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.

User Not Found

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

Skip to main content

Quizzes & Apps

Articles

Author: Remso Martinez

Wisconsin City Declares War on Snowball Fights

According to a recent report from Fox News, the Wausau, Wisconsin government officially “has on its books an ordinance against throwing snowballs at someone standing on public property.”

So imagine this, you’re going to the post office to drop off some mail with your kids, and they decide to have a snowball fight outside like kids do, while you stand in line. An average situation right? Well, if you do so in the city of Wausau, once that first snowball flies through the air over the public property (i.e. the post office grounds), you better expect the boys in blue to show up to the scene of the crime.

Luckily though, no one in town knows if any snowball related offenses have been committed since the ordinance was declared. In fact, Mayor Robert Mielke didn’t know if any prior offenses had been committed or even how such an ordinance would be enforced.

What is the point of law if it had no justification for existing, no one remembers it even being put into law, and not even the chief executive knows how it would be enforced if someone did report such a silly offense taking place?

Wausau Officer Mason Hagenbucher told the press, “We would address it appropriately, and in my head– I don’t know if a citation would be appropriate,” adding that “You just don’t throw stuff at people, period.”

If caught throwing a snowball on the public property one could expect a hefty fine of $114.

What this situation shows is that the government makes problems out of non-existing problems, creates a mechanism to take money from the people, but then may or may not follow through on how to actually enforce the laws they deemed so necessary.

As we enter upon another season of snow, go out and throw a snowball for freedom with your friends and see how many passersby’s run for their lives and call the police.

Batman Falls as DC Comics Bows to China Amidst Hong Kong Revolt

Corporate coercion and censorship are in vogue as yet another American company bends to the Chinese-communist government and their massive consumer market.

This time around, the purveyors of some of the world’s greatest comic book superheroes, DC Comics, are now in some serious heat over pulling a controversial Batman cover that had been adopted by the pro-Hong Kong youth movement.

The cover for DC Comic’s new Black Label series “Dark Knight Returns: The Golden Child,” which shows Batman throwing a molotov cocktail with the caption “The future is young,” became a viral moment when pro-Hong Kong activists began to use the cover as a mechanism of pro-youth propaganda they way they had with the recent Trump/Rocky meme.

Within hours, the Batman cover went viral.

DC Comics pulled it before the Chinese government retaliated against Disney. Hong Kong protestors “memed” President Xi Jinping as Winnie the Pooh because of his resemblance to the cartoon bear.

DC Comics is a private entity and has the right to do whatever they want with their content. But censoring themselves isn’t always moral.

If anything, this shows that political and cultural moves by companies to seem relevant as they virtue signal only goes as far as they can before they potentially cut themselves off from billions of dollars in profit by being banned from massive consumer markets.

For DC, letting the protestors make claims about a comic book cover wasn’t worth making the Chinese government unhappy.

According to a piece discussing this situation in the Daily Wire, “Disney, video game company Blizzard, and DC’s comics rival Marvel have all come under fire for adjusting works of fiction to fit the tastes of Chinese censors. Regardless, the protests in Hong Kong have worn on, and now have the explicit support of the American government, a move that drove government officials to threaten American interests.”

Globalnews.ca also covered this situation and included a reminder of the dark realities for Hong Kong citizens and the controversial extradition law which, “…Would have given China the power to extradite Hong Kong citizens to the mainland, where the Chinese Communist Party has more power to punish people who criticize the government.”

While an uproar about a comic book cover may seem like a joke, what liberty advocates cannot neglect is that this is a flair amidst a firestorm of danger in the autonomous region under the thumb of communism.

The Lobster Casualties of the Trade War

Americans are learning the hard way how tariffs are affecting unique industries in the trade war waged by President Trump and the Chinese. What might be a surprise to many is that one industry we all took for granted might find itself in boiling water should the trade war escalate – the lobster industry, that is.

