The recent bill designed to restrict credit card interest rate hikes and excessive fees that had an overwhelming amount of bipartisan support in the Senate is a perfect example of how our elected officials put politics ahead of doing what is prudent. Angry constituents have demanded that the government crack down on the credit card industry for charging them outrageous interest rates and fees. As a result, Congress responded to the populist outcry as elections in 2010 are quickly approaching. Lawmakers have completely ignored the fact that the last time the government attempted to meddle with interest rates (almost three decades ago), the results were not what lawmakers intended, which is indicative of most demand-side policies. However, it’s safe to say that no politician on Capitol Hill would recall that incident or be brave enough to put policy ahead of their political career to make the following points:

Credit card interest rates are OPTIONAL:

How many people realize that money can be borrowed free of interest for the duration of the grace period? If people pay off their balance when the bill comes, then they have had the benefit of borrowing money interest free for 25 days – the typical grace period. Instead, most people abuse credit cards and borrow more than they can afford to repay. Senator Chris Dodd D-Conn says "This is a victory for every American consumer who has ever suffered at the hands of a credit card company.”(1) Senator Dodd’s logic is perplexing. How is it that the consumer has suffered when consumers have the ability to decide how much or if they would like to borrow any money on a credit card?

Interest rate caps restrict the flow of credit:

This actually might be a good thing as the lending industry is not entirely innocent. Although it is clear that people have abused credit, the lending industry is equally guilty of extending too much credit to consumers. However, it is best that this problem be solved without government intervention seeing how well the government’s involvement went with the housing sector. High interest rates will curb borrowing, which is necessary in certain phases of an economic cycle; however, government overreach during a recession can place too much of a restriction on credit flow. Since the beginning of the “economic crisis,” the term “frozen credit markets” has been frequently discussed. If this economic crisis is as serious as politicians have made it out to be, then why pass a measure that will further restrict the flow of credit, which according to them, will make things worse?

It is best to let the private industry work with their customers who are having a hard time paying their bills. There are many services available to customers from their lenders that surprisingly exist without “big government” passing laws. It is in the best interest of the lenders to recoup some of the cost when a customer is unable to repay, which is why lenders often do reduce borrowing rates. Both the lending industry and consumers will have to pay for their mistakes, and it is best for the government to move aside to allow for private negotiation.

Credit card lending is a risky business:

Why are interest rates on credit cards so much higher than the rates for home or automobile loans? Are these types of lenders greedier? One could think the answer to the latter question is yes after hearing all of the talk on Capitol Hill. The truth is interest rates on credit cards are higher due to the fact that money is being loaned to consumers with NO COLLETERAL. When people buy a home, the bank can repossess the house if the borrower is unable to repay – the house is collateral. The same holds true for automobiles. However, when banks issue credit cards to consumers, the bank has no recourse if the borrower is unable to repay. Therefore, interest rates are determined by RISK factor and overall demand for credit.

It is most unfortunate that politicians have focused on the fact that they do not wish to appear insensitive to people struggling to pay their bills with the hope that voters will remember this bill when it comes time for the 2010 elections. Even more disturbing is the Republican Party, a supposed “conservative alternative,” voting for a measure that expands the powers of the federal government. Chairman Michael Steele need not look any further than this bill to see why less than 25 percent of voters identify themselves as members of the Grand Old Party.(2) Eight years of George Bush’s big government fiscal liberalism has done considerable damage to the party’s reputation. If the Republican Party has any chance of growing in size, it must take itself off the path of the last eight years and become the party that stands for small government, individualism, freedom, self-responsibility and put practicality ahead of populism.

(1) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090519/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_credit_cards

(2) http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/fewer-than-one-in-four-identify-as-republican-2009-04-29.html

The title of this column may seem like a strange question. After all, how are individuals affected if President Obama cracks down on corporate tax havens? Isn’t it time companies paid their fair share? Although the corporate income tax rate in the United States is very high, tax breaks and shelters make the effective tax rate much lower – so isn’t it time to crack down? The President said the tax code is “full of corporate loopholes that make it perfectly legal for ‘companies’ to avoid paying their fair share.” (1)

Let’s focus on the term “companies” first. Who is President Obama referring to when he says companies haven’t paid their fair share? Another silly question...the answer is companies, of course! Who else would he be talking about?! This question is far more complex than what it appears to be on the surface. One may ask “if companies don’t pay the tax, then who does?” The answer is INDIVIDUALS. Apparently, the President and most people in Congress don’t know the correct answer to this question.

