Archive for the My Government Category

Conservatives Create Opportunities, Not Programs: Education

Posted in education, My Government with tags , , on December 29, 2008 by nighttwister

This is the first in a series of conservative solution proposals. I have no idea how many more I will do. I just know that we have to have an answer to the programs the liberals and conservatives have been implementing for the past couple of decades.

For the past eight years (some might say twenty), conservatives in government have been acting like democrats. We’ve seen program after program implemented, give more and more control of our lives over to the government. This flies in the face of the true conservative principle of limited government. This, I believe, has been our greatest failure, and has resulted in being marginalized and beaten at the voting booth. We will never be able to out-program the Democrats.

Nowhere is this as evident as it is in education. Federal spending on education has increased at an alarming rate since 2000, with little measurable benefit. The following hockey stick graph from a Department of Education website shows the increase in K-12 federal spending since 1966.

Too many students continue to fail to meet minimum standards in basic subjects, even with this dramatic increase in federal spending. State spending also has been trending up at a concerning rate. The following graph shows the increase in spending broken down by local, state, and federal government.

You’ll note in the graph that local spending has risen at a more reasonable and consistent rate. This is expected, since people have more control over the rise of local taxes than they do for state and federal.

As if this weren’t enough, not nearly enough of this money is making its way back to the classroom. It’s difficult to obtain information on how much money makes its way to the local school districts, the Heritage Foundation reports that New York City’s public schools revealed that only 43 percent of the city’s total education funds was used for direct classroom expenditures. The simple fact is, most government programs are run like the DMV. Anyone that doesn’t realize this is either incredibly ignorant, or is someone that benefits from the system.

Another thing conservatives often do is to promote solutions that don’t have enough support. In the case of education, vouchers is a good example. While I think there are some great possibilities with them, I think there are also some negatives. And let’s face it; if the issue can’t win in Utah, it’s not going to win elsewhere. We simply can’t continue to take an all-or-none approach when presenting conservative solutions. The best conservative solution is the one that brings opportunity, while at the same time emphasizing responsibility and accountability. I wrote about this recently in a blog called The Three Parts of Freedom. I’m not usually one to link to my own work, but for those that want a deeper understanding of the philosophy I propose, it’s an important read.


Opportunity begins with choice. Choice brings competition, which is absolutely necessary for success. You’d have a difficult time finding a successful small businessman that didn’t want fair competition in their marketplace. It not only benefits the customer, but it also pushes them to continue to improve and stay sharp.

The two most attractive opportunities in education today are Charter Schools, and School Choice. There’s no question that Charter schools have been successful where they’ve been implemented. The State of Colorado released the School Accountability Report this month. Four of the top five high schools are charter schools, including Fort Collins’ Ridgeview Classical School which came in at number three with a score of 2.33. Eight of the top ten middle schools were also charter schools, including Liberty Common School in Fort Collins.

The Charter School concept is simple. Families in a local community meet together to determine how they want their children to be educated. This is the conservative way; keeping control over government programs at the lowest level possible. This keeps both responsibility and accountibility (to be discussed later) where it belongs.

School choice drives competition, even among traditional public schools. Examples in my community are Lesher Junior High School, which is involved in the InterBaccalaureate (IB) program, and my son’s school Kinard Junior High School, which uses the Core Knowledge educational approach. My older son attends Centennial High School here in Fort Collins, which is an alternative school that specializes in educating kids that have difficulty in a traditional school environment. They use the Discovery Program approach. Having the ability to choose among programs such as these is important to parents, who have the ultimate responsibility for their children’s education. This leads me to,


To take advantage of the opportunities of school choice, there are certain responsibilities we all must bear. Government’s primary responsibility is to promote educational choice. It must not continue to be manipulated by education associations and teacher unions into believing that children are best educated without choices. These same associations and unions would be better served supporting educational choices which would improve the system for everyone, including them.

Parents also must take responsibility for the education of their children, and that does not simply mean getting them to and from the school building. It includes attending school board meetings, talking with school administrators and your children’s teachers. It also includes volunteering at your school. Most school districts have a list of volunteer opportunities to help fill in gaps in education. They are usually of such a variety that most anyone would be able to help out somewhere. One of the greatest needs is helping students read, or reading to them. This doesn’t require any special skills, yet can make the difference for that student whether or not he succeeds.

