Gay Marriage Goes to The Supreme Court – What Libertarians Say

Once again the debate is on the table regarding gay marriage because the majority has squashed the rights of the minority (the minority not just being gays but the 16 states left who favor gay marriage). This time the debate will happen in U.S. Supreme Court. all because once again the majority is being allowed to legally show brutal disdain to the minority. Legally !! Unbelievable !! We still haven’t learned our lessons to look out for the minority so they won’t get crushed. 16 states have given rights that legally bind gay couples who have come together and the only way those agreements can be binding is that they MUST remain in the state that they were married. We can marry in Massachusetts but our legal arrangement with the state will only be honored there. Our marriage means nothing Michigan. So much for land of the free. Thank you America. You are clearly showing what “freedom” means to you.

The truth is there are really not even 16 states that gays can actually have the legal rights of marriage in. There are only 9, Conneticut, Iowa, Main Maryland, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington , the District of Columbia and finally New York . The other 7 are simply civil union, domestic partnership allowances . California gays fought a very hard fight for gay marriage but lost the battle when Prop 8 was instituted. They later had a rematch when a the federal court found it to be unconstitutional. That court ruling is being repealed and awaiting a ruling now by the U.S. Supreme Court. Wow!! Somebody really hates the idea of gay people being allowed the freedom to marry.

So ….either today (Friday) or Monday, the Supreme Court is going to look at some of the things that have gone on with the issue so they can determine how to move on. 1 state is petitioning them to determine whether the over turning of prop 8 was legal . 8 states are petitioning them to determine whether DOMA -The Defense of Marriage Act put in by President Clinton is constitutional (and the gay community sees this man as a champion for gay rights. Yet he along with the Democratic Party instituted the very bill that federally confirms all gay marriages null and void. I understand why the gay community at large doesn’t support the Republican party but I’m not getting this great love at all for the Democrat party when no Democrat President has ever DONE anything to support gay marriage. Libertarians have supported gay marriage since its inception).

At any rate the Supreme Court is scheduled for a pre-hearing to determine which of the 10 petitions set before them they will look at OR … if gays that are already legally married should have federal rights as gay couples. If the repeal to the over ruling of Prop 8 is thrown out, its been been said the ruling could be huge and thereby either overturn anti-amendments all around the country or go as far a ruling out all gay marriages that have been deemed legal. Its hard to imagine either way. The hearing coming up today or Monday is only to determine which of the marriage issues the U.S. Supreme Court will entertain, Which ever one is decided will then be the topic of Supreme Court discussion sometime around March 2013.

My libertarian take – First let me say this: Libertarianism is all about the individual rights we all individually have as humans. As a libertarian I stand behind everybody’s individual right to believe whatever they want to about marriage. If a person is against gay marriage they have that right to be against it and not support it. Thats what liberty is all about … being free as an individual to believe whatever you desire. In the same way however that a person has a right to be against it, people should also have the right to favor it BUT when laws are made that don’t not allow people to favor it, it infringes on their individual rights. This is not simply about marriage rghts its about all of our INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS . You don’t have to allow a gay couple in your house. You can be against it. Your church has the right to preach against it . Thats what freedom of religion is all about.Thats YOUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Your church should not have the right however to stop another church from favoring it. Thats THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. You can call that church a heresy or whatever you’d like. Thats YOUR RIGHT However in the same way you have the right not to endorse it, others should also have the right TO endorse it and to legally deny that right, takes away THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS of others. The Lord never denied Adam the right to choose what he wanted, even though he disagreed with Adams choice. He did not intervene and we should follow his example. Keep in mind: If you take away someones individual rights trust and believe …their going to come after you and successfully take away rights you currently enjoy. “Whatsover a man soweth that shall he also reap”.

This country was founded on freedom, actually freedom of religion as those who came here came so that could practice what they believed in, which was not allowed where they came from. That kind of freedom should still be allowed. Denying individuals freedoms to believe and practice what THEY believe (especially wen they are not harming others) is not what this country is all about.