One may ask “how on Earth does an individual pay corporate income tax?” Ofttimes, when people think of corporations, a vision comes to mind of greedy men in blue pinstripe suits laughing and counting their money. When elected officials say they are going to tax the corporations and make “them” pay their fair share, this rhetoric brings instant populist satisfaction, as people can now envision a cartoon of Uncle Sam turning these men upside down and shaking them until all of their money falls from their pockets. However, let’s back up for a moment. It’s also common knowledge that a corporation is an entity – not a person. Therefore, do the men in blue pinstripe suits pay the tax? Does the entity pay the tax? How can an entity be taxed if it’s not a person?

The answers to these questions are as follows: 1) the men in blue pinstripe suits do NOT pay the tax – or at least not in the way the populist perception leads; and 2) the entity is taxed, however, the tax becomes a cost of doing business and is embedded into several components – the three largest being: a) price of the product, b) employee hires/salaries and c) future opportunities for expansion.

If you buy products, then you pay corporate income tax. No business can survive without a budget and pricing models. When the corporate income tax is raised, companies must determine how to allocate that cost. The elasticity of demand for a product is the dependent variable which determines how much of this cost can be allocated to the price of the product. In other words, if a product is in demand regardless of price and economic conditions (inelastic), this means that the company has the option to bury the tax completely in the price of the product. President Obama stated repeatedly that 95 percent of the country will not see their taxes raised one dime. What he didn’t tell you is how your taxes will be raised through “back-door” methods.

The previous example outlined a scenario for inelastic products. What happens if a company sells elastic products? Does the individual still pay the tax? If the company cannot pass all of the tax through the product itself, then it must reduce costs in other areas. What is the biggest cost that a company endures? Employees! Therefore, when the government imposes higher taxes on companies, employees are paid less as a result. This works the same as payroll taxes – all of which comes at the expense of one’s compensation. For example, one of the biggest misconceptions is that a company pays half of an employee’s FICA (social security) tax. On paper, it does; but, in reality, the EMPLOYEE pays the tax at the expense of his/her SALARY. The same concept is true for any type of business tax.

Finally, and perhaps, the most damaging aspect of higher business taxes is the fact that increased tax burdens stifle future growth. Payments to Uncle Sam come at the expense of future opportunity. Companies have fewer dollars to invest in new ventures that can lead to job creation and growth. In addition, large tax burdens induce companies to close their headquarters in the United States and set up shop in more tax-friendly environments overseas. For example, many jobs in the information technology sector have moved to Ireland and Poland whose corporate income tax rates are currently 12.5 and 19 percent respectively. The current corporate income tax rate in the United States is 35 percent – the second highest among OECD countries.

Now that it is clear who pays corporate income tax, what is the best solution going forward? President Obama says “I want to see our companies remain the most competitive in the world.” “But the way to make sure that happens is not to reward our companies for moving jobs off our shores or transferring profits to overseas tax havens.” (1)

President Obama, will all due respect, your logic is backwards. The reason why companies have been moving jobs off of our shores is to ESCAPE the U.S. tax burden. There is no other way businesses could remain competitive otherwise in a global environment. There are many costs of doing business that companies cannot avoid. However, tax burdens are an avoidable/reducible cost. Countries overseas understand this and would gladly allow our businesses to set up shop there and take advantage. If the President eliminates these “loopholes,” the end result will not be business relocating to the United States. Companies have other options – one being to move ALL of their operations out of the United States.

Perhaps it is time for President Obama to abandon the age-old political rhetoric on this topic and keep the promise he made on the campaign trail. This would be a practical decision because corporate income tax affects low and middle income folks the most – the very groups he claims to “protect.” So why not cut taxes for these people Mr. Obama and bring our corporate tax rate in line with the rest of the world?

(1) http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090504/pl_bloomberg/ahoduslldk8_1

BY MIKE PORTER

As the financial crisis continues to linger, our government has already expanded the national debt by dumping money into private enterprises. Today we see our government is now a significant owner in all major banks and two of the three US automakers. I have disagreed with the approach our government has taken in regard to bailing out failing companies from the beginning. I was outspoken when federal dollars were going to “save” companies under orders by George W. Bush, and I disagree with Obama’s continuation and expansion of this policy. I am sickened by the lack of ownership our government has taken in the financial problem and their failure to change the policies that contributed to this crisis. While federal ownership in any private industry is dangerous, I would like to send a special warning to the rest of the world should the US government decide buy into media and newspaper companies.

