Join Downsize DC in helping Rand Paul block arms sale to Saudi Arabia. Retweet
Working alongside Senator Rand Paul, we want to use our campaign End Aid to dependent dictators to block arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The hardwired message for that campaign reads…
End all foreign aid, especially to dictators
You can copy or edit the following for your personal instructions to Congress…
Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship. It also sponsors Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. The recently released “28-pages” seem to implicate the Saudis in supporting or perhaps even organizing the 9/11 attacks against the U.S. So…
I can think of no good reason why we should be selling them any weapons. But we are about to do just that. The following article suggests that the sale will go through because members of Congress care more about General Dynamics than they do about morality or national security. http://atfp.co/2alXy49
This is your chance to prove that you represent me and not General Dynamics. Please post a statement on your website announcing that you support Senator Paul in blocking the arms sale to Saudi Arabia.
I will be informing other voters of how you respond, or do not respond, to this issue. Election Day is near. Do the right thing.
Ever wonder what a Libertarian World would look like?
Ever wonder how to answer objections to creating a Libertarian World?
Ever wonder if a Libertarian World could truly exist?
Here’s the thing: creating a Libertarian World is hard.
It was a lot easier centuries ago. People used to think back then AND they acted on their thoughts. Now-a-days, that does not happen not so much. For lack of a better term, people are lazy.
I used to recommend that folks stand up to their government. However, most people now are under the impression you cannot fight city hall. So, a tyrannical government rises from being the servant to be being the master.
This, of course, is due to a lack of education on what government really needs to be if it exists. Government does NOT want its people educated enough to realize that the citizens are slaves. They want to hide the sheep by allowing them to think they are the wolf because so long as people live in ignorance, they are living in bliss and will not stop someone else from controlling their life.
As I now see it, the problem is that there are thousands, if not million, of people kowtow under peer pressure instead of thinking on their own.
And over the years, the constant lies and new laws forced upon us from via government and its propaganda makes it harder, and harder, and harder, to live as a free person.
The big boys of business and government collude to hide the Master/Slave relationships they’ve developed over years in our society. They hide it all under the guise of “helping” the people and “making a better society”. When, in fact, they are manipulating and controlling the citizenry through deceit.
Learning to recognize the truth on your own, through trial and error, takes LONG time to see and understand. Most books only give you theory. Most of that theory is twisted with arguments. Simple truths are turned on their head and no longer give you a clear image of right and wrong.
If you are just getting into libertarianism, you will want to learn what it is all about fast. You will not want to wait until you are at some meeting somewhere to begin learning and understanding. Clearly, googling things will not suffice because you don’t know what you are really looking for. You want to see practical application NOW in order to make sense of the arguments that will surely come your way.
If that’s the case, you are going to love this:
I have found ONE book, to date, that makes that happen fast for beginners.
Withur We is written in a story format that walks through the steps of how to handle an overbearing government. Including all the trials and tribulations that occur as well as all the steps necessary to set up a Libertarian World, it answers all the naysayer’s questions.
Withur We is written so well that it makes it easy to understand Libertarianism and the problems presented in today’s society.
Matthew Alexander presents the world of Alistair Ashley 3nn in a fashion comparable to Ayn Rand’s John Galt. His work is destined to become a classic among freedom loving individuals like Atlas Shrugged did among business people.
See how Alistair’s world resembles our own. Learn what he does to solve the problems. Understand the frustrations and witness the resolve. Transform your life by living the same principles and stop living as a “slave”.
Withur We is a great Libertarian story that covers the facets of creating a Libertarian society. It is far greater than the single topic visions of authors like L Neil Smith. In the book Alexander’s prose is carefully constructed to lead the reader from one point to the next. Considering that he is a first time author I was amazed at the fluidity of the story and look forward to reading his next book.
Clearly, Alexander took the thinking man’s approach to his story. He starts with the introduction of a Libertarian (anarcho-capitalist) society with a Rothbardian flavor. The story surely is fairer in its presentation than the dialects of “one way only” Libertarian books that exist thus far. There is no utopian world, not everything works out as being perfect as some Libertarians like to present.
As a Libertarian myself, I might wish to see happier results with the situations presented. However, Alexander is showing a world of reality. Not everything is perfect in the world, not even our current societies. He uses those realities to present his theme of market driven economies along with the meaning and inner workings of the non-aggression principle.
I have been waiting a long time for someone to put together a book of this caliber. The wait is over. Now everyone can enjoy a good story that shows both the advantages of a Libertarian society as well as the problems surrounding us in order to create one. It is not a utopia where everyone sings kumbaya to each other. Here, the story revolves around how people interact with each other during times of peace and violence. The contrast between the two is illustrated perfectly with everyday situations that we can recognize in our own society. The conclusion that peace is the better is not shoved in your face by some zealot but is smoothly presented through what can be viewed as real life experiences.
Matthew Alexander did a masterful job of creating the world in terms that everyone can relate too. Now it is your turn to do your part and learn from his efforts. See how a single individual can make a difference. Witness how Libertarianism in action can bring about a whole new concept on life. Learn how to be free.
Over the years, I’ve been fascinated by the lack of self-respect I have observed in so many people with whom I have dealt. It isn’t necessary for a person to tell me that he lacks self-respect. You can see it in his facial expressions and body language; you can hear it in his words and in the tone of his voice.
People who lack self-respect leave clues. Territorial people, for example — who saturate the workplace — always lack self-respect. There are no exceptions to this.
The same is true of people who defile their bodies (e.g., facial tattoos, piercings adorning inappropriate body parts, and pink/purple hair) in order to attract attention. School bullies — a group I have studied in some detail — are also notorious for a lack of self-respect.
If a person dislikes himself and has a low regard for his own abilities, he’s unlikely to respect others. Such a person tends to harbor resentment — even hatred — for people in whom he identifies his own intolerable flaws.
This is why self-love (not narcissism) is the foundation of a peaceful society. If you don’t love yourself, how can you “love thy neighbor as thyself?” As Joshua Liebman phrased it nearly a century ago, “We must have good domestic relations with ourselves before we can have good foreign relations with others.”
How do you learn to overcome feelings of inadequacy and perhaps even a dislike for yourself? Philosophers and psychologists have wrestled with this question for centuries. In truth, there is no simple answer to it, but I do believe there are certain ingredients that are guaranteed to bolster a person’s self-respect. These include:
Ingredient No. 1: Rid yourself of the delusion that people of great wealth and/or fame are superior to you. I’ve known my share of rich and famous people, and have found them, as a group, to be more insecure than the average person.
Which is why you should never allow yourself to become overly impressed by the fame and fortune of others, and never sell yourself short because of someone else’s success. You are a unique human being, and, without even meeting you, I’m certain that you have a number of unique talents.
