The Best Libertarian Movies

One of the things that I like about being a "small l" libertarian and a "large L" Libertarian is the consistency of the belief system. 

It's almost like being Jewish.... an ethnicity and a religion, should one choose both. 

You can be a libertarian without ever voting Libertarian.  It's all the same package.  Mindset and political party, should you choose both. 

Our political platform changes very little, unlike those of the Rethuglicans or the Demoblicans.   Our message boils down to "Don't hit people and don't take their stuff".   Add a sprinkling of "Leave others alone just as you want to be left alone", and you've got it. 

Therefore, it's fairly easy to come up with great lists of libertarian books.  (More on these later.) 

And libertarian music.  (Ditto.) 

Just for grins and giggles sometime, Google the terms "Liberal Books" or "Democrat Books".  You'll come generally come up with volumes of Hero Worship rather than ideology or philosophy.  Hit this for a typical example.  Lots of stuff about Kennedys who you would never leave your daughter alone with. 

The Republican lists are a little better, but are generally laden with the bi-annual offerings of Fox News hosts, or they co-opt authors who could only be described as libertarian. 

I'll post more on the book lists later, though. 

The point of all this is movies.  If you go here, you can see the best Liberty movie list EVER. 

V For Vendetta,
Braveheart
Hunger Games
Thank You For Smoking
Shenandoah
Wag The Dog

And a special category of my own for:

Idiocracy, and
Team America, World Police 

And a few dozen others that reward repeat viewing. 

Good stuff.  Here's the immortal "Chancellor's Speech" from "V For Vendetta", which I've probably posted a dozen times already.  Think of this every time you here a Political Beauty Contest Winner claim that we need a war, a stimulus, a healthcare plan, a retirement system, or increased regulations on something. 

Brilliant.  Go here for the link to all the movies. 
Go here to sign up for Netflix.  Start watching !!

 

Interesting Gallup poll on Big Government

This is what makes me nuts. 
I'm talking.....insane. 
Chewing on the table legs. 
Shit it my hat, pull it down to my ears, and call myself Hillary Clinton. 
Sit out on the front porch with a jar of peanut butter and spend a day trying to spread it exactly 3/16ths of an inch thick. 
That kind of crazy.  Crazier than a rodeo goat or a shithouse rat. 

Let me tell you how absolutely, totally nuts this make me....

I had a great-uncle who was a bit too close to his mom, and when she passed away, he spent all of his time out at the cemetery.  He was in his early twenties. 
One day he took a break from hanging out at the graveyard and sat down and played the piano for a few minutes.  He was cranking along pretty well and then played a horrible discordant whonking racket, and went catatonic. 

He didn't say another word to another person for about 50 years.  He died in Whitfield, the Mississippi asylum for the insane. 

That's how crazy this makes me. 

Here's Gallup:

Seventy-two percent of Americans say big government is a greater threat to the U.S. in the future than is big business or big labor, a record high in the nearly 50-year history of this question. The prior high for big government was 65% in 1999 and 2000. Big government has always topped big business and big labor, including in the initial asking in 1965, but just 35% named it at that time.

Here's a chart showing the people who are waking up the fluctuations in distrust of government power.

Ok, which two parties grow the government?  That would be the Republicans and the Democrats. 

 

Check out the debt levels.  We really are going to have to pay this money back to somebody. 

Do you see how the debt level goes down when there's a Republican president vs. a Democrat president? 
Do you see how the debt level goes down when there's a Republican congress vs. a Democrat congress? 

I don't either. 

So why, oh why, do people keep voting for those teams of clowns?  This makes me insane.  I have a piano in my bedroom, and am starting to play the old gospel hymn "I Surrender All", but with nothing but tritones in the left hand. 

The Libertarian Party awaits. 
72% of you no longer trust the government. 
We'll kill it for you if the cognitive dissonance doesn't kill me first. 

.


 

Does anyone know anything at all about the new proposed budget?

Something has happened in the U.S. House Of Representatives but I have no idea what it is.  Most commentators are acting as if the lion has gotten cozy with the lamb.  I haven't seen anything like it since Jimmy Carter got Begin and Sadat to hang out at Camp David for a few weekends. 

It has something to do with the House agreeing on a possible budget deal, but no one is mentioning the most important thing about a budget.  If you read this within a couple of days after December 12th, check out Memeorandum for some typical articles.  None of them will tell you the most important thing about the budget. 

I'm afraid that people are going to start "reaching across the aisle" and "getting something done". 

"Tea Party groups have been marginalized."  That phrase is showing up a lot. 

Nancy Pelosi has said that they should "embrace the suck".  Whatever that means.  Something about restoring $20 billion in defense cuts.  As if we need more defending. 

The New York Holy Times has no important details about the proposed budget. 

CNN has no details.  But economic conservatives have experienced "diminished influence".   

Everyone in the mainstream media is typing their asses off about this budget, but no one has written the most important thing. 

How much further are they going to put you in debt? 

All the rest is noise....

 

Why The Libertarian Party Has So Many Ballot Access Problems

Skullduggery is underway in Ohio to keep the Libertarian Party off the ballot. 

In 2012, we had to find a Texan named Gary Johnson so that our presidential candidate named Gary Johnson could be on the ballot.  (That's a long, tiresome story that you wouldn't bother reading if I wrote it.) 

Baptist preachers can get on the ballot in Saudi Arabia easier than a Libertarian can get on the ballot in Oklahoma. 

Here's the simplest explanation, courtesy of somebody on Libertarian Reddit. 

I'm recruiting Tarrant County candidates until the December 9th deadline.  Every one of them will be on the ballot. 

God Bless Texas !! 

Mother should I trust the government?

During the past few years, the Tarrant County Libertarian Party has:

1) Participated in an anti-Federal Reserve protest at the Dallas Fed.

2) Snagged some great speaking gigs at DFW NORML meetings. (National Organization For The Reform Of Marijuana Laws.)

3) Sponsored 2nd Amendment/Gun Rights debates, hosted NRA activist meetups, staffed tables at gun shows, and participated in “Open Carry” events.

4) Participated in Gay/Lesbian pride parades in Dallas and Fort Worth. (And won twice!)

