Quick Thought On Gun Confiscation

download (1)

In the wake of the Pulse Shooting, I’m seeing a constant theme:

People shouldn’t be allowed to have guns at all! #BanAssaultRifles #BanGuns

No, that’s not what you want. You want only the government to have guns. That’s really what you’re arguing. Not only would it take an army to take away all the guns that regular people have (tens of MILLIONS, if not a hundred or two), but that means you also support the guns being centralized in the hands of police, who you same people claim:

  • Police for profit
  • Are racist
  • Are biased
  • Are extremely trigger happy, and will gladly kill you if they want just “because”
  • Are corrupt
  • Could very well be controlled and run by people you do not like (aka Donald Trump)

I could go on, but that’s pointless.

You support this. This is what your argument boils down to. To deny it is idiotic. This is your arguments conclusion.


Rand Paul & His Many New Bills From This Week


Rand Paul has been quite active this past week with a series of bills that have been introduced.

Here are three of the one’s that have caught my eye:

Gun Rights for Recipients of Social Security

Sen. Rand Paul has introduced a new bill aimed at stopping an Obama Administration move to strip seniors on Social Security of their gun rights.

The current White House deal would strip gun rights as follows:

The reporting would happen “in consultation with the Department of Justice” and would “cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment.”

The Paul bill, if passed, would make sure that due process is followed when the case of a mental evaluation is taken for these people, instead of the current rubber-stamping of these cases by state mental health organizations. In addition, the Paul proposal would do the following:

  • Prohibits the sale or disposition of a firearm or ammunition to an individual that has been adjudicated as mentally incompetent or committed to a psychiatric hospital. Adjudication requires findings by a judicial officer or court and the individual receives notice to participate with counsel.
  • Within 90 days, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs must review and remove from NICS any veteran that has not been adjudicated as mentally incompetent. The Attorney General will certify that the removal of names has taken place.
  • Prevents the Social Security Administrator from reporting individuals to NICS unless individual has been adjudicated as mentally incompetent. Attorney General will conduct a yearly review to certify reported names have necessary documentation.
  • Attorney General must certify a state’s report indicating a person had been adjudicated as mentally incompetent prior to inclusion to NICS.
  • All individuals considered to no longer be adjudicated as mentally incompetent will be notified and have their rights restored .

Fighting the Heroin Epidemic

Rand Paul has been fighting for a bill that would expand the usage of a certain drug called Suboxone, which helps to lessen the dependence on heroin, allowing a person to better overcome it as a whole.

Currently, federal law only allows doctors to prescribe this drug to 50 patients in their first year with this drug, followed by 100 afterwords. The proposed legislation would expand the starting number to 500, thus allowing for more people to seek and receive actual treatment.

While it would be better to allow this to be prescribed more freely (without restriction, for their main concern is this drug being used in pill mills), this bill moves things in the right direction, and allows more people to seek out and receive treatment.

Economic Freedom Zone’s

Rand Paul has proposed the Economic Freedom Zones Act as an amendment to the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2016. If passed, this amendment would allow for Economic Freedom Zones to be created in areas where there is poverty and little to no growth.

What would these economic freedom zones do for the people who live in them? Here is a brief overview of the changes:

The legislation would provide for a series of tax cuts, such as reducing the corporate and individual income tax to 5% and lowering payroll taxes by 2%. It would also ease regulation, such as suspending the Davis-Bacon wage requirements and streamlining the National Environmental Policy Act. The amendment would also give a $5,000 per child educational tax credit to parents.

Why This Libertarian Cannot Vote For Donald Trump


If you’ve followed the election in some more in-depth ways, you may have noticed that some notable libertarians have begun to back Donald Trump. Walter Block is the main starter of the group Libertarians for Trump, which is aiming to get libertarians to support a Trump GOP candidacy, and not some other route (such as not voting, or the Libertarian Party). However, I have some deep issues with this, and I’ll explain why using this from Walter’s article:

There are several issues upon which libertarians do not and cannot support Donald Trump. For example, protectionism. But, typically, regarding the issues where Mr. Trump deviates from libertarianism, so do the other candidates.

