Mayor Rahm Emanuel Penalizes People of Faith: A Libertarian Stand For Gay Marriage!

Mayor of Chicago

Before we get into this article let me say first I am huge supporter of “the freedom to marry” and thank God everyday that the U.S. Constitution says we have the right to worship God according to the dictates of our own faith. That means, IF A FAITH (any faith) encourages same-sex marriage then the constitution says that faith has the freedom to do it. However if a faith encourages its people to speak out against gay marriage, our constitution ALSO says that that faith has the freedom to do that as well. Its a constitution that supports liberty for all and that is what the Libertarian Party is all about. Mayor Rahm Emanuel (pictured above) wants to take that liberty away.

In case you haven’t heard this story,Lauren Silich, who owns a Chick-fil-A had plans of opening one of its franchises in Chicago. After an anti-gay marriage statement made by its company’s head Dan Cathy in the Chicago Tribune, Alderman Joe Moreno, supported by Mayor Emmanuel began to work to put a block on the Chick-Fil A effort. In response to Mr Cathy’s statement, Mayor Emanuel said “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,” He said “They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents.”

When I heard this all I could think was …WHAT?? Now we have GOT TO HAVE the same values as …now we have GOT TO HAVE the same beliefs?? Where is the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech that everybody is always always reminding us about? Its one thing to say gays should be allowed to marry, I agree 100% . But to PENALIZE people who don’t agree and hold “different” beliefs and values by blocking their efforts to do business in the city, is flat out unconstitutional. How does taking a way a freedom that another group has always had .. promote liberty . Also is the whole company going to be penalized just because of statements of its owner. Liberty, in our country is not to be just for some …it is suppose to be for all.

The LGBT community has done so well and fought so long for the freedom to marry and are seeking to have that same freedom all over the country that so many are having all over the world. The moment that that freedom begins to intrude on freedoms of others who believe differently though, is the day “freedom for all” in country begins to stop. Mayor Emanuel , Alderman Moreno, If your goal is to work with the gay community in promoting the freedom to marry, just know … you won’t be able to ever do it… by taking the freedoms of others away. Please don;t send us 20 years back to start all over again by legally penalizing the Chic-Fil A franchise. We have come to far on this issue. One of the main beliefs of Libertarianism (which I’ve supported throughout this blog) : No one should authorize another person to violate someone else’s rights.

One nation, Under God. With Liberty, And Justice – FOR ALL

Just a opinion of another libertarian

They Haven’t Hurt ANYONE, So Why Are They in Prison? : One Libertarians Take On Ending the Drug War

Gary Johnson Libertarian nominee for President of United Sates said ““I’m going to be the only candidate that doesn’t want to bomb Iran. I’m going to be the only candidate that wants to get out Afghanistan now—and the wars. I’m going to be the only candidate that wants to end the drug war. I’m going to be the only candidate that wants to bring about marriage equality, believing that it’s a constitutionally guaranteed right.” Thats all stuff that I want to hear particularly the part about ending the war on drugs. To me if things are going to change , especially here in Detroit, that has got to happen. It seems though that the only political party that understands this and sees it as a priority are Libertarians and its one of the mains reasons I recently decided to become one. Its a party thats about standing up for ‘”individual” rights, the rights for individuals to be free to to able to live their lives HOWEVER THEY WANT as long as what they want as individuals DOES’NT HURT ANYONE ELSE. Its not just about promoting what society wants as a whole, its about what the different individuals want, as sometimes what society wants and what a individual wants, is different.

Take drinking alcohol and smoking weed or some other drug, for example. They are all things that a lot of people like, but for me as an individual, its never been anything that as an individual, I wanted to see in my life. My father was an alcoholic, died of cirrhosis of the liver. I’ve seen people become totally different people when they’re high (from alcohol or whatever). They fight and argue, hurt people, say things they shouldn’t. Seeing all this growing up made me realize if people want this life they can have it but as an individual “..this is not the life for me”. So now as an adult I don’t allow any of it in my home ever not even when I entertain. I don’t hang with people or go places where its done in excess. It doesn’t excite me and Its just not my life. That doesn’t mean however that I think other people shouldn’t have it in their lives. Whatever people do in their homes, in their circles of friends is alright with me AS LONG AS it doesn’t interfere with my life . Thats what libertarianism is all about.

Unfortunately most people don’t think that way. Their thinking is ” I don’t want it in my life, its bad,(and here’s where they cross the line)”and nobody else should be able to have it in there’s”. How arrogant is that? Whats worst is ..then they’ll go out, form groups and get people to pass laws to make sure it doesn’t happen, ultimately taking away somebody else’s individual freedoms. Somebody who is not doing anything to hurt THEM at all. They might be hurting themselves, but they are NOT hurting us or forming groups to take away OUR freedoms. Yet people are working to take the freedoms THEY enjoy, away .Then when laws are passed against what they do, it classify’s what they do as “criminal activity” and ultimately for that activity (which hurts no one else) gets them locked away. Yet they never did anything in that crime that hurt another. The laws calls them “non-violent” offenders and they already make up 60% of the United States prison population which cost our country billions and the goal is pass laws to get more of these NON-VIOLENT offenders put away. Wow!! Unbelievable! They are not killers, they are not brawlers, they are not rapist, they are not robbing stores or banks. They have done none of those things but they are locked away with people who have done those things. 25% are in simply because they purchased a drug for themselves that they wanted with their own money …and somebody who didn’t like it passed a law and made that illegal and now theres a war thats costing our country billions to get as many of these NON-VIOLENT PEOPLE LOCKED UP. Whats more, the states that have the most of them locked up are all crying “BROKE” . Thats because they are spending billions of dollars for things like this that we don;t even need.