Local businesses can help out here too. Often, businesses complain that the workers they hire are not sufficiently educated to do the job required of them, yet how many of those same companies are willing to allow their workers a little time off each month to go help those future workers? A blogger at RedState kansasconservative wrote a very good blog recently on this subject.

Students are not free from responsibility either. When someone else is paying for something for you, you not only have the responsibility to do your part, but demand that others do theirs as well. That means doing your work, getting help when you need it, and helping others that need a little extra help with their work. A community only works when all of its members do their fair share.

This involvement by everyone is what can lead to greater gains. As people see that educational choice leads to better educated students and a better community, voters will be much more willing to consider things like vouchers.


Schools still need to meet certain standards, regardless of the desires of the local community. This is where government standards can make sure that all schools are working towards the same goal, and that students that graduate from any type of school can compete in the marketplace. Unfortunately, too many government programs like NCLB and others have failed. All accountability without choice gives us is a list of schools that aren’t meeting the necessary criteria, without the impetus to create real change.

Parents need to hold school and State administrators accountable to providing the opportunity for education for their children. We need to hold our government legislators accountable when they try to take away or prevent educational choice.

The final thing that is necessary for this to be successful is to be able to present it to the public in a simple way. People aren’t going to read a several page position paper to be convinced that an idea is worthwhile. Heck, I’m surprised any of you made it this far in such a long blog post. It seems to me though, that will all of the talented conservatives around, the idea of opportunity, responsibility, and accountability should be able to be communicated in a 30-second commercial.

We’re never going to win the battle of programs with the liberals. Theirs is always going to sound better because there’s less for the individual to do. We have to win the battle of philosophy, which for conservatives means we promote freedom, opportunity, and responsibility. It is there where we will win back the hearts and minds of the American people.

Night Twister


The Three Parts of Freedom

Posted in My Government with tags , on December 15, 2008 by nighttwister

During the Presidential campaign, I made a comment on someone’s blog about why Sarah Palin garnered so much support by people from all walks of life. I’ve been wanting to expand on this for some time, but haven’t had the time do to so until now. That comment was,

Conservatives want to help those that can’t help themselves. Liberals want to help those that won’t help themselves.

Palin’s popularity shows that the majority of American people still support conservative values and freedom. This blog is not intended to be a rallying cry for Palin, but rather an introspective look at what Americans really want from their elected leaders, and why Republican candidates continue to fail. More importantly, I believe it can be a road map back to relevance and respect for our Party if we choose to follow it.

It should come as no surprise that Sarah Palin comes from the last frontier in the United States. Alaska is still a place where the independent, self-sufficient spirit still lives in our nation, at least to some degree. This spirit includes working hard for what you earn, and sharing with others that are less fortunate or have had a bad break. What really brought this to the forefront was her efforts to champion the cause of Down’s Syndrome children. For once, we found a politician that had genuine care about those that could not care for themselves, instead of just looking out for themselves our those that paid them to get there. But that’s the second part of freedom. I’ll get to that later.

The First Part of Freedom is Opportunity.

Opportunity is freedom. This simple truth has been proven countless times throughout out nation’s history. Now, there have certainly been times when opportunity has been denied to various groups of people during that time, but that only shows why we need to work towards making it available to everyone.

Opportunity offers the best avenue to success, but that avenue can also lead to failure. There are some that believe that the possibility of failure needs be eliminated if we care about people. The thing is, they go hand-in-hand. If you remove the possibility of failure, you also take away the possibility of long-term success.

Failure is one of the greatest teachers. Without it, we would be doomed to repeating our mistakes over and over again. It is also those failures that make our successes even more worthwhile. It also allows those around us to lend a helping hand in our time of need so we can get back on our feet again. This is what community is supposed to be about.

Our elected representatives have completely forgotten this over the past eight years. Democrats and Republicans alike have passed spending bill after spending bill, offering temporary help to their friends and supporters, while at the same time taking away everyone else’s opportunity at freedom. Rather than acknowledge the problem they’ve created, they only seek to exacerbate it by continuing to believe that they can prevent failure. This only delays the inevitable, and will hurt everyone even more. Almost everyone knows it, many acknowledge it, but it has become like a runaway train that no one seems to be able to stop.

The Second Part of Freedom is Responsibility.