And, also, we readily admit that the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party (unless they nominate someone like, ugh, Bob Barr) will very likely have views much closer to ours than those of Mr. Trump.

But, the perfect is the enemy of the good. It is our goal to throw our weight behind the candidate who has a reasonable chance of actually becoming President of the United States whose views are CLOSEST to libertarianism.

To start off, you need to understand how I go about evaluating candidates. I cannot support a candidate when I disagree with their economic policy, so anything involving the economy is what I mainly look at. If I don’t agree with that person on that, then I cannot support them. Thus, when Trump spews out his rhetoric on protectionism, it only further seals how I cannot support him.

When he talks about raising tariff’s on Chinese Imports, which he wrongly says the Chinese, and not American consumers through higher prices will pay, I cannot support him. When he talks about bringing jobs back to America via putting a higher tariff on American companies who make their products outside the US, and how he’d slap them with a higher tariff, I cannot agree with him. When he threatens Apple for producing iPhone’s overseas, I cannot vote for him.

In addition, he talks about his tax policy, which is a continuation of the current progressive system we have today. But Trump somehow believes that raising the taxes on his hedge fund buddies (by 1.2%) will make things better. Notice that this is only after making a large cut from the top tax rate from 39+% to 25% (projected revenues aren’t looking too hot). The expected deficit from this plan would also be an increase from the current one the Federal Government carries now.

And if he really wants to cut taxes, then he needs to cut a lot of things from the budget and government overall. For instance, he would need to make cuts to entitlement programs. However, he has said he won’t touch them. Maybe cuts to defense spending? Not at all. In fact, he has said he will rebuild the military, which was the same thing Rubio wanted to do. How much will that cost? Trillions, more than likely. Yet Trump wants to do that. You cannot cut taxes and raise spending by the amount needed, and have the Laffer Curve on taxes fund everything! You cannot do it.

Here is federal spending for 2015. Take a look at this:


Explain to me how he doesn’t raise taxes, yet fund all of this? Oh, he’ll cut stuff? WHERE??? What does he cut? The biggest parts of the budget, practically more than 75% of this is OFF LIMITS to a Trump Administration. What do you cut? How is President Trump going to shrink government in any meaningful way? What will he cut? The Department of Education (the purple sliver), which only uses $80.9 Billion, compared to that of the Military, Social Security, or Medicare and Health? Congrats, you’ve only scratched the surface.

But I have a theory as to why he won’t cut entitlements. It’s because his he thinks there could be blowback on his protectionism, and that should a trade war ensue, he may need that welfare state to keep people from turning on him. It’s a theory, and only that.

In addition, as a libertarian, I support a person’s right to privacy, which Trump does not. Trump has come out in opposition to Apple keeping the encryption on the San Bernadino iPhone locked, and not helping the FBI. Trump has come out in support of the PATRIOT Act, as well as metadata collection by the NSA. This takes place in the United States on regular US citizens, and if you don’t believe somehow that China has ever gotten their hands on this information, you need to get out of the bubble you’re living in.

In addition to this, as a libertarian, I do not support the infringements on the rights of individuals who assemble. When Trump wants to shut down mosques, I can’t support him. When he thinks that Japanese Internment camps were okay under one of the biggest, and worst Presidents in the country’s history, I cannot support him. I don’t know how to say it, but these are simply gross violations of the First Amendment, yet Trump supports them.

Trump is terrible with the Constitution. He is willing to screw over the First Amendment. He is willing to further continue the screwing of the Fourth Amendment. I’m sorry, but those don’t look very good to me, and it should be concerning to libertarians, and constitutionalists and conservatives, but I guess that’s only if you still care about the Constitution.

So, when I hear that a libertarian wants to support Trump, it befuddles me. This guy doesn’t stand for smaller government, individual liberty, or even simply a set of guided principles. There is no concrete foundation to Trumps positions, and to me, that’s concerning. To me, that doesn’t give me a good feeling.