How do I know that? Because the universe is not a cookie-cutter factory. No two stars are alike, no two snowflakes are alike, and no two human beings are alike.
Ingredient No. 2: A second factor in possessing self-respect is showing respect for others. You don’t have to respect a person’s behavior, but you are morally obliged to respect his time. Which means, first and foremost, being on time when it comes to phone calls, meetings, and other commitments.
When I was just starting out in business, I was notoriously late for appointments. What I recall most about arriving late was that it made me feel inferior. I felt like I was on the defensive before I even entered the room.
On a couple of occasions, when the person with whom I was scheduled to meet refused to see me because of my tardiness, I felt like a bug. Thankfully, the pain ultimately became great enough to motivate me to become obsessed with being early to meetings, telephone appointments, and all other types of commitments.
Today, I usually show up for appointments fifteen to thirty minutes early — sometimes even an hour early if traffic turns out to be much lighter than I expected. I still miscalculate now and then, but it’s rare. And since I usually have my Kindle with me, being early is never a waste of my time.
Ingredient No. 3: If someone doesn’t return your phone calls, it’s the height of rudeness. But from your viewpoint, the important thing to understand is that he is sending you a message that you are a low priority on his “To Do” list. To maintain self-respect, it’s important to deal only with people who demonstrate — through their actions — that they are anxious to deal with you.
Even worse is when you allow yourself to get maneuvered into a position of having to justify your existence. If you ever find yourself in such a situation, make it clear to the other party that you don’t have time to be interrogated — then make your exit.
As an alternative, skip the explanation and just exit immediately. The most important self-respect builder you will ever find is the word “Next!” When you possess self-respect, you recognize that you don’t need any one person or any one deal. You know that you’re independent when you deal only with whom you want, when you want, and, to the extent possible, on your terms.
Ingredient No. 4: Strive to lead a concentric life. By this I mean making certain that your actions align with what you know, in both your mind and heart, to be right. Pretension and hypocrisy are among the most vile human traits, so be vigilant about always displaying the real you.
This often means renouncing childish behavior and accepting adult responsibilities such as marriage, family, and a profession. It means understanding that your actions affect those around you in myriad ways that are not always obvious on the surface.
It’s much like throwing a pebble into a pond and watching increasingly larger ripples form. Every action you take causes ripples that affect many other lives, including those of people you may never even meet.
Above all, remember that self-respect comes from within. You do not have the right to demand respect from others, but you do possess the right to refuse to deal with people who treat you with disrespect. As a general rule, however, the more you demonstrate that you respect yourself, the more likely others are to respect you.
In a ruling that came as a surprise to very few, US District Judge Rosemary Collyer dismissed the antitrust case filed by Gary Johnson & Jill Stein against the Commission on Presidential Debates. The complaint set forth four counts: Count I & Count II claim violations of Section 1 & 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act; “Count III [asserts] violation[s] of First Amendment rights of free speech and association; and Count IV [claims] intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and relations.”
In dismissing the case Collyer writes, “because Plaintiffs have no standing and because antitrust laws govern commercial markets and not political activity, those claims fail as a matter of well-established law. Plaintiffs also allege violations of the First Amendment, but those claims must be dismissed because the First Amendment guarantees freedom from government infringement and Defendants here are private parties. Finally, Plaintiffs fail to allege facts that could support a claim for intentional interference with prospective business advantage.”
These sentences state several important things, namely that the Commission on Presidential Debates is in fact involved in “political activity.” In reviewing the decision, Tom Knapp writes, “the free advertising they’re giving away to the two major party candidates seems to exceed [legal campaign contribution] limits.” To my knowledge, of the many challenges to the CPD monopoly on Presidential debates involving the two major candidates, no challenge has alleged the in-kind contributions to the campaigns violated contribution limits. And my limited understanding of law is that this point will not be able to be brought up on appeal because it was not brought up originally by the Plaintiffs in the case.
The decision, while being legally correct, also has some flawed reasoning and factual inaccuracies. Richard Winger of Ballot Access News reported on the factually inaccurate information in some of the footnotes. I will instead focus on the flawed logic. Footnote 6 states “When Mr. Johnson and Ms. Stein ran for president in 2012, there were over 240 declared candidates for president, excluding those seeking the nomination of a major party.” The assertion by Judge Collyer is that it would be unwieldy to host a debate with all of those candidates. While there were that many candidates to file a Form 2 with the FEC, only 27 candidates achieved ballot access in at least one state, and only Johnson, Stein, Virgil Goode & Rocky Anderson were on a number of ballots and/or a certified write-in candidate in enough states to theoretically receive a majority of electoral votes. A debate with 6 candidates seems a lot more manageable and in fact not unheard of. The GOP earlier this election cycle hosted multiple debates with 9 or more candidates.
Collyer also had some sound logic in her decision writing, “this Court could not require Defendants to include Plaintiffs in the debates because such an order would violate the First Amendment prohibition on forced speech and forced association.” She then cites a previous Supreme Court decision, Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes, which reads, “Were it faced with the prospect of cacophony, on the one hand, and First Amendment liability, on the other, a public television broadcaster might choose not to air candidates’ views at all. A broadcaster might decide the safe course is to avoid controversy, and by so doing diminish the free flow of information and ideas. In this circumstance, a government–enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.”
As someone who has previously organized debates and other outlets for candidates to share their views, I have taken the approach of inclusion, and invited all candidates. I do this not because I am required, but because I believe in allowing people to hear from all of the candidates. It is my hope that others will take a similar approach and finally bring some competition in the realm of political debates.
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Libertarian Party to Democrats:
It’s cruel to be kind
ALEXANDRIA — Libertarian Party Chair Nicholas Sarwark released the following statement today:
Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, and other speakers at the Democratic National Convention are espousing the virtue of love and the need to take care of our fellow man, suggesting that this can be accomplished through government programs such as welfare and socialized medicine.
But love is not born of force. Force is cold, impersonal, and offensive. And it doesn’t work.
In fact, government programs often hurt the very people they’re intended to help.
Real love is being committed not just to an ideal, but to what works. It requires opening one’s eyes to see the results that actions produce.
Government welfare creates an unhealthy dependence which traps generations in poverty. One need only drive by a housing project to get an idea of the horrible results it produces.
Minimum wage hurts the very poor. The most desperate for jobs lose their jobs. Others are deprived of jobs that otherwise would have been created and that would have released them from the cycle of poverty which haunts their souls.
Minimum wage forces small-business owners to work long, low-wage hours, and some make no money at all, or lose money, while putting their life savings at risk.
Minimum wage hurts customers. The people who shop at Walmart earn, on average, about the same wage as the people who work there. A forced pay hike for low-income Walmart workers is a forced pay cut for low-income Walmart customers.
