Trump 2016 (cause fuck the political elites)

I’ve admittedly gone back and forth in the past year on Donald Trump. I started out as staunchly anti-Trump and would often get into heated twitter debates with Trumpites. However in the past several months (particularly after Rand Paul left the Republican race), I’ve slowly grown fond of Trump especially in face of such irrational hatred from the so called “tolerant” left-wing. They call him fascist constantly and compare him to Hitler even though they’re actually the ones are being fascist by attacking and harassing Trump supporters at rallies, most recently being in San Jose where a woman got egg thrown in her face by Bernie supporters waving Mexican flags around.

My biggest reason for supporting Trump is his immigration policy which would place in odd position with some of my fellow libertarians who are unwisely pro-open borders. I use to like Gary Johnson quite a lot and appreciate the work he did as New Mexico Governor as well as a business man. But his tactic of calling Trump racist makes him indistinguishable from left-wing Bernie supporters. I’ve also major issues with him ranging from his endorsement of wedding cake fascism to choosing very unlibertarian Bill Weld as his VP who previously endorsed left-leaning John Kasich for President who passed Medicaid expansion in Ohio which is only gonna bankrupt the state in the long run.

Then there’s his record as Governor of Massachusetts. When he first ran back in 1990, he promised to slash spending and the bureaucracy and he only ended up increasing it dramatically. Now his governorship wasn’t all that bad as back then, Massachusetts was known as “Taxachusetts”. Today it’s pretty middle of the road on business friendliness and economic freedom which is thanks to Bill Weld in good part. But the fact he failed to actually cut the bureaucracy and is now the VP for the Libertarian Party puts it in great danger of placing it back into irrelevance. And I’m saying this as someone who recently re-registered as a Libertarian right after Oklahoma officially recognized the party once again (our state is incredibly notorious for having the toughest election ballot laws in the country making third party recognition near impossible).

Back to Donald Trump, it’s not just the left but some on the #NeverTrump right who’ve called him Hitler with failed Republican nominee for California Governor Meg Whitman saying this most recently. This has become tiring and cliched by this point. Also I’ll say that those call Trump “Hitler”, you might wanna look up what Hitler himself said about Islam.

So to the political establishment, FUCK YOU BIG TIME. TRUMP 2016.

Why I think we as libertarians and individualists should say free markets instead of ‘capitalism’

According to recent polls taken, millennials reject capitalism and embrace socialism. Now while that may look as though we individualists have lost millennials (I myself am one), below the surface is a different story. They reject capitalism in name, but socialism in practice as well. It’s not surprising that young people view word socialism in a positive manner and capitalism in a negative one as they’ve both been misappropriated. The word ‘capitalist’ has been used to describe the US economy over the past 50 or so years when in fact it hasn’t been truly capitalist for decades with it gradually being merged into a corporatist, semi-fascist nightmare of high taxation, ridiculous red tape and regulations and handouts and laws favoring big corporations over smaller and startup businesses.

Socialism (or ‘Democratic Socialism’) by contrast has been used to describe the Scandinavia countries which have had generous welfare states that leftists and socialists have claimed to have work. Except that they haven’t and these countries have in fact scaled back their welfare states. In fact, the Prime Minister of Denmark blasted Bernie Sanders for describing the country as ‘socialist’. The reason why these countries are as well off as they are has nothing to do with the hybrid socialism they embraced in the late 60s to early 70s, but rather the laissez faire free market capitalism they had for about a century. In the 1950s, Sweden was among the wealthiest countries in the world.

Their government was incredibly small and almost never intervened in economic matters. In fact, during the start of the Great Depression while Hoover and FDR were making things worse in the US with passing higher taxation, higher tariffs and new welfare programs, Sweden the Nordic countries did nothing and they recovered within several years. In the Great Britain under Neville Chamberlain (who all he’s remembered for is “Peace in our time”) and a conservative government cut spending dramatically and they recovered within a few years. The US by contrast took over a decade to truly get out of the Depression under FDR.

