10th Anniversary of Columbine

Today is the ten-year anniversary of the day two seniors at Columbine High School near Littleton, Colorado, went on a homicidal rampage, killing 15 people (including themselves) and injuring 24 others. Despite all the possible motives the media and political interest groups threw around, there is no rational reason for what they did. Eric Harris was a clear psychopath and Dylan Klebold was depressed and just plain hated the world. They wanted to kill and destroy whoever and whatever they could, as their journals indicated. The boys had big visions of destruction, claiming in their writing they would outdo the Oklahoma City bombing, the Waco Siege, the 1992 Los Angeles riots, and other similar events as well as "Duke and Doom put together." They mentioned how they would like to leave a lasting impression on the world with this kind of violence and that they were sure they would have followers in the future. They planned not just to shoot people, but to blow up the entire school. Harris mentioned, in his journal, his admiration for natural selection (his own twisted version of it) and wrote that he would like to put everyone in a "super Doom game" and see to it that the weak die and the strong live. That is not natural selection, that is genocide. During the massacre, he even wore a white T-shirt with the words "NATURAL SELECTION" imprinted in black, while Klebold had a black shirt with the word "WRATH" imprinted in red.

The pair belonged to a group of outcasts called the Trenchcoat Mafia, who were originally a group of gamers who hung out together and started wearing trenchcoats after one of the members received a cowboy duster for Christmas. They adopted the name "Trenchcoat Mafia" after some of the jocks began to call them that. There was speculation that they did it because they were bullied--a theory subsequently disproven. In fact, they actually bullied younger students and gay kids.

There was so much speculation for reasons behind the killings, so much blame thrown around, just none of it at the killers themselves. When it comes to things like Columbine or the '92 L.A. riots, people blamed damn near everything else--be it free market economics, racial profiling, gun rights, science education (e.g., the teaching of evolution), violent video games, rock 'n' roll and rap music--except for the actual perpetrators themselves. Who was truly to blame for the riots? Opportunistic thugs solely responsible for their own conduct. Who was truly to blame for the Columbine shooting? Destruction-obsessed sociopaths, again, responsible for their own conduct. They had been diagnosed with mental illnesses prior to the massacre. Someone should have seen it coming.

It pisses me off when political and religious groups use such tragedies to push their own agendas. It's wrong and it's the pinnacle of selfishness.

This post is dedicated to the victims of
the massacre at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999.

May you always be remembered and cherished
for what you were and what you could have been.


Cassie Rene Bernall - Born November 6, 1981 - Aged 18
Stood up for her beliefs in the face of evil

Steven "Steve" Robert Curnow - Born August 28, 1984 - Aged 14
Dreamed of being a Navy top gun pilot

Corey Tyler DePooter - Born March 3, 1982 - Aged 17
Hard-working outdoorsman passionate about golf and fishing

Kelly Ann Fleming - Born January 6, 1983 - Aged 16
Creative author and aspiring songwriter

Matthew Joseph Kechter - Born February 19, 1983 - Aged 16
All-American athlete and straight-A student

Daniel Conner Mauser - Born June 25, 1983 - Aged 15
Life-loving over-achiever who wasn't ashamed to hug his parents in public

Daniel Lee Rohrbough - Born March 2, 1984 - Aged 15
The fun, family-oriented "boy who held the door open"

Rachel Joy Scott - Born August 5, 1981 - Aged 17
Vibrant and spiritual; aspiring actress and writer

Isaiah Eamon Shoels - Born August 4, 1980 - Aged 18
Overcame severe disability to play football; dreamed of being a comedian

John Robert Tomlin - Born September 1, 1982 - Aged 16
Loved weightlifting and Chevy trucks; once drove to Mexico to help build a house for a poor family

Lauren Dawn Townsend - Born January 17, 1981 - Aged 18
Talented sketch artist and candidate for valedictorian

Kyle Albert Velasquez - Born May 5, 1982 - Aged 16
Passionately loved his family; dreamed of joining the Navy and later becoming a firefighter like his dad

Coach William 'Dave' Sounders - Born October 22, 1951 - Aged 47
A friend, a mentor, and inspiration. Helped get over 100 students out of harm's way, saving untold numbers of lives

U.S. Balks at Backing Condemnation of Anti-Gay Laws

Read this:

US Balks at Backing Condemnation of Anti-Gay Laws
By David Curry

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Alone among major Western nations, the United States has refused to sign a declaration presented Thursday at the United Nations calling for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality.

In all, 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries signed the nonbinding declaration — which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with any-gay discrimination. More than 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality, and in several of them homosexual acts can be punished by execution.

Co-sponsored by France and the Netherlands, the declaration was signed by all 27 European Union members, as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries. There was broad opposition from Muslim nations, and the United States refused to sign, indicating that some parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.

"It's disappointing," said Rama Yade, France's human rights minister, of the U.S. position — which she described as in contradiction with America's long tradition as a defender of human rights.

According to some of the declaration's backers, U.S. officials expressed concern in private talks that some parts of the declaration might be problematic in committing the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In numerous states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.

Carolyn Vadino, a spokeswoman for the U.S. mission to the U.N., stressed that the United States — despite its unwillingness to sign — condemned any human rights violations related to sexual orientation.

Gay rights activists nonetheless were angered by the U.S. position.

"It's an appalling stance — to not join with other countries that are standing up and calling for decriminalization of homosexuality," said Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.

She expressed hope that the U.S. position might change after President-elect Barack Obama takes office in January.

More than 50 countries opposed to the declaration, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, issued a joint statement Thursday criticizing the initiative as an unwarranted attempt to give special prominence to gays and lesbians. The statement suggested that protecting sexual orientation could lead to "the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts" such as pedophilia and incest.

The declaration also has been opposed by the Vatican, a stance which prompted a protest in Rome earlier this month.

A Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the Roman Catholic Church opposed the death penalty and other harsh repression of gays and lesbians, but he expressed concern that the declaration would be used as pressure against those who believe marriage rights should not be extended to gays.

A new Vatican statement, issued Thursday, endorsed the call to end criminal penalties against gays, but said that overall the declaration "gives rise to uncertainty in the law and challenges existing human norms."

The European nations backing the declaration waged their campaign in conjunction with the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Dutch foreign affairs minister, Maxime Verhagen, said countries which endorsed that 1948 document had no right to carve out exceptions based on religion or culture that allowed discrimination against gays.

"Human rights apply to all people in all places at all times," he said. "I will not accept any excuse."

He acknowledged that the new declaration had only symbolic import, but said it marked the first time such a large number of nations had raised the cause of gay rights in the context of General Assembly proceedings.

"This statement aims to make debate commonplace," he said. "It is not meant to be a source of division, but to eliminate the taboo that surrounds the issue."

Although the declaration's backers were pleased that nations on six continents had signed it, there were only two from Asia and four from Africa.