Freedom isn’t free. It takes the commitment and sacrifice of every one of us to maintain it. Protecting freedom isn’t just for soldiers deployed halfway around the world, although they provide us with a wonderful example of what need to be doing here at home. Protecting freedom, means looking out for and helping those that are unable to help themselves.

How many of us complain about the public school system, but never offer to volunteer to help those that need a little extra guidance and support? Not every kid in town has the same wonderful, supportive parents that I’m sure you are to your children. The most treasured possession I have other than what my kids have given me is a bookmark I received from the parent of a special needs young girl that attended our summer vacation bible school a few years ago. As always seems to be the case, I know I received much more than she did in the exchange. For those of you that wonder why some of us are so adamantly pro-life, this is a primary reason why. We want to help those that are unable to help themselves. They have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness every bit as much as we do.

Our liberal representatives however, believe that these people are expendable. They want to give rights to terrorists who’s choices led to taking away the freedoms of so many, while at the same time doing everything they can to take away the rights of those that cannot obtain them for themselves. These people were given the responsibility to protect our rights, but seem to have forgotten that almost from the day they arrived in D.C. Reality has been turned in its head

The Third Part of Freedom is Accountability.

There are those that will tell you that all we need to do is trust the basic goodness of man. Most of us don’t really believe that though. It’s what we say to try to convince ourselves that we aren’t all that bad. Character is what we do when no one is watching. All too often we know that we fail ourselves and others when no one is looking.

Many of us that have come to this realization know that the only way we can do something about that is to make ourselves accountable to others. Knowing that we have someone to answer to when we’re alone causes us to think twice about what we’re doing.

For far too long now our representatives have failed to live up to their responsibilities. But who can blame them? We have failed to hold them accountable time, and time again. You can’t pick up a paper these days without reading about corruption at some level of government somewhere. Sure, we can point to a couple of recent instances where we tossed them out on their ear, but for those stories there are many, many more where we continue to send the same people back once again for expediency’s sake.

Perhaps its because we’ve forgotten that these people represent us. For those that have forgotten what that word means, here’s a handy definition.

To portray or depict; present the likeness of, as a picture does.

Perhaps we would do well to consider this definition of represent then next time we vote someone into a government position, whether a local school board member, or federal representative. For those that we’ve already sent, it is imperative that we hold these people accountable. Not only with their personal actions, but their votes. We can no longer stand idly by and let them give away our freedoms anymore. Technology offers us the ability to know what they’re doing and how they’re voting. Let’s use it for the good of ourselves and others.

Freedom. It’s difficult to obtain, easy to lose, and even more difficult to get back once we’ve lost it. Fight for it. For yourself, but more importantly for those that cannot fight for themselves.

Night Twister

My Government III: “… To Secure These Rights…”

Posted in civil rights, My Government, national defense, politics, Second Amendment, taxes with tags , , , , on February 28, 2008 by Randy Streu

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
–From The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America

When the founders of this nation wrote the document explaining the departure of the North American colonies from under the Crown’s rule, they prefaced it with a brief explanation of the Rights of Man, and the responsibility of a Government to those rights.  They asserted, correctly, that a government which failed to recognize the consent of the governed, and to facilitate the rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, such a government had forfeited its own right to rule.  It is clear that, not only did these individuals believe this to be the standard of what was to become the United States of America, but indeed the standard of Just Government the world over.

The first paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence set the precedent for the Constitution when it was drafted — and the responsibilities of the government that document established.  Put simply, the responsibility of the government is to facilitate (or, “secure”) the Divine Rights of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. 

On both a national and state level, this consists of the establishment of laws for the general order and welfare.  The common sense nature of this sort of law is such that the legislation of them is not so much to inform, but rather to provide precedent for reprisal should such common sense be ignored.  The average person knows on perhaps a primal level that it is wrong to murder, to steal, to cause harm.  Because not all men are honest, or good, however, we have laws on the books such that when bad men act badly, we me seek recompense and retribution.  Thus, on the local level, police forces are established “to serve and protect.” 

Nationally, the securing of these inalienable rights is manifest in the form of border security and national security.  Federal Border enforcement, a strong and well-maintained standing army, foreign intelligence agencies and a National Guard are all vital to this security and are indeed the chief responsibility of a National (Federal) government.  Administrations seeking to diminish or altar the roles of these agencies have been rightly criticized for acting against their Constitutional charter.