Well intended actions that ignore results are not love, but dogma. Ignoring their devastating effects is cruel and inhumane.
The Libertarian solution is born both of a deep desire to see that all of mankind has opportunity, prosperity, and good health, and of a commitment to understanding and responding to what works and what doesn’t work.
To empower people to rise from poverty, we must remove government regulations and high taxes that hamper small businesses—and their ability to create jobs. We must remove regulations that drive up prices and lower everyone’s standard of living.
We must stop handing out privileged and unaffordable pensions and perks to government workers on the backs of private-sector workers who will see a fraction of those benefits.
We must stop dishing out lucrative bailouts, handouts, and contracts to crony capitalists on the backs of hard-working, private-sector taxpayers.
We must end the War on Drugs to bring down high crimes rates that plague poor neighborhoods.
We must repeal minimum-wage laws that prevent lowest-skilled workers from grabbing a rung on the economic ladder toward self-sufficiency and dignity.
A true commitment to those in need requires us to be vigorous about ending programs which do them harm. That is why Libertarians advocate policies that promote freedom, opportunity, prosperity, well-being, and peace.
Libertarianism is love.
The Libertarian Party was founded in 1971 and is today the third largest political party in the United States. Over 15,000,000 votes were cast for Libertarian candidates in the 2012 election, and the party has experienced a surge in new memberships during the 2016 primary season.
We need volunteers at the polls during the primary next Tuesday, August 30Th, to promote the Johnson/Weld Presidential Campaign and the Libertarian Party of Florida by handing out literature and engaging voters.
When: Florida Primary Election -August 30Th (Tuesday) Where: A Precinct Within Your County
Sign up to volunteer and we will bring you supplies. People that vote during the Primary Election are very likely to vote in the General Election. Occupying the Primary will get the Johnson/Weld message into the hands of these important voters.
Consider this vignette from a brilliant new book on the first modern presidential campaign by maybe the greatest living Republican political strategist, Karl Rove — a man who knows how to throw a political punch. In it Rove describes a long-ago Texas Republican political convention (of interest, predominantly, although not exclusively, African-American):
The hall exploded. The McKinley men stormed the stage, aiming to push Cuney aside and install Web Flanagan, the GOP’s 1890 gubernatorial candidate, in his place. “One burley negro came plowing through the jam,” an Associated Press reporter wrote, “pushing men in front of him as if they were so much chaff.” Behind him was a determined, fast-moving angry mob of five hundred McKinley men. Cuney expected the assault: his people were prepared to defend the podium and him. “The first negro to reach the stand made a lunge at Cuney’s head with a fist,” an eyewitness wrote, but little Bill Ellis, Cuney’s longtime right-hand man, moved faster, pulling his revolver and shoving it in the assailant’s face. “The two men eyed each other for ten seconds,” then grappled and went down with “the howling crowd swaying around and about them.” A large table on the stage collapsed under the combatants. Delegates grabbed broken pieces as weapons. Chairs and other tables were smashed over heads or against bodies. Fists, bludgeons, bottles, knives, and razors appeared. Other pistols were drawn, but luckily not used. The fight went on for twenty minutes before the city marshal and a squad of officers arrived and began indiscriminately clubbing delegates.”
Ah, those Texans! The invective of Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz is genteel stuff compared to the sticks and stones of presidential politics of yore.
McKinley took a courageous political stance against a powerful anti-Catholic faction of the GOP. Rove also reminds us how the GOP, the Party of Lincoln, was the home of African Americans… who dominated most of the powerful southern state GOP party committees, a crucial portion of the Republican base.
Rove reminds us as to how the southern Democratic Party of that era was engaged in vicious and concerted voter suppression of blacks, such as by the Ku Klux Klan. Such violent perfidy shows the accusations against the modern GOP of voter suppression are by comparison flimsy. One infers a lesson that voter suppression, reprehensible now as then, was engaged in, then as now, for political advantage, not mainly out of racial animus.
Rove demonstrates how McKinley, with deftness and courage, made path breaking strides to include African Americans more fully, and with more dignity, in the presidential electoral process. One wishes that the modern GOP would take the hint and follow suit.
The most exciting chapter of the book presents the 1896 Democratic presidential nominating convention that — astoundingly — nominated William Jennings Bryan for president. Bryan there gave what may be the most famous speech in the history of presidential politics:
“You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns” — he moved his hands down the sides of his head, his fingers slowly drawing invisible spikes about his temples, blood dripping from the scratches. He then proclaimed, “You shall not crucify mankind on a cross of gold,” arms thrust out at right angles, chest forward, and head back, the crucified man personified. He held this pose for a few minutes, then his arms fell to his sides, he stepped back, and his chin dropped. A second or so later, he straightened, turned, and walked off the stage, the hall in what the Atlanta Constitution called “fearful silence.”
The Coliseum was quiet a moment more and then exploded. Men and women jumped on their chairs screaming, arms and fists striking at the air. Hats sailed skyward or were waved along with handkerchiefs, flags, canes, fans, umbrellas, newspapers, and coats, anything that could be grabbed and flourished. “I had never dreamed that a mortal man could so grip and fill with enthusiasm thousands of men,” Daniels later wrote. The floor and galleries were a mass of “frenzied thongs” of “shouters … besides themselves.”
President McKinley was an extraordinary, now much under-celebrated, president. He was deeply mourned after his assassination, soon after his re-election, by an anarchist — an event outside the scope of Rove’s book. Wayne Morgan, in a 2003 biography, called McKinley “the most beloved president in history.”
Comes now Karl Rove to bring to life the drama of William McKinley’s life and first campaign for the presidency. Rove provides a wonderful blend of narrative, scholarship, and knowing mastery of political campaign strategy. If you find politics, political intrigue or American history compelling you will devour The Triumph of William McKinley.
The statists pretend to have a monopoly on compassion. They accuse those who disagree with their policies of being greedy and selfish. It’s time to tell the truth — the statists are the greedy ones. See how we do this in our latest Mental Lever mini-article, which is only 234 words long…
The Zero Aggression Project’s budget is only $4,500 per month. We’re adding Mental Levers each week and, behind the scenes, building new tools to (eventually) assemble millions into a “post-statist” movement. Please join us.
As a matter of self-respect, I had not intended to watch any of the Democratic Criminal Convention. Nevertheless, as embarrassed as I am to admit it, I got sucked into tuning into it the first night because I couldn’t resist the prospect of Bernie Sanders’s supporters causing a riot on the convention floor.
