The city of Draper, Utah is where I live. Residents of the city will vote on June 26th on a ballot measure to decide whether the city should build a $29 million-dollar recreation center. It will be financed by a 20-year bond, or debt, which will cause property taxes in the city to rise by roughly $80-110 per year.

The recreation center is clearly favored by the Mayor Darrell Smith, who states:

“We have come to the conclusion that the only way Draper will ever get a recreation center that meets our needs, is to build it ourselves…We as the Mayor and City Council strongly support the building of an indoor recreation center in Draper. We believe now is the right time to do it and we believe this is what is best for our community.”

The recreation center is also clearly favored by a majority of Draper residents, as evidenced by a recent survey which found that 73% were in favor of the city building it.

I am all in favor of having a new recreation center in Draper, especially if it included a 50-meter lap pool (I’m a triathlete and there is no 50-meter pool within a reasonable driving distance). My kids would also enjoy an indoor pool close by. But I am not in favor of the new recreation center being financed/built by the city. Here’s my reasoning:

1. Mal-investment. As the mayor states, “We have come to the conclusion that the only way Draper will ever get a recreation center that meets our needs, is to build it ourselves.”

The logical question in response to the mayor’s statement is “Why wouldn’t anyone else build it?” If no private entity is willing to step up and finance  the project, we can come to only one conclusion–the recreation center will lose money. If it were going to be a highly-profitable venture then a private company would have already built it. A venture that loses money does so because it does not do a good job of providing what people want or value. This means it is a bad investment. But since governments are not so directly tied to the will of the people as are private businesses, they can insulate themselves from poor business decisions by making up for the difference in taxes. But is this what we want Draper City doing? If no private entity is willing to build a recreation center, isn’t that a good indicator that it shouldn’t be built?

2. Detrimental to private industry. If built, the recreation center will harm existing private businesses and prevent others from coming into existence. We already have a gym in town, the Treehouse. It has a pool. It has exercise facilities. There is quite a bit of overlap. Granted, the recreation center will provide things the Treehouse doesn’t, but again, there’s a reason the Treehouse or some other entity isn’t providing those things. The new recreation center may very well put the Treehouse out of business since it will be difficult for the Treehouse, which deals with real costs which it passes on to its customers, to compete with the costs of the public recreation center, which are artificially covered up and not completely passed on to the consumer because of tax subsidies.

I would very much like to see some competition for the Treehouse in Draper. I’d love for Lifetime Fitness to build a gym in town so I don’t have to drive over to Sandy. But if the city builds a recreation center, this makes this less likely to occur, since Lifetime will have to compete not only with Treehouse, but with the public recreation center. Since Lifetime Fitness would, at least for me, probably provide a superior exercise facility compared to either Treehouse or the recreation center, I am at least theoretically being limited in my options due to government interference in the marketplace.

3. Higher taxes. The new recreation center will cost me about $80 a year, even if I never use it. Sure, it’s only $80/year, but hey, I’d rather spend that $80 on something else. And of course this is how every spending matter gets passed. “It’s only $5/month!” or “It’s only $1 per person, per month!” Soon everyone is paying out $100/month and there’s no reversing it.

4. Benefits the rich at the expense of the poor. Curiously, there is no mention anywhere that I can find of how much it will cost to use the recreation center. But let’s use neighboring Sandy, Utah as a guide, since they already have a recreation center and post their prices. If we can assume the prices for the Draper recreation center will be similar, then an annual family membership will cost around $300. Would I pay that much? Sure, maybe. But there are certainly people in Draper who will find that too expensive for their already strained family finances. We’ll call these people “the poor”. They may not be living in squalid poverty, but they are cash-strapped enough that they don’t feel they can afford to use the recreation center. And yet they are paying for it with their property taxes. Who can afford to use the recreation center? Those with more money. These folks may not be filthy rich, but they have enough money that the $300/year fee is no biggie.

The thing is, if it weren’t for the tax subsidy, the real price of the annual pass might be $900. But because of the tax subsidy, the city can offer it for just $300. Who benefits? Those who can pay $300. Who loses? Those who can’t afford the $300, but are still required, by law, to pay the property tax. In other words, the “rich” get a discount to the recreation center paid for by the “poor” who can’t afford to use the facility.

5. Immoral nature of taxation and democracy. A quote frequently misattributed to Benjamin Franklin is “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch.” Is it right that 73% of a community can vote to impose a tax on the 27% of the community opposed to the measure?

For these reasons, and perhaps some others, I am opposed to the Draper City recreation center. In summary, here’s a tear-jerking, fictional story to drive the point home.

Bob and Molly moved to Draper five years ago. Bob had just graduated from college and Molly was expecting their first child. Bob had just landed a good job, and the real estate market was booming. Bob and Molly felt like they couldn’t afford to let the real estate market pass them by, and Bob’s income was good with the promise of looking much better in the near future, so they bought a modest house on Draper’s South Mountain area for $400,000. These types of houses had been going for $300K just a year before, and if that rate of appreciation kept up, Bob and Molly would be sittin’ pretty real soon.

Then the economy tanked just a year later. Bob’s employer came and told him that he couldn’t give him the promised raise, because they weren’t sure they could even keep everyone employed. But that was ok, at least Bob was still getting paid the same amount, and even though making the house payment was tight, especially with their child who was now a year old, they could handle it. Although it did make Bob a bit nervous that their neighbor had just sold his house, which was identical to Bob’s, for $350K, $50K less than what Bob had paid just a year earlier. But that was ok, Bob was sure it was a temporary dip and the real estate market would come back soon.

A year later, Bob and Molly had their second child. This made things really tight financially, and they decided to sell one of their cars at a loss just to get rid of a high payment. They bought a used-car instead. Another house on Bob and Molly’s street sold for just $300K that year.

A year after that, one of Bob’s neighbors was foreclosed on and the bank sold the house for $250K. Bob and Molly sold their other, nicer car, which Bob felt helped him in his sales job but which they simply couldn’t afford anymore. Things were tighter than ever, and the couple had to sell a bunch of their electronics and other things on Craigslist. Neither Bob nor Molly had bought a single article of new clothing for themselves in two years. If it weren’t for hand-me-downs from relatives their kids wouldn’t have any “new” clothes either. Their house was completely underwater and even though they were able to keep up with the payments the house was a constant reminder that their money was going into a black hole they might never dig out of. Worst of all, Bob’s employer wasn’t doing well, some people had been let go, and Bob was afraid he might be next. The stress was taking a toll on Bob and Molly as parents and on their marriage. They talked about walking away from the house and declaring bankruptcy, but they didn’t feel that was the right thing to do and they hoped things would turn around soon.

