You might be a Libertarian, if…

Libertarianism is not an exclusive club.  In fact, Libertarians are perhaps the most politically-welcoming group of people left in the United States of America.  The Libertarian philosophy is about giving people the freedom to choose, without exception.  Libertarians do not pick and choose when our freedoms apply.  How much more welcoming can you get?

Even though you may not call yourself a Libertarian, you probably hold very Libertarian beliefs on an increasing number of today’s issues.  As Republicans and Democrats continue their strangle-hold over Washington D.C., you might even find that your Libertarian leanings are strengthening.  As more of our liberties get removed by the long arm of unaccountable politicians, the stronger we need to fight to get them back, and admitting how Libertarian you truly are is a good first step.

How do you know if your belief system has changed enough over the years that you might, just might, be a real flesh-and-blood Libertarian?

  • If you believe that both Republicans and Democrats are equally complicit in the corruption of American government, you might be a Libertarian.
  • If you understand that people deserve economic and social freedom at the same time, you might be a Libertarian.
  • If you reject the idea that government knows best, you might be a Libertarian.
  • If you believe that the rightful owner of a taxpayer’s hard-earned money is the person who earned it, you might be a Libertarian.
  • If you believe any two consenting adults deserve to be treated equally under the law, you might be a Libertarian.
  • If you believe the War on Drugs has not only enhanced the availability of extremely dangerous drugs, but has also resulted in expensive and wasteful incarcerations of non-violent offenders of “crime”, you might be a Libertarian.
  • If you believe that our military has been exploited and used by our own government in questionable wars and “humanitarian” missions, you might be a Libertarian.
  • If you have ever cursed and thrown objects against the wall trying to figure out your taxes, you might be a Libertarian.
  • If you believe that April 15th (tax day) needs to be recognized as a day of mourning, you might be a Libertarian.

If you believe in true freedom and liberty for every man, woman and child in America, you are a Libertarian.

A wolf in sheep’s clothing… Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky)

After observing several interviews with Senator Rand Paul, it has become apparent to me that he is willing to go as far as using his father’s name, as well as the principles that his father believed as a member of the Libertarian Party, to gain political power. As you may know, Mr. Paul is running under the title of Libertarian Republican.

While this may sound like an oxymoron to those who know bullshit when they see it, this can actually be the demise of the Libertarian party before it even has a chance to become what it stands for; “… to implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles by: functioning as a libertarian political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties or movements…” (LP News, “The Purpose of the Libertarian Party”).

The Libertarian Party needs to stand up and speak out against Mr. Paul and let him know that it is not alright to drag the Libertarian name through the dirt in order to gain votes.

According to a September-October 2013 survey conducted by the Public Research Institute, 22 percent of Americans now lean Libertarian. This may be because they don’t agree with the socially conservative right or with the fiscally liberal left. Either way, the numbers show more and more voters lean Libertarian.

The problem?  Mr. Paul’s insistence that he embraces the Libertarian cause, to the contrary of many of his spoken words and personal beliefs, taints the Libertarian party’s image and may negatively impact true Libertarians across the electoral circuit.

Mr. Paul has said that he is a Republican “with a twist”. “… but truthfully Mr. Paul, you are going to have to do something different than the cookie cutter Republican.

“I am offering something different and the Libertarian twist to that I think has appealed to both ethnic minorities as well as the youth and independents. It’s really a message that gets beyond just our hardcore Republican but it’s not antithetical to what a hardcore Republican stands for. It is enough of a twist that i think it has a chance to resonate in areas where we have not done very well.(2013 interview on “Uncommon Knowledge”).”

In the same interview, he is quoted as saying, “I am 100% pro-life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.” To explain this in the interview, he uses a few incidences by sick human beings who took the life of actual flesh and bone newborns. Upon further inspection of the numbers, as laid out by the Guttmacher Institute (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html), one percent of all abortions are performed at 21 weeks or later. Only 11% of all abortion clinics even offer the service at 24 weeks. As of 2006, 88% of all abortions occurred in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

He opposed same sex marriage stating, “I believe in the historical definition of marriage. That being said…I’m not for limiting contracts between adults.” He basically bats this question away by saying it should be up to the state to decide. Should it not be up to the individual to decide whether or not they would like to be married? Shouldn’t the government just get out of marriage all together? Does a Libertarian not believe the proper role of Government is to protect against assault, theft, and foreign attacks?

If Mr. Paul continues to exploit what the Libertarian name has to offer, we need to hold him accountable and call him out, when necessary, so he may not ruin it for true Libertarian candidates. Further, it would demonstrate to all Libertarian candidates that if they choose to run under the Libertarian Party platform – that platform means something – and all candidates will be put under a microscope because we are sick of being lied to and value our liberty.

Wealth redistribution: why not give people jobs instead?

