The Hypocrisy Of The Des Moines Register and Many Liberals Too

While I expect nothing less from The Des Moines Register, I would have thought that with the new editor, who is from the mid-west, would temper, at least a little bit, the far left "liberal" bias that exists at that publication.

In today's Opinion section of said paper, there is an article about the house bill that would expand castle doctrine. For some reason, the liberal editorial board (is that redundant?) has decided an all out attack on the second amendment. They seem not only to take umbrage with Castle Doctrine, but also with Shall Issue laws. They believe that the state should allow local control over gun rights. They also seem to believe that liberal guns laws, which extend from our constitutional right, which is an enumerated natural right, not dreamed up, are somehow wrong and will lead to mayhem. Such has not been the case as it has been researched.

To further inflame things, they claim that the case in Tucson should raise a red flag and cause us to question any "liberal" gun laws. Such straw men will not stand the test from the Register editorial board or such ersatz religious leaders such as Carlos Jayne. The incident in Tucson was perpetrated by a mad man, who had lied on the federal form he had to fill out to purchase the weapon he used. Furthermore, he is crazy and it is one incident taken out of context to support an anti-gun agenda. If we use the liberal's logic for other unsafe and dangerous consequences in our society, what would that look like? Should we ban spoons because they make people fat? Should we ban cars because more drunk drivers kill people than guns? I don't see the "liberals" clamoring for any of that.

What makes them true hypocrites, is that in the same opinion section, we have articles about same sex marriage and how it is a universal right. You can read my opinion of this type of topic here, here and here. Marriage is not something that is defined in the constitution, but somehow these progressive agendists believe it is something that should not be regulated by the states. It should be universal. The same with abortion, which is nowhere promoted of denied in the constitution (Although I will make a libertarian stand against it based on the Declaration of Independence), but is a sacrament of their cause. While I cannot make a libertarian argument against gay marriage at all, I do believe states do regulate marriage and if you read my piece above, you can read my solution. That said, being armed is a natural right, in my opinion, not subject to the whims of who is in power at any given time. political winds shift, liberty should remain a constant if not increasing. The problem is, many, if not most progressives don't have the balls to live in the real world and wish to make it safe for all at the continuing expense of our liberties. Liberties to them mean actions free from perceived consequence, which is really libertine, not libertarian. I would also suggest that they believe in the power of the state as a tool for the submission of people to the will of their tribe. My question is, what makes then so sure their religion is any better than any other?

In the end, their agenda is one of a nihilistic statism bred from a self-assured, yet delusional belief that risk is something that is anathema to living in this world. It extends to everything they promote, whether it's universal healthcare, gun control, healthy food or whatever. They do not believe people are or can be responsible for themselves and that the government is needed as a surrogate guardian to protect us from ourselves. Furthermore, they have no compunction about using the force of government to force people to submit to their will. Truly, they are not liberals at all, but progressive, Fabian statists st best. They are also hypocrites, that are inconsistent in their application of liberty as it suits them. Theirs is not an objective view.

Thank you for reading this blog.

The Party Of Slavery

Last night's radio show presented some interesting conversations as one of the guests wasn't vetted to the extent that we knew what to expect. Such instances make for good radio.

J.A. Myerson was a guest with Warner Todd Huston discussing the upcoming march in DC. You can read Myerson's take on the show here. What became evident in short order was not only Myserson not libertarian or even centrist, but left wing. What also became apparent is that the left, the democrats, are the party of slavery.

The reason behind this statement lies in the comment Myerson made about taxes. He said that a tax cut was a spending increase. The is the same diatribe spewed by the ersatz economist Thomas Friedman, who never missed an opportunity to promulgate the government separating money from it's citizens. The only was Myerson's comment might make sense is if it was if cutting spending was impossible. Clearly, it's an incorrect premise as cutting spending is completely possible. The problem is that politicians understand they can bribe us with our own money and their entrenchment, in their minds, depends on it.

The problem, as I have discussed here and here, is that people have become accustomed to government largesse and moreover, the solution to their problems. Here in lies the rub: There is consideration involved. there is no free lunch when a person is the object of largesse of any type. Ask any slave or indentured servant. In the case of taxes, it is capital, taken against our will, to be used for some alleged greater good. You can't opt out of it and if you try, you will be forced to by the barrel of a gun, meaning the full authority of the government through their agents, the police. In essence, taxation is slavery, indentured servitude, and theft. Free will has no traction in that place.

Further on in the conversation, Myerson also espouses the premise that a government option with healthcare is libertarian. This is also false. The government should not and cannot truly be a competitor in the free market, if there is one. The argument could be made that since the government regulates, the market isn't truly free, but that is another discussion. The government operates on funds taken from its citizens. This very action is not libertarian and therefore any "participation" by the government as an agent in the free market is a false one. The government does not earn, it takes and since it makes rules about trade, it can favor itself to be the winner in any market it wishes to dominate. This is not libertarian on any level.

What I did come away with is that Myerson was not the balanced reporter he says he is and that he is a left wing progressive as is our fabian socialist ersatz president Barry O. He also outlined that in his position theft and slavery work just fine for him. He offered no solution other than to imply that raising taxes was the only way to solve our current problem. Theft begets theft I guess.