Libertarianism is not about fighting for the rights of gays but about fighting to keep INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS FOR ALL.

Advertisements

Celebrating the 1st Anniversary of The Repeal of DADT – A Christian Libertarians View on Gays in the Military

Today was the 1st anniversary of the military law of D.A.D.T. (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell) being repealed. DADT was initially instituted by the Clinton administration in 1993 to keep the military from booting people out of it who were known to be gay. The thinking was that if the military couldn’t ask and gays didn’t tell , those who were gay could not be booted out because no one would know. The problem is, keeping it from public knowledge would mean you could be gay in the military but would have to remain closeted. If gays were in gay marriages they couldn’t be known. If they frequented gay places (clubs ect) it couldn’t be known, and straight people who who didn’t want to serve next to gays would never know because with DADT it was not to be revealed. If it were ..someone could get the boot. Democrats set this up, Republicans were determined to keep it going and after almost 20 years of Democrats instituting this descriminating policy they were finally coaxed into withdrawing it and September 20th 2011 it was finally repealed.

Libertarians in office and libertarians running have fought Congress tooth and nail for this repeal for years because Libertarians are all about standing up for individual liberties, where everyone is allowed to live their lives the way they want without government interference as long as the way the individual lives does not hurt or effect anyone else. DADT was wrong because it effected gays in several ways. They couldn’t share about their proud family lives as other men and women in the military were able to share. They could not introduce their partners to others they served with, the way that others could. They had to be secretive about where they were spending their time off duty, and always ran the risk of being discovered, ridiculed and ultimately booted out. With DADT finally being repealed, they are free and “the boot” could not happen, at least not because they were gay.

Of course a lot of people (even some Libertarians) were upset when DADT was repealed last year because they say that it endorses a chosen “life style that they don’t agree with”. A lot of gay people would argue thats its not something thats chosen and I agree. But let’s just say for this discussion that it IS chosen. Is it right to take away someones right to choose what they want? For those who believe in the bible, you KNOW that God doesn’t take away freedom of choice. He specifically told Adam and Eve, for instance, that he didn’t want them to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but even though he disagreed he placed it there FOR THEM TOO CHOOSE. He could have just not created the tree, and flat out JUST TOOK AWAY THEIR RIGHT TO CHOOSE in the same way that DADT took away people choices to live openly, but He didn’t. He let them choose. God always says ” I set before you life AND death, blessing AND cursing; therefore CHOOSE life that both you and your seed shall live. (Duet 30.19). More than anybody, believers should endorse everybody’s right to choose EVEN if they think the choice is a bad one, because God endorses choice. Libertarians believe in every individuals right to choose as well, as along as their choices don’t hurt or interfere with anyone else’s life. With DADT being repealed the choice for gays to live openly and honestly is now an option, before it wasn’t

In the fight for getting DADT repealed, 1000 military soldiers signed a letter claiming that repealing it would have a lot of negative outcomes.  However, one year later a study has just been published by “Palm Center” a research branch of the Williams Institute at University of California Los Angeles Law School, and it found that there has been “no overall negative impacts” at all in the military aas a result of the repeal. I believe those fears were there because there are so many negative stereo types promoted of what a gay person is, and how he or she generally acts, that their ability to be effective soldiers in military was totally being overshadowed. One proof that gays are just as effective in the  military as anyone else is seeing Army Colonel Tammy Smith who was promoted to Brigadier General. She was one of the first to come out as gay since the repeal last year. She’s gay and made it all the way to General yawl !! Had the law not been in effect she would have never come out and had she revealed it just 1 year earlier, she would have never been promoted even though she was found well qualified. Congratulations General Smith.

So Happy Repeal Day to everybody and to all of you who are libertarian and the libertarian minded, keep fighting for individual freedoms. Vote for your local Libertarians. Vote for our libertarian candidate for president Gary Johnson…and whether he makes it or not remember he and the rest of us are out here all out here fighting so there will be liberty and justice for all.

