Well, allow me to describe -- in brief -- my political maturing. I became interested in politics on September 11th, 2001. 9/11 was such a dramatic event, it really sparked great curiosity within me to learn more about the world (i.e. why this happened; who did it; what do "they" believe; what do "we" believe; etc.) My family fostered that curiosity in a conservative context. My Grandfather and Uncle -- who are the political ones of the family -- are very conservative and guided my thinking towards conservatism. It wasn't long before I became a flag waving, gun-touting, kill-em-all neoconservative. I joined a few online forums, surrounded myself with other Republicans, and spent my free time bashing leftists as country-hating simpletons. Once I entered college, I met who is now one of my best friends. He was (and continues to be) a very intelligent and cogent person. I immediately admired his clarity of speech, his thoughtful logic, and unemotional reasoning. He was a libertarian. We would spend hours debating and conversing over every issue you could think of and those long conversations took their toll on my conservative psyche. It first began with gay rights (he was gay and that was "his issue"). The logic of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and its universality began to question other premises I had with other subjects like Social Security, and foreign policy. Little did I know but I was dabbling in a philosophical structure and had no idea. College really brought out the intellectual in me. I developed a thirst for political theory that seemed to never be quenched. But one day, while I was looking for some libertarian quotes, I ran across the following Ayn Rand quote: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." I absolutely loved it. I had never heard of Ayn Rand before, but that single quote sparked my interest. I browsed the web to find a plethora of information about Rand and Objectivism. It seemed to resonate with me in a way that no other system did. Over the next four years, Rand's and other Objectivists' works are all I read. I first read Anthem, then Peikoff's OPAR, then tackled Atlas Shrugged in the summer of 2008. Since then I've been collecting other works like Dr. Tara Smith's books on values and rights, and Rand's other non-fiction. Now, as Ninth Doctor correctly noted, I did not change my political views -- I found justification for them. See, as much as I enjoyed libertarianism, it was very pragmatic and experience-based. Arguments against government growth were nestled in the notion that such growth in the past has never quite worked and in some instances hurt more than helped. While I agreed with this, it didn't seem like an iron-clad argument to me. Those nagging "why" question always arose; why should the government not provide welfare?; why should the government only be restricted to the constitution? It was Objectivism that answered all my questions in a clear, logical way. In 2001, I was a simplistic neoconservative Republican. Seven years later, I would fully embrace the term Objectivist. But, as I noted before, it has been a lonely trip. Even my gay friend remains a libertarian with serious objections to Objectivism. I'll tell you one final story: One day, my father, after hearing me make some comment in response to something we heard on talk radio, asked me, "Why don't you want to do what Rush Limbaugh does? You know, like a radio talk show." And I responded, "You've probably seen on reality TV those people who are drug and alcohol-addicted welfare moochers with three kids of three fathers which they don't even parent properly. And you know how you have no sympathy for them when they complain that they never have time to party or enough money to pay the rent because they spent it all on booze, drugs, and something other than their children? Well, that's how I feel about America in general -- for years it has been chugging along the wrong path and my radio show would be the most boring because my answers would all be the same."