First, let us focus on why government ownership in any private company is bad. Today our government has already bought significant ownership in automotive and financial industries. Government coming to the rescue of any failed company is bad for the company, the industry, and for our country as a whole. Investing government dollars in a failing business might save the company in the short run, but the long run effects of doing so are far more problematic than letting these companies fail. If these companies ran themselves to the point of going out of business, then the market should determine whether or not these companies go into Chapter 11 and not our government. A large automaker or a bank going out of business will create some short-term problems in any economy. There is no denying that fact. That being said, a large competitor going away in any industry could save the other lagging companies or possibly lead to expansion from companies who are being ran well and are profitable. The customers who used to go to the failed firm will still need the goods and services their old company provided. However, now they will have other firms to choose from. Large companies leaving an industry will open the door for new smaller companies to compete who weren’t large enough to compete before. Many times, companies that go into chapter 11 will emerge later as a smaller, more efficient, company. A company going out of business is just as important as business success because it tells everyone they did something wrong.

Government ownership in a company turns government bureaucrats and tax payers into vocal partners in an organization. We have already seen how Obama asked the former CEO of GM to step down - a decision that should have been left to the board of directors. Salaries and bonuses of executives and all employees can be dictated by the primary owner who is now the government. Taxpayers are in a position where their tax dollars are being invested in a company they did not choose. This opens the company up to tremendous scrutiny that otherwise would not exist. Anything from where billboards are placed to the soap they use in their bathrooms can and will be questioned. Taxpayers will be free to criticize any investment that appears to them as “wasting their money” even if the company is taking steps that could lead to turning the company around in the future. Many high level decisions appear questionable to investors initially only to bear fruit at a later date. It will only be worse when taxpayers have a vested interest in the company and a government who can block these decisions. The existence of government in a private firm will allow the government to have a say in how that company uses its resources or what direction that company will go. This can be used for political expediency in the case of making “green cars” that may be too expensive, asking banks to give out loans to political friends or unqualified borrowers, or forcing unwanted mergers as has been discussed with Chrysler corporation. Our government getting involved only increases taxpayer stake in a company which will only get more costly for the taxpayer when they come back asking for more capital. Many economists have also voiced concerns about inflation as billions and billions of dollars are being borrowed and thrown in the private sector which will complicate the existing macroeconomic problem.

Finally, let us examine the most important and more dangerous next step. The step I believe is coming soon for the “good of the nation” as our government will put it. Several leading media and newspaper companies have fallen on hard times like many other companies. Clear Channel, NY Times, Washington Post, and the Chicago Tribune are only some of the examples. If our government uses the same logic that was applied to the auto and bank industry, then federal bailouts of media companies seem to be the next logical step. Aside from the problems I have listed above, all of which still apply, our government will have a vested interest in the press and the media. Our government advancing to this step will stand as the greatest threat to American freedom we have ever seen. They would then have a direct voice in what we see, hear, and read. Government officials would have the power to shut down any voice that opposes or disagrees. They will be able to tell journalists what they should and shouldn’t print. This would be the end of free speech as we know it and therefore the end of our freedom. This sounds more like Communist Soviet Union than free America, and I fear this is coming soon if we do not voice our concerns against it. This identical tactic has been used by fascist governments time and time again who have turned democracies into dictatorships.

Let me be clear, I do not believe Obama (or Bush for that matter) is the Manchurian candidate and has an agenda to knowingly destroy America. Unfortunately, nobody can be certain about future administrations that come to power after. I believe most people in government today mean well and really want to prevent short-term job loss. However, if members of our government think they can play God and save the economy by doing bailouts, then they are naïve at best. Losing jobs in the short run through free market capitalism have occurred countless times in our history; and, as a result, we have grown to become the largest and most successful economy this world has ever seen. Regardless of what you hear, this financial crisis will turn out no different than any other economic setback in the past. Jobs going away in the short term are a small price to pay for reckless spending at the expense of losing our liberties, freedom, and our country as we know it. The good news is Uncle Sam doesn’t own any newspapers yet, so you are still in power to prevent it. Please call your Senators and Representatives and tell them you do not want any more bailouts and especially bailouts of media companies. If they do not listen, you have the power to let others know what they said to you and vote for someone else. America simply cannot afford to bail out media (or any) companies…in more ways than one.

