WHY WE DON'T NEED POLITICAL PARTIES

After some consideration I have come to the conclusion that America does not need political parties! Why? Because all of the parties have some agenda, or social idea, or in other words some extreme "axe to grind." For examples, the Republicans believe that the only thing that is important is that their way (working to become self sufficient, rich and powerful) is the only thing that Americans need to do to live (they will never need welfare, Social Security, or Medicare/Medicaid.) The Democrats, on the other hand, believe that everyone should be taken care of no matter what the cost and that the only real function of government is to level everyone to the same status (really no status) and only the party big Whigs have power, perks, and the special privileges. The Libertarians, believe that we really don't need any government and that everyone should be absolutely free to do whatever they want. The Tea Party may be the only good party because they don't really know what they want. So what is my conclusion? What should our government really be like? First, we as voters and politicians should make sure that we believe in and support the Constitution of the United States that our nation is supposed to be based on. Next, we should elect only those politicians who support the Constitution and take sound and reasonable positions on the issues. We should vote for who we personally think are the best people and leaders and forget about parties and the political nonsense that does not mean anything. Then in a democracy like ours, the majority is right by the definition of our government.

We as Americans need to recognize that we will always have poor people and people who need help from the rest of us. Not everyone will be capable of earning enough money to become self-sufficient. And people do eventually get old and possibly disabled, and not able to work anymore. And what about people who have paid significant part of their salaries into Social Security and Medicare deductions for years (without any choice). Should they be cheated out of their benefits just because some people are upset about government spending? There are a lot of other areas of government that could be cut before we need to start cutting Social Security and Medicare. On Tuesday Nov. 2, you will have a chance to make your choices. Vote for the Constitution!

What is a Moderate Politician?

In my opinion, a moderate is a politician who does not subscribe to, nor support, any extreme conservative or liberal policy. He or she is someone who judges each policy or bill of law, or existing law, on the basis of its common sense consequences, and whether or not it is in conformance wit the literal meaning of the Constitution.

An ideal moderate does NOT vote on a bill of law according to the dictates of their political party, or some political or business influence that he or she is being pressured to give in to. Let me give you an example of an extreme policy that has recently been voted into law. This is of course the new Health Law voted into law by the Democrats. Does anyone think that there was no political pressure involved in the votes to pass it? A lot of people believe that this law is actually not in conformance with the Constitution and should actually be repealed.

Here is a policy that some Republicans or conservatives are trying to promote as something that should be done: Cut or eliminate Social Security and Medicare. These extreme ideas are the reason why I will not vote for the Republicans this year, even though I am a conservative or moderate on most issues. One thing I noticed about the "cut Social Security, etc." people is that they are generally young, healthy, and already rich or high income types that may never need SS or Medicare. Fine idea. These people can refuse the benefits if they don't need them. But there are people who do need the benefits: the elderly, the sick, the handicapped, and the poor who don't make enough money to save for their retirement or pay for expensive medical services. So, these benefits are expensive, but there is a lot of stupid pork spending that should be eliminated first before we even consider cutting SS or Medicare.

SHOULD WE LIVE IN FEAR?

There are many threats to our human life, such as terrorism, nuclear war, biological or chemical warfare (NBC), natural disaster, ecological threats, global warming, global cooling, meteor impact, volcanoes, floods, earthquakes, political chaos, etc. But should we live in fear of these threats? Some of them we could maybe do something about and if we need to take some action maybe we should, depending on the consequences. But we still cannot solve every crisis necessarily by human means so sometimes we will have only our internal intellectual or spiritual strength (depending on what you believe.) So back to our question: Should we live in fear? I say no. We should live each day to the fullest because we have no promise of tomorrow. At the same time we need to take whatever means are necessary to defend ourselves from terrorists or any nation state that would cause us physical harm in a planned attack. But should we start a nuclear war over trade problems? NO. We have to be careful in a world where a number of countries could cause us significant harm. Obviously anyone who would undertake a nuclear war is embarking on a deadly course which would never have a good outcome. The Cuban Missile Crisis is an example of a case where a man (or men) decided to back-off rather than risk an all-out nuclear war. But we can expect madmen to try to harm us with terrorist attacks and we need to be extremely vigilant against such plots. The fullest surveillance powers of the government should be used in this regard. For example, there should be no question about using assets to monitor any telephone or Internet communications of suspects or questionable communications, even if some people don't like it.