5) Staffed literature/recruiting tables during at least 3 Tea Party rallies

6) Participated in 9/12 marches and had speakers at 9/12 meetings

7) We would’ve participated in Peace Marches, but the Peace Movement doesn’t really exist during Democrat administrations, and we don’t have the numbers to shut down the streets by ourselves.

8) Supported anti-Eminent Domain candidates for our regional Water Board.  And won!!

Stuff like that makes for a diverse group off allies.  But those groups have something in common....

Economic conservatives generally fear the Fed the government.
Pot smokers fear the police the government.
Gun owners fear the anti-2nd amendment lobby the government.
Gays and Lesbians fear the influence of religious conservatives the government.
Tea Party activists, supposedly neutral on social issues, fear the national debt the government.
The 9-12 groups, as best I can tell, fear socialists the government.
The Peace Movement fears the military-industrial complex the government.
Eminent Domain opponents fear thieves the government.

Most members of these sub-groups will tell you that they oppose Democrats. Or Republicans. This is like declaring your loyalty to The Crips because if you stop supporting The Crips, then The Bloods will take over.  Republicans and Democrats might go at each other like cats and dogs, but at the end of the day, neither group is going to endanger the oppressive system that makes their leadership (and their leaches) very, very wealthy and very, very powerful.   

Our challenge, as Libertarians, is to convince those who fear the government to merely oppose the government in all its unholy acts, instead of trying to kill off Dr. Jekyll while saving Mr. Hyde.  On almost every issue, John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi are different in degree, not in kind.  And I'm struggling to think of any issues (maybe guns?) where Bush/Obama differ by a significant degree.    (No, I take that back.  They don't even differ on guns.  Barack approves of giving guns to Syrian rebels, and to Mexican Drug Lords via Operation Fast And Furious.) 

When government gets big enough, it prints money, oppresses non-conformists, confiscates citizen weaponry, determines who can and can’t marry, racks up a lot of debt, nationalizes industries, starts wars, and confiscates property. That's all part of the package.

Any government big enough to abuse the group you dislike is big enough to abuse all the rest.

Let’s stop talking about Red vs. Blue. Let’s reframe the debate as Free vs. Slave.

. 

Kevin Is A Democrat. The dachshunds are Republicans.

Several years ago, my daughter, The Aggie, took in a Labrador Retriever puppy. 
She named him Kevin. 
As a puppy, Kevin was fine in her dorm room.  As a full-grown beast, he was a disaster. 
She brought him home from Texas A&M to live in Fort Worth.  He'll be in Fort Worth until The Aggie graduates - probably sometime during the Rodham administration. 

It took Kevin about 20 minutes to learn that he could jump the fence in our back yard.  So he lives inside my house. 
Yeah.  I have a Labrador living in my house, because my daughter who wants to be a doctor thought that he would be a good idea. 

Kevin chews things.  Garbage.  Clothes.  So he has to stay in the back bedroom during the day, or any time no one is around. 

Here's how I know Kevin is a Democrat. 

To get Kevin into the back bedroom, all you have to do is get a couple of doggie-treats.  He'll cheerfully give up his freedom and mobility to get the little freebies that go along with his regular dog food and water.  I throw the goodies onto the bed, he follows the goodies onto the bed and eats them, and I shut the door on him for the next 8 hours.  He has nothing to do but wait on manna from heaven.  He believes that food wouldn't exist unless his owners brought it to him.  Here he is in full dependency mode, sitting by the mailbox waiting on his check to arrive:

BTW, if you have 20 minutes to kill, I have an epic Kevin story posted here. 

The dachshunds in my back yard are all Republicans. 
Their goal is to keep the back yard safe. 
Border security. 
Day or night, if they see, hear or smell a squirrel, they're going to raise hell. 

If a someone pushes a baby stroller down the street, they're going to bark.  If someone rides by on a bicyle, they're going to bark.  If a jogger goes by, or god forbid, a cat, they're going to bark.  And bark.  And bark.  Until they die.  Intruder alert.  Intruder alert.  Intruder alert.

 
We've had several car and truck break-ins that they totally missed.  No barking.  No noise.  They were totally useless. 
But the dachshunds still go through the motions of doing their job.  Every 6 months or so, one of them will catch a squirrel, and the captor will carry the carcass around for days, acting like Janet Napolitano, saying "The system worked!  The system worked!"  Then they'll ask for more funding. 

The cats are all Libertarians, of course.  I have no idea where they are or what they do.  None of my business. 

There will be no spending cuts

There will be no spending cuts. 
There might be a slight decline in the increase of spending.
But there will be no spending cuts. 

Washington D.C. Performance Art

I first saw some Performance Art during a high school trip to Quebec.  We were going through a mega-shopping mall, and some seriously thin women and men, 7 or 8 of them, came marching down the middle of the mall.  They were wearing incredibly tight black leather outfits, with a few red bows and ribbons stuck in unlikely places. 

They were carrying two black poles, each one about 6 feet long. 

They looked morbidly grim and serious.  This woulda been about 1978, long before all the "Undertakers Of The Art World" started wearing black, while regretting that they couldn't find a darker color.  We were just a gaggle of rednecks from Mississippi, and had never imagined art like this, much less seen it on display. 

I asked a bystander something along the lines of "What the hell?"  She didn't speak much English, but explained that these were artists, and that they were protesting against the British/Canadian government. 

The "artists" grimly pivoted against the flow of traffic in the mall, lowered their poles, and required the shoppers to step or hop over them. The Canucks took it with good humor and hopped away. Eventually traffic backed up, and the artists in black raised their poles so that everyone could walk beneath them.

They occasionally lowered the poles to just a few inches over everyone's heads, lifting them quickly when a take-no-prisoners shopper approached who was in no mood for art. Or protests. Or whatever the hell this was.

After that they did some impressive stuff on the up and down escalators, leading me to believe that they'd done some practicing in the mall after hours.  They went eventually went away as silently as they appeared, leaving a mall full of shoppers mildly perplexed for about 45 seconds.  My French wasn't that good, but the general impression was...."what did that have to do with anything?"

Here's a cool pic of a performance artist covering a nekkid girl with liver and chocolate syrup.  It doesn't mean anything. 