You know, I just don't get this. I thought America was supposed to be the 'Land of the Free' and it decides it prefers homosexuality be illegal wherever it can in the world. This isn't even about gay marriage, for God's sake! It's about homosexuality in general. While I deplore the United Nations in every aspect, there is nothing wrong with the U.S. signing this declaration—it was the only modern, industrialized nation to refuse! The international community is baffled and so am I. Are Bush's diplomats just trying to be assholes? I guess I shouldn't be so surprised seeing as how the corrupt Religious Right is running our country, but really, I thought the Bush Administration was better than this. They don't even have an excuse. The Muslims fear it will slide into legalizing pedophilic acts and incest and such. Yeah, whatever. Stubborn dumbasses. Simply being a homosexual doesn't harm anybody, but there are people in 3rd world Muslim countries being executed just for that. I guess Bush's boys prefer people getting killed for being gay rather than simply signing a simple document saying they don't like it. Oh, but that would be a lie, wouldn't it? No word from them. They just couldn't do it, could they? The hard-line social conservative religious nuts just couldn't do it. The Europeans are currently mocking our 'Land of the Free' claim and they have every right to. We are supposed to serve as an example!

Mr. President, Thank you! Thank you for mismanaging what could've been a quick war! Thank you for expanding the federal government more than any president since FDR! Thank you for brown-nosing and butting into every state, local, and foreign issue! Thank you for blatantly disregarding the tenet of fiscal conservatism and sinking us into unimaginable debt and a deficit that my KIDS are gonna be paying off! Thank you for your administration's faulty WMD intel! Thank you paroling violent criminals, militarizing our policemen, and wasting so much money for your daddy's useless drug war! Thank you allowing Big Brother to peak into our homes, monitor our conversations, and interfere with our private lives, saying "it's for the good of the nation"! Thank you and your administration for your reactionary wishes for Constitutional amendments banning whatever you didn't like! Thank you for your wasteful spending, welfare, and earmarks! Thank you for burning, shooting, raping, impaling, disemboweling, and shitting on everything the Republican Party stood for! Thank you for fucking up the GOP so bad that the American people turn to someone like Barack Obama!

Mr. President, thank you, good-bye, and good riddance.

My Political Persuasion

Check this out. I took a little political quiz on Blogthings.com and it labeled me a "'Don't Tread On Me' Libertarian." I didn't like a couple of the questions and on a couple I had to pick the least of all evils. Here's my results:

You Are a "Don't Tread On Me" Libertarian

You distrust the government, are fiercely independent, and don't belong in either party. Religion and politics should never mix, in your opinion... and you feel oppressed by both. You don't want the government to cramp your self made style. Or anyone else's for that matter. You're proud to say that you're pro-choice on absolutely everything!

What's Your Political Persuasion?

I actually think it's a pretty decent description.

Oct. 7 Presidential Debate

Two words: boring and pathetic. I watched this debate beginning to end and I didn't hear anything new. All they did was rehash the same crap they've been saying over the course of this campaign. The only slip-ups I saw was that McCain would make a reference, Obama would say, "Well, I need to correct Senator McCain's history here," blah-blah-blah, and then he gets it wrong as well! Pathetic... They even used some of the same exact wording that they previously used when they talked about certain issues.

All in all, they were both mediocre, but Obama did seem much more smooth and charismatic as he always does. McCain was a little too unenthusiastic for my taste. He still didn't respond to Obama's criticisms of economic deregulation even when he said it to Johnny Boy's face.

Come! On!

Anyway, yeah, this was a short post. There's not much to say about tonight's debate except these words that I'd like to reiterate: BORING and PATHETIC.

The Politics of Rap—wait, what?

“Get money.” - Every rapper ever.

As a lot of people know, I've been a huge fan of rap music ever since I first heard it when I was, like, 9-years-old. The thumpin' bass, the catchy rhymes, and, yeah, sometimes even the content always gets me going. It hypes me up, while music like country depresses me. People always give me crap for liking rap because I'm white (the dumbasses that still make a big deal over race). I'd get things like "Why do you listen to that shit? You're white," or "You're too white to listen to rap," or my favorite: "You can't spell 'crap' without 'rap'." Guess what, bitches? I don't care what you think!

I think maybe, in a subconscious way, hip-hop as helped shape my libertarian political views. I know it's weird, mixing rap with politics, and you probably think I'm crazy for it but if you really think about it, rap music is all about the live-and-let-live lifestyle.

In my mind, every libertarian candidate should walk up to the podium with hardcore gangsta rap blaring on thirty 15” subwoofers located directly in front of the stage. Think about it: hip-hop is the sound of the movement. What are rappers always talking about? How much money they have. Or they talk about being famous and making money. Or being famous and making money and fornicating with models from Milan. There’s more to the list but I think if you are smart enough to read this blog, you don’t need me to elaborate in order to deduce the pattern.

Most rappers were born to poverty. Yet they triumphed over their initial meager beginnings and rose to world-wide prominence. They are the living embodiment of a Horatio Alger protagonist, the modern bootstrapper.

Full grown, finally a man, just schemin' on ways
To put some green inside the palms of my empty hands
Just picture me rollin'
Flossin a Benz on rims that isn't stolen
-Tupac, “Picture Me Rollin’”

Rappers are all about the free market. “Weak M.C.s” (unoriginal rappers) are admonished and called out to “battle” by other rappers looking to gain status through direct competition of skill. That’s like a CPA calling out another CPA and claiming they can file a 1040 form faster than their rivals at Goldstein & Brownberg. Hip-hop is the most competitive genre of music, without question. Competition is the core of the free-market system. Capitalizing on the human nature of competition is the only reason why the free-market is such a successful economic model.

Individualism is another tenet of the rap world. From the beginning of the artists life they are in struggle. Struggle against their economic condition. Struggle in their destitute surroundings. Struggle against a ‘racist’ society. And on.

The rapper learns to trust in himself to emerge out of the shadows of the ghetto onto the bright stage lights of the music arena. This process forges the ideals brought to the country by its founding fathers centuries ago. Maybe big T.J. (Thomas Jefferson) would like Trick Daddy.

The twin libertarian ideals of wealth and individualism are promoted passionately in rap music. In fact, both themes are so important that they, more often than not, comprise the entire subject matter of most rap songs. The time rappers don't spend enumerating their lavish purchases, they spend tirelessly promoting themselves as the greatest poet, musician, jewelry model, venture capitalist, gangsta, etc., among their peers. This competition is textbook rugged individualism. Indeed, J.P. Morgan couldn't have scripted it any better.

This is the type of confident self-assertion detested by socialists. The only thing they hate more than confident individualism is materialistic desire, and rap provides both in spades. 50 Cent, for example, rose from the adversity of nine bullet holes in his flesh to acquire great fame and wealth. That type of capitalistic work ethic makes Jack Welsh look like a lazy slob.

Capitalism is so ingrained in the rap industry's Zeitgeist that even the poor, underground rappers who don't have any money talk about how much money they have. Socialists call this disgusting materialism; Adam Smith would call it the admirable incentive toward upward mobility. We all know who is right.