Then Bob got a copy of the Draper City Journal in the mail, telling him about the the new recreational center the city wanted to build. “This sounds great,” Bob thought “But there’s no way we can afford to spend $300/year right now on a family membership.” As he read more about it, he realized like it or not, he was going to be paying for the recreation center. Not $300, but at least $80. Bob fumed as he told Molly about it. “After everything we’ve been through the last few years, now I have to pay $80 for a rec center we can’t even afford to use? And some rich guy up on the hill is going to be there with his family every weekend and only paying $300 per year instead of $600 or $900 because I and other guys like me are subsidizing his fun time?”

“Bob, it’s just $5 a month, it’s no biggie.”

“When’s the last time you were able to buy yourself a pair of pants? I’m trying to do my sales job with these scuffed up shoes because I can’t afford a pair of new ones. Would you rather have a rec center you can’t use, or a pair of pants? I for one would rather buy you a pair of pants or myself a pair of shoes. I don’t see how the rec center benefits us.”

“Bob, it’s not decided yet, just vote against it.”

“What good will that do? 73% of the city wants the rec center, so I guess they’re going to force us to pay for it whether we like it or not. We can’t sell our house, I’m about to lose my job, I can’t support my family, and now this?!”

The End

Well, that’s my perspective on the matter. Not that I’m closed to other perspectives on the matter. If you see things differently I’d love to hear what you have to say.

lib·er·al/ˈlib(ə)rəl/

con·serv·a·tive/kənˈsərvətiv/

If a liberal is willing to discard traditional views, and a conservative is averse to change and holds to traditional values, then we must recognize that what liberals and conservatives represent must change, since traditions are unstable and new traditions are constantly arising. And so let us ask–what are the dominant traditions of the past 100 years of the United States government? Here are a few:

1. War
2. Entitlements
3. Regulation
4. Prohibition
5. Taxation
6. Debt
7. Growth

War. Whether or not you support the wars the US government, which I refer to as an entity separate from “the country” or “the US”, has entered into, what is undeniable is that the US government has been involved in a lot of wars during the past 100 years.

Entitlements. Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, farm subsidies, welfare, public education, and bailouts for “vital” industries have been with us for the greater part of the past 100 years, making them part of the status quo. By the way, prior to the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, the price of health-care grew only slightly faster than overall inflation. Since then, medical inflation has risen 2.3 times faster than cost increases elsewhere in the economy. Medicare was projected to cost $12B annually by 1990, but instead came in at $90B. But what’s $78B between friends?

Regulation. 40,000 new laws were added in 2011 alone. If there is any legacy of the last century, it is that every aspect of our lives is dominated by one law or another, or more commonly–by more than one law. Regulation, another word that has lost its original meaning “to make things regular” or in other words “common”, has become the standard by which the success of a politician is measured. Just look at how, come election time, those politicians who “haven’t been able to pass any laws” are denigrated.

Prohibition. Prohibition of alcohol was short-lived, but prohibition of other substances has been widespread for some time under the pseudonym The Drug War, which has been a failure by any measure other than its ability to get politicians elected.

Taxation. Many US citizens don’t realize there was a time when there was no federal income tax, no payroll tax, etc. Today, you might see several hundred or even a few thousand dollars taken from each of your paychecks. 100 years ago or so you would have received your full paycheck. Even those who supposedly pay no taxes still pay sales taxes and pay taxes indirectly in the form of higher costs for goods and services, the prices of which must be raised by their suppliers in order to cover the taxes they pay. We all pay taxes, and quite a lot of them.

Debt. Rapidly closing in on $16 trillion. And that’s just what the government tells us they owe. Throw in the unfunded liabilities (political speak for “money we’re going to have to pay out but which we know we won’t have the money for”) and it’s closer to…oh, around $60 trillion.

Growth. Of government, that is. In 1913 the US government spent around 7% of US GDP. Today it’s closer to 30%. And of course GDP is quite a bit larger than it was in 1913, meaning our government takes a much bigger piece of a much bigger pie than 100 years ago.

If these are the traditions that have dominated US government policy over the past 100 years, then can we not say that a conservative would be someone who is in favor of maintaining these traditions, or averse to any change in the status quo?

Liberals claim to be anti-war, but apparently only when a Republican is President. Democrats/liberals/progressives and even those who claim the anti-war label as their primary objective have been strangely silent since Obama came into the White House, even as he expanded the current wars and added a few of his own.

Those who call themselves liberals have never been averse to entitlement spending or greater regulation at the federal level.

You might think liberals are in favor of relaxing the war on drugs, but what evidence do we have of this? Obama has shown no desire to change things on this front.

Taxation, debt, growth of government? Liberals want to double down on these time-honored practices.

And so can we call liberals anything but conservatives? But then the obvious question is what do we then call conservatives? This question is easy enough to answer, because we can still call them conservatives, since they are also in favor of all of the above. All one need do is look at history, and you will see that based on results, Republicans as well as Democrats, conservatives as well as liberals, have joined hand in hand in every one of these areas. They are all conservatives.

There is that small but growing group who want none of the above. They are the ones who want change. If history is any guide, they’ll soon have their own label. Libertarians? New liberals? Classical liberals? Will the label be accurate? Will the label stick? Or perhaps more importantly, will that group stick with their label?

I think much of this perception problem stems from libertarians not adequately explaining “I love this country, but hate corruption in government.” It is that corruption in government that we’re fighting against, not “the country” since the country and the government of this country are two entirely separate things.

For me, the country is the people. You, me, our neighbors, etc. Then there is this relatively small group of a few thousand people in Washington DC who are “the government” and who have an outsized amount of control over the rest of us. They take our money, spend it on things we don’t like, and use it to force us to do what they want us to do. They are only legitimate in the sense that we haven’t yet figured out how to get rid of them. And if all their deeds were known, and if the rest of us weren’t so busy trying to raise families and work at our jobs, they’d be gone a lot faster.

The next time you’re speaking to a neocon and you get the “If you don’t like it here why don’t you leave?” you might respond by saying “Hey, we’re on the same side. Do you think Obama is corrupt?”

“Yeah, of course.”

“Ok, so do I. I think 99% of the rest of the people in government are corrupt too. That’s what I’m fighting against. It’s you and me against them because we love this country and hate what the corrupt government is doing to it.”

