This libertarian notices the ratcheting up of the hate-Muslims rhetoric on the part of neo-conservatives. But to answer the central point of this bucket of swill succinctly: "Islam" is not the motivation behind so-called "terrorist" attacks. The motivation is American meddling in Middle-Eastern affairs. Withdraw from the Middle East, and go back to the original American ideal of neutrality in foreign affairs, and terrorism would evaporate overnight.

As a libertarian, I think the Constitution has deep flaws. But still, I think if the politicians just followed it, we'd be a hundred times better off. This is the problem that needs to be addressed to stop runaway spending; politicians think there is literally nothing the government cannot legislate about. About 95 percent of what the government does is unconstitutional, but that doesn't stop them from doing it. Substituting Republicans for Democrats will change nothing; both are part of the big fix. Under G W Bush, with Republicans in control of both houses of congress, spending skyrocketed. Under Obama, with Democrats in control of both houses, spending skyrockets even more. Tweedle Dee versus Tweedle Dum. A distinction...

Actually, it is a total myth that Roosevelt's spending "pulled us out of the depression." The facts speak otherwise. The Great Depression bottomed out in about 1937, well after Roosevelt had enacted his various spending programs. The economy did not recover very much after that, despite (or actually, because of) Roosevelt's addiction to spending and Keynesianism. World War II also did not "lift us out of the depression." WWII simply substituted one form of economic hardship for another. That is, high unemployment with low prices was replaced with low unemployment and rationing. The actual standard of living was no better during WWII than it was for the preceding depression. The economy actually started to recover under Truman,...

A libertarian view-- This article by Jim Powell, while well-intentioned, fails to point out the central issue: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are all clearly unconstitutional. There is no enumerated power of Congress to force people into financially doomed Ponzi schemes or bloated medical schemes. As Jefferson said, if Congress enacts an unconstitutional law, that law is null and void. Once we realize this central fact, the only question that remains is how to phase out these unconstitutional programs, while to some degree maintaining benefits for those who have become dependent on them, through no fault of their own, believing the government creatures who told them they could depend on these programs never failing. The...

Obama may, if he has the guts, play the war card before the November election, in the hopes of creating a "rally 'round the flag" effect. Bush did the same thing in 2002. In my libertarian view, both courses of action are typical of high government operatives from both parties. If war "works" to get them re-elected, they'll choose war. The thousands of young men who will die are just so much cannon fodder for their election campaigns.

A fine column by Chapman. Marriage should remain a completely private choice among consenting adults; the state should have no say either way. Believe it or not, gay people will continue to have sex, even if they can't get married. Shocking, isn't it? They even managed to have sex, when gay sex itself was outlawed. Shocking! But gay folks are also wrong in demanding the STATE sanction their union. How stupid is that? About as stupid as heterosexuals demanding the same thing. The same goes for polygamy. You can legally forbid polygamy, but guess what? Adultery will continue to exist. Shocking, isn't it? Men will continue having children by multiple women, even if such behavior is made illegal. Heck, that probably adds to the...

My libertarian view-- I find myself in very rare agreement with David Harsanyi. The government has no special skill or knowledge or insight about who should marry whom. Actually, historically, the opposite has been demonstrated: when government gets into the marriage licensing business, the main impetus comes from very benighted views. An example of this was licensing of marriage to prevent people of different races from marrying. Opponents of gay marriage sputter about "the definition of marriage" being between one man and one woman. So, your opposition is semantic in nature? All right, then--call gay marriage something else. A rose by any other name is still a rose, as it were. Actually, gays can call their marriage "smork", and...

Actually, none of this is true. If anything, the leaders of Iran denounce nuclear weapons as counter to Islam. If you have actual quotations of an Iranian leader saying, "nuclear war is a good thing," I'd like to see your source. I doubt it exists. Now, there may be a few fanatical rabble-rousers who call for nuking the US. That is a far cry from the official Iranian government however. Quoting a source like that would be like quoting the American Nazi Party to "prove" America wants to cleanse the world of all non-white people. Actually, if you read what Ahmadi-Nejad has actually written to the American people (see http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/29/ahmadinejad.letter/ ), he seems quite open to reasonable dialogue. But...

Actually, there is NO evidence that Iran was involved in the 1983 embassy bombing, which took place in LEBANON. It was probably, but not definitively, carried out by Lebanese. There is also ZERO evidence that Iran is "helping to kill our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan." The actual evidence is that Iran is wisely sitting this one out. In fact, Iran has friendly relations WITH THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT WE INSTALLED, which, like Iran, is dominated by Shiite Muslims. Iranians did in fact take hostages at our embassy. Frankly, with the hell we put them through with our satrap, the Shah, I can hardly blame them. The Shah--a brief study will suffice to prove this--was a torturing, secret-police wielding tyrant. The correct approach to take...

This is the dark, ugly side of conservatism--the Neocon side. Supposedly, "conservative" has the connotation of being cautious, even-handed. Not the Neocons. Let's review: Iran has never attacked us. Iran has not invaded another country, in fact, in several centuries. Iran, economically, is a third-world basket case. Their GNP is about on par with Denmark's--with ten times the population to feed. Wars cost money--lots of it. Iran, being poverty-stricken, has almost no war-making capabilities. Their navy is pathetic--a few small gunboats. Their air force is even worse; actually, it's mostly grounded due to lack of parts. Their army boasts nothing more than manpower--human waves that are easily repulsed with modern armaments....