According to a recent report from CNN, one such company is dealing with this trade war the hard way.

Reporter Katie Lobosco writes that in 2017, the “Maine Coast Company was shipping 2 million pounds of live lobster– worth $12 million — to China annually.”

The problem now is, since the Trump tariffs went into effect, “China slapped a tariff on US lobsters in July of 2018, and about 20% of Maine Coast’s sales instantly evaporated.”

American jobs, taxes, and lobsters are the casualties in the trade war between two hostile trading partners who are using the marketplace as their personal playground.

For some readers, you might not think the lobster industry being bloodied is worth an unequal trading system, but for America’s farmers in the heartland, they might disagree with you.

Lobosco points out that “Farmers in the Midwest were hit especially hard because China put tariffs on a variety of agricultural products ranging from soybeans and corn to wheat and pork.US manufacturers are paying the tariffs Trump has put on some industrial materials and American importers are facing higher prices for a variety of Chinese-made goods, like TVs, sneakers, and bikes.”

Last I checked, without thriving farmers, we find ourselves in a bit of a predicament.

While the road to economic warfare continues to be paved by the resources and labor of the citizenry for whatever politically expedient of the moment there is, some truths will never change.

Tariffs are taxes on the very same people politicians vow to protect and fight on their behalf against the mean trading partners – who will also be hit in numerous ways – simply continuing the cycle of economic retaliation.

Around the time that the initial round of tariffs went into effect in 2018, the Editors at the Mises Institute put it rather plainly, stating that, “American taxes represent an attack on American consumers, American taxpayers, and American entrepreneurs. The Trump administration’s tariff policy will reduce real incomes and raise the cost of doing business. There is no upside.”

The next time you see a lobster on ice, maybe you’ll be a bit more empathetic knowing you’re both being played for the expense of others.

Is It Time to Forgive Bloomberg’s “Stop and Frisk” Nightmare?

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg entered the 2020 race for the Democratic nomination, stating that, “I’m running for president to defeat Donald Trump and rebuild America.”

But as voters across the country reorient themselves with Bloomberg, will they still see him as a man who could “rebuild America”? His previous political positions show that might not be the case.

For years, Bloomberg ushered in and championed progressive causes, such as the gun control advocacy organization Everytown for Gun Safety. However, the one policy that will cause him the biggest headache will come not only from constitutional conservatives and civil libertarians but from progressives who fear that racial discrimination still plays a large role in American law enforcement and our criminal justice system.

Known to the general public as “Stop and Frisk”, Bloomberg brought about one of the most egregious law enforcement practices in modern America. This policy allowed police officers to forcibly restrain random individuals and frisk them head to toe in order to see whether they were in possession of stolen or illegal materials – all without specific, probable cause.

A recent article from the New York Daily News reminds readers of this unethical policy, like NYC resident Nicholas Peart, who was manhandled on his eighteenth birthday while at dinner with several relatives when a New York City police officer ordered him to the ground – at gunpoint – in order to reach into Peart’s pocket for his wallet in order to check his ID.

According to the official report, the officers on the scene holstered their weapons, wished Peart a happy birthday, and drove off without an apology. Peart later sued the city in order to combat the unconstitutional stops. Peart was assaulted by police again in 2011.

Peart’s story is the story of many hundreds of black and Latino New Yorkers who were stopped and frisked for no reason. For years, Bloomberg’s policy represented the darkest side of the moral questions regarding liberty vs. security.

Now, Bloomberg is running for the presidency on the premise of being a moderate reformer and unifier. While Bloomberg was still testing the waters for the race, he issued an apology, discussing his deep regrets over the universally unpopular policy. Whether you believe Bloomberg’s apology or not, the timing is suspicious.

As for Milan Taylor, another man who was also unjustly stopped and frisked while on a neighborhood jog in Queens, – who most famously told Bloomberg to his face that the policy was morally wrong – he’s not buying it.