This nation has a chronic problem of entitlement – unemployment checks, welfare, SNAP, social security, medicaid/medicare, and the list goes on. The central core of this problem ultimately comes down to whether our nation simply gives people resources or makes them earn it.

So here’s my proposal: let’s do both. Give the assistance if people work jobs ascribed to them.

Obviously, there’s a catch to this as I’m a libertarian and you’re reading this on a reason-based, logic-driven news site.  I firmly believe that people will reject the idea of working if the government’s so-called “safety net” props up underachievement.

Instead of issuing monthly government checks, let’s start rebuilding our infrastructure of this nation by putting more teachers in schools, more local firefighters and police, and modernize hospitals.  Start rebuilding our nation by helping people find JOBS at various private companies – and pay them to do their jobs.

Give people jobs, not money.  Autonomy is critical to a productive workforce.  The feeling of empowerment and motivation are serious factors in positive economic production.  Government checks provide nothing but a feeling of entitlement and worthlessness.

Why wouldn’t anyone agree to this? If you can think of a reason then….why are you giving that same money to people right now?

Republicans: fight for a $15 minimum wage

Republicans, listen up, it’s time you start fighting fire with fire and stop letting this president run rampant with his rhetoric. It’s time you start acting like a party that had principles and stop selling out your most basic principles of limited government over issues like two kissing men in wedlock, religion and expensive never-ending wars.  The democrats have gained a strangle-hold control over American politics.

And the first step is by proposing a federal minimum wage of $15 an hour. If they want it, let ‘em have it!

Now, at first glance you may recoil from this idea, but hear me out. If President Obama and the democrat party crow so vehemently about how good a $10.10 minimum wage is, you should counter with ‘yes, but we need it to be at $15 an hour.’ If you call Obama’s bluff about the minimum wage not being a detriment to the nation’s economy and a driver of unemployment, there’s no reason he shouldn’t agree to a $15 minimum wage.  How about $20?

The democrats can only play it two ways: 1) reject it and say that $15 is too much and will cause too much unemployment, thereby conceding the point that minimum wage is an overall net negative, or 2) they accept the $15 an hour wage, touting it as a ‘major achievement’ and when we do see unemployment and prices increase for the lower-middle class, attack with “see what happens when you let government meddle in the affairs of the economy?”  Then, cut the minimum wage and let the free market determine what people are willing to work for.  Business that pay too little quickly go bankrupt.  Businesses that pay well will get the best our economy has to offer.  That is economics!

Some people are hard learners, but it’s a win/win for liberty because it allows people, through liberty and the democratic system, to fail.  When people begin losing jobs or benefits, and business institute hiring freezes to compensate for the increase in costs, they will only have themselves and who they voted for to blame.  Of course, some will attempt to eschew responsibility.  Remember, people vote with their pocketbooks as much as with their minds.  Money talks.  It also votes.

We need to stop fighting the lazy and entitled mentality of this nation and let them wallow in their misery at the outcome. Some will get hurt along the way and that will be painful to any human being with a conscience, but it isn’t liberty’s doing. It is those who wish to steal liberty and keep people poor and utterly enslaved to the government. The blood will be on their hands, not yours.

So, will you join with me and start advocating for a $15 minimum wage to end the minimum wage once and for all?

Maryland mall shooter was a pothead

The “sweet” young man who killed two people, and then himself, in a Maryland shopping mall on January 25 was a pothead.

But the police revelation that the killer mentions “using marijuana” in a diary has been played down by the media, which in recent months have seemed almost ecstatic about the legalization of the drug in Colorado. President Obama, a one-time heavy user, recently called the drug safer than alcohol.

The link between marijuana and mental illness, documented in the medical literature, is not a popular subject for journalists who themselves may use pot and be reluctant to tell the truth about high potency marijuana and its powerful, psychoactive component.

Just after the murders, the killer, Darion Aguilar, was described in a Washington Post story as a “good kid” with no criminal record who was perceived as “harmless.” His mother called him a “gentle, sweet kid.”

But now the story has dramatically changed.

“Howard County police said on Twitter that Darion Aguilar wrote of using marijuana, expressed ‘thoughts of wanting to die’ and even said he was ‘ready to die,’” reported The Washington Post. But the marijuana reference was buried in the fifth paragraph, even though it helps explain why a “harmless” young man would turn into a psychotic monster.

The police Twitter account reported that Aguilar, in his writings, “indicates he thought he needed a mental health professional, but never told his family. He also mentions using marijuana.”

In Maryland, where the mall killings took place, the Marijuana Policy Project is pushing legal dope. State Senate President Thomas V. “Mike” Miller has endorsed legalization of marijuana and even remarked about taking a “toke” for a toothache.

