Beta

Password Reset Confirmation

If an account matching the email you entered was found, you will receive an email with a link to reset your password.

Welcome to our Beta

The Advocates of Self-Government is preparing a new experience for our users.

User Not Found

The username/email and password combination you entered was not found. Please try again or contact support.

Skip to main content
Start My Journey
Enable Dark Mode

Quizzes & Apps

Articles

Month: February 2019

kiss world war II unconditional surrender

In #MeToo Era, A Kiss Offends More Than War

Written by Alice Salles on . Posted in War. No Comments on In #MeToo Era, A Kiss Offends More Than War

A drunk sailor, overjoyed that World War II was over, ran to Times Square alongside his soon-to-be wife to celebrate the news. Seeing a woman in what he thought was a nurse uniform, he couldn’t contain himself. Right then and there, the thankful young survivor of the USS Bunker Hill attack, which had happened just three months earlier, spun the young woman around, held her in his arms, and planted a kiss on her lips. The iconic photograph of that brief encounter is now part of history, and a statue of that kiss stands undisturbed in Sarasota, Florida. Until now. Early Tuesday, police encountered the statue known as “Unconditional Surrender” defaced with #MeToo spray-painted over the woman’s leg. kiss world war II unconditional surrender At the time of the kiss that “ended” World War II, the sailor, George Medonsa, had been drinking and celebrating with Rita, his soon-to-be-wife, after the couple heard the news the war was over. As he headed to Times Square where many were gathered, Greta Zimmer Friedman, the dental assistant mistaken for a nurse, did the same. Greta had arrived in the U.S. in 1939 from Austria. Her parents sensed danger and insisted she should leave. As she learned the war had ended, the young woman ran to the square, perhaps wondering what had happened to her parents. She later found out they were killed. Still, in the moment of celebration and ecstasy that enveloped everyone gathered in Times Square, George saw Greta and only one thought crossed his mind: “I ought to thank her for her service.” But Greta had no idea of what was happening. She was standing there for a few minutes, she told reporters, and “then I was grabbed.” “That man was very strong. I wasn’t kissing him. He was kissing me.” As soon as the kiss was over, both of them went their own separate ways, never seeing each other again until much later. While Greta was clearly caught by surprise and obviously tense due to this incident, the drunken George didn’t mean any harm. And while Greta could have fought him, slapped him, or made a scene, she walked away. Perhaps thankful that that had been it. Now, that scenario is unthinkable. After all, women are taught that if a man even asks them out, it could be an assault.

War And The Freedom To Make Mistakes

Had the war never happened, George would have never witnessed nurses rushing to save hundreds of sailors injured and killed as a result of World War II. He would have never watched in awe as women dressed much like Greta ran to help men, some horribly burned, after two Japanese kamikaze planes smashed into USS Bunker Hill. By the same token, the world wouldn’t have witnessed the moment the U.S. dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, murdering over 200,000 Japanese people, many of whom were civilians, and hurting countless others over time thanks to the exposure to radiation. And if it hadn’t been for the war, 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry wouldn’t have been sent to concentration camps on U.S. soil, proving just how pitiful, disgraceful, and immoral government can be. Yet, what triggers today’s “activists” is a kiss coming from a drunken sailor who saw the realities of war unravel right before his eyes. That, a Facebook user wrote on the police’s official page reporting on the vandalism incident, is “oppression.” “Stop glorifying sexual assault,” another commentator suggested. In a time lawmakers get wide support from young voters for promoting pieces of legislation giving the federal government sweeping powers and reporters and left-leaning Americans bemoan the president for wanting to leave Syria, it isn’t shocking to see that a kiss, and not war, is what horrifies and offends people. With so many ready to use government force to impose their own cultural paradigms on those are unwilling to toe the line, it’s clear that giving government more excuses to expand its power is part of the agenda. And in no time, we won’t even be free to make mistakes — even innocent ones, like the one George made in 1945.

Image credit: Port of San Diego.

