With the election drawing near, the media is talking a lot about red states and blue states, but there are a number of underlying issues that don’t get much coverage in the mainstream press. The most fundamental questions about what the role of government ought to be are conspicuously absent, and it seems that both major parties envision a much larger role for the state in the daily life of Americans.

Over the last few years the Republicans have drawn some much deserved criticism for their willingness to erode constitutionally protected civil liberties in pursuing a “War on Terror”. The fact that America has been led into two invasions in an undeclared war against a tactic has also gotten a healthy amount of discussion. The US constitution stipulates that only congress may declare war, and there has been no declaration of war by congress since December, 1941.

Now it seems likely that the Democrats will take the reigns of power because Americans are rejecting Republican abuses, but I wouldn’t expect constitutional government to be the result. The Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and FISA enlargement will likely all remain in force. FISA only passed with the support of Democrats in congress. American foreign policy will remain interventionist even if it becomes a little less unilateral. New enlargements of government are likely to follow. An interview with Barack Obama has surfaced, which indicates he favors the redistribution of wealth by the state. Once a nation has reached a point where it is openly legislating wealth redistribution, it has become avowedly socialist.

The concepts of collectivism and authoritarianism have been present in both major parties for a very long time, and while Obama and McCain both represent the flowering of different brands of statism, one must look to the roots to find a real explanation. Some Americans will welcome socialism at first, but “spreading the wealth around” and putting “country first” have totalitarian implications.

When the government provides “free” health care it becomes invested in all the lifestyle choices of its citizens. I wonder how many Obama supporters on college campuses realize that their binge drinking becomes an issue of national interest when the cost future health problems will be borne by the taxpayer?When government confiscates a portion of your income through taxation for the “social good”, it has control over the way the fruits of your labor are spent. If you have an aversion to undeclared wars, welfare, germ warfare research, subsidies for corporations, or the torture of enemy combatants you are still forced to pay for these things rather than being given the choice to freely give to social causes that you support. When government mandates a “free” education for every child it also controls what curriculum may be taught, how school districts may be run, and which children get extra funding. The list goes on.

The more that government grows, the less choices citizen’s are allowed to make. Not to mention the fact that government does not have a great reputation for efficiency. What choice does a citizen have if government runs the health care system poorly? In many countries there is no alternative, so if waiting periods for treatment are long sick people will just have to cross their fingers and hope that they survive until they can get medical attention. Just take a look at social security as an example. The money that was paid in by people approach retirement was not set aside for that purpose, but rather raided to pay for government largess throughout the years. That is why social security is facing insolvency over the next decade or two. Could individuals have really done any worse had they been left with their their earnings and the responsibility for their own retirement savings?

America has had neither a free market nor a constitutional government for many decades, but we may be on the verge of seeing politicians abandon any pretense of adhering to these ideals. Ultimately I find the prospects for America’s near future to be very depressing. The political class is having great success in getting the American people to trade in their freedom using fear and thirty pieces of silver. If the American people don’t realize the implications of this soon, then it may be too late to stop it.

There are many scientists who claim that human emissions of carbon dioxide are warming the Earth through a greenhouse effect, but there is another camp of scientists who are pointing towards the heavens in the search for what drives the Earth’s climate. The Sun is the source of all energy for planet Earth, and ironically the greenhouse effect is just a model in which a little bit more of the Sun’s radiation is trapped in the atmosphere by certain gases. Over the last year there has been news that the Sun is acting in an unexpected way and that could have big consequences here on Earth.

There is evidence that global temperatures dropped by as much as 0.65C between January of 2007 and January of 2008. These data alone are not particularly useful, but they correspond with an unusual drop in solar activity. Reduced solar activity could mean a reduction in the amount of solar energy that enters the climate system of the Earth, and a reduction in solar wind could allow more cosmic rays to enter the Earth’s atmosphere, which may increase cloud formation according to laboratory tests.