Less than a week after Aguilar brought a shotgun into the shopping mall in Columbia, Maryland, state police arrested another doper, George Hong Sik Chin, as he threatened employees at the Tumi luggage store in Westfield Montgomery Mall in Bethesda, Maryland. “Police searched his truck and found a small amount of marijuana and a pipe, and drug charges were pending,” The Baltimore Sun reported.

Police said he was wearing camouflage, acting disorderly, and threatening to kill employees of the luggage store. Another account said he was “babbling incoherently.”

Nevertheless, the Marijuana Policy Project, which conducts fundraisers at the Playboy Mansion in Los Angeles, posted five billboards surrounding the stadium that hosted the Super Bowl on Sunday, claiming that “marijuana is safer than both alcohol and playing professional football.”

This claim echoes statements made by President Obama, a one-time member of the “Choom Gang” in Hawaii, and a heavy user of marijuana.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), during a January 29 Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing of the Justice Department, questioned Attorney General Eric Holder about Obama’s recent statement to The New Yorker that marijuana isn’t more dangerous than alcohol:

Sessions: …did the President make or conduct any medical or scientific survey before he waltzed into The New Yorker and opined, contrary to the position of attorney generals and presidents universally prior to that? That marijuana is not as I’ve quoted him? Did he study any of this data before he made that statement?

Holder: Well, I don’t know, but I think, as I said…

Sessions: Did he consult with you before he made that statement?

Holder: No, we didn’t talk about that.

Sessions: Well, what about this study from the American Medical Association, October of 2013? ‘Heavy (inaudible) use in adolescents causes persistent impairments in neurocognitive performance and I.Q. And use is associated with increased rates of anxiety, mood and psychotic thought disorders,’ close quote. Or this report from Northwestern University in December—last December. Quote: ‘The study found that marijuana users have abnormal brain structure and poor memory, and that chronic marijuana use may lead to brain changes resembling schizophrenia. The study also reported that the younger the person starts using marijuana, the worst the effect.’ Would you dispute those reports?

Holder: I have not read the reports, but I don’t—if they are—if they are, in fact, from the AMA, I’m sure they are good reports. But that is exactly why one of our eight enforcement priorities is the prevention of marijuana to minors.

Sessions: Well, Lady Gaga said she’s addicted to it, and it is not harmless. She’s been addicted to it. Patrick Kennedy—former Congressman Kennedy—said the President is wrong on this subject. I just think it’s a huge issue. I hope that you will talk with the President—you’re close to him—and begin to push back—pull back from this position that I think is going to be adverse to the health of America.

Liberal commentators laughed at Senator Sessions’ reference to Lady Gaga being addicted to marijuana, but in fact she said she was “smoking up to 15-20 marijuana cigarettes a day,” allegedly to deal with various ailments. She has been a longtime Obama supporter.

Hate Low Wages? Blame Government

Minimum wage. Every year this seems to come up, and every year there’s a never-ending cry from every unskilled, low-wage worker that they need more money because of corporate exploitation. Then come in others who are more well off, who want to buy their guilt using money from other people, to take up the banner and proclaim loudly they are in support of a “living wage” and are, in fact, moral and not exploiting their fellow man.

The only problem: they are the root cause of low wages and people being trapped in unskilled, low-wage jobs. But, how can this be? Isn’t the problem of low wages the companies not paying people what they’re worth? No! The issue is these jobs shouldn’t exist to begin with.

What? Someone against jobs? I can almost hear the cries of people proclaiming “how dare you suggest a job isn’t worth doing!”  The cold, painful fact is that these jobs only exist because companies find them cheaper than automated alternatives right now. Why are they cheaper? Because the government subsidizes the living of the low-wage workers and therefore they can “live” off $7.25 an hour.

Consider this: you pay taxes to the government. The government then takes that money and uses it for the low income in various ways: SNAP, WIC, HUD, MedicAid, local food stamps, and net-income tax credits (getting money from the government without paying any income tax). All these add up to several thousand dollars a year. They get free/reduced cost doctors visits, free/reduced cost food, free/reduced cost housing, and checks in the mail.

Now, what does this have to do with Walmart or Target? Well if someone can be given $21,000 of services just by being alive, then they don’t need $15 an hour to earn a living, effective wage of $35,000 a year – they only need $7.25 or $8 an hour. Walmart and Target profit from the government subsidizing their labor and they get subsidized by the very people who complain how terrible Walmart and Target are!

Liberals, if you hate Walmart and want higher wages – stop voting for entitlements. Walmart, Coca-Cola, Kroger, and more lobby in support of SNAP because it makes their profits go up.