National Emergency: A Power Grab with No Justification

Written by TJ Roberts on . Posted in Immigration, Issues, Liberator Online, National Defense, News, News You Can Use, Property Rights, Taxes. No Comments on National Emergency: A Power Grab with No Justification

President Donald Trump has agreed to sign the funding bill to stop a government shutdown. In addition, he has stated that he will declare a national emergency. Trump is invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) so that he may build a wall along the US’s Southern border. This declaration, while law, has no constitutional authorization. In addition, a national emergency would lead to unprecedented federal power along the border. No opponent of omnipotent government can support this measure. A National Emergency Destroys Individual Rights The cost of the wall is only a small part of the problem. In a national emergency, the president will have the authority to enact the largest confiscation of private land in American history. This land grab is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment. While many legal scholars may argue that eminent domain is legitimate because the 5th Amendment claims the government may take land if “just compensation” is provided, one must ask what makes compensation just. The amount of money does not make it just. The use of the land does not make it just. When considering justice, one must consider consent. Consent is Justice. If the government wants my land, then they should offer a price at which I would agree to sell. If there is no monetary amount I’d agree to, then no one has the right to my land. To say I have to forfeit my land to the state is an egregious breach of individual rights and gives more power to the government than anyone should ever have. A National Emergency Decimates Checks and Balances Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution makes it abundantly clear that Congress has the power to write the law. The president does not have this power. Even if a border wall is a good idea (which it isn’t), the president still does not have the authority to order it to be built. The IEEPA is unconstitutional whereas it allows the president to write and execute the law. This turns the American republic into a despotic state in which all public affairs must operate under the consent of one man: the president. The IEEPA, of course, was passed in October of 1977, a time in which the Democratic Party controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. In other words, both parties are to blame for this egregious power grab. If your worst enemy should not have power, neither should you or your greatest ally. If the establishment truly opposed a border wall and a national emergency, they would have had the forethought not to give the president this power, to begin with. How to Stop the National Emergency and the Wall But now there seems to be no way to stop Trump from stealing land and income to build a wall. Congress is spineless. The courts may step in, but the president may ignore them as Andrew Jackson once did. The one solution to this crisis is nullification. It is not just the right, but also it is the duty of the states to resist this tyrannical law. This is the prescription James Madison, the author of the constitution, proposed. Simply put, the states created the federal government, and they have the right to refuse to comply with its mandates. There is no other way to resist the national emergency. If the states starve the federal government of its legitimacy, then it matters not what the president says. This is the only way to stop the Wall and the National Emergency.

Iowa Lawmakers Attempt to Legalize Psychedelics

Written by Remso Martinez on . Posted in Criminal Justice, Drugs, Personal Liberty. No Comments on Iowa Lawmakers Attempt to Legalize Psychedelics

The times are changing. People have moved beyond discussing marijuana legalization. Now they’re talking psychedelics. Ten years ago, could you have imagined a respectable politician discussing magic mushroom legalization? State Rep. Jeff Shipley (R-IA) issued the following statement, “I believe an Iowan should not be criminalized for trying to use psychedelic substances for medicinal purposes. If these drugs can help our veterans who suffer from PTSD, our family members who suffer from addiction, or help a loved one get relief from near death anxiety, we should be doing all we can push making these options safe and available.” Then, Shipley introduced two bills:
  • House File 249 would remove Psilocybin, MDMA, and Ibogaine from the list of Schedule 1 controlled substances and allow for the state to create laws that would allow the drugs for medical purposes.
  • House File 248 effectively decriminalizes Psilocybin
Libertarians have fought for access to certain drugs and medicines for decades, and now these ideas of individual autonomy and better access to medical and recreational are becoming far more mainstream among American political discourse. Bills like this restore freedom to individuals and their health providers and give them access to the help they need. These advancements in the scientific understanding of these drugs benefit will people suffering countless medical conditions they can now seek alternative treatments and medicines for.. Iowa joins states such as Colorado, Oregon, and others attempting to expand medical research and access to psychedelics in 2019. They seem to be making progress. The Denver Psilocybin Mushroom Decriminalization Initiative collected 5,559 valid signatures – 16 percent more than necessary to get on the ballot. The fact that red states and blue states are showing an interest in something of a taboo topic shows that people are beginning to understand this issue is far more than simply about access to psychedelics and other drugs. Drug reform and medical freedom is not a traditional left-right issue. Partisans on both sides of the aisle have supported initiatives and efforts such as this, while at the same time many statists have attempted to prevent it by sticking to outdated, draconian beliefs and policies about psychedelics and other drugs. By pushing past the fixed narrative and giving citizens the opportunity to make decisions for themselves who knows what people can do to better their health, lives, and civil liberties.
economics big government inflation

