Boston Tea Party and Ron Paul?

On December 16^th, 1773, American colonists entered Boston Harbor and climbed aboard British ships. Once aboard, the colonists proceeded to throw all the crates of tea overboard in protest to being taxed without being represented in Parliament. Large amounts of American colonists also began to boycott tea imported by the British government or their companies. Some believe that these actions helped stem the American Revolution a few years later.

Fast forward 234 years and you will find a tea party of another kind. Ron Paul, a Republican candidate popular on the Internet, has organized a fund raising campaign. The goal is to gather donations from citizens around the country interested in changing how America operates.

Ron Paul is on record for wanting to pull the troops out of foreign wars (i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan), tighten our borders and above all, reduce government involvement in our lives. He feels the government places too many restrictions on our daily lives and looks to the Constitution as his reference.

At the time of this writing, Ron Paul's “tea party” has raised over $1.4 MILLION dollars. These donations come from average citizens looking to change America to begin a new trend of defending our own borders with our own military, remove troops from other countries, reduce government involvement, and protect our environment.

If you feel like these are policies that affect you and are important to you, then you should consider contributing to Ron Paul's campaign to protect the American way of life and our liberties.

Does your vote count?

When the Constitution was created, there were provisions included within Article II that provided us with a body of electors from each State. These electors were to cast their ballots for who they wanted as President and then cast a separate ballot for who they wanted as Vice-President. Each State is awarded a certain number of Electoral votes based on the number of Senators and Representatives in the House. When all votes are tallied in each State, the electors will compile their votes and the candidate with the most electoral votes will get those electoral points.

Here is where it becomes redundant. 27 of the 50 States require the electors to vote the same way as the popular vote. Some of those States even have penalties for those who do not do so. I'm not saying this is wrong, but what I don't understand is if they are required to vote the same as the popular vote, why have the Electoral College at all? Why not just tally up the popular vote and the candidate that wins in that State receive those electoral votes?

The answer lies in Article II of the Constitution and Amendment 12 of the same document. These require States to have electors. There have been a couple of attempts to change this, but nothing has ever come close to being passed through the House or Senate.

I don't believe we should have electoral votes or points at all. Like we saw in the 2000 election, the candidate with the most popular votes did not win the election (Al Gore). Although this is very rare, it should not happen. There should not be a reason why the candidate with the most popular votes should not receive the Presidency.

Direct popular vote would also encourage more third party candidates. Since most third party candidates are not funded as well as their more popular adversaries, they find it difficult to travel to a lot of States and try to "win" each. With the popular vote, they could easily be seen on T.V. debates, or on the internet and people would know that their vote did not get wasted because of the electoral college process.

Of course, the Electoral College has at least one benefit. When and if there is a recount needed, it is only done in the particular state where there may have been a discrepancy. There may not be a way to differentiate votes by State in a popular vote contest, leaving a recount to the whole country.

Overall, I see the electoral process as a big waste of time. I feel that if people thought that their votes really counted in an election, such as with a popular vote contest, that there would be more people at the polls.

Are there any other opinions on the subject?

For more information: NARA FAQ

Religion and Nudity

From the day we are born, we are naked. And on that first day we are covered up. Mainly we are covered up for protection from the elements and to keep things sanitary. But past that, what is the main reason we wear clothing? Why do most religious groups get so uptight about nudity?

I believe that being nude is a perfectly natural thing and that people, especially Americans are uptight about it. What is wrong with seeing someone nude when it is not tied to a sexual scene? Set aside the fact that it might be someone you wouldn't want to see naked, but overall, there is nothing wrong about being nude.

Now, I don't walk around my house naked, mainly because I feel like a reptile most of the time. I really think I'm cold blooded. My wife on the other hand will walk naked around the house a lot of the time, or at the very least topless or bottomless. No one in our household thinks anything weird of it because we are used to it. If people were raised around nudity, then we wouldn't have so many people uptight about it.

The truth is, is that too many people tie being nude to sex. This is what creates the problem. I have never raised my children this way and when they see topless woman on the beach or in a movie, I never hear them snicker, point or stare. Whereas I have seen plenty of other children do this as they were not raised around nudity...to them it is funny, taboo and naughty.

As a libertarian, I feel that the government should back off and allow its citizens to live freely and without regard to what I should wear or not wear. But maybe it's getting better...did you know in New York City it is legal for a woman to be topless?

Here's hoping that we can all learn as a country that nudity is natural, and normal. But something tells me it won't be that easy...

Helmet Laws

One thing I never could understand is why certain state governments require motorcycle riders to wear helmets. For that matter, why is it mandatory to wear seat belts? It seems that some states are thinking of repealing laws that require helmets to ride. Missouri is one of the most recent to consider this change.

I suppose this is where my libertarian viewpoint shows through. I don't believe that the government should impose rules on us that affect our lives. If someone chooses to ride without a helmet and dies, then that is for their family to deal with. The government should not have control of my life. I'm sure insurance rates are a bit higher for those who do not wear helmets; then again, maybe the insurance companies don't ask.

I can understand the requirement for minors to wear helmets. But once the person is of the age to make decisions on their own, I believe the choice should be theirs. This could be debatable by some, but I believe that minors should have to wear helmets.

This same argument could be applied to seat belts. Does the government gain anything by requiring seat belts? Maybe there is something I'm missing, but to me, it doesn't seem like there would be much reason to require helmets or seat belts.

Hopefully more states will wise up and give the power back to the people...where it belongs.