• BSspotter,

    Sorry for the delay. What I would like to see is a definition of terms of some sort. I see Christians railing on libertarian views of freedom to do whatever (assuming non-aggresison principle) which Christians don't call freedom but rather utilizing free will. In this sense, a human is accountable (responsible) for his actions, good or bad, and to be so they must be freely chosen meaning the law may arrest me for harming property even because I did so but the law cannot tell if I was forced to do so by another whereas God can read the heart of man.

    I have found, at least classically, freedom comes from making good choices and it is this that is protected and precedes the state. Localized problem solving is of course better and respects the human person. I am also assuming the state ought to hamper those actions that it ought to, those that are appropriate to its nature, for example, crimes that inflict grave harm.

    January 1, 2012 at 9:08 a.m.

  • Writin,
    I am ambarrassed to admit that I didn't know such a group existed! That being said,it doesn't matter how the group is described,the fact that they profess to be Libertariens explains ther position on most issues. It sounds good on paper but I really don't believe the country could survive the transition to a Libertarian government from what we have now. Another American Civil War(The War for Southern Independence where I came from) to ssettle it?
    Pat Barnes

    December 31, 2011 at 9:06 a.m.

  • Can any one tell me why Osama Bin Laden bombed the twin towers??

    I doubt most here can tell me off the top of there head what his reasons were, & that is part of our/ U.S. problem.

    Keep in mind I am not a suporter of many of Islamist countries, they live for the chance to murder Jews, but also understand that they like any one else want there soverinty respected.

    December 30, 2011 at 6:33 p.m.

  • BS Spotter.

    Your post, the second sentence, reminds me of a certain Presidential candidate.

    ”Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And...moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue”.

    What is liberty? Your meaning of liberty is different than anyone else’s. Ron Paul’s views and beliefs is based on the Gilded Age or worse back to 1776. Most of the platform of the libertarian wing of the Democratic Party, I happen to agree with; although, I am pro-social justice on some economic issues and conservative on some social issues. The problem with ideology like liberalism, conservatism, Libertarianism, and progressivism is that they want one side to fit all. As for me being in the Radical Middle, I have the freedom to pick and choose (within reason) to solve the problem.

    Mr. Williams

    December 30, 2011 at 1:20 p.m.

  • Writein,

    I support anyone's lean or leap toward libertarianism (promotion of liberty). That being said, moderate liberty is not liberty at all. Economic & personal liberties should not be viewed as mutually exclusive concepts. They are inseparable.

    The crux of the debate will always lead to how much gov't we should have at the top versus bottom. I contend that a large, homogeneous national gov't diminishes liberty by its very nature. I support erring on the side of self-determination and self-government. I want us to have the courage to experiment with freedom again.

    December 30, 2011 at 12:51 p.m.

  • Pat and BS Spotter.

    Since we are talking about Libertarianism, what are your thoughts on Libertarian Democrats ( & http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.or... )?

    December 30, 2011 at 12:41 p.m.

  • PatB asks: "Do you mean Libertarian or libertarian?"

    I was referring to lower-case libertarianism, although the LP is a rough reflection of that philosophy (some would say Beltway LPers have lost their way). Libertarianism does not promote ANY type of social behavior over another. It simply states we should be free to do as we please as long as it doesn't infringe upon another's rights. No initiation of force or fraud!! You can be a Christian (be Christ-like) and not feel compelled to legislate from on-high how others live their lives. Many Christians are driven to cleanse the country—by FORCE of new laws—of behaviors they disagree with. There are sufficient laws on the books to deal with the infringement of Christians' liberties, yet they still feel threatened by others' freedoms to not live a Christian lifestyle. (Note: I'm talking about behaviors, not the life issue)

    December 30, 2011 at 10:54 a.m.

  • I don't think expecting government to legislate morality makes anyone more Christian.

    December 30, 2011 at 10:41 a.m.

  • Late again. Was busy and missed this post. Only thing I can comment is:
    Do you mean Libertarian or libertarian? If you go to the Libertarian Party web site and read their platform there are a lot of issues with which Christians have and issue mostly the current hot button conflicts about morality and personal reproductive freedom and marriage. Just saying...
    Pat Barnes

    December 30, 2011 at 8:22 a.m.

  • Gary.

    What you said made no sense. It sounds like you are listening too much from George Noory and Alex Jones.

    December 29, 2011 at 10:11 p.m.

  • This maybe to simply put but our mission is attack/concur all nations that do not want to be team players with OUR vision. After devastating the rouge (so called) nation we insert our puppets. We encourage these concurred nations with fact that we will help them to progress financially, medically, etc. with our help & benevolence they will be so much better off in life, even receiving acceptance by other civilized nations in the world community. And as a special bonus for bowing to us & our agenda all in the Name of the Lord of course we in our great concern for human rights will promise to not kill them & there children any more. Its a win win situation.

    Maybe our mission is know completed in one nation so that our money & troops can be redeployed, redirected to other areas that need to be taught about the advantages of our advanced society.

