Problems are solved with open discussion and brave exploration of all aspects of ideas, not by shutting down free speech and minimizing the Overton window. Or just shouting partisan sound bites at each other.
Towards the end of encouraging that, I have created a reading list of contemporary titles which I wish every American could read and discuss. It includes books that look at the roots of American society and other Western countries, books which look at what can be seen when we spend time trying to understand people unlike us and some of the best thinking and writing about civil liberties that I have read.
America has traditionally held a creative tension between progress and conserving the past. I believe that in normal situations, real progress only comes from convincing others logically, not from the coercive use of government legislation to make others do what we want. These books are meant to give books which can be resources in charting the course for that REAL progress.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/5438598-don?shelf=real-american-progress-reading-list
1) The Right Side of History: How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great
by Ben Shapiro
ASIN B07CLMXWT9
This book is a brilliant look at how Western civilization has arisen as a result of the tension between Athenian logic and Judeo-Christian values. Ironically, much of our civilization seems determined to undercut that strong foundation. Shapiro looks at other civilizations that have abandoned those values (Nazi Germany, the USSR) and the high price in pain and loss of life which followed. He offers suggestions for reversing course before it is too late.
2) Republican Like Me: A Lifelong Democrat's Journey Across the Aisle
by Ken Stern
ISBN 0062460781 (ISBN13: 9780062460783)
The former of NPR became concerned about the growing political polarization in our country and spent a year exploring Republican communities. E.g., having an 8 year old guide him on a pig hunt (adeptly correcting his gun safety shortcomings), visiting religious communities and so on.
This book parallels my experiences in life as a moderate/libertarian lefty who risked joining the NRA (and found it exemplary...and not at all like the caricature the media presents) and finally after 2016, the Republican party.
3) Free for All: Defending Liberty in America Today
by Wendy Kaminer
ISBN 0807044113 (ISBN13: 9780807044117)
Wendy Kaminer was on the ACLU board before she was ousted because she was unwilling to compromise on civil liberties. I see her as one of the most fiercely admirable people on the left because of her principled, unflinching stands in favor of individual rights.
4) The Gun Control Debate: You Decide
by Lee Nisbet (Editor)
ISBN 0879756187 (ISBN13: 9780879756185)
This book is the best example I have encountered of how contentious topics should be debated. The author solicited the best works recommended by the NRA *and* gun control organizations, with the goal being to present rational, objective facts people could use to make decisions for themselves, not sound bites and shabby emotional manipulation. This has been a favorite resource for the better part of 30 years.
Showing posts with label civil liberties. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil liberties. Show all posts
Sunday, May 19, 2019
Friday, August 4, 2017
Yes, Humans Have Natural Rights
I've been having a political discussion on Facebook...always a mistake...and one participant made the claim that there are no natural rights. My view is to the contrary...the STRIDENT contrary...so I would like to take a few moments here to outline why that is so.
Are there natural rights? Science Fiction writer Robert Heinlein was a libertarian soul but even he had some concerns on the matter. In his novel Starship Troopers, a character stated that there are no natural rights:
"What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific?"
Now that is an interesting point but it is only the STARTING point of a discussion. Surely if a person falls into the ocean their natural inclination will be to strive or fight for life. No one is going to passively think to themselves "Well, I have no right to live so I guess I'll start inhaling water" and gamely go down to a watery grave. No, practically everybody would try to stay above water, to swim, to find something floatable to buoy them up. They have a RIGHT to do so. They may not be successful but right and wrong do not depend on whether you succeed. That idea should have gone out with the medieval idea of trial by combat with God determining the winner.
We have rights, among them free thought, free expression, the right to effective self defense (or survival), the right to self determination. Survival comes into play in the natural world. It is in social interaction with other humans that rights become more complicated. If two people fall into the ocean, they both have the right to fight to survive. But not by having one use the other as a float, drowning them to stay alive.
Some people assume that we have rights because the government or the majority of the populace chooses not infringe on them. The idea that freedom comes from the government is abominable: governments do not provide freedom, they either infringe or are prevented from infringing on it. You have rights, whether the populace respects them or not. If a mob of fellow humans tries to take a right away from you and you are willing to keep that right by *any* means necessary, you as an individual have that right. Obviously, they need to be delineated with exactness: my right to live does not give me the right to armed robbery. That does not mean they don't exist.