My second exposure to Performance Art was in college.  Some hippie chick did an interpretive dance while her boyfriend made a lot of noise with reel-to-reel loops, unlikely percussion instruments, and another guy sometimes shaved a gong with an electric razor.  No idea what that was about, but it was an interesting distraction. 

Here's Wikipedia's definition of Performance Art:  A performance presented to an audience, traditionally interdisciplinary. Performance may be either scripted or unscripted, random or carefully orchestrated; spontaneous or otherwise carefully planned with or without audience participation. The performance can be live or via media; the performer can be present or absent. It can be any situation that involves four basic elements: time, space, the performer's body, or presence in a medium, and a relationship between performer and audience. Performance art can happen anywhere, in any venue or setting and for any length of time. The actions of an individual or a group at a particular place and in a particular time constitute the work.

Here's a better definition, one that I can take full credit for:  Weird bullshit that serves as a distraction for the gullible members in the audience.  The con artist/creator gains credibility when viewers actually wonder what the hell it means. 

Here's a piece showing a guy kinda crucified on a Volkswagen. Probably supposed to make you think about the evils of Capitalism, but it's not about that. It's about being cool and pretending to be deep, meaningful and significant.

If you've paid attention to the news for the last month, you've been exposed to some Washington D.C. Performance Art about the "Fiscal Cliff".  John Boehner and The Teleprompter Jesus have tied themselves to a ticking time bomb.  If they don't come to an agreement about taxes and spending, the entire universe will blow up.  Or something. 

It doesn't matter.  It's Kabuki Theatre.  Performance Art.  It's fun to watch them put on their black leather outfits, dance, and recite reverse Led Zepellin lyrics in front of a Solyndra Stockholders Powerpoint presentations, but it's meaningless.  A fun distraction.  They're doing what you've elected them to do. 

Here's why this is all nothing but sound and fury and electric razors on gongs.  This is from a recent Wall Street Journal essay by two Clinton administration economists.  I hope you'll go here and read the whole thing.  They lament that Uncle Sam doesn't have to keep books the way that a private business is required to.  Uncle Sam doesn't have to show future liabilities. 

All discussion of our 17 trillion dollar debt is based on rosier-than-likely scenarios.  Because within my lifetime, the U.S. government is going to have to come up with 86 trillion dollars to cover the IOU's our elected "artists" have spread across the nation and the world.  Here are the money quotes from the article:

When the accrued expenses of the government's entitlement programs are counted, it becomes clear that to collect enough tax revenue just to avoid going deeper into debt would require over $8 trillion in tax collections annually. That is the total of the average annual accrued liabilities of just the two largest entitlement programs, plus the annual cash deficit.

Nothing like that $8 trillion amount is available for the IRS to target. According to the most recent tax data, all individuals filing tax returns in America and earning more than $66,193 per year have a total adjusted gross income of $5.1 trillion. In 2006, when corporate taxable income peaked before the recession, all corporations in the U.S. had total income for tax purposes of $1.6 trillion. That comes to $6.7 trillion available to tax from these individuals and corporations under existing tax laws.

In short, if the government confiscated the entire adjusted gross income of these American taxpayers, plus all of the corporate taxable income in the year before the recession, it wouldn't be nearly enough to fund the over $8 trillion per year in the growth of U.S. liabilities. Some public officials and pundits claim we can dig our way out through tax increases on upper-income earners, or even all taxpayers. In reality, that would amount to bailing out the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon. 

In other words, they can tax the rich, the middle-class, the poor, Lockheed, General Dynamics, Wal-Mart, your Mama, Starbucks, and every other person, business and entity for 100% of their taxable income, and it won't even come close to closing the gap.  
So when you turn on your TV and see Nancy Pelosi wearing a corset made of sardine bones, holding a velvet whip in one hand and reading the works of John Maynard Keynes from a pink iPhone held in the other, it's just Performance Art.  There are no true spending cuts on the table, just reductions in future increases. 

When some Republican hack goes on Fox News via a video montage of his baby pictures, the Pakistan war dead,  and a collage of tax rate charts, all to justify his violation of the Grover Norquist pledge, it's just Performance Art.  It doesn't matter. 

Eat, drink, and be merry.  And do it in black leather.  Or put on a Yoko Ono CD and dip your head in blue wax.  Whatever you think will make an appropriate statement. 

We are all so very, very screwed. 

A Prayer For 2016

Dear God,

We don't talk much anymore. 
I acknowledge that I'm a sinner. 
Except for Christmas and some Youth Sundays, I haven't made it to church in about three years. 

I've said horrible, horrible things about three of my Brothers In Christ, George W. Bush and Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.  Perhaps I've made Gary Johnson into a false idol. 

But I've worked really hard to get our children and grandchildren some relief from their parents' and grandparents' ridiculous government debts.  I've worked hard for gay marriage.  I've led discussion forums about the right of self-defense and gun rights and the 2nd amendment.  I've advocated the complete and utter destruction of Ben Bernanke's government money printing press on Blue Mound Road, mostly because inflation hurts poor people so much. 

I've even tried to be Moses.  I've taken a look at the number of black men that Barack Obama keeps in steel cages for marijuana offenses, and I've said "BARACK OBAMA!!!  YOU HYPOCRITICAL POT-SMOKING S.O.B. !!  LET YOUR PEOPLE GO !!"

I recently acted as preacher/priest/rabbi in a secular wedding.  I bet you were proud. 

Balance all that Libertarian Goodness against my continued violations of almost every known commandment, and it probably comes up even.  That's the only reason I'm coming to you, asking just one little favor. 

This website (do you have to hit links if you're God?) says that Jeb Bush, who is George W.'s brother and GHW Bush's son, will probably be the Republican nominee for President in 2016. 

This website says that She Whose Name Is Not Spoken will probably be the Democrat nominee for President in 2016. 

Please let this happen, God.  Please, please, please.  I'll go to church every Sunday for one complete calendar month.  Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.  Please, please, please. 

If voters are given the choice between Gary Johnson and the princelings from a couple of entitled hereditary monarchies, life will be almost too good for words.  Gary Johnson vs. Bill Clinton's wife vs. George Bush's brother.  Can you imagine those two royal families arguing that a commoner should be excluded from the presidential debates???

In spite of today being Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, I'm going to go to work.  Please don't hold that against me. 

Amen. 