Politicians Use This Economic ‘Theory’ To Gain Power

Written by Alice Salles on . Posted in Economics, Monetary Policy. No Comments on Politicians Use This Economic ‘Theory’ To Gain Power

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that economists are openly making a “once-heretical” argument when they support monetary inflation and dismiss the swelling of the United States’ national debt as a reason to worry. To these heretics, the Journal explains, there’s a new way of looking at economics that excuses governments being irresponsible with other people’s money. And ignoring the fundamentals of economics as a social science is the core principle of this approach. Unfortunately, this new theory encourages nothing but more corruption, power grab, and abuse. A reality that wasn’t carefully spelled out, even by the Journal. economics big government inflation With annual deficits set to top $1 trillion within the next three years, the Journal warns that U.S. debt will total 93 percent of gross domestic product before 2030. But as America rakes in debt, investors don’t seem too worried. The Journal makes this argument by explaining that despite the high debt levels, interest rates remain low. As a matter of fact, as debt rose from 34 to 78 percent of the share of the GDP, treasury yields dropped from 4 to 2.7 percent. It’s almost as if the U.S. could do no wrong in the eyes of investors, and the greater the debt, the more confident they feel. This reality, however, is a sham.
As the Journal correctly points out, left-leaning economists are supporting the idea that debt shouldn’t worry anybody. They justify the lack of urgency by arguing for Modern Monetary Theory, an economic paradigm that supports the idea that any potentially negative consequences anyone may tie to government deficit spending are illusory and that the fiat monetary system is superior to the gold standard.
To MMT proponents such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and former Bernie Sanders advisor Stephanie Kelton, printing money is the solution to all problems. After all, the U.S. can just tell the Federal Reserve it needs to expand its balance sheet in case the country runs out of investors to buy its treasury bonds. Needless to say, these brilliant minds seem to completely ignore the fact that “printing money” is just another tax on the poor. In other words, when more paper money is injected into the economy, the first ones to put their hands on it make a profit, but once the cash hits main street, it loses its value, inflating the cost of everything. To the poor, low-, and middle-income Americans living paycheck to paycheck, this means they won’t be able to afford as many goods or services as they once did. But who cares about the poor when you can implement all your dream policies on a whim? Politicians and their minions enjoy MMT precisely because it provides them with ammunition to implement their big government programs without any restraints. If they do not have to worry about persuading more investors to help or push Congress to increase tax revenues to fund their programs, they can just convince the Fed to give them the money. But as the government continues to borrow and enlarge its balance sheet, throwing in more easy money into the economy, the country’s economy weakens. The poor become poorer, the middle class disappears, and the rich, well, the rich will do what they can to stay rich, meaning they will continue to lobby governments to keep their competitors out of the game. With politicians who claim to speak for the little guy backing this kind of rotten game, we’re better off canceling government altogether. After all, they don’t speak for any of us. By fooling people into thinking that creating money out of thin air will fix all problems, these disgraceful “public servants” are only further trapping us all into a life of misery.

