Congress Ends Military Sponsorship of NASCAR, Can Continue Afghanistan War for 3 More Hors

Dale Earnhardt Jr. in his National
Guard car. 

Recently, Congress passed a law preventing the Military from sponsoring any professional sporting events. This means that the National Guard can no longer sponsor Dale Earnhardt's race car. With military expenditures through the roof, this seems like a sensible cut.

But is it?

Libertarian Gary Johnson NOT Too Extreme to be President of the United States

A couple weeks ago, the Delaware Libertarian blog put together an excellent list showing that, in spite of what many people think, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is NOT to extreme to be the next President of the United States. I frequently hear this criticism for Libertarian candidates, but let's check out the facts.

Memorial Day Message: What ARE We Fighting For? Gary Johnson Wants to Know

And I watch the parades pass before me

And I see my old comrades, how proudly they march

Reviving old dreams of past glory

And the old men march slowly, old bones stiff and sore

They're tired old heroes from a forgotten war

And the young people ask "What are they marching for?"

And I ask myself the same question

- "And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda" by Eric Bogle

Gary Johnson is baffled by the
question "What ARE we fighting for?"
That's because it's a trick question.
There is no answer. 

Last year at Memorial Day, I made one of my first posts on this site. It was entitled "On Memorial Day: What ARE we Fighting For?". I looked at each of the wars America has fought and concluded that with the exception of the Revolutionary War, all of the wars in our nation's history were immoral.

So, why are we fighting them? Quite honestly, I still haven't thought of a satisfactory answer to that question. There is a very simple reason for that - there is absolutely NO justification for the wars we are currently fighting. We need a President who knows that. The only President who will end ALL wars is Gary Johnson.

Johnson is the former two-term Governor of New Mexico and is running on the Libertarian Party line. He expects to be on the ballot in all 50 states this November. On his website, he states

With Osama bin Laden now killed and after 10 years of fighting, U.S. forces should leave Afghanistan's challenges to the Afghan people.

A US military base in Berlin.
There was no reason for this
30 years ago, and there
certainly isn't now.

Governor Johnson knows we have no business being in Afghanistan. He also knows that "decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union ... it is time to reevaluate our deployments [in Europe]." We haven't been fighting in Europe for decades. We never should have had bases there to begin with. The Cold War only happened because both sides felt it needed to happen. They acted as if "neither could live while the other survives" and thus it was true. Unfortunately, it cost both sides massive amounts of money and led to several unnecessary wars. (On a side note, if this sounds familiar to Harry Potter fans, I don't think that's coincidental)

America needs to end their wars and Gary Johnson knows that. Not just the foreign wars, but the "War on Drugs", the "War on Internet Piracy" and every other declared and undeclared metaphorical "War" that we are fighting now. Not only would it make America a better place, but it would also cut a significant chunk of America's very excessive spending.

In the words of Gary Johnson,

“US military spending is more than that of every other country combined. There's a culture of waste, fraud, and abuse in defense budgeting we simply can no longer tolerate. Defense spending must be subject to the same scrutiny as other areas of the budget."

So, what ARE we fighting for?

 

Waltzing Matilda, Waltzing Matilda

Who'll come a waltzing Matilda with me?
And their ghosts may be heard

As you march by the billabong

Who'll come a waltzing Matilda with me?

(For a full explanation of these lyrics, see last year's post here)

New Letter to the Editor in Poughkeepsie Journal: Consider a Libertarian candidate for President

Today, I had a letter to the editor published in the Poughkeepsie Journal. Unfortunately, the online version is behind a paywall (although it did run in the print version rather nicely). However, I am allowed to repost it on my personal blog as long as I do not submit it to other papers (which I won't.) So, please find it below.