The word capitalism has been misappropriated so many times now that young people think it’s responsible for many economic downturns due to too little government regulation when in fact there was too much government involved with handouts to corporations and the forcing of banks to give out loans to people who couldn’t ever pay them back which led to the ’07-’08 financial crisis (which has its roots in the Clinton years with the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan and was tolerated during the Bush years). And now we’re on the verge of an even bigger crisis than the one at the end of the Bush presidency thanks to Obama policies and the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates at or near 0% first under Bernanke and now more so with Janet Yellen.

The term free markets isn’t actually used as often and therefore doesn’t get so bad a rap from people who aren’t so fluent in economics. In free markets, there’s no crony capitalism or corporate handouts (that includes green energy subsidies). There’s no government involvement in daily economic matters. There’s even no Federal Reserve as currency is subject to the free market just like anything else. And while it isn’t perfect, it’s one of the best things to have come out of humanity. Socialism by contrast is among the worst (as demonstrated with the total collapse of Venezuela). The word capitalism may well be lost so free markets may well be the way to go.

Why I’m not #NeverTrump or #NeverNeverTrump

Over the course of the year since Donald Trump announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination in June of last year, my feels for him have been as fluid as water. I was initially vehemently anti-Trump due to his well known past of donating to Democrat leftist politicians from the likes of Chuck Schumer, Anthony Weiner, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama etc. And some of his economic policies I wasn’t too happy about (and I’m still not sure honestly). Though over the course of 11 months with the radical anti-liberty Left obsessively attacking Trump anything from his supposed misogyny, racism, xenophobia etc, I’ve increasingly become more receptive to him especially over his immigration stances which is one of two things I 100% agree with on (the other being the dangers of Islam as a religion).

For a time I was an enthusiastic supporter of Rand Paul well over a year before he announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination and I continue to support him for a 2nd term in the Senate. While I was disappointed he withdrew from the race several months ago, I wasn’t surprised as he wasn’t polling all that well in the final month or two of his campaign. I think the primary reason why his campaign didn’t work out like it would’ve been preferred was Trump’s being in the race which drew a lot of voters I think would’ve otherwise supported Rand.

In fact, there’s a good number of libertarians (obviously not those at Reason.com since they love open borders) who are now supporting Trump including notable individuals like former Ron Paul staffer Lew Rockwell and Austrian economist Walter Block who’s actually formed the organization Libertarians for Trump under the reasoning that he’s the most libertarian or the least unlibertarian of the GOP candidates particularly on the matter of foreign policy. A lot of former Rand Paul supporters have also gone over to Trump as well.

Though things get even stranger when you hear neocons like Republican Senator Tom Cotton (who’s very much a Cheneyite) and former UN ambassador John Bolton praise the Donald for his foreign policy comments. Yet I can certainly say his foreign policy is far more preferable than what we’ve gotten under four consecutive terms under Bush and Obama which is perpetual war and debt, and batshit crazy interventions like Iraq and Libya (Hillary Clinton of which has been waist deep in as well both as Senator and Secretary of State).

There’s things I legitimately disagree with Trump on such as government surveillance, eminent domain and the apple encryption relating to the San Bernardino terror attack. I’m keeping my options open about voting LP if Austin Peterson wins the party’s nomination next week, but I’m not against ultimately voting for Trump if I feel I must. Ultimately three things may make four years of Trump in the White House worth it;

1. The eradication of the Clintons and Hillary’s prosecution over her criminal neglect of thousands of classified emails
2. The Media Industrial Complex utterly and totally destroyed (or at least downsized in its influence)
3. Seeing a bunch of regressive progressive left SJWs cry and bitch like a bunch of little children on election night if Trump wins.

Right now, I don’t know what will happen in the scenario Trump wins the Presidency. Though I know full well what will happen with the Clintons back in the White House. Just my thoughts anyway.

Why should there be a 435 seat cap in the House of Representatives?

This is something I never really thought about until I recently watched Tom Woods speaking at the Mises Institute in which he was making the case for secession and decentralization. He also talked about the structure of the House of Representatives which is caped at 435 members regardless the population changes. This got my thought process going. Why is it the House of Representatives needs to be capped at 435 members? As of 2014, average pop. per congressional House district is 713,000. Under that model, cities like LA or NYC have lots of representatives with the size of the district being very small.

