Vote for me. I'm serious. I'm voting for me. Why not you? You think Obama's gonna change this country? Trust me, it'll be business as usual. If I'm wrong, I'll eat something that is entirely edible but still not something I would normally eat. Like escargot. Or blood pudding. Or hagas.

Why vote for me, you ask? You mean you need reasons to vote for me besides how awesome I am? Or is my constant and quite likely annoying boasts of how great I am not enough to convince you? Well, here's a few of my key issues:

The economy

Dissolve the Federal Reserve Bank. The Fed is the biggest regulatory body in the United States. It's purpose was to prevent inflation, when in reality it does the opposite. The US currency was inflated during the dot com boom as well as the real estate boom and both those markets popped. That's the cycle of boom and bust. The Fed manipulates interest rates. If they say banks have to charge 5.5 percent interest on home loans when some banks need to be charging say, 10 percent in order to make money but they are unable because it's against the law, what do they do? They issue twice as many loans, and many of those loans are issued to people who shouldn't have been approved. So the bubble bursts.

Some people think I'm insane for wanting to dissolve the Fed. But guess who actually was successful in dissolving a federal bank back in the 1800s?

Oh, the irony.

That's right, Andrew Jackson. Of course, the Fed was reestablished sometime thereafter. And this is just one of many steps to help the economy. Another step is also in line with my next issue.

War on terror

A big step towards fighting terrorism is ending our dependence on foreign oil. Terrorists own oil fields. That's a fact. Filling up your gas tank may actually be helping them. So let's put a stop to it. If we did, we wouldn't need to send our troops to the Middle East and other areas to defend that oil, so maybe they wouldn't be so pissed off at us anymore (big maybe because this hatred of the West can literally be traced back to the Christian Crusades, so I doubt this is gonna go away soon, but it's always the first steps that are the hardest to make).

Ending our dependence on foreign oil (and oil altogether) can also boost the economy. Right now we depend on this one nonrenewable resource that is basically a monopoly on energy. As president, I will push alternative fuels like hydrogen and especially ethonal, although we can't just pursue a single source of fuel. We need many. Oil is a commodity and we can't afford to have a single company (or several, like big oil) to have all the cards. Competition can create a healthy market.

Health care

This is a tough one. While I don't like the idea of some bureaucrat dictating my health coverage, that's basically what's already happening under my current private health care plan. But a universal health care system would be a monopoly, and I just got done saying how monopolies are bad. Honestly, I can't see an easy solution to this unless everyone can be millionaires.

But wait, everyone can be millionaires. So let me go on one of my great tangents to explain how.

It used to be that there was no poor class, only a tiny rich class, and a massive starving class. These starving citizens were less than poor. So the Magna Carta was signed in 1215 putting limits on the central government and establishing a few human rights (although only nobles had these rights). The quality of life for the starving class improved to a poor class, which still isn't that great but it's better than what it was. So then the US Constitution was ratified in 1787 and the quality of life for the poor class improved to a middle class. Like the Magna Carta, the Constitution places limits on the central government. So logically, it stands to reason that further limits on the government's power would upgrade the middle class to a wealthy class. As of this moment, the US Constitution has a major flaw: it still allows the government to intervene in economics. So lets put a stop to it. As President, I will push for a new amendment, one that provides a clearly defined separation of economics and state. Under such a system, there'd be no corporate sponsorship, no government-protected frauds (Enron) or government protected crimes (Firestone Tires). Yes, the government would be able to intervene if the company was doing something criminal, and that's where the debate really lies. What exactly is criminal?

History has shown that limiting the power of government increases the power of the general populace and as a result, increases the standard of living. We can all be millionaires (or at least the vast majority of us, I'm not saying there'd be no poor or homeless at all). To tie this back into the main issue, the vast majority of us can have health care or afford treatment if most of us are millionaires.

People ask me, "Wouldn't the poor be hurt in a system like this?" The answer is yes, but in a free system, what's stopping you from helping them yourself? My point is, nobody should be forced to give money to the poor. In fact, nobody should be forced to do anything against their will at all unless they're infringing on someone else's rights. That's why we have freedom of religion. Because no one should force you to worship any particular god. But there are many avenues out there for helping the poor, like food drives and charitable foundations. If that doesn't satisfy you, then start up your own nonprofit organization. Take donations. Buy pharmaceutical supplies and give them to the poor. Pay for them to have doctor visits. It's a free country.

Abortion

I hate this "fer it or agin it" crap. It has to be either/or, as though there are no other choices. I'll say it right here. I don't like abortion. I would never advise anyone to have an abortion unless it was a case of rape or incest or some other extreme circumstance. But I don't think it should be outlawed. Why? Because making it illegal won't make it go away. Women will still do it, but in unclean, back-alley coat-hanger clinics performed by doctors with questionable credentials. By supposedly helping life, lives will be put in harm's way. Because the issue for the government isn't life. It's control. As George Carlin once said, "the government wants live babies so they can have dead soldiers."

Just to go a little bit further, here's an example: prohibition. Although alcohol consumption did decrease in the 1920s, crime and the murder rate went up. So the Taoists really aren't crazy when they say that more law creates more chaos. Seriously, when more rules are established, more rules are broken.

Gay marriage

Wouldn't it be more of a sin to allow gays to continue having sex out of wedlock? But then, we're not supposed to pass laws based on religious grounds, are we? If you think the laws of God are above the laws of man, then take consolation in the fact that they (gays) are going to hell and you're not. They have all eternity to be punished (according to your religion), why can't they have 80 or so years of happiness here on earth? But then, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." If you agree to that, then wouldn't you agree that denying gays the right to marry is denying them they're "unalienable Rights" (Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness) given to them by their "Creator" and as such, both unamerican as well as against the will of God? I can't help but continue to quote Jefferson: "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it[.]" Interesting.

And seriously, can you find a nonreligious reason why gay marriage should be outlawed? "Protecting families?" If families are so damn important, then why are most of them broken? And if I'm not mistaken, Jesus himself said that divorce is a form of adultery, but no one's trying to ban divorce based on religious grounds, are they? "This country wouldn't be going to the dogs if there weren't so many broken families," they say. But according to Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," Britain has about as high a divorce rate as we do and their crime rate is way lower (and still high compared to other European countries). I've been saying all throughout this that the government should be weaker, so why should they have the power to tell us who we can marry? This isn't about the "homosexual agenda" (whatever that is), this is about civil liberties. The government is already intruding into our lives far too much. When will it stop? If they go after the gays, what's gonna happen when they finally come after you? (And they will. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.)

Death penalty

I support it in extreme circumstances, i.e., serial killers, terrorists, etc.

The overcrowded prison system

We definitely need to go to greater lengths to truly rehabilitate criminals, but we also need to work to prevent crime in the first place. What creates crime? Poverty. How can we reduce poverty? See above.

Birth control

Again, making something illegal won't eliminate the problem. People will always have sex. That's what we do. We may as well have safe sex, like condoms, birth control, the morning-after pill. And contrary to popular belief the morning-after pill is not the same as the abortion pill. It performs the same function as regular contraceptive.

Education

Honestly, this is up to state governments to decide. I don't understand why it's always such a hot topic during presidential races.

The closing statement

That's all for now. There are plenty of other issues, but I just wanted to highlight a few of the important ones. To summarize my platform, America is a free country. We need to work to keep it that way.