As it turned out, they did a little booing here and there, but, in the end, they were either silenced or thrown out by party henchmen. Worse, the once-revered Comrade Bernie ended up enthusiastically supporting the very person whose honesty and integrity he had been questioning for a year. Give the Dirty Dems credit for one thing, they stick together regardless of how big the lies, how bad the crimes, or how many loyalists they have to throw over the cliff to protect the party elites.
The only two speeches I listened to in their entirety on day one were those by Pocahontas and Cory Booker, and I found both of them to be absolutely breathtaking. It was like watching two escapees from a nearby insane asylum. I was comforted by the fact that JFK didn’t live to see the deranged miscreants who have taken over his beloved Democratic Party.
Clearly, Booker had visions of being seen as the new Barackus Hussein Obama, who, as you will recall, simultaneously fooled and thrilled the crowd at the 2004 Democratic National Convention when he gave his keynote address. Though any Dirty Dem worth his arsenic will tell you how fabulous Booker’s speech was, the sobering reality is that the Obama shtick didn’t work this time around. Booker’s incoherent babbling was a strange mish-mash about tolerance, unity, love, blah … blah … blah.
It was both disgusting and humorous coming from a man who belongs to a political party that thrives on hate and deception. But his incoherency was not the worst thing about his speech. First off, I had the same question about it as Sheriff Clarke: “What’s he so angry about?” I mean, the man shrieked and yelled at the top of his lungs from start to finish.
And while admonishing millions of television viewers to “love everyone” (It was like something right out of Woodstock!), he hypocritically called Donald Trump the most vile names imaginable and repeatedly referred to him as an individual who hates everyone.
He also made numerous allegations against Trump (con artist, cheat, etc.), stating them as though they were proven facts and that everyone was in agreement with his allegations. But, of course, they were not. His accusations were, as far as I could tell, pure B.S. But, then, the Dirty Dems have never been all that concerned with facts.
All this while doing a bad imitation of that other famous orator, Snake Cruz, by slapping his heart with his right hand several times a minute. (If you saw the speech, you know I’m not exaggerating.) I thought the poor guy was going to injure himself.
I have no idea what slapping his heart was all about (self-hatred?), but it came across as very weird. The Dirty Dems, of course, thought Booker’s “speech” was beyond wonderful, and comparison’s to Barack Obama and his stealth 2004 DNC speech began immediately.
In fairness to Booker, Pocahontas, the loudest mental dwarf on the planet, was even more of a raving maniac than he was — far more, in fact — and therefore not even worth my time to write about. That said, I’ll move on to more important matters.
I’m happy to be able to say that I kept my dignity and didn’t watch a minute of the world’s largest gathering of haters and organized-crime figures on nights two, three, and four — with one exception. On night four, I did watch Chelsea Clinton speak, because I had never seen her open her mouth before. Call it morbid curiosity, but I was interested in hearing what the daughter of the Face of Evil would say about her.
I don’t really have anything negative to say about Chelsea, but I must admit that I found her to be rather boring. Which is fine, because being boring is not a crime. As would be expected, she painted the Face of Evil as a caring and loving mother and grandmother, which she very well may be. After all, even the most notorious organized-crime bosses have generally been loving fathers and husbands.
I watched until Hillary waddled out in her white pants suit and hugged Chelsea, then I clicked off the television and went to sleep.
Since then, I’ve seen a number of clips in which the Face of Evil blasts Trump without having to actually face him. She also does not risk doing press conferences, which allows her to avoid being asked about her crimes or incompetent actions. She does do occasional one-on-one interviews with fake journalists like supporter George Stephanopoulos or liberal showbiz people. And, of course, she has been running millions of dollars’ worth of ads in which she portrays Trump as the Antichrist.
Yet, all her clever efforts notwithstanding, Hillary the Horrible hasn’t been able to gain ground on Trump in the polls. It tempts one to believe that Americans are finally coming out of their lifelong hibernations and are actually taking note of Hillary’s crimes, her lies, and her deceitfulness.
One last note. I find it just a bit humorous that Der Fuhrbama says that the Face of Evil is the most qualified person ever to run for president. Given that he himself is by far the least qualified person ever to run for president, how in the world is he in a position to judge? Let’s get real here and admit that the only reason the world’s most famous community organizer was able to win the presidency was because he was part black. Period. He had zero credentials, but a ton of bad stuff in his background.
To this day, I am amazed that at least half the population takes him seriously as a president. That’s the half that apparently has not read anything about his upbringing, his college days, his short-lived work career, and his years as a community organizer. The media has done a superb job of ignoring everything about his mysterious past.
But let’s get back to Horrible Hillary. Most of the other sixteen candidates in the Republican field could have beaten her quite easily, but Mr. Trump seems determined to make it a nail-biter. Be careful, Donald. You know what they say about wrestling with pigs.
C’mon, DT, stop the silly stuff and get this thing over with so the Face of Evil can be put out to pasture. I’ll even tell you the quickest way to do it:
First, forget the name calling (other than “Crooked Hillary,” of course) and relentlessly pound away at the 1,287 criminal acts and incompetent things Hillary has done.
Second, contact me and I’ll give you the answers to the four big issues you are still not explaining correctly to the American public. These include:
Your tax returns.
And, silliest of all, the Dirty Dems’ narrative that you’re a “dangerous man.”
All these can easily be turned into positives, and it’s beyond me why no one on your team has yet figured out how to do that. Someone had better wake up.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful to see the Face of Evil riding off into the sunset with Debbie Wasserman-Shits in search of the perfect place to set up housekeeping together? What a fine looking couple they’d make.
Look at the chart. Notice how federal regulations have constantly GROWN since 1976. In fact, this plague was expanding long before ’76.
Economists John Dawson and John Seater report that the number of regulations grew from 19,344 pages in 1949 to 169,301 pages in 2011. http://bit.ly/29ayuMb So I’m led to wonder…
Why do I always hear politicians and leftists blame things on DEregulation? There hasn’t been any net de-regulation. EVER! Regulation have always INCREASED in number! But it gets worse…
Reason magazine’s science reporter, Ronald Bailey, reports on research by the Office of Management and Budget showing that federal regulations confer relatively small benefits compared to the costs. Indeed…
The Dawson and Sealer study shows that regulation does vast harm to economic output and PERSONAL INCOME! Their study estimates that, if regulations had remained at their 1949 levels median income would now be $330k instead of $53k.
A 2004 World Bank study shows similar results for other countries.
The political class also gets things wrong when it blames problems on specific regulatory changes like the Glass-Steagall repeal. Many politicians blamed the recession on that. But as Andrew Ross Sorkin, and others, have pointed out, the repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the financial crisis. http://nyti.ms/29uxYac
I want you to stop conferring your legislative powers to the unelected, executive branch bureaucracy. I want to see you co-sponsor or introduce Downsize DC’s “Write the Laws Act.”