A lot of people ask today what would Jesus do? What would he say to people like these folks with these drugs who know they are blatantly breaking the law. Would he want the law enforced. Well, the woman caught in adultery, didn’t just sin she committed a crime and blatantly broke the law of the land (John 1-11). The law said she was to be stoned, just like the law says these folks should be locked up,. Well Jesus, rather than make her pay the price simply said to her, just don’t do it. I think we should do the same. Instead of just working to see that people pay these sever penalty’s who crimes that are actually harming no one, I think we’d come out more on top just telling them not to do it and why. No, it’s not going to necessarily stop them from doing it. If what they’re doing is not hurting you, why do you really care how often they do it anyway. If its because you love them then do like Jesus did and just tell them. Why be bent on making them pay a price, especially if they have hurt no one.

Don’t I see how buying and selling these drugs are bad for people? I definitely see it. But I also think drinking any kind alcohol is bad for folks but I’m not going to get out and start a war against alcohol and so that everybody that likes to drink gets locked up and INCREASE the prison population. If we did that, that would mean we’d be gunning for almost every guy we meet to get locked up because 9 out of 10 guys that we meet has a beer every now and then. I don’t think drinking is a good thing, but I don’t think there should be laws against adults who do it either, especially if they drink responsibly. Why would I feel any different about people who buy or sell drugs. Its only a disgraced community because we made laws against people who do it. If we’d stop passing laws against it we’d look at people who smoked weed the same way we look at people who drink wine because taking away the laws would take away the disgrace. Thats exactly what happened in the 1920’s in Prohibition when alcohol was legalized. It took it out of the black market, made it legal and legalizing it took away the shame. Now most don’t look at people who drink beer or wine as evil because now what was once illegal is now legal. When alcohol was legalized all the killings associated with it decreased as well. The same thing will happen if we can get this war on drugs to stop the way we did Prohibition

Half the prison population could come out and start helping raising their family’s. People could start now operating legitimate “drug” businesses and employ people legitimately with out shame. It’d save our country billions of dollars and once its made legitimate it’d be taxed like everything thats sold and purchased too. According to studies of the Cato Institute the State and local savings: would be $25.7 billion. Federal savings: $15.6 billion. Savings from legalizing marijuana: $8.7 billion.Savings from legalizing other drugs of addiction: $32.6 billion. As far as tax revenue the projected revenue from taxing marijuana would be $8.7 billion.Projected revenue from taxing other drugs of addiction: $38 billion. Yet making laws and locking up non-violent people is somehow more attractive than having this additional income. I wonder why all of this is?

Prior to coming into the knowledge of the Libertarian party this year I never realized how much money our government waste’s on so many things we really don’t need. Everybody cries “deficit” and “broke”. One of the reason we’re there is because of this unnecessary war we have going on right here in our own country against our own people on drugs and minorities are the the main people who are getting hurt in this war. It needs to end and the only political group that seems to have it at the top of their agenda are Libertarians

Just an opinion of a new Libertarian

Non Intervention Does Not Mean You Shouldn’t Engage in War: ONE Libertarians Perspective on Foreign Policy

A few months back now I, learned that the first element of libertarian foreign policy was “neutrality” or as some call it “non-intervention” and when I heard that, I was 100% with it. I think it originated in libertarian philosophy from its idea that no individual, NO GOVERNMENT, anywhere has a “moral” RIGHT to INTERVENE in my private, personal, “INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS” , as long as my freedoms are not interfering with another’s freedoms. Thats what the libertarian concept of non-intervention is all about. I was with that concept UNTIL I LEARNED that in regards to war and military action, many libertarians were interpreting non-intervention to mean that our country (or our country’s government) should never engage itself in a war, with OR “on behalf of” another country for ANY reason. My immediate thoughts were, I could never stand with anyone who believed in something as strict as that. To me its impractical and a contradiction to the universal laws of non-intervention (which I’ll explain). It also totally ignores the fact that war is sometimes a very necessary evil and I’m sure many libertarians don’t agree and thats quite alright.

