Welcome to the Slaughterhouse!: Civil Liberties and the Election!

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres 

It wasn't so long ago that liberals were denouncing President George W. Bush for his administration's complete violation of constitutional liberty and endless illegal wars waged. It wasn't that long ago that panic gripped civil liberties advocates about the possibility of the president eroding our freedom like never before.

Where are you now!?

Anyone who votes for President Barack Obama is also voting for the Patriot Act taking our privacy away which was ramped up under his watch, NDAA killing legal citizens without due process of the law, drones flying over America and spying on her people, the TSA molesting us at airports which was also escalated under this president, Guantanamo Bay still open and expanded under the current administration, the government listening in on phone conversations between people of this country and  those of other countries identified as “terrorists” without a warrant, endless unconstitutional wars where American troops now fight and die in nearly a dozen other countries Bush never invaded, the fact that the Department of Homeland Security under Obama now actively monitors social networks such as Twitter and Facebook to uncover “Items of Interest”, and at the current president’s request, the passing of HR 347, making it illegal to protest federal officials “visiting any facility” who have Secret Service protection where penalties for doing so include up to 10 years in federal prison effectively repealing your right to “petition for redress of grievances”.

And then there’s Presidential Directive 51, which the Obama administration has expanded upon after the last administration put it into effect.  It states, among many other things, that the President has the power to completely cancel any and all elections in the United Sates for an undisclosed period of time of his own choosing in the event of a "catastrophic emergency".

The moral of this story is this: If you do care about civil liberties and the Constitution the one person whom you do NOT want to vote for is Obama! 

Who does that leave us with? Mitt Romney? Now, after all of this, if you still can’t bring yourself to vote for Mitt Romney, that’s fine- I don’t plan to, either. There are other very qualified people running for the highest office in the land on November 6^th who do deserve your support, and who will not erode civil liberties and destroy the Constitution as we know it. Libertarian Gary Johnson comes to mind right away.

But is that a vote you just throw away since your candidate of choice likely won’t even be elected? Is it effectively a spoiler vote for one party or the other rather than for your own third party candidate? Is it simply a waste of time? It is if you believe voting your conscience, principals and for the best person for the job is indeed a waste.

After all, just ask yourself this one simple question when you vote this year: “Is there any way to solve the issues I care most about with more freedom instead of less?” If the answer is less freedom, then vote for our current Commander-In-Chief once again or for Mitt Romney who holds near-identical positions on these very same issues, and remember this: The lesser of two evils is still evil.

In fact, if you do vote for Barack Obama you have only yourself to thank when every future president from here on out knows he or she can do the very same thing or worse since it doesn’t provoke even the slightest bit of backlash from the left. And if Mitt Romney is elected and liberals finally speak out on these same issues you will be regarded as the hypocritical phony we all know you already are.

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse!: Libertarians and Abortion!

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres 

I never understood how libertarians could NOT be against abortion. 

Libertarians say they promote individual liberty and seek to minimize the role of big government, but they then say that they consider a "right to an abortion" to be part of their general support for individual rights, especially in regard to what they consider to be a woman's right to control her body. But that seems, at best, counter intuitive to me. What about the non-aggression principle? Doesn't that apply to all human beings, including the right to life of fetuses? Thus, they should be opposed to the legality of abortion in my opinion. 

The group Libertarians For Life say: "Non-aggression is an ongoing obligation: it is never optional for anyone, even pregnant women. If the non-aggression obligation did not apply, then earning money versus stealing it and consensual sex versus rape would be morally indifferent behaviors. The obligation not to aggress is pre-political and pre-legal. It does not arise out of contract, agreement, or the law; rather, such devices presuppose this obligation. The obligation would exist even in a state of nature. This is because the obligation comes with our human nature, and we acquire this nature at conception." 

I'll go one step further and say- while libertarian theory is built upon property rights, it also recognizes a natural limit to the exercise of those rights. That limit is what Locke called, “the law of nature,” which is that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” In other words, a woman may have a right to "evict" an unwanted person from their "property", unless that person is evicted via the act of murder. Therefore, to me, abortion is fundamentally against the ideals of the whole libertarian. 

