My Manifesto

"...And during the few moments that we have left, we want to have just an off-the-cuff chat between you and me -- us. We want to talk right down to earth in a language that everybody here can easily understand."
--Malcom X

Ok, as I have often been misrepresented and maligned by the propagandists of Artichoke land, I feel the time as come for me to set the facts straight. To make my beliefs a matter of public record. So here it is in a nutshell.
I am not a Republican. I have been in the past. For some time, over the last four years in particular I have felt a growing gap between myself and the Republican party. I have voted for Republican party in all cases. The biggest difficulty with the two party system is that it limits choice and though I feel separated from the ideologies of Republican candidates there is for me a greater separation from the democratic candidates. This separation of ideology is even greater with the buttload of subparties that are out there, some quite scary. Check out the Progressive Labor Party if you want. So where does that leave me? I’m an Independent; in addition, I cast a Republican vote in the Michigan 2008 presidential primary which is allowed by Michigan law. I voted for Fred Thompson. That’s my politics.
Of course, politics is driven by ideology so here is what drives that. I am an Athiest. I am an Objectivist. I am a fiscal and security conservative. I am a social liberal. I am a capitalist. If you don’t know what those are, don’t debate me, your not worthy. You may learn more about these topics by clicking on the highlighted text. As you can see I am an eclectic aggregate of a number of ideologies and not easily fit into a single mold.
As to the current bit of misinformed propaganda that has been lobbed at me by the left “You Might Be a Leibrand If You Believe...”, I would like to address it point by point.

Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairytale I've ever seen.”
--Bill Clinton

1. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton

I am an atheist and as such do not hold to the view that a “supreme being” or intellect created the universe. The assertion that I do is patently false. I believe religion to be man’s invention. While some of the values and morals espoused by various religions I would agree with, I still find the basic philosophy of theology to be based on false premise, therefore, inherently flawed. Until a supreme intelligence can be proven through the use of empirical evidence, I will maintain this viewpoint.


As for the subject of homosexuals, I will go on the record and state that I have no problem with gays. I am not gay but they do not bother me either, in fact, I would go so far as to say that lesbians are hot (the ones in high heels anyway, comfortable shoes don’t do it for me). Lesbians that let me watch are even hotter (in this case the shoes don’t matter so much.) Homosexual guys don’t do it for me but if that is what you want, well hey go for it. As to gay rights, they boil down this way for me. First, I see the issue as economic. Gay couples are seeking the same tax and health care benefits as non-gay couples. The tool they are using to achieve this end is through legalized gay marriage. This is all about the legal aspects, if a gay couple wants to get “married” for love or religious reasons there is nothing stopping them. I say go for it. The need to legalize gay marriage is to get the same legal benefits. I do believe that strongest form of family is one man and one woman raising any number of children. It is the norm. Gay couples in a monogamous relationship can’t by definition have children and therefore can only have what I believe to be a “family’ in a limited sense. So this is where I stand, I would not allow gay marriage. I would keep marriage as a “one man, one woman” status to promote what I believe is the “best” form of family. I would allow gay couples a legal “civil union” that would give them similar economic benefits to a legal marriage with the exception of the marriage tax credit. This would protect the majority’s view of marriage in our culture while extending many of the economic advantages like combined health care to gay couples who enter in a legal “civil union”. I would allow gay couples to adopt children but would allow greater preference to heterosexual couples. I would do this as I believe children are best raised in an environment with a mother and a father; however two loving same sex parents would be preferable to one parent or none. Gay couples could still hire an egg or sperm donor and surrogate or be artificially inseminated; the government has no business telling them they can’t. I believe gay rights is an issue that does not require federal mandate and should be handled at the state level. The federal government should only be testing the constitutionality of gay rights laws. Secondly, I believe the importance of the gay rights issues for the gay community is one of acceptance. I believe the gay community feels that they can legitimize behavior that is contrary to the cultural norms or our society by legalizing that behavior. This of course is a generalization and is not necessarily applicable to all members of the gay community. Further, as it addresses ones insecurities and self-esteem, it is unlike that any members of the gay community would admit to this reason. No amount of legislation will make all people approve, condone or accept what is largely an abnormal behavior. It makes no difference if it is a behavior of personal choice or one of nature. It is still a behavior that is not the norm in our society; therefore, it is abnormal. There will always be a percentage of the population as a whole who will disapprove of that behavior and a small percentage that will abhor the behavior. However, it’s still the responsibility of the government to protect an individual’s right to be gay (either by choice or nature). This is the kind of behavior that for the most part only affects the individuals in the relationship. As for people not liking gays, the government can’t stop that; some people will always dislike people who are gay. I’m not one of them. You can find out more about gay rights here, Public Agenda.