I gave it my best shot, but the big one got away

Sometimes you win. 
I think the Libertarian Party is going to have its best year ever.  We've brought a lot of important issues to the attention of The Crips and The Bloods. 
It's been pleasant to see LP signs all over the place.  (I have to drive past 5 to get to work, and only one of them is from my stash !)
We've got some excellent candidates running in Tarrant county this year. 
We've made a lot of connections with gun rights groups and anti-prohibition groups.  Attendance at LP meetups has been increasing every month. 
There's been a lot of talk in the media about how the Libertarian Party might take some states away from one of the Obamneys and "give" those states to the other one, as if that matters. 

Sometimes you lose. 
I can probably point to 30 people who are voting LP for the first time because of my efforts. But dammit all to hell, sometimes the big ones get away. 

Go here. 

I tried, folks.  I really tried.  I came so close....

A comparison of The Obamneys

From the "End Of The American Dream" website....Someone named Michael has put together the definitive list comparing and contrasting The Obamneys. 

Some of these, from a Libertarian point of view, are horrific. In other cases, you've gotta wonder what Michael was getting worked up about. For instance, #25 is iffy.  Both Obamneys slam Free Trade when addressing an audience of the economically illiterate, but often do a few things to support rational trade and exchange. #33, the abortion issue, is IMHO, best left up to mothers and doctors. #34 is nobody's business but The Boy Scouts, as long as they aren't receiving tax dollars. All in all, though, this is a good effort.

GARY JOHNSON FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES !! THE ONLY WAY TO "WASTE" YOUR VOTE IS TO BE OPPOSED TO THE MESS BELOW, AND CONTINUE VOTING FOR IT !!!!

The following are 40 ways that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are essentially the same candidate....
1. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported TARP.
2. Mitt Romney supported Barack Obama's "economic stimulus" packages.
3. Mitt Romney says that Barack Obama's bailout of the auto industry was actually his idea.
4. Neither candidate supports immediately balancing the federal budget.
5. They both believe in big government and they both have a track record of being big spenders while in office.
6. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both fully support the Federal Reserve.
7. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are both on record as saying that the president should not question the "independence" of the Federal Reserve.
8. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both said that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke did a good job during the last financial crisis.
9. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both felt that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke deserved to be renominated to a second term.
10. Both candidates oppose a full audit of the Federal Reserve.
11. Both candidates are on record as saying that U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has done a good job.
12. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both been big promoters of universal health care.
13. Mitt Romney was the one who developed the plan that Obamacare was later based upon.
14. Wall Street absolutely showers both candidates with campaign contributions.
15. Neither candidate wants to eliminate the income tax or the IRS.
16. Both candidates want to keep personal income tax rates at the exact same levels for the vast majority of Americans.
17. Both candidates are "open" to the idea of imposing a Value Added Tax on the American people.
18. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the TSA is doing a great job.
19. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the NDAA.
20. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the renewal of the Patriot Act.
21. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the federal government should be able to indefinitely detain American citizens that are considered to be terrorists.
22. Both candidates believe that American citizens suspected of being terrorists can be killed by the president without a trial.
23. Barack Obama has not closed Guantanamo Bay like he promised to do, and Mitt Romney actually wants to double the number of prisoners held there.
24. Both candidates support the practice of "extraordinary rendition".
25. They both support the job-killing "free trade" agenda of the global elite.
26. They both accuse each other of shipping jobs out of the country and both of them are right.
27. Both candidates are extremely soft on illegal immigration.
28. Neither candidate has any military experience. This is the first time that this has happened in a U.S. election since 1944.
29. Both candidates earned a degree from Harvard University.
30. They both believe in the theory of man-made global warming.
31. Mitt Romney has said that he will support a "cap and trade" carbon tax scheme (like the one Barack Obama wants) as long as the entire globe goes along with it.
32. Both candidates have a very long record of supporting strict gun control measures.
33. Both candidates have been pro-abortion most of their careers. Mitt Romney's "conversion" to the pro-life cause has been questioned by many. In fact, Mitt Romney has made millions on Bain Capital's investment in a company called "Stericycle" that incinerates aborted babies collected from family planning clinics.
34. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the Boy Scout ban on openly gay troop leaders is wrong.
35. They both believe that a "two state solution" will bring lasting peace between the Palestinians and Israel.
36. Both candidates have a history of nominating extremely liberal judges.
37. Like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney also plans to add "signing statements" to bills when he signs them into law.
38. They both have a horrible record when it comes to job creation.
39. Both candidates believe that the president has the power to take the country to war without getting the approval of the U.S. Congress.
40. Both candidates plan to continue running up more government debt even though the U.S. government is already 16 trillion dollars in debt.

What I Actually Do - Barack Obama edition

Electoral College Maps - 1972 through 2008

Presented as a public service....

Here are the Electoral College Presidential Election maps going back to 1972, all from the American Presidency Project. Fascinating stuff.  (I might be the first person to put this many of the Red/Blue maps on one page.)  This should make it easier to scroll up and down and watch the voting patterns change.  For instance, if someone can knock Minnesota out of their blue habit, he'll be the first to do so since 1972.   

Hitting the link above each map will take you to a detailed analysis of each election, a tally of the Electoral College votes allocated to each state at the time, plus a state-by-state vote total and other trivia. 

For instance, if you dig into the first link, you'll learn that in 1972, the Libertarian Party's candidate, John Hospers, received one electoral vote from a "faithless" elector in Virginia.  (If you sat through a Republican primary campaign and wound up having to vote for Richard "Wage And Price Controls" Nixon.....well, you would do what you had to do.  May his tribe increase.)   

Here's 1972. Richard Nixon got 520 Electoral votes with George McGovern only taking 17 (Massachusetts).

Here's 1976.  Spiro Agnew, Richard Nixon's Vice-President, had just resigned.  Gerald Ford was appointed to fill in as V.P.  Then Nixon resigned.  Ford then slid up to the Oval Office.  The Republicans went ahead and gave Ford the nomination, since it appeared to be his turn.  Then Jimmy Carter won the 1976 election with 297 votes to Ford's 240. 