Almost ever libertarian I had seen blogging and preaching libertarian philosophy online up to the time I heard this, all seemed to be anti-war (against engaging in war) and total pacifists, carrying this same belief. It also seemed like any libertarian who supported war at all (like Gary Johnson) was somehow considered not “really libertarian” by other libertarians. Being so new and seeing that my own personal beliefs on this issue were turning out to be so very different than the people who prreach this philosophy , I thought it best that I stop publicly documenting my walk here and what I was learning and how I’d apply the principles, until I got a better handle of where I’ stood on what seems to be such a mainstay regarding foreign policy.[Other than two post back in March I haven’t documented anything here in over 5 months -thats how strongly I felt about no longer identifying as libertarian]. After months of pondering and study and knowing how frimly I believe in all the other libertarian principle’s , I am now back, and ready to start posting weekly again about my personal journey and ideas as a new libertarian and an avid believer of the concept of non-intervention. I just now have a very different perspective of it than most and its taken me all of these last 5 months to develop where I stand on the issue.

I see it this way: Non-intervention, in my personal opinion (for whatever its worth) is a universal law of nature meaning … lets see … when I say universal law I mean … a concept which which must be upheld, and whether its understood or not, honored or dishonored, it almost always initiates some consequence in a persons life, be it a negative or positive. Whenever or wherever the law of non-intervention is dishonored or violated the intervenor violating it almost always gives an account or will find themselves with continued unsolicited intervention. It’ not a written law. It is a universal law of nature though, just like “cause and effect” and “sowing and reaping” and almost always brings about some consequence when violated and applies to every man, woman, boy, girl, old or young. Where the law of non-intervention is not upheld it almost always breeds unsolicited intervention. So to benefit from this law, it must be honored and one truly honoring it will hold intervenor’s accountable, as, where intervenor’s are not held accountable, unsolicited intervention is always invited, whether consciously seen or not. Its a universal law in nature.

The biggest believer in this concept of non-intervention is God himself according to scripture. You see it very early in th Genesis where he did not intervene in bad choices to be made by Adam and Eve. He did not intervene in Cains “plan” to murder Abel , BUT when Cain actually intervened in Abel’s life and ended it, God intervened in Cains life and held him accountable. God is a big believer in the laws a non-intervention . He would not have ever intervened in Cains life had Cain not violated the laws of intervention and INTERVENED in the life of Abel … and for that … Cain had to give an account. You see God upholding the laws non-intervention all throughout scripture. He ONLY intervened where the law of intervention had been violated and in Ephesians 5 :1… it says we are to “be imitators of God “. I believe that means we are to honor the laws of non-intervention in the same ways that God does himself and our honoring this law will ALWAYS work to protect our individual freedoms AS LONG AS as intervenor’s are held accountable. Its the “holding intervenor’s accountable” in honor of non-intervention, that so many folks can’t get with. However, how can value be given to a policy of non-intervention if intervener’s are never held accountable and allowed to continually intervene.[This is the only kind of non-interventions policy that I myself will personally ever support …one which will esteem the value of non-intervention and see that intervenor’s are held accountable for intervening ]

I am not an expert in any way or fashion AT ALL regarding any of the wars we are in, are contemplating or have been involved in but as a laymen, new libertarian and now strong believer in the concept of non-intervention, I have formed some surface opinions about some of them.

War in Afghanistan: Regardless of the many different opinions there are regarding who or what triggered that war, on September 11, 2001 there , we were not warring nor had anytime “recently” been at war with Al Qeada terrorist when they came in and broke the law of non-intervention killing hundreds and hundreds of individuals here in our country. As result of their disrespecting the law of non-intervention and being able to hide out in Afghanistan it was inevitable that they had to give an account for that and had they not been allowed to hide out there, the war wouldn’t have been there. So in order to wipe out them out … that war there WAS very necessary. The Talliban or no one else there surrendered them them accountable. We did. The question is … since they have now so long ago been wiped out, and we’ve killed its leaders, why are our troops still fighting there … years later?

War in Iraq: SAME.We were not warring with them at the time this last war began and yes it was communicated that there were “weapons of mass destruction” there which brought along paranoia. Truth is though …. even if we had found their “weapons of mass destruction” we were not warring with them and they had not been interfering with us AT THE TIME, so there was no need for our country to violate the law of non-intervention and make anyone there give an account. So then since we’ve also now killed their leader too who we thought was the threat at the time, and have realized that we were wrong about the WMD , WHY did we stay on?

Comtemplated War in Africa: Joseph Koney Head of the Lord Resistance Army over in Africa has, and is infringing on the individual freedoms of thousands of defenseless women and children there continually raping and killing them for years now and no one over there or anywhere is making him or his army of thousands give an account for their actions. Many say its not our affair but I say it should be an affair for all who honor Non-Intervention as if that army is not made to give an account, it will become empowered and found continually in unsolicited intervention situations that I believe, if continually is gone unchecked, will spread throughout all Africa and other parts of the world. This army is boldly violating what I believe is the universal law of non-intervention and it should be brought down.

Libertarianism to me is all about protecting the freedoms of all individuals and those who value that freedom will stand against those who violate the laws of non-intervention and will work to make them to give an account. No, we are not the worlds police but as libertarians we all should be fighters for individual freedom.

Well …this is a first for me … I have the rest of my life to see if this is a theory I can stand by.

The thoughts of a NEW libertarian on non-intervention.