To contrast that, a state like Kansas where it’s 1st congressional House district (represented by Tim Huelskamp) covers at least two-thirds of the entire state. Under this setup, entire rural communities can be ignored in favor of the urban areas. Tom Woods said in the video if this system were applied in the 1790s, then there’d be total of 4 members of the House. In reverse, under the old system there’d be over 10,000 members of the House of Representatives with each district made up of roughly 32,000 people.

Now a lot of people would probably be hesitant to endorse a 10,000 member body so I’ll be modest and say maybe 80,000 people per district. That’d be 4,000 members in total. Point is that there should at least some consideration for reform in how House congressional districts are shaped. Because under this current where there’s on average of 713,000, some people particularly in rural areas can be left behind and ignored by their Representative. If the average pop. per district were let’s say 55,000, then here in Oklahoma my town of Bartlesville and the surrounding areas of Dewey and Copan would be eligible for their own Representative in Congress. Whereas now we’re currently part of the 1st district that includes Tulsa.

Not saying the House has to be made up of 10,000 Reps, rather membership doesn’t have to be limited to 435 members. Something like 1,000 would be better and represent areas that would otherwise be ignored by politicians. Maybe more liberty lovers could be elected a bigger difference could be made in restraining spending and the size, scope of govt. Just saying

What do you think? Anything I need to improve upon? Let me know in the comments section below. Have a great day and God bless!

Crosspost from Liberty.me.

The Top Ten Goals for the next President (and Congress)

As this president continually implodes and our liberties shrink and shrink and shrink along with the economy in favor of the state’s increasing size, the next president whoever is it (preferably Rand Paul) has a lot on the plate in terms of reigning in govt spending, growth, taxes, civil liberties violations, overseas interventions etc. Here’s my top ten goals for what the president must do.

1. Repeal Obamacare and revitalize free market healthcare

Wherever socialized medicine has been tried whether it’s the UK or Canada, it has been disaster and Obamacare is turning out that way. It must be repealed and make way for genuine healthcare reforms such as insurance across state lines, tort reform etc in order for the free market to be viable in the healthcare sector again which really hasn’t been for at least 5 decades. A real free market in healthcare (for as much as the left will pout otherwise) will push costs down and quality of care will go up. Places such as the Surgery Center in my own Oklahoma are thriving outside the govt monopolized healthcare system.

2. Repeal Dodd-Frank

The love child of former Sen. Chris Dodd of CT and former Rep. Barney Frank of MA, while it makes sense on the surface, once you dig in it’s total blabber. It intends to stop the kind of risky behavior that the govt has been threatening banks and loaners to do for the past decade thanks to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Must be repealed and then govt must completely withdraw from the financial sector.

3. Eliminate the Federal Reserve

As a starting point, Sen. Rand Paul has been pushing to audit it though any bill of such has been blocked by Dipshit Harry when he was in charge (despite that every bill passing the House did so with broad support from both parties; then this). Though now that the GOP has control it seems more than likely to pass the Senate chamber at last and there’s similar legislation in the House introduced by Thomas Massie of KY. But ultimately the goal should be eliminating the Fed outright. Since its inception, it’s been nothing but disaster after disaster. Let there be a competition of currencies as there once was.

4. A Seriously Reformed Foreign Policy Direction

The past two presidents have been intervening in one foreign conflict after another. From the Iraq War, to the Libyan war (without congressional approval and made Benghazi possible), to (almost) going into Syria without congressional approval. The Iraq War made the rise of barbaric ISIS possible which admittedly I’m unenthusiastically in favor of bombing the hell out of them while letting the Iraqi and Kurdish forces take care of them on the ground. One of the things I’m most disgusted by this president is his snubbing of the only true ally in the Middle East Israel. Admittedly this is a subject that’s of hot debate in libertarian circles so I’ll write a whole column on that another time. Another matter is Cuba where I’m split on Obama’s ending of the embargo. I am fully in favor of lifting it, though the way Obama is going about it without any serious demands for reform has me with distaste. Next president’s job is to go for a true reform route with Cuba.