I recently came across an article titled “20 Reasons Not to Vote” which basically claimed in different ways that voting is an act of aggression, and no one who claims to support a peaceful society can vote without violating the principles they claim to support. I see writings like this every few years, generally before a Presidential election, and feel it’s important to remind people that voting can be done defensively. I know that in some elections voters are given the option of a candidate in favor of increasing government or a candidate in favor of increasing government even more, however there are times when the voters are faced with a question of increasing a tax rate, decreasing spending, repealing a regulation, etc. In those cases, it is possible to vote in a manner that will actually be self-defense. I’ve previously written about how voting can not rightly be seen as “endorsing the system” as some non-voters like to claim. Today I’m going to do something different, dare I say unexpected, and give my own list of reasons not to vote.
If you don’t know who or what is on the ballot.
Uninformed people make uninformed decisions, which often times are bad not only for themselves but also for others. Imagine for a moment you need to buy a car, and are not educated about the options on the car lot. However you’ve seen advertisements for a particular model, but otherwise have no knowledge about the engine or the fact that said model vehicle has a common problem that may lead to a serious accident. You purchase the car you’ve heard about and end up in an accident that harms not only you but your passengers as well.
I’ve known people who will vote for any candidate at the polls handing out campaign material, with no knowledge of the positions or history of the candidate. Others will vote for the candidate with the most signs, again without researching what the candidate believes or supports. I’ve sat in legislative committee hearings and listened to people testify that they would like to be able to take the ballot home with them for a few days to study the candidates and ballot questions – never mind the fact that sample ballots are available before the election.
If your voting habits are described above, you should probably either change your habits, or stay home on election day.
If you don’t like your options.
Sometimes informed voters will not vote because they don’t like their options. This is a valid reason to not turn in a valid ballot. If I lived in a state that did not allow write-in votes to be cast and “None of these candidates” was not a valid choice on the ballot, I would likely spoil the ballot by writing a message of dissent on the ballot in an effort to make my voice heard, even if it was only heard by the lone ballot clerk who reads my message.
If you want to grow the size, scope, or power of the government.
Over the past 150 years or so, the size, scope, and power of the government has continued to expand. And based on the current make-up of the various legislative bodies across the country, will continue to do so if you don’t cast your ballot for more government.
If you are personally opposed to the concept of voting.
This is also a valid reason not to vote. However, it is not license to zealously berate those who believe they can vote in self-defense.
Now that I’ve listed four reasons I believe people should not vote, I will now explain why I think people should vote.
You should vote if and only if you are informed about the candidates and questions on your ballot, you feel strongly about the outcome of the election and believe your vote can bring about a more free and peaceful society.
In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Libertarian Party says laws should apply equally to all.
ALEXANDRIA — The FBI has decided not to push for criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server for her State Department emails.
“This is a serious miscarriage of justice,” says Nicholas Sarwark, chair of the Libertarian National Committee. “One key criteria for laws to be just is that they must be applied equally to all.”
Countless other people who have served in roles handling classified information have been prosecuted, fined, and jailed for far lesser breaches of protocol and security.
Hillary Clinton’s complete mismanagement of highly sensitive information while Secretary of State, and dismissive attitude towards the situation since, shows that she is not qualified for the very serious role of President of the United States.
“What is particularly sad is that while most of us understood the egregiousness of this situation, we also knew from the beginning that Hillary Clinton was not going to be prosecuted or punished for it. Our system is allowing big corporations, big banks, big politicians to get away with things that normal Americans would never be allowed to. We bail out the banks. We bail out the corporations. We bail out the politicians. This is not justice. This is crony capitalism and crony politics,” says Sarwark.
“In essence, Hillary Clinton thinks that she should not be held to the same standards that other Americans are and our Justice system is allowing that to happen. This is elitist, tyrannical, and completely un-American. No one should be above the law. ”
The Libertarian Party is the only political party in America devoted to protecting all rights, of all human beings, all the time. As part of this mission, the Libertarian Party seeks a minimal set of laws, that are truly just, which defend the rights of individuals, and which are equally applied to all.
Note: I will avoid the Olympic opening ceremony set, I believe, for tomorrow. However, here is my review of the last one, in London. the last sentence may have been prophetic, so far as the grotesque and sinister pantomime laid on by our ruling class may have led, directly or indirectly, to the outcome of the EU Referendum. SIG
I am glad I made the effort to watch the opening of the London Olympics. It was a most interesting summary of what England has become.
The general purpose of the opening was to legitimise the current ruling class. English history was portrayed as a shameful nightmare. We had Victorian capitalists polluting the countryside and oppressing the working class. We had sexism and racism and war. From this, we were shown the gradual emergence of our caring, sharing, soft and loving new order of things. There was a long celebration of the National Health Service, with eight hundred dancing doctors and nurses, and dancing invalid children. There were joyous messages read out by the great and good. There was more dancing and music and comedy. At the culmination of all this, we saw a corner of the Olympic Flag carried by Doreen Lawrence – the mother of a black youth whose alleged murder in 1993 was made the opportunity to sweep away outmoded institutions like equality before the law and the protection against double jeopardy. Long before the Olympic Flame was lit, the world was supposed to believe that England was a country blessed with genius in every calling and essentially at peace with itself.
Was it a success? To what extent did the Olympic opening succeed in terms of ruling class legitimation. It cost £27 million. Did it deliver value for money? In one sense, it had to. Propaganda from the outside has two main functions. One is to persuade directly. Another is to alter the framework of assumptions within which ordinary people form their opinions. Ruling class propaganda has the additional function of reminding everyone who is in charge. For this, the technical quality of the propaganda hardly matters. The message I took from the Olympic opening was this:
We are in charge. We have unlimited power and unlimited money, and we are willing to use these however may be needed to stay in charge. You may despise us. You may hate us. You may sometimes dream of having us led, a dozen at a time, to the gallows. But look at what we can do, and bear in mind there is nothing you can do to stop us.
However, if an inevitable success in depressing opposition, the opening could not hide the truth about our new and happy life. Had the amplification once failed in the stadium, the spectators would have looked up from this Potemkin love feast to hear the omnipresent clatter of surveillance helicopters, and the maniac wailing of police cars. On their way to and from the stadium, they cannot have failed to notice the twenty thousand armed soldiers taken away from our incomprehensible and unwinnable wars, or the special lanes for the ruling class and its clients to make light of the traffic gridlock allowed for everyone else, or the ruthless harvesting of custom by the relevant business interests.