West Virginia Takes a Step Closer to Sound Money

Written by Remso Martinez on . Posted in Business and Economy, Monetary Policy. No Comments on West Virginia Takes a Step Closer to Sound Money

Since allowing the Federal Reserve a stranglehold over our dollar almost a century ago, Americans have had to deal with the rampant theft known as inflation and the hijacking of our sound currency backed by gold. The founders knew that fiat, paper currency would lead to the eventual death of the American dream. They had much to say about this issue. Our first President, George Washington, called paper currency “wicked.” Thomas Jefferson agreed,  writing that “its [paper money’s] abuses also are inevitable and, by breaking up the measure of value, makes a lottery of all private property.” Now, legislators in West Virginia are taking a step toward sound money. They plan to legally recognize gold and silver as recognized legal tender. The Tenth Amendment Center reports, “a West Virginia Senate committee passed a bill that would repeal the sales and use tax on gold and silver bullion. Final passage would eliminate one barrier to using gold and silver in everyday transactions, a foundational step for people to undermine the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money.” While it is wise for constitutional respecting lawmakers to make such a rule in writing at the state level, it is simply justifying an ignored and disrespected portion of the Constitution that would have prevented the devaluation of the dollar and exit of sound currency in the first place. According to Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution, “No State shall…make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payments of debts.” Without sound money, governments can simply print fiat currency on demand, thus inflating the money supply. This is as a pseudo-tax on you and your neighbors. Money in your pocket says it’s worth a specific amount, but with each dollar printed, it’s then worthless. There would be no need for a new law if the Constitution was simply obeyed. By respecting sound currency in the forms of metals and other scarce resources, you are respecting the right of the citizenry to save money and know the true value of their holdings. But since the Constitution is disobeyed, hyperinflation is sure to diminish the power and safety of our nation. No empire in history has ever been able to print itself into prosperity.

Should You Be Required to Help Law Enforcement?

Written by Christopher Hallen on . Posted in Criminal Justice, Personal Liberty. No Comments on Should You Be Required to Help Law Enforcement?

What if a law enforcement officer demands you assist him and you refuse?  In California, you could be convicted of a misdemeanor and fined up to $1,000. A new bill could change that. Ted Bundy was a notorious rapist and serial killer in the mid and late 1970s who served time in the Pitkin County jail in Aspen, Colorado. In 1977, Bundy escaped from jail. The sheriff there called a posse – a group of able-bodied, armed men summoned by a sheriff to enforce the law – to apprehend him. Bundy was later apprehended and sentenced to death. It’s laudable that members of the Pitkin County community worked to apprehend a wanted rapist and serial killer. But what if the situation was different? What if a sheriff commanded you to help him apprehend a non-violent drug user and you refused? What if a police officer demanded you assist her apprehending a sex worker? In California, under the California Posse Comitatus Act of 1872, if “an able-bodied person 18 years of age or older”… refuse[s] to comply with a cop’s call for assistance in making an arrest, recapturing a suspect fleeing custody “or preventing a breach of the peace or the commission of any criminal offense” that person could be convicted of a misdemeanor and fined up to $1,000.   But even without posse comitatus, citizens can volunteer to help apprehend the Ted Bundys of the world without the threat of a misdemeanor and a hefty fine hanging over them if they refuse. Let’s dig a little deeper for a moment. What does posse comitatus mean and why do we have it? According to Black’s Law Dictionary “posse comitatus” means “…the power or force of the county. The entire population of a county above the age of fifteen, which a sheriff may summon to his assistance in certain cases as to aid him in keeping the peace, in pursuing and arresting felons …” can be traced back to the reign of Alfred the Great in ninth-century England. Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist 29 that the Necessary and Proper Clause in the U.S. Constitution granted the federal government the power of posse comitatus. Prior to the American Civil War, the Fugitive Slave Act was passed by Congress which required citizens to hunt fugitive slaves if they were called upon. To many Americans living in the north, being forced by federal marshals to recapture slaves felt eerily close to practicing slavery. And even after the Civil War, posse comitatus continues. And, as mentioned prior, California in 1872 passed the California Posse Comitatus Act. Recently California State Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg, D-Los Angeles, introduced a bill to repeal the California Posse Comitatus Act. Sen. Hertzberg thinks the law is “…antiquated and no longer needed…” Meanwhile, law enforcement lobbying groups are still formulating a response. The United States and California, in particular, needs less government coercion and more freedom. When criminals in our communities engage in rape, robbery, and murder, community members have and will volunteer to assist law enforcement. But law enforcement should not have the power to order citizens to assist them in capturing non-violent citizens engaging in victimless crimes or crimes that violate their consciences. Therefore, the California Posse Comitatus Act of 1872 should be repealed.

