Reagan Dunn's "Defection​"

I would like to express my sincere appreciation for Mr. Dunn's coming out in support of gay marriage - it was a courageous and forward-thinking decision. As our future governor Rob McKenna is fond of saying, the Republican Party must learn the difference between private convictions and public policies.

It is encouraging to see an up-and-coming star in the Washington State Republican Party exhibit that understanding. We have always been able to count on the GOP to lead us constructively on fiscal issues. Perhaps this move towards constructive leadership on social issues will become a pattern.

An Open Letter to our Congressional Delegation

Dear Representatives and Senators,

We are tired of being beaten about the head and shoulders by Big Government, reined and ridden by Big Business. We are tired of liberty and freedom being treated as quaint ideas to be pondered wistfully. We are tired of our Senators and Congressmen acting as if they have never heard of an oath of office or the Constitution or who fail to understand that government is established primarily to enable the freedom and welfare of the individual – not the corporation.

We expect our representatives in Congress to consider the big picture, rather than merely follow along with the talking points from a dozen industry lobbyists' white papers. We expect that you will always side with and protect liberty and freedom when laws are presented to you.

Any law which has the potential to detain or restrain members of a free society, honestly and conscientiously exercising their God-given rights in our Democracy, is a bad law. Every time you vote in approval of a bill with any such provisions, you dishonor your position, your oath of office, and the trust the People have placed in you.

Please take action and vote against SOPA and PIPA. Please also take action and vote to remove the Bill of Rights shredding provisions of the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization act. Please read proposed laws before uttering "Aye!" Please remember your oath and the proper function of government, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

Sincerely,

David Rogers

Maximum Individual Responsibility - Minimum Government

To many people, the Libertarian Party's slogan, “Minimum Government – Maximum Freedom,” sounds like a feel-good hybridization of the “anarchy” and the “free love” movements. This interpretation, not an uncommon one based on conversations with others about Libertarianism, belies the major principle underlying the goals of the Party. It is time to make a shift in our message in order to clarify our message.

Libertarianism is indeed about freedom; however, it is not based upon freedom. Rather, freedom is the natural result of the basic tenets of Libertarianism and not a tenet unto itself. “Freedom” taken as a tenet is best compared to “free lunch” (TANSTAAFL!)

If we wish to be taken seriously and to become a major party, we must resist the temptation of continuing to appeal only to the low-hanging fruit: those who are intellectually attracted to the principles of Libertarianism and those who think freedom is a result which a party, of any ilk, can deliver and preserve. We must broaden our appeal.

If freedom should not be the stated goal of this Party, then what should? What is it that the human spirit cries out for? “Liberty,” yes, but isn’t that just another word for “freedom?” What do we mean by these words? I believe that the cornerstone of Libertarianism is “individual responsibility,” without which there can be no freedom. We hold the individual to be responsible for their own lives, and we work to promote governments at all levels which interfere minimally with that responsibility.

Today, our Republic is nearly lost under the combined weight of laws and restrictions imagined by the liberal and conservative movements to expropriate individual responsibility from the people and to place that responsibility on government. Every step these people have taken to relieve individuals from their responsibilities has removed a slice of our liberty, until a large portion of that which remains is merely superficial. Further, in taking on these responsibilities, the size and scope of government at all levels has swollen unchecked, bursting beyond any reasonable boundaries and threatening to destroy liberty once and for all.

I believe the goal of the Libertarian Party is better expressed by the slogan: “Maximum Individual Responsibility - Minimum Government.” In the Republic envisioned by our Founding Fathers, each individual is indeed responsible for their own profession, their own family structure and activities, their own religious beliefs, their own sustenance, their own happiness, and their own freedom. If we want the freedom envisioned by our founding fathers, then we must first and foremost promote the acceptance of the level of individual responsibility that they envisioned!

AARP, You're Fired!

Dear AARP,

This is the third “Membership Reactivation Form” letter with shiny new membership cards I have received since I fired you. I compliment you on your creativity, especially the part that says:

“We are fighting for your American Dream. AARP is encouraging policy makers and leaders to strengthen Social Security, Medicare, pension and retirement benefits.”

With all due respect, that is a crock! You may be fighting for Karl Marx’s dream, but you sure as hell aren’t fighting for my American Dream. My American Dream is about opportunity, not federally mandated Ponzi schemes that suck the life out of the economy.

You may be fighting for the Utopian ideal of everyone living in peace and harmony, under the full control of a benevolent, efficient, all-powerful government. My American Dream, however, is one that emphasizes limited government and individual responsibility.