We’ve Got To Stop Them From Their Continually Dissolving of Detroit Police: A New Libertarians Thoughts on the DPD Situation

Pic of a Vacated Police station

Anybody paying close attention to our city can clearly see police departments in the Detroit area slowly dissolving. The other day on the radio I heard a story of a man in Detroit who shoot 4 men, two whom died. Seeing no police came and there was no nearby police station, the man turned himself into the fire department and even though the fire department themselves called the police there was no police available to arrest this man. Keep in mind Detroit residents pay higher taxes than any other city in the state and all its current local government has allowed them for their continual support, is a continual dissolving of a police department and while its being diminished the citizens have no say. This would not be allowed at all if Detroit would begin to bring in libertarian leadership as Libertarian philosophy sees protection as the one “proper” function of government. Providing police to protect its citizens from criminals, an army to protect them from foreign invaders and courts to protect their legal rights in disputes over property and contracts. Anything else, libertarians see as excessive in government. Its very obvious however that safety and protection is not a main priority to Detroit’s current administration at all. If it were, then where are the works and plans this administration is implementing to ensure it?

What kind of local government would demand higher taxes of its citizens and then think they don’t have to show any improvement in the services they provided with the money they’ve already had. Thats exactly what the Democrat elected officials in Detroit have done once again. This summer Mayor Bing, and his appointed Police Chief Godbee proposed yet another millage, a new tax on the citizens of Detroit once again promising to improve its police force without ever showing any improvement at all in the services they’d already given. If they couldn’t effectively use what they had, then why should they expect more. The principle of Jesus states it best,… when you are “faithful over a little; THEN I will set you over much” (Math 25:23). A grantor won’t even grant money unless the requester has shown he’s done well with what he has. This administration has not done well in even giving its city a “false’ sense of security let alone a real sense of security. And now the Mayor wants to coerce the citizens to even pay more through a tax? How unfair!

Detroit pays the highest taxes in the state now, yet the higher the taxes they pay, the less services its seems to be able to provide . Why does Detroit keep electing a party who can’t even show its sees police protection as a main priority. Its police departments budget was just slashed $75 million, with 10% in cuts to their current salaries, and now their current staffs (who’s pay has just decreased) will now have to INCREASE their work-shifts to 12 hour work days. How do you make service better for the citizens by paying its police department less and then require that same police department to provide more service? Its not even logical ! Is Detroit just going to keep bringing in a party that continues to do things like this?

IT’S TIME OUT !! Its time for an administration who believes police protection should be the city’s MAIN PRIORITY and a government who can get it done quickly BEFORE EVERYBODY HAS BEEN SCARED AWAY.

Unlike Democrats , Libertarians always seek ways to reduce city taxes, so rather then “coerce” Detroit citizens to pay more to develop DPD, a libertarian would institute something like a regular lottery specifically to fund the police department. With a lottery the citizens are not coerced in aiding (so often when they can’t afford it). They can participate voluntarily whenever they’d like, if they’d like, on whatever level they’d like. Everybody would be encouraged to participate (even folks outside the city) not only because of the incentive of winning but because they know is designated to provide them the best police protection possible. Money would be coming in from the citizens who are participating at their own free will. No new taxes. No new city fees. Nobody is angry for participating. and the city doesn’t have to beg the Feds. Everybody’s happy! But we’ve got to get some different ideas in their to get this and other libertarian ideas going. The other party’s will never think out of the box because they’re only committed to do things the way that its been done and unfortunately the way its be done is slowly bringing the development of the Detroit Police Department to a halt.

More than a couple of times over the past couples of years the Democrat leadership of Detroit has laid off its police officers and cut DPD’s budget. Now as a result criminals now feel they own the street. What can we do to stop it? Detroit has got to start looking at getting a different kind of leadership. In looking I recommend it start looking at the Libertarian party, a party with a strong philosophy, and a ton of ideas. Detroit needs leadership like Libertarian leadership. A leadership that will work to reduce citizen taxes. A leadership that will come in with ideas to help citizens …”Live Free”.