By separating the country from the government, we are destroying the propaganda the federal government constantly pushes on us, which is that if we criticize those in charge, we are unpatriotic. When we can show people that the country and the government are two separate things, then we will attract more people to our cause.

My father in law was a career military man, spending 20+ years in the Air Force. My father was in the Air Force for four years as a young man. I love talking with veterans, especially those from the WWII and Vietnam eras. I have friends and relatives who are serving or have recently served in the military. And yet I’m highly critical of “the military”. But what is the military?

When I am critical of the military I’m being critical of the President of the United States, his military advisors, the CIA, and certain individuals at the Pentagon. In other words, the people who are making the high-level decisions about when, where, and how to go to war. I separate that part of the military from the people with their boots on the ground, the soldiers. The soldiers I see as merely following orders and who see themselves as having noble intentions. It’s those giving the orders at the top with whom I have a beef.

I think it behooves those of us who lean libertarian to constantly explain that we love soldiers who serve with noble intentions (admittedly there is a small percentage whose intentions aren’t exactly pure), but we disagree with many of the decisions made by the politicians who control the military and use it as their tool. We see the soldiers as being exploited by politicians for political gain and to provide favors for their well-connected friends who make money off of war. We want to see an end to soldiers being placed in harm’s way for the sake of a corrupt group of politicians who have taken over the US government. In this we see ourselves as the greatest friends of soldiers and their families, not their critics, since we assume soldiers do not want to die for causes that have nothing to do with protecting the country or the freedoms we enjoy here.

From 1994-1996 I was a missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, aka the “Mormons”. My total formal training lasted a mere two months, and was mostly focused on learning the Portuguese language, since I served in Brazil. The LDS Church has upward of 50,000 full-time missionaries serving at any given time, the majority of which are 19 to 20-year old boys. Do you know a 19-year old boy? Would you trust him to represent your religion? We Mormons believe in miracles, and perhaps the reason we believe in them is because this practice of sending out 19-year old boys to teach about our religion seems to work reasonably well. Despite most of these 19-year olds having a fragile grasp of the doctrines of their own religion and life generally, they’re able to share the gospel with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people each year, hundreds of thousands of whom become converts to the LDS Church.

Given that LDS missionaries receive so little training, what training they do receive has to be good stuff in order for it to work. I don’t remember many details of my own training, but one part has stuck in my head to this day because I use it as I continue doing missionary work, in politics, in business, and in life generally. I see its absence with many libertarians. It is this simple idea–build on common beliefs.

Here’s how it worked for me as a missionary in Brazil. I would walk up to a guy sitting in front of his house and engage in some chit-chat, then ask “Have you seen guys like us walking around before?”

“Sure.”

“Do you know what we do?”

“No…”

“Well, we’re missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and we’re teaching a message about God and prophets. Do you believe in God?”

“Sure, of course.”

“So do we. Do you believe Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world?”

“Of course.”

“So do we. Have you ever read in the Bible about the prophets like Abraham, Moses, and Jeremiah?”

“Yeah.”

“We believe in those prophets too. We’ve got a message we’d like to share with you about prophets. Do you have 15 minutes?”

This approach was pretty successful as far as opening the door so that we could have that first 15-minute chat. But this isn’t how I see many liberty-lovers spreading the message. Instead, it goes more like this:

Libertarian Lyle posts the following infographic on his Facebook wall.

Conservative Carrie replies with “Why don’t we start being positive about this country instead of negative All the time. I get sick of all the negative crap. Most of those countries are grateful to have us. Especially when you have rogue countries like north korea sending rockets into space.”

Libertarian Lyle responds “Have you INTERVIEWED those other countries? Or is that your egocentric view?”

Conservative Carrie: “i have an idea, why don’t all you people that think so negatively of the US, move to iraq or saudi arabia or someplace like that. bet you will be back very quickly.”

Lyle: “Hey Carrie, I have an idea: instead of telling people to leave why don’t you be logical?”

Carrie: “you don’t have a clue. lyle, go away!”

This dialogue is from an actual Facebook discussion that took place yesterday evening, although I’ve combined some of the characters and changed some names.

The problem should be obvious. Conservative Carrie is no more convinced of the message of liberty than she was when she began participating in this discussion. If anything, she’s more turned off to it than she was. How could this have been handled better?

First, does Lyle hate the country? Probably not. What he really hates is the government. But Carrie probably doesn’t separate the US government from the country, that is, the individuals who live within the United States. It’s not that Carrie purposely doesn’t separate the two mentally, she probably has just never thought it out. This is where Lyle can help by saying “Hey Carrie, I’m with you. I hate it when people rip on the people of this country, because I love this country too. But tell me, what do you think of Obama?”

Carrie: “That guy is horrible. Worst president ever.”

Lyle: “Totally agree. Where I’m coming from is that I see the US government as separate from the country. You’re the country. I’m the country. Our neighbors are the country. The good soldiers in the military are the country. But we’re being taken advantage of by a corrupt government. I feel bad for the soldiers who go into the military wanting to serve their country and protect our freedoms, because then our corrupt government sends them over to the Middle East to die or be injured in wars that aren’t even Constitutional. I mean, look how many wars Obama has started in just three years over there. And this is the guy who said he was anti-war. I think the corrupt people in our government want more power, and war is a great way to increase the power of government, so they are trying to trick us into a war in Iran that is going to kill more of our good soldiers and will actually make the world a more dangerous place. What do you think?”

There is probably a much better way Lyle could respond, but this would probably be enough to diffuse Carrie and make her see that Lyle isn’t attacking her, and they’re probably on the same side. Lyle has also opened up a safe zone by stating his own opinion, but then showing that he’s open to seriously consider what Carrie has to say. At this point, Carrie might reply with some quick retort, but she is being invited to think things through, and hopefully she would respond positively with some real thought, and the conservation can continue. If Lyle keeps it up this way, when the conversation ends Carrie and Lyle might not agree completely, but Carrie will leave feeling that Lyle was willing to listen to her and consider what she thought, and she’ll probably be thinking about some of the things Lyle said and will feel that Lyle is a reasonable person. The next time someone criticizes a Ron Paul supporter in front of Carrie, Carrie might very well say “Hey, I’ve talked with some Ron Paul people and they’re pretty reasonable. I don’t know if I agree with everything they say, but they have some good ideas worth listening to.” That’s a heck of a lot better than “Those Ron Paul people are jerks and don’t have a clue what danger we’re in. Oh, and they hate the military.”