These are the reasons why I, a libertarian, cannot support a Trump candidacy. It amazes me that Walter Block (the champion of defending the undefendable) is backing Trump. But he believes that Trump will be good, but not perfect. I don’t even see how he could be good. I don’t see how he could even be okay. Perhaps Walter won’t support the Libertarian Party candidate, whomever it be (who would be infinitely times better than Trump), and that’s his choice. But, I will, and I will do what I can to help them grow and be more successful.

My Thoughts On The Oregon Militia Situation


By now, most of you know about what is currently taking place out in Oregon. I’m not going to attempt to try and spell it all out, as that’s going to be way too complicated, but if you’re still unsure, see this post from The Conservative Treehouse, which summed up everything pretty well.

Now, first off, I’d like to address a few things that I’ve seen circulating on some more leftist sites, such as US Uncut, which posted this idiotic article. This is probably my favorite passage from their rant:

The occupation has, at the time of this writing, gone largely unnoticed by the major media networks. While the burning of a CVS in predominantly-black Baltimore during the Freddie Gray protests received wall-to-wall coverage on almost all of the networks, and while nearly every media outlet in the country covered the burning of the QuikTrip store in Ferguson that was burned following the non-indictment of Darren Wilson for killing Mike Brown, the lack of coverage of an armed, white, right-wing mob forcefully taking over federal property seems like an afterthought to most of the corporate-owned TV networks.

I think they missed something here? Maybe it’s irony. The thing that sets apart the Oregon standoff from Ferguson and Baltimore is the number of burning building (which is 0), the number of people who have been raped, shot, or attacked (which is 0), and the number of people who lost their entire livelyhood (which is 0). The Oregon standoff is something they shouldn’t be trying to compare Ferguson and Baltimore to, as the latter two obviously are FAR worse.

Think about it for a second: in the Oregon standoff, you have a big group of militiamen held up in a federal (a national park) building in a National Park, and it’s in a suburban area. There haven’t been any fires, or destruction of property to warrant a major response. Contrast to, just say, Ferguson. There were riots in the streets, buildings being burned down, millions of dollars of property damage, lot’s of looting, and lot’s of people getting hurt. You tell me which one would require a major response.

Another thing; let’s talk about the reaction of the left as a whole. For the most part, there are a few prominent hashtags I’ve seen used, such as #OregonUnderAttack and #YallQaeda (I didn’t make that up. See the image below). I think I missed the part where there was lots of shooting, bombings, and complete utter chaos. Maybe they did too, or they’re just being reactionaries because it’s the right-wing doing something they don’t like.


Like the right did with both Ferguson and Baltimore, the left has resorted to calling the Oregon standoff “terrorism”, which can be seen in their hashtags, and their language. Though, maybe it’s just me, but I believe the word “terrorism” still has some value to it, and neither Ferguson, Baltimore, nor Oregon should be labeled as terrorism.

Reason Magazine’s Robby Soave put out a nice piece that I really agreed with, and I recommend you read it. But this here is probably my favorite passage from the article:

Domestic terrorists? Really? And here I was thinking liberals were just as skeptical as libertarians about the prudence of labelling everything and everyone a terrorist. Don’t they remember that every time someone brands someone else a terrorist, the Patriot Act gets a dozen pages longer? Government power relies upon such unfounded suspicions.

Keep in mind that the ranchers haven’t taken hostages, damaged property, or hurt anyone. The previous standoff between federal authorities and the Bundy family was resolved peacefully. It’s possible the situation at the wildlife headquarters escalates into something horrifically violent, but it seems wildly premature and speculative to assert that it will.

The left has moved into a reactionary, fear-mongering state, and to me, it’s not surprise. Let them have their emotionally-driven hissyfit, and let the stark irony of their treatment of this situation and the situations of both Ferguson and Baltimore grow. Eventually, they’ve gotta see it.