It’s quite clear that the left is angered and concerned about the tea party participants who demonstrated across the nation on April 15th. Over the past few days, we’ve heard left-wing commentators like Keith Olbermann accuse FOX news of overestimating the amount of participants. To add insult to injury, his guest Janeane Garofalo said the following: “a bunch of tea bagging rednecks….this is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.” We all know how low Olbermann stoops to distort reality, but this is a new record.

Not to be outdone by Olbermann, other far-left sites such as “Media Matters” and the “Huffington Post” made sure to cherry pick demonstrators that carried offensive signs that had nothing to do with the matter at hand. They chose to ignore mainstream folks who were there for very legitimate reasons. While FOX news chose to simply cover the event as any news station should, the network has been accused by NBC and CNN of being “right-wing.” It’s comical that networks that don’t even attempt to hide left-wing bias accuse another network of bias on the other side. It seems that there is a great deal of confusion between commentators and reporters. Commentators like Sean Hannity are not to be confused with reporters who are supposed to report the news. The difference is that networks such as CNN and NBC have their commentators report the news and try to pass it off as “fair and balanced.” For example, the following video shows CNN reporter Susan Roesgen caught “red-handed” in the act:

What CNN Did Not Show

Instead of adhering to the concerns of constituents like any elected official should do, Washington politicians made sure to join in the act of distortion. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the following: “This tea party initiative is funded by the high end – we call it Astroturf, it’s not really a grassroots movement. It’s Astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class.”

So there you have it, and the drivel from the left continues…

The bottom line is the left is afraid because they know the real underlying reason behind these movements, and is clearly not driven by racism or the rich elite. I suppose we can excuse Nancy Pelosi’s comment. After all, she doesn’t know it’s possible to have a real grassroots protest as almost all left-wing protest groups are backed by 501(c) groups like “moveon.org.” Union workers are actually PAID to protest. It’s impossible for her to believe that people can use the power of the internet and organize across the country to oppose her policies.

The bottom line is people have had enough. Libertarians like me are tired of not having a voice in government. This is what networks like NBC and CNN didn’t report. Many of the protesters there believe the following:

First, there is not much difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both parties are funded by the same lobbyists and large corporations. People are tired of the lack of a limited government option when they go to the voting booth. There were plenty of signs and people who acknowledged George W. Bush’s failed economic policies that actually paved the way for the Obama Administration to pick up where Bush left off.

Second, there is much hatred and discontent for the Federal Reserve and large centralized banking. People realize that the FED’s policy has a direct impact on their purchasing power. While elected officials like to center tax policy around class warfare, they conveniently ignore what hyperinflation can do to middle class folks. In addition, the “rich” folks that they like to “soak” are not the power elite. Many are small business owners who provide jobs to people and are forced to pay the same tax rates as billionaires.

Third, people are strongly opposed to corporate bailouts which were supported by both Democrats and Republicans. This goes back to the first issue where these same corporations are buying our elected officials. Failure is a necessary part of capitalism. Without it, we are seeing the monopolized effect of large corporations that are “too big to fail.” They have grown in size primarily because they have been propped up by political connections. Without competition, choice is limited, and the power for abuse is great. Capitalism is not about Washington, the FED and a few large corporations having the power to make or break an economy.

Finally, people are paying close attention to the kind of debt the country has sunk itself into. It is estimated that the federal deficit will exceed $1.2 trillion this year, and total debt is approaching $11 trillion. Regardless of what political party is in control, reckless spending continues.

In summary, “IT’S ECONOMIC POLICY STUPID!!” I’ve been writing about bad economic policy for years, and finally people are beginning to see it for themselves. It’s comical that the Bush Administration touts the fact that Americans were kept safe after 9/11. There may have not been another attack on American soil, but what about the dangers of a weak economy? Bush’s economic policy did not center on a strong U.S. dollar. How vulnerable is America in a weakened economic state? How dangerous is it for the leader of the free world to say that the principles of the free market should be put aside in order to save it?

If Bush’s policies weren’t bad enough, we now have the Obama Administration and a Congress that has spent money in ways never seen before in American history. Elected officials do not read the bills they sign into law. There is no transparency, as the stimulus measures were not made available for public inspection until AFTER it was signed into law. This was not consistent with Obama’s campaign promise of transparency.