Much has been made in the recent past of the money spent by this nation on our military.  As will be discussed in the near future, those who would suggest a budget cut on this level are not only hopelessly naive about our safety and security, but woefully ignorant of the job of the Federal Government.  Indeed, any Administration which cuts military spending, or closes domestic military bases in favor of domestic entitlement programs is guilty of negligence in the highest degree.

A large part of domestic defense is the security of our sovereign borders.  The security of these borders is necessary not only for the defense of life, but indeed of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Ours is indeed a nation of immigrants.  We have a rich history of immigration and assimilation.  But such immigration must be tempered by just regulation as to who enters this country, and why.  Such regulation must not be based on race, color, creed or sex — such discrimination on a government level flies in the face of liberty — but on independence, ambition and prudent, rigorous examinations as to national security.

In other words, immigrants must always be welcome to this free nation, but such individuals must be both willing and able to provide for themselves and their families legally and independently of government aid — boon to society, in other words, rather than a burden.  And, they must be seen to pose no threat to our national security after reasonable investigation into their backgrounds.

Finally, the founders of this nation, in drafting the constition, provided for the penultimate source of personal and national security among Americans — the citizens themselves.  Referred to in the United States Constitution, under Article I, Section 8, as well as Article II, Section 2, this was clarified in the Second Amendment:  “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Second Amendment to the Constitution has nothing whatever to do with hunting, or with skeet shooting, or with hobbyists of any flavor.  The Second Amendment is about the right of the individual to keep and have the tools necessary to defend his home, his family, his community and his country from foreign and domestic threats to life, liberty or property.  Vital to a free and sovereign nation is an armed citizenry, well-trained in the use of their weaponry and prepared to answer the call to defend themselves and their nation. 

In fact, the right to defend one’s self is key to the Inalienable Rights referred to by the Declaration of Independence. 

The responsibility to defend is the logical extension of a government for, by and of the people.  Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is secured by the free individual, and by the government formed and maintained by his consent.

My Government II: Life — The First Part of Freedom

Posted in abortion, civil rights, healthcare, My Government with tags , , , , , on February 11, 2008 by Randy Streu

In the first “My Government” essay, we explored the syntax and some history of the Bill of Rights, and what that meant for Liberty in an American context.  However, more important even than the Bill of Rights in terms of American liberty is the right to life.  The single most fundamental right we have as human beings is the right to be alive.  This is the primary and most natural of our rights.  It is the foundation on which liberty is built.

The Founding Fathers of the United States agreed:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
-From the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence

I believe there is a reason the Founding Fathers put these three rights — life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — in that order.  In order for liberty to exist, life must exist first.  To pursue freedom, man must have liberty over his own person.  These rights build on eachother — and are mutually necessary.  After all, what is life without freedom; liberty without the will to live (pursuit of happiness)?

The extermination of human life, then, is the ultimate denial of human rights.  To claim authority over human life — the ability to grant or deny the right to life — is to claim authority over every right.  There are times when such a decision does become necessary — but only based on the participation of the person in question.  War, for example, is the mass extinguishing of human life.  Warriors, soldiers, however, are people who have already given their lives to a cause or country.  They have, in essence, given consent to sacrifice their God-given rights for a cause greater than themselves.  For an American soldier, should he survive the war and retire from service, his consent is removed and he reverts to the natural state: the living American Citizen, free to pursue happiness.  Even those who have willingly put themselves at risk in this way, however, are still accorded the right to life, as much as is possible within the above context.

The destruction of innocent human life, however, outside the context of the individual’s choice, is the ultimate human rights violation — what society has rightly defined as murder.

And, sure enough, the disconnect is not with the definition of ‘murder.’  Most would agree on that.  Where we disagree most sharply is on the definition of ‘life.’  What appears to be the most widely accepted definition, and the one I will be using, appears on the NEWTON site for educators, in the “Ask a Scientist” section: “… made up of one or more cells, can grow and develop, reproduce, respond to stimuli, and have a metabolism.”  Human Life, then, would be defined as meeting these requirements, and a member of the species homo sapien

This is where we reach the crux of the matter.  Is an unborn child a human life, or isn’t she?  A human fetus satisfies all requirements for life — save, arguably, the ability to reproduce.  This is a meaningless argument on several counts, of course.  First, because the cells of a fetus, like the cells of a grown human, do reproduce.  And, in taking the definition in the context of all of life, cellular reproduction is the heart of the matter in this.  Second, just to discount the utterly ridiculous, to require biological human reproduction as a definition for life would, necessarily, exclude children who have not yet gained this ability, men with zero sperm counts and infertile women.  A fetus is alive.  The termination of an unborn human is the extinguishing of a life.  No reasonable person can refute this — and no responsible doctor would.