The smartest, most market-conscious rappers in the rap game brand themselves and become true entrepreneurs. Noting the extreme value of profit, they take a step beyond making money off of their ill flow and clever rhymes, and start making money off of living life as themselves. The only thing more capitalistic than making a profit is being a profit, and this economics lesson is not lost on Jay-Z, 50 Cent, Snoop, Dr. Dre, and the other bling-blinging paradigms of free-market capitalism.

Indeed, where would rappers be without a robust market to enrich them through their music? Selling crack, probably. Which brings us to our second point. When they are not directly extolling the virtues of upward economic mobility, rappers are glorifying the social freedom to indulge in the perks that come with wealth and fame in a free-market society.

First and foremost is copious drug use, and the libertarian defense of the lifestyle thereof. Rappers are the most passionate advocates for narcotic legalization among all artists. They believe so strongly that drugs should be legalized that their political activism includes such emphatic measures as taking illegal narcotics gratuitously, publicly flaunting their usage (especially in front of police), and actively evading the law enforcement officials who are clearly envious of the rappers' breezy, individualistic, live-and-let-live lifestyle.

It's really a glorified form of civil disobedience, when you think about it. The recent hit, "Ridin'" contains this theme in abundance. It is a song dedicated, among other great American themes, to the ways in which Chamillionaire's great wealth facilitates his suave and effective evasion of drug enforcement officials.

Another libertarian feature of rappers is their marked distrust of state authority. More accurately, they hate all laws, governments and law-enforcement officials who dare to interfere in their personal affairs. Krayzie Bone recently summed up this attitude well with his line, in "Ridin'", "With no regard for the law, we dodge 'em, like fuck 'em all." Let's be honest, here. Is such a statement really that different from Thomas Jefferson's eloquent realization that "the government that governs best governs least"? I mean, by that measure, a rap-ocracy would be a Jeffersonian paradise. Rappers may be closer to anarchists, but anarchists are only impatient libertarians. Remember that.

Rappers get a bad rap (Ha! What a great pun! OK, maybe not) because they allegedly promote the degradation of women. These claims are exaggerated. The truth is that they just don't love 'em hoes. But that doesn't matter, because hoes aren't even real women. There is no real malice toward females, qua females. Rappers are merely applying their shrewd sense of economics to the love game. It is an intelligent cost-benefit analysis: they gain easy and frequent sexual gratification while they forgo a few thousand dollars (pocket change, son) on Cristal champagne, diamond jewelry, Gucci lingerie, and other reliable keys to the promiscuous woman's heart.

Not only this, but the rapper is an unquestionable economic boon to women, specifically gold-digging women. Attractive-yet-ignorant women enjoy an unparalleled opportunity for the acquisition of great wealth: they can date and/or bear the children of famous rappers. How can feminists deride this? What opportunity! It's the American Dream! Where else, outside of education or hard work, can women guarantee themselves such a luxurious lifestyle?

Another source of hate toward rappers is fueled by their glorification of violence. Do not be deceived. Where this glorification is not an expression of First Amendment privilege (another noble cause of activist rappers), it is merely the rapper's promotion of the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment, perhaps only behind the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, is the rapper's best friend. The framers of the Constitution envisioned armed militias securing the safety of the public. I'm sure they would have also smiled upon the prospect of armed posses securing the safety of famous gangsta rappers. Don't forget, children, ill MCs need the Constitution, too.

Rappers, like libertarians, believe it is a constitutional right to be able to own firearms. And, in some cases, as many firearms as possible. Rappers are constantly flaunting their gats, not for malicious acts (okay, maybe sometimes), but mostly for protection (e.g. "The gat is tucked in my beater for the haters" or "See what these kids do, is hear about us totin' pistols and they want to get one, 'cause they think the shit's cool, not knowin' we really just protectin' ourselves"). Rappers know that gun ownership in and of itself does not harm any other person, and therefore should not be a crime. Hip-hop artists understand inherently that criminals will not give up their guns even if it is illegal to own them, and thus they are somewhat forced to pack the "chrome four-fifth."

There is also an individualist appeal to owning a firearm. It harkens back to a day in America where the real "hustlers" would carry pieces in order to protect them from corrupt law enforcement, thieves, Indians and the like. This was Man versus the world in its classical form, and the government would never dream of getting between a rancher and his right to bear arms. Oh, how this country has changed.

That is why it's unbelievable that most rappers support Barack Obama. I know I'm walking a thin line saying this, but it's just because he's black. That's all they care about. They're blinded by skin color. Instead of making the same mistake as many oldies rock musicians, rappers should just stay out of politics and stick with rappin' about gettin' high, gettin' laid, poppin' caps in the haters, and just plain having a good time.

Sept. 26 Presidential Debate

Earlier tonight, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama sparred over spending, taxes, energy, and the war in Iraq at the University of Mississippi in Oxford. This was the first head-to-head debate in the 2008 Presidential Campaign and, in my opinion, it's way past time for them to face each other. The debate, moderated by Jim Lehrer, was almost suspended on McCain's request because he wanted to focus on the financial crisis the country is in. It was a noble move, but I thought should have gone ahead with the first one-on-one debate seeing as how Election Day is only 39 days away.

McCain decided a few hours in advance to attend, two days after announcing he would try to have the event rescheduled if Congress had not reached an agreement on an economic bailout to deal with the crisis now gripping Wall Street.

Let's buzz over the details.

John McCain accused Barack Obama of compiling "the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate." Senator Obama shot back, "Mostly that's just me opposing George Bush's wrong-headed policies." Obama said McCain has been a loyal supporter of the unpopular president, adding that the current economic crisis is "a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by President Bush and supported by Senator McCain."

Both men were polite, but intense as the debate progressed.

McCain accused Obama of the "incredible thing of voting to cut off funds for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan," a reference to legislation that cleared the Senate more than a year ago.

Obama disputed that, saying he had opposed funding in a bill that presented a 'blank check' to the Pentagon while McCain had opposed money in legislation that included a timetable for troop withdrawal.

Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2002, before he was a member of Congress, while McCain voted in the Senate to authorize the war.

"You were wrong" on Iraq, Obama repeated three times in succession. "John, you like to pretend the war began in 2007."

McCain replied that Obama has refused to acknowledge the success of the troop buildup in Iraq that McCain recommended and Bush announced more than a year ago.

McCain also sought to turn his age to his advantage. "There are some advantages to experience and knowledge and judgment," he said. "And I honestly don't believe that Senator Obama has the knowledge or experience to serve as commander-in-chief."

McCain also made a point of declaring his independence from Bush. "I have opposed the president on spending, on climate change, on torture of prisoners, on Guantanamo Bay, on the way that the Iraq War was conducted. I have a long record and the American people know me very well... a maverick of the Senate."

The two men were pointed but polite, although at least once McCain sought to depict Obama as naive on foreign policy. That was in response to Obama's statement that it might become necessary to send U.S. troops across the Pakistani border to pursue terrorists.