I would argue that part of the reason our society is such a mess is because this matter is not carefully considered. Some call their rights god-given rights but while I am not an atheist, I don't think our rights come from God. I think they come from us as conscious individuals determined to make ourselves safe, to make an impact on the world and to prosper as much as circumstances allow.
I would enjoy any and all feedback on the matter.
Are there natural rights? Science Fiction writer Robert Heinlein was a libertarian soul but even he had some concerns on the matter. In his novel Starship Troopers, a character stated that there are no natural rights:
"What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific?"
Now that is an interesting point but it is only the STARTING point of a discussion. Surely if a person falls into the ocean their natural inclination will be to strive or fight for life. No one is going to passively think to themselves "Well, I have no right to live so I guess I'll start inhaling water" and gamely go down to a watery grave. No, practically everybody would try to stay above water, to swim, to find something floatable to buoy them up. They have a RIGHT to do so. They may not be successful but right and wrong do not depend on whether you succeed. That idea should have gone out with the medieval idea of trial by combat with God determining the winner.
We have rights, among them free thought, free expression, the right to effective self defense (or survival), the right to self determination. Survival comes into play in the natural world. It is in social interaction with other humans that rights become more complicated. If two people fall into the ocean, they both have the right to fight to survive. But not by having one use the other as a float, drowning them to stay alive.
Some people assume that we have rights because the government or the majority of the populace chooses not infringe on them. The idea that freedom comes from the government is abominable: governments do not provide freedom, they either infringe or are prevented from infringing on it. You have rights, whether the populace respects them or not. If a mob of fellow humans tries to take a right away from you and you are willing to keep that right by *any* means necessary, you as an individual have that right. Obviously, they need to be delineated with exactness: my right to live does not give me the right to armed robbery. That does not mean they don't exist.
I would argue that part of the reason our society is such a mess is because this matter is not carefully considered. Some call their rights god-given rights but while I am not an atheist, I don't think our rights come from God. I think they come from us as conscious individuals determined to make ourselves safe, to make an impact on the world and to prosper as much as circumstances allow.
I would enjoy any and all feedback on the matter.
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Letter to Suzan DelBene (D-WA1) about gun control she is cosponsoring
Dear Representative DelBene,
I read with dismay, recently, that you have signed on as a co-sponsor of H.R.4269, legislation which bans the manufacture and possession of "assault weapons". Since I have voted for you in the past in the belief that you are a moderate Democrat and would *like* to do so again, I respectfully suggest that you reconsider your support and sponsorship of this legislation.
The topic of gun control is one which is rife with misinformation and misunderstanding. As you are the representative for a district which is VERY gun friendly, I sincerely hope that you will take the time and trouble to inform yourself of the actual technical details relevant to legislation that you take up. Ours is a moderate district (my car has NRA *and* PFLAG stickers and I have seen others similarly configured) but, again, it is very gun-friendly. There are numerous shooting ranges and gun shops. Most people that I know either own guns or are moderate on the topic. I recently checked out at the local grocery store and the cashier asked about a gun magazine that I was buying because she is a local shooting instructor.
Perhaps no firearms topic is more misunderstood than the topic of "assault weapons" and the bill you are sponsoring is no exception. Thousands of these guns are undoubtedly owned in your district and you are essentially saying that we cannot be trusted with them. That is a mistake.
Please stop to consider the history and effects of the 1994 ban:
First, it cost Democrats their control of Congress in 1994. (article)
Then, the ban itself did not accomplish anything, as the New York Times (article) and the US National Institute of Justice (article) have said, outright. This is not too surprising, since rifles of all types are used to commit murders very infrequently, much less than knives and only half as much as fists and feet (FBI statistics).
The threat of the ban inspired many people who would not otherwise have been interested in such a rifle to buy one while they could. I wouldn't be surprised if all the artificial fuss about "assault weapons" has made the number in circulation twice what it would be otherwise. I know I bought one originally because I wanted to see what the fuss was about and tried a friend's. Now I occasionally use mine for competition.
And finally, to anybody with any technical knowledge of firearms the ban is rife with arbitrary and even ludicrous internal contradictions. Consider the two rifles in this picture. The top rifle is a Ruger Mini-14: it fires the .223 cartridge loaded from a detachable magazine and its action is semi-automatic. The bottom rifle is some sort of AR15 variant: it also fires the .223 cartridge from a detachable magazine and its action is semi-automatic. The Mini-14 is specifically exempted from the ban and AR15 variants specifically banned.