Consider a Libertarian presidential candidate 
I have spoken with many Americans who feel this is the least appealing presidential election in recent memory.
Barack Obama has done a poor job as our president, and most feel Mitt Romney would be almost as bad, if not worse.
Fortunately for us, there is someone else.
Former New Mexico Gov.
Gary Johnson, who has the same amount of executive experience as Romney, is run­ning for president on the Liber­tarian Party line. He expects to be on the ballot in all 50 states.
Johnson is the only candi­date (including Ron Paul) who would submit a balanced bud­get his first year. He also was the highest scorer among all candidates (including Obama) on the American Civil Liber­ties Union’s civil liberties re­port card.
Historically, the Republican Party has been concerned with fiscal sanity. They haven’t done a very good job of that lately, but as president, John­son would be very fiscally responsible.
The Democrats have been concerned with protecting our civil liberties, but lately, they haven’t done a very good job of that either.
Gary Johnson, however, would protect our civil liber­ties by ensuring marriage equality, ending the Patriot Act, and fighting for our con­stitutional rights.
The Libertarian Party en­compasses the best of both parties – fiscal responsibility and social tolerance.
Most people fit both of these categories. They are Libertar­ians and just don’t know it – 83 percent of Americans are con­sidering voting for a third party this year. You should too. 
Gregory Koch 
Poughkeepsie 

Barack Obama and Marriage Equality

Newsweek's characterization of Obama
as "the first gay president" is both
unnecessary hyperbole and
factually misleading.

Recently, President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage. This "evolution" of his views had gay rights activists very vocally supporting him, while conservative activists were just as vocal in opposition. However, I feel there are several key points to be made here. First of all, the timing of Obama's "evolution" to coincide with the passing of Amendment 1 in North Carolina, a key swing state in November's Election seems a bit suspect. Additionally, Obama made another point, almost always overlooked, that this should be "an issue for states to decide". Finally, there is a major candidate in this election who, unlike Obama, believes marriage equality is a Constitutional Right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

More after the jump.

Summary of Daily Campus Articles

Sorry that I've been delinquent with this blog. Here is a summary  of my Daily Campus articles from this year. For copyright reasons, I can only post a link and a short description. I'll post new articles to this blog soon.

Presidential Debate Structure Should be Altered: Include all candidates in debates. The "Gary Johnson rule" is detrimental to liberty. (March 18)

Voting for a Third Party Candidate not a Wasted Vote: Whether it's Gary Johnson, the Green Party, or any other third party, your vote is not wasted as long as you vote for someone who you truly support. (March 26)

Defining Marriage Outside the Realm of Government: The government has no legitimate reason to define "marriage". (March 28)

No Motive for Shooting Unarmed Man is Appropriate: George Zimmerman's motive for shooting Trayvon Martin was bad, but no worse than any other motive. (April 6)

US Should Adopt FairTax as Lesser of Several Evils: No tax is good, but FairTax is best. (April 16)

New Column in Daily Campus: Include all Candidates in Presidential Debates

My first Daily Campus column was published today. It is about including all candidates in the election debates. For legal reasons I cannot reprint it here, but you can view it here or view a PDF of the paper here and turn to page 4.

Rick Santorum's Religious Hypocrisy

One of the few commendable opinions Rick Santorum has expressed this campaign is his criticism of Iran’s religious legal system. Santorum is entirely justified in criticizing Iran for imposing Islamic shariah law on its people. However, Santorum is both wrong and hypocritical for attempting to do the same with Christianity in America.

During the August 11th debate in Iowa, Santorum criticized Iran for “trampling on the rights of women [and] … gays”. However, it is unclear why Santorum is upset about this unless he wants a monopoly on it. Santorum cites Christian law for his opposition gay marriage, contraception, and abortion. Isn’t this combining religion and government? Yes, Santorum is doing the exact same thing he is accusing Iran of. It is no more acceptable with Christianity than it is with Islam.

Nobody is forcing Santorum to become a homosexual or use contraception. Any efforts to do so would be forcibly imposing one’s morals on another. As Santorum says about Iran, this is wrong. However, if a Santorum administration prevents loving same-sex couples from marrying or outlaws abortion, this would be imposing religious moral law on a secular nation.

While Santorum’s comments on Iran are commendable, he should take the same position with his own policy and not impose religious law on everybody in America. Just because Santorum is a religious Catholic doesn’t mean that everybody in America is. Imposing Biblical Law on an entire nation is just as wrong as doing the same thing with shariah law. If Santorum is to be taken seriously, he needs to hold his policies to the same standards as other countries’. If not, we will soon be executing virgin women who do not cry out upon being raped.