I notice you are no longer crowing about your successful support of the federal healthcare takeover. Perhaps you have noticed that most Americans think the federal government will only screw that up like they have everything else. Well, you are stuck with it. I will never return to your membership rolls, no matter how many big government handouts you promise to try to get for me.

With great disdain,
David Rogers

Tolerating Islam as a Religion or as a Political System

My question of the day is, "How can one be true to the concept of freedom of religion without admitting the risks implied by the political nature of Islam?" Islam as a religion is not an issue for most Americans; however, Islam carries within it a political system which is an anathema. The most troubling aspect of Islam for Americans is the apparent structural connection between these two facets of the Islam belief system.

Whether political power is granted to Caliphs or to Imams by the Quran is a source of internal debate within Islam - but either way we have a conflict with the principle of separation of church and state. (I acknowledge that this conflation of Church and State is not limited to Muslims. We already have ongoing battles pitting religious beliefs against Liberty most apparently within the Republican Party. However, that is another issue.)

On the surface, it appears to me that one has to choose between tolerance for the religion with the associated risks of appeasement for the politics, or intolerance for both. Since, as a belief system, Islam is intolerant of our traditional belief systems, both religious and political, it seems the choice has already been made for us, since tolerating intolerance in the name of tolerance is a fool's (or a saint's) bargain.

David

It's the Constitution, Stupid!

I believe the Libyan affair is truly a fight for Democracy; one which demands the immediate and passionate involvement of the People of the United States. Obama’s acts of war under the pretense of a United Nations Resolution constitute a direct assault on our United States Constitution and must be countered.

Our Founding Fathers did not establish a kingdom, where one man could carry out war in the name of the American people or, worse yet, under the banner of a foreign agent. I call upon all freedom loving Americans to demand action from their Representatives in Congress, and I offer the following letter as a suggested communication:


Dear Congressman Reichert,

I call upon you today to live up to your oath of office and to defend the United States Constitution from those forces which seek to undermine and usurp its authority in our affairs of state.

President Obama has initiated acts of war against a foreign power without any declaration of war from Congress, under the guise of a United Nations Resolution approving such actions. This is a direct violation of Article I of our Constitution.

I call upon you to sponsor or to co-sponsor a Resolution establishing Articles of Impeachment against the President in this affair. Should you be unwilling to honor your oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States," I call upon you to resign your office.

Sincerely,

David Rogers
Bellevue, WA

Regarding the Messages of Intolerance in the Koran

RE: Bill Maher Debates Islam with Democratic Muslim Congressman

Bill Maher is not exactly an advocate for religion, but you couldn't say he is biased toward one or another. Between his comments and those of his guest, the point is made that most Muslims do not espouse the messages of intolerance present in the Koran - yet, those message are clearly there in spite of the denials.

That presence of mixed messages is often defended by pointing to mixed messages in the Christian bible. The problem with the Koran's mixed messages is that the hateful and intolerant material comes after and supersedes the more wholesome spiritual material found earlier. The exact opposite is true in the Christian bible. The difference is significant!

The seeds of hatred and intolerance of others (infidels) are there and are cultivated by the passages in the Koran having precedence. A key question is whether one can then believe, without engaging in delusional thinking, that those seeds will fail to produce their bitter fruit in the long run.

The Defense of Marriage Act is Worth Wasting Time and Energy Over?

Wednesday, House Republican leadership lead by John Boehner voted to defend DOMA (the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.)

Let me get this straight, Boehner: You can't rustle up the will and resolve to pony up much more than a single week's federal spending - in budget increase reductions (much less actual budget CUTS.) Yet, you have the unmitigated gall to divert precious time and energy (THE PEOPLE'S TIME AND ENERGY!) to this sort of misanthropic micromanagement of people's lives in America?!?

You are a disgrace to your office, and to the oath you took upon entering your office!
You are a big-government charlatan, and you deserve to be swept aside with the rest of the big-government charlatans. You obviously didn’t hear the message in 2010, let’s hope you hear it loud and clear in 2012.

Obama Administration's Decision to Ignore DOMA

I found a great quote in my in-basket today:

"The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy." --Benjamin Franklin, Emblematical Representations, 1774

Those who are wasting their precious energy attacking the Obama administration for deciding to ignore the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" would do well to ponder the meaning of those words.

There are bigger fish to fry. Focusing on anti-Gay Marriage and anti-abortion positions serves only to dilute the energy we can direct at working toward a more limited government.