Having said that, America is not a third world country, and a woman does have a right to choose- rather, she chooses to have sex and must live up to the personal responsibility and consequences of that act in every way, shape and form. Once her choice is made and the result is pregnancy, the choice is no longer hers alone. Other than the man that made a personal choice as well, there is an unborn life that needs a say in the matter, one that had no choice in the previous act at all. 

And in the case of rape, which always gets brought up in this type of discussion, (to use legal jargon) "the offending party must pay recompense to the offended." In other words, the rapist must pay a price for the "property damage" that he has been committed- however that may be. Still, this does not negate the rights of the fetus. Whatever inconvenience is perpetrated on the mother is to be compensated by the offender, not the child. In short, the mother does not have the right to terminate the child's life. 

Libertarians (at least in the way I identify with them) I feel are mostly voluntarist, but recognize the need to coordinate in limited ways for the greater good, and to restrict individual rights when the exercise of those rights impedes someone else’s exercise of his rights. These laws are designed to decide whose rights trump whose when they conflict. 

The bottom line for me is this: Clearly, the most vitriolic case of conflicting rights is abortion, unless you assume that the fetus has no rights. And while that’s an assumption that you can choose to make, I look at it this way: If the fetus is a person (or, to put it another way, at the moment that it becomes a person), then obviously its right to live trumps the mother’s right not to have a baby. 

Unfortunately we have a hard time deciding as a people when the fetus truly does become a person. Some people think it’s at the moment of conception. Some people think it’s when it takes its first few breaths outside the womb. Some people think it’s all about “viability”, and when the child could medically survive on its own. But wherever you draw that line, that’s when it changes from a fetus without rights to a person with rights. 

I personally have no idea when that really happens, but the most obvious way to draw the line is at some sort of physical action we can all point to like the first beat of a human heart. Either way, as long as I don’t know for certain, I feel as though we should err on the side of preserving life, and follow the non-aggression principle 100% no matter what. After all, the potential harm to the fetus if we guess too late is far greater than the presumed harm to the mother if we presuppose too early. 

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse!: Budget and Economy!

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres 

This is an easy one!

First, we start by repealing 16th Amendment effectively abolishing the income tax and property tax. After that, we force the government to live within their means just as we as citizens must live within ours in order to survive. Once we do that, we start paying down the deficit IMMEDIATELY, and stop borrowing from places like China.

After all, the people, not the government, are supposed to run the economy- so, we should fight for more power given to the private sector, not less. Besides, there is no way to control spending when the Federal Reserve creates money by printing it out of thin air to pay our debts off. As a result, we need to abolish the Federal Reserve, too.

In fact, I would go so far as to say we should stop all non-essential aid to EVERY country we currently prop up, as well. Sure, the American people are a naturally giving people, but we need to allow ourselves a small amount of selfishness in this day and age if for no other reason than out of necessity. Frankly, let them get their own collective houses in order, just as we must.

Similarly, hard choices must be made here or we won't survive as the prosperous nation we once were, either. We all have those things we want the government to not cut, but cuts must be made all the way across the board no matter what your pet issue may be. That includes government worker's salaries, Medicare and Medicaid, welfare benefits, veteran's benefits, the the military industrial complex, the public school system- EVERYTHING!

We also need to end as many regulations as possible in order for businesses to do their business without the government taking their share right off the top. And we need competition to get it done. No more "no-complete clauses" with the United States Post Office for instance. Let those of us who know how to run a business show the Feds a thing or two, and let the rest fail.

The truth is, the government is like a drunken sailor on shore leave, they spend way too much even though they have very little to actually give, and when they come home they wonder why they need even more assistance by the government. Our government simply taxes us more and more every day thinking that will somehow regulate our economy magically. But all that accomplishes is anger and resentment by the people when their hard earned money is taken from them and wasted by a clumsy and inept government that can’t run itself as a proper business anyway.