Taylor told the New York Daily News he doesn’t buy Bloomberg’s apology one bit. “He’s been out of office for seven years. Now that he’s running for president, he apologizes? It’s a little too late.”

“Stop and Frisk” is one of the many examples of what happens civil liberties are sacrificed for security theater. No matter the neighborhood, Americans must decide when injustice against one is an injustice against all freedom-loving people.

The Desperate War on Vaping is Running out of Arguments

For several years, the federal government has toyed with the idea of banning e-cigs and vaping devices. With recent bans on flavored e-juices, the tool meant to help smokers quit cigarettes could be outlawed outright with potential executive orders. However, the unintended consequences of the current actions by state and federal regulators are proving that maybe the state’s actions are more harmful than beneficial for American smokers.

According to FreedomWorks researcher Luke Hogg, new polls show the outright danger of banning e-cigs. Hogg cites a Gallup poll from last July showing that an estimated 8 percent of the population (or around 26 million Americans) “say they have vaped within the past week.” More recent polls from the Vapor Technology Association also show that a larger percentage of the population may be vaping than the federal government predicted.

Hogg states that on November 19, 2019, “the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) rolled back its previous assertion that e-cigarettes were linked to a series of lung illnesses throughout the country. After laboratory testing, the CDC has concluded that the primary cause of the mysterious vaping related illnesses was the inclusion of vitamin E acetate in THC-containing vapes. Vitamin E acetate, a thickening agent used in marijuana vapes, is not allowed in regulated vaping products and has primarily entered the United States through black market sales. The chemical is not found in nicotine e-cigarettes and none of the illnesses reported resulted from vaping nicotine.”

With outcomes like these, the foundation for the war against vaping seems is crumbling. The facts are clear, Americans are quitting cigarettes for safer vaping alternatives such as e-cigs. Unregulated e-juices such as the THC-containing vapes are to blame instead of the products tested by professional labs and businesses, all this points to the undeniable truth that this whole war on vaping has less to do with protecting children and saving lives and more about big tobacco lobbyists running out of clout within regulatory agencies and other groups like the American Medical Association (AMA).

The AMA just this week ironically issued a statement asking for a complete ban on all vapor products, and as Hogg puts it bluntly, “despite the evidence.”

While most American voters agree that there should be logical steps to prevent young people from illegally obtaining nicotine products, the concept of banning vaping devices shouldn’t be considered a logical option at all.

“Americans should never be forced to give up their liberties,” Hogg states, “especially when doing so would likely result in more public harm than the status quo.

While the current administration has backed down from banning e-cigs, for the time being, many state governments and even members of Congress are still desperately fighting to take away the freedom to choose another way of ending nicotine use.

Why Brexit Should Matter to Americans

When Brexit passed by a popular vote in 2016, shockwaves hit global markets as the voting citizens of England declared their own independence. Now almost four years have passed and the UK has gone through two Prime Ministers, a new political party rose out of the ashes of UKIP, and now British citizens have to go through another general election in order to solidify whether or not the promises of Brexit will ever come through. The question is, why should this matter to Americans? Our American experiment was founded on the premise of self-determination. One of the primary legal arguments prior to the American Revolution was that “taxation without representation” voided obligations of the American colonists to the King and his parliament. Because America had no representation in the British parliament – and none would be allowed – this sparked our Founding Fathers to met in Philadelphia to declare their independence. Now hundreds of years later, the British people are in a remarkably similar situation despite some big differences. Because of the pressure to constantly conform their borders, their economies, and their civil liberties to that of the collectivist standards of the European Union, the British citizenry use their rights to decide whether England should be a true and sovereign nation, or simply a sub-state of the European Union powers. First, they fought, then they won, but now it seems that Prime Minister Boris Johnson – who became a late champion for Brexit when it became a possibility of coming true – can’t “get Brexit done” as the Conservatives say. It is not a secret that internationally binding trade agreements formed by corporate interest, supranational organizations such as the WTO, the UN, and NATO, and other globalist initiatives are everyday attempting to dwindle the size and authority of the nation-state system in order slowly erode the voting power and the rights of the everyday citizen. Americans should ask themselves some simple questions: Do we take our civil liberties at home for granted or do we far too often trade them for the false theater of security? Are our taxes better spent being used at home or being used to bargain with dictators and foreign nations who don’t have our interest at heart? Regardless of whether you’re a Democrat, Republican, or another political party, how much individual authority are you willing to give away until you have nothing at all? Regardless of the outcome of Brexit, what this moment in the history of Western democracies shows are the successes and failures of the democratic system, how special interests are capable of circumventing the authority of the citizenry, and the nightmare that has become far too real for people who, by definition, are now subservient to a foreign power they have no say in.