There is also anecdotal evidence that many places may be headed for a cold winter this year. Here in New England, 3-6 inches of snowfall are being forecast in some areas over the next couple of days and parts of upstate New York may see 12 or more inches this week. That seems like a very unusual amount of snowfall for October, especially when one considers that some scientists are claiming that the Earth is in the middle of an unprecedented warming period.

A lot of people are going to say that global warming can cause cooler temperatures and greater snow fall in certain areas, but I have a feeling that global warming hysteria may go the way of global cooling craze of the 1970’s as the story unfolds. I’m not a climate scientist, and I don’t claim to understand everything that affects global climate. However, it seems like historic climate shifts such as the Little Ice Age could not have been produced by man, and therefore indicate that climate fluctuates naturally.

Just because some scientists endorse a theory, doesn’t mean that it’s right. History shows that scientific consensus can be terribly off base. Like the ancient Greeks, who gave us the idea that by bleeding a sick person one could balance their humors and restore them to health. It is possible that current “cures” to global warming may not be needed and may possibly be counter productive. Greatly slashing the use of fossil fuels and energy consumption is not cost free. It will in fact have a great impact on the world economy. Only time will tell which theory of climate change is correct, but if the proponents of cooling are correct we may know before too long.

I was playing with Stumble Upon today when I found this website with audio proof that Mr. Obama has no qualms against redistributing wealth, and has (evidently) spent a great deal of time pondering over the surest method of accomplishing this redistribution. As anyone who has previously read this blog knows, I’m not a fan of McCain. However, at least McCain is being honest about his intentions: war, war, war! Obama, on the other hand, will evade the questions since he knows it’s in his best interest to hide the fact that he does believe in the redistribution of wealth (aka Marxism, communism, socialism, etc).  Click here to listen to the interview.

It’s not exactly news that the United States has a very militaristic foreign policy, but it does have an effect on Americans, whether they realize it or not. Military adventures overseas can escalate into full scale wars, which are costly in both money and lives. These interventions also have a negative impact on how the United States and US citizens are viewed by the rest of the world.

A US official is confirming reports that US forces launched a raid inside Syria on Sunday, which supposedly targeted an Al-Qaeda member. Syrian sources claim that civilians were killed in the raid. Some people may feel that such an action was justified because the Syrian government may not have been cooperative had the US sought permission to apprehend this alleged terrorist. The fact remains that the US congress has not declared war on Syria, and the US did not have permission to invade Syrian territory. When a foreign power sends troops into a sovereign nation without permission, it amounts to an act of war without a declaration of war. That violates long standing international law.

Readers of the blog will know that I’m not a fan of the United Nations, but there is merit to the idea that a nation should only go to war if it has been attacked and it has made its hostile position clear. The US now has a doctrine that says the military can go into a country unilaterally and kill its citizens without that constituting an act of aggression against that country. This is a very troubling and post modern way to look at the rules of war.

The US has also been engaging targets inside Pakistan, apparently without permission at times, for quite a while now. This resulted in some tense situations on the Pakistani border, where members of the Pakistani army reportedly exchanged fire with US and Afghan forces. It is now being reported that 20 people were killed in the most recent attack by an armed drone aircraft inside Pakistan. This attack took place 20 miles inside the country, and is reportedly the 19th strike to take place in Pakistan since August. These attacks may be having some success in killing militants who are responsible for attacks into Afghanistan, but they are likely also killing civilians in the process. Moreover, these attacks may radicalize the populace in Pakistan, especially when they are launched without consulting Pakistan’s armed forces.

Strikes like these present a danger of widening the war in the Middle East without the consent of the American people or the congress. Only congress has the power to declare war, but this means very little if the president is not restrained from attacking targets inside countries with which the US is supposed to be at peace. We could be plunged into a conflict with a country virtually overnight, and the US is not in a good position to be fighting another war at the moment. The United States is on the road to bankruptcy for a number of reasons, but excessive military extension overseas is a major reason why Uncle Sam is deeply in debt to foreign nations and investors. Sadly, it looks like there may be more wars on the horizon, no matter who gets elected to the White House.