    It almost sounds like a one world govt in progress.

    December 29, 2011 at 7:21 p.m.

  • Dale Zuck.

    As much as I respect you and your opinion, but you are wrong. If President Obama is a socialist, then how come the left wing and socialist of the Democratic Party are bashing him? By the way, I am a Democrat so I know what I am talking about. Thank you for the “encouragement” and the “offer” the other day.

    Mr. Williams

    December 29, 2011 at 4:24 p.m.

  • Gary.

    Wait, Global dominion? We are not the NAZIs. I do not hear you mention anything about the withdrawing troops in Iraq by President Obama, which I may add John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Senator Graham were protesting about. I do not see you mention anything about the death of Osama bin Linden. Why is that?

    December 29, 2011 at 4:19 p.m.

  • Really an odd question. If politics or wealth is introduced into the equation we have to ask if bankers can be Christian. I would have to guess it depends on what kind of Christian you are talking about. One that walks the walk or one that talks the talk.

    December 29, 2011 at 1:43 p.m.

  • Spoter

    I am saying that I am impressed with this article. But I am sugesting that if he will not cary on with buisiness as usual (global dominion) then the powers that rig our elections will not alow him to be president.

    December 29, 2011 at 1:21 p.m.

  • Jared,

    Liberty is the natural right to make choices that don't infringe on another's natural rights. One can choose the "good, beautiful, and true" or the bad, ugly, and false. You should have the freedom to make bad choices for yourself, but it carries the weight of personal responsibility. In any society, individuals will skirt their personal responsibilities, and safety nets emerge out of necessity. In order to maximize everyone's liberties and not penalize the majority, that safety net should not infringe upon others by force. Such a support system should be voluntary and as localized and hands-on as possible. Many believe—as you may—that voluntary support of a safety net would be highest at the local level where the problems are at your doorstep and greater oversight of recourses is possible.

    Judge Andrew Napolitano puts it as well as anyone when he says "our rights come from our humanity". We shouldn't be able to form a surrogate group that diminishes those natural rights by force.

    Your thoughts?

    December 29, 2011 at 10:39 a.m.

  • BSspotter, is liberty found in the ability to choose or the ability to choose the good, beautiful, and true? I would be interesed to hear your response, thanks.

    December 29, 2011 at 5:56 a.m.

  • Gary, please take an open-minded look at this:

    December 28, 2011 at 10:53 p.m.

  • Gary,

    Could you elaborate on how the article misrepresents Paul?

    Are you suggesting you want your President to initiate offensive, preemptive, unjust, mismatched wars/conflicts like recent Presidents? Which plank(s) of Just War Theory are satisfied by such satanic acts, keeping in mind that we haven't yet tried withdrawing from Muslim holy lands or ceasing the orchestration of coups that overthrow their leaders and/or destabilize their nations?

    In light of our 50+ years of meddling in their internal affairs, try checking off the Just War justifications:
    1) the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
    2) all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
    3) there must be serious prospects of success;
    4) the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power as well as the precision of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

    Do you think Paul isn't capable of defending our soil?

    December 28, 2011 at 10:25 p.m.

  • If Ron Paul is all that this article says he is, I would be tempted to vote for him. But I feel I can give a 100% guarantee that he will never make it if he is not willing to attack other nations like our current & previous presidents.

    December 28, 2011 at 7:39 p.m.

  • Dale,

    Nice circular argument. We all know who the libertarian/real Republican is, and he's the only one whose Christian values transpose perfectly onto his policies — in means AND ends. Others want to impose social values top-down by force and take innocent life in unjust wars.

    Libertarianism (promotion of liberty) has been wrongly assigned an ignorant negative connotation by the media, but I believe its most basic tenet of not initiating force or fraud is the most Christian of all political views.

    December 28, 2011 at 5:18 p.m.

  • BSspotter,
    Your title could be no further from reality. We do not have a libertarian running any either the d or r primary. But, neither do we have a true d running in the Democrat Primary and we have only one/possibly two true r's running in the Republican Party.

    Barack Obama is not a "d", he is a Franco Socialist from the 60s. Newt, like many of the (what they like to call themselves "Mainstream") Republicans are no longer Republicans in the 20-60's philosophical. And these same Establishment (Mainstream) Republicans do not reflect grassroot Republicans of the last 40 years.

    I can not recall a Democrat Platform advocating the socialization of the US's industrial or medical sectors. This socialization concept places Obama clearly outside his grassroot democratic party membership.

    Ron Paul and possibly Santorium are the only ones who can be supported by a traditional Republican base, at least those who help write the Party Platform starting at the Precinct Level.

    I can say based on the most recent CNN polls,
    the the real grassroot Republican voter has finally awaken to the true meaning of what the Establishment Republican is.

    As far as "libertarian", show me one who is running for President and then I can prove to you who is the only Real Republican running today.

    December 28, 2011 at 4:56 p.m.

  • Could this be the epiphany Iowans are having?

    December 28, 2011 at 3:20 p.m.