Lets kick off Women’s history month with a bang. Women have come a long way in a relatively short amount of time as far as gaining freedoms, liberties and equality in Western society. With that being said there are many that still feel the need to march and resist our president Donald Trump. It is their right to do so but what I aim to do is guide them to where the true violation of women’s right are happening, the Middle East. If feminist truly want to fight the oppression of Women then this must be their number one target, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia lives under strict Sharia Law which is backwards and archaic system with women being treated more like property than citizens. They cannot drive a car, or leave the house without a male guardian, they must be covered in religious garb when in public and while in public cannot look at or even speak to a male that they are not related to. They cannot work, attend a higher education institution or marry without permission from a male. Hell women cannot even obtain a passport or ID without permission from a patriarch. These guys have their own religious police force to follow women around and make sure they are adhering to these rules. On top of all of that there have been many rulings from their religious system of cases that were just unjust, and unfairly oppressing women. In November of 2013, a Kuwaiti woman was arrested after driving her sick father, who was in diabetic shock, to the hospital. In 2006 a woman was sentenced to 200 lashes and 6 months in jail after being kidnapped and raped by 7 men. All of these are egregious human rights violations, and should not be allowed to occur in this age. The simple fact is women rights is a global issue and we should not stop until every human can live free under their own rule. I believe that people know what is best for them and not governments. I will always value the individual over the State and Saudi Arabia is a good barometer of how bad a state can be. So feminists and women’s rights activist if you truly want to make an impact on the lives of women who are oppressed, start with the state that oppresses them the most, Saudi Arabia. P. S Do not forget that Saudi Arabia is on the United Nations Human Rights Council, but that’s a story for a different time.
I will have to start this by saying this is probably the only thing I disagree with on the Libertarian platform. Most libertarians look at it as a bad thing but I disagree and I will tell you why. When you look at the world today you see the results of governments and politicians doing what is best for them and not what is best for their citizens. America was going down a dangerous path towards socialism and the collapse of the free market. The European Union was unfairly exploiting their wealthier nations, while those that didn’t contribute much were allowed to continue with their entitlements even after their systems had bankrupted and collapsed. Even after the collapse Greece, and Spain did not let go of their entitlements, so other nations had to pay for it. The UK was paying an unfair price for it and the open boarders of the EU allowed migrants to flood in, and in many cases they were taking up social program dollars while not being employed do to an already shortage of jobs. The French have been ravaged with terrorism brought in by the same open border policy. The saving grace? Nationalism. Nationalism has already set the Brits free from the EU with brexit. The British can now focus what is best for their citizens instead of going with some globalist agenda of what is politically correct at the behest of it citizens. The truth is what is best for the UK may not be the best for the rest of Europe. For me pride in ones nation is not hatred for those that are not but simply wanting what is best for your country and countrymen and it is politicians job to do what is best for their citizens. That is why in many ways Nationalism will save many of these countries from poor policies and government corruption. I do not believe Donald Trump was the best choice for president but he was the result of 16 years of poor policies and politicians ignoring their constituents. He was able to strike a cord with the average american in a way no politician has in a long time. His America first thought process is what many people were looking for. Trump may not be the best vessel but he has brought back a national pride that I believe will help America return to being the lone super power. With Trump in mind I do not see France far behind. Marine Le Pen is in many ways the savor France needs. For years the EU immigration policy has allowed radical Muslims to come to France. Evidence by the alarming number of terrorist acts over the last decade, and it shows no signs of stopping. She will lead them out of EU and will thus be able to control their own policy on immigration and maybe save the lives of some frenchman that died unnecessarily. Nationalism is not based on racism, xenophobia or some misguided notion of superiority, but rather just the simple fact that in this world we must do best for ourselves. Its the same priciple that I use in the federal context, as in many cases I believe that individual states know what is better for their citizens than the Federal Government. So be proud of who you are and where you come from, it doesn’t define you but it is a part of you.