The American government is no longer for the American people. The American government has stationed active duty military officers on American soil. The American government has used mercenaries (Blackwater) against its own people in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the “war” against immigration, etc. The American government has engaged in secret spying against its own citizens and passed the USA Patriot Act which gives the government unprecedented powers to harm its own citizens. These powers remind many of the states of Germany in the 1930s and the former Soviet Union. It’s time for a new Independence. We must take what our forefathers have given us and we must make it ours.

The Declaration of Independence

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The Free State Project is an effort to get 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to a single state where they will work towards reducing government to a maximum role of protecting life, liberty and property. It has been five years since the FSP membership selected New Hampshire out of a field of 10 low population states. Since then the growth of the project has been less spectacular than many were hoping, but activists are continuing to move into the state and as someone who was living in New Hampshire prior to the vote I can say that there has been a real impact.

New Hampshire remains the only state in the union not to have a law requiring adults to wear a seat belt. A bill proposing a seat belt law was narrowly defeated, and in my opinion it would have passed without the influx of Free Staters. New Hampshire was one of the first states to opt out of the Real ID program, thanks to a large rally at the state house and an intense lobbying effort. There have been a number of other successes worth mentioning, but I’ll save that for a later article.

Many libertarians who have heard of the Free State Project say that it’s a good idea, but they seem to find some reason why they can’t move. A common objection is that the weather is too cold, but there’s nothing anyone can do to change that. The other concern that keeps people from moving is whether there are enough jobs. The fact of the matter is that New Hampshire probably has one of the strongest job markets in the United States.

Forbes magazine looked at 141communities with populations between 65,000 and 188,000 to see which local economies were the least and most vulnerable to recession. Three New Hampshire towns made the list of the ten least vulnerable to recession. Lebanon came in as the least vulnerable to recession, while my hometown of Keene came in third least vulnerable and the state capital, Concord, came in as seventh least vulnerable. Not bad for a state with a population of 1.3 million.

The state has a fairly dynamic economy despite its small population. Lebanon and Keene are college towns so that helps insulate them from economic downturns, but in the case of Keene there is also a mix of retail, manufacturing, and office jobs. Retail stores draw in a great deal of business from out of state because New Hampshire has no general sales tax and many office jobs are attracted because the state has no personal income tax. There are plenty of regulations that need to be done away with in New Hampshire, but compared to other states, New Hampshire’s economy benefits from low taxes & regulations.

If you’re looking for liberty & prosperity then come to New Hampshire.

Regular readers of the blog will be aware that I don’t usually write about the presidential race, since I don’t believe that either major candidate deserves a vote. However, it looks like Obama is likely to win the election and so I think that it’s prudent to inquire as to what he plans to do once he occupies the White House. His running mate has made some rather vague statements that seem to allude to an unpleasant next few years for the US of A.

Biden seems very convinced that the country will face a very serious crisis shortly after Obama is elected. He said the following in an address to supporters.

“It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

Maybe Joe Biden is just very bad at using the English language, but what does he mean when he refers to a “generated crisis”? Who’s going to generate this crisis? Some people reading this are going to say that I’m cherry picking one quote out of a speech to make a slip of the tongue look like something ominous, but it is the overall context of Biden’s speech that makes me question just what the hell he’s talking about. Allow me to provide some more context.

“I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate,” Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. “And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

So it appears that Biden is talking about some kind of foreign policy crisis. Perhaps some kind of terrorist attack, or a showdown with the Russians, and the way that the administration would respond, but he goes on to talk about the economy.

“We’re gonna win with your help, God willing, we’re gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It’s like cleaning the Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than – think about it, literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy.”

Clearly the economy is going to be a significant challenge for anyone who takes on the role of President next year, but the final quote from Biden that I’ll give seems to tie the picture together.

“…Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?’ We’re gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years…”

“There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, ‘Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don’t know about that decision’…Because if you think the decision is sound when they’re made, which I believe you will when they’re made, they’re not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they’re popular, they’re probably not sound.”