In short, we need to restore our nation by returning to the TRUE conservative tenant of “less government via fiscal responsibility” and force those who govern us- both republican AND democrat- to be personally held responsible for our debt should it ever grow beyond what is acceptable to us as a people. In the end, we can’t legislate economic fairness in a true republic; so the only answer is to make our existing government as small as possible while continuing to still function with the barest of essentials. Then, we allow the private sector to do their thing, and fix the rest!

Having said all of that, the very first step is for the American people to realize that they have a true say with their vote, and that they need to use that vote to make a statement. The two-party system simply isn't working anymore, and we need to kick EVERY big government crony out of Washington on both sides of the isle that isn't a true fiscal conservative. In doing that, we stand every chance of not falling into the trap that so many other nations have fallen into over the years. But this can only be accomplished if we follow the right signs that lead the way out of the darkness.

Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: Won't Some Party Claim Me?

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

Let's try an experiment, shall we?

I'm a leftist-leaning democrat who voted for Barack Obama in 2008. And anyone who didn’t is a tea-bagging racist!

See how that worked? Half of you just mumbled something about me being a typical liberal. And the other half cheered out loud. And still, it was about as subtle as a sledgehammer and as divisive as a militant atheist at a Catholics-only convention.



It was certainly straight forward, but was it the truth?

Not if you really delve into the complexities of both major parties, it isn't. Democrats aren't just democrats anymore. Republicans aren't just republicans. And most of us would much rather be somewhere in the middle if we really had our way about it, as opposed to most of the other political groups out there who are just too small to matter in the country club that is the political machine today.

After all, let's just be frank, the Libertarian Party (which is probably the largest of all the third parties in the United States today) is essentially a politically-impotent movement for the most part and likely always will be. Sure, some will raise up arms in protest by saying it is solely because of the Republican and Democrat Party's ability to overshadow any other movement like the libertarian movement, but that wouldn’t be entirely true, or intellectually honest. For the sake of argument, though, even if it were the case, and even if you buy into the philosophy that your party can be emasculated by any other party by the simple nature of their existence, you are (in essence) saying your own party is filled with so many weak-willed and inept members that you are either so easily swayed into another camp or can't mobilize your own troops well enough to make any real difference anyway.

Don't get me wrong. I understand, and even celebrate the side of me that is overtly libertarian in nature. But I am what you may call a "developing libertarian". After all, the exact term "libertarian" isn't entirely true to who I am, but then again, neither is “republican” or "democrat”. I like most of the core ideals of the Libertarian Party, but not the sometimes wild ideas of what is right and what is not so right morally that often come from many party members- much like the Republican and Democrat Parties. I suppose I am best described by some as a "libertarian-leaning conservative", which isn't to say I don't share some of the ideals that liberals in America do today, because I do. Still, does that make me a republican or a libertarian, or even a democrat in the most general of definitions?

Let's take state's rights for starters. Unlike most liberals, I am for state's rights almost to a fault. I also feel that individual states do have a right to institute universal health care if they choose to; to hand out free cars if they want, ban drug and alcohol, or even force people to eat red lollipops and crap sunshine if the citizens of that state want it that way. But only if it doesn’t violate the United States Constitution in any way, shape or form.

The Federal Government is essentially barred from such actions, but individual states are not for the most part. And guess what? If a state also wants to have a collective mad-on hate for “queers”, “wetbacks”, “hillbillies”, “cowboys” or “car salesmen”- so be it. It is their right to institute a vote to make it an insane venture for any Hispanic, gay or lesbian, Black-American, or pony-riding hick to live there. You can't force these people out of your state by law, or out-rightly discriminate against them, but you can make it near impossible for them to WANT to be there- and I am frankly okay with that. Not the racism that would surely ensue, but the rights of the citizens of that state to decide for themselves what they want within the confines of Federal discrimination laws.

If you don't like Arizona, then move to California. If you don't like California, then head on down to Mexico. If you don’t like Mexico, then I couldn’t blame you at all.