Here's 1980.  Jimmy Carter couldn't accomplish much for the economy (but thank God almighty he deregulated the trucking, airling, and beer industries) and he couldn't get the hostages out of Iran.  Ronald Reagan defeated Carter 489 to 49, with Carter carrying only his home state of Georgia, plus West Virginia, Maryland, Hawaii, VP Walter Mondale's Minnesota, Hawaii, and D.C. 

Here's 1984.  Ronald Reagan handily defeated Walter Mondale, 525 to 13.  Mondale captured nothing but his ever-loyal Minnesota, plus D.C. 

Here's 1988.  Riding on the popularity of Reagan, George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis 426 to 111. 

Here's 1992.  Bill Clinton came from out of nowhere to beat George Bush the Elder by a total of 370 to 168.  Ross Perot may have helped take some votes from Bush.  Remember this, Republicans....If you say "no new taxes", you better mean it.  There's a lot of blue spread over this map. 

Here's 1996.  Clinton had been doing well.  The Republicans trotted out Bob Dole because it was his turn.  Clinton won handily, 379 to 159.  (Montana, Georgia, Arizona and Colorado did some flip-flopping this time as compared to 1994.) 

Here's 2000.  George W. Bush barely squeaked by Al Gore, Clinton's V.P., by a score of 271 to 267.  Broward County, Florida.  Hanging "chads".  The Everglades rose from the weight of all the lawyers in Florida.  Incredibly close.  Democrats can safely blame this one on Bill Clinton's zipper issues.

 

Here's 2004.  George W. Bush beat John Kerry, 286 to 252.  Looks like New Mexico and Iowa changed sides after the previous contest. 

Here's 2008.  The Democrats had a new guy named Barack Obama.  The Republicans nominated John McCain because it was his turn.  Obama won, 365 to 173.  Hit the link to learn why Nebraska has a blue zit coming out of its nose. 

To be continued, sometime in November.  Pretty cool, huh??

Ouch.

Yeah, Romney's budget is goofy. He's not going to cut any branches of government. He could be a civil liberties disaster. But these cartoons are funny.

Why There's No Point In Watching Tonight's "Debate"

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will have a conversation tonight about who is best qualified to lead our collective plunge over the cliff.


The following remedies for our economic situation will not be on the table. They are considered “outside the mainstream” and “extremist". 

Unfortunately, the only way to escape a 16 trillion dollar debt is to go outside the mainstream.

You will not hear a serious discussion about the following:

1) Cutting government spending. Both men have budgets that actually increase spending into infinity. The Romney/Ryan plan slows down the rate of growth just a tad, but the spending still increases. What makes all of these plans laughable is that no Congress can limit the thievery of a future Congress. Imagine the current group of legislators taking, say, Jimmy Carter’s 2012 spending goals seriously.

2) Ending the Drug War. There are one million government employees who rely on this idiotic conflict for a paycheck.
.
3) Ending the Fed. Both Romney and Obama know that the only way to keep their contributors happy and content at the government trough is for Ben Bernanke to keep printing cheaper and cheaper money. We are due for a massive inflationary leap in the next few years. These higher prices will be blamed on greedy corporations.

4) Shrinking the military. Our military spending equals that of the next 17 to 20 countries, depending on how you do the math. Most of those countries are our friends, BTW. We’ve been in South Korea since the late 1940’s. Ditto for Europe. We never send them a bill for defense. (Also, we have no business going to the Middle East to spread the gospel of “free and fair elections” when f***ing Oklahoma won’t allow Gary Johnson on the ballot. What a farce.)

5) Bringing Hillary back to the house. What makes anyone think that Bill Clinton’s wife is any more qualified to intervene in the Arab-Israeli conflict than, say, Sarah Palin’s husband???

6) Privatizing Social Security. The system is now running in the red. To mention that fact is political suicide. Unless you’re Gary Johnson.

7) School Choice. 70% of the Chicago schoolteachers who went on strike send their own kids to schools not run by the Chicago schoolteachers. How do you think it would work out if the government assigned you a grocery store?

There are other obvious topics that these two guys won’t touch, and that a Libertarian candidate would bring into the discussion.

I used to drunk-blog these things, but tonight I don’t think I’ll bother. A real debate would include parties besides those which got us into this mess. 

Ryan Sheffield's 12 Political Compromises

My Bar Friend Ryan Sheffield has put a list of "12 Political Compromises" on Facebook.  This is his governmental wish list. 

As a side note, Ryan is one of those creative people who can do just about anything he wants to do.  Go here to view (and purchase) some of his artwork, mostly drawings of authors that incorporate their quotations.  I think I've used the Twain and the Hunter S. Thompson to liven up posts on this site a few times. 
Go here to download (no purchase required) his two e-books.  I've read some of his stories, and they're good stuff. 

IMHO, Ryan is very close to the Kingdom Of God, i.e., the Libertarian Party, with this list.  My additional commentary is in italics.  Here goes:

1. Repeal Citizens United. You would be hard-fought to find any normal citizen who thinks it’s a good idea for corporations, labor unions and special interest groups to have an unfettered cashflow into political campaigns. It doesn’t matter what “side” you are on, you should probably oppose Big Money syndicates controlling the election process and fueling the obnoxious TV commercials you are being bombarded with every day.

Why do we have big corporations and super-pacs giving a rip who gets elected?  Well, to produce a successful product, you have to convince millions of citizens to purchase the product.  That's the hard way.  The easy way is to get Congress to mandate the use, purchase, or monopolization of the product.  Corporations want protection from competitors.  In a nation with a massive government, it's far more effective to purchase one Congressman that to sell to 330 million Americans.  Here's something from the Cato Institute:

The proper answer to large expenditures for speech is either more speech or, if the existing system proves unworkable, a constitutional amendment. As for money, it's just a symptom. We have a big money problem because we have a big government problem. By restraining the regulatory and redistributive powers of the state, we can minimize the influence of big money. Restoring the Framers' notion of enumerated, delegated, and limited federal powers will get government out of our lives and out of our wallets. That's the best way to end the campaign-finance racket, and root out corruption without jeopardizing political speech.

In other words, if it really matters who wins the elections, your government has gotten too big.  If governments can mandate profits for favored corporations, government has gotten waaaay too big. 

2. Close the “Revolving Door” and shut lobbyists out of government. This is an extension of number 1. Again, no one wants these organizations, right or left, buying and bribing politicians or running their own regulatory agencies. Politicians work for us, not the highest bidder.

