I am a Republican because I am libertarian. That may sound odd, but I find the Libertarian Party platform (i.e. open borders, opposition to the war in Iraq, etc.) just as odd.

And the Democrats? Haha -- suuure. Could a party be any more mis-named? They believe in rule by judicial dictate -- ajenda advancement by unelected judges! What's "democratic" about that? The party may as well be named Anti-democrat!

The Democrat base is wholly Marxist. When they call themselves "progressive", ask them, "'Progress' toward what?" and you will get a blank stare because they don't want to admit that the goal is a Marxist utopia.

Naturally, this must be fought at all costs. Does all this make me a RINO? Maybe, but only if you believe that the Republican Liberty Caucus is illegitimate.

Though I am basically agnostic, I have no real problem with conservative Christians and moral issues. Hell, most of my friends are conservative Christians (Missouri is a very red state outside the boundaries of the 2 main cities). I grew up and lived around conservatives and Christians all my life. I just don't feel threatened by moral issues. I am pro-state's rights and believe that moral issues should be decided by the people of each state.

For instance, not being religious, I am basically pro-choice up to the point of viability and pro-life after that. So, what is the "point of viability"? Good question, and medical science will change the answer in the future. For now, I'd allow a margin of error and say near the beginning of the second trimester.

On the other hand, I oppose Roe vs Wade because it nationalized an issue that should be left to the states to decide and I do not believe the Supreme Court has the authority to make law. And I say this knowing full well that Missouri would outlaw it immediately (but Illinois would not).

For me, maintaining liberty (defined as "freedom from government interference in our rights") dominates all other issues, including security (up to a point). The founders of our nation were not trading liberty for security, they were doing exactly the opposite! ("Give me security or give me death?") Ditto with the soldier on the battlefield; he is trading security for liberty in the most fundimental way possible - with his life. If it comes down to a choice where more liberty makes us less safe, in most cases, I'd say, "So be it".

Of course, there is a point where security must win out over liberty. If I did not believe this, I would not be a libertarian, I would be an anarchist. To me, the very purpose of government - protecting our liberty - requires ceding some of that liberty in order to create a legal power to weild the force required to protect us.

This balance, however, creates a huge conundrum for someone such as me and war increases it because, in time of war, it is unfortunately necessary to move the bar farther from the state of total liberty (anarchy) than I would prefer. I don't really know where the required point is and this is the danger. As long as I trust our elected leaders to go no farther than necessary - and to give up these powers when the emergency is over - then I am willing to see a temporary and minimal reduction in liberty for the sake of protecting liberty.

History tells me that I cannot trust the Democrats to protect liberty. And, even if I trust the Republicans to do so, any additional powers would apply even if the Democrats are elected to office. So, the question that must be asked when President Bush asks for additional powers to fight terrorism is, "What would Hillary do (WWHD) with it?".

Scary, huh?

- DBT