But personally, I am no more a libertarian then I am a republican; or for that matter, even democrat. I have a little bit of each party within me, and I feel that's what makes me the free thinker I believe I am today. I don't pander, and I am no partisan hack for any side. Frankly, anyone who identifies with any party 100% should be institutionalized for bat-shit craziness right out of the gate, and have the key thrown away forever. To be that much behind your party without any reservation makes you an automaton at best, and no better than the other side you choose to attack.

What I believe is different about me is my personal perspective- not my political persuasion. Most libertarians eschew the culture wars, think drugs and pornography should be legal, favor an almost isolationist foreign policy for the most part and generally believe in shrinking the government to about the size of a walnut- all of which appalls most mainstream conservatives. On these matters, I am a fairly typical conservative republican for all intents and purposes.

Sure, I think Federal Government should have much less power than it does today, but to shrink it so small that it has virtually no power at all is sheer lunacy, and also wildly dangerous in this day and age. And to bring all of our troops home right now would be a great idea and one I am all for, but also equally dangerous if not extremely naive to do all in one fell swoop. But so many libertarians I know of would love these ideas to be made a reality. Not me. Not in the slightest. I am no anarchist or isolationist. I guess I am no “true” libertarian.

Generally, I am in favor of a strong military and am not afraid of our government using it within the confines of our Constitution (which it currently doesn’t anyway). I also reject the idea of immediately pulling American troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and many other places for a multitude of different reasons which places me directly at odds with the Libertarian Party. But like many libertarians, I feel that a president MUST have approval before he decides to go to war, that preemption in war is about as wrong as it gets on nearly every single level, and that war in general is a very, very bad idea.

However, in the post-911 world we live in today, if you aren't at least somewhat vigilant and don't say you won't retaliate against aggression when it happens to you, you are either a fool who might as well choose to live in a fantasy world where nothing bad ever really happens, or close the door to our country and never let anyone in ever again. Essentially, if you come after my country first and do harm to my people, we have the right and we WILL pound you into squirrel snot given the chance to do so. Otherwise, we're minding our own business for the most part.

Yet, for whatever reason, a lot of libertarians are seemingly in favor of completely open borders with no restrictions, and want every illegal alien, criminal, and Allah-loving terrorist to flood our country like never before. I can't even touch on this idea without my head exploding. In this regard, I am COMPLETELY the opposite of a libertarian!

So, does that make me a conservative republican? Not unless you think the terms "militant atheist" or “bleeding heart vegan” are synonymous with republicanism, it doesn't.



I identify with the Republican Party on a great many levels, but not all- including the religious right who seems to rule the direction the party is headed today.

Take capital punishment for example. I am against it on every level possible. And I am just fine with gays and lesbians getting married and divorced and even joining the military given the chance to do so. And abortion? I actually understand it when some people decide to go that route, believe it or not- but I still think it is personally one of the worst choices you could ever make. So, does that make me a democrat in conservative’s clothing, or someone trying his best to pretend not to be what others’ believe him to be?

I am also against the welfare state to an almost vitriolic degree- including welfare for veterans, corporations, and the elderly- not just the poor, the lazy, or the inept. I feel unions have way outlived their usefulness. I believe that redistribution of any sort of wealth at all is the birth of the downfall of this great country we live in. I am completely for making drugs of any kind extremely hard to get, if not completely illegal- including cigarettes AND alcohol. And while I am not at all behind the Patriot Act, I am also just fine with a little water boarding every now and then if it gets the job done. I am just not so sure I want to know about it when it happens. Oh, and I love my guns and country, too.

So, that must bring me back to being a jingoistic republican, right?

After all, the most common belief republicans have is fiscal conservatism- specifically, advocating for lower taxes at every level of government, a reduction in the level of spending in the federal budget, easing the burden of federal regulations on business interests, the reform of the entitlement system, and ending or making significant cuts to the welfare state. Additionally, they claim to oppose budget deficits and deficit spending, and work to minimize it as much as possible. Too bad that is only in theory. Republicans have become just as diametrically opposite to this way of thinking as the democrats have.

And the Constitution?