Once again, lobbyists are just a symptom.  They're not the disease.  If the government matters enough to justify the hiring of lobbyists, the government has gotten too big. 

3. End the “War on Drugs.” This doesn’t mean we have to legalize EVERYTHING, but this “war” is a bottomless money pit and a failed experiment. It is the reason the violent cartels exist and the reason your idiot son is snorting bath salts in your basement.

Precisely.  Exactly.  Ever since Nixon began the War On Drugs in 1970, the only drug whose use has declined is....tobacco.  That's because tobacco is legal and no longer cool.  
There are a few antibiotics that should possibly be restricted because unfettered use causes viruses to mutate and grow stronger.  
Everything else?  Well, ask yourself which currently illegal drugs you want the Mexican and Afghan Drugs Lords to have a monopoly on. 

4. Stop treating the environment as a partisan issue. The environment SHOULD be something we all agree on. It affects us all equally. As long as free enterprise exists, there must be checks & balances on pollution, deforestation and animal cruelty. This is not “socialism.” It’s the necessary price business owners must pay for the ability to run operations that affect our natural surroundings and resources. The beautiful but unrealistic Libertarian idea that simply boycotting polluters will solve the problem is a pipe dream. Especially if the public is unaware they are polluting in the first place (or simply doesn’t care.) We need to agree on what “facts and science” are and deal with the problems accordingly. Present “free market” alternatives. That is healthy and good. But accept science before you make suggestions. Economic freedom doesn’t make toxic waste taste any better.

The environment is a classic economic "externality".  You want to purchase powder-coated metal parts from me, so I powder-coat the parts.  You give me money.  I give you painted parts.  We're the only two people involved in the deal.  But not if I dump a lot of leftover zinc and iron-phosphate into the Trinity River.  Then a lot of other people become a party to our deal.  That's called an "externality". 

The classic Anarchist position in this case is to boycott the polluters.  The classic Libertarian position, however, is to sue the shit out of them if they have done YOU harm.  (Plus, all environmental regulations should be voted on by Congress, not enforced by appointees.)  Go here and here for two more excellent Cato downloads on how we could help the environment, lower the bureaucratic costs, and also let manufacturing businesses prosper. 

5. Audit the Federal Reserve and, preferably, abolish it. A private banking organization with no oversight or accountability should NOT be in charge of the nation’s economy. Central banks were never a good idea. But private and secret central banks are even worse.

Oh yes, yes, yes, Mr. Sheffield.  Yes, yes, yes.  And when we End The Fed, let's level all their buildings and plow salt into the earth where they stood so nothing will ever grow there again. 
The Fed was founded in 1913 to stabilize the money supply.  Since 1913, the dollar has lost 97% of its value. 

6. Legalize gay marriage. It doesn’t affect you. Just let it happen, move on, and turn your attention to issues that actually affect us all.

Yeah.  If God doesn't like gay people, why does he keep making so many of them? 

7. Disrupt and destroy the partisan divide. We are all screwed if this extreme partisanship continues to divide us. The culture of the American media has made it impossible for us to discuss issues and make progress. The main source of this problem? Pigeonholing. If someone asks you if you support the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare, for the other partisans), your answer should be nuanced and thought-out and should NEVER place you squarely in a political party. The common practice of assuming what “side” someone is on based on a single opinion is the MOST destructive aspect of our modern political culture.

In my opinion, we have so much extreme partisanship and a partisan divide because the only choice we have is between two partisans.  You can pick the Crips or the Bloods.  I've commented on this dozens of times elsewhere, but let's say the Crips and Bloods are the only parties to hold office for the last 75 years.  They both advocate slavery, puppy torture, and poor dental hygiene.  But the Bloods have a better position on Healthcare. 

So you always support the Bloods.  Otherwise the Crips will win.  If a 3rd gang (The Libertarians) comes along advocating an end to slavery, puppy torture, and are pro-brushing and flossing, they're written off as a wasted vote.  They might help the dreaded Crips win !!  So what's the solution?  How do we end all of this partisanship of Us vs Them? 

Through a system of approval voting.  Go here for an explanation.  It would allow most of us to comfortably step outside the Us and Them boxes and safely try out some other points of view. 

8. Recognize that gun control is like drug control. They will always exist and banning them only makes them more dangerous. People have a Constitutional right to arm themselves and threatening to take that right away only makes the loony “patriot” gun nuts all the more rabid and frothing at the mouth for their insurrection fantasies. Compromise: Don’t sell assault rifles at K-Mart. Gun store owners are always going to be more scrutinizing than a 16-year-old making minimum wage at a big box store.

I became a rabid 2nd Amendment nutcase when one of my co-managers brought in plans for a WWI-era machine gun that we could make at the shop.  I totally understood those blueprints, and I'm a borderline mechanical idiot.  Ryan is correct.  Guns aren't going away if someone like me can make one. 
I don't have insurrection fantasies, but do have the fears.  I now sometimes carry a gun, because cops are too dang heavy. 

9. Remove the words “socialism” and “capitalism” from the healthcare debate. It should be universally considered the “noble” goal to provide affordable healthcare for all American citizens. The road to that goal is (and SHOULD be) up for debate, but the endgame should not. The question is how to pay for it and how to ensure that quality of care (and personal decision-making power) do not decrease. It’s going to be difficult to sort out, but it’s hard for me to believe that there is anyone in America who does not think it’s a positive thing for everyone to have healthcare. “Healthcare is not a right.” You’re correct. Now let’s sit down and figure out how to make it one in a way that we can all agree on. If your opinion on healthcare is little more than “I support the President because he’s a Democrat like me” or “I dang’ol hate commies!,” you should probably stop voting.

I think that true Capitalist Healthcare has never been tried.  Here's my modest proposal.  If this became the system in an 8-block Free Market Zone someplace south of downtown, people would be flying in from all over the state for treatment.  And I think this would meet Ryan's criteria of a noble solution for a noble goal.  Hit the link. Please. 
But I do like the word "capitalism", because when regulators and Nanny-Staters allow unbridled acts of capitalism to take place, capitalism usually works.  Lap Band surgery and Lasik eye surgeries have become 80% less expensive, mostly because Medicare, Medicaid and insurance policies don't cover them. 