Thousands Forced Out of Marriage And Neither Presidential Candidate Says Anything. -A Libertarian Response to Gay Marriage

Pic of the constitution and a gay rainbow ring

Governor Romney is VERY clear that he will do nothing to stop gays from being forced out of marriage and while President Obama says he’s supportive of marriage equality, he has been pretty clear that he, just like Gov. Romney, will do nothing as well to institute it . He says” let each state decide”. That in turn means ‘ whatever each state decides, I’m good with it. If Michigan wants to force gays out, they can I don;t care’. Yet Democrats are backing away from him because he has expressed support for gay marriage, even though he’s stands behind every state that votes to reject it. What kind of support is that. Its risky for his campaign yet it appears clever in that it “says” to the gay community ..” I support” yet he has done nothing or has even expressed on record any kind plan to do anything at all.

There are plenty of things he could do if he was really supportive of gay marriage. He could approach it from the federal end and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which he hasn’t. He could see that a policy is instituted that would protect the rights of ALL to marry around the country instead of the rights of one party or one special interest group. You don’t have to believe in gay marriage to do that. You can say “I don’t believe in gay marriage but its a free country and I won’t stand in the way or pass any laws against of those people who do”.

The Defense of Marriage Act is cohercive and forces gays out of rights and benefits in marriage that are now given only to a select group and right now about 37 states are still passing laws that force gays out. A President who has no plan to do anything about , is simply saying ..”Oh well, they’ll just have to deal with it”. Thats a person who doesn’t care at all about liberty or rights of individuals, and thats a clear description of both major presidential candidates. Thats why neither of them has done nothing to deserve my vote.

I believe in “live and let live” and thats the libertarian way. I could only vote for a candidate who believes in that as well, a candidate that has a plan to stand up to support the individual rights of all. The only person I see like that is the Presidential Candidate of the 3rd largest party in America, Libertarian nominee for President, Gary Johnson .

In one article that I read he said ”People of different faiths and different beliefs are free to follow those beliefs when it comes to embracing or opposing same-sex marriage within those faiths and beliefs. However, it should not be the purview of government to impose one set of beliefs over another. And government absolutely should not sanction discrimination against gay Americans who choose to marry.”

Thats my position as well. I have the utmost respect for those who promote that they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. I cannot respect those however, who make laws that STOP OTHER PEOPLE BY LAW from promoting what THEY believe as well. They want their beliefs respected in the constitution, but they don;t want others to have the same respect. Its the same kind of kind of religious hypocrisy that Jesus railed about that the Pharisees and Saducee’s displayed when he walked here. Jesus was vehemently against that kind of religiousity and I stand against it too.

Just an opinion of a new libertarian

Aurora Tragedy Could Have Been Prevented / A New Libertarians View on Gun Control

If you listen to the news you’ll almost never hear a positive story about someone with a gun. What we are continuously shown gives us the impression that everytime something happens with guns, its negative. This leads people to think we need to get rid of them, or make them harder to get. If more emphasis were put on the positive stories of how people successfully defended themselves however this would begin to give our country a whole different attitude about guns. When we do hear the stories, they’re just kind of watered down …with “oh good for them” lines and ….”this is not something that anyone should try at home” .

