Tag: liberty
Intellectual Property is Destroying Magic; Only Freedom Can Save It
As a performer of magic, Intellectual Property (IP) has always been a contentious issue. Many of my fellow performers believe that IP protects their creations. They believe that it ensures no one uses the effect without paying the proper price to gain access to the secrets of the illusions. I never shared that perspective, and now the magic community is seeing why.
The United States Playing Card Company (USPCC), situated a mere twenty minutes from my house, has recently announced a crackdown on the lifeblood of many magicians. The USPCC has decided that no alterations to their cards shall be permitted any longer. As an email from Ellusionist, a notable magic retailer, states: “No gaffing, no staining, no shadows, fades or alterations of any kind.” These cards the USPCC has banned are not necessarily “trick cards.” Rather, they are creative takes on the classic Bicycle playing cards. In other words, the USPCC has just stunted performative creativity among all magicians.
The United States Playing Card Company (USPCC), situated a mere twenty minutes from my house, has recently announced a crackdown on the lifeblood of many magicians. The USPCC has decided that no alterations to their cards shall be permitted any longer. As an email from Ellusionist, a notable magic retailer, states: “No gaffing, no staining, no shadows, fades or alterations of any kind.” These cards the USPCC has banned are not necessarily “trick cards.” Rather, they are creative takes on the classic Bicycle playing cards. In other words, the USPCC has just stunted performative creativity among all magicians.
How Intellectual Property Ruins Magic
It is certainly possible to continue performing with these restrictions. But stringent IP enforcement has made it to where a magician’s imagination is no longer the limit of card magic. Rather, the limit is now up to USPCC, which has decided that any and all alterations of their cards makes it more difficult for them to spot bootlegs and other IP violations, even though every mass-produced novelty deck using the Bicycle framework has been made in partnership with the USPCC. Twilight Angels, a beautiful effect, allows for the magician to alter the back of a signed card. The audience reactions are typically nothing short of pure joy. The USPCC’s new policy effectively bans the production of this effect. Only current owners will be able to do this trick. Twilight Angels is only one of thousands, if not millions of effects that the USPCC’s new IP enforcements will ban. In addition, the creation of new visual effects to dazzle a magician’s audience is all but impossible. Most magicians believed that Intellectual Property would protect their creations. They thought it would ensure that unauthorized teaching of their tricks did not occur. Perhaps it has done so, but I must ask if it was worth it. It is harder now more than ever for small-time magicians to create their own effects in an effort to make a name for themselves. Off the top of my head, I can think of several creations of my own that, had they not been created before this ban, would now be a violation of the USPCC’s Intellectual Property rights. For magicians, the USPCC has artificially created a roadblock to innovation. It simply isn’t worth it to me that my creations be protected from unauthorized reproduction if that same system has the ability to stop me from creating the illusions to begin with. The fact is Intellectual Property has failed to protect magicians and is actively harming our ability to make new creations that enable our performances to continue. Magicians don’t need Intellectual Property.How Freedom Can Save Magic
Magic creators rely on people paying money to learn how to perform effects they create. Of course, Intellectual Property is an easy way to protect said product. That neither makes it the best way nor the only way to protect their bottom line. Every benefit creators gain through IP can just as easily be attained through contracts. For example, if I purchase the instructions on performing Twilight Angels, the creator can create a contract that states that I agree not to expose this secret to other performers. How do I agree to the contract? I agree to it by purchasing the product. This simple alternative would not only protect creators, but it would also protect creators from the IP abuse we are seeing today. Not only would this system do that, but it would also empower magicians to improve upon each other’s product. In magic, no illusion is truly original. Every creation I have seen carries with it inspiration from other performers. Intellectual Property has not helped the art of magic to expand and develop new creations. Rather, it has precluded magicians from a world in which magic is as popular as music and as well-viewed as sports. Magic needs an injection of new blood, not a protection of the monoliths like the United States Playing Card Company who don’t have the best interests of the art form at heart. We should be thankful that the only restrictions the USPCC can place on other magicians is their card designs and various visual effects one can perform by altering the appearance of the cards. But this incident shows that the art of magic is not safe. At any moment, any other product, such as coins, may fall victim to IP and there goes even more of the magic industry. Imagine, if you will, if the USPCC decides to say that their cards and their designs are inherently for gambling. Therefore, the USPCC will only allow casinos to use their products. Just like that, all card magic and all the small time card games are gone. This is completely possible within the grand scheme of things. Fortunately, the USPCC would lose more money than they would gain through a move like this. I have been a magician for around ten years. When I got to the point that I was creating my own illusions, it was a beautiful thing. Many magicians will now never know the joy of creating your own effects due to strict Intellectual Property rules such as the new restrictions from the United States Playing Card Company. Magic and Magicians alike deserve better. We can be better. Without intellectual property, magicians can enter a new era of innovation. The illusions would be truly beautiful. Only freedom can create this magical future.
Mayor ‘Kane’ Questions Covid-19 Lockdown After ‘Utterly Shocking’ Suicide Spike
Knox County Mayor Glenn Jacobs, known worldwide as Kane, recorded a heartfelt video message for his constituents after eight committed suicide within 48 hours. His sober take on the human cost of the Covid-19 lockdown is too rare in today’s politics.
The coronavirus crisis and the government’s response are not going away anytime soon. Everyday that is becoming clearer.
Last week in Knox County, Tennessee, within a 48-hour period, eight suspected suicides were reported. That amounts to nearly 10 percent of 2019’s total of 83 for the county.
“That number is utterly shocking,” Jacobs said in a weekly video update. “It makes me wonder, is what we are doing now really the best approach?”
“How can we respond to Covid-19 in a way that keeps our economy intact, keeps people employed, and empowers our people with the feeling of hope and optimism, not desperation and despair?” he asked.
Jacobs, who has libertarian tendencies and a very impressive grasp of Austrian economics, explained to his constituents that many so-called experts are offering them a false choice: healthy people or an open economy.
“In fact, we must have a healthy economy if we expect to have healthy people,” Jacobs said. “We don’t have a choice.”
In the same week that Knox County experienced its uptick in suicide, the jobless claims across America reached a record-shattering 6.6 million. That broke the previous record by a factor of five.
Flattening the curve may (or may not) be preserving hospital beds and resources, but as Jacobs keenly observes, “The unintended consequence is that we are creating another massive curve, a tidal wave that will overwhelm social services.”
Jacobs may be the most well-spoken politician on this impending national tragedy. In a saner society, he would be heralded as “America’s mayor.” Maybe one day he’ll have a bigger influence on Washington, D.C.