Universal Basic Income has Failed in Theory and in Reality

Written by TJ Roberts on . Posted in Economics, Issues, Liberator Online, Libertarianism, News, News You Can Use, Uncategorized. 1 Comment on Universal Basic Income has Failed in Theory and in Reality

Universal Basic Income is economically bankrupt policy. In theory, it spikes price inflation, costs too much and eliminates the incentive to work. A new study from Finland has proven the theory behind this. Finland gave 2,000 unemployed individuals a UBI amounting to $634 per month, and these individuals were no more likely to pursue employment than those who were on the current welfare system. Universal Basic Income Has Destructive Effects While the study indicates that the unemployed were happier, this does not demonstrate that the experiment is a good idea. Universal Basic Income discourages innovation whereas it has the capacity to remove people from the workforce. It leads to a chilling effect. If I am satisfied by the monthly UBI, I then have no incentive to contribute to the market, which makes not only my life better, but also improves the lives of the people at large. Universal Basic Income Drives up Prices If a UBI is implemented among everyone, prices would skyrocket. Consider the incentives: if I am a landlord and I know everyone is making a certain amount of money per month, then I have every incentive to increase rent. This would make housing even less accessible to those in need. Decreasing prices, not a guaranteed income, has led to unprecedented levels of prosperity throughout the world. A UBI would obliterate the poor’s buying power and make them even more reliant upon the state, which is the exact opposite way to lift people out of poverty. Universal Basic Income is Cronyism For everyone who still has a job, they are still receiving the UBI (assuming it is actually universal). With this in mind, an intelligent businessperson would slash wages whereas workers can afford to take this pay cut. The businesses, in this way, are offsetting the costs of business to the taxpayer. Universal Basic Income becomes a form of corporate welfare whereas it forces the common person to pay the wages of workers when that ought to be the responsibility of the employer. Universal Basic Income Destroys Incentives In other words, incentives matter. Incentives encourage behavior that benefits you, the consumer. As a consumer, you have next to no power in a society with a UBI. If everyone has a secure income, they have no incentive to respond to market cues. This naturally leads to inefficient use of resources, crowding out ideas that would actually benefit humanity. UBI collectivizes society’s resources and therefore makes economic calculation impossible. Universal Basic Income fundamentally alters the incentive structure of society. It encourages stagnation and complacency. It stunts innovation and entrepreneurship. The UBI closes the economy off to innovation, dooming it to a closed system which will inevitably die. The UBI is a failure in theory; it is also a failure in the real world.
manufacturing trump steel

US Manufacturing Wounded By Trump Protectionism

Written by Alice Salles on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economics. No Comments on US Manufacturing Wounded By Trump Protectionism

Elected officials always assume they have the answer to all social and economic problems. Unfortunately, most of these problems start precisely because a bureaucrat somewhere decided he was going to fix something. When it comes to the coming recession American manufacturing is about to experience, many of us understand that President Trump is, at least, partially to blame. Unfortunately, not all of us are open to the underlying issue in this lesson, and will proceed to advocate for more intervention whenever a new president is elected. How about ignoring politicians altogether and paying attention to what economics has to teach us instead? manufacturing trump steel Manufacturing in the United States has been in decline for decades. But when Trump was urging Americans to vote for him, he promised to bring those jobs back. Unfortunately, he also promised to wage a trade war with China, which has materialized in the form of increased tariffs. The result was almost immediate. Companies that once supported him such as Harley-Davidson started packing up. And now, the Federal Reserve issued a report saying that industrial production in the US dropped 0.6 percent in January, when the industry was expecting a 0.1 percent increase. A direct result of protectionist policies. The auto industry is perhaps one of the hardest hit. With the production of vehicles going from 12.3 million units in December to 10.6 million in January, it’s clear that what’s truly impacting manufacturing is the cost of steel. With the tariffs on steel making the lives of manufacturers hard, they proceed to petition the government for tariff exemptions. But the national steel industry either objects or is unable to deliver. When manufacturers ask for exemptions from steel coming from China, as those firms are able to produce what’s needed, they get it — 39 percent of the time. Unfortunately, this bureaucratic process is hurting auto and other producers who  are unable to have access to less expensive steel or who have their petitions shut down. That’s when they know have to slash production in order to stay afloat. With Chinese steel manufacturers feeling less of the pressure as demand from other Asian countries grows, they are in no rush to pressure the Chinese government to urge Trump to change his mind. And with the U.S. government allowing more tariff exemptions on the Chinese product, thanks in part to U.S. steel  manufacturers themselves, the national industry is hurting. As Henry Hazlitt wrote in Economics in One Lesson, “[t]he art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.” Unfortunately, elected officials have no incentives to do that, as all that matters is to make a promise that sounds good on paper. Trump may boast that price of domestic steel is high and that that proves his plan works. But he cannot warp reality or ignore the laws of economics just to make a point. When you impose tariffs in order to “protect” a certain industry, lack of competition drives costs up, hurting consumers. In this case, the first to suffer are the manufacturers. But in no time, this will trickle down to us all — common Americans who will notice they may no longer afford certain goods. As the manufacturing industry braces for another recession, watch as Trump pats himself on the back for making American steel great again.