Yes, there is a lot of heat around these issues, however, there is precious little light. For example, quoting the Old Testament in a land of predominantly Christian believers is disingenuous and unhelpful.

One might almost wonder if these issues continue to be brought to the forefront in a calculated attempt to keep the anti-socialist and libertarian memes, so dear to most of us, from taking hold and taking over the political landscape of the Right.

An Open Letter to Tom Schatz and CAGW

Dear Tom;

Why are you defending the status quo with regards to “Defense Spending”? From your materials (e.g., the survey), you appear to subscribe to the idea that, other than a few expensive toilets and hammers, “Defense Spending” is sacrosanct. I urge you to reposition CAGW on this issue!

Spending for our national defense is something conscious Americans can fully support. However, you and I both know that this bears little resemblance to “Defense Spending.” We have military bases all over the world, located in countries who are by and large our allies. Why? I am not interested in defending Israel or Germany – they have ample resources to do this on their own. Why are we taking food out of our poor, under-educated American children’s mouths (cue the soft violins) to monitor air traffic coming into Israel and Germany?

If we are providing a service to these countries, let them pay for it – IN FULL. Otherwise, close the bases and installations and bring our American Service Members home.

Why are we wasting our blood and money in Iraq and Afghanistan? We went into Iraq on a set of lies – we should be getting the hell out of there on the wings of the truth - Iraq has never had a damned thing to do with our national defense! Along the same lines, the Afghans insist on electing feudal lords and mullahs, so let them be. Get us the hell out of there too - just make them aware that if they ever again allow terrorist training camps back in we will bomb them the hell out of existence.

My proposed positions free up funds for and promote our national defense. The current positions and policies are related to empire-building and are a waste of American money and goodwill.

Our State Department and intelligence gathering apparatuses are a disgrace, a huge waster of funds, and in some case, a danger to our liberty. There should be more accountability in the funds that are spent for these activities.

The huge growth of the federal government implied by the health care bill is indeed a priority. But what about the massive waste represented by the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, the FDA with the so-called food safety bill and a dozen other chunks of bloated bureaucracy?

Finally, where is the call for pay and benefit equity with the private sector? Where is the call for the illegalization of public unions - how much sense does it make for public service employees to organize to lobby for their collective self-interests against those of the general public? This is a travesty, and you have not had the integrity to speak up in this matter all the years which I have been following CAGW.

I am not interested in a laundry list of expensive toilets and the occasional bridge to nowhere. I want to see some real change – some change I can bank on. Stop getting balled up in the little details and fight the big fights! If federal bureaucrats are forced to take pay and benefit cuts, they will have less time to overpay for toilets.

Sincerely,
David Rogers

Should We Join with Today's Conservatives?

The FaceBook group "Being Conservative' reminds us that “The Constitution remains under constant attack! We must be prepared to make a difference! ‘Like’ if you will be standing with us!!!”

Just remember, while you are standing there thinking that you are standing with patriots who love our Constitution, you are also standing with men and woman who would empower the state to bring "men with guns" to enforce prohibition (anti-drug laws, etc.), to force pregnancies (anti-choice laws), and to dictate which groups of consenting adults can call themselves married (so-called "defense of marriage" laws).

Are you sure that you are so callous about the rights of individuals that you can bear to support today's conservatives? Do you think that their definition of "limited government" is worth the devil's bargain they have made with the Religious Right which invites these intrusions by the state upon individual rights? Do you think that an entity that acts to shred the Declaration of Independence, and the understanding of Individual Rights and Liberty therein, is worthy of your support?

I don't!

How can we reconcile these differences, between true Libertarians and the new conservatives? You can start by recognizing the difference between convictions and policies.

You may have the conviction that drugs are evil, but making that a policy infringes on the rights of other individuals.

You may have the conviction that abortion is morally wrong, but making it a policy subjugates a woman's body to the State and infringes on the rights of other individuals.

You may have the conviction that homosexual marriage will destroy the institution of marriage and should be banned, but making it a policy violates the "equal protection" clause and infringes on the rights of other individuals.

Notice that nowhere am I telling you that your convictions are wrong! But I am telling you that if you advocate these policies, you are acting in a way that is un-American, in that you are supporting the right of the state to infringe on the rights of individuals!

Do you hear me Didier? Do you hear me Rossi? Do you hear me Dr Paul?

Should Libertarians Support the GOP or the Tea Party?

