Rick Santorum = Prohibition

Prohibition was something that many people thought was a good idea. It was the "christian" and godly thing to do.

Government intervention even for a good cause only results in more power to the government. Prohibition set the precedent for the government to be involved in what we were allowed to consume. They have since outlawed raw milk, selling neighbors certain foods, and allowed massive control to be given to the "food police."

This is the easiest explanation of why Rick Santorum makes me nervous. Everything he says he wants to do with good intentions and the "right and godly thing to do (little g on purpose)" will only give more power to the government and more reason to be invovled in our lives.

I believe that if we outlaw gay marriage then the government would now has the keys to the bedroom and then can start to control who can have sex with and when. How far away would we be away from the government deciding how many kids we could have? They could decide that sex was only for pro-creation or that only the "best looking" citizens could have children.

Don't throw your liberties away with a wrong sense of "godliness." When the government mandates something you are is no longer doing it because you believe it is wrong and no "godliness" is then created. Government doesn't create godliness it just creates tyranny and oppression.

All the good intentions in the world can still result in freedoms being ripped from our lives. Of course we all know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

In another point the right and "godly" thing (prohibition) was eventually repealed, but the government still maintaned the power over our lives. Even if Rick Santorum does all the "right" things, but does it with government power it can just be undone and actually used again the people of the country.

The answer is always freedom. The answer would be to take away power from the government and give it back to the people. Take away the benefits of marriage and gays will no longer want to be recognized as being married. Being married is a religious union. Most people only want to be recognized as being married because of the tax benefits. Take away the tax benefits and treat all people as equal instead of the government "granting more benefits" to other people.

Rick Santorum is openely not for less government involvement in your life especially when it comes to social issues because of this I cannot vote for him and hope that you will at least think on my thoughts before deciding to vote for anyone.

I of course endorse Ron Paul

The Bantam Voice
"Freed People Free People"

Do You Trust Our Government With Anything? Much Less Foreign Policy?

I have had a hard time explaining to people why I am so excited and believing in a foreign policy that Ron Paul and the constitution advocate we use. We have all been scared and put into fear of all the other countries in the world especially if they are radical muslim.

I was formerly a, near neo-conservative Sean Hannity lets go kick everyones butt in the entire world before they get us, kind of guy. So I am very understanding of this point of view, but it still doesn't keep me from going mad trying to communicate freedom in all walks of life including foreign policy.

I have recently started summing up why I'm for a "Non-interventionism" style of foreign policy by asking a simple question,

"We don't trust our government to run anything including social security, education, airport security, etc and we want them less involved in every part of our life because we can't trust them with anything. So why do we trust that they are doing the best things in foreign policy?"

Less is more with government in all stages. Government is obviously drunk with power and that extends into foreign policy and war. We haven't declared war since World War II. I'm all for war if needed, but lets declare it, win it, and come home. Congress should declare war not the president send out drone strikes and troops to "keep the peace" or "support the rebels."

I don't think we should be so cavalier with trusting the government to give them ultimate power to trample the freedom of other nations and us. Every day the government continues with the Patriot Act and the Nation Defense Authorization Act we have not liberty or freedom.

At first they came for the jews, or the muslim supporting American (not sure how that saying goes...... which one was it) the point is if we give the government supreme power over us to "keep us safe" they will abuse it. Don't believe me? Think about the Wikileaks guy Julian Assange. Him and those associated with Wikileaks gave us important information of how the government was lying to us and he is now one of the most demonized men of the last few years. We could argue the morality of it all and whether it "endangered" the troops, but the point is the government lies and lies and lies.

Why give them more power than they need? Why trust them and not question their foreign policy? It makes no sense. Scale the government back, less power, less involvement including in foreign policy and in our private lives.

The Bantam Voice
"Freed people, Free People"
"

U.S. Constitution Original Intent - Complete Liberty?



I just listened to Rick Santorum on Glen Beck while he explained what he meant when he said,

"Ron Paul has a libertarian view of the Constitution, but I do not."

Santorum has the perfect view of the Constitution and how our country was founded. He believes that you cannot separate the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution because the Declaration was the base for the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers believed that the Constitution and government that was set up was only for a "moral"/"God fearing people." Santorum believes that it is our governments role to not allow "prostitution, pornography" and all other kinds of "sins."

　

Santorum and Glen Becks view, that the Constitution was only for a moral/God fearing people and that true and complete liberty (including immorality) was not meant to be achieved. My opinion and what I believe is right vs. what is flawed with the previous view is that it is not the Federal Governments role to choose what is right and what is wrong. What is moral and what is "God fearing" is not to be decided by the Federal Government.

Logically this thinking doesn't even hold up outside of the government and the constitution. I will give an example of this

I will use the example of prostitution being illegal which is one example Santorum stated the founders never intended liberty be exercised through.

What is the difference between prostitution and one night stands?

Prostitution is a monetary transaction for sex.

One night stands are commonly transactions for companionship, dinner, concert, gifts in exchange for sex (for male one night stands generally are just looking for sex) (women mainly for companionship, dinner, concert, gifts, and also sex)

What is the difference? One is through money the other through things you would have to pay money for to receive. No difference

Argument-Prostitution is only about sex and sex is the only goal. A one night stand may come out of a serious date seeking a relationship with another person. That is the difference.

Answer-Then we should make illegal any one night stands that are only intended for sex from the beginning? Wouldn't that be being the thought police? We don't want the government to be the thought police. So prostitution being illegal just results in more dates that are pointless and are gone on for sex only. Why in the world would we want the Federal Government to outlaw "prostitution?" It just creates more criminals.