But away from all of that, back to my thoughts. Personally, I have no issue with people doing this. Call me a terrorist sympathizer all you want, but in my eyes, it just makes you look like a British Loyalist from back in the Revolutionary War days. All you care about is protecting the government in the midsts of it’s abuses of power, and showcasing just how much it can hurt your enemies.

People have the right to assemble, and that’s not just for white people, you social justice freaks. That applies to everyone, as the Constitution does. If you don’t believe that’s how that works, you might want to evaluate your ideology, and the people you support, because someone is colorblind then.

People have the right to bear arms, and it’s in the Constitution for situations where the people need them against their government, not just hunting. Do I support what they’re doing out in Oregon? Meh, I’m not sure. I’m not sure how taking over a National Park building will do them good. In fact, for a national park in the Pacific Northwest, I’d actually be concerned for them, with all the missing people and strange stuff that take place out there.

I’m not really sure I understand the whole logic behind choosing a National Park building, but I can’t see inside their heads. I don’t have telepathy. What I do know is that this is probably going to go on for a while, and it’ll escalate when the government begins with a response, beyond sitting around and watching the militia members.

Does the Hammond family deserve justice? Yes, and the 9th Circuit court started this whole mess by overrulling the lower courts sentence and imposing the mandatory minimum (there we go with mandatory minimums again) of 5 years on both the father and son for two counts of arson (they were initially charged with a lot more, but were only convicted on arson because the judge threw the rest out, while they pleaded guilty to the arson charges). The son would have only had an 11 month sentence, and the dad would have only had a 3 year sentence. Both are still preferrable to the liberal 9th Circuit’s ruling of 5 each.

So, to close this up, where do we go from here on this? Start off by picking a President who won’t pack the 9th Circuit with liberal judges, but we’re not going to get that most likely. If anything, pay attention to alternative news sources to see what’s happening, because as you saw with the Bundy Ranch, they’re not going to spread truths. It’s as simple as that.

My Thoughts On The Refugee Crisis : Part I


The refugee crisis that’s currently getting lots of attention in the media is really beginning to bother me, especially with the way they’re covering it all. With the recent events in France though, I really feel like some bad things may be coming down the road for us hear in the US, and I’d really love to avoid it, because I know it’s not going to go well.

Let’s first touch on France.

Continue reading

Thoughts On The Confederate Flag

First, I’d like to clear something. This flag, as pictured above from the South Carolina State Capital Building, is the Confederate Battle Flag. It is NOT the Confederate Flag. As this points out, what they’re flying most resembles the Confederate Battle Flag. Now, from what I’ve heard, this is placed at a Confederate Soldier Memorial, and if that is the case, then I guess that would make sense.

Now, let’s discuss why it was raised.

In 1962, the Governor of South Carolina, Ernest Hollings, who was a Democrat, along with a COMPLETELY-Democrat State House, and COMPLETELY-Democrat State Senate, raised the flag in protest of the Congress moving on growing support for a bill of civil rights. Originally, the flag was placed on the Capital, below the American and South Carolina flags, but was moved. So, before you go calling all the Republicans racists for displaying that flag, do a google search.

Now, my thoughts on this. Personally, I wasn’t born in the South. I was born in Michigan. I’ve only lived in the South for about 5 years. In my time, I’ve found a rich culture that is open to people of every race. Not everyone here is a racist, as many would like you to believe.

In the First Amendment, the right to free speech is protected from infringement from the Government. Meaning, that you are free to speak things that may not be well liked, which is what it was really intended for, and the Government was barred from infringing on your right to say those things. You have a right to display the American Flag. You have the right to display the Confederate Flag (the real one, for crying out loud). You have every right to do that. If it is on your property, then you have every right to do that, or whatever. It is your property, and thus, you hold property rights to do what you want and display what you want there.

With that out of the way, personal thoughts. I have bought the Battle Flag and Navy Jack before. I don’t fly them. They were birthday gifts for my little brother, who is a big civil war history fan. I’ve known many people who have flown the Battle Flag of Tennessee (the long version of the battle flag). I’ve been to festivals with booth’s from the Son’s of the Confederate Army before.

