“100% of the Constitution 100% of the time” – Gotta love TMOT!

grayson2Libertarians might balk at this statement. After all, the Constitution gives the federal government the right to steal (Taxation is Theft!) and kill, and failed to restrain that government from overstepping the boundaries set up to contain those powers. As an anarcho-capitalist, I have concluded that no piece of paper can contain an entity that is given this type of power. People say to me that a “voluntary society” is a utopian fantasy, but I say the notion of “self-limiting government” is the utopian fantasy!

Yet, if there is a social contract (and I’m not saying there is  🙂 ), the Constitution is that contract, and after much reflection, I believe that if the Constitution, both the letter and the spirit it of it as agreed to over 200 years ago, were obeyed, we might actually have a just government in this modern world.

I continue to believe the Constitution’s fatal flaw is that it created a central government so powerful that it could not contain it, but I also believe that having a clear written contract between the government and the people provides the unambiguous, unifying moral, legal and intellectual grounds for the people’s resistance to tyranny. This is why Obama and others with an ideology that calls for a fundamental transformation of the United States object to the clear premise underlying the Constitution: the rights of the individual surpass the power of the state. This is also why I disagree with those who call for a Constitutional convention–we are not going to create today a more perfect document than our founders managed to create on a clean slate during the Age of Enlightenment! This reasoning may contribute to why both Ron Paul and Derrick Grayson (and so many other good libertarians) will never waver from defending the plain meaning of the Constitution, and I respect their position.

TMOT would have been a great choice for LP VP!!

GOP Rules & Libertarian Party in the Crosshairs…

2016_Republican_National_Convention_Logo

I have believed that Donald Trump’s campaign was an inside job ever since his initial comments about Hispanic immigrants gained traction by an obviously manipulated story about a woman shot on a pier in San Francisco as well as a ridiculous story about El Chapo (likely a psyop in himself) angrily tweeting at The Donald within 24 hours of allegedly escaping prison. Since then, Trump has received BILLIONS of dollars in free media advertising, in large part from CNN which has a long history of putting agenda before ratings and whose agenda most certainly is NOT to have a Republican in the White House.

Stories that build through media and government spin serve agendas in my observation, and once you get the hang of the pattern it’s easy to see them unfold from the earliest stages–so it was with The Trump Train. There is also a well-established rule for such operations: use them to serve more than one agenda if possible. Again, The Trump Train fits the bill.

With the histrionics between Trump & Cruz unfolding like a scripted reality show, it seemed more was in the offing than merely getting Hill the win. I surmised aloud that the goal would be to reshape the GOP nominating process to prporcupinePNGevent not another Trump, but another Ron Paul, who actually did give the establishment a run for its money as evidenced by their “ignore you better still” approach to his powerful challenge. I also worried aloud that the establishment would take this opportunity to neuter or co-opt the Libertarian Party. Is this what’s happening now? I always say if it’s easy to predict the consequences of certain actions, they are unlikely to be “unintended.” What do you think, is this stuff part of the plan?

Ted Cruz’s Backers Push to Shape GOP Convention
Supporters of the former presidential candidate seek to change rules to give conservative activists more sway

Republican leaders might totally overhaul their primary process

William Weld as Gary Johnson’s Vice Presidential Choice to Be Officially Announced Tomorrow
But the ’90s Massachusetts governor’s past stances might trouble many Libertarians who care about more than just fiscal issues.

Austin Petersen Catches More Endorsements from the Media Right for His Presidential Campaign
Mary Matalin and Erick Erickson on board for the Libertarian who thinks he can best sell the Party to conservatives.

Just for the record, I am not a member of the Libertarian Party–I go the Full Rothbard–and I’m not a fan of the sanitized–even corporatized or compromised–libertarianism found at Cato, the Reason Foundation & Fox News, but I have always supported voting Libertarian as a way to register your protest to the liberal-fascist center represented by both the Republicans and the Democrats.

What Everyone Missed About the NC Bathroom Law (Including Me!)

Update (12/9/16):

principle-of-subsidiaritsfsfsefy.pdnoigfjsoijSince the first minute I heard of Georgia’s religious-freedom bill, I figured it was a trap. Get everyone riled up about another southern state showing its prejudice and get the national populace, or maybe even the federal government, to make sure that no one anywhere is permitted to enact anything so offensive. As DOMA clearly demonstrated, if you want to cram down your social legislation on subsidiary governments, as the federal Defense of Marriage Act did to states, get ready for an equal and opposite federal reaction like the Supreme Court ruling that states could not deny gay marriage. The prevailing paradigm at the top is secular humanism and if there’s going to be lasting social legislation, that will be its endpoint no matter how it gets started. As a libertarian, however, I don’t want social legislation of either variety, and I wouldn’t need it.