"You don't say that out loud," retorted McCain. "If you have to do things, you do things."

He also criticized Obama for having said he would sit down without precondition with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"So let me get this right, we sit down with Ahmadinejad and he says 'we're going to wipe Israel off the face of the earth' and we say, 'no you're not.' Oh please," McCain said.

The two men also differed on federal spending. McCain said a freeze on most government spending was worth considering, except for veterans, defense and "some other vital issues."

Obama said the problem with that was that some programs needed more money. He mentioned early childhood education as an example.

The opening question concerned the economic crisis. While neither candidate committed to supporting bailout legislation taking shape in Congress, they readily agreed lawmakers must take action to prevent millions of Americans from losing their jobs and their homes.

Both also said they were pleased that lawmakers in both parties were negotiating on a compromise.

McCain took shots at Obama, who he said has requested millions of dollars in pork barrel spending, including some after he began running for president.

As he has already said frequently, McCain vowed to veto any lawmaker's pork barrel project that reaches his desk in the White House. "You will know their names and I will make them famous," he said.

Though the polls say McCain won this debate, I actually thought Obama did better—a lot better than I thought he would do. He seemed to have kept McCain on the defense most of the time. He concentrated on the middle class and the problems that average, everyday Americans are having.

However, I did like McCain's foreign policy arguments; he did a little better in that area but, surprisingly enough, Obama held his own quite well.

All in all, the debate didn't show any of the significance that I was expecting. The whole thing seemed very rehearsed and flat and neither candidate really noticeably jumped out on top. It was like watching a bitch-slapping match between two toddlers.

As I've said before, McCain needs to focus on the benefits of deregulation and low taxes in regards to the economy, limited government, individual liberty, a clear plan for energy independence, and a reassuring strategy for the War on Terror. His needs to be a positive message of optimism, hope, and American potential.

By the way, I've gotten e-mails asking about why I haven't posted an official position on the Wall Street financial crisis or the bailout plan and my response is that I have not yet formed a solid position on the issue. I don't like posting "I don't knows" on my blog. This is a very complex issue and when I have solidified my personal point-of-view, you will be the first to see it.

A Day of Remembrance

I had barely turned 12 when 3,000 innocent American citizens were killed on September 11, 2001. It was exactly seven years ago and though I was young, I still remember that day—sitting on the couch with my backpack, waiting to be taken to school, watching through the TV the twin towers and the Pentagon burning 2,000 miles away. I was mature enough to know what was going on—the country had been attacked. I did not see live coverage of the towers collapsing, but I remember hearing about it at school.

I think it is important to remember that day not just for the victims, but for ourselves as well. We fell asleep on the job. It makes me sick how easily the whole thing could have been prevented if only we were more vigilant.

The best thing that can come out of this tragedy is that we learn from our mistakes and always remember that freedom isn't free.

Taken to heart, those lessons will help us remain strong and watchful, so that this may never happen again. Let us exact vengeance on al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden for committing this atrocity and show them that nobody kills innocent Americans and gets away with it.

I proudly dedicate this post to those who lost
their lives on that tragic day.
Our brave police officers, firefighters, emergency workers,
those on the planes and in the towers,
those in the Pentagon, as well as the brave souls
aboard Flight 93—regular people
who stood up in the face of danger to
prevent the hijackers from completing
their mission of further devastation.

You will never be forgotten.

The Political Positions of Atheolibcon

It's finally up! I intended to post my official positions last weekend but, unfortunately, it got pushed up to today. From my previous posts you may have gotten some idea as to where I stand and the title ATHEIST LIBERTARIAN CONSERVATIVE gives you somewhat of an idea but, for the most part, the Atheolibcon's views are shrouded in obscurity. What makes him libertarian? What makes him conservative? As a right-leaning atheist, what are his views on the separation of church and state and the references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Well, today's the day to lay it all out for you—give it to you straight. I will also list the presidential candidates and detail what I think about them, including Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and why I am not in support of him.

For a little overview, I am officially a right-leaning libertarian (a.k.a. libertarian conservative) with a live-and-let-live, don't-tread-on-me mentality.

Here's a quick overview:

I support smaller government, reduced spending, reduced entitlements, reduced bureaucracy, dramatically lower taxes, and greater personal freedom for individuals. In the area of education, I supports more parental control, more emphasis on school choice, and increased competition through vouchers. I am a strong supporter of gun rights for the individual. I believe the 2-party system is built on corruption, greed and bribery. I am a fiscal conservative in the mode of my heroes Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and Ron Paul. I am socially tolerant, believing that most social issues should be determined at the state, local, and individual level. I call for the repeal of the income tax and favor replacing it, as well as all other sources of federal tax revenues, with a tax on each state in proportion to its population, with each state deciding for itself how to raise its share of the money. I believe the Iraq War is a disaster. In light of their faulty intel on Iraq, I question Central Intelligence Agency's information on Iran and although I loath Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and everything he stands for, I would support using any diplomatic means in order to avoid another war. Some may even call me Neolibertarian due to my support the War on Terror (for the most part) and because I believe in a bold, independent national defense.

I'll discuss each issue in depth. I got a lot of typing to do, so let's get started.

Abortion - This is a touchy issue for a lot of people. Some people even vote with abortion as their #1 issue, which, in my opinion, is ludicrous. So is the Atheolibcon pro-choice or pro-life? The answer is neither. This is one major issue that I haven't formed a definite position on. Frankly, I could argue for either side. The root of this debate is when you think human life begins—conception, birth, or somewhere in between? And I haven't even formed a position on that (which I deeply regret to say for fear of sounding like I have a deficiency in moral integrity) so how can I make a resolute stance on abortion? LOL hell of a way to start off this post—first issue I put and I don't even have a fixed position. I can tell you one thing though, I have never thought that abortion in all cases should be outlawed. In the past, I have generally supported allowing an abortion for a fetus in cases of mother endangerment, rape, incest, and handicaps. But now, I must admit I am swayed by CAPITALISM.ORG's pro-choice case for abortion. However, once I become a parent, I'm sure my abortion views will drift more pro-life.

Update: I'm still trying to solidify my stance here. I know what I'm for and I know what I'm against. First of which, part of me thinks abortion is entirely a states' rights issue, but I still hesitate to say I support overturning Roe v. Wade because another part of me says it's an individual issue. Personally, I'm for permitting abortion in cases of rape, incest, mother endangerment, or if the fetus is handicapped in any way. I support the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. I also support permitting and deregulating birth control, including the morning-after pill. I think pharmacists who refuse to refill birth control prescriptions should be reprimanded. I oppose late-term elective abortion. I mean, there's a certain point when it's not just a sperm, an egg, and some cells—it's a baby. I am against abortion out of pure convenience, however I would prefer abortion be fully permitted in all cases rather than fully outlawed in all cases—if I was faced with that decision.