Now, can this method be used for pure manipulation? Sure. Conversation and rhetoric are tools, and as such they are inherently neutral, but can be used for positive or negative ends. Someone who builds on common beliefs with the only objective being that of getting their way will come across as manipulative and deceitful which is quite the turn-off. For me, it helps to remember that I was once a neocon, but that I’m much happier, albeit frequently frustrated, now that I’ve seen the light, so to speak. And I want to share the knowledge and perspective I’ve gained with others who are in the same place I was a few years ago because I believe that if the message spreads it can change the world for the better.

I’m not against inflammatory images or blog post titles. I think they can be an effective tool for stimulating constructive conversation. But once it has started we have to remember the goal is not to humiliate anyone who disagrees with us, but to inspire and educate them until they agree with us. We can’t inspire and educate them until they trust us. Trust is gained by building on common beliefs, or finding common ground. Then we should listen to what they have to say, and they will be willing to listen to what we have to say. I know it’s hard, because we’re all idiots and sometimes our emotions get the better of us because darn it, we know we’re right and everyone should just recognize it. Any behavior I’ve criticized above I’ve been guilty of myself to one degree or another so this is as much a call to myself to repent and do a better job as it is for anyone else. This is how the war will be won, one individual converting another by persuasion, one at a time. I know it happens, because I was a neocon once and it was through friends who cheerfully invited me to explore libertarian reading material that I came to where I am today. If we can keep our eye on the real goal, miracles will happen.

But my main question today is over the legality of Lincoln trying to keep the Union together. Notice I’m not questioning whether it was right or wrong, just whether it was legal.

The way I’m looking at things at the moment, it seems that the Constitution was a sort of “club” agreement. “Hey, we’ve got this new club, the United States club, wanna join? There are some rules but they’re not that bad.” The states all said “yes” and so they became part of the club. The club grew, but then some of the rules started changing, or the interpretation of the rules changed, and so some of the members of the club said “You know, this club has been great and all, but we’re not really interested in it anymore, so we’re going to leave and start our own club. No ill will, we’d actually still like to do stuff with you like sell stuff to each other and come visit once in a while, but we just don’t want to be members anymore because we don’t like the rules.”

Then the head of the club said “Sorry, you can’t leave this club–ever. If you try, we’re going to kill you.”

I mean, is that or isn’t that pretty much what happened? People think the Civil War was about slavery, but it seems to me that it was much more about the southern states seceding. I get the impression that even if the southern states had renounced slavery, but still wanted to secede, that Lincoln would have continued the Civil War.

So you lawyers, I’d like to hear your viewpoints. Is my portrayal accurate? What were the legal issues? Did Lincoln have the right to prevent, by violence, the states from seceding?

My take? I was pleasantly surprised. I kept waiting for the typical progressive themes of “Yeah, these big-government types over here are bad, but these big-government types over here are good.” Instead, you get the pleasing “These big-government types over here are bad, and these others that you thought would be good? Well, maybe they aren’t any good either.” There does seem to be a pervading message that if all these power-hungry leaders would just leave people alone, they could take care of themselves and be just fine, and “just fine” would be worlds better than where they’re at. If you’re already of a mind to loathe the state these books will give you all the satisfaction you’re looking for, and it’s that much more satisfying to know how many other people are reading them.

No, it’s not exactly a libertarian manifesto. I don’t believe the author had any such intent, which actually makes it better as a tool for liberty-lovers, because there isn’t any sort of preachy, over-the-top message about government. The book merely appeals to the natural desire each of us as to be left alone to do our own thing. It’s about as much a libertarian manifesto as Star Wars is, which again, has libertarian themes, but isn’t a purposely libertarian story.

As far as being enjoyable, I did find it to be that. Yes, it was a page-turner, yes, I found myself going to extra effort to read more of it each day than I would normally do for another book–if I had my way I would have just sat down and gotten through all three books without taking a break.

That said, it’s not terribly well-written. It’s not bad, per se, but it could certainly use some polishing. There are times when the author insults your intelligence, giving you a punch line and then explaining it as though you’re a dimwit. There is a bit much of the two-boys-fighting-over-teenage-girl drama. My wife says this is every teenage girl’s dream, which I guess explains the success of both this series as well as the Twilight series.  While cheesy in parts, I learned to look past it. After all, it’s not as though it’s unrealistic. Heck, the first time I asked my wife out on a date she turned me down because she already had a date planned for the same evening, so I guess I should even be able to relate. But for all its faults, the book is still interesting and enjoyable if one can get by those faults and look at the positives.

Will the book convert anyone straight over to the cause of liberty? Probably not. Can it be a step on that road, a building block in a young person’s or even older reader’s journey towards that end? Sure, and an enjoyable one at that.

I’ve argued with these people that Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum are little different than Obama when it comes to their political philosophy and policies. This line of reasoning generally draws gasps and then laughter. “What, are you an idiot?! Of course Romney and Obama are different! They’re completely different!” is the feedback I get. In every case I ask the person who is so convinced of the differences between Romney and Obama to show me one way in which their policies differ, other than that Romney has said he would veto Obamacare. As of yet I have received no responses. That isn’t to say there aren’t any differences, because I know there are some, although I think they are inconsequential and effectively melt down to being shot in the head with a pistol or a rifle.

The most stinging criticism I have received has been from those who insinuate that I don’t really know anything about Romney, and that I haven’t even read his book. I include one comment in its entirety to give you a flavor of what I’m referring to:

As for me I look for a man who has been successful at all his endeavors. Who has no vested time on the beltway. Who has taken on the liberals in their own state and won. Who was praised by conservatives, liberals, independents and libertarians alike for his approach to health care in his democratic state (until of course it became politically unpopular and claimed by all of the above, for their individual motivations, as the seed of Obama care which HE totally opposes). Who has his own money invested in the outcome. Who has had a career of turnarounds and has actual major leadership experience. Who took the Olympics after 9/11 when many lobbied to have a bye and resurrected it from the hands of dishonor and corruption to be the most successful of winter Olympics, thus giving all a needed patriotic boost. Who believes the constitution an inspired of God document that made possible the restoration (of the gospel of Jesus Christ). Who represents everything that is good about family and the strength of America. Who was brought up in a home where American values were core and continues them with his family. Who would have a hard time with the legalization of drugs and prostitution. Who has been financially successful through his own work ethic and resolute dedication. Who certainly has weighed on the scale all of his opponent’s thoughts and has clearly laid out his beliefs in his book, “No Apologies,” for all to read and attack (clearly Joshua has not studied that). And, who is a faithful Temple recommend holder who does not shy from his faith or that of his fathers and has served others in church callings from (being a) home teacher to (being a) Stake President and has administered and understands the principles of welfare.