Nor did it show this country’s official culture as other than trashy or at best mediocre. When Hitler laid on his show in 1936, he had Richard Strauss and Carl Orff and Leni Riefenstahl. He had smart uniforms. Never mind what he was saying, he was himself quite entertaining to watch. I ignored the Moscow and Peking Olympics, but suspect their openings had a rather stodgy dignity. What did we have last Friday? We had boring and unmelodic rock groups with silly names. We had massed dancers cavorting about like excited children. We had Simon Rattle, a second rate interpreter of the German classics. We had Rowan Atkinson, a tiresome and elderly buffoon with just two comic turns to his name – one of them sneering at English history, the other sneering at the English character. We had Paul McCartney: whatever his talents may have been fifty years ago, he has plainly outlived his vocal cords.
Oh, and we had someone called “Tim” Berners Lee, who is famous in England – though nowhere else, I am informed – as the inventor of the World Wide Web.
As time passes, I think the most memorable image from this Olympic opening will be the look on the Queen’s face when exposed to a performance of the National Anthem with a simultaneous translation into sign language. Since she is responsible for the state of affairs in which this whole grotesque and sinister pantomime could take place, I will not pity her for being kept out of bed to watch it. But the look of horror we were allowed to see before the cameras were switched to something else must have spoken for millions.
If this is the best show our ruling class can put on for £27 million, England may not be so very far from deliverance.
Many of you are working hard to advance liberty. I wanted to pass along some guidelines to help you be more effective.
1. Have Fun: If you are not having fun you are doing it wrong and you will not be doing it for long. Make sure that you enjoy what you are doing.
2. Avoid Drama: Getting involved in politics is an eye opening experience. There are all sorts of people involved and some of these people may not be involved for the same reasons you are. The key is to find people of like mind and to avoid those who do not share your passion. You will also find people who seem to always find drama. Try to avoid those people who drag you down.
3. Stay Focused: There is so many issues going on at the same time that it is easy to get distracted. Make sure you are constantly evaluating your activity. It is a good idea to frequently ask yourself if what you are doing is working toward your goal or wasting time.
4. Always Find New People: People will get involved and people will stop. There are plenty of reasons why people drop out and stop being active in politics. It could be legitimate reasons involving family or they just get burned out. You want to always be looking to include new people. This will help grow your activity and help to keep others involved as well. Many hands make the work you are doing go that much faster.
5. Use Social Media as a Compliment: Using social media is a great way for people to connect but I have found that developing a relationship offline is a key to long term involvement. It also helps in keeping those people together longer. You can host events, attend events or just meet up to have a coffee. Just make sure that you develop that personal relationship offline.
6. Use Tools To Find Like Minded People: Online tools (like Facebook) are a great way to find people. Going to other groups is another great way to find people. You can also find people in your everyday life. Use your surroundings and look for signs that others share your views. A bumper sticker on a car is a great way to find those of like mind. Look to see if someone is wearing a politically inspired clothing. Listen to the phrases someone uses. Pay attention to your surroundings and you will be surprised the clues you will find.
7. Partner With Groups of Like Mind: There are all kinds of groups and organizations out there and that is a good thing. Find those groups who share your beliefs and work with them on your shared goal.
These are just a few of the things that I have discovered over the years. If you have any questions please let me know.
Greater Los Angeles Libertarian Party Meetup Group
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
Gill’s Indian Restaurant
838 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90017
MEET THE Johnson/Weld Volunteers! Join us as we meet, greet and get to know some of the very large number of people in Central LA who have volunteered for the Johnson/Weld campaign. This demographic skews younger and educated, so look for lots of fre… Learn more
Clinton–Trump debate sites plan for a third podium
From Politico on August 9:
The venues that will host the presidential debates are drawing up plans for a three-person forum that would provide a lectern for a third-party candidate to stand on stage next to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
The directive comes from producers working for the Commission on Presidential Debates and it’s meant, they say, to force the university hosts to be prepared and not as a reflection of the state of the race….
“With [former Gov.] Gary Johnson polling in some places more than double digits…some of our production people may have said, ‘Just in case, you need to plan out what that might look like,’ Commission on Presidential Debates co-chair and former Bill Clinton White House Press SecretaryMike McCurry told POLITICO. “We won’t know the number of invitations we extend until mid-September.”
Johnson polling exceptionally strong with youth and military
Gary Johnson leads in 18–24 demographic over both Clinton and Trump.
From RedState on August 8:
…Investors Business Daily released their own poll recently, and found that Johnson is doing far better with the youth vote than the the McClatchy poll could tell.
When those polled were asked [whom] they would choose to vote for between four candidates—the 4th being Jill Stein of the Green Party—Johnson came in first with 35%, with Clinton trailing with 30%. Trump placed 4th, once again, behind Jill Stein with 12% and 14% respectively.
It should be noted that the IBD poll is far more accurate than the McClatchy-Marist Poll, which means Johnson’s standing with Millennials is far more prevalent than many thought.
What makes this interesting is that the youth is typically a left-leaning demographic, with the [Democratic Party] often putting great effort into attracting them through pop culture, and showy activism.
American military personnel looking in Libertarian direction for the election
From Doug Bandow in the Huffington Post on August 9:
“Newly anointed GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump wasted no time in criticizing the foreign policy legacy of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. For decades the GOP has claimed to uniquely represent American military personnel.
“It turns out that they favor neither Democrats nor Republicans. Rather, they lean libertarian. This campaign, a plurality is supporting the least militaristic of the candidates, Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson.
“The LP is a perennial and distant third place contender. But this election might be different. Johnson has been polling in double digits and could hold the balance of power.
“Especially with the help of military personnel. For instance, a July poll found Johnson well ahead of the two major party candidates. Almost 39 percent of active duty members backed him. Just 31 percent supported Donald Trump and only 14 percent were for Hillary Clinton. Johnson carried every service except the Navy.”
LP welcomes more notable elected officials voting Libertarian: New Jersey, Nevada, Virginia
This week has seen more elected officials switching their party affiliation in favor of the Libertarian Party and our presidential ticket of Govs. Johnson and Weld. Here are three of those stories:
Congressman backs Libertarian presidential candidate in campaign first
From the New York Times on August 6:
“Representative Scott Rigell of Virginia says he plans to vote for the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket, becoming the first member of Congress to express support for Gary Johnson’s third-party campaign.
“In an interview on [Aug. 5], Mr. Rigell, a Republican, said he had settled on Mr. Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico, as the best option available.
Former NJ state treasurer supporting Gary Johnson and Bill Weld
Former New Jersey state treasurer Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff announced on August 9 that he is supporting the Libertarian Party presidential and vice presidential nominees, Gary Johnson and William Weld, this November.
In an e-mail message to New Jersey Libertarian Party chair Patrick McKnight, Mr. Sidamon-Eristoff wrote, “I wanted to…let you know that as a loyal Republican, former GOP Manhatttan chair, former elected official in New York City, and former appointed official in both New York and New Jersey…I have announced my support for Johnson–Weld.”