Unfortunately, there is a growing stereotype regarding who would be against the lockdowns around the world. Such a person must not care about the elderly or sick, but only about economic growth. This caricature is based in some truth, sadly, but not at all in the case of Jacobs.
Jacobs does not conceive of the economy as figures on a graph or mere busybodyness to keep dollars circulating. Rightly understood, the economy is about people, complete with their hearts and free will.
Two social commentators who get this are Brendan O’Neill and Peter Hitchens, both of the United Kingdom, where a similarly extreme stay-at-home order is in place.
“The problem with catastrophe is actually that you survive it,” Hitchens told O’Neill on the latter’s podcast. “It’s not like nuclear war where everybody’s dead. Economic catastrophe leaves people alive, staring into space, ghosts of their former selves wondering what on earth has happened.”
O’Neill remarked that the economy isn’t about a line going up, but how people live, and whether or not they live sometimes.
“What they say is that this is a question of lives versus the economy, and they talk about the economy as if it’s just some kind of abstract machine, just numbers and money and profits, when in fact, the economy is people’s lives,” he said.
Killing the economy is killing people. Those who insist on social distancing and closing down everything “nonessential” should no longer be allowed to defend their position from an untouchable moral high ground.
The coronavirus crisis and the government’s response are not going away anytime soon. Everyday that is becoming clearer.
Last week in Knox County, Tennessee, within a 48-hour period, eight suspected suicides were reported. That amounts to nearly 10 percent of 2019’s total of 83 for the county.
“That number is utterly shocking,” Jacobs said in a weekly video update. “It makes me wonder, is what we are doing now really the best approach?”
“How can we respond to Covid-19 in a way that keeps our economy intact, keeps people employed, and empowers our people with the feeling of hope and optimism, not desperation and despair?” he asked.
Jacobs, who has libertarian tendencies and a very impressive grasp of Austrian economics, explained to his constituents that many so-called experts are offering them a false choice: healthy people or an open economy.
“In fact, we must have a healthy economy if we expect to have healthy people,” Jacobs said. “We don’t have a choice.”
In the same week that Knox County experienced its uptick in suicide, the jobless claims across America reached a record-shattering 6.6 million. That broke the previous record by a factor of five.
Flattening the curve may (or may not) be preserving hospital beds and resources, but as Jacobs keenly observes, “The unintended consequence is that we are creating another massive curve, a tidal wave that will overwhelm social services.”
Jacobs may be the most well-spoken politician on this impending national tragedy. In a saner society, he would be heralded as “America’s mayor.” Maybe one day he’ll have a bigger influence on Washington, D.C.
Unfortunately, there is a growing stereotype regarding who would be against the lockdowns around the world. Such a person must not care about the elderly or sick, but only about economic growth. This caricature is based in some truth, sadly, but not at all in the case of Jacobs.
Jacobs does not conceive of the economy as figures on a graph or mere busybodyness to keep dollars circulating. Rightly understood, the economy is about people, complete with their hearts and free will.
Two social commentators who get this are Brendan O’Neill and Peter Hitchens, both of the United Kingdom, where a similarly extreme stay-at-home order is in place.
“The problem with catastrophe is actually that you survive it,” Hitchens told O’Neill on the latter’s podcast. “It’s not like nuclear war where everybody’s dead. Economic catastrophe leaves people alive, staring into space, ghosts of their former selves wondering what on earth has happened.”
O’Neill remarked that the economy isn’t about a line going up, but how people live, and whether or not they live sometimes.
“What they say is that this is a question of lives versus the economy, and they talk about the economy as if it’s just some kind of abstract machine, just numbers and money and profits, when in fact, the economy is people’s lives,” he said.
Killing the economy is killing people. Those who insist on social distancing and closing down everything “nonessential” should no longer be allowed to defend their position from an untouchable moral high ground.
On the 2020 Campaign Trail, Where’s the Truth on the Economy?
The Federal Reserve’s bag of tricks is now empty. Politicians, however, always have more lies to tell about the economy. Voters might get a shot at hearing the truth, however, if the Libertarian Party nominates the right candidate.
It’s consistently a top priority for voters, even during the high points of this fake recovery from the 2008 recession. The economy is closely tied to other issues like health care and education, with their high costs due to government price controls and red tape.
The economy is the essential issue for a candidate to speak on, especially a libertarian one. Only a libertarian can get at the crux of the matter— the Federal Reserve and its vacuous fiat money system causing madness in markets and the wealth stagnation of America’s middle class.
Beyond their pocketbooks, voters stand to also gain clarity of mind on so many other crises that fuel the government’s growth in power. Thanks to the Fed’s easy money, U.S. militarism can run wild abroad and at home, well beyond what citizens would naturally put up with under direct taxation.
It takes a special communicator to raise the Fed issue and command attention. Only Dr. Ron Paul grew his crowds and audiences on his call to abolish the Federal Reserve, making it a populist campaign theme while educating the youth, referring them to Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and other heroic economists.
In 2020, there is an effort within the Libertarian Party to do that again. Jacob Hornberger, one of six candidates vying for the party’s nomination for president, seems to be leading the primary race in no small part due to his ability to speak on the Fed in an educational and exciting way.
Hornberger’s track record goes back decades, founding the Future of Freedom Foundation in 1989. It grew with the Ron Paul Revolution movement, so many libertarian activists see him as something of a rightful heir.
“End the Fed and separate money and the state,” reads Hornberger’s campaign website. “The Federal Reserve is nothing more than a socialist central-planning agency.”
Like Paul, Hornberger can connect the dots between Fed policy and housing, education, and other issues typically treated as wholly unrelated. This holistic approach contrasts with previous Libertarian Party presidential campaigns that attempted to dilute libertarianism down to “fiscally conservative, socially liberal.”
His nomination is no sure thing, however. The way the Libertarian Party decides its nominee is not by primary electoral victories, but rather a direct vote of the party delegates at the national convention. That event takes place the weekend of May 22nd in Austin, Texas.
The state contests until then will give a sense of what Libertarian voters support, and so far, Hornberger is leading with about 29 percent of the total vote after winning five of eight elections.
Markets are crashing as the Federal Reserve runs out of bubble-blowing tricks. President Donald Trump blames his own pick for Fed chairman for not printing money fast enough, while he also claims to have created the greatest economy ever.
Meanwhile, former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders are also full of lies, pushing essentially the exact same policy as Trump, though with more taxes and bureaucracy.
Whoever the Libertarian Party nominates, he won’t be allowed to debate on the same stage as the Republican and Democratic nominees. But the party does have ballot access, and the internet isn’t quite dead yet, so if there is any hope for voters to hear the truth about the economy, the Libertarian Party will be largely responsible for keeping it alive.
