that this press release could involve some method of involving third parties in the debates. The Campaign For Liberty could potentially be hosting a debate that would include third party candidates.

As we look forward to Dr. Paul’s annoucement this Wednesday, let us take pride in the fact that our movement is gaining momentum. The 100,000 member mark for the Campaign For Liberty is a fantastic milestone, but is only one of many more to come. Godspeed, friends of liberty.

The issue of the drinking age has recently come to public attention once more. Over 100 college presidents are calling for lawmakers to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18. The argument that many presidents of the 100 colleges, including presidents from Duke, Dartmouth, and Ohio State use, is that the current age encourages binge drinking on or around campus. This group of college presidents call themselves the Amethyst Initiative. Their goal isn’t necessarily to repeal the drinking age limit set by the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, but rather to promote debate and discussion on the issue. Since they’ve come into the public spotlight, they’ve faced a lot of criticism.

Let’s think about it in more detail. Why not? I’m 18. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to take a drink? Personally, I dislike alcohol. Were the limit dropped to 18, I most likely wouldn’t drink at all; even so, I think that I should still have the right to drink if I chose to.

It’s illogical and unjust. It’s an infringement on the personal liberties of anyone from 18 to 21. At 18, I’m old enough to enlist in the military, old enough to vote, old enough to sign private contracts, old enough to get married, and old enough to buy pornography and cigarettes. However, I’m still not old enough to buy and consume alcohol?

This issue, in my mind, is very similar to the issue of voting. The voting age was 21 until it was lowered to 18 by the 26th Amendment. While the right to drink alcohol is hardly as important as the right to vote, it’s the same concept. The government has a long habit of giving youth adult responsibilities, yet continues to treat them like children.

Many people will have strong, convincing arguments about why the drinking age should remain at 21. Perhaps drinking among college students will increase. It probably will. That being said, most college students will drink anyway. I could not immediately find statistics, but I know that a majority of college students under 21 have tried alcohol, and a large percentage still drinks regularly.

If the drinking age was lowered, it would most likely result in increased drinking for people in the 18 - 21 age bracket. However, it’s likely that it would gradually fall as students grew used to it. It would be become more casual and less of a big deal, which would most likely result in a decrease in their usage of alcohol.

Regardless of whether or not students would drink more or less in the long run, the fact is that they should be allowed to drink at 18. It doesn’t matter if they’ll drink anyway, it doesn’t matter that the rest of the world has a drinking age of 18; what matters is that, as a responsible adult, those age 18 to 21 should be able to make decissions for themselves. Essentially, an 18 year old is an adult and should be treatd as one; they should be trusted to know their limits and to drink responsibility. Just as it is not the governments duty to police morality, censor the internet, or regulate what people do in the privacy of their homes, it is not the government’s duty to prohibit and 18-year-old from drinking.