In the meantime, individual states are raising taxes on everyone. Property taxes have dramatically risen in many states along with sales tax and various fees. States have been forced to raise taxes in order to comply with many federal mandates aimed at growing entitlement programs. If Obama thinks he can quell angry crowds by giving people a few dollars more in their paychecks, he is mistaken. The chump change he is offering pales in comparison to rising state taxes and the inflationary threat America faces due to his policies along with Congress and the FED.

If economic policy doesn’t become “change we can believe in,” these tea parties will only give way to an even larger populist revolt.

I don't know about all my former comrades across the world, but when I was a dyed red anarchist I had deep survivalist notions about the world and, in fact, wished for them to come to fruition. When oil would spike, I'd look for signs of downfall. When wars would flare, I'd wish for revolutions. When things went bad, I'd see things going well. For me, when the world ended, the world had actually just began.

Survivalism isn't specifically an anarchist aspect, there are plenty of right-wing militias, cross-ideological conspiracy laden groups and various other sects within American politics that talk peace and utopia while planning for Armageddon. It was easier to be a survivalist as well as an anarchist, though, since having an ideology claiming the world works better without government has a greater chance of combining with survivalism than right-wingers that profess loyalty to the idea of US government or militant socialists who are for large government. Not all anarchists are survivalists, mind you, as there is a deep schism between the industrial world anarchists who wish to do away with class but keep the spoils, and the primitive, anti-industrial, anti-civilization anarchists who believe a better world is a world based on tribalism.

By itself, survivialism isn't ideological in the sense of conservative or liberal, but in that its a belief/set of beliefs that command the individual to plan for or to talk about a threat (in the less extreme) to plan for /talk about civilization collapse (in the most extreme). Pure survivalists are nearly impossible, though I think that the Alex Jones conspiracy people could be considered close. I can't imagine being that paranoid and being able to function.

Although I am now a libertarian conservative and no longer hold that the best thing for the world is the end of organized human society, I've never been able to shake the feeling that I need to plan for very bad things that may or may not happen. There is a reason, of course, and that is the way specific civilizations tend to turn against their own or collapse throughout history. I am not saying that America is near the edge, far from it. President Obama was elected with a majority and without any electoral violence despite his radical background and various other unsavory ideological aspects. That is proof enough that, right now, America has should not worry about any kind of civilization collapse. But, just because the America political system still works amazingly, it does not mean something cannot change the stability and safety of our nation. No one, and I mean no one, should assume we are safe from any kind of danger: crime, natural disaster, terrorism, war, etc.

I am not trying to scare, but advise. I find it that the people who panic the most are the ones who never think of the situation their in in the first place: bad weather car accidents, accidents while hiking, crime in the neighborhood, mass murder by the mentally insane, etc. No one and no government should turn paranoid about these things and turn simple vigilance to mass panic, but the inability to be alert to threats does not mean the threats do not exist and to not plan for these threats may mean a harder life afterward.

Again, I am not trying to scare. The rash of mass murder this past few weeks and within the past few years have shown that simple security procedures like security guards (for the immigration office in NY) or in the more expansive sense, armed teachers (Columbine, Virgina Tech) could prevent massive loss of life. Having emergency food storage, having a self defense weapon, having a simple plan to meet during a disaster; all these things tap in to the basic human urge to survive, which has been dumbed down with our comforting lifestyles.

For all the urge we love to give in to (food, sex, etc), why can't protecting ourselves count among them?

The world ain't perfect and no one should expect it to be. Since the creation of civilization there's been war, hate, jealously, thievery, rape, murder and so on. No once has a day gone by that something horrible has happened to someone or to a group of people. The world is a dangerous place no matter if you live in the Sahara or in Salt Lake City. We should never trick ourselves into thinking that we live in anything but a thin layer of protection from the natural battles our nature and our culture wage everyday.

Countless numbers of Americans pray to the Gods of Modernity as often as they can. The lives of millions are hedged on that the Gods will provide with haste and without any strings attached. Alas, what we have been told by the preachers is only one side of the story. Unlike the Abrahamic God that gives well to its believers and brings them to heaven for their loyalty, the Modern Gods are as fickle as the ones of Greek legend. No matter the amount of praise, the amount of energy and amount of money invested in this pantheon will ever assure the bounty promised.

One praises these Gods as their own risk. To invest anything is akin to betting on a random number at a horse race. There are those who have made horse racing their life, but most of the time it is just the random rube hoping for a quick buck on a lucky number. The Gods do not look highly on the impatient and the inexperienced. They do not give in to the begging of those down on their luck for they are not compassionate. These Gods are in it for themselves, just like their cultists, except the Gods do not shroud their intent in rhetoric. The Gods are blunt, if you listen.