It’s consistently a top priority for voters, even during the high points of this fake recovery from the 2008 recession. The economy is closely tied to other issues like health care and education, with their high costs due to government price controls and red tape.
The economy is the essential issue for a candidate to speak on, especially a libertarian one. Only a libertarian can get at the crux of the matter— the Federal Reserve and its vacuous fiat money system causing madness in markets and the wealth stagnation of America’s middle class.
Beyond their pocketbooks, voters stand to also gain clarity of mind on so many other crises that fuel the government’s growth in power. Thanks to the Fed’s easy money, U.S. militarism can run wild abroad and at home, well beyond what citizens would naturally put up with under direct taxation.
It takes a special communicator to raise the Fed issue and command attention. Only Dr. Ron Paul grew his crowds and audiences on his call to abolish the Federal Reserve, making it a populist campaign theme while educating the youth, referring them to Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and other heroic economists.
In 2020, there is an effort within the Libertarian Party to do that again. Jacob Hornberger, one of six candidates vying for the party’s nomination for president, seems to be leading the primary race in no small part due to his ability to speak on the Fed in an educational and exciting way.
Hornberger’s track record goes back decades, founding the Future of Freedom Foundation in 1989. It grew with the Ron Paul Revolution movement, so many libertarian activists see him as something of a rightful heir.
“End the Fed and separate money and the state,” reads Hornberger’s campaign website. “The Federal Reserve is nothing more than a socialist central-planning agency.”
Like Paul, Hornberger can connect the dots between Fed policy and housing, education, and other issues typically treated as wholly unrelated. This holistic approach contrasts with previous Libertarian Party presidential campaigns that attempted to dilute libertarianism down to “fiscally conservative, socially liberal.”
His nomination is no sure thing, however. The way the Libertarian Party decides its nominee is not by primary electoral victories, but rather a direct vote of the party delegates at the national convention. That event takes place the weekend of May 22nd in Austin, Texas.
The state contests until then will give a sense of what Libertarian voters support, and so far, Hornberger is leading with about 29 percent of the total vote after winning five of eight elections.
Markets are crashing as the Federal Reserve runs out of bubble-blowing tricks. President Donald Trump blames his own pick for Fed chairman for not printing money fast enough, while he also claims to have created the greatest economy ever.
Meanwhile, former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders are also full of lies, pushing essentially the exact same policy as Trump, though with more taxes and bureaucracy.
Whoever the Libertarian Party nominates, he won’t be allowed to debate on the same stage as the Republican and Democratic nominees. But the party does have ballot access, and the internet isn’t quite dead yet, so if there is any hope for voters to hear the truth about the economy, the Libertarian Party will be largely responsible for keeping it alive.
Not a Bright Future for Liberty When Political Foes Are Always ‘Racists’
When accusations of racism are allowed to persist at the highest levels of politics, none of us are safe. In an age of corporate censorship and government overreach, this favorite tactic of both the left and right isn’t being called out enough.
It used to be that political correctness was a momentary nuisance to be shrugged off. Now the whole political environment and most of the mainstream culture is awash in it. More and more, however, the right is joining in with the left, unable or unwilling to stand up to this affront to liberty.
Last month, President Donald Trump tweeted that Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg was a “TOTAL RACIST” after audio leaked of Bloomberg speaking in support of stop-and-frisk, a policing practice also supported by Trump. Trump quickly deleted the tweet, but his associated campaign account kept up the attack.
If Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, is a racist, then it should be very difficult to find someone who is not.
What’s critical to understand is, the tandem powers of corporations and the state are quickly becoming enforcers of this ridiculous standard. Be it a fine, jail time, being banned from social media or losing a bank account, more people are likely to face some consequence for “hate” or “racism” in the future.
There are many who are inclined to agree with this, but they quibble and say that racism largely exists in systems rather than people. That supposedly moderate position, however, inevitably fuels hysteria over such bogeymen as “white privilege,” “cultural appropriation,” and the like.
Unfortunately, the libertarian publication Reason just let the allegation that Bloomberg is “racist” stand without any pushback. It’s a missed opportunity and represents an underestimation of the threat to liberty posed by normalization of this sort of attack.
Let’s look at Bloomberg’s 2015 speech to the Aspen Institute that has been so controversial in recent days, in both left and right circles.
“Ninety-five percent of your murders, murderers and murder victims, fit one M.O. You can just take the description, Xerox it and pass out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, 16 to 25. That’s true in New York. That’s true in virtually every city,” Bloomberg said.
Bloomberg only slightly overstates the statistics, which do show suspects and victims are non-white 94 percent of the time. Bloomberg continues:
“Put the cops where the crime is, which means in minority neighborhoods,” he says. “One of the unintended consequences is people say, ‘Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.’ Yes, that’s true. Why? Because we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. Yes, that’s true. Why do we do it? Because that’s where all the crime is.”
Obviously, the marijuana issue stands out. That’s a policy debate. But saying “minority neighborhoods” are “where the crime is” is not racist unless facts are racist.
Bloomberg then says, “throw them up against the walls and frisk them,” to get guns off the streets.
Putting stop-and-frisk and gun control aside as debatable policies, his language here is reckless, and of course police abuse exists. But again, there’s no racism to be found, unless it’s also fair to say New York City murders are racist since 94 percent of victims are non-white, even as 94 percent of suspects are non-white.
As long as phony charges of racism persist and become normalized, there won’t just be a greater risk of corporate and government enforcement of these flimsy standards. We can also expect that fewer and fewer people will be willing to discuss and work on the problems of concentrated violent crime in the country.
Liberty will suffer, and state power will thrive if this trend continues.
It used to be that political correctness was a momentary nuisance to be shrugged off. Now the whole political environment and most of the mainstream culture is awash in it. More and more, however, the right is joining in with the left, unable or unwilling to stand up to this affront to liberty.
Last month, President Donald Trump tweeted that Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg was a “TOTAL RACIST” after audio leaked of Bloomberg speaking in support of stop-and-frisk, a policing practice also supported by Trump. Trump quickly deleted the tweet, but his associated campaign account kept up the attack.
If Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, is a racist, then it should be very difficult to find someone who is not.
What’s critical to understand is, the tandem powers of corporations and the state are quickly becoming enforcers of this ridiculous standard. Be it a fine, jail time, being banned from social media or losing a bank account, more people are likely to face some consequence for “hate” or “racism” in the future.
There are many who are inclined to agree with this, but they quibble and say that racism largely exists in systems rather than people. That supposedly moderate position, however, inevitably fuels hysteria over such bogeymen as “white privilege,” “cultural appropriation,” and the like.
Unfortunately, the libertarian publication Reason just let the allegation that Bloomberg is “racist” stand without any pushback. It’s a missed opportunity and represents an underestimation of the threat to liberty posed by normalization of this sort of attack.