Geoffrey Lawrence, the Nevada Assistant State Controller, switched his affiliation to the Libertarian Party. Lawrence made the announcement during a speech delivered at the Gary Johnson–Bill Weld rally in Reno on August 5. He works with the Nevada Policy Research Institute.
Libertarians Rubén Corvalán and Lorenzo Gaztañaga interviewed on CNN en Español
Libertarios Rubén Corvalán y Lorenzo Gaztañaga entrevistados en CNN en español
Earlier this month, Café CNN, CNN’s morning Spanish-language news program, featured interviews of Rubén Corvalán, Libertarian candidate for U.S. House of Representatives in Texas, and long-time Maryland activist and former candidate, Lorenzo Gaztañaga.
Café CNN interview with Rubén Corvalán
Is the Libertarian Party the other option for U.S. voters?
August 3, 2016
What has happened to make the Libertarian Party suddenly so relevant, and in a position to possibly determine the outcome of this election?
People right now are very dissatisfied with the choices presented to them – both with Hillary and with Trump – and are looking for another option. When you go to the supermarket, you find more than two choices, and people are now looking for a new opportunity, a new option, that would seem to be rational, and this is the situation that many of us find ourselves in… Read the full transcript here.
What does the Libertarian Party have to offer to Latinos?
August 4, 2016
Do you think the town hall helped win votes from those who are not happy with Trump or Clinton, and if so, how?
It helped a great deal. The presentations of the two governors were unique, presenting a vision of a humble government that recognizes that there is no absolute power that can do everything, but that what government should do is open the door, making a way for individuals to be able to move ahead in peace…. Read the full transcript here.
LNC Chair Sarwark interviewed on Minnesota Public Radio
Libertarian National Committee chair Nicholas Sarwark was interviewed on Minnesota Public Radio on August 9. From the program description:
Many Americans claim to be undecided this election season—or at least disaffected with their party’s candidate for president.
Many of those on-the-fence voters are considering casting their ballot for a third party candidate, and Libertarian Gary Johnson has been generating the most buzz. Johnson resonates with both former Bernie Sanders fans and Republicans who are fed up with Donald Trump. But what does he really stand for?
MPR News host Kerri Miller spoke with the National Libertarian party chairperson, Nicholas Sarwark, about his party’s platform and efforts this year.
Political scientist Samara Klar also joined the conversation, discussing independent voters and people who find themselves suddenly without a party.
CNN breaks from left–right paradigm in explaining Libertarianism
A CNN article, posted the day of the network’s primetime Town Hall showcasing Libertarians Gary Johnson for president and William Weld for vice president, provides a lengthy explanation of Libertarianism and features a video of Johnson declaring his positions on various issues.
The article provides broad exposure to many of the freedom measures that the Party has been fighting for since its inception in 1971. It should be noted, however, that the article does not correctly represent parts of the Libertarian Party’s mission, which has always been to oppose welfare handouts of any kind, including guaranteed income, and military adventurism. The Party also strongly opposes new taxes and seeks to reduce overall taxation, with the long-term goal of eliminating all coercive taxation.
Alexandria – Libertarian National Committee Chair Nicholas Sarwark today rebuked the Obama Administration and the DEA for the decision not to reclassify marijuana as a schedule 2 substance in spite of overwhelming pressure and widespread requests to do so. Sarwark has issued this statement:
“The American people overwhelmingly support a reclassification of this substance that is actually proven effective in combating multiple medical disorders as well as being safer than alcohol, tobacco, and most prescription painkillers.
“DEA Administrator Chuck Rosenberg is blaming science when he is the one hamstringing the scientific process with a nonsensical classification.
“Look, when even the American Academy of Pediatrics is asking the DEA to reconsider this classification and they STILL continue to stonewall, this is clearly not government of the people, by the people and for the people. This is just another example of unelected bureaucrats acting well outside the will of the American people and the two old political parties allowing it to happen.
“Only the Libertarian Party will stand up for making our communities safer by both ensuring that children don’t have access to marijuana, and that patients do have access to a safe and effective medicine. And, once we fix our broken policy regarding marijuana, our law enforcement resources can be redirected to real crimes.”
The Libertarian Party holds that individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life. The Libertarian Party has firmly stood against the war on drugs for 45 years and supports any measure, big or small, to dial it back until freedom is restored.
Paid for by the Libertarian National Committee, Inc. (LP)
1444 Duke St., Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Content not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.
Donald Trump, on Super Tuesday, proved he has superpowers. But Superhero or Supervillain? Unless Marco Rubio rises to the occasion and endorses Ted Cruz for president, accepting a vice presidential role for himself, Donald Trump almost assuredly will be the GOP nominee. Meanwhile, the party and conservative elites are reacting in interesting ways to these interesting times.
There are three fascinating dramas simultaneously emerging. First, the Story of Trump. Second, Rubio’s Choice. Third, the narratives that the party (and interlocked conservative movement) thought leaders are devising. Follow along.
First, the Story of Trump. Donald Trump unequivocally demonstrated that he has superpowers. While superpowers are something we all crave in a president there’s a profound … ambiguity.
Donald Trump: Superhero? Or Supervillain?
A plurality of voters see him as a Superhero. That perspective rather brilliantly was summed up by one of the commenters to a recent column of mine, Atom Bruce McKellar:
If you’re an illegal immigrant, Trump is a villain. If you’re heavily invested in China, Trump is a villain. If you’re heavily invested in Mexico, Trump is a villain. If you’re an Islamic supremacist, Trump is a villain. If you’re a left-fascist with politically correct fantasy based narrative of the world, Trump is a villain. If you’re heavily invested in trying to buy influence with GOP candidates (or Democratic ones), Trump is a villain.
But to everyday, regular Americans , Donald Trump is King Kong stomping every dinosaur in sight as he takes back Skull Island for them.
Alternatively, not a few see Trump as a Supervillain. Let’s be clear on what that means. The best definition of “villain” I’ve encountered is by Louis Capizzi in “Is Donald Trump a Villain?” at The Odyssey Online:
I use the word villain in the most apolitical way possible.
When I say villain, I’m talking full on Emperor Palpatine / Marvel movie HYDRA agent / James Bond Mastermind / Lex Luthor type figure: the sort of guy that rises to power because he loves power and won’t stop short of world domination. He already has the money and the influence, but in fiction, money and influence never suffice. Villains always have the desire to come out from the shadows and take the true power for themselves.
Giant Megamind head: Oh, you’re a villain, all right! Just not a SUPER one!
Tighten: Oh, yeah? What’s the difference?
[Megamind's giant hologram head opens its mouth and from the inside appears Megamind]
Nobody, but nobody, in this election cycle has PRESENTATION down like Donald Trump. Super!
