As more and more of a deal is made about Barack Obama's middle name (it's Hussein, by the way), it just serves as a distraction from the real issues of the day.

The name Hussein does not gender much love in this country, and with good reason. To say everyone who carries the name is the same as Saddam Hussein is not fair, but Obama's middle name is the least of my worries about him.

His response to it all, however, does make me wonder what he feels about it. My middle name is Anthony. It happens to be my father's first name. If I were to distance myself from it, or demand no one call me by it, in my mind, it would be an affront to my father. If you don't like a name in this country, you can have it legally changed.

All that aside, however, I don't think Obama has the experience, or the right policies, to lead this country. I think he is mostly style and little substance when it comes to politics and policy. I think setting up one government program after another, and pouring more money into existing, failing programs, will only cause more of what he believes needs to change. More poverty, more companies going overseas, more inequality.

There's only so much regulating and freedom you can give up before you are no longer a democracy. We pushed that envelope for most of the 20th century, and are continuing to do it now. Even our Republican presidents have been doing it since Reagan, and even Reagan had his compromises. Perhaps compromises are necessary, but in many ways a compromise only forestalls the inevitable rather than fixing the problem.

And the problem is there's already more government than we have any real need or desire for. There is no reason to continue to grow and feed the beast. It needs to shrink and attend to just the duties afforded it in the US Constitution.

We would become more of a Nanny state under Obama than we already are. There's plenty of wealth still floating around, and there is plenty of poverty--but the involuntary redistribution of wealth is not the answer.

Obama's foreign policy is naive, to say the least. I don't think we need to go to war with everyone, and that included Iraq and it includes Iran, but to say everything can be resolved diplomatically is so far unrealistic that it begs the question: just what kind of a fantasy world is Obama and those who truly believe him living him. In order to have diplomacy, you have to have an opposing party who is interested in earnestly and honestly entering into an agreement. If they are constantly trying to kill you, or destroy life as you know it, there's not much room for negotiation. So far, over the course of hundreds of years, if not thousands, there has been little movement towards modernization, outside the places of Arabian princes, or democracy, other than platitudes with price tags--like oil and arms.

Post 9/11, we can no longer be naive. We cannot let Jihad win the physical war, or the psychological war. Christianity in America can tolerate other religions, even those which are not Christian based, even if they believe they are the only true religion. People can be respected for their difference of opinion, because we recognize we all are sons and daughters of the same God. Radical Islam does not recognize that. Radical Islam is absolutist and does not hesitate to execute the heathen or the infidel.

I don't agree with warmongering, being the mercenaries or the police to the world, but I do believe we should defend ourselves. I do believe we should help others who want our help. We should promote democracy, liberty and freedom. We don't do that by surrendering, or believing we are evil because we don't subscribe to a philosophy which oppresses everyone, particularly women, and shows as about as much regard for human life as they do animals.

No, we shouldn't hate all Muslims. We should oppose that would kill us without a second thought. We should defend ourselves against all forms of tyranny. We should deny anything resembling it to permeate our government, our society, or our common creed.

Having Hussein as a middle name shouldn't disqualify you. There shouldn't be prejudice. Looking at the policies beyond the charm, though, Obama shouldn't be president based on any of it.

A few days ago, Matt Lewis blogged about a tough decision involving ceding property rights to build a border fence.

In some instances, he said, that might mean giving up acres and acres of land.

Based on the response he received in comments, the overwhelming majority felt that property rights in this particular case should not matter. The security of the border and thus this nation trumped personal property rights.

In fact, many we're indignant that it should be considered otherwise. To the point where I wondered whether or not any rational consideration was given to just what ideals we're espousing here--liberal or conservative.

Apparently, it's okay for the government to take over property when it comes to border protection. Apparently, not only would it be selfish to not want land to be divided up by a fence, it would be unpatriotic and bordering on treason.

Sorry, but I can't see that way.

I don't live in a border state now, but I have lived in one. Illegal immigration has been an ongoing issue all throughout the United States. And if it weren't for 9/11 and how easily the hijackers were able to come into this country, the current crisis would not be as big an issue as it is. Tied into national security, it has been blown out of proportion.

Just as many things have. Security measures put in place in this country do more to infringe on the personal freedom of her citizens than truly protect us from threats. There's just too many ways to come in and out of this country. A free enterprise system and a global economy make it tougher to run inspections and put security measures in place when everything is dependent on the shipments arriving and the transactions taking place.

We head towards isolationism when we build a wall. If we do one on our southern border, it won't be long until we're building one on our norther border, too. And then we'll still have airports and international shipping yards to reinforce, along with train stations and trucking lines. It's already more restrictive to fly in, out and around this country than it was 10 years ago, and will continue to get more and more restrictive, all in the name of security.

Illegal immigration can be solved by reducing or eliminating the incentives that bring people here: work and free health care. That's not going to take place by building a border fence, because people will find other ways to get here.

If employers will actually enforce the current laws regarding documented labor, most if not all of those who are illegally here will move away, eventually back to their own country.

Whole industries will certainly be affected--construction, hospitality, restaurant, landscaping and agricultural, to name the big ones. Personally, I don't think there's a dearth of American workers for those industries. Where I live, there are plenty of teenagers complaining about never having enough to do. There's also plenty of people on welfare that need to transition into some kind of work experience so they can find a better paying job.

Low paying, low skilled labor can still be found in this country without hiring undocumented workers. There's also legal immigration to tap into.

The point isn't to blame our problems on our neighbors to the south, who by and large come here because we offer so many enticements. They want to work, and are willing to work hard for it. They are willing to make sacrifices. In return, those who do find work are rewarded with higher wages than they would back home, while their wives can tap into health care for pregnancies, so they can birth American citizens.

Legal immigration is not the same as illegal immigration. The undocumented do not have the same protections under the law that citizens or legal residents have. Yes, human rights still apply. The rights granted through the United States Constitution, however, do not. That is the difference between a nation of laws, and one without.

In the meantime, no one should be forced to have their property divided or taken away, not even in the name of border security. And especially by those who won't have to suffer the consequences. If someone wants to do so, for love of country or what have you, so be it. We should never be made to do anything against our will. And we should not take for granted what is not ours to grant in the first place.

When we make sacrifice compulsory, not willingly given, when we impose our definition of patriotism and exclude all others, when we mandate one good thing in violation of another, not only do we punish would be allies, people we'll need for another fight, and then another, we weaken the very sovereignty we're hellbent to protect, and we shred our Constitution just a little bit more.

Surely as Americans we can be more forward thinking and innovative than confiscating private property to build a fence. A fence that can be circumvented, scaled, dug under or maybe even knocked down. Surely we can provide a more rational argument for this subject than calling each other names, or worse, believing those who don't think like we do are traitors because they're not willing to give up even an inch of their property or livelihood for our crusade.

These are the United States of America. We are great together because we believe in freedom, even for those who think opposite of what we do. When we give those up, we become no better than those who would take them away from us. We can live in self-made cages, protected, but never free, or we can stand up for ourselves, our country, and all the founding fathers intended this nation to be, and we can live and die free.

Personally, I prefer the latter, because the enemy doesn't win if I remain free. The enemy wins when I no longer am free, either by force or by surrender. I will not give away my freedom, and it will not be taken from me without a fight.