Gay Marriage & Gay Adoption - Feel free to quote me on this — The government (neither federal, nor state, nor local) has NO right to tell consenting adults how to relate to each other. If two people of the same gender want to get married, seriously, who cares? Why should you? If you believe that marriage is sacred, like I do, then that's your belief and you should adhere to your principles but not everybody thinks the same way. Whoa, hold up! How can I believe marriage is sacred and yet support gay rights? It's not a contradiction. Marriage should be held sacred whether you are a marrying someone of the opposite gender or the same gender. It's not something that should be done lightly. At the risk of sounding too cliche, marriage is a sacred institution between two people that should be entered into with the utmost care. Gay marriage doesn't hurt you any way, so to the cultural conservatives out there, pull your stubborn heads out of your asses and get on with your lives! As for adoption by gay couples, for the record, I have always supported the nuclear family that America is so proud of and I always will. Gay adoption is a whole other story from gay marriage. While consenting adults can do what they want with each other, gay adoption involves a third party (the child) who really has no choice who he/she is placed with and statistics show that kids are generally raised better if there is a man and a woman. I happen to agree with that. Not that some gay couples aren't good parents, I know they are, but the traditional nuclear family is what works best and I think we need to stick with that.

Right to Keep and Bear Arms - I am a staunch, radical supporter of gun rights. So radical that I support that abolition of all gun laws as per the Second Amendment: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I interpret this as saying that all laws regulating firearms are unconstitutional. I am a firm supporter of Castle Doctrine as well as unlicensed open & concealed carry, like they do in Vermont and Alaska. I also oppose waiting periods (which are just plain ridiculous) and support instant criminal background checks. If someone is at least 18 and hasn't been convicted of a felony, they should be able to buy, possess, transport, and carry any kind of firearm they want. I also support the gun show loophole. The right to keep and bear arms is an integral part of our constitutional freedoms. It was the next thing our founding fathers thought of after they instituted freedom of speech, religion, petition, assembly, and press. I see school shootings, plane hijackings and such as the result of prohibitions on self-defense. This goes for assault weapons as well. Like Ron Paul said, "Of course true military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban does nothing to make us safer." The saying 'If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns' is very true. People say if we loosen up on gun laws, the murder rate will skyrocket. Reality begs to differ. Look at places like Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C. They have the strictest gun laws in the nation (New Jersey even has laws regulating BB guns and sling-shots) and their gun crime rates are the nation's highest. On the other hand, places like Vermont, Arizona, and Texas where the gun laws are quite loose, they have some of the lowest gun crime and murder rates in the U.S. It is true that an armed society makes a polite society. Just look at the 1920s, every wacko and their brother had a gun. Think of it like this: let's say you're a thug and you see a man in a suit carrying a briefcase alone on a street corner, waiting for the bus late at night and you wanted to mug him. Regardless of whether or not you had a gun, you have no idea if he is armed as well—and if he sees you approaching and he pulls a gun, that could be your ass. So, would you go after the guy if he had a 10% chance of being armed or a 50% chance? I also believe that college students without criminal records should be allowed to carry firearms on campus. Take the Virginia Tech massacre, for example. The loudest voices say we should tighten up our gun laws because of incidents like this. However, I think that since they are legal adults, college students should be able to carry firearms on campus. It would be the safer alternative. If, say, one out of every ten students on that campus was armed, there is no way the shooter would have made it to 31 people. There were people who said he just stood there and quickly reloaded his gun while everyone just cowered in the corner. He made people line up against the wall and then he shot them. The amount of casualties could have been prevented had there been armed students around. Some colleges and universities (such as in Utah) have already done away with the 'no guns on campus' rule. Believe me, if I wanted to shoot up a school, a 'Gun-Free Zone' sign would not deter me one bit. Pilots should also have a right to be armed. If pilots had been armed on 9/11, the terrorists' attempted hijackings would have failed miserably.

Capital Punishment - Many libertarians distrust the government's use of the death penalty, but I support it purely from a moral perspective. While I know it is not an effective deterrent and I know now that it is, in fact, more costly than life imprisonment, I just feel that there are people out there who simply need to die. I support execution for cases of terrorism & war crimes, assassination of law enforcement personnel, multiple murder, and child rape. I also have an opinion on the method of execution. Right now, lethal injection is the predominant method of execution in the United States due to the belief that it is the least inhumane. In actuality, it is more costly and can be more inhumane than execution by gunshot. There have been instances where the condemned prisoner suffers a side-effect and is in pain for more than a half-hour before he finally dies. How is that more humane than a bullet to the head? Or a firing squad? People say it's because the shooter can sometimes suffer mentally after killing a man, while when a doctor gives them the lethal injection, it's the poison that kills them. Okay, we got a false dichotomy in logic here. The doctor still administered the shot, didn't he? How about we apply the same logic to shooting the convict: the shooter didn't kill him, the bullet did. Seriously...

Marijuana & the War on Drugs - First, a history lesson: The plant that is used to produce marijuana, cannabis sativa, has been used by humans for thousands of years. The first fabric was believed to have been woven from its fiber (hemp) as far back as 7000 BCE. The easy-to-plant is extremely versatile and has been used to make products ranging from fabrics and paper to foods and medicines. Cannabis sativa was an important agricultural crop in America's early history. As a farmer, George Washington grew marijuana on his farm and supported its growth. He even used it medicinally to treat his chronic toothaches. Even Queen Victoria used it to treat menstrual cramps. The recreational use of marijuana in the early 20th century set into motion a series of events that led to the eventual criminalization of all parts of the cannabis sativa plant. The question of marijuana legalization has been a contentious issue in the U.S. ever since. Beginning in the 1970s, advocates have fought for decriminalization of marijuana for medicinal use. American farmers initiated efforts to change laws to allow the cultivation of industrial hemp in the 1990s. Other groups lobby for the legalization of the cannabis sativa plant for all purposes, including recreational drug use.

The criminalization of possession of marijuana wastes valuable law enforcement resources that would be better allocated to violent crime. Ethan Nadelmann, a recognized proponent of legalization, argues that marijuana has been criminalized for "reasons that are entirely political, not scientific" in his article The Future of an Illusion. Nadelmann refutes the criminalization argument point-by-point in An End to Marijuana Prohibition. In the article Q: Should Conservatives Support the Legalization of Marijuana? author Deroy Murdock argues that "the War on Marijuana assaults individual liberty, weakens families and militarizes cops while burning taxpayer dollars and the Constitution as if it were in a bong." I have a little saying: The Right fears grass like the Left fears gats. It's the same irrational fear and The Future of Freedom Foundation argues that in depth in the article Conservatives, Guns, and Drugs. Ironically, legalization of marijuana in the Netherlands and decriminalization of medicinal marijuana in some states has decreased teen drug use in those places, just like loose gun laws correlates with less murder and less gun violence. In Free Weeds: The Marijuana Debate, conservative commentator William F. Buckley, Jr. argues for legalization. Nobel prize-winning laissez-faire economist Milton Friedman called for legalizing marijuana and outlined its economic benefits in his book, Free to Choose. Also, 500+ economists have joined together and called for legalization.