What I Learned From an Anti-Gun Rally

There is no honest way to explain a peculiar gathering of people unless you go and walk among them yourself. Trying to report on their gathering without doing so is simply relying on your own prejudice and base instinct. To write about something you don’t want to see is like asking a blind person to describe a painting they know nothing about, yet this is how much of the news media is generated. So when a Moms Demand Action rally rolled into town, I took it upon myself to see what was actually going on. I walked to the rally location, and the first thing I noticed was that there were mostly families. I had to keep this in mind because these people are obviously thinking of issues beyond themselves. This is key to understanding political discourse, as we should never forget the humanity of others. I spoke with people ranging from teachers to photographers and to folks from all occupations in between. The general consensus was that they weren’t as gung-ho about banning all guns as some in the media will claim they are. They were just trying to find a way to end gun violence. These people may have been at a Moms Demand Action rally, but seeing them as individuals instead of anti-liberty activists helped me benefit from the genuine conversations I had with them. The biggest takeaway I had from the conversations is that these people are part of social circles that generally don’t know much about guns or firearms in general. They take most of what they know from other people they associate with who know as little as they do. When talking with these folks, I tried my hardest to just ask them why they believed the things they did and whether they knew what they were really advocating for. That way I could understand them instead of just trying to lecture them, or worse, shout at them and tell them why they were wrong about everything. The key to constructive political discussion isn’t to just beat people in a debate but to genuinely convince them to change their minds. As is often said in the sales world- no one wants to be sold but everyone wants to buy. By showing these folks I genuinely wanted to learn about their stances, I even managed to change some of their views on firearms and gun owners instead of intensifying the anti-gun views they already held. Pursuing civil and respectful discourse may seem like a tall order when the world around you appears to be going crazy, yet people generally just want to be treated like adults, so remember that the next time you are out of your element with people who think differently than you.

Peace Isn’t a Partisan Issue

I’ve been describing and summarizing libertarianism for years to different people and organizations so that the message of liberty could best be communicated in a way they understand according to their worldview. If I never had another chance to summarize it again and had to leave the world with one last, universal description, it would have to be this: libertarians advocate for the peaceful existence of non-violent individuals free to interact in a voluntary society. Sadly, while this is a sentiment perhaps most Americans hold today, our lives seem to be dictated more by partisan balkanization and less by the principles we really hold dear. Perhaps this is why libertarianism is considered so radical according to media pundits, progressive academics, and statist politicians, because libertarians don’t want to tell you how to live your life, as long as you respect the right of others to live their lives according to the direction of their own conscience. Whereas the main political parties seem to change their stances and ideologies constantly in order to chase votes, libertarians aren’t bound to any one specific political party since their stances are bound to the principles of peace. Peace is the ultimate direction most men and women in today’s world wish to follow. Peace allows you to live, speak, trade, love, and believe what and how you will without fear of violence or unjust persecution. While for many peace may seem like a childhood sentiment that isn’t a viable solution for the way the real world works, peace is ultimately the only principle worth staking everything on. As we prepare for another presidential year, ask yourself just some basic questions- which candidate not only wishes for peace but advocates for non-violent policies? Which candidate isn’t willing to harm people or deprive them of liberty in order to achieve their goals? Which candidate sees people as individuals and not just separate voter demographics? These aren’t easy questions with obvious answers, and sometimes they can lead you down to more questions than you might have anticipated. Peace isn’t partisan, it is color blind, and often people in positions of power will speak of it without either understanding what it means or for the sake of false platitudes. Peace can be an unpopular option because in a world of greed and power politics, we have to look beyond our need for control and into our hearts to know that ultimately peace is the only solution ever worth advocating for.