Donald Trump recently said, on Fox News’s Hannity, “I mean, everything’s negotiable.” This perfect ambiguity is entirely consistent with how Donald Trump has lived his entire recorded life. That causes observers to see him, depending on their point of view, as Superhero … or Supervillain.
The only way, mathematically speaking, to deny Trump the nomination would be for Cruz and Rubio (and, preferably, Kasich and Carson) to unite behind one candidate. Could it happen?
As it happens, the admirable Marco Rubio, now the designee of National Review’s book smart but not politically street smart Deroy Murdock, is sitting on a powder keg.
Rubio is polling, on average, almost 20 points behind Trump in his home state of Florida. Cruz won his home state of Texas by nearly as much. Rubio, to date, has won one midsize state, Minnesota, thus far having won one early contest to Trump’s 10 and Cruz’s 4. Rubio has 106 delegates to Trump’s 316 and Cruz’s 226. Rubio consistently polls well behind Trump and close behind Cruz. As for “close,” as the old saying goes: “Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Moreover, Rubio is not running for re-election to the US Senate. Rubio has no political base to which to repair should the powder keg explode under him. Risky business.
Rubio, alone, bears the risk of becoming cast as the scapegrace. If Rubio declines to endorse Cruz he runs a great risk of being perceived, by the Powers That Be, as the spoiler who delivered the nomination to Trump. If that very real risk manifests Rubio is likely to be banished to the political wilderness. Perhaps forever. High risk.
Alternatively, this estimable young rising star could gain enormous political cred by endorsing Sen. Cruz. His doing so would be, and be seen as, an act of party statesmanship, endearing him to the party regulars and donors. Taking this course would endow him with enormous political assets, including, quite likely, nomination to the vice presidency. That, in itself, would be no small prize for a young man with a bright future.
Meanwhile, during the run up to and after Super Tuesday the GOP thought leaders are polarizing into two very different narratives. Respected thought leaders such as William Kristol, Erick Erickson, and Richard Viguerie, among others, see Trump as a Supervillain. Thus they are taking the #NeverTrump stand. (In passing let it be noted that a few conservative pragmatists such as Hugh Hewitt avoid the poles with an equatorial position that we would be better off with Trump than Clinton.)
Another element of thought leadership is advancing a “the realignment is here and Trump is its instrument” narrative. Perhaps the most compelling case for this was made by Ben Domenech at The Federalist in Thunderdome: Gone Savage For Trump:
On Face the Nation this Sunday, I attempted to explain the 2016 cycle in 40 seconds. Pull back from the close ups on Donald J. Trump’s tweets, and the political realignment we are experiencing becomes obvious and impossible to ignore. The post-Cold War left-right politics of the nation have been breaking down in slow motion for two decades. They are now being replaced by a different type of inside-outside politics.
>snip<Democrats and Republicans who still think that this is a phase – a fever they just need to wait out before a return to normalcy – are utterly delusional.
This is where politics stands today.
Donald Trump by turns, in his inimitably ambiguous, perhaps ambivalent, or perhaps merely utterly pragmatic way, is by turns glowingly admiring and savagely indicting of China. Thus there is a delicious irony that Trump uniquely proves the instrumentality of that ancient Chinese curse: “May you live in interesting times.”
This past week I was in Connecticut collecting signatures for Gary Johnson to make sure that he was on the ballot and I wanted to pass along some things that I noticed. From what I have been told, Connecticut is a very left leaning state but in talking to the people there (who were very nice BTW) they were not at all what I was expecting.
I met very few people that liked Hillary Clinton. Most people who were going to vote for her were doing it because they hated Donald Trump. I met few people who liked Donald Trump. Most people who were going to vote for him were doing it because they hated Hillary Clinton.
The vast majority of the people I talked to were disgusted by BOTH Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Some people were even going to stay home and not even vote.
When I told people that I was collecting signatures for Gary Johnson they were excited that there was going to be another choice on the ballot.
Most people had no idea who Gary Johnson was but when I was given an opportunity to explain who he was they were interested.
Those people who did know who Gary Johnson was were mostly excited and said they were planning on voting for him.
If Gary Johnson gets into the debates it will be a real game changer.
I know that there many of you that are reading this and are thinking about voting for either Trump or Clinton but please do not vote out of fear. Voting out of fear is a tool that is used against the people to settle for the lesser of two evils.
It is also how we got into the position we are at today.
Please take a look at Gary Johnson. You may not agree with him on everything (I know that I don’t) but I would imagine that you agree with him on more than you think.
You can also go to http://www.isidewith.com and fill out the survey and see which candidate best represents your views. Remember that the only wasted vote is a vote for someone you do not agree with.
Why do my friends snap-back to statist ideas when I’m not there?Retweet
We’ve started a new collection of Mental Lever mini-articles at our website. This collection deals with strategies and tactics for creating a voluntaryist society. The first Mental Lever deals with a problem we’ve all encountered. Check it out…
- The Zero Aggression Project’s budget is only $4,500 per month. We’re adding Mental Levers each week and, behind the scenes, building new tools to (eventually) assemble millions into a “post-statist” movement. Please join us.
Does “getting tough” on terrorists actually mean arming terrorists?Retweet
MEDIA ALERT: See the P.S. to this message.
The politicians just made another blunder in the Middle East. There is yet more evidence that our so-called “government” has a pro-terror foreign policy.
Please use the sample letter below to give your so-called “representatives” their instructions. Tell them to “stop policing the world.” Our campaign for that purpose has a hardwired message that reads…
Defend America only. Do not manipulate or police the world.
Copy or edit the following to add your personal instructions Congress…
It seems increasingly clear that my so-called government has a pro-terror foreign policy. Look at all the evidence…
The Pentagon and the CIA gave weapons to opposing Syrian groups that then went to war with each other. http://bit.ly/29hxjZM
Congress has armed Saudi Arabia, the world’s chief terrorist sponsor. The Saudi’s have used our weapons to create new enemies for America in places like Yemen http://bit.ly/28Zjrov
Now comes yet another example!
CIA weapons, shipped into Jordan, have disappeared into the black market. They were then used to attack Americans in the region. http://nyti.ms/29hAh0m
This madness must stop. YOU MUST STOP IT. All this talk about “getting tough” on ISIS or other terrorists is nonsense. In reality, you have a pro-terror foreign policy. I want to see you take action to roll back our meddling in the Middle East and elsewhere.
P.S. Downsize DC President, Jim Babka, appeared on the Everything Financial Show with Dennis Tubbergen. They discussed the Free Competition in Currency Act, along with the campaigns of Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Gary Johnson. You can listen to the podcast version of this syndicated radio show.