These guns are functionally equivalent. Their only differences are in appearance.
Is this a distinction sharp enough that you are willing to turn your constituents into criminals over it? Is this a distinction you are willing to cheer lead in a district that will think you are crazy for doing so?
People talk constantly about modern high-powered weapons. But AR15s have been sold to the public since the 1960s. The AR15 .223 cartridge, on the left below, is dwarfed by the .30-06, the cartridge fired in the M1 Garand rifle...another semi-automatic exempted by the ban.
I hope that you will reconsider your support for H.R. 4269 and start discussing matters related to firearms with your constituents in the future. I don't wish to be hyperbolic but your job is at stake here...along with our civil liberties.
I read with dismay, recently, that you have signed on as a co-sponsor of H.R.4269, legislation which bans the manufacture and possession of "assault weapons". Since I have voted for you in the past in the belief that you are a moderate Democrat and would *like* to do so again, I respectfully suggest that you reconsider your support and sponsorship of this legislation.
The topic of gun control is one which is rife with misinformation and misunderstanding. As you are the representative for a district which is VERY gun friendly, I sincerely hope that you will take the time and trouble to inform yourself of the actual technical details relevant to legislation that you take up. Ours is a moderate district (my car has NRA *and* PFLAG stickers and I have seen others similarly configured) but, again, it is very gun-friendly. There are numerous shooting ranges and gun shops. Most people that I know either own guns or are moderate on the topic. I recently checked out at the local grocery store and the cashier asked about a gun magazine that I was buying because she is a local shooting instructor.
Perhaps no firearms topic is more misunderstood than the topic of "assault weapons" and the bill you are sponsoring is no exception. Thousands of these guns are undoubtedly owned in your district and you are essentially saying that we cannot be trusted with them. That is a mistake.
Please stop to consider the history and effects of the 1994 ban:
First, it cost Democrats their control of Congress in 1994. (article)
Then, the ban itself did not accomplish anything, as the New York Times (article) and the US National Institute of Justice (article) have said, outright. This is not too surprising, since rifles of all types are used to commit murders very infrequently, much less than knives and only half as much as fists and feet (FBI statistics).
The threat of the ban inspired many people who would not otherwise have been interested in such a rifle to buy one while they could. I wouldn't be surprised if all the artificial fuss about "assault weapons" has made the number in circulation twice what it would be otherwise. I know I bought one originally because I wanted to see what the fuss was about and tried a friend's. Now I occasionally use mine for competition.
And finally, to anybody with any technical knowledge of firearms the ban is rife with arbitrary and even ludicrous internal contradictions. Consider the two rifles in this picture. The top rifle is a Ruger Mini-14: it fires the .223 cartridge loaded from a detachable magazine and its action is semi-automatic. The bottom rifle is some sort of AR15 variant: it also fires the .223 cartridge from a detachable magazine and its action is semi-automatic. The Mini-14 is specifically exempted from the ban and AR15 variants specifically banned.
These guns are functionally equivalent. Their only differences are in appearance.
Is this a distinction sharp enough that you are willing to turn your constituents into criminals over it? Is this a distinction you are willing to cheer lead in a district that will think you are crazy for doing so?
People talk constantly about modern high-powered weapons. But AR15s have been sold to the public since the 1960s. The AR15 .223 cartridge, on the left below, is dwarfed by the .30-06, the cartridge fired in the M1 Garand rifle...another semi-automatic exempted by the ban.
I hope that you will reconsider your support for H.R. 4269 and start discussing matters related to firearms with your constituents in the future. I don't wish to be hyperbolic but your job is at stake here...along with our civil liberties.
Sunday, March 27, 2016
The Consent of the Governed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Government in theory is bound to be somewhat different than
government as designed. People are generally busy making a living and
so have limited time availability during the hours when government
work is being performed. They may also have an unfortunate
disinterest in how government work is performed or dangerously
simpleminded ideas about how government should work. The work of
government is also done by people trying to make a living, some of
whom are sincerely trying to do a good job, while others are doing
that work out of a desire to gain power or prestige.