When Law Enforcers Abuse the Law

This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, but sometimes bad people get into powerful positions of authority and end up doing bad things to otherwise innocent and good people. This fact alone is obvious to many, but sometimes real life scenarios don’t make it as obvious. Recently a black college student went viral online with released police body cam video that showed a police officer going out of his way to profile and harass an innocent man. Later, he irrationally pulled out his handgun on the civilian until other cops showed up and de-escalated the situation when they realized the officer involved had no probable cause. What was the student in trouble for in the first place which got the cop’s attention? He was walking around his apartment building with a trash clamp and a bucket picking up trash and liter, which was his job in the first place. The citizen knew his rights and was well within them to ask the cop to leave. The officer kept probing the man with questions and at one point, nearly physically accosted him without being otherwise provoked. The situation nearly got fatal when the cop claimed he was feared for his life because of the student’s “weapons” – referring to the plastic trash scooper and bucket. If the other cops had not arrived, who knows what could have happened. Situations like this happen every day, and most never get this kind of media attention. Sadly, they sometimes turn deadly. The important thing to understand is that no amount of authority gives someone immunity from responsibility, the justification to do the unjust, and blanket claim of unquestionable wisdom. Yes, you should be obedient and respectful to the law, but you should not allow those to abuse the law to abuse you. In a free society abuse, fraud, and corruption can only be stopped and prevented by a watchful and knowledgable people. How can you know if your rights are being trampled upon if you don’t know your rights, to begin with? In the United States, it is seen as a societal sin to challenge the authority of those behind the badge even though it is the moral obligation of free men and women to know when the lines are crossed. Blind obedience to man is an unjust affliction to the innocent. For those not convinced, remember that every person harmed unjustly is just another statistic until it becomes you or someone you love.

Liberty on the Ballot

War and politics make strange bedfellows but sometimes they even manage to pit friend against friend. Sometimes, trying to advance the same cause can sometimes pit you against former allies who believe they are advancing the same effort as you, which tends to make things a tad complicated. In my five years as political operative staffing, running, and consulting for various candidates throughout the country ranging from city council to Senate candidates, what I can confirm for you is that in everyone’s mind, they assume that they are right and you are wrong – it’s that simple. Within the libertarian (small L) community, the same problems still apply. Partisan politics and tense primaries always put our egos on full display. As a libertarian voter, doesn’t it make sense to vote for the Libertarian candidate? At face value it makes sense but in reality, sometimes you have to look between the eyes. What if a Libertarian (big L) candidate advocates for gun control and a universal basic income? Does that make him more or less libertarian-minded than let’s say a pro-gun, anti-tax Republican? This ethical issue can become very complicated because politics at its core is a complicated arena where good intentions go to die and discomfort comes to play. Primaries can sometimes be worst however because the choices can be even slimmer. What do you do in a Democrat or Republican primary when you want to choose the candidate you align with the most, but you know that person can’t win a general election and the more compromising candidate can? At least with the latter, you’ll have a seat at the table, right? The issue with elections is the issue with life itself, sometimes we don’t get clear cut choices, sometimes we just get the hand of cards we’re dealt. The choice you make at the ballot will be between you and the ballot. You have to be the one to define your principles, understand the mindsets of those running, and then justify the outcome, good or bad, as the results become reality. Ultimately for liberty to thrive in our lifetime, we have to engage in the world around us, live out the principles we espouse, and not destroy the lives or reputations of others because of a difference of political opinion no matter how big or small that decision might be.