California’s Suffocating Policies Worsen Crime Among Homeless

Written by Alice Salles on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economics, Liberator Online, News You Can Use. No Comments on California’s Suffocating Policies Worsen Crime Among Homeless

California’s homelessness problem is still here, even after city officials funneled millions in federal money to its epicenter, Downtown Los Angeles. But as a great number of people continue to live in the streets, officials struggle with yet another issue: increased crime rates.

A local NBC affiliate reports that Los Angeles police are scrambling to keep up with the number of crimes involving homeless suspects. And in January, this number increased once again, reaching the 920 incident mark during the first month of the year. According to LA officials, that’s a 29 percent increase from January 2018.

The number of crimes naming the homeless as victims also increased by 22 percent.

The noticeable increase, LAPD Commander Dominic Choi told reporters, is not as much about more crime being committed as it is about more crimes being reported.

“There’s an awareness and [people] are reporting more, our coding is better so we’re capturing a lot more, and, quite frankly, there are more victims out there,” he said. Still, the fact officials are only now managing to properly categorize these crimes doesn’t change the fact the city’s homelessness problem is making the entire region less safe, for both residents and the homeless.

For instance, homeless suspects were connected to 101 of the 731 cases of aggravated assaults reported in January. And out of all the aggravated assault cases happening in downtown Los Angeles, officials add, nearly half were reportedly committed by homeless suspects.

In one case, a 31-year-old suffered a collapsed lung and other critical injuries in a knife attack committed by a 45-year-old man described as an “unemployed transient.”

A 67-year-old man was also severely injured and placed in a medically-induced coma after a man with no permanent residence beat him and smashed him with a table. And in yet another horrific case, a man was pushed off a sidewalk and into the path of an oncoming truck and suffered major injuries. His attacker, a man described as a transient, was later arrested.

Despite this reality, the city maintains that the number of people living in the streets has fallen in 2018. But, the three percent drop hasn’t seemed to make crime involving the homeless less likely. And with the state’s suffocating housing policies still in place, it’s clear we’re not even close to seeing a real solution to this problem.

Government Is Why California Has A Homeless Crisis

Being the state with the worst poverty rate in the country, California also trails behind when it comes to housing. But with more than four in every 10 households spending more than 30 percent of their income on rent, it’s clear that things aren’t getting easier.

But why is it so hard to find affordable living structures in the Golden State? Well, when there’s a shortage of units, there’s a huge spike in costs. And as counties and other local government bodies continue to impose restrictive land-use regulations, builders cannot build.

With a lower supply of housing available, the growing demand sees no alternative. In the end, this cycle forces people to take on desperate measures.

With other restrictive policies in place such as high minimum wage laws and environmental regulations, businesses also suffer either because it’s hard to fill up positions or because it’s nearly impossible to obtain permits to carry out projects.

The housing industry suffers the most, as it requires resources that impact the environment.

