I need a proof for why any number (I am not worried about 0) to the power of 0 is 1.

This has been asked many times. It has been answered many times too.
And I guess every Math book explains it.

So why will I answer it?
Because I am crazy.

n^0 = 1

3^5 / 3^1
= 3^(5 -1)
= 3^4
= 3*3*3*3
= 81
Yeah?
3^5 = 3*3*3*3*3 = 243
3^1 = 3
243 / 3 = 81
See?

n^5 / n^5
= n^(5 -5)
= n^0
= 1
Why?
n^5 / n^5 = 1
See?

Hm. Is that not a circular argument, subtracting powers?

Did you give me an example/analogy, or is that how the concept is officially proven?

Not officially proven. Not official proof. Just one way to prove n^0 = 1.

There are no official proofs of anything. There are proofs of many things.

Yes, I realize there are no official proofs, that was loose language
by me. What I mean is, your proof uses another concept, that of
subtracting powers, so is there a proof for that that is independent
of this one?

Typically one proves the basic properties of exponents first. 

(x^a)*(x^b) = x^(a+b)
(x^a)/(x^b) = x^(a-b)
(x^a)^b = x^(ab)

And uses that to prove
1=(x^a)/(x^a)=x^(a-a)=x^0
(or some equivalent variation thereof)

Trying to prove something about exponents with out using the basic
properties of exponents is a bit contrived, if not nonsensical to me.

Proof without subtraction of powers

Since...
x^a*x^b=x^(a+b)

x^a*x^0=x^(a+0)=x^a

if x^a*x^0=x^a then, x^0 is a multiplicative identity, and must be equal to 1.

The last answer is pretty good but relies on the addition of powers as
much as the earlier answer relied on the subtraction of powers, so it
shouldn't really help the original philosophical dilema.

The answer is that there is no proof--you have to accept it by
definition. If x^n is defined as "the product of n x's", that only
works if n is a positive integer. Otherwise it's nonsensical: how do
you multiply something a half number of times, or a negative number of
times? You must extend the definition of x^n to include zero,
negative, and fractional exponents by *asserting* (or defining) that
x^0=1, and negative exponents denote reciprocals, and fractional
exponents denote roots. See 
http://campus.northpark.edu/math/PreCalculus/formulas.html.

The other, cleaner way to do it is also by definition, which is to
define e^n (for any n) using the Taylor expansion, where e is the
transcendental number 2.71828172846.... Then you have a definition of
x^n because of the property x^n = e^(n*ln(x)). See
http://www.efunda.com/math/taylor_series/exponential.cfm.

Thank you everyone!