Sorry I have been gone for so long.  School was hectic and I have recently been accepted into the Air Force as a Navigator, so I have been working through some of that.  For anyone that cares, it will be many months before I leave for training. 

Anyways, I have started keeping a notepad with me at all times because I have little flashes of political ideas (among other things) and I can never remember exactly what I was thinking.  Without further ado...

Newt better not run for President.  I have heard nothing of him making an effort, but I refuse to vote for him if he does.  His personal beliefs are as solid as any, however in the NY-23 election he put party over principle.  In my opinion the time of political parties needs to come to an end.  No matter which party takes hold, even if it is a tea party, they will inevitably become corrupt.  When a party holds a majority, they believe they can pass things that would otherwise never pass the common sense test.  A party can use its leaders to put forth a bill that gives the parties more power instead of stabilizing the country.  Imagine a Tea Party banning schools from refusing to teach Christianity principles.  Would that benefit our country?  No.  Freedom is what made this country great and any ruling party will always remove freedoms in favor of party.  Humans are built that way and as such, there must never be a group with enough power to do such things. 

My idea would be for campaign finance laws be changed so that all funding cannot cross state lines.  With that national parties would dissolve as they would be of no benefit.  State parties would stay in tact, but that is no guarantee that each state will have the same parties.  One state may even still have the Whigs with this law.  I am sure that there would be loopholes that would be exploited, but how much could they actually get done by meandering through legalities?  If that idea is not sufficient, then maybe a change in the primary system.  First, all party affiliation would be removed on the ballot and second the primaries would be run together rather than apart.  A sort of pool would be set up.  Anyone can be in the first vote off and the top 4 survive for a second vote off and the final 2 run for the office.  Removes all parties from putting up candidates they choose.  The people have much more choice.  Anyways, those are some ideas off the top of my head.

Continuing my rant against parties...Republicans were rejected in 2006 for not remaining conservative.  Democrats are being rejected now and 2010 will show that, especially if they try to move forward with healthcare.  Why do people still vote for parties?  I will be sadly disappointed if Republicans sweep back into power without changing their ways.  I am all for tea party candidates coming forward as independents and winning some seats.  It will finally get this country back on the right track.

Brit Hume was on O'Reilly a while back talking about why Obama is having terrorists tried in civilian courts.  I felt his analysis needed to be repeated.  If these terrorists are put on civilian trial, Obama can put them in our prisons.  He is alleviated from making a decision on where they should be placed.  Guantanamo is proving more difficult to close than he first thought and for that reason he doesn't want to make any decisions regarding where to put new terrorists that have been captured.  I did not think of this until Hume made the comment and it makes perfect sense.  Obama doesn't feel that conservatives will hang him for it and he satisfies his progressive friends by continuing his rhetoric about closing Guantanamo while not adding to the prisoner count.

Airline security needs to take a proactive approach and start profiling.  How many 60 year old grandmas from Minnesota have been involved in terrorist activities.  It is obvious that some people are more of a danger than others.  I do not think we should detain anyone at all and it could be done very easily.  Passports keep a tab on where a person has been, so start scanning in passports as we pass through security and a history can be attained without trouble.  All those that are chosen for their baggage to be checked more thoroughly will have been out of the country for an extended period at some point in the past.  It streamlines our security while keeping us more safe by checking a higher percentage of high risk passengers. 

It has been said in the news that there is a "disruptive scheme" taking place with China and Russia.  They made it sound like they were going to refuse to buy our debt for the sole reason of hurting our economy.  Can anyone not think of another reason they might start refusing to buy our debt?  Like say a 12.3 trillion dollar debt?  With no end in sight to the deficits, I might add.  Our economy is sitting on the point of a blade and any waver will send it crashing.  I believe our crash will be exactly timed for when foreign governments decide the risk is too high and will stop buying our debt.  At that time the feds will only have two outs.  One is printing more money to stay ahead of inflation, so they can pay off the deficit.  Hyperinflation then sets in...or....they could not spend and deflation will occur and we still hit a depression.  Either way its bad, but at least if we stop spending and contract the government, we can recover afterwords.

Beck did a special on 20th century dictators a week ago and it was spectacular.  Here is what progressives do not understand about government control and something that conservatives should focus on.  I personally believe that a tyrannical government can be the most efficient and prosperous government possible, if conditions are met.  The person leading must be extremely well educated in everything, and I mean everything...or they must be humble enough to listen to others for expertise.  They must not allow the power to rule them, but instead remain steadfast to their personal beliefs.  As I have already named the impossible I will review.  The most improbable is a person not letting the power go to their head.  At that point they start making decisions that benefit them and their friends, rather than the country as a whole.  Their beliefs begin to warp as the fate of the few around them starts to outweigh the fate of many.  Every whim of a thought may be put into action simply for any small reason.  For example Stalin starving Ukrainians.  If by some miracle that is achieved, they must be educated enough to make the correct decisions.  It is impossible for a person to know enough to run everything, so they must rely on experts, who now have lots of power in their hands and the cycle repeats.  Therefore I argue it is impossible for a Tyranny to meet my standards. 

To break on that to the point at hand, why are conservatives against more government power?  What the government can give, it can take away.  Simple as that.  Sure, even IF the current leaders are all looking out for our best interests, will it always be that way?  What if the next generation becomes even more corrupt than the current and in an attempt to balance the budget decide that all those with +14% body fat are no longer able to have health insurance?  What can the people do now that private insurance is gone?  Nothing...pure and simple.  It is not the actual people in power that are the problem, but government as a whole.  It is not Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol pot, etc, but rather the government that enabled them to use their ambitions to kill millions.  If Hitler was elected president here, he would have no chance of murdering millions of Americans, because of how our constitution is written, he wouldn't have the power.  However as we give away our freedoms, that changes and any person coming to power with evil ambitions would be able to enact their will on the people.  It is the system, not the people.