In the United States, one of our founding documents is the
Declaration of Independence. It was written by leaders seeking their
freedom from Great Britain to describe their grievances and why those
grievances justified seeking independence from their mother country.
It states that government derives its just powers from the consent of
the governed and that a sufficient train of abuses need only be
tolerated by its citizens for so long before they are justified in
altering or abolishing it.
Once their independence was won, they created a Constitution and its
Bill of Rights to describe the limited powers their new government
had and the rights of its citizens which government could not, in
theory, interfere with.
Some 240 years later, that Constitution and Bill of Rights are
largely ignored. We have fallen into a situation where two corrupt
parties control our elections and we have acceded to the awful idea
that 51% of the population can enact any law they want attacking the
rights of the entire population. People are being taxed to death,
literally: income, purchases and possessions are taxed and officers
enforcing those taxes are seen as justified in escalating force to
the point of death, even when no threat is presented to their lives.
Recently, in New York, a man named Eric Garner was strangled to death
by a police officer for the crime of selling loose cigarettes without
collecting taxes on them. That death was filmed and yet no bystanders
tried to prevent that police officer from killing him.
However, the person who filmed that homicide WAS arrested for filming
the police at work. The police in the US are generally hostile and
will arrest and assault people filming them, even thought that act of
filming is perfectly legal. At the same time it denies our rights of
oversight, our government claims an unrestricted right to collect
information on us, whether directly or indirectly (collected by an
allied nation or some corporation).
The situation is now arguably direr than it was when King John of
England was forced to sign the Magna Carta or when representatives of
the 13 colonies wrote the Declaration of Independence. Maybe it’s
time to start talking about how a government can be designed with
better and with more built in safeguards so that it can effectively
be kept the servant of the entire populace and not their master?
Here are some ideas for limiting government powers so that they are
back in line with the Constitution and Bill or Rights
- - Limit/right enforcement – attach criminal penalties to violations
of governmental power limits or violations of citizens’ rights.
Penalties for crimes such as excessive use of force NOT to be paid by
taxing citizens but by the perpetrator(s) of the crime.
Examples: When a police officer uses egregiously unnecessary force
and a financial penalty is chosen, his penalty is to be paid by
him…not by the citizens whose rights were infringed
If a legislator enacts a law attacking peoples’ rights and it is
invalidated by the courts, that legislator is to be fined personally
and perhaps serve jail time.
- - Law expiration. Criminal laws can be divided into two categories:
“malum in se” laws regarding acts such as murder, robbery, rape,
which are inherently bad
“malum prohibitum” laws regarding victimless crimes such as drug use,
gambling, weapons possession and prostitution, which are only treated
as bad because some people view them as bad
If "Malum prohibitum" laws automatically sunset and have to be
reconsidered every 1-5 years, a lot of laws which are utterly idiotic
will go away
- - Law quality. Laws are sometimes voted upon by legislators who have
not read or do not understand the contents. Further, these laws are
sometimes attached to an unrelated “must pass” piece of budget
legislation. Require that laws be thoroughly understood and debated
before being passed and by those voting upon them (and with veto
power by the populace)
- - Absolute parity between citizens and government. Any legislation
affecting the populace also applies to the legislators and all levels
of government or it is invalid. If the government can use or threaten
force in a situation, the people can too. If government can intercept
peoples’ communications, people can intercept government
communications.
- - Escalating force or penalties. In some parts of the US, law
enforcement is granted virtual carte blanche is using force in cases
of non-cooperation. This force can be in the form of actual physical
force or financial penalties. Some restrictions on these powers would
make sense so that the rights of individuals or small groups are not
trampled.