I am in favor of legalizing marijuana but with the same restrictions as alcohol as well as eliminating "sin" taxes. Cannabis is very versatile and has many different uses. I also favor the cultivation of industrial hemp. The word 'hemp' is used for cannabis that is cultivated for non-drug purposes. Some of its uses include paper, textiles, biodegradable plastics, health food, and fuel. It is one of the fastest growing and easiest to grow biomasses as well as one of the earliest domesticated plants. Hemp requires little to no pesticides or herbicides. It also controls erosion of the topsoil and produces oxygen. Furthermore, hemp can be used to replace many potentially harmful products, such as tree paper (the processing of which uses bleaches and other toxic chemicals and contributes to deforestation), cosmetics, and plastics, most of which are petroleum-based and do not decompose easily.

Prohibition doesn't work, it just causes more crime. Drug abuse in general should be treated as a medical problem and not a crime.

States should be allowed to permit farmers to grow industrial hemp, which currently is defined as a controlled substance. This would help North Dakota and other agriculture states, where farmers have requested the ability to farm hemp for years. In 2005 and 2007 he introduced the Industrial Hemp Farming Act "to amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana, and for other purposes"; it currently has eleven cosponsors. This bill would give the states the power to regulate farming of hemp. The measure would be a first since the national prohibition of industrial hemp farming in the United States.

Ron Paul said, "I contend that prohibition of drugs is ineffective and advocate ending the War on Drugs. Prohibition doesn’t work. Prohibition causes crime. I believe that drug abuse should be treated as a medical problem. We treat alcoholism now as a medical problem and I, as a physician, think we should treat drug addiction as a medical problem and not as a crime. The Constitution does not enumerate or delegate to Congress the authority to ban or regulate drugs in general. I believe in personal responsibility, but I also see inequity in the current application of drug enforcement laws. Many prisoners are non-violent and should be treated as patients with addictions, not as criminals. Irrational mandatory minimal sentences have caused a great deal of harm. We have non-violent drug offenders doing life sentences, and there is no room to incarcerate the rapists and murderers." The Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana clinics are the unconstitutional actions of Big Brother. President Bush calls himself a "compassionate conservative." Guess what? You’re not being compassionate by taking medical marijuana from someone suffering from a disease whose symptoms it could help treat. People should have freedom of choice. We should respect the law and the law says that states should be able to determine this.

Prostitution & Sex Laws - Same issue as gay marriage—the government has no right to tell consenting adults how to relate to each other. It's not anyone's business if two people want to exchange money for sex behind closed doors. If prostitution were legalized, economic benefits aside, it would mean less street hookers as well as less disease-spreading, as enterprising sex industries would want their workers to be clean. However, I support localities being able to determine whether or not they want a whorehouse in their area. I won't even go into the sodomy laws. It's appalling that cops will actually bust into your home and haul you off in cuffs because you were having butt-sex. In short, I support abolishing all sex laws.

Censorship - I am vehemently opposed to censorship, your so it's very disheartening that multitudes of Republicans and Democrats seem to be for it. Any government censorship is intolerable. Broadcasters should be given the same freedoms of expression as writers and book/magazine publishers. Let them choose how much sex, violence, and crude language they put in. Loathsome social conservative Robert Bork from the conservative American Enterprise Institute said, "We can increase liberty in America by legislatively restraining the direction of our culture." Wow, such a blatant self-contradiction. Any sane person knows it is the parents' job to monitor what their children are watching. Instead of blaming television networks, they should take the responsibility of blocking whatever channels they deem inappropriate.

The War on Terror/War in Iraq - It makes me sick how easily the whole thing could have been prevented if only we were more vigilant. Mainstream America had the predictable, reactionary response and demanded retaliation. This brings me to the War on Terror, which I agree with completely.

They attacked us, killed our citizens, and payback's a bitch.

However, I do think we invaded Iraq under faulty intel and President Bush should have checked with Congress before we invaded—the Constitution clearly states that only Congress can declare war. They only allowed Bush to do what he did because, technically, he did not declare war. Like I said, it was thought of as more of a police action. But now that we are there, we have to finish our mission. We have an obligation to finish what we started.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is almost completely defeated, but if we pull out now, it's not them I would be worried about, it's Iran. Ahmadinejad already said a while ago that Iran is ready to fill a power-vacuum in Iraq if the U.S. withdraws. However, we are focusing a little too much on Iraq while Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are regrouping elsewhere. We cannot forget that they are our primary enemies and they are what this war was all about in the first place. That is why I do not agree with Bush's statement that "Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

A literal war on terrorism would be like a war on murder. Even if a nation manages to stamp out all existing terrorists all over the world, more terrorists would arise over radical ideologies. You cannot declare war on an action.

Let me just say that while Iraq needs a well-trained, well-equipped security force to effectively maintain order in the country, we should not embark on a policy of nation-building (something I wholeheartedly oppose). We must completely destroy all traces of al-Qaeda and then leave.

I am repulsed to giving Iraq U.S. military weapons and training because if we do succeed and Iraq builds a stable military force, if you look at history, chances are we will be fighting them later down the line. Hell, we trained, armed, and supplied the Mujahideen Resistance during the Soviet-Afghan War. Now part of it has become the Taliban and many former members joined Al-Qaeda. Same kind of stuff has occurred in Central & South America.

No more giving anyone else U.S. military equipment! Allies can always become enemies. We don't know the future.

To all the war-happy, hot-blooded ultra-nationalists out there, we must not forget that 9/11 is what this war is about. The goal is to kill Bin Laden and destroy al-Qaeda. And to all the sappy, pacifist peaceniks out there: let me say this carefully, these men are murderous fanatics equipped with powerful weapons, manpower, and a psychotic drive that only religion can spawn. They want to kill me and you and will do whatever it takes to accomplish just that. I know war is a terrible thing. It's unfortunate but it is necessary. These are irrational sociopaths and we must kill them before they kill us. Peace through superior firepower. Sometimes it's the only way.

Let us find al-Qaeda and their leader and show them that nobody kills innocent Americans and gets away with it. Nobody...

Miscellaneous Issues -

- Lower the legal drinking age to 18. If an 18-year-old can smoke a cigarette and go to war, they should be able to have a beer.

- Abolishing speed limits for rural interstate highways, except for at night.

- Get rid of the police cameras at intersections and photosurveillance vans on roads. Big Brother is already big enough.

- Abolish all 'hate crimes'. They are thought crimes, plain and simple. They tack on greater punishment depending on what the perpetrator was thinking when he committed the crime. Things like murder is murder and assault is assault, regardless of the motive.