Here, right from the senate.gov itself: http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=0EC45790-9873-4B29-86FC-8671B7451F8A&filingTypeID=69

Or, if you prefer the distilled version, opensecrets.org does a great job summarizing it: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/12/more-than-70-groups-in-play-over-sn.html

So you might finally ask: but, if these programs left, the jobs would vanish as machines would replace people in McDonalds, Walmart, and other places. What about them then? Well, people don’t starve and if given a choice between learning a skill and earning an income or starving in the street – people will do the former. A higher income that gives a better quality of life – we all aren’t tilling fields and picking cotton with our hands anymore, are we? No, we’re becoming doctors, engineers, carpenters, electricians, and more. All of these jobs create more wealth than unskilled labor jobs and raise the standard of living. People are not stupid, they are not incapable, and they are not victims like we’ve been led to believe by those who profit from their misery. People, however, will take the path of least resistance and as a species we have evolved to do the least effort for the most reward – that’s how we became the dominant species on the planet. It’s a successful strategy for survival.

We need to stop using these broad sweeping terms of political ideology and instead actually look at the root underlying causes. I could never blame someone who lives off welfare and food stamps – they’ve accepted a quality of life without having to lift a finger to do it. Same with those on unemployment – they COULD get a lower paying job than before, but they choose not to because a check comes in the mail for not doing anything each month. If it didn’t, I promise you’d see lot more temporarily employed people as they look for a better job.

We resist the temptation to spoil our children by providing them with everything that they want.  Instead, good parents instill work ethic into their children that makes our nation’s youth earn those things.  It is only strange that half the nation suddenly forgets those teachings when it comes to themselves.

State of the Repeating Union

A president, embattled with public opinion against him, stood up at the podium of our nation’s capitol and proceeded to give a speech talking about opportunity, hope, and bringing American’s back to work. He spoke of a wounded veteran, renewable energy being the future, and affordable healthcare for all. He was given many standing ovations as he talked about difficult times, expanding the war on terror, a recovering economy, and a brighter future because of the last 4 years of his hard work.

You may be thinking of President Obama’s speech yesterday – but no, this speech was given by President Bush at the State of the Union in 2007 and it bears a striking resemblance to this year’s State of the Union. Not only is the general theme the same, but both presidents declare recovery is at hand and opportunity is the most important task on their agenda as leader of this country.

On health care:

BUSH: A future of hope and opportunity requires that all our citizens have affordable and available health care. When it comes to health care, government has an obligation to care for the elderly, the disabled and poor children. And we will meet those responsibilities.

OBAMA: One last point on financial security.  For decades, few things exposed hard-working families to economic hardship more than a broken health care system.  …. That’s what health insurance reform is all about – the peace of mind that if misfortune strikes, you don’t have to lose everything.

On renewable energy:

BUSH: When we do that, we will have cut our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East . To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017.

OBAMA:  I’ll cut red tape to help states get those factories built, and this Congress can help by putting people to work building fueling stations that shift more cars and trucks from foreign oil to American natural gas ….  The all-of-the-above energy strategy I announced a few years ago is working, and today, America is closer to energy independence than we’ve been in decades. …. An autoworker fine-tuned some of the best, most fuel-efficient cars in the world, and did his part to help America wean itself off foreign oil.

On unemployment:

BUSH: A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy, and that is what we have. We are now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth, a recovery that has created 7.2 million new jobs so far. Unemployment is low, inflation is low, wages are rising. This economy is on the move.

OBAMA: The lowest unemployment rate in over five years.  A rebounding housing market.  A manufacturing sector that’s adding jobs for the first time since the 1990s.  More oil produced at home than we buy from the rest of the world – the first time that’s happened in nearly twenty years.  Our deficits – cut by more than half.  And for the first time in over a decade, business leaders around the world have declared that China is no longer the world’s number one place to invest; America is.

On opportunity:

BUSH: Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans, and to help them build a future of hope and opportunity. And this is the business before us tonight.

OBAMA: …a rising America where honest work is plentiful and communities are strong; where prosperity is widely shared and opportunity for all lets us go as far as our dreams and toil will take us – none of it is easy.  But if we work together…

The list of examples goes on and on. Even the feel of it is almost identical if you listen to both speeches. Either speech could have been given and it would be appropriate as it seems nothing has changed: the economy is still doing poorly, we’re still at war, we still have companies fleeing over seas, unemployment is still high, the deficit is at the highest it’s ever been, and the list (again) goes on and on. Despite hearing this speech twice now, once in 2007 and once in 2014, I’ve yet to hear any actual information about the current state of the union. No hard facts or charts. No admissions of mistakes we’ve made. Nothing but a lot of chest-beating about America, empty promises, political rhetoric, and a huge amount of self-aggrandizing.

It’s become obvious that these are not, nor have been for a long time, about the actual state the union is in as directed by the constitution (that document we rarely follow anymore). They have just become another time to spew political propaganda at the masses without doing one bit of informing them. It shouldn’t be a surprise to you, dear reader, that both Bush and Obama gave similar speeches – after all, their war on liberty has been nearly identical.

Welcome to the new, old age.