5. Eliminate the FAILED Drug War

The ideal outcome of the drug war was that drug use would go down. But the complete opposite happened as always does when you ban something. Drug use and drug trafficking has gone up. In states like CO which have legalized recreational marijuana, crime has since gone down along with drug use. Though the DEA is interested still interested intervening with states that want to allow medical marijuana and more so under this administration than the last despite Obama’s promise deescalate the drug war. Thankfully the House last year passed a bill for the first time that would prohibit the Justice Department and the DEA from interfering with states wanting allow medical or recreational marijuana with 49 Republicans voting with a vast majority of Democrats. Rand Paul too has been spouting that dialogue in the Senate and along with Cory Booker has introduced legislation that would dramatically reform mandatory minimums which is an essential element to the drug war. The next president should take the opportunity to eliminate the drug war outright and the DEA.

6. Eliminate the Department of Education

Seriously, why do we have a federal education department? What good has it done? All it’s done is shit. Since its inception in the late 70s, scores among students nationwide have remained flat despite more and more spending. And then was NCLB and Common Core which have convoluted matters further. Eliminate any federal law having to do with education. Leave it to the states!

7. Eliminate the EPA

Unlike other useless departments, the EPA did come into existence for a legitimate reason. When it did, pollution was horrible. Rivers constantly caught on fire and sewage wasn’t properly handled. Though since everything has improved. No major river has caught fire for over 45 years now and the water from your faucet drinkable in most parts of the country. In a sane world, EPA would’ve stuck a fork in it and declared its job done. But bureaucracies once they come into existence never go away or stop what they’re doing. And like almost everything in this administration it’s only gotten worse. EPA has actually tried to force families off their properties because they have what looks like a wetland. Your job has been way past done. Time for you to go.

8. Eliminate the NSA (or at least the spy data collecting program)

The intelligence community has actually admitted that they don’t need data collection to prevent terrorist attacks. So why’s there need of it? Govt bureaucrats gotta have something to do I guess. Why not spy on hundreds of millions of people? One of the big promises of ’07-08 Obama was to reign in the NSA’s spying program and was quite prolific in his criticisms of George W. Bush. But to the contrary it’s gotten WORSE. The spy program is on steroids compared to the Bush years. And we only know now thanks to Edward Snowden. Time to eliminate the whole NSA department (or at least the spy program).

9. Repeal the Patriot Act

Like the NSA, it’s only a mass violation of our 4th amendment protections. Recently it was renewed, though there was a (failed) proposal to reign in the spying program introduced by Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Pat Leahy (D-VT). The most vocal opponents of it were Sens. Marco Rubio and Rand Paul though for starkly different reasons. Rubio said it would “jeopardize” our national security while Paul said it didn’t go far enough wanted the whole act repealed. Next time it comes up for approval, the liberty movement needs to make a serious effort for its permanent end which will probably be under a new president.

10. Eliminate the IRS (along with that repeal of the 16th)

The more scandals coming out of the IRS, the more reason to eliminate this corrupt agency. Admittedly the hardest of the ten goals listed, but it’s too important to pass over. The income tax is essentially legal theft. A way for the govt to use your money for nefarious purposes it desires. The best way to go about this is through constitutional convention. And with that the 17th amendment too (direct election of Senators). If both were repealed then the federal govt would almost overnight go back within the confines of the constitution.

It’s essential that we tackle these challenges to advance liberty and the constitution once again. Electing a president who champions liberty would be a huge start.

What did you think? Is there anything to improve upon? Let me know in the comments below. Have a great day and God bless!

Crosspost from Liberty.me.

Marriage privatization: My case to the traditional right

Why is it that we continue this worthless debate over what marriage should be as defined by the state? Whether gays should be allowed or just straight traditional couples, seems as though most people just except that the state has the last say on marriage. By that logic, shouldn’t they have the last say on political speech? Should you have a govt paper that authorizes your freedom of speech? Should you be required to have license to own property or a business? To own a house?