Millennials Are Fleeing Tax Heavy States

I don’t think anyone ever said “tax them and they will come” because more often than not its the opposite. A recent Fox News report shows that to be the case in states like New York, California, and now my once-upon-a-time liveable home of Virginia. According to the report, “millennials were defined as those younger than 35 with a gross annual income of $100,000 or more. The data was compiled by deducting the number of affluent millennials leaving the state from the number of those moving in, which resulted in almost 5,000 for the year reviewed [from New York state alone].” This was information provided by the IRS from 2015 onward, so this definitely isn’t a recent trend, its a longterm sign of an economic red alert for states where the cost of living alone is becoming difficult for economic mobility. Reasons for the mass exodus include income taxes, business regulations, costs of living, and more burdensome financial levies. Because of this, the report states that many of these wealthy millennials are going to states like Texas, Washington, Colorado, and Florida, where the state income taxes are low to non-existent and the opportunity to start a business and create jobs is alive and thriving. This is a good marketing moment for red states or states like Colorado and Washington which are blue but have a deep libertarian streak within their state legislatures. The report made it clear that “Overall, the Northeast was not a location well-to-do millennials wanted to live…” This isn’t just a trend for the wealthy, this is something that is going on within the mobile middle class as well, especially for retirees. The classic joke that grandma “retired in Florida for the sun and stayed for the price” is true for a reason since the absence of an income tax in states like Florida and Texas show that if people can keep their money, they’ll attempt to do so. Millennials are already the most indebted generation in American history. Student loans aside, federal debts, inbound pensions crisis, and other boondoggles are making it clear that the cost of the American dream is steep and accruing interest by the millisecond. These blue, tax-heavy states need to get spending under control and lower tax burdens, but that is easier said than done. Maybe the only way they’ll realize they need to make a change is when they are jobless, penniless, and otherwise alone in the ruins of once prosperous economies, but like most lessons, they might only learn them when they begin to feel the pinch themselves.

Are Libertarians Just Moderates?

What is a moderate in today’s political environment? When someone describes themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal,” they are often seen as just being moderates. However, this conclusion couldn’t be farther than the truth. The term “moderate” is as loose and ambiguous as defining one’s political views as “independent.” The issue at hand is that one person who identifies themselves as a moderate could be completely different than another person who identifies themselves as a moderate. One moderate could be pro-life and another could be pro-choice. Another independent could be a split ticket voter every election and another independent could vote Republican for reasons other than a regular conservative. Perhaps the best way to define moderates and independents is as being part of a broad, undefined group of individuals without a guiding political ideology. Libertarians could potentially be independents if we are talking specifically in partisan terms, especially when you take into account there are libertarians Democrats, Republicans, and members of the Libertarian Party itself. However, you cannot justly define libertarians and libertarianism as being a moderate ideology whatsoever. Libertarianism is based on the concepts of natural rights, non-aggression, and voluntary cooperation. Libertarians view individual rights as inalienable and private property rights as the bedrock to a civil and a free society. Libertarian thought amongst those who believe fully in individual liberty and economic freedom is consistent in their views on certain matters regardless as to what party is in power and who sits in the White House. The fact is, public institutions wish and actively shut out libertarianism from civics courses and U.S. Government classes since the ideals of liberty go directly against our civil religion’s views of the omnipotent state. Therefore, politicians in both parties and progressive academics would rather most voting Independents consider themselves politically moderate so that they are directionless and therefore more easily swayed to make drastic decisions based out of sheer emotion each time a tragedy or severe challenge upsets the status quo. The next time someone defines you as a moderate for your fiscally conservative, socially liberal views, you can smile and tell them that your guiding principles are life, liberty, property, and the freedom for individuals to define and pursue their own definition of happiness in a world without force or coercion by any monopoly of power.