My Political Beliefs and Why

My Political Beliefs and Why

My political beliefs are rooted in Individualism; not ‘individualism’ in the Ayn Rand/Tea Party/Murray Rothbard/Republican modes but in the philosophical tradition. Philosophers such as T.H. Green, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin have had an influence on my political beliefs. I neither align myself with Republicans or Democrats, Conservatives or Liberals and I tend to base my politics more on a world view and the liberties of the individual. I am a firm supporter of the First Amendment, free speech and freedom of religion. I strongly support separation of church and state and believe religion should have absolutely no role in government. I am also a supporter of welfare liberalism.


Individualism means to me encompassing religious and ideological nonconformity and the philosophy of natural rights. It is signified by a cult of privacy combined with the growth of self-assertion to give the highest individual development. It is autonomy of reason and free enquiry. It has the powers of individual reason maintained by the spontaneous collaboration of free persons that often creates things which are greater than their individual minds can fully comprehend. Individualism must submit to the anonymous and irrational forces of society.
I am a registered independent and believe that that government has an important rule to play when protecting individual rights. I do believe, like Barry Goldwater, that we must have a strong military to protect our freedoms and personal liberty. I do believe that the focus of military should be more of a defensive one rather than offensive today (i.e.: Star Wars). I also believe that government must play a role in education. That government must supply and support routes for those wanting to expand their education. I believe this can only help the individual and turn help strengthen the country. I also believe government should provide a health care system that would compete with the free market. One that provides care to those who cannot afford health care, and again this strengthens the individual and the country as a whole.



I am a believer in welfare liberalism and the philosophy of T.H. Green. I believe in the value of individual liberty, and maintain that government is not a necessary evil. Properly directed, government can be a positive force for promoting individual liberty by ensuring that everyone enjoys equal opportunity in life. Green said to overcome obstacles in freedom and opportunity it is necessary to enlist the power of the state. Freedom is not merely a matter of being left alone; it is a positive power or ability to do something. Thus a child born into poverty, with no real opportunity to escape, is not truly free to grow and develop to his/her full abilities. Anyone who values individual liberty will want to take steps to overcome those circumstances that are such formidable obstacles to freedom. Society acting through government should establish hospitals, aid the needy, and regulate working conditions to promote the workers’ health and well-being. Only through public support would the poor and powerless members of society become truly free. Everyone gains freedom when they serve the common good. The laws and programs that help the unfortunate smooth social relations, and restrict all-out competition are positive aids to liberty, not restraints that limit freedom and capitalism.


I am also a big supporter of separation of church and state. I do not like seeing any religious overtones in our government. I am a firm believer in religious freedom, but religion should be a private and personal manner of the individual. I am proud in live in a country that can have many different faiths and beliefs. I truly believe that is if we had a national religion that this country would not exist today. The very fact that we can voice our opinions about religion (like the billboards in New York City) and not have any violence is proof of our tolerance and uniqueness in the world.



-Sean Gens

Us V. Them: Dems & Repubs forget about being Americans first

After the Republicans perceived big "win" last week, I realized that all the Republicans wanted to do is "win." When the Republicans and Democrats campaigned for the midterms it seemed to me that they were only concerned with beating each other, like a sports competition. Even the pundits are part of this; they are like the cheerleaders for the parties they support. They use such phrases as "WE must stop THEM," or "WE won, THEY lost."

There is more to America than left and right. It makes me uncomfortable to think that certain media outlets are intentionally, or unintentionally, trying to create two Americas. It seems that people get so into backing their "party" that they forget what the party stands for. Nixon referred to a silent majority that would always support him and his policies, the forgotten Americans. I too believe in a silent majority, the true individual, who belongs to no party and believes in personal freedom with a small federal government that protects and HELPS it citizens. By help, I believe that the government should provide some sort of health insurance for all Americans and provides avenues to all who what to pursue higher education. People, please look up T.H. Green.

WHY IS THE RIGHT AGAINST ANTI-COLONIALISM???

So if you have been watching Fox News lately you probably heard the new buzzword.....Anti-Colonialism. Not only that, but being anti-colonialist is evil, Un-American and plain wrong. Seriously???
Do "they" at Fox really believe this? Do "they" on talk radio seriously believe this? Is being anti- colonial like being a communist, or terrorist, or anti- American? Glenn Beck thinks so and so does the right wing radio guys, and Newt Gingwich.
Do they understand the "evil" the colonists imposed on those they conquered? Do "they" know world history? The British Empire's atrocities in Egypt, in India? The French in Algeria, in Vietnam...The Spanish in the Philippines......But let me digress. Mr. Beck, Dinesh D'Souza, Newt Gingwich, Rush, are all railing against Obama for this. Is this really un-American? Need I remind you that Gandhi was anti-colonialist, that Martin Luther King Jr was anti-colonialist (his speech -- "Beyond Vietnam" speech, 1967), and the founding fathers were anti-colonialist.
Remember when America was a colony under that grand old British Empire? Yes, by nature, America is an anti-colonist country, and if you do not believe that then you know nothing about American history. The founding fathers fought against colonialism for our freedom. Explain what "you guys" mean and stop spreading this "anti-colonialism is evil" nonsense. Read the history of true colonialism. I hope the students at Kings College challenge their school president about of this. These peoples version of anti-colonialism is all wrong. Read!
That's it, good night, I'm tired......

REPLACE ANDREW JACKSON ON THE TWENTY DOLLAR BILL NOW!