Never the less, Joshua, and others of like mind, may get what they clearly must want most. A man who cannot, under any circumstance, win the election. And they can loudly claim their cause was right as the nation suffers another four years of President Obama. If that happens they may well loose their opportunity to influence the good that Paul represents in the future.

I had already decided to read Romney’s book prior to receiving this comment, but this threw fuel on the fire to read it quickly. I don’t want to be the guy who rushes to judgment. I want to give people a fair shake. It’s true that I don’t know Romney personally. I’ve never spoken to him. I do know some people who know him very well, and whom speak highly of him. I don’t know anyone who knows him personally who speaks negatively of him. I happen to think he’s a nice guy. I think he’s brilliant when it comes to the business world. I’d hire Romney in a heartbeat to run a private equity firm. I have nothing against Romney on a personal level, just as I have nothing against Obama personally. What I don’t like about both men are their philosophies about the role of government and the resulting policy stances. But to be fair to Romney, I decided to read his book No Apology.

Before starting the book, I was just a little worried. What if the Romney supporters were right? What if I liked what I read? What if after reading the book I was convinced the best course to take would be to support Romney instead of Ron Paul? It turns out my doubts and fears were in vain. Having read the book, the one word I would use to describe its contents is “horrifying”.

Although I possess the disposition, I lack the time to go into the complete details leading to my visceral reaction. But I will share my main four thoughts:

1. Foreign policy. Romney starts the book talking about his foreign policy views. This is what disturbed me more than anything else. Romney’s perspective is the classic neocon circular reasoning–anything America does is good, only America can be trusted, if it weren’t for America the world would be in horrible shape, America has saved the world from self-destructing, and if America doesn’t continue to be #1 the Islamists and Chinese will kill us all.

I agree that America has done much good in the world. I agree that the world is a better place due to America’s existence. But America, or more correctly, the federal government of the United States, has done many bad things as well, things that perhaps we should apologize for.

What frightens me more is that I don’t see that Romney understands why terrorists hate us. I don’t think he understands why many other countries see the US as a bully. Ironically, his book gives many reasons why we should build up our military as a reaction to what other countries are doing, but he seems to fail to see why those reasons work in reverse for those other countries. In failing to put himself in the shoes of others around the world, Romney commits the same error that has been made throughout the world’s history by many brilliant people, that of assuming that anyone who disagrees with him is stupid, or at least limited in their understanding. Hey, we all do it, I’m doing it right now. But I’m willing to be proven wrong, would be glad to be proven wrong, whereas I don’t get the impression Romney is open-minded enough to change course, and I think Romney’s course will lead us to wars, potentially major wars, we might have otherwise avoided.

2. We Just Need Good, Smart People in Charge. Romney also falls into the trap of believing that things will be well if we can  just get good, smart people in charge. The Founders understood the danger of such thinking and that it leads to a dictatorship much like the one they were trying to escape. The Constitution was written expressly to restrain the federal government from becoming too powerful. But Romney, while paying lip service once or twice in his book to limited government, makes it obvious by 50 or 60 references that he sees government as a valuable tool for bettering the lives of Americans as well as the rest of the world, not just by providing defense services and a justice system, but through policies related to education, health care, the economy, and more. Nowhere does he convincingly portray Americans as people who, if left alone, can figure out how to do much better for themselves those things government tries to do for us today. His view is not that government is the problem, but rather that we simply have the wrong people running government, and that if we could simply get the right people in charge, like himself, then things would be fantastic. I prefer Thomas Jefferson’s view–“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

3. The System. If Romney understood The System, he would better understand the danger of putting faith in men rather than the Constitution. Let’s explore an analogy to make this point. Let’s imagine an evil being exists whose goal it is to make all people miserable. You can imagine this is Satan, George Bush, Obama, Lindsay Lohan, or whomever you please. How might this person use our form of government to achieve his or her ends? Here’s one possible route; 1) convince the people to trust their government by electing good men to it, 2) convince those good men that the role of government is to do all good things for the people, 3) promote the growth of government and its involvement in all areas of life through good programs, designed to truly bring good things to the people, 4) once government has become firmly entrenched in all areas of society, replace the good men with bad men. You can guess the rest from here.

Good people with good intentions create the system whereby bad people with bad intentions can do far more harm than they otherwise could have. The only protection is to not allow the good people to create that system. This does not mean the good things government does don’t exist, in fact they can and will almost always, if not always, be provided faster/better/cheaper by the private sector. Restraining the growth of the system is the only guarantee against tyranny and slavery, and has no downside other than that those who desire power over others won’t be able to get it.

Romney seems to have no sense of this phenomenon. He pontificates at length as to how Obama is doing the wrong things, but that he, Romney, would do the right things on behalf of Americans. The idea of doing nothing and allowing individuals to do their own things is barely touched upon.

4. Freedom. Romney focuses on results rather than principles, and the prime principle he misses is that of individual freedom. He speaks of using government power to encourage good things, but fails to realize, or does not have a problem with the fact, that government power is force. Government does not act by persuasion, it uses the power of the state to force what it deems to be “proper” behavior. In some cases we reasonably delegate this power to government, as in the case of defense, police protection, and the courts. But we are very far away from merely delegating those limited powers to our government, and Romney’s misunderstanding of this principle is nowhere clearer than at the end of the book when he dismissively refers to anyone in favor of the legalization of marijuana as hedonists and expresses his support for keeping it illegal. Many credible arguments have been made as to why the war on drugs is an expensive failure that does more harm than good, but the fundamental principle is individual liberty. I cannot delegate to government those rights which I do not possess. As an individual, I do not have the right to enter my neighbor’s house, kidnap him, and lock him up because he’s smoking something I don’t want him smoking. And just because a group of individuals call themselves the government, this does not give them the right to do this either. But Romney does not understand this fundamental principle, and if he doesn’t understand it in this matter, he will fail to see where it applies in countless other areas, and that ignorance of the principle of human liberty, perhaps more than anything else, is what truly horrifies me.