Sarah Palin

I had no clue who John McCain would pick for his VP. With Obama, I at least had speculations, but not McCain. I had never even heard of Sarah Palin before last Friday. On the way to school, Mike mentioned her and said it was possible she would get picked. I thought it may be a good balance if a young woman was picked as his running mate seeing as how it may woo feminist voters. After school, he seemed incredibly excited about her and said that many conservative talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh were absolutely elated. My Government class teacher said that Palin had some libertarian tendencies so I was glad to hear Mike say the same thing. However, after I found out more about her, I learned that she was far more socially conservative than I originally thought. I still like her though and I think she is the perfect running mate for Senator McCain. She brings a populist image and a record for cutting wasteful spending and reforming government to the McCain ticket.

She was a first-term Republican governor of Alaska. She is the youngest person to hold this honor as well as the first woman to do so in the state's history. She earned her Journalism degree from the University of Idaho and worked in media and the utility industry before beginning her public service 14 years ago. As of the summer of 2007, after cutting 13% of Alaska's budget, she was the most popular governor in America. That's a big plus on her part. She is also strongly pro-life which, like I have said before, does not matter to be much. I just hope she doesn't support a constitutional amendment banning abortion. Married for 20 years, Palin's husband is a member of the United Steelworkers Union and her eldest son (of five children) is in the U.S. Army, scheduled to go to Iraq. I loved her August 30th acceptance speech so much that I finally decided I was in support of McCain rather than simply against Obama.

And no matter what the biased media says, Palin does have more experience than Obama. She was a whistleblower on corrupt politicians and unethical oil company practices, she has been the governor of a state, she has commanded the Alaskan National Guard, she has more community experience. She will bring real change. Good change. She has done more good in Alaska than any other governor can say about their state. Her strong anti-corruption stance really impresses me. Obama can't say any of that. He is all talk. That's it.

Let's take a look at her political positions, shall we?

Abortion & Sex Education - Palin is officially pro-life and a member of Feminists for Life. She is opposed to abortion, except when the mother's life is in danger. Palin described herself as "pro-life as any candidate can be." While running for governor, Palin was asked what she would do if her own daughter were raped and became pregnant; she responded that she would "choose life". She and her husband stated that they had "faith that every baby is created for a good purpose." Palin supported abstinence-only education in Alaskan schools which raises my eyebrow. She wrote, "Explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support," on a questionnaire while running for governor in 2006.

Abortion is one of my lowest priorities a far as issues go, but I do have particular views concerning sex education. Unlike what many deluded social conservatives think, the sex ed curriculum in public schools does not in any way, shape, for form encourage or promote sex among teenagers or even safe sex. But they also don't teach abstinence either. The methods they use is fear. The show you videos and talk about sexually-transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies and all the hardships that go with it. That is the correct position to take and the most effective way to teach sex ed. I will elaborate more on my position on sex education when I post my official political positions.

Gay Marriage - Alaska was one of the first U.S. states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage in 1998—so much for the frontier values of freedom and the right to privacy. Whilst campaigning for Governor of Alaska, Palin declared that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment, although she said she has good friends who are gay and does not wish to judge gay people. A very hypocritical move on her part. In December 2006, following long-running litigation and a 2005 ruling, the Supreme Court of Alaska ordered the state to begin paying health and retiree benefits to the same-sex partners of state employees. Declaring that there were "no more judicial options to pursue" to avoid paying the benefits, Palin agreed to comply with the ruling. At the same time, in her first legislative act, Palin signed a bill ordering a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny the benefits. Palin subsequently vetoed a bill that would have denied the benefits, declaring that "signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office" due to the state Supreme Court ruling. Wow, women can never make up their minds, can they? Although the referendum passed in April 2007 with 53% of voters supporting a constitutional amendment, a bill to place such an amendment on the ballot in November 2008 fortunately stalled in the state legislature.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the government (neither federal, nor state, nor local) has NO right to tell consenting adults how to relate to each other. If two people of the same gender want to get married, so what? Let them. If you believe marriage is sacred (which I do) and should be between a man and a woman, then that's your personal belief. But different people have different views and you should not push your personal views onto other people.

Energy, the Environment, and Endangered Species - As Governor, Palin has strongly promoted tapping our oil and natural gas resources in Alaska, including opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling—several points for her in my book. She has also helped pass a tax increase on oil company profits, something I would not support for reasons I shall list at a later date. Palin has announced plans to create a new sub-cabinet group of advisers to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions within Alaska. Well, now that she is running for Vice President of the United States, I think she should broaden her horizons a little bit. Palin stated in an August 29 interview: "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made." I could not agree more. In January 2008, Palin wrote an opinion column for the New York Times in which she opposed the listing of polar bears as an endangered species, claiming that she had based her position on a comprehensive review of expert scientific opinion. State biologists have disagreed that such support exists. In May 2008, she threatened to sue the federal government over their decision to list the bears. She again questioned the scientific basis for the listing, and warned that it would "adversely affect energy development in Alaska". Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity, who was the main author of the petition behind the listing, said Palin was "either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading" on the subject. Palin likewise opposes listing the beluga whale as endangered. In regards to predator control, Palin supported the Alaska Department of Fish and Game policy allowing Alaska state biologists to hunt wolves from helicopters as part of a predator control program intended to increase moose populations. The program was criticized by Defenders of Wildlife and predator control opponents, and prompted California State Representative George Miller to introduce a federal bill (H.R. 3663) seeking to make the practice illegal. In March 2008, a federal judge in Alaska upheld the practice of hunting wolves from the air, though limited its extent. On August 26, 2008, Alaskans voted against ending the state's predator control program.

Now I have nothing but full support for oil drilling of the coasts and in ANWR. It's just common sense when you look at our gas prices. I do think global warming a real phenomenon, but I don't think it's man-made and I don't think it is as big of a threat as Al Gore and the radical environmentalists make it out to be. I'm not an expert in biodiversity and ecological matters so I will not comment on the polar bear issue at this time. And I support Palin's predator control program. Hell, we use that method on deer. They're multiplying like crazy.

Gun rights - Palin is lifetime member of the NRA and supports the right to keep and bear arms, much to her credit. Apparently, she is an experienced hunter. The contrast is funny—you got Barack Obama who wants to ban AR-15 assault rifles and then you got Sarah Palin who shoots AR-15s (and quite well, in fact).

As a hard-line advocate of gun rights, I wholeheartedly support her position on our Second Amendment rights (although Ron Paul was better).

Capital Punishment - Palin has declared herself in favor of capital punishment. She has stated that: "If the legislature passed a death penalty law, I would sign it. We have a right to know that someone who rapes and murders a child or kills an innocent person in a drive by shooting will never be able to do that again."

Ladies and gentlemen, a politician with a brain!

War on Drugs - Though she admits to having smoked marijuana when possession was legal under Alaska state law (but illegal under federal law), Palin opposes legalized marijuana in fear of the message it might send to her family, which is understandable. She regards methamphetamine as a greater social threat than marijuana. Another point for Palin!

A lot of people make such a big deal out of marijuana. It's ridiculous...