Most people don’t submit to those types of logic cause they know it’s total foul hardy. Seriously who would agree to a license requirement for free speech aside from tyrannical statists? Under that, it wouldn’t freedom of speech anymore since the state controls who says what. And yet most on the right and the left submit perfectly to a govt paper that says your married which is essentially no different than single-payer govt healthcare. The state officially owns you, your spouse and your bedroom.

As I’m writing this, SCOTUS is bound to take up same-sex marriage cases from KY, OH, MI & TN which the circuit court there upheld their bans. As is, 36 or 37 states recognize same-sex marriages (some AL counties are refusing to grant govt papers to gay couples). Many are predicting the Supreme Court will go full equal protection clause and declare same-sex marriage a constitutional right. But regardless what actually happens, I think it time the traditional right and the gay left should consider an alternative route. Privatizing marriage. Give a legitimate reason why the state has to be involved in everybody’s marriages gay or straight.

The marriage state is among the biggest scams ever pulled off by the govt meant to outlaw interracial marriages between blacks and whites. The concept itself actually goes back to the French Revolution. Initially marriage was mainly done by the church, but socialist revolutionaries decided it was the state’s responsibility and cities started issuing civil licenses. The US eventually adopted that system in the early 20th century as means like I said previously to outlaw interracial marriages. Then ultimately became commonly used to penetrate everybody’s bedrooms.

By this point, the traditional right is fighting a losing battle by the strategy they’re pursuing. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result each time. That’s what traditional conservatives are doing in essence. They make the claim redefining marriage means a radical shift in society. I say it doesn’t matter what happens since marriage has been gang banged and mutilated more times by the state than a Game of Thrones character. It would do the traditional right good to actually reconsider what strategy they go for. Going for a federal marriage amendment won’t be any progress as it has a slightly better chance of passage than resurrecting Michael Jackson.

Some states like my own Oklahoma have already introduced marriage privatization measures, though unfortunately didn’t advance far since its author Mike Turner of Edmund ran for the 5th congressional district and lost and left office last year. But this shouldn’t stop other states from considering similar measures. Marriage privatization has long been flung around in libertarian circles (David Boaz of the Cato Institute wrote a column about that back in the late 90s). Though the traditional right has a tremendous opportunity to jump in the wagon on advancing marriage privatization. Govt intervention of any sort inevitably ends in total disaster and this is no exception. I should also note that govt marriage hasn’t done well in protecting religious liberty such as the bakeries in CO and OR or the florist in WA or the photographer in NM. I ask the traditional right to consider this proposal.

What do you think? Is there anything I should improve upon? Let me know. Have a great day and God bless!

Congress Doesn’t Change Much

As I’m typing looks like Congress is likely to pass another trillion dollar spending package widely supported by both parties that keeps the government open. For as much as I’d rather have the GOP in control as it means Dipshit can’t do anymore damage, doesn’t mean anything changes significantly. The GOP has almost as bad a habit of out of control spending and expanding govt. power as do the Democrats. Just look at the 4 and a half years they were in charge under G.W. Bush. From the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D which was the largest expansion of the welfare state since LBJ’s Great Society (that is until Obamacare came along).

Not to mention the GOP’s strong habit of foreign interventionism in the Iraq War which in the long run has only resulted total chaos in the region and allowed the rise of barbarians known as ISIS. Afghanistan was initially justified since they attacked us first, but we should’ve withdraw all troops after just 3 or 4 years as opposed to 15 or more (depending on what kind of deal this current administration works out with the Afghan government on how many troops to keep there how long). And keep in mind that right after Bush was elected in 2000, the GOP promised a humble foreign policy. Look how that turned out.

Democrats promised similar arrangements after Obama was elected. Now he’s even worse than Bush when it comes to reckless foreign interventions from Libya and (almost) Syria. Also not mention constant bombing with drones in other countries. And even worse on American civil liberties. I suggest keeping very low expectations of a GOP congress as we’ve seen this before, though at least individuals like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash and others will keep things accountable of what happens.

What do you think? Is there any improvements I should make? Make yourself heard in the comments section below. Have a great day!