Romney and Obama are not exactly similar because they want to do the same things with government. They are almost identical in that they both want to use government to force people to do what they think people should do. They are identical in that they see government as a tool with which good, smart people can make the world a better place. The Founders realized this was dangerous. They wrote the Constitution to keep people like Obama and Romney in line and prevent them from mischief. But in this day and age, with the Constitution more of a guideline for politicians than a hard and fast rule, can we trust anyone in the office of President, other than a person who will shrink the power of that office and has shown the intellectual understanding of why that’s necessary and the commitment to do so?

My fellow Americans, the contest to discover who will win the GOP nomination and face Barack Obama in the general election is well underway, but does not show any sign of ending soon. The field has been narrowed to four candidates. Each one has stated their intent to remain in this contest until the GOP convention, and each one has legitimate reasons for doing so. But whereas you, I, and the other GOP candidates may disagree on some things, I believe we can agree that the money and time we are spending on fighting each other would be better spent fighting Obama and his policies of big government, crony capitalism, bailouts for the rich, endless wars, violations of civil liberties, and special rights for privileged groups rather than equal rights for all individuals.

Some of you may be scratching your heads right now and asking “Wait Mitt, didn’t you support TARP and other bailouts? Haven’t you been in support of the wars we’re fighting? Didn’t you support Obama’s recent signing of NDAA?” It would be fair of you to ask those questions. But allow me to explain.

When I first got involved in politics, I did it because I had ideas about what the country should look like and how it could be better. I wanted to make America stronger, better, and I thought “If only I could be in charge, I could fix things.” I’ve been in charge of or have played a leading role in many companies, the 2002 Winter Olympics, and other organizations and events and each time I’ve been able to execute successfully and make great things happen. I thought if I could do the same in government, I could make this country and the world a better place.

As Governor of Massachusetts I did my best. I helped create a healthcare system that would have covered more people at a lower overall cost. The state messed it up after I left, but we don’t need to go into details. The point is I saw a way I could use the state government to make things better for people, and I did my best to do that.

But having tasted success at the state level, I wanted to bring improvement to the country, and I thought I had a good chance at making it happen. Things didn’t go my way in 2008, but they didn’t go the right way for Reagan the first time he ran either, so I bided my time for the 2012 elections. As it happens, I couldn’t have asked for better circumstances, at least in terms of the timing for me to get elected.

The country has been a disaster since Obama got elected. We don’t need to go into those details either, you all know what I’m talking about. The point here is that we have a very unpopular President, a bad economy, and with my background and name recognition I should have had this nomination locked up. But things haven’t gone my way. I’ve won some states, but not enough to clinch the nomination. It’s obvious from the way GOP voters have gone this way and that from one candidate to another that while I’m popular with a lot of you, there are a lot of you who have doubts about me. I’ve been accused of flip-flopping on issues and not being a true conservative. I view this merely as a sign that I’ve been open-minded enough to have learned, progressed, and changed my mind on some things over the years, but I can see how some might see it as pandering, and yet others might see an opportunity for political gain. The truth is that I have changed my mind over the years. You can call it flip-flopping, but I would prefer to call it an education.

It’s hard for someone in my position to admit they’re still learning. When you reach the point of running for the office of President of the United States you want to project confidence, even omniscience, and you worry that any sign that you don’t already have all the answers will lead voters to doubt your abilities. But with as much as there is to learn in this world it would be foolish of me to think I have all the answers. And it would be insulting if I expected you to believe I was anything close to omniscient. I may sometimes come across as a know-it-all, but just talk to my wife and she’ll give you the real story.

One thing I have wanted to learn and understand is why I haven’t locked up the nomination already. I knew why I lost in 2008, but I thought it would be easier this time around. But in many states so far, even some of those I’ve won, I haven’t gotten as many votes as I did in ’08. At the same time Ron Paul, who has gotten less votes than me so far, has been getting two and three times as many votes as he did in ’08. I’m a numbers guy, and I like solving problems. This is a big one.

I already knew that Ron Paul’s followers are the most passionate out there. But I wanted to understand why. So I started studying Ron Paul’s positions and policy statements. I started reading his books, as well as those he has recommended in the past. You might recall the reading assignment he gave Rudy Giuliani back in 2008. I went and read those books recently. I’ve also been reading scores of articles from libertarian thinkers, studying the lives of the Founders, and have read and re-read the Constitution more times than I can count during the past month. I’ve thought long and hard about what I’ve been learning, and I’ve prayed quite a bit too, and I’ve come to a difficult conclusion–I’ve decided to end my campaign for the Presidency of the United States, effective immediately. This is not a suspension of my campaign–I’m not going to re-enter in a month or two. I’m done. Of course you’ll want to know why.

I see now that I’ve been wrong–fundamentally wrong. For years, decades even, I’ve believed that the way to fix the country was to elect good people who would do good things. That sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? But it’s completely wrong. I now see that the way to fix the country is to elect people who will not pass good laws, but who will strip away the majority of the laws we have today and let the people govern themselves. The problem our nation faces is not that we have bad laws, nor that we have a lack of good laws, but that we have too many laws. I’ve also seen the wisdom of the Founders in restricting the federal government so that neither good nor bad people could move quickly. This was intentional. They recognized that if the system is set up to allow good people to do good things quickly, the same system can be used to allow bad people to do bad things quickly. The Founders put their faith in the American people, not their leaders. But we’ve come a long way, and our laws and government have become corrupted such that it’s no longer we the people who run this country, the country is run by a largely corrupt group of power-hungry men and women who are taking advantage of the rest of us. Unfortunately, I did not see this until recently. But I now see why Thomas Jefferson wrote “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

Extending the blessings of freedom to all people means sometimes people will do things you don’t like to see or even know about. I used to think it was ok for government to step in and force people to do good things. Now I see that unless one person is physically hurting another or stealing or damaging their property, the government should play no role.

There is no other candidate who understands this but Ron Paul. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum do not understand it–I now see they’re in the same boat I was. They see themselves as the solution to the country’s problems. Ron Paul doesn’t see himself as the solution, he sees you, the people, as the solution, and by cutting back government power he wants to give you the freedom, and the power, to make your own decisions and fix the problems this country has. I now see that Ron Paul’s followers are more passionate about the man’s message than the man himself.