This has been on my mind all day. Earlier my father and I had a conversation that lead me to believe that entitlement is a problem that is decaying the very foundation of this nation. The conversation began with a rather odd situation that he was describing. He began with telling me about an older gentleman that was telling him he had purchased some furniture for his daughter, who is over thirty and a professional. The truth is this generation has become the generation of entitlement. Every where you look you cannot escape this fact. Kids are given iphones, high end name brand clothes and even cars sometimes without even a single hour worked. Where I went to high school was an affluent area and I could recall some parents that had purchased their children brand new Mercedes without these kids even working an hour. What kind of precedent does that set? Many of those kids have not succeeded in their venture outside of their parents homes. By giving them everything that they desire the parents are diluting the value of hard work and independence, which are the principles that this nation was founded on, and the bedrock of successful adults. These kids have grown up expecting everything to be given to them with minimal work and that is not the reality of the world. So these kids enter the world, college etc. and they want everything to be as easy as possible. Not only do they want it to be as easy as possible but they have been coddled and given trophies for “participating.” Combining the handouts and the “you tried really hard” pats on the back, you have a generation that is terrified of failure and believes that the world owes them for just being there. This is part of the reason why the youth of this generation has run to socialism and even communism. Just look at the youth numbers that supported a horrendous failure in obamacare, and even after seeing how poorly the affordable healthcare act was working, still wanted to vote for Bernie Sanders. It is my honest belief that if I gave them the question of; “If the government provided healthcare, housing, transportation and food, would you give up some of your constitutional rights?” I think most of them would say yes. That mentality is against the very foundation that this country was built on. The founding fathers risks their lives, along with the lives of their family for one thing; the freedom to live their lives as they see fit and not the way the government says it has to be. Anything the government gives to you can be easily taken away, and by taking anything from them they own you. Why give into it? Dictate your own life, live your own life. I truly believe that it is better to go out and forge your own path and fail, then to have someone just give it to you. In the case of government, if you take from them they own you. They will control you, or at least try. As the course as history shows, many governments that have started off with good intentions have turned and done great harm to their citizens. The greatest atrocities of human history have been caused by government. They are faceless and every changing, and unlike individuals they are generally unaccountable. To me I will always value the citizen, the individual over the state. Like I was saying governments are fluid depending on who has power. You can have great leadership and a peaceful nation at one point and a brutal dictatorship just a short time after. This is why government should always be checked, and as small as possible. Conservatives and libertarians have their work cut out for them as far as winning over this generation, that believes the government can solve all their problems. Just remember government does not solve problems, but rather creates them.
Following along protocol this post will be about the huge and unjust tax code in the United States. Lets begin with the moral argument; income tax is theft. There is no reason why any party that is not directly involved in a transaction should benefit, period. It is taking unjustly the fruits of ones labor, without consent. The Constitution is one of the greatest documents written in the history of mankind, it gives freedoms that were previously unheard of in most of the world. Even today there are many nations that wish they had the freedom that the constitution gives to the citizens of the United States. With that in mind the 16th Amendment is a perversion on an otherwise great document. With the creation of the IRS and an ever growing tax code, income tax only punishes those that wish to grab hold of the American dream. The more you make the more they take. Its a system that is counter intuitive, why punish those that do well? You should be rewarded for thinking outside the box and working hard. Instead those that do are punished with theft while there are those that do not have the drive to do the same get off with paying nothing. If there is going to be a tax system it should be on that is fair all the way around. The only fair system would be one based solely on consumption. Instead of punishing those that do well, everybody pays the same and those that consume more pay but no one gets off with paying nothing. Besides the 16th amendment the creation of the IRS to ensure the collection of these income taxes has become the very example of what happens when the government is given too much power. You don’t have to look very far to see how the entity has grown too much. The current tax code is over 70,000 pages long, and in the words of Tacitus “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” Why is it necessary to have 70,000 pages on collection of taxes? A new form of slavery. Laws create criminals, and criminals lose many of their rights. Its almost as if they wish to create as many criminals as possible in order to control the population. For this very reason it would be in the best interest of liberty to abolish the IRS and repel the 16th amendment.
There has been a lot of talk the past few days about civil asset forfeiture. The idea was that it gives police the ability to cripple large enterprises by taking away their ability to move assets, mainly cash. As with any power that is granted to a largely faceless government entity the power has been abusing and is now affecting many citizens in their daily lives. It is a clear violation both the fourth and fifth amendments. It gives them the right to take and even sell your property with out being convicted of any crime. The constitution has to be upheld in order for this country to prosper. With that being said our President defended the practice and bad mouthed Texas State Senator Konni Burton over her wanting to require a conviction. While I am a Libertarian and for the most part have agreed with most of what Donald Trump has done to this point; this is an egregious violation of US citizens rights. I will post a few links at the bottom to some of the various examples of the government abusing this power. Eminent domain is the same in many ways, as it forcefully takes one private property for the “greater good.” Now at least the victim is given compensation for the theft of their property in this situation at “fair market value.” Most of the time it is above the going market price of comparable lots, but who says that it is the fair value to the individual? The property that is being stolen could have sentimental value or family history in which they do not wish to part with. The government shouldn’t have the ability to strip citizens of their legal property because it will “benefit the greater good.” I will say the first problem with this theory is who decides what is the greater good? That power is rather vague, and if it is the government that gets to decide then that is a huge conflict of interest. All it would take is one corrupt politician to decide that a something is to benefit the greater good and line his and his friends pockets with cash while stripping an asset from a citizen. This power should be abolished along with civil asset forfeiture and should be done quickly. Now if only we had a few politicians that were truly for freedom and liberty to go to work on it.