What I didn't get to say was my solution to the problem at hand. One, I would do away with the IRS. I would institute either a 10% flax tax for corporations and individuals. No deductions. Everyone pays. The budget would based on 75-80% of the previous years pull. The problem with this is the moral issue of stealing money from citizens. It would however provide a more stable money flow. The other option would be to have a consumption tax of 10-12%, which is the one I favor. Both these scenarios would require the removal of all other federal taxes and no deductions. Two, I would cut the government budget 20% the first year and 10% each year for the following 3 years. These numbers are minimum. I would shoot for a 50% cut over 4 years. Every department would be hit, no exceptions. I would also forgo subsidies, foreign and domestic. If something is a good idea, it will stand on its own, and the private sector will fund it and/or the market support it. Necessity is the mother of invention, not tax dollars. And for the record, I am and was against TARP. Failures should be just that, failures. Nothing is learned from a safety net, no matter if it is an individual or a corporation.

Lastly, I was to say that I had a poor choice of words last night. I called Myerson a stupid idiot. This I am mistaken. He is not a stupid idiot, just mistaken and wrong. I am sure we would agree on some libertarian issues, but the role of government is one where I think we depart. The less government we have, the better off all of us will be.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Ronnie The Libertarian

Thank you for reading this blog.

Edward Gonzalez: Libertarian Candidate For Congress on Libertarian Politics Live

Edward Gonzalez is running for congress in the 16th congressional district in California. He is running as a libertarian in a race with no republicans.

We interviewed him on Libertarian Politics Live last night. Listen to it here. It was a good interview and those who are libertarian and libertarian leaning will find his positions refreshing.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Jonathan Narcisse For Governor

Jonathan Narcisse is running as an independent and I would say libertarian candidate for governor of Iowa. Anyone that has heard Jonathan talk on the Steve Deace Show, knows that there is no middle of the ground with Jon: Either you are impressed by him or afraid of him. I happen to be impressed.

Right now we have three major party candidates running for governor in Iowa: Chet "Jethro Bodine" Culver, the incumbent, Terry "I want to be the new FDR" Branstad, and Bob Vanderplatts. Culver is as clueless as a blind man crossing Broadway and 53rd without a dog and a walking stick. Brandstad has been elected governor four times, and while he says he's a republican, he hasn't always acted like one (can you say appoint judges that make law not interpret it?), and honestly, isn't four terms enough? I like Bob Vander Platts, But his base is mostly socons, who think he's the second coming. This scares the bejesus out of the middle of the road crowd.

Back to Jon. He's more libertarian than any GOP candidate mentioned here. Strong on the second amendment, wants a frugal and small government, and best of all, he's not afraid to call it as he sees it. May be this is his biggest liability, at least from a political prospective as most politicians are afraid to take a stand and discuss the his he would die on. That to me is refreshing. When was the last time you voted for someone that actually stood for something, something controversial, and wasn't afraid to say so? I can't recall. To boil it down, I think Jon understands that real change requires challenging the status quo and not being afraid of turmoil, disagreement, and pushing when most people want to quit. Being passive-agressive and backstabbing won't get the job done. Jon and I share a love for Frederick Douglass, one of the greatest civil rights leaders in American History and here's a quote that I think sums up Jon:

The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters
-Frederick Douglass (1818-1895)

Jon is the gadfly of change that Iowa needs. I would encourage everyone to go to his website, and if you agree with his platform, support him and he need any and all help he can get.
Jon's Platform in a nutshell:

The Four Pillars of his Campaign

World Class Plus Educational System
Low Tax, Free Market, Prosperous Economy
Small, Accountable, Efficient, Transparent State Government
Leading by Example a Healthy Lifestyle to Fight the Obesity Epidemic
I am strongly committed to:

Revive small, accountable and transparent governance
Create a tax code that doesn’t punish success, excellence, and hard work, or reward corporate welfare barons
Restore a free market economy replacing our no-growth prison-casino-corporate welfare based economy
Return our education system to the best in the world
Protect local control, private property and constitutional rights like the right to be armed
Promote a truly healthy Iowa and replace recidivism-based justice system with a restitution system

I would also like to invite all my readers to stream Libertarian Politics Live tomorrow night, Tuesday, March 16 at 8PM. Jonathan will be featured for an hour. You are invited to call in. Phone number is: (646) 915-9887

Thank you for reading this blog.

The Nolan Chart: The Lecture From Glenn Beck

I took the survey at the Nolan Chart website. I got the address off of Glenn Beck's website. I was somewhat surprised that I came out so strongly libertarian, as I am pro-life (but my position is a libertarian one).  Many die hard libertine libertarians are pro-abortion, and the only reason I bring that up is that it seems to me there is a sizable demographic in that movement that is just that: Libertine, which is not really libertarian as it does not address responsibility, particularly when their right to do whatever they wish infringes on another's rights. It's anarchy to the extreme. I see libertarian as more minarchist, but we are getting away from the message.

Glenn Beck has a video up at Fox News where he lectures us about the political chart to the left here. What I ask is for you to take the quiz and let me know where you stand. You might be surprised.

A retort to the Glenn Beck can be found here.


Click on Glenn Beck's Video below:

Thank you for reading this blog and god bless Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Libertarian Announces Candidacy For Governor in Iowa

Chris Cooper, Psychology Professor at ISU, announced his candidacy for governor. Chris is running as a libertarian.

Thank you for reading this blog.