And so along with canceling my campaign, I wholeheartedly endorse Ron Paul as our next President of the United States and urge all my supporters, not to blindly throw their support behind Ron Paul, but to study the Constitution, study the Founders, read the books Ron Paul has written as well as those he recommends, and then make your own decision. I think you’ll come to the same conclusion I did, and which Ronald Reagan did before me. As Reagan said, “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”

You might be wondering what I’ll be doing now. Well, I’ve got a lot to learn, and I plan on doing a lot of studying. With that I’d like to turn the time over to Ron Paul.

Ron Paul:

If anyone is having a heart attack right now I apologize I can’t help you, I’m not that kind of doctor.

I would like to speak to those of you who have supported Mitt Romney during this campaign. I know some of you think I’m a nut-case. I admit I’m not the best messenger for the message of freedom. My suits don’t fit, I’m old (although I’ll reissue my challenge to Mitt and any other candidate to a 15-mile bike race), my hair doesn’t look that great, and I’m not that polished of a speaker. In addition, the message of freedom doesn’t fit too well in short sound-bites. That’s why if you’ve ever had a personal encounter with any of my followers they want you to read all sorts of books and articles and watch videos that are an hour or two long. It takes a lot of time and effort to understand why freedom is the best policy, and that makes it hard for it to take hold until things get bad enough that people are willing to take time out of their busy days and read these books and articles and watch these videos and get educated about liberty.

Well, I can tell you I was as shocked as you are when Mitt first contacted me. That was a month ago. He called me up and said “I’ve got some questions for you, but you have to promise me you won’t tell another soul that we’ve had this conversation.” I said I’d agree as long as he wasn’t planning anything diabolical, and he then asked me a simple question “What books do you wish I would read?” At first it was as though someone were talking to me in a foreign language because I couldn’t believe my ears, but then I said “Well, if you need some heavy reading to help you get to sleep I’ve got plenty of that.” He laughed and so did I and then I gave him some books to read. I mentioned For a New Liberty and What Has Government Done to Our Money by Murray Rothbard for starters, as well as Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. I also told him he should read a new book I endorsed by a member of his church, Latter-day Liberty by Connor Boyack.

I didn’t hear from him for two weeks. Then he called back and he had not only read all those books, but several others, and we talked for a few hours on the phone and it was obvious he was going through a bit of a conversion process, which I understand can be strange for someone born into the LDS Church. But it was really a happy moment for me, not because Mitt is the most serious opponent I have in this race, but I had the same joy I get every time I meet someone who has had the lightbulb go on over their head and I can see in them that they understand liberty for the first time.

He told me he was going to drop out of the race and I said “Are you sure about that? You’re not making a hasty decision you’ll regret?” He said “No, this is something that has been working on me for awhile, but it finally reached a tipping point. I could keep on running, but to be true to myself I would have to mirror all your positions, which you’ve had for 30 years. Now that I understand the cause of liberty, I see that I’m not the guy to move it forward right now. I’ve got a lot of learning to do.” He told me he’d be having this press conference, and to please keep it confidential until this moment, which I have. I didn’t even tell my wife what we were coming to this for, although I think she sensed something was up.

Now, if Mitt hasn’t killed off all his supporters, and mine also, by cardiac arrest, I’ve got an announcement that is going to kill off whoever is left of mine. I’ve asked Mitt Romney to be my running mate, and he has accepted.

I know, I know what all my supporters are saying, but hear me out. What I want you to know first is that this was my own idea–Mitt never suggested or hinted at it at all. It also wasn’t something I came up with overnight–it took a few nights, that’s all I had. But I think my supporters will understand that once someone is converted to the message of liberty, you can see it. It’s very hard to fake, I’m not even sure it can be faked. And during the hours I spoke with Mitt I could see that his conversion was real. That isn’t to say he knows everything about libertarianism or Rothbard or Mises or the Austrian school of economics, but he’s on the right track and I’m convinced he’s going to stay on it.

And then I thought, you know, a person can get a lot of reading done in four years…and although I plan on being just as healthy as I am today, I am an older man, and quite honestly, who better to lead this country than a Mitt Romney who has spent four or eight years studying liberty? And of course I’ll be keeping a close eye on him…

I also see this as a great way to spread our message. Imagine the power of a Paul-Romney ticket, with Romney as fully on board as any of us when it comes to liberty. Is there any doubt the two of us will be able to beat Obama in November?

I also want to say that Romney turned me down the first time I suggested this. He thought I would have a better chance of winning without him on the ticket than with him, and he said he needed to do more studying in order to be ready for the Presidency, which is what the VP should be, a man who is immediately ready to be President. But we talked it over and he came around.

So again, to both my supporters as well as those of Romney’s, I hope we can put any hard feelings to rest and come together. We are on the same team and we all want what’s best for the country and our families even if we sometimes disagree on how to get there. But let’s agree that there is more that unites us than divides us, and let’s wrap up this contest for the GOP contest and get on to fighting the real fight and spread the message of liberty all the way to the White House!

There you have it folks. If that press conference were to happen, I would gladly throw my vote behind Romney. One can dream.

In response to Fawn…

“The first is that Romney is a successful business man who knows how to really grow an economy.”

I agree with the first part. I’m not so sure about the second. These are entirely different skillsets. I’d encourage you to read this article -http://lewrockwell.com/goyette/goyette23.1.html.

“If Romney does this in government less money will be wasted on bloated wages and unproductive programs. If he can do to medicaid, medicare, social security and the military what he did for the olympics many more people will be able to benefit from these programs.”

On this point we may simply disagree on what we believe the role of government should be. When people talk about making government leaner, more efficient, etc., I call this “polishing the cage”. I don’t want a President who will allow many more people to benefit from entitlement programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. I agree we have an obligation to take care of those whose wealth has been confiscated from them and who have been made dependent on these programs. I think we should eliminate and reduce many other programs first. But 20-30 years down the road I hope these programs no longer exist, and that people do not see it as the role of government to provide such services.

Actually, I am 100% confident these programs will not exist in 20-30 years. The math simply won’t allow it, since each of these programs, independently, is on track to consume the entire budget of the US government. Something will have to give. It is not a question of keeping or dropping these programs, it’s a question of whether we want to phase them out and give people time to adjust, or if we want to act as though the problem doesn’t exist, and have them disappear overnight as people’s Social Security checks start bouncing.

“Obama’s only credit is as a “community organizer” and a politician. He has no business experience or economic understanding.”

No disagreements from me here nor on anything else you say about Obama.

“The second is that Romney seems to be a man of principle.”