I do not hate Hillary Clinton. Hate is something best left to the far left or far right. I do not agree with Ms. Clinton’s stated politics or ideology; that’s not same thing as hate and only one of a poor intellect would confuse the two. Based on Ms. Clinton’s actions, I would hold that her stated politics and ideology is consistent with her behavior, so I do not believe she has misrepresented herself. As to her personal morality and ethics, I have no personal dealing with Ms. Clinton and the crimes and ethical dilemmas she has been accused of have not been proven conclusively true. So to be fair to Ms. Clinton I will presume her innocent until shown otherwise. You can find out more about Ms. Clinton here, Hillary for President.


2. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's Daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a 'we can't find Bin Laden' diversion.


I have never stated that Saddam Hussein was ever a “Good Guy”; I would challenge Matthew to provide evidence to the contrary. I do not believe that will happen as he has stated to me in at least one personal email that he does not have time to vet or check his sources for the “As the Artichoke Turns”, this of course speaks to his credibility as a political commentator. Conversely, I would be hard pressed to provide the email in which Matthew stated this so the reader will have to make the determination as to the credibility of either Matthew or myself based upon their own experiences. I will publicly state that the arming of Saddam Hussein was an immoral choice for the United State no matter how pragmatic the decision seemed at the time. It is therefore the United States’ moral responsibility to rectify that wrong. This alone should have been the primary and sole reason for the Iraq invasion. For me any other considerations are not only secondary but moot.


Saddam Hussein used the weapons the United States paid for to invade another sovereign nation. His objective was two fold first he used the threat of force to try and extort 30 billion dollars from OPEC. Failing that he invaded the nation of Kuwait with intention of seizing Kuwaiti oil fields. This would have given him a much larger percentage of the light sweet crude oil production in the gulf region. That control would have put him in the position of extorting his money from the west. The United States, with United Nations support and the assistance of 34 other nations, removed him from Kuwait. I believe the United States did the moral thing in this instance.


I do not believe the United States government should be in the business of telling any cooperation or individual who they may do business with. (I will get to more of this in the next point) I do believe that the government, press, or individuals can say who a cooperation or individual is doing business with. If Vice President Cheney and Halliburton wished to business with Iraq that is on their moral conscience, I would not have. If it comes out publicly and aversely affects their stock so be it.


“And a bad guy when Bush needed a 'we can't find Bin Laden' diversion”, well if that’s how Matthew wants to see the war in Iraq that is of course his choice. President G. W. Bush or his administration has never claimed that’s why they invaded Iraq. The Bush administration has consistently used the proven facts of Iraq’s violation of twelve United Nations resolutions, the belief that Iraq was actively sponsoring global terrorism and the belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). History has shown that he was indeed in violation of the twelve U.N. resolutions. You can find that information here, United Nations resolutions in regard to Iraq. While Iraqi involvement with the terrorist organization Al Queda is limited it must be remembered that the larger war on terror was against all terrorism not just Al Queda. You can find information on Iraqi involvement in terrorist activities here, Iraq's Involvement in the Palestinian Terrorist Activity against Israel. As for the WMDs they obviously did not materialize. However the intelligence data used had support not only from U.S. intelligence agencies, but many other foreign agencies as well as the United States Congress. There was support for this belief prior to the invasion in Congress from both democrats and republicans. I think it prudent however to note that Saddam Hussein actively worked to make the world believe that he did have WMDs, additionally it has been shown that it is very likely that Iraq did have WMDs prior to the invasion, though presumably not in the quantities originally believed. You can find information this here, Exporting Saddam’s WMDs, and here, Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction. For a brief history of the Saddam Hussein regime you can go here, The Long Road to War.


It is difficult to tell from how Matthew’s post has been presented how he feels about Saddam Hussein. If I were to venture a guess I would have to conclude that he feels that Saddam was an ok bloke and would be a great guy to share a beer with. I think that it’s clear he feels the United States had no business being in Iraq. Clearly, Saddam’s gassing of thousands of Kurds, invasions of neighbor countries, history of brutal suppression of minorities within Iraq, hatred of Jews, previous attempts at WMD programs, terrorist training camps and control of mass media are items of little consequence. Apparently, based upon the preponderance of his published opinion on “As the Artichoke Turns”, the United States is “evil” and Iraq is “good”. Though to be fair this is supposition on my part as he has not clearly stated his view of that matter.


3. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.


I believe in free trade with all nations. Personally, I would have lifted the economic sanctions against Cuba decades ago. I do not believe economic sanctions do what they are intended to do. Generally speaking I believe all they do is punish the people of a country and build animosity amongst that population against the United States. That seems to the opposite of what we want. Those kinds of sanctions rarely affect the leadership of the targeted regime. As I have stated previously, if a cooperation or individual chooses to or not to do business with an immoral regime is their choice. The risk they run is poor public opinion and the resulting affect is their bottom line. The only things the United States should be doing with regard to trade in foreign policy are: firstly, protecting the economic interest of United States citizens and corporations; secondly, fostering an atmosphere of fair trade with all nations. I am not enough of an economist to say if I agree with all the tenants of fair trade, but do think it has a good moral basis. You can find out more about fair trade here, Fair Trade and Fair Trade Federation.


4. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.


I believe the United Nations to be an immoral, corrupt and ineffective organization. I am on the record with my belief that we should withdraw from the United Nations. The only areas of successes I believe the U.N. has had are in fighting hunger, disease, and advocating for children’s rights. I would continue to support UNICEF if it could be shown to be financially and structurally autonomous from the U.N.

I have stated that the United States should enforce the United Nations resolutions against Iraq. To suggest that these two positions are mutually inclusive is ridiculous. The United States has a moral responsibility to adhere to agreed upon positions and resolutions made while a member of the United Nations, the twelve resolutions in question are among these. The United States does not have a moral responsibility to maintain membership in that organization. To learn more about the United Nations you can look here, United Nations and here United Nations Scandal.


5. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational drug corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

This obviously refers to the abortion issue. I will publicly go on the record in saying that I am Pro-Choice, though I have chosen to be responsible for all the children I have participated in making and would always council my partner to alternative means. I do respect the right of a woman to chose and I do believe the father should have some say (though not final) and should have the opportunity to be consulted on the matter. So why do I believe this, what is my reasoning? Well I believe humans have rights because we can act contrary to our own self preservation. We can choose to die for a higher ethical value; we can do this because we can reason. Rights are derived from this ability to reason, to moral and ethical distinctions. An animal cannot reason. Animals can only act on instinct. Hence, animals do not have rights and is why eating a hamburger is not an act of murder. A human’s ability to reason is a direct result of high brain function. Therefore, a human has rights when there is high brain function. As matter of law, when a human ceases to have high brain function (becomes brain dead), they cease to have rights and those rights pass to the closest in legally defined kinship. It is important to note that a human can still have lower brain activity and still be alive. It is therefore logical to maintain laws that are consistent. If a human’s rights end at brain death, then they must begin at the first sign of high brain activity. This is not at the moment of conception but is at or around the end of the first trimester. Consequently, I support abortion (though it is not a choice I would personally make) prior to this point. Abortion after this point is murder as the fetus has high brain activity and, therefore, has rights. Partial birth abortion is abhorrent and is clearly murder. Cases of incest, rape and health risk to the mother are largely self evident in my opinion and I will not get into them but would welcome debate on the subject. The assertion that I do not trust a woman with decision about her own body is, therefore, incorrect. The abortion issue breaks down three ways: rights begin at birth and are function of divinity; rights begin at some point during gestation and are a function of nature; rights begin at the moment of birth as to why I totally fail to understand. You can get information about the Pro-Choice position here, National Abortion Federation (NAF). You can get information about the Pro-Life position here, Right to Life. You can find information about partial birth abortion here, Partial Birth Abortion.


As to multinational drug companies, this is so vague that I am unsure as to what specific policy decision or position Matthew is referring to; he will have to clarify this through rebuttal. Drug corporations that operate within the United States are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). On the whole I feel they do a pretty good job maintaining food and drug safety; if there is a specific issue that Mathew has he may present it for debate. I do not believe I have publicly stated any position on drug companies or the FDA. I do not know how a person can live in the United States for nearly thirteen years and never have heard of the FDA. Being that uninformed clearly speaks to ones credibility. You can learn more about the FDA here, Food and Drug Administration.


6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.


I have never made this assertion, once again a false accusation and I would challenge Matthew to show otherwise. For the record, I would favor improvement of veterans’ benefits and an increase in combat pay. This would probably increase morale but it is not why I would do it. I would do it because they deserve it and it is the moral thing to do. You can find out about current combat pay rates here, Combat Pay (Imminent Danger Pay). You can find out about veterans’ benefits here, Department of Veteran Affairs.


7. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

Again, a position I have not stated or professed to hold (I think we are beginning to see a pattern here). The simple fact of the matter is that we live in a society where neither the parents nor educational system consistently teach individual responsibility. So, if children cannot be trusted to not have sex then it is prudent to offer a contraceptive and safe sex alternative. You also have to make them aware of it. I favor voluntary age appropriate sex education from elementary on up through high school. You want to make condoms available go ahead. Additionally, I do not believe children should be able to get chemical contraceptive (the pill or its various forms), an Intrauterine Device (IUD), or an abortion with out parental consent. I believe that abstinence is the only form of birth control and sexually transmitted disease (STD) prevention that guarantees 100% effectiveness and should be promoted as the first choice to children. You can get more information about birth control for teens here, Adolescent Protective Behaviors.


8. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.


Yet another vague reference to a political policy or decision; I believe that if you do a little looking you will find this a common tactic among the far left and far right hate monger bloggers. I do not believe I have professed this viewpoint ever and would welcome debate on the matter if a specific instance of mine were provided.


9. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMO's and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.


Actually I do believe I have weighed in on this one, I don’t remember where but I do specifically remember saying to someone “Why the fuck are we giving all the damned Iraqi’s fucking health care!?” While not one of my shining moments, I think it clearly illustrates my position while simultaneously showing Matthew has no clue as to what he writing about.


HMO’s and insurance companies do not have the best interest of the public at heart, they are not supposed to. Their first concern should be their stock holders; that’s called capitalism. The power the consumer has is that he can change health care providers. Many larger employers offer more than one choice; in addition, you can always go out and purchase heath care on your own. We live in a system that rewards success; I would encourage everyone to be successful. Barring that, you will have to fundamentally change American society and elect a socialist; if that’s what you want I recommend you take a look at Barack Obama. I will acknowledge the health care system is screwed up but this is not the reason. For now, I will leave heath care for its own post and debate it further at a later time as it’s that big an issue and problem.


10. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.


Good grief. I have publicly stated that global warming warrants a serious look. As for an opinion on the matter, the jury is still out: could be from mans’ influence, could be natural. In either case, it makes sense to make economical choices in regard to waste, pollution and recycling. This starts at the individual level. For myself, I have switched all the lights in my house (with the exception of two that are on dimmers) to low energy lights, I have a number of reusable “green bags” for shopping and I now cloth diaper. Hell, I don’t even use disposable butt wipes for the baby anymore as I have cloth wipes. So in this instance I have made an attempt to put my money where my mouth is. You can find out more about global warming here, Globalwarming.org and here, Environmental Protection Agency. You can easy ways to go green in your life here, The Green Guide.


Tobacco causes cancer. It’s been written on the side of the little box since the 1970’s. I knew when I started smoking at age fourteen; I knew when I quit at age thirty three. If anyone does not know this they must be completely dissociated from society. Consequently, anyone who started smoking after the little warning went on the box should not be able to sue the government or the tobacco companies. Any one before that can shoot for the moon. You can find out more about the dangers of tobacco use here, National Institute on Drug Abuse.


I believe creationism should be taught in schools as should most major religions as well as the lost science of philosophy, ethics and a number of other things. I do not believe creationism; I do not fear it either as I do not fear Hegle and Kant (those are philosophers, Matthew). Understanding creationism makes it easier to debunk. For those who are keeping score Matthew just lost two more points and scored one, well maybe one. You can find out more about creationism here, Creation Science.


11. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.


I am partly guilty of this. President Bill Clinton denied having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky in deposition regarding Paula Jones. During this deposition he was under oath. Later during closed circuit grand jury testimony he admitted to having oral sex with Miss Lewinsky and allegedly inserted a cigar into her vagina. This constituted potential perjury (President Clinton contended that it was not as he did not consider these acts as constituting sexual relations) an impeccable offence and a felony crime punishable in federal court by up to five years per lie. An impeachment hearing was held and President Clinton avoided impeachment by one vote. You be the judge, did he commit perjury? If you say yes the down side is that a criminal stayed in the office of President. If you say no then I would go get a blow job from the next attractive girl you see as it’s not cheating. You can find out more about President Bill Clinton’s impeachment here, Clinton Impeachment.