Does Andrew Jackson really deserve to be on the twenty dollar bill? Most of us do not even give that a second thought when we whip it out to pay for something or receive it as change. But to some, especially Native Americans, it is an insult, and they refuse to accept the twenty dollar bill and get the bill in other denominations.

Why is this? Is not Andrew Jackson an American hero?

Well, yes and no.

During the war of 1812 against the British, Andrew Jackson was a hero. With a rag tag group of soldiers, he and them alone saved New Orleans from British invaders during the Battle of New Orleans. These 5,000 American soldiers won a victory over 7,500 British. At the end of the day, the British had 2,037 casualties: 291 dead (including three senior generals), 1,262 wounded, and 484 captured or missing. The Americans had 71 casualties: 13 dead, 39 wounded, and 19 missing. The American forces were made of a mismatched group of militia and pirates, former black slaves and Native Americans that supported the core of Army regulars.

Andrew Jackson was an American hero after the victory and looked liked the great uniter; able to look past class and race for the greater good. He could unite laborers, farmers, artisans, frontiersmen, former slaves, the Choctaw tribesmen, and Baratarian pirates for the common good. The victory pretty much ended the war and Jackson was on the path to the White House.

As a military man Andrew Jackson was great, as a president he was terrible. Why do I come to this conclusion? The Trail of Tears and the death and removal of Native Americans from their lands are all of his doing. Thousands of Indians were forced from their lands and thousands of more died because of the the laws Jackson enacted and enforced. Whatever "good" he did in office is erased because of this. Having him on the twenty dollar bill is like having Hitler on money in Germany to the Native Americans; it is an insult that should be changed. I think we should have someone like Martin Luther King Jr., Geronimo, or Dolly Madison.

I respect Andrew Jackson for his military feats and as a defender of individualism. I am always interested in his exploits and life -- his temper, his family life, duals, The Bell Witch, his "adventures", ect. -- but he was greatly flawed as a president. The sad thing is that he had the opportunity to be as great a president as a general, but he could not overcome certain burdens and ideologies to see clearly.

"In the whole scene there was an air of ruin and destruction, something which betrayed a final and irrevocable adieu; one couldn't watch without feeling one's heart wrung. The Indians were tranquil, but sombre and taciturn. There was one who could speak English and of whom I asked why the Chactas were leaving their country. 'To be free,' he answered, could never get any other reason out of him. We ... watch the expulsion ... of one of the most celebrated and ancient American peoples." — Alexis de Tocqueville

The "Tea Party" Does Not Exist

By now, those who are interested, know of the CBS-New York Times Poll on "Tea Party" members. Without rehashing all the numbers we can come to the conclusion that they are older (45 & over), well off financially ($50,000 + a year), male, well educated (at least some college)and white.

So it seems that they are Republicans, right? So why not just call them what they are? It is odd that the media, talk radio, and the like call them "Tea Party" members. They are Republicans, straight up. There is no Tea Party movement, there is a Republican Protest Movement who are angry with the current administration and some of their own members (but mostly the current administration).

They took a page from the Left, who are more well known for protesting; the Sixties, The Bush years, Equal Rights, immigration, ect. The Republicans have finally embraced protesting, and God Bless Them. The "Tea Partiers" are well organized and financed and have that right. I'm just tired of everyone still calling them Tea Party members and not Republicans. It is like they are embarrassed to be called what they are.

I may not share your opposition to Obama, but I support your right to freedom of speech. So go ahead and march away, but don't try and tell us this is the Country's outrage, it is just your party's outrage.

Sarah Palin Disses Her Two Heroes: Reagan & Jesus!

Sarah Palin Disses Her Two Heroes: Ronald Reagan & Jesus!

Yesterday neoconservative Sarah Palin attacked President Obama for signing a nuclear treaty with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that would shrink the Cold War superpowers' arsenals to the lowest point since the frightening arms race of the 1960s. Palin said President Obama's nuclear weapons reduction policy is "like a kid asking for a punch in the face. It's unbelievable," Palin told Sean Hannity. "It's like getting out there on a playground, a bunch of kids, getting ready to fight, and one of them says, 'Go ahead, punch me in the face. I'm not going to retaliate. Do what you want to with me.'" ....And she went on, " People "are going to rise up and say: 'No more.' National security, national defense is the No. 1 job of the federal government."

Okay, there is something seriously wrong with what she said and all you "Tea Party'ers" should be made aware of. First off, you all love Ronald Reagan, right? Palin and Hannity do, and so should you. But do you think Ronald Reagan would support this treaty? Lets see now:

Ronald Reagan: nuclear weapons were "totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization."
"For the eight years I was president," he wrote in his memoirs, "I never let my dream of a nuclear-free world fade from my mind."

Reagan nearly came to an accord with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev to destroy all nuclear weapons within ten years. Before then, he spoke at Fudan University in Shanghai, China, relaying the following vision:
"We live in a troubled world, and the United States and China, as two great nations, share a special responsibility to help reduce the risks of war. We both agree that there can be only one sane policy to preserve our precious civilization in this modern age: A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And no matter how great the obstacles may seem, we must never stop our efforts to reduce the weapons of war. We must never stop at all until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of this Earth."

So, straight up, Ronald Reagan was a nuclear abolitionist.

Now what would Jesus say about the "Punch in a face"? Well lets see:

In the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says:
You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

I don't think Obama would turn the other cheek anyway, look how he is handling the war in Afghanistan and the pirates last year, he is far from weak.

See ya- S