Yet, more now than ever before, we have duped ourselves into a bubble reality where the Gods of Modernity give and never take. We live in a world where housing prices always rise, gas prices always fall and you can buy a large screen TV without worry that your health insurance just expired because someone else will pay that for you. When we are at war, sacrifice is left to those fighting and their families, and the only thing the rest of us complain about is about the morality, the ideology and endless inane crowing about if winning a war is costing us entitlements. We assume the Gods are on our side because we cannot fathom the Gods being apathetic.

That's the key to living, but which no one really understands. One must realize the Gods and the people who praise them and the people who deny them do not do it altruistically. We do not move from city to city, vote on a ballot, bank with a this company and work for that company because we are part of a bigger plan. We do what we do based upon what our individual needs and wants are. We trust based on that trust being reciprocated. We give hoping we can get. That is the way of things.

The cult of the Gods tell you different, though. The tell you the Gods give because its right. They tell you the Gods smite because its right. They tell you the Gods will help the poor, save the weak, grow the crops and keep the world safe. They tell you things you want to hear because the horror that the most powerful aspects of our civilization are based on anarchistic self-interest scare the rube and the layman. They manipulate this fear and use it for their own particular goals which profess to attempt to consolidate the anarchy in the name of altruism. In other words, they use you for their self-interest.

The Gods will not change for you. The Gods will not change for a bunch of you. The Gods are eternally themselves and eternally do things in the name of their own feelings and goals, not yours. Never attempt to collar the Gods or pigeonhole the Gods as to ostracize them from the human condition. These Gods can never be defeated, unless we are willing to defeat the very things that make us human. The only way to end the insanity of our anarchistic world is to destroy ourselves, but I highly doubt the health insurance-less couch potato will want that just so he can have his world a little bit easier.

It happens before and after every election. It happens because one side is getting over the fact their rivals won. It happens because the media can't shut its mouth. It happens because of past horrors. It happens because people have become childishly paranoid in our paradoxical world of constant bad news coupled with a anti-reality bubble.

What I'm talking about is the idea that a specific set of politics will create an atmosphere of hate and bile that will lead to political violence. What I'm talking about is the idea that talk radio, right wing blogs and conservative hysteria over Obama's more radical plans will somehow create a path to terrorism or the President's assassination.

The notion that talk radio or any other kind of political media incites hate is absurd beyond belief. For eight years, the left wing medias had extremists promoting the assassination of President Bush, promoting the deaths of our soldiers, predicting terrorist attacks and even welcoming them in some cases, yet the closest anyone got to assassinating Mr. Bush was a disgruntled Georgian with a dud grenade that landed dozens of feet away from its target. If the media foments homicidal emotions based on its opposition to an administration, where are the bodies of the Bushites?

I feel pretty silly even writing about this so-called issue, but I've run in to it way too much to not comment on it. The anti-Rush backlash, the people I hear on the radio talking about Hannity's “hateful” rants, and so on. How is calling out President Obama's statist/socialist agenda “hateful”? How is wishing an agenda you deem dangerous to fail a call to murder? I really don't get it. Its as if principles themselves are enough to create a new civil war.

I have a deep cynicism over American politics today. How can we run a nation with honor and timidity when we have Congress fueling populist backlash against its enemies? How can we be truly informed when our media stalwarts are nothing more than parrots reading off a script or partisan hacks pretending to be journalists? Where is our future when our schools are unwilling to punish violent radicals because of the fear of backlash by tenured radicals?

There's a reason I haven't joined any political party since I registered to vote. There is a inherent and chaotic factionalism that takes small issues and blows them up into heated debates. The second and third elections in our nation's history, between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, were full of outright blasphemous tirades based on nothing else but the other side's very existence. This between two friends and political philosophers who believed in slightly different forms of government.

I know I can't step away from politics. The inquizitveness I have for it, history and philosophy will never cease, but I will be damned if I fall to the fool's idea that simply believing and professing belief in a political philosophy (one rooted in the very creation of this nation) is putting the President of the United States in danger. It wasn't true during Clinton's and Bush's terms in office and it is not true now. I call upon these fear mongers to look to their common sense and try to see how idiotic their anxiety is.

And if they don't do that, well, there's always telling them to shut the hell up.

Politely.