Pure libertarian principles would solve these problems before they arose…don’t have federal spousal benefits (which were the justification for both DOMA and its demise); don’t have government-bestowed marital privileges; don’t have government licensing of marriages; don’t let government tell you what you can or can’t do on your own property or in your own church or in your own club or any other private institution; don’t let government spread across institutions so that vital centers like airports and universities are public domains; don’t let government legislate with whom you can transact or not transact nor what you may buy and sell; and always employ the principle of subsidiarity, which demands that the smallest social unit capable of handling a problem handle the problem, so at least if the government oversteps these bounds you can step in–or step out.

The principle of subsidiarity is the essence of federalism and the American Experiment: first empower the self, then the family, then the town, city, county, state and as a last resort, the federal government–a last resort clearly defined by the 18 enumerated powers in the Constitution. That’s where North Carolina’s law really loses me…

A Georgia legislator wrote a defense of the religious freedom act in today’s Wall Street Journal. He laments the backlash the law received, which is a little baffling given how predictable it was. (I might even go so far as to say he played right into their hands.) The law was vetoed by Governor Deal, as promised from the start, but the national attention and backlash it started gained momentum and moved on to North Carolina’s recently enacted law defining who may use which bathrooms. On my show Saturday, I pointed out that private property owners should make the call on who uses their bathrooms–and it should all be private property! But what I didn’t point out, because I hadn’t realized it until I read the article in the Journal today, was that the North Carolina law banned subsidiary governments from making their own laws on the matter. Here’s the article and the quote:

Why Are Companies Taking Sides Against Religious Liberty?
Policies intended to encourage inclusion have curdled into antipathy for people of faith.

North Carolina finds itself targeted over a common-sense new law blocking cities and counties from forcing businesses to give transgender people access to the bathroom of their choice.

I’ve seen disturbing signs of what I’m afraid will turn into a trend of state governments restricting lower governments from making their own laws. All I’ve seen so far is laws banning bans on plastic bags or banning bans on GMO foods (actually, Congress is working on that for the whole country.) These are laws that, for seemingly practical reasons, might appeal to the right–but that’s the trick. To the extent those on the right are for small government and individuality, they would be the natural defenders of the principle of subsidiarity. Clever central planners, therefore, might start with right-friendly legislation, such as banning cross-gender bathroom laws, to chip away at the power of local government and local control without anyone even noticing that that is the real underlying principle at stake. That’s what concerns me most about the North Carolina law–that, and the fact that no one noticed.

Update (12/9/16):

Ohio Lawmakers Pass Bill Forbidding Cities From Raising Minimum Wage
Move comes amid growing pressure in other states to raise wages for workers

Ohio lawmakers passed a measure Wednesday to block cities from raising the local minimum wage above the state level, amid growing pressure in other states to raise such wages for workers.

The Ohio measure was included in a broader bill passed by the Republican-controlled legislature amid a flurry of legislative activity as the session winds down.

JEB Will Surprise in NH & We Will Invade Libya: podcast of February 6, 2016 Show

maxresdefault
On my show the afternoon before this debate, I predicted that JEB would do well and then surprise to the upside in NH…let’s see how part two of my prediction pans out!

Hour 1

Hour 2

Update: Here we go…

49 killed in U.S. airstrike targeting terrorists in Libya

Libya slams US airstrike on Sabratha as flagrant violation of sovereignty

 

Paul Ryan Is Just Another Establishment Neo-Con…

boehner-paulryan-J.-Scott-ApplewhiteAP-640x480

Despite all the histrionics coming from the Republican Party, Paul Ryan doesn’t bridge the gaps between Neo-conservatives, Tea Partiers & Libertarians. I even suspect the big story, “Kevin McCarthy’s Benghazi gaffe roils House speaker race,” was deliberately rolled out by the Establishment to position Paul Ryan as a reluctant hero who can make extraordinary demands as the savior of the party. The fact is, Paul Ryan is a big government Republican just like the rest of them at the top in DC. I wrote extensively about this when he ran for VP and in my opinion nothing has changed.


Please note, my show is now on Saturday 3-6PM, not Sunday 1-3–so I guess something has changed!

Here’s the first of a three part series I wrote on the subject (part 3 is the best actually, so if you only have time for one, pick that one):

Please Don’t Feed Me Neo-Con and Tell Me That It’s Liberty, part 1, part 2, part 3

And if you don’t know what a neo-con is, read this – I think it’s the best article I’ve ever written!

