We believe the government should steadily put more and more control over economic decisions into the hands of private persons and companies until government is completely removed from the economic sector, as it almost was in the 19th century.

     Under private economic systems, all people are economic planners, and efficiency is boosted by the added number of people making decisions, along with the fact that when all persons are allowed to make decisions about immediate matters of business, they will make more informed decisions, being less far removed from the situation.

     Obama may be a good hearted man, but his policies are a danger to this country.  He is destroying the foundation on which this country was built- the premise that all people have a right to live their own lives without being servants of others and that each and every person has a right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. 

     We must elect a common-sense, no-nonsense candidate who will not go back on his word in 2012.

    Abortion is only acceptable in the case of death to the mother, and should be banned from our hospitals for any other reason.  Although there is no way to stop a woman from using such measures as taking herbs to induce an abortion , the violent practice of vacuuming out the brains from a baby's skull must be outlawed.  We must teach our children- at home- the virtues of taking responsibility for your own actions and knowledge of reality instead of obedience to peer pressure and "hormones", which are both unrelated to the choice to have sex. 

    We must teach our families responsibility instead of sexual "liberation".  No one is liberated from the consequences of reality, and no one who caves into pressures can be considered "free".  Nothing says that a couple must have sex in order to be in love, or that they must abstain to be in love.  Some couples have sex, and some don't; sex and love are separate concepts, but can be practiced together, if desired.  However, to have sex unless love is present is to cheapen the meaning of the act and it is an extremely dangerous practice, emotionally: If a couple had sex, then broke up later, then the new partners they bind together with may feel a twinge of sadness that they weren't the first to be close to their lovers.

     The spectacle of modern society is hideous.  Never would our ancestors have believed that their descendents would include apathetic 31-year-old bar and club hoppers whose attitude on life is characterized by the lack of one, and who approach unhappiness of unfairness in life with a callous, "well, that's life" attitude.  Or the "nothing matters in life" view which enables people to tune out other people's problems and to throw condescending Buddhist "wisdoms" at the complaints of persons who are having a hard time. 

     Morally, the philosophy of our time is subjectivism- something isn't wrong if it hurts someone, they say; something is wrong only if people choose to believe it is wrong.  This is utterly convenient for those who wish to push others around- put the responsibility on the wronged or unhappy person to "ignore the pain". 

     Individualism has disappeared from America.  Instead of embodying a proud, self-determined lifestyle, we are told to forget ourselves and constantly feel guilty for not helping "others".  "Society" is seen not as a collection of individuals living in a certain time or place, but as an entity all on its own, that is above each individual member.  This is irrational- one cannot benefit "society" without benefiting individuals in that society.  The false choice we are given between individual rights and society's rights is a similar problem: society is just a collection of individuals, so any talk of society having more or less rights than each individual that makes it up amounts to saying that a large group of people has the right to push around a minority, or that a small minority has the right to boss around the rest of the country.

     Instead of being happy and leaving others to pursue what makes them happy, we are told to think less of ourselves and to merge with the group, to join yoga classes, to go to therapy, to join dime-a-dozen causes, etc.  This does not lead to fulfillment.  While people should care about others in need, the fact that some people are in need does not turn others into their slaves or take away their right to happiness.  Instead of mutual goodwill, the idea of universal service to others spreads an unhealthy sense of malevolence and guilt to all members of such a culture.

     Culturally, we are in the toilet bowl.  Who in their right mind wants to watch endless films about ugly gutters and French sex addicts whose plots are nonexistent and whose filming looks like it has been done by a drunken monkey?  Who feels if they want to reread a book whose only theme was to point out that people will always act immorally and irrationally because no one has free will, a good heart, and responsibility?  Who wants to look at feces smeared all over a canvas with Jesus's face on it before going to the art gallery cafeteria?  Why does anyone want to be told that messy plot structure, ugly colors, an incoherent theme, nauseating filming, and negative morals and emotions are signs of artistic "genius" and that if one doesn't understand or enjoy them, then one is an uneducated hillbilly?

    As for equality, we are completely 100% for it. Politically, there can be no compromise- laws must treat all by the same standards. Privately, individual companies may do what they wish, although they only have the legal right, not the moral right, to do so. Just because an action is legally tolerated doesn't mean that it is right or that it should be socially tolerated. In fact, when governments leave the issues alone, private citizens become more responsible by learning to solve issues themselves. We must learn to treat each person according to their attributes, not guess their characteristics by studying people who look like them. This is not only a moral, but a rational philosophy: it is not only immoral to see someone as a stereotype, but also irrational since it may lead you to an incorrect belief about that person.

      The free market takes care of both immorality and irrationality in this issue. Capitalism encourages the existence of persons who are just and moral on an everyday basis because it is an economic system that is itself based upon moral principles. Since one must make logical decisions when participating in the market, it also encourages rationality. There is no logical reason to ban blacks, men, whites, gays, mothers, Doors fans, etc. from having a position at your office, if they have skills required, and so, even a boss who is morally lacking will be unable to discriminate under capitalism, since the boss will not want to run his company irrationally. This system leads to intelligent persons with good spirits.

      As for Affirmative Action: If all races and sexes have talented members, as claim equality defenders, then there will be no problem with having a uniform standard for all. Inequalities that exist before a candidate applies to a company or college cannot be corrected by artificial handicaps- these only patronize the candidate and allow for lower standards in the workplace and classroom. The way to fix inequalities is to fix their source, not change their effect.

     Affirmative Action causes recipients to view themselves as a member of a certain group, and not as a person, leading to group-identification over individuality. The practice of rewarding someone who has never been discriminated against and punishing someone who never discriminated against anyone else is to put forth a huge injustice onto the backs of innocent persons.

      We are all for equality...and therefore 110% against cultural relativity! Cultural relativity states that any practice, no matter how harmful or illogical, is fine and dandy as long as some culture somewhere practices it. This is to perpetuate racism: to believe that children of a certain race are more naturally tolerant of or deserving of harsher treatment is to believe that certain races are different. If a cultural practice is irrational (such as if a culture makes a contradictory statement that all members must be treated equally, but then that all old women must be burned at the stake) then this is just as wrong, because logic and fact apply to all cultures equally.

    Modern educators teach children that being born into a black family means you automatically acquire pride for black culture and a black "soul". This is hogwash. Who would teach a child that one feels pride (or guilt) in the actions of others simply by being physically related to them?

     To teachers, any claim that an aspect of black culture is bad seems, to them, like a claim that blacks themselves are bad, since, in their minds, you are your culture. How is an innocent child, trying to better the lives of abused member of other countries, to go about stating his disgust with unfair practices without being called racist? He walks away wondering where he went wrong, not realizing that the "cultural relativity" movement is just an excuse for tolerating bad behavior by calling it "culturally significant". Of course, this cultural tolerance doesn’t apply to white children, who are verbally bullied by teachers, peer pressure-style, into rejecting their "patriarchal imperialist" cultures.

      An action is morally bad if it hurts someone, and morally good or neutral if it doesn't. Therefore, there is no way it can be considered relative. It cannot be determined by an authority figure or a rebel, nor by a tradition-bound majority or a free-thinking minority. Morality is one of the most dangerous things to relegate to the category of relativity, because, like science and math in determining a spaceship's ability to takeoff, morality can pertain to life or death.