If city and state officials truly cared about the crisis, they would push for deregulatory policies, not more government intervention in the economy. Unfortunately, that might not be in the cards for the Golden State any time soon.

House Tells Trump to End Yemen War, But Offers F-15-Sized Loophole

Written by Nick Hankoff on . Posted in Middle East, Military, National Defense, News. 1 Comment on House Tells Trump to End Yemen War, But Offers F-15-Sized Loophole

Don’t cheer yet about the House resolution to end the US role in the decimation of Yemen. There’s a giant loophole that allows President Trump to keep up his support of Saudi Arabia’s bombings. On Wednesday, the US House of Representatives voted 248-177 in favor of pulling US troops out of the war on Yemen. Known as House Joint Resolution 37, the bill now moves on to the Senate, which approved a similar measure in November. But don’t get excited. The resolution, supported by 18 House Republicans and the entire Democratic caucus, also included an amendment from Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colorado), which allows “the sharing of intelligence between the United States and any foreign country if the President determines that such sharing is appropriate.” That means that even if the resolution passes the Senate and overcomes a White House veto threat, it won’t make much of a difference. The Saudis rely on US intelligence to determine what targets to attack, despite the fact that the mainstream media refers constantly to a “Saudi-led coalition.” The Pentagon quit mid-air refueling of Saudi warplanes late last year, about the same time the Senate passed a similar resolution against the unconstitutional war on Yemen. Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) had led on the issue of questioning the US alliance with Saudi Arabia, but it wasn’t until journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered upon orders from the Saudi government that the four-year-old war on Yemen garnered wide awareness. Unfortunately, the current effort to stop the war could become nothing more than a campaign rallying point for the opportunists seeking four years of government housing in 2020. Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) have co-sponsored the legislation. It remains to be seen if they will confront the F-15-sized loophole that guts the bill’s fundamental goal. Bad bills get passed all the time. And the rare legislation supported by libertarian-leaning House Republicans like Thomas Massie of Kentucky or Justin Amash of Michigan is never perfect. But was this one worth it? Not in the case of Amash it would seem. He voted “present” as if to protest the bill without opposing it. Massie voted yea, as did Freedom Caucus members Mo Brooks of Alabama, Jim Jordan of Ohio, and the caucus chairman Mark Meadows of North Carolina. Here’s hoping that the Senate will correct the flaws in the resolution. Last November, every Democrat and 14 Republicans in the Senate voted for just that. Even Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) defied Secretary of State Mike Pompeo from the floor at the time, saying, “I found their briefing today to be lacking. I found that in substance we’re not doing those things that we should be doing to appropriately balance our relationship with Saudi Arabia between our American interests and our American values.” As the US national debt soars past $22 trillion, foreign policy remains the defining issue of this era. The empire will cripple the republic and fold in on itself under economic pressure if this course isn’t reversed soon.

Journalism’s Purpose in a Free Society

Written by Remso Martinez on . Posted in First Amendment, Liberator Online, News You Can Use. No Comments on Journalism’s Purpose in a Free Society