Come on, libertarians aren't the only ones who have the market cornered on the Constitution and the rights it affords to all American citizens. Republicans do, as well- again in theory, that is. And I bet I can even find one or two Blue Dog Democrats that would stand behind the greatest document ever written if I look hard enough. But to be clear, these concepts are not exclusively mutual to just the Libertarian Party. Because, while the United States Constitution may have been birthed by forming a multitude of different concepts throughout the history of the world, and from different civilizations and societies and countries over time- it is wholly American, as well. However, the birth of the libertarian movement is predominantly a French concept, not an American one.

Let me repeat that in case you missed it the first time: The birth of the libertarian movement was French!



Wikipedia says, "The use of the word 'libertarian' to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, 'Libertaire', which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the classical liberalism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Hence the term 'libertaire' has been used as a synonym for left wing anarchism or libertarian socialism since the 1890s."

“Libertarian communist?!”

Now, I'm not saying the French are all bad, or had only bad ideas, but... come on, they're French!

And the Democratic Party? It "evolved from Anti-Federalist factions that opposed the fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton in the early 1790s" also according to Wikipedia. So, it is truly an American concept, as well, as opposed to libertarianism. And in its inception, the party favored states' rights and a strict adherence to the Constitution; while opposing a national bank and wealthy, moneyed interests much like the Libertarian and Republican Parties do today.

And finally, there's the Republican Party, which is also a 100% American-created and born institution with one of the greatest men to ever be elected to the high office of the Presidency- Abraham Lincoln- as its first. Bottom line, you don't get any more "American" than the Republican Party.

So, that must mean I am one even though I sound libertarian by libertarian standards today even though libertarians were formed out of communist and socialist roots which is what most people accuse the Democrat Party of being today... is anyone else confused yet?

Bottom line, the Republican and Democrat Parties today are not the Republican and Democrat Parties of days gone by, and that concerns me. I am often called a RINO, or "Republican in Name Only", or even the opposite extreme- a neo-conservative- by people who claim to know me. But is that truly fair to me, and does it even matter if I am not EXACTLY the embodiment of one party or another? After all, republicans don't act or talk or think at all like the republicans of the past, nor do democrats, nor do libertarians for that matter.



So...

"Where do I stand?"

"Who do I most closely align myself with?"

"What party best represents ‘me’?"

If I call myself a republican, I am automatically aligned with the religious right and George W. Bush whom I did not vote for. If I say I am a democrat, I am a born again socialist who dreams of communist sheep jumping over Marxist revolutionaries wearing brown SS shirts who voted for Barack Obama- whom I also did not vote for. Independents are nothing more than the bi-sexuals in the political spectrum who vacillate from side to side when it is convenient for them to do so, but never seem to want to really commit themselves to any actual cause or side. And the renewed interest in libertarianism via the Tea Party movement over the last couple of years only seems to me a knee-jerk reaction to conservative republicans losing to our current president in 2008. It seems like it is more of an anti-democrat and anti-liberal movement rather than a pro-liberty or constitutional one.

So, where do I stand?

Perhaps, I am a "diet libertarian", or perhaps even "libertarian light". In other words, I think nearly exactly as most libertarians do, but because I live in Utah and can't vote in the primaries as anything other than a democrat or a republican, I chose the lesser of two evils and am a registered “little (r)”. Just don’t try telling all the other conservatives out there in Mormonland that I am an atheist who supports gay marriage, and who is also against the death penalty. They’ll take my card away, and never give it back.

Perhaps I am with all of these groups and perhaps I am with none of them. That is about as clear as it gets for me… for right now at least or maybe even forever. Maybe that's where it should choose to even stay. Maybe I am more than the label I am forced to be given, or the mantel I choose to wear. Maybe I am more than the sum of my political parts. Maybe just being called an "American" is more than enough in the world we live in today.

Maybe Superman had the right idea. Maybe "truth, justice, and the American way" is all there really is to believe in when it’s all said and done. Maybe we should form a new political party altogether. Maybe.

Raise your hands if you're for the newly formed "Truth, Justice and the American Way Party"! Now, that's something I could get behind. Up, up, and away, America! It’s time to move beyond the labels we are given by others, and make our own way in the world for ourselves, and for liberty.