Let’s look at Bloomberg’s 2015 speech to the Aspen Institute that has been so controversial in recent days, in both left and right circles.
“Ninety-five percent of your murders, murderers and murder victims, fit one M.O. You can just take the description, Xerox it and pass out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, 16 to 25. That’s true in New York. That’s true in virtually every city,” Bloomberg said.
Bloomberg only slightly overstates the statistics, which do show suspects and victims are non-white 94 percent of the time. Bloomberg continues:
“Put the cops where the crime is, which means in minority neighborhoods,” he says. “One of the unintended consequences is people say, ‘Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.’ Yes, that’s true. Why? Because we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. Yes, that’s true. Why do we do it? Because that’s where all the crime is.”
Obviously, the marijuana issue stands out. That’s a policy debate. But saying “minority neighborhoods” are “where the crime is” is not racist unless facts are racist.
Bloomberg then says, “throw them up against the walls and frisk them,” to get guns off the streets.
Putting stop-and-frisk and gun control aside as debatable policies, his language here is reckless, and of course police abuse exists. But again, there’s no racism to be found, unless it’s also fair to say New York City murders are racist since 94 percent of victims are non-white, even as 94 percent of suspects are non-white.
As long as phony charges of racism persist and become normalized, there won’t just be a greater risk of corporate and government enforcement of these flimsy standards. We can also expect that fewer and fewer people will be willing to discuss and work on the problems of concentrated violent crime in the country.
Liberty will suffer, and state power will thrive if this trend continues.
Trump in Best Position Since Election to End Wars and NATO, But Sides With Swamp
The Democratic Party remains hopelessly divided in a raging primary after the frustration of impeachment failure. But President Trump failed to plan for the moment and seems destined to drop his foreign policy promises from the 2016 campaign.
Despite signing a peace agreement with the Taliban at the end of February, U.S. forces carried out airstrikes against the Taliban just days later.
Leaving Afghanistan is not only an easy political decision, it’s imminently practical and economical as the Federal Reserve stokes fears of economic downturn with its largest rate cut since the 2008 recession last Tuesday.
Trump can’t seem to help himself though and will stick with the military-industrial complex and general direction of the swamp establishment he promised to take head-on.
“NATO is obsolete,” Trump said in March 2016 before adding that he wanted to “readjust” the collective security treaty. Unfortunately, the status quo that President Obama expanded is being managed quite similarly by the alleged billionaire of TV and tabloid fame.
As Trump hasn’t started any new wars, there often is a glimmer of hope, but it always diminishes. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and yes, Russia, are all places the U.S. empire remains stubbornly hostile, whether it’s a hot or cold war.
Remember that Trump trounced Jeb Bush and more than a dozen other Republican rivals before dismantling the presumed unstoppable Clinton political machine. He blew it shortly afterward.
There may never be a better chance than what he had in 2017 to implement real reforms or rollback the establishment’s direction of U.S. foreign policy, if not domestic policy. But where he stands right now is about the best position he’s had since inauguration day 2017.
Yet, Trump seems poised to blow it again.
His 2021 budget proposal boosts military spending, calling for a $740.5 billion defense budget, which could only be defended on “America First” grounds if he were at least slashing globalist commitments. Instead, Trump continues the European Deterrence Initiative, an Obama-era response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, according to U.S. News.
This anti-Russian program initially ran on a budget short of $1 billion. Seven years later, Trump favors $4.5 billion for whatever it’s supposed to accomplish now. In fairness, Trump signed off on a $6.5 billion budget for the program two years ago, so this represents a “cut” in swamp talk.
That program also includes the hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Ukraine that notoriously was at the center of the impeachment political theater of the last half of 2019. The president’s defense argued that there was no quid pro quo, that American taxpayers sent their money to Ukraine for nothing in return! That’s “America First” for ya.
Trump also is overseeing unprecedented spending on Eastern European defense in other ways, reports the Wall Street Journal. That’s why there’s little to believe in what Trump’s ex-national security advisor John Bolton told NATO supporters shortly after he was fired. Trump could “go full isolationist” if he wins a second term, he warned.
Don’t hold your breath.
Trump prides himself on going over the heads of the mainstream press, with his Twitter account usually, speaking directly to the American people. When it comes to NATO, however, he acquiesces to the mainstream narrative.
His way of covering up for this is performing for the media, especially when hosting foreign leaders or attending summits overseas. Trump is good at creating moments that do genuinely and rightly embarrass the heads of state in Canada, Germany, and other perceived allies.
One reason Trump may not feel compelled to follow through on his campaign promises is simply because most Americans don’t know the difference anyway.
Americans largely consume what the military-industrial complex propaganda feeds them, especially when it comes to NATO and Russia. Take a look at a recent Pew Research Center poll, which shows 60 percent of Americans believe the U.S. military should use force against Russia if it gets into “a serious military conflict” with a fellow NATO member country.
Set aside that most Americans probably don’t know more than a couple NATO member states. The Pew poll shows that a plurality or majority of citizens in 11 of 16 NATO countries wouldn’t reciprocate if America was attacked by Russia.
We can pray something comes of a Politico report, citing anonymous U.S. officials and various unnamed sources, which says that the Trump administration is seeking a high-level negotiator to hold denuclearization talks with Russia and perhaps even China as well.
But then again, all one needs to do is read the daily news out of northeastern Syria at Antiwar.com to realize that Trump continues to play with matches. American troops, estimates say 500 of them, are patrolling the region to “take the oil” as Trump would put it. They are running up against Russian forces who are actually welcomed by the Syrian government to secure the country.
Nonetheless, as the U.S. empire persists, Trump is looking like a sure bet in the 2020 election.
Despite signing a peace agreement with the Taliban at the end of February, U.S. forces carried out airstrikes against the Taliban just days later.
Leaving Afghanistan is not only an easy political decision, it’s imminently practical and economical as the Federal Reserve stokes fears of economic downturn with its largest rate cut since the 2008 recession last Tuesday.
Trump can’t seem to help himself though and will stick with the military-industrial complex and general direction of the swamp establishment he promised to take head-on.
“NATO is obsolete,” Trump said in March 2016 before adding that he wanted to “readjust” the collective security treaty. Unfortunately, the status quo that President Obama expanded is being managed quite similarly by the alleged billionaire of TV and tabloid fame.
As Trump hasn’t started any new wars, there often is a glimmer of hope, but it always diminishes. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and yes, Russia, are all places the U.S. empire remains stubbornly hostile, whether it’s a hot or cold war.
Remember that Trump trounced Jeb Bush and more than a dozen other Republican rivals before dismantling the presumed unstoppable Clinton political machine. He blew it shortly afterward.