In a word, "No!" The conservative movement has been subverted by the Religious Right. No self-respecting Libertarian should ever embrace the homophobic, anti-choice, and anti-individual liberty positions inherent today in both the Republican and Tea parties. Libertarians should instead make it clear that their position on all of these social issues is "Our bodies, our choices" and that the social moderates in the Republican party need to get up off their backsides and muzzle the “social nanny state” pretenders that are currently running their parties, before we will join with them.

I would rather see Obama win again than to elect someone who thinks that what I put in my body, how I choose to end my life, how my daughter, wife or friend deals with an unwanted pregnancy, or who my friend Jim wants to get married to is any of their goddamned business, or is anywhere near the proper place of government to determine or to interfere with in any way.

Libertarians used to be up in arms about "men with guns" dictating how you live your life, but somewhere along with the discussion about charter schools, we became infected with some of the rhetoric of the Religious Right. I say "Bullshit!"

You can't be pro-prohibition and be Libertarian! You can't be against assisted suicide and be Libertarian! You can't be anti-choice and be a Libertarian! You can't be against same-sex marriage and be Libertarian!

Tea Party Versus Republican Party

Listening to their positions, I have to say that the Tea Party candidates are pretty much the same as the rest of the Republican candidates. They are all cut from the same cloth, woven by the Religious Right ("Your body, my choice,") which fails to understand the sanctity of Individual Rights, and which supports the un-American idea of putting Individual Rights up to a vote of the people.

They are the American Taliban and they deserve to lose their respective races. They will deserve consideration by Liberty-minded Americans only when they understand that their social conservatism is their choice, for themselves and for their families, but when they attempt to force their religious beliefs on others and conspire to abuse the power of government in this way, they are diametrically opposed to the intent of our founding fathers and are guilty of nothing less than Treason.

David Rogers

Will "Turning Back to God" Save Our Nation?

Some say that “God gave us this nation and we need to turn back to God to save it.” Wrong! If anything, America the land, was "given" to the Indians, not to us.

America the Beautiful, the country and the idea, was given to us by our founding fathers and the founding documents they created, while standing on the intellectual shoulders of men and women who led the way before them. That gift has been preserved since with the blood, sweat, and tears of many, and while some of these men and women drew their inspiration from religion, “praising the Lord” has never directly contributed a damned thing to this earthly creation called the United States of America.

It is, after all, an earthly creation. What is directly responsible for our success as a nation is a collection of ideals and principles, involving equality, freedom, and responsibility, and the resolution to live in accordance with them. It matters not if you live these principles in the name of God, Allah, Christ, the Buddha, Krishna, Humanity, or the FSM. It matters not if you live them in the name and company of wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, or gluttony. Living a life resolved to those ideals and principles is a necessary and sufficient condition to work toward saving our nation.

Turning to God is something that might help motivate and focus the efforts of some Americans, but not all – belief is not universal. For this reason alone, it will not save our nation. Insisting that "turning to God" is the answer for all America is parochial and divisive. I hold that this insistence is one of the most un-American forces at play in politics today.

Many living today are too young to remember, but up until the 50's we pledged allegiance to this country without invoking religion. Arguably, the country has gone to crap since the words "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50's. Why is that?

The flag (and “the country for which it stands”) is an earthly creation, not a heavenly one. This creation is based on the reality of our living together and prospering as a nation, rather than on any belief system about creation and eternity. Conflating the two has been the source of much evil, and much of the division today between people of good will is due to those who insist that their religious views should somehow have precedence over the founding documents and guiding principles which created this “Shining city upon a hill.”

All we need to do as a people to save this nation is to live a life in accordance with our founding ideals and principles. We need no reason or justification other than the fact of who we are - we are Americans.

Obama's 2010 State of the Union Address

I think Obama made a powerful speech - he was a great leader tonight. However, he needs to walk the walk as well as he talks the talk. He needs to realize that Nancy Pelosi is much more of a threat to his presidency than John Boehner. Hopefully he now understands what happens to his initiatives if his own party walks all over the opposition - he gets "bills we can't believe in."

If he can deliver on his promise of bipartisanship, if he can make that happen as a leader, then he will go down in history as a great president – the first great president since Ronald Reagan.

The Republican response was tepid, but better tepid than rabid. There seemed to be some effort to recognize the numerous areas President Obama mentioned where bipartisan cooperation is feasible. Republicans should immediately try to bring to the floor bills on each and every issue where Obama's vision coincides with limited government, civil rights (including those of homosexuals), individual liberty (including that of pregnant women) and national security, which includes energy independence, reductions in our military presence around the world, border control, immigration enforcement, environmental protection, and fiscal conservatism.