My guess is that Obama is going to address what he sees as ’systemic’ problems with our economy by restructuring that system, and not for the better. Certainly his running mate thinks that the administration’s changes will be very unpopular, even among current supporters of the campaign, since that is who he was addressing. I believe that Barack Obama will probably greatly increase taxes & regulations on all sectors of the economy, and he will almost certainly not address the role that the central bank played in this crisis by greatly expanding the money supply. In short, I believe that the Obama administration would attempt to broadly socialize the US economy which probably won’t lead to a sudden economic turn around.  He must be planning something drastic for his running mate to expect such a short honeymoon with an American public that claims to want change.

McCain probably isn’t any better, and I encourage anyone who plans on voting to support someone besides the two major candidates, but ultimately one of these two men will assume the office of President of the United States in January. Those of you who want to live in a free country are going to have to speak up and demand individual liberty and free markets in the face of growing authoritarianism, or the America that we all know & love may disappear forever.

Newsweek is reporting that abstinence only education will probably die out with the Bush administration. This is news that a large swath of Americans couldn’t be happier to hear. For one thing, abstinence only education has been shown to be completely ineffective.

“Now 25 state health departments reject federal abstinence money, up from 11 in little more than a year. In December, the government reported a rise in teen birth rates for the first time in 15 years; opponents wasted no time in saying that the trajectory changed on abstinence’s watch, and that Texas, the abstinence torchbearer, has a more dismal teen-birth record than any other state, with 62 teen births per 1,000 population. (The national rate is 40 per 1,000.)”

I’m no math genius, but I don’t think I need to be to realize that 6.2% of the teen girls in Texas are having babies, meaning that even more are having abortions and more still are sexually active. With numbers like these, continuing on with abstinence only is  irresponsible and somewhat reminiscent of a child simply covering his eyes to avoid seeing what he doesn’t want to see.

In addition to pregnancy, there’s a little matter of STDs. In fact, many state health departments strongly recommend that young teens be given the Gardasil vaccine to protect them from HPV, one of the most common STDs. If abstinence only education were working, Gardasil wouldn’t be necessary for 12 year old girls.

The abstinence only craze also raises the question of what constitutes an appropriate curriculum in a tax funded school. In my opinion, abstinence only and creationism/intelligent design are wholly unethical topics to teach in a school which is funded by tax dollars because they’re esentially fusing religious teachings with public monies–and misleading children. If a religious parent doesn’t wish for their children to learn about science and medicine, they’re always welcome to opt out of those topics or the entire public school system. The education of the general population should never be allowed to suffer to avoid hurting the principles of a few religious fanatics.

The issue now is whether public money should keep flowing to any abstinence program, given that few have any more scientific justification than Virginity Rules did. Comprehensive education is attached to a larger body of research, including studies finding that these programs may not only improve contraceptive use among teens, but lead to some of the same goals sought by abstinence advocates: delay of sexual initiation and a reduction of partners.

It’s time to face the facts. Abstinence only education has been a failure and has trampled the rights of the majority of Americans–people who may be religious but are able to take a realistic view of the world. American teens are now entirely uneducated about STDs and proper prevention methods. But they’re still having sex. The more moderate parents of America ought to stand up for the rights of their children. They shouldn’t allow the fanatics to dictate what will be taught in schools. And with the body of evidence pointing away from abstinence only as an effective educational tool, the case for real education should be easy to make.

In the United States, it’s illegal to grow hemp. Many people assume that hemp is illegal due to its mind altering properties. However, this couldn’t be further from the truth. In reality, hemp has no mind altering abilities. It can’t get you high. Smoking industrial hemp would be like smoking a dirty sock–no fun at all and probably not very tasty.

“Hemp contains delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is the psychoactive ingredient found in hashish and marijuana. While THC is present in all Cannabis plant varieties to some extent, industrial hemp does not contain an amount to produce any intoxicating effect, even in significant quantities.”