Neo-Conservatism, the Auto-Biography of an Idea

Here’s a take from an Ayn Rand fan: Paul Ryan, Randian? No, Just Another Neo-Con

Emailgate: The only 2 things I find interesting about Hillary's emails…

Apparently, Hillary is coming under pressure for using a (kind of) personal email account for State Department business. Given that David Petraeus, the HEAD OF THE CIA, used all the tricks in the book to keep his emails secret, yet they were splashed all over the front page of every newspaper in the country, as Hillary herself might say, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” I really don’t know. I figure this is just another distraction from a real issue, but I’m taking a break from the rabbit hole this week. I did, however, find two things noteworthy about one of the personal emails Hillary received…
hrcmail1
1. Lynn Rothschild was worried about Hillary’s health. Lynn Rothschild? Baroness Rothschild? I don’t know if the Rothschilds or the Rockefellers actually run the world, but I’m pretty sure rubbing elbows with that gang doesn’t betoken an objective pursuit of “liberty and justice for all” from one of the most powerful members of the US government.
2. The second point is maybe a little nitpicky. (If so, please let me know in the comment section.) Hillary’s email address is hdr22@clintonemail.com. HDR is for Hillary Diane Rodham. When I first got married, I did not take my husband’s name. I was a professional and I liked my name. After my first child was born with Down syndrome and my husband really got us through a tough time, it occurred to me that taking his name might mean something to him and might be a gesture of love and gratitude. And so Monica Perez was born. I think he liked it 🙂 Hillary, on the other hand, took her husband’s name when it was politically expedient to do so. It kind of bummed me out on a couple of levels. For all her feminist militancy, it seemed to show that she was willing to use her status as consort to the President to improve her political status among the philistines who think a woman “belongs” to her husband. Furthermore, when she became senator in New York (my home town), I felt it was, in effect, her sleeping her way to the top: There is simply no way she would have gotten that gig if it weren’t for her husband’s position. So I didn’t like it, but I did get over it. I still dislike both her stated politics and her political hypocrisy, but I got over her name. I am now wondering, however, if she ever did! This little email dust-up makes me think that 20 years later, she still thinks of herself as Hillary Diane Rodham, symbolizing to me that she continues to play to what she views as our sensibilities even though she has contempt for them. Maybe I’m reading too much into it – what do you think?
hdr22@clintonemail.com – How A Romanian Hacker Exposed Hillary Clinton’s Secret Email Life

Emailgate: The only 2 things I find interesting about Hillary’s emails…

Apparently, Hillary is coming under pressure for using a (kind of) personal email account for State Department business. Given that David Petraeus, the HEAD OF THE CIA, used all the tricks in the book to keep his emails secret, yet they were splashed all over the front page of every newspaper in the country, as Hillary herself might say, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” I really don’t know. I figure this is just another distraction from a real issue, but I’m taking a break from the rabbit hole this week. I did, however, find two things noteworthy about one of the personal emails Hillary received…

hrcmail1

1. Lynn Rothschild was worried about Hillary’s health. Lynn Rothschild? Baroness Rothschild? I don’t know if the Rothschilds or the Rockefellers actually run the world, but I’m pretty sure rubbing elbows with that gang doesn’t betoken an objective pursuit of “liberty and justice for all” from one of the most powerful members of the US government.

2. The second point is maybe a little nitpicky. (If so, please let me know in the comment section.) Hillary’s email address is hdr22@clintonemail.com. HDR is for Hillary Diane Rodham. When I first got married, I did not take my husband’s name. I was a professional and I liked my name. After my first child was born with Down syndrome and my husband really got us through a tough time, it occurred to me that taking his name might mean something to him and might be a gesture of love and gratitude. And so Monica Perez was born. I think he liked it 🙂 Hillary, on the other hand, took her husband’s name when it was politically expedient to do so. It kind of bummed me out on a couple of levels. For all her feminist militancy, it seemed to show that she was willing to use her status as consort to the President to improve her political status among the philistines who think a woman “belongs” to her husband. Furthermore, when she became senator in New York (my home town), I felt it was, in effect, her sleeping her way to the top: There is simply no way she would have gotten that gig if it weren’t for her husband’s position. So I didn’t like it, but I did get over it. I still dislike both her stated politics and her political hypocrisy, but I got over her name. I am now wondering, however, if she ever did! This little email dust-up makes me think that 20 years later, she still thinks of herself as Hillary Diane Rodham, symbolizing to me that she continues to play to what she views as our sensibilities even though she has contempt for them. Maybe I’m reading too much into it – what do you think?

hdr22@clintonemail.com – How A Romanian Hacker Exposed Hillary Clinton’s Secret Email Life