I think the one thing that everyone learned from the days of prohibition was that if the public wanted a particular product they will find a way to obtain it. Prohibition created a black market that created violence and inferior if not down right dangerous products. So why have we been doing the same with marijuana? The war and drugs and prohibition of marijuana has lead to one of the most expensive and dangerous blunders the United States government has ever created. First off it works the same way the prohibition of alcohol did in the early 20th century. The product has been outlawed but there is a huge demand for the product, thus the rise of the cartels. These entities provide the product that the public wants, but does so by any means including murder, kidnap and extortion. It creates a climate that endangers not only the intended buying of the product but also innocent bystanders that wanted nothing to do with the process. As the entities are nameless and faceless they do not face the scrutiny of the public as a corporation would so they are free to put out inferior and even dangerous products without any real repercussions. Its the same principle as banning abortions; you cannot ban abortions, you can only ban safe abortions. Same goes for marijuana or any other product that is in huge demand, it can be banned but they will find a way to obtain it legal or not. So by banning it, you are only banning safe marijuana. The cartels do not care what is in the product or they only care about getting their money, and its not like the customers have a way to hold them accountable. There is no way of really telling the true cost of fighting the cartels, but in the extra border securtiy, countless trials and incarceration it is well into the hundreds of millions if not billions. Speaking of money the prohibiotion also costs tax payers a huge sum of money. Between the hours of paperwork that police officers have to deal with for small amounts of marijuana, to the costs it takes to put those people in front of judges, the prohibition is a huge burden on the tax system that is greatly unneccessary for most of these victimless crimes. Plus not only would money be saved in those forms, but with legalization, it can be taxed and thus money earned. Its truly a win-win. The people that want the product get it, in a safe manner. The citizens that do not, get lower crime rates from the elimination of a dangerous market, and the tax generated from it can be used to improve their communities. The end of a federal prohibition on marijuana seems to be gaining steam, and who knows maybe it will end soon. Then maybe…just maybe, America can smoke its way out of debt.
The internet seems to be ablaze. Today as Betsy Devos is confirmed it seems many on the left have lost their collective minds over it and many of the right are left with distaste in their mouths. It is my belief that she is not the best choice for the position but could she been on the right track of reform? At a whooping $600 Billion per yer the department of education is a hefty bill for the federal tax payers, but what have we gotten in return? Based on the report from the Program of International Student Assesment the United States ranks 35th in math and 27th in science out of 64 countries served. So as many things with the federal government go, the department of education has more than enough funding but is not producing to the level that it is being funded. Now I am going to defend her. Her first idea of continuing and strengthening school choice is the right choice. Tax-credit scholarships and vouchers help many low income children that are academically eligible, but not financially able to, to attend private and charter schools. This helps not only that student but also allows the public school to focus on a decreased number of students, thus being able to serve their needs better. These programs have been documented that test scores go up and drop out rates go significantly in districts that have a voucher/scholarship program. So at least there is that. But lets look at the real reason why the department of education has been a failure. Its run by a bureaucracy. The system has received more funding but produced less results. It is more focused on pushing students to test well so that teachers and the school receive more funding than actually getting the students prepared for whats next in life. Plus schools in different areas and states have different needs. Lets just play what I believe is the best case scenario, which is the elimination of the Department of Education. States could then build programs that are uniquely set up for their population. Such as instead of a federal mandate of what to teach, they could set up their own curriculums and programs. The national common core goals are all set up to push kids into college, instead of what its real goal should be which is getting kids prepared to be self sufficient. Instead of teaching every kid algebra, the should be teaching skills that will help everyone in life, like how to balance a budget, what credit is, interviewing skills and how to do your (taxation is theft) taxes. Instead of pushing every kid towards college schools could partner with their local community colleges and offer programs that would lead to a quick path of independence. Auto mechanic, computer programming, and so on. Maybe now that the left is pissed at the choice of Devos they can see the value in not having it at all. The smaller the government, the better the result. End the Ed. Be sure to check out Rep. Thomas Massie and H.R bill 899.