Tuesday, October 18

A Vote for Treason

It has taken several months and a number of email dumps from Wikileaks to finally figure out what this presidential election is all about. There are only two ways to vote, for Donald Trump or for Hillary Clinton. But neither of those are what one would be voting for.

A vote for Donald Trump is a vote to resist the massive corruption of government, a vote against globalism, against "global warming" or "climate change" theology; it is a vote against media collusion and interference in politics. A vote for Donald Trump is not a vote for the person at all, that is why despite the media onslaught of negative stories about him as a person carries no weight with those who support him, because they don't support him at all, they support what he represents, which is a chance to hold Hillary Clinton responsible for her crimes and therefore all of the crooked politicians of 2012 who coerced votes out of their Republican base only to turn on them the next day.

Likewise, a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for a transformed America, a quasi-police state where the government intervenes in business and forces some out of business while subsidizing other businesses that could not possibly sustain themselves without massive graft and media brainwashing. All of those businesses would be held hostage to a criminal organization originating from the White House. It would be a vote to end forever the concept of individual rights. Hillary Clinton would do no less than continue the work of the Obama Administration to destroy individual rights and nearly half of the nation is in favor of just that. It would be a continued replacement of the voters who value the principles of the founding of this nation with those who have no like expectation. It is a vote for the sudden disappearance of websites like this one.

The outcome is bigger than that. The next president will likely be a true war-time president. As Vladimir Zhirinovsky claimed a vote for Hillary Clinton would be a vote for war. War with Russia may be inevitable and irrespective of the election as it seems likely that war will begin before the next president can take office. But, there is the question of who would be more likely to effectively fight that war. More than that, would our military leaders be willing to follow the orders of a criminal like Hillary Clinton running a crime organization out of Washington? Would they put their lives in jeopardy knowing the cold-blooded actions she demonstrated in Benghazi? Or, would they likely recognize that their lives meant nothing to the Commander in Chief?

So many things are now known about the media establishment and the collusion it shares with the Clinton campaign. More things are being found out every day as Wikileaks provides proof of the public perception. The people were right, there is a conspiracy to keep them uninformed and misinformed to protect Democrat politicians from facing scandals. It is clear now that there will never be a Democrat held accountable for their actions and therefore the only time Americans can expect to get anything other than abusive and criminal officeholders is if they elect a Republican.

This is where we get back to a vote for Donald Trump is nothing other than a vote for accountable leadership. A vote for Hillary Clinton is giving up on that ideal. A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to abolish the very principles of elected officials, because if their misdeeds can never be told and their abuses never aired, what have we? That we have so many in this nation willing to vote for Hillary tells us all we need to know about the other side, that they have already given up, that they would rather have a totalitarian system. A vote for Hillary is, in effect an act of treason.

h/t TL Davis

Monday, September 26

About your vote....

“I’m crying because there are people out there who are giving their lives just trying to make our elections secure – and they’re being called “conspiracy theorists” and “technophobes”and the inventors are lying and saying that “everything’s alright” and it’s not “alright”.


Wednesday, September 21

The Problem with Leaders

"The hardest lesson to get across to freedomista [newbies] (and sometimes not-so-[newbies] ) is: nobody can lead you to freedom and if you expect that, you’re not truly ready to be free."

Insightful pearl from friend Claire Wolfe

Monday, September 19

Banana Republic Here We Come

There is little difference remaining between the United States and a Banana Republic. What differentiated us from so many countries was our Constitution and our legal system. The Constitution prevented government from overstepping boundaries, at least for a while.

The Rule of Law meant that all citizens would have the same rights and expectations regarding how contracts and misbehavior would be treated. The freedom afforded unleashed the creativity and skills of individuals. The US did not become rich or great because it represented God’s chosen people. It became so successful because of freedom and the initiative of its people....

More here

Friday, September 2

Quote Without Comment...

On saying the Pledge of Allegiance:

Sorry - I already pledged my allegiance to my Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. I have no allegiance left for a piece of brightly colored cloth and repetitive incantations lauding a Freedom destroying oligarchy trying to disguise itself as a "republic". If one sincerely believes in an omniscient, loving Supreme Being, the postulation that it somehow favors an entity so monumentally destructive should be nauseating....

Sunday, August 28

(Not Another) Another Pop Quiz

Just where does the moral authority of "government" come from? 
"Consent of the governed"? 
If there is consent, what need is there for "Government"? 

How does any entity's "authority" become a command I am forced to obey without my consent and ultimately jail (capital offenses excepted)? 

If "Government is Force" (G.Washington), how does Force become moral when administered by Government? 

Was there ever a Government that was not imposed on the citizens without force? 

If "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord Acton), how can "limited government" mean anything other than "limited but eventual tyranny"? 

How is the Libertarian belief in the forecast success of "Limited Government" not analogous to Limited Pregnancy? 

What Government of any political persuasion has permanently, successfully preserved the natural rights of all its citizens? 

Isn't self-governance the ultimate "limited" and moral government? 
If not, why not? 
If so, what need is there for "Government"? 

How have Government anywhere in the world in your lifetime, been doing with that "Freedom and Justice for all" thing? Preserved and upheld them? Or eroded and debased them slowly, gradually, inexorably? 

This is a Timed Test - and you don't have much left.

Extra Credit Question: When making dogmatic statements about the "purpose of government" and "authority", who empowers you to use "we" and "us" and "society"? Without the agreement of the Individual, aren't those Statist/Collectivist terms?

Moderator's Comment:
Call it whatever you wish. As long as the "Majority", by whatever means, can superimpose its will on the Minority with the force of law, some spawn of Tyranny can be the only result.

Sunday, August 21

Another Recent FB exchange....

Someone posted the coming appearance of LP candidates Johnson/Weld on some show with noted FOX lonely Libertarian, John Stossel, and asked if everyone reading would tune in. I posted "Not I because neither Johnson or Weld were Libertarians and many of their stated positions were contrary to Libertarian philosophy." The following exchange then took place:

Jacqueline Passey Mason Brian Wilson Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Would you rather vote for Trump or Clinton?
Like · Reply · 3 hrs

Brian Wilson
Brian Wilson If you believe - as Libertarians claim - in Self-Governance, why do you need to elect a "leader" at all? If you believe - as Libertarian claim - in the Free Market, how can you support the immoral monopoly of Force via Government, regardless of who is in the WH? Considering the total corruption of "the system" and the predictably flaccid financial "support" from rank & file Libertarians, do you believe Johnson-Weld have a snowball's chance of actually winning? And even if they did, do you really believe the R & D Congress would support ANY dismantling of "The System" they have constructed and support? Posing the Trump/Clinton "choice" ignores the only intelligent alternative: Yourself.

* Note: Ms. Mason did not respond - nor did any other stalwart Libertarian - because they can't without betraying the hypocrisy - or, at least, irreconcilable inconsistencies in their positions. They ignore the plain spoken observation of Washington: "Government is Force" and the pure truth of Lord Action: "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." What more needs to be said? Is there any wrinkle in time in the history of the mankind that Government has a sustained record orfpeace, prosperity and advancing Liberty? (Spoiler alert: No) Quite the contrary. Government holds the record for people murdered, property stolen or destroyed, rights trampled, Freedom suppressed.

The belief that electing the "least of 4 evils" will somehow result in Peace breaking out is ludicrous - just as "small government" only translates as "little bit pregnant",