Evolution/Creationism in schools - This is an issue for me not just as an atheist, but as a person with common sense and a mind of his own. As governor, Palin supported full funding for K-12 education, as well as "early funding of education", a program that would give school districts more predictability. While running for governor, she was asked about the teaching of creationism along with evolution in public school science classes, Palin answered: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both"; she stated the next day that she meant that open debate between the two ideas should not be prohibited if it came up in discussion, but that creationism did not need to be part of the curriculum.

As a high school senior myself, I have been through this firsthand. They do not prohibit creationist ideas from being openly expressed in the classroom (in fact, they encourage it sometimes). It is simply not part of the curriculum, nor should it be. School is for learning, learning what we know, not what we want to believe. Teaching evolution is not indoctrination, it's just science. It is on par with the theory of gravity—and yes, it is technically the theory of gravity. Allow diverse ideas to be expressed, but teach the facts.

Foreign Policy - Other than negotiating with Canada for an oil pipeline, she has almost no foreign policy experience and has said very little about it. What she has talked about though is "working to expand and deepen the strategic partnership between the U.S. and Israel."

In an interview with Alaska Business Monthly "shortly after she took office" as governor, Palin favored an "exit plan" for the war in Iraq:

Alaska Business Monthly: We've lost a lot of Alaska's military members to the war in Iraq. How do you feel about sending more troops into battle, as President Bush is suggesting?

Palin: I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq. I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe. Every life lost is such a tragedy. I am very, very proud of the troops we have in Alaska, those fighting overseas for our freedoms, and the families here who are making so many sacrifices.

Palin has tied the war to the quest for new energy supplies, saying, "We are a nation at war and in many ways, the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go." However, she also stipulated that a clear plan for Iraq should not include concerns with oil or energy dependence, saying, "I’m a mom, and my son is going to get deployed in September, and we better have a real clear plan for this war. And it better not have to do with oil and dependence on foreign energy."

I agree with her on this. We have all the resources we need and this war should have nothing to do with energy resources.

So, concluding this post, there are many things I agree with her on and some things I do not. But I just want to say that she is one of the most impressive politicians I have ever seen. She is basically your average person. The regular, all-American family woman. She is so down-to-earth and has a record of cleaning up the former cesspool of Alaskan politics.

I will be proud to vote for this ticket in November—my first presidential election vote.

More conservatives coming to their senses?

I wasn't planning on posting news article responses for a while but this unexpected turn of events caught my eye and I decided to post it.

Conservatives grow wary of mixing church, politics

By ERIC GORSKI, AP Religion Writer Thu Aug 21, 5:48 PM ET

Social conservatives are growing more wary of church involvement in politics, joining moderates and liberals in their unease about blurring the lines between pulpit and ballot box, a new study found.

Fifty percent of conservatives think churches and other places of worship should stay out of social and political matters, up from 30 percent four years ago, according to a survey released Thursday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

That significant shift in conservative thought has brought the country to a tipping point on the question: a slim majority of Americans — 52 percent — now think churches should keep out of politics.

That's an eight percentage point increase over 2004 and the first time a majority of Americans has held that opinion since Pew officials started asking the question 12 years ago.

On this question, the gap between conservatives and liberals is narrowing: just four years ago, liberals were twice as likely as conservatives to say churches should stay out of politics. Now, 50 percent of conservatives and 57 percent of liberals think that. Four years ago, 62 percent of liberals opposed church involvement in politics. Democrats and Republicans are about even on the question, as well.

The survey also found largely unchanged attitudes along religious lines on the presidential choices compared with 2004, despite Democrat Barack Obama's strong play for religious voters and Republican John McCain's hesitancy to talk about his own faith and problems connecting with his party's evangelical base.

McCain leads Obama 68 percent to 24 percent among white evangelical Protestants, comparable to what President Bush was polling four years ago. But the support is tepid: just 28 percent of white evangelicals call themselves "strong" supporters of McCain, well short of Bush's 57 percent in 2004.

Changing attitudes about mixing church and politics could emerge as a factor in the fall campaign — particularly for McCain. Both campaigns are plotting get-out-the-vote efforts in faith communities, but past Republican successes came when attitudes were more welcoming.

The attitude shift cut across conservative constituencies: 46 percent of Republican Protestants want churches out of politics, up from 28 percent in 2004. Thirty-six percent of white evangelical Republicans hold that view, up from 20 percent four years ago.

The question asked specifically about places of worship, which by law cannot take stands for or against candidates or political parties but may speak out on issues. So the public might hold different views about political stances taken by religious leaders speaking as individuals or religious advocacy groups.

The findings come after midterm elections in 2006 that saw Democrats seize control of Congress, a landmark court ruling this year legalizing gay marriage in California, and also amid an identity crisis among conservative evangelicals about which issues should take priority and who speaks for the movement.

Among the groups that shifted strongly away from wanting to see churches involved in politics: Americans who are less educated, those who believe gay marriage is a very important issue and those who think the two major parties are unfriendly to religion.

"To my mind, that spells frustration," said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center. "But by the same token, we know these very same people are not interested in less religiosity in the political discourse. They almost universally want a religious person as president.

"It's not that they want to take religion out of politics, it's that their frustrations with the way things seem to be going are leading them to say, 'Well, maybe churches should back off on this.'"

The survey confirmed that white non-Hispanic Catholics, who make up about 18 percent of the electorate, are shaping up to be a big swing vote this fall: 45 percent support McCain, while 44 percent back Obama. Democrat John Kerry, a Catholic, was doing better at this juncture in 2004, winning 50 percent of those Catholics.

Asked which candidate "shares my values," 47 percent of all respondents replied Obama and 39 percent said McCain. White evangelicals favor McCain on that question, the religiously nonaffiliated leaned Obama, while white non-Hispanic Catholics and mainline Protestants were split.

Democrats have made inroads in closing the so-called God gap, at least by one measure: 38 percent of respondents said the party is "friendly toward religion," up from 26 percent two years ago. Even so, considerably more people — 52 percent — viewed the Republican Party as religion-friendly.

So there's some good news, some bad news, and the same stuff I've heard before. Statistically speaking, the number of Americans—particularly Republicans—who want religious influence out of politics is increasing while at the same time, the Democratic Party is becoming more friendly to organized religion. Who would of thought?

It is unsurprising that the majority of white evangelicals and/or protestants are polling for McCain while the majority of non-white and/or non-religious groups are leaning toward Barack Obama. Unlike previous Democratic candidates, Obama is desperately trying to cater to the faithful, such as wanting to increase President Bush's faith-based government programs in size and scope.

You know, I'm quite interested in seeing what atheist organizations (such as American Atheists) have to say about it, seeing as how they are generally politically left-leaning due to the traditional leftist stance supporting a strong separation of church and state. I need to do a little more searching, but as far as I know, they haven't made a statement on the issue.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that a lot of right-wingers are reacquiring their sanity in this day and age. This gives me hope for the Secular Right.