10. All censorship is wrong. A message to the left wing: All speech must be permitted, even what most would consider “hate.” I’m sorry. Free speech is an “all or nothing” issue. We can never open the door for authority to tell us what we can and can’t say or express. A message for the right wing: Seriously, just think about it. Is it really worse for your kid to see a naked lady than it is for them to witness a mass murder? Obviously not, if you’ve ever watched primetime TV. Get your priorities straight.

Here's a Ryan Sheffield print.  It's gonna be the first one I order:

11. Recognize that nearly every one of those infographics, chain emails, or biased news articles you share with your friends is chock-full of misinformation, omission, and partisan agendas. Yes, even the ones that agree with your position. “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” – Mark Twain

That's why I probably won't watch the (ahem) debate between The Obamneys.  Much truthiness will be thrown around that's half-right, half-wrong, manipulated, and taken totally out of the original context.
 
My questions about the infographics, chain emails, news articles and partisan agendas usually come down to this...  a) Does this person want to leave me and everyone else alone? b) Does this person's agenda promote or discourage ethnic, racial, or national Tribalism?
Nothing else matters. 

12. Talk to each other. Stop being so goddamn clique-y with your politics. Talk to someone who disagrees with you without letting the debate devolve into a talking points recitation contest. We need more open minds, less partisan cheerleading. I feel like I’m watching a word-war between Crips and Bloods who haven’t yet realized that the only thing dividing them is the color of bandana they wear.

Sorry, I’ll shut up now.  

Some of my responses were old talking points and some were new. 

Sorry about breaking Ryan's post down into a word-war between Crips and Bloods and Libertarians. 

The LP bandana is red and blue with porcupines on it.  

I'll shut up too.  At least until tomorrow morning.  

Be sure to hit the links at the top for Ryan Sheffields art and stories !!   

What Is "Approval Voting"?

Libertarians (and other parties who challenge the status quo) are often accused of merely being "spoilers".  Some claim that we don't have a hope in hell of winning, but we might take votes away from Romney and give them to Obama.  Or vice-versa. 

Here's another problem: A lot of voters like the Libertarian Party's position on almost everything, but they're reluctant to "waste their vote" on a possible non-winner.  This is called the "wasted vote fallacy", and virtually guarantees that we'll keep getting shafted by those representing the false choice of Democrat vs Republican. 

So what to do....what to do....

Many Libertarians advocate something called Approval Voting.  (Hit the link for a plethora of links and explanations.)  Here's a blurb from the Approval Voting site:

Approval voting is a voting procedure in which voters can vote for, or approve of, as many candidates as they wish. Each candidate approved of receives one vote, and the candidate with the most votes wins. It was independently proposed by several people in the 1970s.


Approval voting has several compelling advantages over other voting procedures:

•It is eminently practicable and easy to understand
•It will reduce negative campaigning
•It will increase voter turnout
•It helps elect the strongest candidate
•It gives voters flexible and simple options
•It will give minority candidates their proper due

Unlike more complicated ranking systems, which suffer from a variety of theoretical as well as practical defects, approval voting is simple for voters to understand and use. It doesn't require redesigning of ballots and is trivial to implement in vote-counting systems. Approval voting is used today by various governments and organizations around the world, including its use by the United Nations to elect the secretary-general.   An approval voting-style ballot would look like this:  

Let's assume that Smith is a Republican.  Citizen and Doe are both Democrats.  Rubble is from the Green Party, and Hill is a Libertarian.  I'm going to vote for the Libertarian every chance I get.  So Mary Hill gets one of my votes.   

Let's assume that the Republican, Joe Smith, advocates school prayer, the Defense Of Marriage Act, the Drug War, giving more money to Lockheed to kill more babies in Pakistan, a 40% tariff on all imports, and a return to our Judeo-Christian heritage.  I wouldn't trust Joe Smith to put together Happy Meals.  Joe Smith doesn't get my vote.   

Jane Doe, one of the Democrats, has an Obama sticker on her car, and was once photographed shaking hands with the man.  Therefore she is not to be trusted.  She doesn't get my vote.   

Mr. Rubble is the Green Party candidate.  I don't know anything else about him, but the Green Party affiliation is enough to keep me from giving him a vote.   

I've heard good things about John Citizen.  He's a rare small-government Democrat, and has spoken out against a lot of pork spending in the past.  He's with the Libertarians on all social issues - not just lip service, either.  So John Citizen gets a vote from me.   

So on my ballot, I've supported Mary Hill and John Citizen.  Voting for one doesn't take away a vote from the other.  None of my votes were "wasted".    When everyone's votes are tallied in an Approval Voting election, the election is OVER.  The person with the most votes is the winner. There's no need for a runoff.  Everyone who wanted a chance to vote for these folks has had that chance.   

I like it.  Let's talk it up, folks !! 

You Didn't Build That - The Dance Mix !!!

Greatness !!



The same guy supposedly did this one about the other Obamney -

Why Libertarian? by John Jay Myers

My buddy John Jay Myers is running for U.S. Senate.  This is from his campaign website.  Please spread it far and wide !  (You can also go here to send some money to his campaign.) 

I am asked, “Why don’t you run as a Republican?  You could do so much good in the Republican Party.”  I should not be upset.  After all, it’s sort of a compliment -  “They like me.  They really like me!”  It’s hard to respond because I don’t feel like knocking anyone's attempt at freedom or smaller government.

 
Libertarians are the Party of Principle.  The others are Principally Party.

America is ripe with crony capitalism, foreign intervention, debt and inflation, economic  controls, and Ponzi schemes.  Yet every election cycle we are led to believe that the major challenges facing us are “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and mosques.  Well ladies and gentlemen, I am here to tell you that we need to focus on the issues that unite us, and stop being divided by the idiocy of the election cycle.  It is time to stand up and say, “Stop stealing my stuff!”

As long as we remain divided and so full of hate towards one side or the other, we will always fail to notice the two major parties slipping out the back with our wallets, our future, and our freedoms.