These are some ideas which I feel are worth seriously discussing. We
as a society need to have a serious discussion regarding what form of
government will best protect our rights and future.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use
iQEVAwUBVvf27KXnEb3Qli+9AQFBNgf/bIAXTZQJXQ72S/B25wkX1f/opv7tY5kz
RyIp1GaZtOzG/GpwVxZbqkXjKpePToBh6dJqHLyHdjGYq1JnWfBYh4ML8yA4Kuaz
18Sbrjy5tg57qLWfhDEo4RNrhCMPIFxC6ytP5PDdJCc9dETqq57+/2OMC5+N2swm
1Tg3S3Dy8nb+wDnAGJUJnXpI1FtdBqTQb90iwjrm8vXWIqIdFlLPs45r1SRMMblu
JCNkrFGKRG0AKsUSON1Oq7QPf8DqWtcc2IieDmj8brE8MNWO4s3h0jJ6pUPxTQy3
zxR0/PWuaEjZJaZDoiNYtrPX7KXACGapG/uSqmjJ8IanjHG8I+q5bg==
=sJ30
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Government in theory is bound to be somewhat different than
government as designed. People are generally busy making a living and
so have limited time availability during the hours when government
work is being performed. They may also have an unfortunate
disinterest in how government work is performed or dangerously
simpleminded ideas about how government should work. The work of
government is also done by people trying to make a living, some of
whom are sincerely trying to do a good job, while others are doing
that work out of a desire to gain power or prestige.
In the United States, one of our founding documents is the
Declaration of Independence. It was written by leaders seeking their
freedom from Great Britain to describe their grievances and why those
grievances justified seeking independence from their mother country.
It states that government derives its just powers from the consent of
the governed and that a sufficient train of abuses need only be
tolerated by its citizens for so long before they are justified in
altering or abolishing it.
Once their independence was won, they created a Constitution and its
Bill of Rights to describe the limited powers their new government
had and the rights of its citizens which government could not, in
theory, interfere with.
Some 240 years later, that Constitution and Bill of Rights are
largely ignored. We have fallen into a situation where two corrupt
parties control our elections and we have acceded to the awful idea
that 51% of the population can enact any law they want attacking the
rights of the entire population. People are being taxed to death,
literally: income, purchases and possessions are taxed and officers
enforcing those taxes are seen as justified in escalating force to
the point of death, even when no threat is presented to their lives.
Recently, in New York, a man named Eric Garner was strangled to death
by a police officer for the crime of selling loose cigarettes without
collecting taxes on them. That death was filmed and yet no bystanders
tried to prevent that police officer from killing him.
However, the person who filmed that homicide WAS arrested for filming
the police at work. The police in the US are generally hostile and
will arrest and assault people filming them, even thought that act of
filming is perfectly legal. At the same time it denies our rights of
oversight, our government claims an unrestricted right to collect
information on us, whether directly or indirectly (collected by an
allied nation or some corporation).
The situation is now arguably direr than it was when King John of
England was forced to sign the Magna Carta or when representatives of
the 13 colonies wrote the Declaration of Independence. Maybe it’s
time to start talking about how a government can be designed with
better and with more built in safeguards so that it can effectively
be kept the servant of the entire populace and not their master?
Here are some ideas for limiting government powers so that they are
back in line with the Constitution and Bill or Rights
- - Limit/right enforcement – attach criminal penalties to violations
of governmental power limits or violations of citizens’ rights.
Penalties for crimes such as excessive use of force NOT to be paid by
taxing citizens but by the perpetrator(s) of the crime.
Examples: When a police officer uses egregiously unnecessary force
and a financial penalty is chosen, his penalty is to be paid by
him…not by the citizens whose rights were infringed
If a legislator enacts a law attacking peoples’ rights and it is
invalidated by the courts, that legislator is to be fined personally
and perhaps serve jail time.
- - Law expiration. Criminal laws can be divided into two categories:
“malum in se” laws regarding acts such as murder, robbery, rape,
which are inherently bad
“malum prohibitum” laws regarding victimless crimes such as drug use,
gambling, weapons possession and prostitution, which are only treated
as bad because some people view them as bad
If "Malum prohibitum" laws automatically sunset and have to be
reconsidered every 1-5 years, a lot of laws which are utterly idiotic
will go away
- - Law quality. Laws are sometimes voted upon by legislators who have
not read or do not understand the contents. Further, these laws are
sometimes attached to an unrelated “must pass” piece of budget
legislation. Require that laws be thoroughly understood and debated
before being passed and by those voting upon them (and with veto
power by the populace)
- - Absolute parity between citizens and government. Any legislation
affecting the populace also applies to the legislators and all levels
of government or it is invalid. If the government can use or threaten
force in a situation, the people can too. If government can intercept
peoples’ communications, people can intercept government
communications.
- - Escalating force or penalties. In some parts of the US, law
enforcement is granted virtual carte blanche is using force in cases
of non-cooperation. This force can be in the form of actual physical
force or financial penalties. Some restrictions on these powers would
make sense so that the rights of individuals or small groups are not
trampled.