President Gorge W. Bush was offered conflicting analysis of the presence of WMD’s in Iraq, he chose wrong. I know of no evidence that shows an impeachable offense or even an outright lie by President Bush and would welcome examples for debate. Oddly, I was not able to find any credible sources that address the issue of Iraqi WMDs and Bush’s assessment; lots of far left hate blogs but no credible sources, universities, news agencies, accredited think tanks or the like. Sorry, but I do vet my sources; I will keep looking and try to return to this topic in future posts.


12. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.


Another score for Matthew, yes I do believe the government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution. The Constitution does not specifically address gay marriage or internet censorship. Before you debate the Constitution, you really should read it. As for what the Constitution says there are two schools of thought. First, the Constitution is rigid and should be interpreted verbatim; second, the constitution is a flexible and may be more “loosely” interpreted by the Supreme Court. I fall into the second category as this allows the Constitution to be a “living” document that can easily continue to benefit changes in society’s mores and values with little change to the document itself. The clause in the Constitution that sets the second precedent is know as the “elastic clause” and is found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the United States Constitution. As for gay rights, I am on the record already (look above). As for internet censorship, I don’t have a position at this time. If pressed I would probably approve tighter regulation of the internet but on the whole I am very against censorship as free speech is protected by the First Amendment. Remember, kids, if we are going to debate the United States Constitution or constitutional law we should really have read the pertinent document. You can find it here: The United States Constitution. If you would like to know more about the “elastic clause” look here, Necessary-and-proper clause.


13. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.


The public should be provided with both Hillary Clinton’s cattle trades and George Bush’s driving record. My thoughts here are that if we had complete transparency it would show Ms. Clinton’s trade to be illegal and President G. W. Bush to have some driving under the influence (DUI) charges showing that he was at one time a drunk. President Bush has admitted to having a drinking problem; Ms. Clinton has not admitted to stock manipulation. I do not know how factual these statements are so for the time being I will not serve President Bush alcohol and will not ask Ms. Clinton to be my investment broker. Here is some information about the cattle trades, Hillary Clinton Futures Trade Detailed and G. W. Bush’s DUI arrest.


14. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.


Drug addiction is a personal choice and a crime. If caught, you should go to jail. This includes Rush Limbaugh whose cases were mostly bungled by the prosecutor. You can read more about Rush’s little problem here, Rush Limbaugh. I have never been on record about this prior to now.


15. Supporting 'Executive Privilege' for every Republican ever born, who will be born or who might be born (in perpetuity.)


I have no idea what the hell Matthew is talking about here. If I had to guess I would say it has something to do with the Attorney General’s office, but until I get clarification I will take a pass on this one. I will just chalk it up to the incoherent ramblings of a deranged mind. Until then you may prep for the debate by reading up on executive privilege here.


16. What Bill Clinton did in the 1980's is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '90's is irrelevant.


As above with point thirteen, there should be full transparency for both. As no specific instance is offered I will offer no supporting documentation.


17. Support hunters who shoot their friends and blame said friends for wearing orange vests similar to those worn by the quail.

I have never really gone on the record with this one either so here I go. Hunters who shoot any person should be held accountable in the same manner any normal citizen would. This is up to the local prosecutor. If that had been me, I would have thrown the book at him simply for failing to promptly report the incident to local authorities, seems like a violation of state’s rights to me. I would have charged him and let the chips fall where they may. If that leads to jail time and impeachment so be it. I was unaware that Vice President Cheney laid the blame on his friend and would like to see credible documentation to support that.

So there you are. Matthew clearly has no idea of what my politics, ideology and beliefs are. Based on his post he clearly is more comfortable with unfounded accusations and innuendo. This is not worthy of an individual with his intellect and makes me question that intellect as well as his credibility in these matters. Read through his posts on As the Artichoke Turns and you will find that he rarely provides supporting documentation and when he does, he rarely vets his sources. You find a left bias; nowhere will you find commentary on that which is negative to the left or to Democrats. Only Republicans and the right will get his scorn. You will not find mention of cattle trades, “Travel Gate”, extramarital affairs, suicide bombers, terrorists, mass graves, WMDs used on Kurds, nor women and children used as human shield. Nope you won’t find any of that there. In Matthew’s world only the United States, Republicans, conservatives and the right are “evil”; everyone else must be ok in his book.
At least this has prompted me to blog, here and now I pledge to blog once a week and post sometime on Saturday night. We will see how that goes as I have missed my first deadline by a little bit.

Charles D. Leibrand
March 1, 2008