This is where the constitution comes in, and why we must return to it.  Right now the Republicans and the Democrats are constantly giving deals to Big Insurance, Big Pharma, Big Energy, Big Oil, Big Banks, Big Auto, Big Agriculture, Big Education, Big Foreign Aid, Big Religion, and Big War.  I ask you, by what right?  By what right can they do this?  It is not our government’s job to take our stuff and give it to the politically connected friends of politicians.  Their only job is to protect our life, liberty, and property.  This is a relatively simple job the current crop of leaders seems completely unable to handle.

If you turn in your constitution to Article 1 Section 8, you will find the 17 enumerated powers of government.  Where do you see the power to give our money to any of those industries?  It is not there.  War is actually in there, but we don’t even have an officially declared war going on.  We have strayed far from what our founders envisioned and more towards what Eisenhower warned us about, the corruption of the Military-Industrial Complex.

But we can change the Republicans...

No, you can’t.  God bless ya for trying.  We may be able to get a few reasonably good Republicans in there, and in my opinion Ron Paul is one of the greatest men in America.  But, most of the liberty candidates were shot down, and even Rand Paul has had to fly very low on the radar, and either has intentionally toned down his message or is not as much like his father as I had hoped.

But my question is, where do you think all the hardcore neo-con nanny staters are going to go?  They simply are not leaving the GOP.  Those people believe we need to outlaw masturbation and have constant wars with half the world regardless of the cost or the lack of sense that it makes.  Those people believe being fiscally conservative is not good enough - they have to tell people how to live their lives, and in some cases die.

They are not leaving the Republican Party, and their influence and power is growing.  Christine O’donell didn’t win the primaries because she wants to end the wars and let people be free.  She won because she is a social conservative who is willing to say, “We should stop spending money, and live within our means” - the meaningless mantra of every shell Republican who can’t figure out that Barack Obama’s health care plan did not double our debt during George Bush’s 8 years in office.

Do you believe these people are just going to disappear?  It’s not going to happen.  The Republicans will always find themselves bitterly divided, and that will not work when it comes to spreading liberty.  It is a package deal.  You can’t just take a little freedom.

Do you want to spend years of your life pounding your head against a brick wall only to find that half the bricks will never break?

The Power of Being Libertarian

This year I think we are going to see some very good poll numbers from Libertarians despite the fact that the media ignores us, and then they don’t allow us in the debates because they say we haven’t gotten enough media attention.  If it wasn't so horrifying I would have to laugh.  For some strange reason they say we don’t poll that well when we either aren’t included in the polls, or haven’t been mentioned in the media.

But, there is another reason why we should vote and run as Libertarians - because we are right.  Our message is true, and we do not have to sacrifice some of our policies in order to appeal to a hard core wing of our party.  We do not have to soft sell the message.  The message is freedom, and when we start turning in numbers from 10-20%, we just may see that the Democrats and the Republicans, who are two sides to the same coin, just might start thinking a little more Libertarian.  This to me would be a small victory on the way to major party status.

It is however very important that Libertarians stay true to the message of Less Government and More Freedom, and stand strong behind Social and Fiscal freedoms, which include religious freedom and tolerance, and ending the wars.

"But I am an Independent!"

No you are not; you are dependent.  You are  dependent on the two major parties to come up with a candidate that you are going to vote for.  But as we have already shown, both sides are the same.  Who is going to get the candidate who shares your belief on the ballot?  Now is not the time to think, “The two parties got us into this mess and I am done with parties.”  You would still only have those two.  Now is the time to support a party that most represents you.

If those people only knew how hard it is to achieve and maintain ballot access for anyone but the two major parties, they would be more willing to help.  Libertarians work very hard to get on the ballot especially considering we get no donations from major corporations because when elected they know we would not give them anything.

For those people who say they are independent I say, sorry, you are very dependent.  If you don’t help a third party, any third party for that matter, you always will be.

Remember....Go here to send John Jay Myers some money for his campaign. 

Some in the Libertarian Party might take exception to my comment “I believe in Principle before Party.”  I do believe this, but let me say I also believe the Libertarian Party needs to flourish and become a true option for the American people.  It would be silly for me to tell people that they should not always vote for party and then tell them that they should only vote for mine.  However, I would like to take this time to explain the many reasons why I believe people should vote Libertarian and run as Libertarians.

But My Teacher Says...

I was forwarded a letter the other day from the Texas Secretary of State.  It was an instructional tool for teachers to help them explain to students why we have a two-party system.  It went on to say that “it helps preserve majority rule in a democratic state.”  If you know me, you would understand why this completely gets under my skin.   We don’t have a two-party system.  If you look in the constitution, you will not find any mention of having parties whatsoever.  I am quick to point out that the words majority rule, democratic, and democracy are also all not found in the constitution.  Not once.

Democracy is the idea that people can vote themselves things.  But the first question is where do things come from?  That is where it should hit you.  A direct democracy is theft.  It is legal theft, but it is not much different than a gang with guns stealing from you.  Because if you do not submit to the will of the majority, a man with a gun will soon come and take your stuff, and possibly put you in jail.

A simpler analogy is that democracy is simply two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner, and you can bet that the answer will be lamb chops.

So we actually live in a republic.  The difference is that individuals have rights, and the government has no power to take them away.  This is why we have a constitution. So as Thomas Jefferson put it,  “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.”

I personally do not have any confidence in the man known as a politician, except that he is probably a "confidence man" (con-man for you kids out there).  Which is why I ask the left and the right, “If we are all so sure the government is corrupt, why be so quick to give them more power?”

When we are taught that we only have two parties, they are robbing us of choice.  What we really have is a majority opinion, and no one standing up for the opinion or rights of the minority.  This smells a lot like lamb chops cooking to me.

Libertarians endorse many methods of ending the two party monopoly.  Among them are Ranked or Approval Voting.  Either is a step in the right direction from where we are now.

R’s and D’s are opposites?

Let’s play a game: which side supports the drug war, Iraq, Afghanistan, Patriot Act, and Gitmo?  If you said Republicans, you would be right; if you said the Democrats, you would be right as well.

Which side supports socialized medicine, bailouts, stimulus, and debt?  If you said the Democrats, you would be right; if you said the Republicans, you would be right as well.

Far from being opposites, neither will bring the troops home, restore fiscal responsibility, deal with entitlements, or promote free markets.

You may be starting to see why it is important that we have a strong Libertarian option.  Libertarians would have a none-of-the-above approach on all of these issues.