Let's see a Republican introduce a funding bill to start building modern, nuclear power plants. Let's see immediate action to enable offshore drilling to get us through until those nuclear power plants, solar plants, and wind farms come online. Let's see a national energy grid renewal project, of the scope and scale of the interstate highway program, to get ready for distributing that new power.

Let's see bills with the incentives Obama mentioned for small business and community banking. Let's see regulation to break up or eliminate any business institution which is "too big to fail." Any such entity is a clear threat to the American people and to democracy itself.

In short, Republicans have been handed a list of items which the President has told the American people he is willing to move forward on. They should jump at the opportunity to either 1) get some real work done for the American people or 2) prove to everyone that “Obama is a sweet-talking liar.” Either way, the Republicans will win big in 2012, potentially taking back both the House and the Senate, and, in the later case, likely taking back the presidency.

These Republican initiatives must be clear, immediate, and resolute. Americans are tired of dissent – they want leadership. Republicans should stop wasting their time trying to knock down Obama. They should get on with the work we sent them to Washington to do. And if the Republicans don’t put forth an effort to take Obama at his word and meet him halfway, then I for one will say, “Yes, he may be a liar, but you are a do-nothing leech on the body of America.”

David

Deflation or Inflation

Some say the bubble will deflate,
Some predict inflation.
From what I've heard on debt of late
I hold with those who say "deflate."
But to steal the soul of our nation,
And bring about her sure defeat
To destroy the middle class inflation
Can be discreet
With no salvation.

David W. Rogers
(with apologies to Robert Frost)

<Gasp> Obama is not a Citizen!

I just received another copy of the email referred to here:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/occidental.asp

This brought up here are two things that I don't like about the Republican Party right now:

1. They start every political meeting with a prayer, pretending that their proceedings, beliefs, and leadership are especially blessed with the patronship of God (thereby relieving the majority of the members of any need to actually think,) and
   
2. They have a large, powerful contingent of foul-mouthed, gossipy, hateful folk who spend all of their time knocking the opposition, rather than leading the party in any real way. Worse yet, the rest of the party doesn't seem to think there is anything wrong with this and promulgates the misinformation and hate-talk. I have even witnessed District-level meetings where the next thing after the prayer is a joke about some Democrat!

I am not knocking anyone's religion. I am, however, belittling the practice of confusing "the things which are Caesar’s" and "the things that are God’s." The current Republican leadership apparently sees no conflict, since it encourages (or at the very least tolerates) the conflation of the two.

The current leadership claims (or abides the claim) that the founders of this country intended no separation of church and state, and that keeping religion and politics separate is both un-American and un-Christian, ignoring the historically clear separation of church and state, exemplified by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the admonition of Christ referred to above.

I have nothing against religious beliefs or humor. However, I think those of us who have a brain and aren't afraid to use it are obligated to stand up and shout that the GOP leadership has no substance! They have no business claiming to represent us with their dual agenda of injecting religion into policies and substituting humor for honest debate. They must go before this country becomes a one-party country!

David Rogers

We (Americans) are Mad as Hell

The question is, "Are we going to take it anymore?"

The Elephant in the Room

As the Republican Party sinks ever further out of power, it is disheartening to listen to explanations from the party regulars: the war, the economy, George Bush, John McCain, "Obama's use of technologyto organize and energize his base", yada yada.

What no one seems to want to talk about is the problematic coalition which makes up the GOP power base - a coalition which conflates conservative social values, conservative fiscal values, and conservativegovernance values. Out of good intentions, they have created a three-headed monster!

I'm fed up with being told I have to choose between a "tax and spend"socialist nanny state (Democrats) and a "fiscally conservative"theocratic nanny state (Republicans). Republicans need to get "family values" out of their policy statements and leave them to families, focusing their policies on fiscal conservatism and limited government!

They are failing to accomplish these latter goals because they are losing too many liberty-minded voters on the so-called "family values" issues. "Family values" don't come from a political party, they come from families. A political party needs policies based on the instruments of democracy,not on the dogma of theocracy!

Don't like it? Don't do it!

Don’t like firearms? .............. Don’t own a gun!
Don’t like abortion? .............. Don’t have one!
Don’t like same sex marriage? ... Don’t be in one!
Don’t like free speech? .......... Don’t listen to it!
Don’t like the rich? ............... Don’t be rich!
Don’t like religion? ............... Don’t believe in one!
Don’t like big government? ...... Don’t accept it!
Don’t like America? ............... Don’t live here!