So, if the question of life is settled, what of the question of humanity?  This is an even simpler matter than the first.  A human fetus does not develop into a sheep, or a wolf, or a chicken, or a cabbage.  It grows into a person.  Theoretically, if you were to take a human embryo, the product of a human male and a human female, and transplant it into any other species capable of incubation, you would still get a human at the end of gestation.  Why?  Put simply, a human is a human is a human.  Just like a fly larvae is still a fly, so a human fetus is still a human.

Scientifically, then, a human fetus is a living human being.  Morally, therefore, the extinguishing of such a life is murder.  The denial of this is willful blindness; self delusion.  The killing of a child — any child — is barbaric.  Almost nobody looks with anything less than anger and disgust at that mother who chooses to end the lives of her born children.  Why, then, do we not only turn a blind eye, but as a society encourage, the wanton destruction of an unborn child?  To be blunt, it’s a question of “out of sight, out of mind.” 

Doctors, politicians, activists and media have done society the “favor” of allowing us to view a human fetus as something less than human.  It isn’t a child, we’re told.  It’s a demonstrable lie, but we believe it, because it helps us sleep better at night.

The reality, though, should burn us.  It should anger us just as the prospect of slavery does.  More so.  Abortion is an ongoing human rights violation worse than any in our short history as a nation, even basing it simply on sheer volume.

The government I believe in would protect human life — all human life.  It would not only discourage abortion, but indeed criminalize it.  Not to deny rights to a mother — a mother does not have the God-given right to abortion any more than I have the right to shoot my neighbor.  It isn’t a question of liberty.  It is a question of life.

My Government I: The Construction of the Bill of Rights

Posted in civil rights, Constitution, First Amendment, My Government, politics, Second Amendment with tags , , , , on January 28, 2008 by Randy Streu

Some of you may recall a recent post here, called “What I Want In A Party,” in which I discussed what I percieve to be the role of government in these United States.  Over the next week or two, in between thoughts on interesting news tidbits and such, I’ll be exploring some of these ideas further in a series titled “My Government.”

This, as you may well have surmised, is to be the first of those posts.

… liberty is not ‘granted’ by government.  Freedom cannot be given; it can only be limited, regulated or taken.  Liberty is granted by God.  It is the natural state.  Laws, in a democracy – or Democratic Republic, as more accurately describes the US — are intended to govern human decency; to establish a means of living with one another and forming a society.  Such laws are enacted with the limited purpose of providing a means of restitution for doing harm to another’s life, liberty or property.”
(from “What I Want In A Party, written January 11)

The Constitution of the United States is a beautifully written document.  In giving a thorough reading, we see that every single word used is deliberately placed.  This is to avoid the confusion that comes from using vague language. 

The most-often quoted passages from the Constitution are, of course, the first nine amendments: The Bill of Rights.  It’s interesting to note here that no Bill of Rights was included in the original Constitution.  The argument over this led Virginia delegate George Mason to withdraw his signature from the document.  The issue, according to, was that the orginal drafters felt no Bill was necessary.  The Constitution, they said, did not grant the Federal Government the right to abridge or inhibit our natural rights — no “Bill of Rights” being therefore necessary.

This reasoning I find as compelling as the wording of what ultimately became the Bill of Rights itself.  The founding fathers had no desire to allow the Federal Government to restrict a single one of what they believed to be “inalienable” rights, and so deemed it pointless (or, perhaps, counterproductive) to create a list of rights the Federal Government couldn’t restrict.  This is telling, especially if we indeed wish to understand the intentions of the drafters of the document.

Ultimately, as we see, a Bill of Rights was decided on, after all.  So now, we look not only to the intentions of the writers, but to the words they finally chose to convey the ideas they reluctantly agreed to put on paper. 