There may never be a better chance than what he had in 2017 to implement real reforms or rollback the establishment’s direction of U.S. foreign policy, if not domestic policy. But where he stands right now is about the best position he’s had since inauguration day 2017.
Yet, Trump seems poised to blow it again.
His 2021 budget proposal boosts military spending, calling for a $740.5 billion defense budget, which could only be defended on “America First” grounds if he were at least slashing globalist commitments. Instead, Trump continues the European Deterrence Initiative, an Obama-era response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, according to U.S. News.
This anti-Russian program initially ran on a budget short of $1 billion. Seven years later, Trump favors $4.5 billion for whatever it’s supposed to accomplish now. In fairness, Trump signed off on a $6.5 billion budget for the program two years ago, so this represents a “cut” in swamp talk.
That program also includes the hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Ukraine that notoriously was at the center of the impeachment political theater of the last half of 2019. The president’s defense argued that there was no quid pro quo, that American taxpayers sent their money to Ukraine for nothing in return! That’s “America First” for ya.
Trump also is overseeing unprecedented spending on Eastern European defense in other ways, reports the Wall Street Journal. That’s why there’s little to believe in what Trump’s ex-national security advisor John Bolton told NATO supporters shortly after he was fired. Trump could “go full isolationist” if he wins a second term, he warned.
Don’t hold your breath.
Trump prides himself on going over the heads of the mainstream press, with his Twitter account usually, speaking directly to the American people. When it comes to NATO, however, he acquiesces to the mainstream narrative.
His way of covering up for this is performing for the media, especially when hosting foreign leaders or attending summits overseas. Trump is good at creating moments that do genuinely and rightly embarrass the heads of state in Canada, Germany, and other perceived allies.
One reason Trump may not feel compelled to follow through on his campaign promises is simply because most Americans don’t know the difference anyway.
Americans largely consume what the military-industrial complex propaganda feeds them, especially when it comes to NATO and Russia. Take a look at a recent Pew Research Center poll, which shows 60 percent of Americans believe the U.S. military should use force against Russia if it gets into “a serious military conflict” with a fellow NATO member country.
Set aside that most Americans probably don’t know more than a couple NATO member states. The Pew poll shows that a plurality or majority of citizens in 11 of 16 NATO countries wouldn’t reciprocate if America was attacked by Russia.
We can pray something comes of a Politico report, citing anonymous U.S. officials and various unnamed sources, which says that the Trump administration is seeking a high-level negotiator to hold denuclearization talks with Russia and perhaps even China as well.
But then again, all one needs to do is read the daily news out of northeastern Syria at Antiwar.com to realize that Trump continues to play with matches. American troops, estimates say 500 of them, are patrolling the region to “take the oil” as Trump would put it. They are running up against Russian forces who are actually welcomed by the Syrian government to secure the country.
Nonetheless, as the U.S. empire persists, Trump is looking like a sure bet in the 2020 election.
Barbara Streisand: Patriot or Funny Girl? She’s Right to Say ‘We Need a New America’
Americans should heed Barbara Streisand’s 2020 warning. The singer’s plea that “we can’t go on like this. It’s too dangerous,” doesn’t overstate the urgency needed to overcome the reckless politics steering our country to ruin.
Last week, Streisand wrote a column for Vanity Fair calling on Americans to “bring back dignity and grace” by voting out President Donald Trump in November.
Yawn, right? Not so fast.
Revealed in her reasoning, as well as who she is to make such an argument, is a sign that better prospects for liberty may be closer than we think.
Of course, libertarians understand that America’s problems didn’t begin with Trump. It’s easy to laugh off Streisand’s gripes when she admits she wakes up every morning “holding my breath while I turn on my phone to see the latest news.”
Perhaps one morning she’ll exhale normally and ask how we got here so that we don’t fall into repeating the same mistakes.
It is true, however, that “we can’t go on like this,” as Streisand says, “It’s too dangerous.”
As the state becomes more centralized, social cohesion is declining. Institutions and traditional centers of community life are failing to give younger Americans meaning, turning more of them toward the activist street mobs clashing in the streets for a sense of purpose.
To her credit, Streisand nobly pushes for change at home as opposed to moving to Canada or Europe as other elite voices in her industry do. But what if change in this country could occur voluntarily and organically, as opposed to a bitter national fight over an all-powerful president?
Decentralization, by means of nullification and secession, is the grand policy prescription for a more cohesive, peaceful, and prosperous America. To achieve this libertarian goal, however, political organizing won’t be enough.
For too long, libertarians have made the same mistake as Streisand: accepting the premise that the majority can be swayed toward restoring dignity and grace to the political order.
In her 1910 essay “Minorities versus Majorities,” anarchist Emma Goldman condemned mass democracy, observing that “the multitude, the mass spirit” can be summarized as “quantity” and thus “destroying quality.”
“Today, as then, public opinion is the omnipresent tyrant; today, as then, the majority represents a mass of cowards, willing to accept him who mirrors its own soul and mind poverty,” she said.
Streisand naturally serves the “mass spirit” as a pop singer and actress, but her wealth also attaches her to the intellectual elite, or establishment, which is an arm of the state. This is how she fancies herself a moralizing political commentator.
In 2016, Trump disrupted the intellectual established order, shocking the media, academia, and political kingmakers. His reelection, however, will be insufficient to continue this rupture.
“The rule of public intellectuals can only be broken by anti-intellectual intellectuals,” economist and philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe said in his essay “Natural Elites, Intellectuals, and the State.”
The counter-intellectuals, Hoppe insists, must be of sound moral character, even above their intellectual pursuits. Some counter-intellectuals may compromise or sell out on their way to prominence, never returning to principled form even when they’d supposedly hold more influence.
Remember economists Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises as examples of counter-intellectuals who never diluted their position in exchange for prestige, which they could have quite easily done.
Streisand’s article proves that unease with the status quo is reaching a critical mass. It is the job of the libertarian to not only stave off further statist peril but also to allow those who insist on the opposite view to go their own way.
Let the Streisands try their way, but never yield in the pursuit of a free society, even if it means leaving part of declining America behind.
Last week, Streisand wrote a column for Vanity Fair calling on Americans to “bring back dignity and grace” by voting out President Donald Trump in November.
Yawn, right? Not so fast.
Revealed in her reasoning, as well as who she is to make such an argument, is a sign that better prospects for liberty may be closer than we think.
Of course, libertarians understand that America’s problems didn’t begin with Trump. It’s easy to laugh off Streisand’s gripes when she admits she wakes up every morning “holding my breath while I turn on my phone to see the latest news.”
