Throughout much of last year, various movements were united in opposition to the nightmare legislation currently being shoved through Congress by the left, such as "Health Care Reform" and "Cap & Trade". Most any sane person could agree these things are damaging to our economy, our freedom, and free market principles.

But 2010 is here now, and other agendas are being pushed. Now we are in danger of moving not forward, but backward, to the Bush years. More war, less civil liberties, more irresponsible spending, just under a different name. I think it is time someone drew the line and explained the difference, because a lot of people, like Glenn Beck are using the Libertarian name to make themselves sound cool, but they are pushing the same tired old NeoCon agendas. (I love the Glenn Beck show, watch it every day, but he is a tool of Rupert Murdock and the Establishment Media, don't be fooled)

If you watch Fox News, you can see the direction things are being pushed in for the Republican Party, war with Yemen, war with Iran, we surely haven't forgotten about North Korea, and as for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, get used to us because we're there to stay if the NeoCon's get their way, or the Liberals for that matter.

Libertarians recognize the "War on Terror" is a dangerous idea that gives the President a blank check to reign down death on any person, country, or group he sees fit to, with the only condition being "Terror", and we oppose it. Some of us (Myself included) believe a retaliation in Afghanistan made sense after 9/11, but the vast majority agree the entire thing has been mismanaged, Iraq was a pointless political war, and it is time to bring our troops home. Conservatives, while pretending to be for limited government, apparently have no problem giving the president such powers, and per the NYS Conservative Party website "The War on Terror is unlike any threat we have encountered in the past. Our enemy is not primarily concerned with conquering territory. It is committed to using barbaric means to eradicate our way of life."

There has been so much talk of racial profiling to help in the "War on Terror" (and the war on drugs, and the war on immigraton, and everything else the NeoCon's blame on race), but I have to wonder if racial profiling wasn't part of the problem on Christmas day. Perhaps nobody thought to give "The Underwear Bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab a second look because he was a black man, and did not appear to be Arab, perhaps if his skin was just a little lighter, airports wouldn't be getting evacuated over honey.

Libertarians oppose racial profiling, it isn't only wrong, but ineffective. The NeoCon's haven't figured that out yet apparently because per the New York State Conservative party website "We support profiling in the screening for potential terrorists". I will let you judge from the rest of what the NeoCons say if that means racial profiling or not, I'm pretty well convinced that it does.

Libertarians know, the 1st Amendment means (among other things), you can say whatever you want without fear of the government, no exceptions. Libertarians know the 4th Amendment means (among other things) you cannot be searched without a warrant, end of discussion. The 5th Amendment means (among other things) you may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, end of story. Libertarians know that the 6th Amendment means (among other things) you have the right to a speedy trial by jury, no exceptions. The Patriot act flies in the face of all these things, but apparently the NeoCons don't quite grasp that yet, per the NYS Conservative Party Website, "We support the continuation of the Patriot Act which gives the government the powers it needs to protect the people while guaranteeing our constitutional rights."

Libertarians know the government has no business in your love life, and we oppose government involvement in marriage of any sort. But those NeoCon's, not quite so supportive of government minding it's own business, per the NYS Conservative Party website "We ... oppose gay rights.". (Taken slightly out of context)

This stems from our contrary views on the proper relationship between church and state, which per the Libertarian view, is none, the Government should have zero recognition of, display of, or involvement in, religion, in any form, anywhere, ever. The NeoCon's on the other hand, well, they somehow think the establishment clause of the First Amendment means something other than what it does, they think their Judeo Christian values should be publicly displayed and put into law, and per the NYS Conservative Party website, they "support efforts by President Bush to involve faith-based organizations in the delivery of social services."

The worst part is, they tell you that you can either swallow of this, or you can have the Democrats tax and spend you into poverty and economic collapse, sometimes they don't even give you any other choice and they combine the two platforms into total statism! This is so far from the truth, you have choices, the Libertarian Party was established in 1971, it is the third largest political party in America, and holds to a simple set of principles.

• Self Ownership
  • You own your body and your life, to deny this would be to imply that someone else has a higher claim on your body or life than you do, which is absurd upon it's face. (S)He who does not own their life and body, is a slave.
• Rights Derive from Property
  • You have the exclusive right to exercise whatever degree of control over your property you see fit to exercise. You can do anything you want, so long as you do not violate the rights or property of another. There can be no such thing as a right to someone elses property.
• Non-Aggression
  • To initiate force or fraud, to take, damage, or otherwise violate the person or property of another is aggression, which is completely unacceptable by any proper societal standard, and it is the role of government to prosecute aggression.
• Defense
  • You have the absolute right to protect your life, liberty, and property, as well as that of your fellow man, using whatever means necessary, against all aggressors. The role of government is to support this right, not to infringe upon it.
• Contract Rights
  • The Right to contract is an essential human right, for an economy to exist people have to be able to make agreements and the government has to enforce those agreements. Your right to contract is unlimited. So read the contract, for it is the role of government to enforce contracts, not to assist people in breaking them.
• Role of Government
  • The only purpose of a just government is to protect your rights, by enforcing contracts and prosecuting aggression, thats it. It is not the role of government to control the economy, to make sure you have what you need, to make things the way you want things to be, to tell you what to eat, to tell you who to have sex with, to control who gets married, to promote religion, or to make you happy in any way. In fact, the harder the government tries to make the people happy, the more miserable the people will inevitably become.

Determine for yourself which platform gives you more freedom and prosperity, and I'll see you at the polls.