These are some ideas which I feel are worth seriously discussing. We
as a society need to have a serious discussion regarding what form of
government will best protect our rights and future.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use
iQEVAwUBVvf27KXnEb3Qli+9AQFBNgf/bIAXTZQJXQ72S/B25wkX1f/opv7tY5kz
RyIp1GaZtOzG/GpwVxZbqkXjKpePToBh6dJqHLyHdjGYq1JnWfBYh4ML8yA4Kuaz
18Sbrjy5tg57qLWfhDEo4RNrhCMPIFxC6ytP5PDdJCc9dETqq57+/2OMC5+N2swm
1Tg3S3Dy8nb+wDnAGJUJnXpI1FtdBqTQb90iwjrm8vXWIqIdFlLPs45r1SRMMblu
JCNkrFGKRG0AKsUSON1Oq7QPf8DqWtcc2IieDmj8brE8MNWO4s3h0jJ6pUPxTQy3
zxR0/PWuaEjZJaZDoiNYtrPX7KXACGapG/uSqmjJ8IanjHG8I+q5bg==
=sJ30
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Saturday, November 10, 2012
GOP Recovery Plan
There's a familiar pattern in American politics, where a party starts getting some real power and starts thinking it can use that power to start forcing the country into their little mold. This arrogance then causes them to lose big in elections, giving them a valuable opportunity to rethink their platform. It happened in 1992 and 2010 to the Democrats...this year, it happened to the Republicans.
What does the GOP need to do to be worthy of a comeback? Here are my suggestions:
1) Do be financially conservative without appearing like a soulless dick. A balanced budget is one thing; a schmuck like Romney joking about firing people during a Recession just makes you look stupid.
2) Don't mindlessly attack whole segments of the population. Intelligent people don't try to control or influence what birth control women have access to. Intelligent men don't quibble with women about what "real" rape is and "men" who do deserve a punch in the nose, not a job with lots of power.
3) Don't take power you were given on a limited government platform and try to be the lifestyle police. Gay and lesbian people are really cool when you get to know them and our society is immeasurably richer for its diversity. That LGBT folks want to form committed relationships with legal standing is an awesome thing and not something you should even think about getting in the way of.
4) Do stand out by becoming the party that takes civil liberties more seriously and doesn't shred the Bill of Rights at every opportunity. Again, back to that small government thing. Using drones in the US, the TSA and its constant grabs for more power to stupidly embarrass senior citizens, the endless Drug War and its abominations like Asset Forfeiture...shut them down before we end up hunting you with dogs, OK?
5) Do remain supportive of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Speaking of civil liberties, this is one of your party's few solid, smart pro-right positions. Don't be be like California Republicans and support dumb gun laws.
These are my suggestions...make of the what you will. As a swing voter, I will only vote for the best candidates and in this election cycle, you gave me very little to support.
What does the GOP need to do to be worthy of a comeback? Here are my suggestions:
1) Do be financially conservative without appearing like a soulless dick. A balanced budget is one thing; a schmuck like Romney joking about firing people during a Recession just makes you look stupid.
2) Don't mindlessly attack whole segments of the population. Intelligent people don't try to control or influence what birth control women have access to. Intelligent men don't quibble with women about what "real" rape is and "men" who do deserve a punch in the nose, not a job with lots of power.
3) Don't take power you were given on a limited government platform and try to be the lifestyle police. Gay and lesbian people are really cool when you get to know them and our society is immeasurably richer for its diversity. That LGBT folks want to form committed relationships with legal standing is an awesome thing and not something you should even think about getting in the way of.
4) Do stand out by becoming the party that takes civil liberties more seriously and doesn't shred the Bill of Rights at every opportunity. Again, back to that small government thing. Using drones in the US, the TSA and its constant grabs for more power to stupidly embarrass senior citizens, the endless Drug War and its abominations like Asset Forfeiture...shut them down before we end up hunting you with dogs, OK?
5) Do remain supportive of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Speaking of civil liberties, this is one of your party's few solid, smart pro-right positions. Don't be be like California Republicans and support dumb gun laws.
These are my suggestions...make of the what you will. As a swing voter, I will only vote for the best candidates and in this election cycle, you gave me very little to support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