Perhaps one morning she’ll exhale normally and ask how we got here so that we don’t fall into repeating the same mistakes.
It is true, however, that “we can’t go on like this,” as Streisand says, “It’s too dangerous.”
As the state becomes more centralized, social cohesion is declining. Institutions and traditional centers of community life are failing to give younger Americans meaning, turning more of them toward the activist street mobs clashing in the streets for a sense of purpose.
To her credit, Streisand nobly pushes for change at home as opposed to moving to Canada or Europe as other elite voices in her industry do. But what if change in this country could occur voluntarily and organically, as opposed to a bitter national fight over an all-powerful president?
Decentralization, by means of nullification and secession, is the grand policy prescription for a more cohesive, peaceful, and prosperous America. To achieve this libertarian goal, however, political organizing won’t be enough.
For too long, libertarians have made the same mistake as Streisand: accepting the premise that the majority can be swayed toward restoring dignity and grace to the political order.
In her 1910 essay “Minorities versus Majorities,” anarchist Emma Goldman condemned mass democracy, observing that “the multitude, the mass spirit” can be summarized as “quantity” and thus “destroying quality.”
“Today, as then, public opinion is the omnipresent tyrant; today, as then, the majority represents a mass of cowards, willing to accept him who mirrors its own soul and mind poverty,” she said.
Streisand naturally serves the “mass spirit” as a pop singer and actress, but her wealth also attaches her to the intellectual elite, or establishment, which is an arm of the state. This is how she fancies herself a moralizing political commentator.
In 2016, Trump disrupted the intellectual established order, shocking the media, academia, and political kingmakers. His reelection, however, will be insufficient to continue this rupture.
“The rule of public intellectuals can only be broken by anti-intellectual intellectuals,” economist and philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe said in his essay “Natural Elites, Intellectuals, and the State.”
The counter-intellectuals, Hoppe insists, must be of sound moral character, even above their intellectual pursuits. Some counter-intellectuals may compromise or sell out on their way to prominence, never returning to principled form even when they’d supposedly hold more influence.
Remember economists Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises as examples of counter-intellectuals who never diluted their position in exchange for prestige, which they could have quite easily done.
Streisand’s article proves that unease with the status quo is reaching a critical mass. It is the job of the libertarian to not only stave off further statist peril but also to allow those who insist on the opposite view to go their own way.
Let the Streisands try their way, but never yield in the pursuit of a free society, even if it means leaving part of declining America behind.
Court Rules Against Liberty of Conscience Rule Protecting Anti-Abortion Doctors
The Trump administration’s rule giving health providers the freedom to refuse care based on moral or religious reasons has been struck down by a second federal judge in Washington State. Essentially, the Trump rule would withdraw federally-backed health care funds to states that push back against medical professionals who refuse to participate in procedures that go against their beliefs.
This protection had been often associated with abortion and was challenged in court by groups such as Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as California and New York.
In a statement, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said that the federal government is wrong in trying to protect the rights of individual providers if it means they will discriminate against certain groups.
“The court agreed that all Washingtonians deserve to receive the full range of health care services,” he said. “This rule would have disproportionately harmed rural and working poor Washington families, who have no alternatives to their local health care providers, as well as LGBTQ individuals, who already face discrimination when they seek medical care.”
To the judge, certain people are more worthy of government protection than others.
The Right To Discriminate
In a 2010 column, economist Walter E. Williams argued that discrimination happens whether the state wants it or not because what we do with our lives (and our labor) is our property, not the state’s.
If a person is providing a private service or a good, he is just as entitled to discriminate against an individual as he is against a series of potential brides while selecting a marriage partner.
“The Nation of Islam discriminates against white members. The Aryan Brotherhood discriminates against having black members. The Ku Klux Klan discriminates against having Catholic and Jewish members. The NFL discriminates against hiring female quarterbacks. The NAACP National Board of Directors, at least according to the photo on their Web page, has no white members,” Williams explained.
Whenever there’s a private party involved, he added, it is completely up to the owner to determine who should or shouldn’t be admitted. Therefore, Trump’s “conscience protection” rule is nothing but an extension of basic property rights, except it threatens states with the withdrawal of taxpayer dollars in case they fail to comply.
By blocking this protection and keeping the federal government from enforcing this rule, judges are, in essence, violating the property rights of physicians and nurses who refuse to partake in certain procedures. If anything, this move would only give politically connected groups more tools to violate the property rights of others in the long run.
Right now, being a Christian and a conservative isn’t popular, so public opinion will be on the side of those attacking them. Tomorrow, there might be another group under the state’s target, and those trying to suppress them will use the same tools used to squash Trump’s conscience protection.
This protection had been often associated with abortion and was challenged in court by groups such as Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as California and New York.
In a statement, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said that the federal government is wrong in trying to protect the rights of individual providers if it means they will discriminate against certain groups.
“The court agreed that all Washingtonians deserve to receive the full range of health care services,” he said. “This rule would have disproportionately harmed rural and working poor Washington families, who have no alternatives to their local health care providers, as well as LGBTQ individuals, who already face discrimination when they seek medical care.”
To the judge, certain people are more worthy of government protection than others.
The Right To Discriminate
In a 2010 column, economist Walter E. Williams argued that discrimination happens whether the state wants it or not because what we do with our lives (and our labor) is our property, not the state’s.
If a person is providing a private service or a good, he is just as entitled to discriminate against an individual as he is against a series of potential brides while selecting a marriage partner.
“The Nation of Islam discriminates against white members. The Aryan Brotherhood discriminates against having black members. The Ku Klux Klan discriminates against having Catholic and Jewish members. The NFL discriminates against hiring female quarterbacks. The NAACP National Board of Directors, at least according to the photo on their Web page, has no white members,” Williams explained.
Whenever there’s a private party involved, he added, it is completely up to the owner to determine who should or shouldn’t be admitted. Therefore, Trump’s “conscience protection” rule is nothing but an extension of basic property rights, except it threatens states with the withdrawal of taxpayer dollars in case they fail to comply.
By blocking this protection and keeping the federal government from enforcing this rule, judges are, in essence, violating the property rights of physicians and nurses who refuse to partake in certain procedures. If anything, this move would only give politically connected groups more tools to violate the property rights of others in the long run.
Right now, being a Christian and a conservative isn’t popular, so public opinion will be on the side of those attacking them. Tomorrow, there might be another group under the state’s target, and those trying to suppress them will use the same tools used to squash Trump’s conscience protection.
Recent Polls Show that Illinoisans are Leaving Because of Taxes
Last month, ZeroHedge put out a story about Illinois residents wanting to leave the state. Specifically, it cited the motivations of those with the intention of leaving. Last year, 53 percent of Illinoisans had entertained the idea of moving out of the state. Now, in 2019, that number has increased to 61 percent, based on a new poll from NPR Illinois and the University of Illinois Springfield.