Now that we’ve cleared up the biggest misconception about hemp, you might be wondering how it came to be illegal to grow (but not possess) hemp in the United States. The short answer is that the US government’s blind obedience to the drug war punishes plants that even remotely resemble marijuana. Even though hemp can’t get you high, it does look like marijuana plants which makes it difficult for drug and law enforcement officers to distinguish whether your crop is legal or not. There are also very powerful lobbies–cotton growers, oil producers, etc, who would not appreciate the legalization of a crop which could very well put them out of business.

Now that we’ve discussed the reasons that hemp is illegal to grow in the US, let’s examine the reasons that it should be made legal. First and foremost, hemp is an extremely useful plant. Its fibers can be used to make textiles, hemp seed oil and other food products, diesel fuel, paints, detergents and paper products. Additionally, hemp is easier to grow and replace than trees so using it for our paper products is better for the environment. And I don’t think anyone needs to be told twice that using plant based materials in place of oil and oil byproducts is better for the environment.

Farmers would be well advised to grow hemp as a rotation crop because it uses very little water and has a short growing season. It could potentially help farmers keep the soil productive and avoid the use of pesticides and fertilizers.

All said, hemp is a versatile and worthwhile cash crop which must be imported to the United States instead of grown. The American people would be well advised to demand that our farmers be allowed to legally grow hemp (remember, this plant has no psychoactive properties). I myself use imported hemp to indulge my creative side by making macramé hemp anklets which I can literally wear day in, day out, in and out of the shower for years before they need to be replaced. The hemp fibers are strong, durable and soft. With the American economy on the decline, this would be the perfect time to allow our farmers to begin growing hemp. Not only would it provide a boost to the agricultural section of our economy without the need for any subsidies, but industry could use the additional hemp entering the market to make hundreds of consumer products to the benefit of the manufacturing and retail industries. It doesn’t make sense not to allow our farmers to grow hemp.

Much ado has been made over the 2008 Presidential election in the United States. Because of their status as an international military and (formerly) economic superpower, the United States are given an inappropriate level of attention on a worldwide scale. This election cycle has pitted more of the same (McCain) against…more of the same (Obama).

The problem, as I see it, is that the media, Americans and informed citizens of the world mistakenly believe that Obama stands for real change and progress. I suppose that if you see government overspending, tax increases and a sustained military presence overseas as any sort of change then Obama is your man. However, given the fact that the Bush/McCain regime stand for those exact same principles, I can’t quite wrap my own mind around the notion that Obama is somehow better. Evil is evil. There is no greater and there is no lesser. Evil is absolute.

No, Obama isn’t better than McCain. Obama wants to accomplish the same goals as McCain. He just wants to take a different path to the same ending point. Both candidates are tax and spend candidates. Neither candidate wants to actually lessen the government inflicted burden on the average American. Both candidates support maintaining a presence in Iraq. Neither candidate has made a true commitment to freeing the Iraqi people from American occupation nor to freeing the American people from the economic burden of supporting a giant military-industrial complex. McCain (supposedly) supports tax breaks to allow Americans to buy healthcare. Obama supports government spending to buy healthcare for Americans. Neither candidate seems to have thought of LESSENING the tax burden so Americans can better provide for themselves.

Let’s face it. McCain is sunk. Obama is going to be the next President of the USA. He’s going to spend ridiculous amounts of our money whether we invite him to or not. Our taxes will increase. Our take home pay will decrease. Our standard of living will be lower than the standards our parents enjoyed. Most Americans will see less freedom and more government intrusion. Most Americans will see little to no increase in the benefit they receive from the government. Many Americans will see their quality of life decrease.

I don’t want to see the quality of life decrease for myself nor for my neighbors. However, electing a socialist as President and allowing him to destroy the country may be just what the doctor ordered. It may be the only way to wake up the sleeping masses of complacent Americans. I’m almost tempted to vote for Obama so that two years from now people will realize how good we used to have it. Almost.