(there are endless argument that could go on and on, but this isn't about legalizing prostitution as much as it is about the federal governments role in dictating what the people can and cannot due right or wrong)

This line of thinking that government makes laws to create "godly" behavior would not produce "God fearing people." It would create government fearing people or criminals. You cannot make people be "God fearing" through laws and government. The very existence of a government law would result in less fear of God and less testimony or examples of how we are a God fearing people. God fearing people do what is right even in the existence of liberty and freedom.

I DO believe that our founders knew that without a moral and God fearing people the republic would falter. The reason it would falter is with great freedom, liberty, and power comes great responsibility and if a generation embraces the freedom, but doesn't accept the responsibility our culture and republic would become increasingly corrupt, immoral, and lose the foundation it was founded on.

Our republic has faltered and the only hope for our nation is for freedom and liberty to exist. "God fearing" people do what is right in the absence of restrictive law not because of it. If people are not presented with the choice to do what is right based on fear of God we will never again be a nation of "God fearing" people and our republic will never last.

According to our constitution governments role isn't to ensure it's own survival from an immoral people, but to ensure the survival of liberty regardless.

The Bantam Voice

"Freed People Free People"

Best Candidates for .... You

Here is my list going into the Iowa Caucus of who I believe the best candidate is for freedom and a seperate list for Christians and for standard "Republicans. I will only list the top three of each candidate.

My personal list "Freedom" being the most important factor

1. Ron Paul

2. Michelle Bauchmann

3. none fit the bill (no one else even talks about personal liberty frequently)


List for Christians which the msot important factors being abortion and banning homosexual marriage

1. Michelle Bauchmann/Rick Santorum

2. Rick Perry

3. Ron Paul


List for "traditional" republicans with important factors being on strong military and being intellectual

1. Mitt Romney

2. Newt Gingrich

3. Jon Huntsman (basically a democrat)

Ron Paul (in review)

Ron Paul Freedom Score of 10 (out of a possible 10)

Key Notes
Texas Congressman since 1978
"intellectual godfather" of the tea party movement

Conservative Strengths
Strong against abortion
Strong family values
Strong for states rights

Conservative Weakness
Not for being the worlds police and fighting wars without declaring war

Ron Paul has certainly won my vote. Even if he ends up running 3rd party I probably will vote for him if the GOP candidate isn't someone with the principles of freedom and the constitution.

He has fought for personal liberties more than any other politician that has been seen in the last 40 years. Here is a paragraph from wikipedia

"Paul has been termed the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movement.^[5][6] He has become well known for his libertarian ideas for many political issues, often differing from both Republican and Democratic Party stances. "

For many "traditional" Republicans and Christians Paul really is a complicated candidate and hard to handle. The reason that this is the case is many Christians want the government to enforce our morals onto the rest of the population. Paul believes the government should have no role in marriage due to it being a church sanctioned union. That is why Ron Paul doesn't believe the government shouldn't ban homosexual marriage, but rather should get out of marriage altogether. He believes the churches have the responsiblity to not marry homosexuals and if homosexuals want a union they can have it, but it won't be called marriage.

Ron Paul is strong against abortion and believes we should have citizenship start at conception.

He is also for being able to drink raw milk and letting the free market figure out solutions vs. the government solutions.

I believe he is the best option we have and that our nation would thrive under his presidency and more importantly under the freedom that we will have underneath his administration.

Vote freedom every time

The Bantam Voice

Glenn Beck on Ron Paul (3rd party) vs. Newt Gingrich

I don't agree with everything Glenn Beck says especially when it comes to Ron Paul. Beck has been one of the Conservatives who writes Paul off due to his foreign policy stance, particularly when because Paul would pull all foreign aid from other countries including Israel.

This clip is Glenn Beck talking to a caller and explaining why if Gingrich is the nominee he may have to consider Ron Paul as a third party candidate because he can't vote for a progressive in Gingrich or Obama.

His reasoning to the caller (the caller is upset he would back Ron Paul ever) is the same reasoning why I believe we need Ron Paul more than any other candidate, because if any huge crisis hits the progressives will effectively make the constitution null and void by changing the world we live in. I beg you to listen to the clip and just give it a thought,

"What will happen if a progressive is in office during the next big crisis. Even if they aren't fundamentally transforming America the following president may become a dictator or turn us into a communist country.

The Bantam Voice

Debate Review: Nov. 19th Thanksgiving Family Forum

http://www.citizenlink.com/2011/11/19/thanksgiving-family-forum-complete-video/

(link to full video of the debate)

This debate was unlike any other that I have seen thus far. The church that housed this "debate/forum" held 3000 people and was maxed out as you would expect.

Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman declined to attend (mainly because they are mormon and didn't want to be questioned on this in the church setting)
The candidates sat at a table set for Thanksgiving. This was a very telling debate because unlike other debates I've seen they were among friends. The candidates were not as guarded because everyone in that room has a similiar standard of right and wrong. There was no real time moderation and you really got a lot of information out of each candidate. (Continue on below)

Where the Candidates Stand on Legalizing Marijuana

This is where the Candidates Stand on Legalizing Marijuana

Mitt Romney -1
Michelle Bauchmann -1
Rick Santorium -1
Herman Cain -1
                    Newt Gingrich -1
                    Jon Huntsman -1
       
                     Only Candidate to support legalizing Marijuana

Ron Paul +1


all candidates that oppose will lose -1 for not voting for freedom and all who oppose will be +1 on the Bantam Voice freedom score.

Now a lot of candidates are copping out of answers including this one (Herman Cain and Jon Huntsman I know for sure) by saying
(continue on below)