Like when the man who caught his neighbor molesting his 6 year daughter. His daughter was saved, she wasn’t kidnapped or murdered and the molester will never molest another child ever, because the man killed the molester. That to me is a victory. Not that the man was killed …that was unfortunate buts its what happens when people are encouraged to “stand their ground”. The only person that wouldn’t protect their daughter in a situation like this is a coward, or someone who felt inadequate, or who was defenseless or not equipped., which believe it or not IS most people

Take the shooting in Aurora, Colorado on July 20, 2012, where 24 year old James Eagan Holmes entered the Century movie theater at the midnight screening of the Dark Knight Rising. This man came in wearing tactical clothing comes in setting off tear gas grenades and shooting into the audience with multiple fire arms ultimately killing 12 people and injuring 58 which they say is the biggest mass murder in U.S. History. Not one person there was equipped at all to take down this lone gunman, not one person. Yet there were hundreds there but not even one security guard was there equipped to help. A job for the police? Well they did show up but by the time the police got there the damage was done and the man who shot them still lives. Everybody there was left defenseless.

I would imagine that most people there never even dreamed of carrying a gun, because guns are made out to look like they are only for bad people, lawbreakers, people with evil hearts who want to kill other people. But what if just one guy in that dark theater had a gun and was lying on the ground, who the gunman never saw, and was trained in how to use it, just one person … a number of lives would be saved and we’d be celebrating a hero who had a gun, instead of a criminal. We’d be proud of him and our sons and daughters would be aspiring to be like him. However instead of a hero’s name going down in history, its the name of another villain , who has made people feel weak and afraid because that villian was empowered and they are not. Our thinking is wrong, we’re thinking about how to weaken the villain by taking away guns instead of empowering ourselves.

What people don’t realize is you can’t stop villains. I don’t care how stringent you make gun laws or how hard you make guns to get, villains don’t care about the law. Thats why they are called villains. The villain will always have guns. I don’t care how many laws are made or how many guns are banned . The only people who are going to obey those laws and give up their guns are law abiding citizens and a law abiding citizen isn’t a person who does senseless killings. Banning guns are not going to stop criminals from doing senseless killings. As a matter of fact, if guns are banned, the villain is the only one who will still have a guns, as they will just be in the black market. When the villain comes from to black market to shoot, bang bang we’re dead, because we’re all law abiding citizens and call 911 when trouble comes and we only call them because we are not encouraged trained or equipped to handle trouble ourselves. Why is that?

There is something really wrong with that picture. We’re a country gearing up to ban law abiding citizens from carrying guns knowing that the only ones who will have them is the criminal and police who always show up after everybody is already dead like they they did in Aurora. Why aren’t we a nation thats been reared to protect ourselves and taught so much to depend on others to defend us?

I never thought about this prior to the Aurora shooting. Up until that day I was a firm believer in “gun bans”. Never again.

Just the thoughts of a new libertarian.

Why Its Time To Vote For A 3rd Party / A New Libertarian from Detroit

Barren Land in Detroit

Detroit, the city I’ve lived in all my life has always voted for Democratic leadership as long as I have been living. Now as a results of that same leadership our “city” is alas turning into great big farm. Einstein said “Insanity is continually doing the same thing and expecting different results’. Well I’m not insane and realize if I want different results I got to work to get a different party in as you cannot get change doing the same thing . I’ll not vote for a republican either. They’ve run our state and NEITHER OF THEM was able to do anything to KEEP our city from getting where its got either. So this time. for the first time I’m voting Libertarian, locally and nationally.

People always say, voting for a libertarian is a wasted vote but a wasted vote is voting for someone who isn’t even “saying” what you want to hear, let alone doing it and that is how the Democrats AND Republicans have done. So I ask? What sense would it make for me to vote for either of them if neither is even saying what I want to hear? Now THATS TRULY a  wasted vote !! If I’m going to vote my voting will be to see the principles and values that I uphold as an “individual” promoted and the only ones out you hear out here promoting “individual rights” are Libertarians. If they don’t make the office, to the very least Libertarian principles will be promoted and the more they’re promoted the bigger chance we have in somebody hearing and ultimately knowing how to fix this mess.

So I am done with the other two parties. Both have had my votes for the last 35 years and done nothing with them, or for what I believe so I’m going with folks who are all about working for me as an individual and any body thats  smart would do the same.
A new Libertarian voice from Detroit

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