First off, in examining the Bill of Rights, we see it is constructed mostly in the negative.  “Congress shall make no law…,”  “…shall not be infringed,” “…shall not be violated.”  In other words, this is not so much a “Bill of Rights,” but a list of limits on the power of Government.  With this language, the writers continue in the same vein as the rest of our Founding documents: that rights are not granted, but can only be limited.  The “Bill of Rights” isn’t a list of what you and I can do; it’s a list of what the Federal Government cannot.  It is a recognition of the facts that, A,  liberty is our natural state of being, and, B, government interference with this natural state must be limited as much as possible, while still maintaining civilization.

Fundamentally, the Bill of Rights, like the rest of the Constitution, is about the Federal government and its relationship to the individual citizen of the United States.  The language is specific to the Federal government, as opposed to the states; and the document ultimately calls for all rights not given to the Fed to revert back to the individual States, or to the citizens.  This is important because the powers granted to the Federal government are extremely limited.  The language of the document shows that the signers intended for the Federal government to have limited interference with the everyday private lives of individuals — not to grant rights, but to avoid trampling them.

I will take a closer look at the individual amendments in a later series.  But first, in future installments of “My Government,” I will discuss in more detail how this first basic concept of Liberty is translated in the Government’s responsibility to the citizens of the US, in economics, civil and national defense, and the protection of human life.


What I Want in a Party

Posted in abortion, civil rights, Constitution, Economy, Elections, First Amendment, immigration, My Government, national defense, politics, Second Amendment, taxes with tags , , , , on January 21, 2008 by Randy Streu

As the elections continue to draw near, it becomes more and more clear to me that the Republican Party has lost its identity.  That, or it’s finally coming into its own.  Either way, the party is seemingly becoming something with which I can no longer proudly associate myself. 

To avoid being disingenuous, I’ll point out for those who aren’t as familiar with my personal politics that, though I am a registered Republican and most often vote that way, I have generally identified myself as Libertarian since around 1996 or so (yeah, I voted for Perot — I got over it, so should you).  I have my own reasons for not registering myself as Libertarian, and more still for voting Republican, generally speaking.

But, as the Republican party — that with which I am registered and have associated — appears to be undergoing a redefinition away from the Goldwater/Reagan policies that first drew me in, I’ve decided this is a good time for me, also, to examine what it is I really want for my country — and therefore what I really want in a political party.

First, I want a party that understands liberty is not ‘granted’ by government.  Freedom cannot be given; it can only be limited, regulated or taken.  Liberty is granted by God.  It is the natural state.  Laws, in a democracy — or Democratic Republic, as more accurately describes the US — are intended to govern human decency; to establish a means of living with one another and forming a society.  Such laws are enacted with the limited purpose of providing a means of restitution for doing harm to another’s life, liberty or property.

I want a party that understands the primary role of government to be the protection of her constituency against harm to life, liberty or property by both domestic and foreign enemies.  This includes the security of our borders, protection of our sovereignty and watchfulness over national interests abroad.  When it comes to immigration, this would include, as Fred Thompson has said, tall fences with wide gates.  Immigration is and always has been important to the foundation and continuation of this country — but so has assimilation of such immigrants.  As Thompson also noted, we as a sovereign nation get to decided when, to whom and for how long that wide gate is opened.  My party would recognize that this is fundamental to national security.

I want a party who recognizes that a government who seeks to “equalize” the monetary position of the citizenry through taxation, redistribution and regulation will succeed in making everybody equally poor.  The party who recognizes this will also see it as a moot point: the right to keep what you make (or earn) is fundamental — the right to what somebody else makes or earns is nonexistent.  The government that grants a person this second, nonexistent right does so to the detriment of this fundamental and actual right.

I want a party that will protect the right to life — even for the unborn.  Primary to all other rights is this simple liberty: to live.  To deprive the life of an innocent human being for the sake of convenience, cosmetics or any consideration beyond (perhaps) to save the life of the mother is beyond immoral; it is barbaric and fascist — and out of keeping with the type of free society envisioned by our forefathers.

I want a party that understands the economics of Freedom.  Such a party realizes that market freedom has built this country into the greatest on earth, and that other nations have evolved and improved not by regulation, but when they have chosen to allow free and independent thinkers the ability to work toward their own betterment — and thus better the lives of those around them.

I want a party that will fight for the preservation of our Constitution; one that would amendment our Founding Document for clarification, and to further maintain freedom — rather than to diminish it.

If a party, a president, or a government will start here — how can they go wrong?