Many are wondering what’s the main motivating factor behind them leaving the state. Well, according to the poll, state taxes are the number one reason for them wanting to leave the state. The poll found that 27 percent of the respondents cited taxes for their desire to move. The next reason most people decided to move was state government and policies, at around 17 percent. In third place, was better weather, in which 15 percent cited this factor as a motive for moving.
This poll serves as a warning to Governor J.B. Pritzker, who wants to eliminate the Illinois Constitution’s flat income tax provision and create a progressive income tax system. According to the poll, “Respondents reporting a household income of more than $100,000 a year (68%) are nearly ten percentage points higher than other income groups to say they’ve considered moving out of the state, with those reporting a household income lower than $45,000 (58%) being least likely.” At a glance, those with more resources appear like the ones who are most likely to leave.
Tax reform attempts like the progressive income tax that Pritzker is pursuing represents another way for politicians to extract money from the private sector to finance big spending. As far as taxation is concerned, Illinois is by no means slacking on that front. The state recently passed 20 new tax and fee hikes, which included a gas tax that was doubled, all to support a large $40 billion state budget.
The tax hikes that Illinois’s political class is proposing aren’t just coming out of nowhere. When we look at public employee pensions they’re already eating up a large share of Illinois’ state budget — one-fourth of it to be exact. Illinois’ pensions have exploded by 501 percent since 2000, which has put tremendous upward pressure on property taxes and has also resulted in cuts to state services.
One thing to note is that Illinoisians aren’t just entertaining the idea of moving out of state. Some have already taken the initiative by moving out. During the past five years, Illinois has earned the unfortunate distinction of being one of only two states to lose population on a consecutive basis. In this time period, Illinois lost 157,000 residents.
People aren’t leaving Illinois on a whim; it’s largely because of public policy. Although Illinois got marijuana legalization right, the state still lags behind in certain aspects of economic freedom. Cato’s Freedom in the 50 States index has it in 46th place for local tax burden. Not only are taxes high at the local level, but there aren’t many jurisdictions locally that people can move to in order to reduce their tax burdens. The authors of this index gave Illinois policymakers a wise recommendation — “Reform the retirement systems of localities to reduce local taxes, which are sky-high.” By exercising some modicum of fiscal restraint with pensions, Illinois could likely stem the flow of people leaving the state.
Many are wondering what’s the main motivating factor behind them leaving the state. Well, according to the poll, state taxes are the number one reason for them wanting to leave the state. The poll found that 27 percent of the respondents cited taxes for their desire to move. The next reason most people decided to move was state government and policies, at around 17 percent. In third place, was better weather, in which 15 percent cited this factor as a motive for moving.
This poll serves as a warning to Governor J.B. Pritzker, who wants to eliminate the Illinois Constitution’s flat income tax provision and create a progressive income tax system. According to the poll, “Respondents reporting a household income of more than $100,000 a year (68%) are nearly ten percentage points higher than other income groups to say they’ve considered moving out of the state, with those reporting a household income lower than $45,000 (58%) being least likely.” At a glance, those with more resources appear like the ones who are most likely to leave.
Tax reform attempts like the progressive income tax that Pritzker is pursuing represents another way for politicians to extract money from the private sector to finance big spending. As far as taxation is concerned, Illinois is by no means slacking on that front. The state recently passed 20 new tax and fee hikes, which included a gas tax that was doubled, all to support a large $40 billion state budget.
The tax hikes that Illinois’s political class is proposing aren’t just coming out of nowhere. When we look at public employee pensions they’re already eating up a large share of Illinois’ state budget — one-fourth of it to be exact. Illinois’ pensions have exploded by 501 percent since 2000, which has put tremendous upward pressure on property taxes and has also resulted in cuts to state services.
One thing to note is that Illinoisians aren’t just entertaining the idea of moving out of state. Some have already taken the initiative by moving out. During the past five years, Illinois has earned the unfortunate distinction of being one of only two states to lose population on a consecutive basis. In this time period, Illinois lost 157,000 residents.
People aren’t leaving Illinois on a whim; it’s largely because of public policy. Although Illinois got marijuana legalization right, the state still lags behind in certain aspects of economic freedom. Cato’s Freedom in the 50 States index has it in 46th place for local tax burden. Not only are taxes high at the local level, but there aren’t many jurisdictions locally that people can move to in order to reduce their tax burdens. The authors of this index gave Illinois policymakers a wise recommendation — “Reform the retirement systems of localities to reduce local taxes, which are sky-high.” By exercising some modicum of fiscal restraint with pensions, Illinois could likely stem the flow of people leaving the state.
Decentralization As A Principle Is Older Than You Think
Libertarians have long looked at decentralization not only as a political principle, with many calling themselves “Tenther” libertarians, but also as a strategy to achieve freedom within the existing political structure of the United States of America. This approach produced a great number of successful campaigns that effectively freed states from the tyrannical grasp of the federal government.
But while many use the Tenth Amendment alone as the basis for this strategy, the very idea of constraining power to the smallest organization possible has been around since long before the foundation of the economic science, which had its origins not with Adam Smith in the 18th century, but with the Thomist moral theologians known as the Late Scholastics three centuries earlier.
As a matter of fact, the foundation for decentralization is far older than the Church itself, with its chief ideas rooted in Aristotle’s political philosophy.
Respect for Familial Units Comes First
When attempting to synthesize the ideas of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas “developed the idea that human societies naturally progress from families,” University of Queensland’s Nicholas Aroney wrote, establishing the concept that each and every one of us should be free to contribute in the unique way we’re capable of, “without undue interference from any others, including the state.”
So it was this very principle of subsidiarity, which is usually associated with the founding political and social traditions of the United States, that defined decentralization as a means to achieve liberty today. A centuries-old idea observed by men who dedicated their lives to better understand what boosts human flourishing that has remained the very core teaching of Catholicism, whether libertarians (or even the current Pope for that matter) like it or not.
While belief in Catholicism isn’t required to understand and appreciate the work that St. Aquinas produced, and how he so rightly codified the idea of subsidiarity in a way that Aristotle couldn’t, it is important to know and understand where this principle comes from.
Recognizing its place in history, and more importantly, how long it’s existed as a part of the work of great philosophers, economists, and historians over the centuries gives us an even more solid foundation to believe that, yes, decentralization is the moral approach to power.
Furthermore, it helps us solidify our understanding of decentralization, and finally make use of it with the confidence that it isn’t an idea simply based on the U.S. Constitution.