I would like to believe this. I don’t know Romney personally, but I do know people who know him very well. They only say good things about him. But I have a hard time with his flip-flops. There are people who flip-flop but they’re sincere and it shows. Romney doesn’t strike me as sincere, he strikes me as an opportunist, the type who does polling to figure out what people want to hear, and then goes out and says it. Whenever I hear him speak it sounds like it’s scripted, focus-grouped, researched, and written by someone else.

“We currently have two parties with polar opposite views on what this country needs.”

I strongly disagree with this sentiment, although I agreed with it as recently as 2008. The rhetoric is different, but if you look at what they do, rather than what they say, we do not have a two-party system, we have a one-party system. Both parties have consistently raised spending. Both parties have consistently gotten us into unconstitutional wars. Both parties have grown government. Neither party has dealt with entitlement spending. Neither party has focused on defense rather than empire building. Neither party has respect for individual liberty. That is, both parties want to force the rest of us to do what they want us to do, although they may differ in what it is they want us to do. But neither is content to let us choose the life we want to live.

“You are looking for someone like the founding fathers? Check your history, we romanticize those men.”

I agree. George Washington kept slaves. Jefferson had a long-term affair with one of his. Hamilton was a tyrant. Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts which were absolutely horrible legislation. Madison was terribly inconsistent over the years. But I think every one of them would have been astounded and appalled at how far we’ve strayed from the Constitution, with the potential exception of Hamilton. They envisioned a tiny government, one perhaps 5% the size of what we have today. They did not envision taxes that would take 5 percent of a person’s income, let alone 30, 40, or 50 percent, or especially the 90 percent tax we had on the wealthy at one time. They did not envision us having troops stationed in 130 countries on over 1,000 foreign bases. They did not envision us intervening in the internal affairs of other countries or overthrowing democratically elected leaders and installing our own (for a partial list of foreign interventions by the US government please see http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/grossman-z1.1.1.html). But does Romney understand this? We have doubled military spending in the past 10 years. We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. We borrow money to fight unconstitutional wars, and regardless of what you think our military policy should be, it is mathematically unsustainable. If we do not phase it down, it will disappear from one day to the next, and we will leave a huge power vacuum in those countries that have grown to depend on us. They will not have time to gear up. We have created a very dangerous world. And yet Romney is talking about increasing military spending. With what money?

“The reality is that we can only work with what we are given. Most elections are the lesser of two evils. This is the first election in decades that I will be voting for something instead of against.”

Anyone who agrees to vote for the lesser of two evils rather than for the ideal has already lost. I wouldn’t bring up Satan if this weren’t an LDS forum, but Satan laughs at us when we choose the lesser of two evils when there is a good alternative available. This is how he has gotten us this far. All he has to do is provide two bad choices every time, keep moving both of them in the wrong direction, and if we keep choosing the lesser of two evils we’ll end up safely in hell. When will we start standing up and refusing to take the choices he gives us?

This is not a situation where on a scale of 1 to 10 we’ve got Obama at a 1, Romney at a 9, and Ron Paul at a 10. We’ve got Obama at a 1, Romney at a 2, and Ron Paul at a 10. Or to put it another way, this country is a train headed towards a cliff with Obama wanting to accelerate it from 90 mph to 130 mph, Romney promising to only accelerate it to 120 mph, and Ron Paul the only one calling out “Stop this train and turn it around!” I don’t care if the guy calling for the train to stop isn’t electable (which is a lie, he consistently polls as being able to beat Obama in a general election), I’m not going to vote for the guy who will take us off the cliff just as well as the guy who will do it a little faster.

Romney is smart guy. But he probably doesn’t know how to fix the broken tailpipe on a car or the compressor on a fridge. He probably can’t program in Java or create a successful advertising campaign for a grocery store chain. Running a private equity firm or the Olympic organizing committee is not the same thing as running the federal government. Running a state government comes close, but one term doesn’t give us much of a record to examine, but if we do want to look into it we can verify that Massachusetts does have the highest health care costs in the country. We shouldn’t assume that because he has been successful in a few areas of life that he knows what the country needs.

Now, on to John.

First of all, your statement that the United States is a democracy is incorrect. The Founders thought democracy was one of the worst forms of government because they always failed throughout history quickly and in bloody fashion. The sentiments of the Founders with regards to democracy can be summed up in a statement often misattributed to Benjamin Franklin which say “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep trying to decide what to have for lunch.” That’s why the Founders created a republic instead, a form of government based on laws, rather than majority rule, or as they called it, the tyranny of the majority. Granted, there are aspects of democracy included in our government, but it is not a democracy.

“Romney aligns with a Capitalistic Democracy and embraces people being the voice of Government. Obama leans towards a Socialistic Democracy where Government provides and shares with the people, in essence; being their voice. President Obama has requested from Congress control over getting bills passed and instituted and wants to circumvent the process created in the U.S. Democracy. In a sense; Obama is seeking a Oligarchy form of Government with his request for the control which is in the House and Congress. Romney is not seeking for such control and wants to get Congress functioning with the control they have. ”

I have to disagree. If Romney supported the role of Congress as stipulated in the Constitution he wouldn’t have supported the war in Iraq. He wouldn’t support the existence of the Federal Reserve. He wouldn’t have supported the Patriot Act. He wouldn’t have supported Obama’s recent signing of the NDAA, which effectively guts the Bill of Rights and gives the President the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without charging them with a crime. The NDAA overturns 700 years of precedent established with the Magna Carta which guaranteed those accused of crime their day in court. These are the acts and positions either of a dictator or someone who is ignorant of the Constitution. This is why I must also disagree with your statement that “Romney is more likely to utilize the Government in the way it was created, where Obama is not wanting to do such.” This statement is true only if we are referring to where our government has come to today. In that sense, yes, I agree that Romney will most likely continue to do what has been done by Bush and Obama.

“I think the people are getting back into being involved and will change the next 50 years of U.S. Democracy, (depending on belief, cause, and purpose), from the huge bodies of Capitalists or Socialists to a more Government by the people. ”

I agree, and this is where I’m an optimist. I know change, positive change, is coming. It’s mathematically certain, because the country will go bankrupt within the next 10-20 years unless we quickly phase out entitlement programs and dramatically scale back our military to provide only defense and not the nation building we’ve been doing. But I don’t think those things will happen by choice, unfortunately. I think they will be forced on us, and it will be much more painful than if we had chosen to deal with them. But I am hopeful that out of that we will learn our lesson, return to the Constitution, and have a much brighter future.