The legacy media ranging from cable news to print newspaper has in many ways turned off many Americans from the news. The era in which your regular consumer imagined that the press was objective and unbiased has come and gone some will say, but I’d argue that era only existed in our mired imagination masquerading as a memory. The media has, and always will be biased, slanted, and unobjective, but even biased media has a place in a free society. Legendary outlaw journalist Hunter S. Thompson knew as far back as 1972 that anyone in media pretending to be objective was simply trying to make themselves appear more righteous than the rest. In his book Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ‘72, Thompson wrote “So much for Objective Journalism. Don’t bother to look for it here–not under any byline of mine; or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.” The question left to be raised is if no journalism can be accomplished without bias or slant? Can it be true journalism? Can it be done for the benefit of all mankind or simply the preferred audience of the writer? In many countries outside of the United States, journalism is a dangerous field of work. Journalists are often blackmailed, beaten, or even murdered for simply investigating to find the truth of a matter. All journalism, at its core, is meant to shed light on areas of your life and the world around you that wouldn’t typically find its way into a regular conversation. While much of today’s media landscape has focused on the politics of personal destruction, clickbait, and over-exaggerated tabloids, the true purpose of journalism down to its core has been to expose fraud, waste, abuse, and injustice. Even in today’s day in age, the left-wing media needs the right-wing media, and vice versa, in order to keep each other balanced. From investigating corrupt business dealings to government injustices, the role of a journalist in a free society is to act as a watchdog on consolidated power and act as an alarm for the people. The issue at hand is that journalists provide a public service, yet are competing in an environment where their work is drowned out by the need to compete for clicks and ratings. True investigative journalism takes time, effort, and resources that in some cases don’t find the results that were expected and for that reason, big publishers don’t want to invest in something that might not bring them exactly what they want in order to get a positive return on investment. Instead, many so-called “journalists” today never leave their offices, and simply search the internet so they can summarize and reword the work of someone else. There is hope, however, and the market provides. The age of the internet has given true independent journalists the opportunity to find their own audience and voice, and use resources such as Kickstarter and Patreon in order to finance their day to day lives and projects. While the legacy media is seeing a purge as many writers are laid off, the era for independent journalists seems to be in bloom as consumers on the left and right side of the political aisle are individual supporting journalists they might not agree with on every issue, but know they report the facts in the best way possible. The American people might be losing faith in the media, but the people still have faith that the intentions of many journalists are to be the watchdogs’ society needs to remain free.

Waze Makes Drivers Safer and NYPD Hates That

Written by TJ Roberts on . Posted in Issues, Liberator Online, News, News You Can Use. 1 Comment on Waze Makes Drivers Safer and NYPD Hates That

New York Police Department (NYPD) has sent a cease and desist letter to Google, ordering them to discontinue the feature of their navigation app, Waze, that allows them to report the location of police officers on the road. This, of course, encourages people to slow down and drive safer. If NYPD actually protected and served, they would cheer on Waze. The problem, however, is that this takes away from NYPD’s revenue. As a result of this, the police want to shut down a feature that makes us all safer. Shutting Down Waze: Power over Freedom, Money Over Safety As mentioned above, Waze’s police notification makes drivers safer. There are dangerous speeds at which people do drive. If a GPS, however, notifies them that there is a law enforcement officer nearby, it encourages them to reduce their speed, thus putting them and other drivers in less danger. This also benefits individual officers as well. As people lower their speeds, the need for traffic control lessens. This frees up law enforcement’s time to pursue cases that have actual victims. If the police really wanted to make the streets safer and allow for their officers to ensure that justice is served where it is most needed, they would spam Waze. NYPD would report that police were on every street corner. This would encourage people to slow down, drive sober, and drive as if their life and liberty depended upon it. This, however, is clearly not what NYPD wants. Rather than protect the lives and liberty of the public, NYPD wants to make money. They want to meet quotas. Waze makes checkpoints and speed traps irrelevant to the intelligent driver. This is why they want to ban them. If the police trap someone in a checkpoint, the driver may fall victim to warrant-less searches and inspections. This leads to fines and other legal penalties. This is what NYPD actually wants. They want to shut down Waze because it makes it more difficult for them to generate revenue for the state. The State: The Ultimate Fearmonger Perhaps the bright side of this lawsuit is that the state is showing its true colors. “Protect and Serve” is a mantra to which NYPD seems to hold no dedication. While Waze has a function that keeps drivers free and makes them safer, the state wants to shut it down because they value power and revenue over life and liberty. While NYPD preaches fire and brimstone, claiming that Waze is allowing for drunk drivers to get away, the exact opposite is true. When an intoxicated individual knows that cops are present in highly populated areas, they tend to stay away. It cannot be denied that Waze saves the people money. They save people time. They save people’s lives. The desire to shut such a service down is a blatant power grab that holds no logical bearing. One cannot support NYPD in this lawsuit while simultaneously claiming to be against big government. If NYPD succeeds, they will not only trample upon the idea of “Protect and Serve,” they will also decimate the freedom of expression for drivers. Regardless of the consequences, I can tell other people about the location of police on the road, and no one has the right to stop me.