But while many use the Tenth Amendment alone as the basis for this strategy, the very idea of constraining power to the smallest organization possible has been around since long before the foundation of the economic science, which had its origins not with Adam Smith in the 18th century, but with the Thomist moral theologians known as the Late Scholastics three centuries earlier.
As a matter of fact, the foundation for decentralization is far older than the Church itself, with its chief ideas rooted in Aristotle’s political philosophy.
Respect for Familial Units Comes First
When attempting to synthesize the ideas of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas “developed the idea that human societies naturally progress from families,” University of Queensland’s Nicholas Aroney wrote, establishing the concept that each and every one of us should be free to contribute in the unique way we’re capable of, “without undue interference from any others, including the state.”
So it was this very principle of subsidiarity, which is usually associated with the founding political and social traditions of the United States, that defined decentralization as a means to achieve liberty today. A centuries-old idea observed by men who dedicated their lives to better understand what boosts human flourishing that has remained the very core teaching of Catholicism, whether libertarians (or even the current Pope for that matter) like it or not.
While belief in Catholicism isn’t required to understand and appreciate the work that St. Aquinas produced, and how he so rightly codified the idea of subsidiarity in a way that Aristotle couldn’t, it is important to know and understand where this principle comes from.
Recognizing its place in history, and more importantly, how long it’s existed as a part of the work of great philosophers, economists, and historians over the centuries gives us an even more solid foundation to believe that, yes, decentralization is the moral approach to power.
Furthermore, it helps us solidify our understanding of decentralization, and finally make use of it with the confidence that it isn’t an idea simply based on the U.S. Constitution.
Bill Weld Demands Trump Face Death Penalty, Proving Libertarian Comedian’s Point
Bill Weld, the ex-Libertarian Party vice presidential candidate, is pushing for President Trump to face the death penalty over a phone call to Ukraine’s president. But all Weld will accomplish is prove comedian Dave Smith right about libertarian strategy.
In a recent debate, Smith vanquished the Libertarian Party chairman, who defended the 2016 Gary Johnson and Weld ticket. Smith argued the Libertarian Party should never again nominate such milquetoast candidates, but rather stick to principled convictions even if that means losing access to mainstream media outlets.
However, despite his clarity of political thought, Smith could not have foreseen that in less than two weeks time, Weld himself would make Smith’s case even stronger.
Weld, now running a primary challenge against Trump, said on Monday that Trump committed “treason pure and simple.”
“The penalty for treason under the U.S. code is death,” he continued, in an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”. The MSNBC hosts giggled at the prospect when he doubled down on it as “the only penalty.”
Now, just for a moment, let’s assume Weld is correct that Trump committed treason during a phone call to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. Isn’t it a little transparent here that Weld is whipping up support for himself while goading viewers into bloodthirst?
Weld continued to devilishly play up the fantasy drama, allowing Trump the possibility of a “plea deal.”
In the same breath, Weld would assure us that Trump is the unpresidential one.
On Wednesday, the full transcript of Trump’s call with Zelensky was released. Trump is accused of withholding military aid to Ukraine, on the condition that Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden be investigated by the country. As vice president, Biden pushed Ukraine to fire their top prosecutor, who had been investigating an energy company headed by Biden’s son, Hunter.
As Weld broods over how to once again get his face on TV, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) has approved an impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
Perhaps Weld should listen to Smith and take as strong a stand against the Federal Reserve or forever wars. But, he won’t, because even if it got him on TV and a few extra votes, it would mean having to admit he was wrong about so much for so long.
Weld, the “libertarian” who all but endorsed Hillary Clinton, “the butcher of Libya,” used the Libertarian Party in 2016 to cling to any semblance of relevance. He’s not exactly being innovative in 2019, jumping back in with the Republicans as he pursues the same vanity.
The Welds of the world will always exist, but they don’t deserve to carry the banner of libertarianism.
In a recent debate, Smith vanquished the Libertarian Party chairman, who defended the 2016 Gary Johnson and Weld ticket. Smith argued the Libertarian Party should never again nominate such milquetoast candidates, but rather stick to principled convictions even if that means losing access to mainstream media outlets.
However, despite his clarity of political thought, Smith could not have foreseen that in less than two weeks time, Weld himself would make Smith’s case even stronger.
Weld, now running a primary challenge against Trump, said on Monday that Trump committed “treason pure and simple.”
“The penalty for treason under the U.S. code is death,” he continued, in an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”. The MSNBC hosts giggled at the prospect when he doubled down on it as “the only penalty.”
Now, just for a moment, let’s assume Weld is correct that Trump committed treason during a phone call to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. Isn’t it a little transparent here that Weld is whipping up support for himself while goading viewers into bloodthirst?
Weld continued to devilishly play up the fantasy drama, allowing Trump the possibility of a “plea deal.”
In the same breath, Weld would assure us that Trump is the unpresidential one.
On Wednesday, the full transcript of Trump’s call with Zelensky was released. Trump is accused of withholding military aid to Ukraine, on the condition that Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden be investigated by the country. As vice president, Biden pushed Ukraine to fire their top prosecutor, who had been investigating an energy company headed by Biden’s son, Hunter.
As Weld broods over how to once again get his face on TV, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) has approved an impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
Perhaps Weld should listen to Smith and take as strong a stand against the Federal Reserve or forever wars. But, he won’t, because even if it got him on TV and a few extra votes, it would mean having to admit he was wrong about so much for so long.
Weld, the “libertarian” who all but endorsed Hillary Clinton, “the butcher of Libya,” used the Libertarian Party in 2016 to cling to any semblance of relevance. He’s not exactly being innovative in 2019, jumping back in with the Republicans as he pursues the same vanity.
The Welds of the world will always exist, but they don’t deserve to carry the banner of libertarianism.
Thanks, Beto
In last Thursday night’s circus, Beto O’Rourke showed the left’s true colors about guns. During his performance, he said, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15s and your AK-47s.” This led to the crowd giving O’Rourke a standing ovation. This statement also gained mass support from the left.
While any advocate for freedom is right to be alarmed by this sentiment, one must also be relieved. In fact, O’Rourke has done more for gun rights than so-called conservatives like Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Dan Crenshaw ever could with their advocacy for “red flag” laws. As gun grabbers say “no one is coming for your guns,” they stood and cheered for an authoritarian call for taking our guns. They exposed themselves.
While any advocate for freedom is right to be alarmed by this sentiment, one must also be relieved. In fact, O’Rourke has done more for gun rights than so-called conservatives like Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Dan Crenshaw ever could with their advocacy for “red flag” laws. As gun grabbers say “no one is coming for your guns,” they stood and cheered for an authoritarian call for taking our guns. They exposed themselves.