I’m a fan of secession. You want out? Great. Bye bye. Have fun. The Confederacy was no libertarian dream though. Josh Guckert, who writes over at The Libertarian Republic, wrote a good article explaining (in detail) how anti-liberty the Confederacy really was. He writes the following:

Perhaps because it is the cause of the Civil War which is predominantly taught in schools, some libertarians refuse to acknowledge that slavery was the main reason behind the South’s secession. If there were any doubt, as Cato Institute Fellow Jason Kuznicki points out, those Southern states who actually gave their reasons for secession (Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas) explicitly referenced the purpose of preserving slavery. Furthermore, any attempt to latch onto “states’ rights” fails in that the South had historically used federal power to preserve and expand the wicked institution of involuntary servitude.

Most interesting of all is that the Civil War seemed to be fought by the Confederacy in the same manner which many libertarians (appropriately) critique modern American foreign policy: the wealthy and well-connected chose to fight a war to preserve their economic interests, enlisting the poor and middle-class, all the while telling them that a false narrative of “patriotism” or “defense of freedom” was the reason for the war.

It is worth noting that the North was in fact guilty of anti-liberty transgressions before, during and after the war. However, this fact should not lead us to sympathize with the Southern cause. Simply because there are two sides in a conflict does not mean that we must choose to favor one; in fact, this choosing of the “lesser of two evils” is a narrative which many libertarians often warn against.

If you’d like to hear more on this, check out this podcast from Austin Peterson over at The Libertarian Republic on the subject of the Confederacy:


I think these are very good distinctions that really need to be pointed out. We can discuss why the Civil War started another time, as that would throw me completely off topic. Overall, the Confederacy is gone. You have a right to fly a flag if it’s on your property. You have every right under the First Amendment to be offensive with your speech. This is protected. What you do not have the right to do is ban a person from said speech. People view hate speech differently. Imagine them with the power to regulate it.

Overall, I think the South Carolina Legislature should take down the flag. A lot of people see it as a racist symbol, and quite frankly, it was raised under a racist premise. The Republicans should put an end to the error that the Democrats made many years ago.

Our Education System Sucks


I’m going to start this post out with a quote from Adolf Hitler, the resident National Socialist from Germany. I will also include this other quote from him:

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”

Think about that for a moment. You’ve heard something similar before, and in reality, it’s true. We’ll talk about the subject of education to show exactly how well those quotes are relevant to today, as sad as it will seem.

Our education system, before the Industrial Revolution was small and efficient. There were mostly private institutions, and parents who taught their kids. But as the Industrial Revolution picked up, most of us will know that it was Rockefeller who called for public schooling. Why? He needed workers with the correct skills for his factories. He, and others, would help to create the first public, compulsory school systems, which would eventually be adopted nationwide, with their nuances.

Little, to my knowledge, is done. Most would agree that schooling is better for children. It is at this point though, that we must examine that schooling, and to do it, we must examine one of the men to come and control it later on. John Dewey was one of those deceivers. Many of his ideas were laughable, like teaching the alphabet in a non-phonetic way, but through memorization. Today, that isn’t working, just like it didn’t way back in his time.

To get a good perspective on Dewey, I will recommend this podcast from the Tom Woods Show:

To which, after listening to that, we are brought back to the original quotes. They made the lie big and simple. They kept going off about how it’s just stadards, and that there is nothing wrong with standards. And for a while there, even I believed it. That ended when I saw the worksheets that kids were getting, and I did the worst I’ve ever done in a class in one quarter.

The material being taught isn’t what I’m going to use later in life. I’m going into orthodontics. I don’t need 4 years of literature in an English class that I wouldn’t read on my own. I don’t need to have a lot of the math courses I’ve taken. History is optional, as while it’s not something that’s really needed, I like it, and science is the only one making much sense of having 4 full years of courses in that subject.

As this video mentions, were left on our own to figure other things out:

Most kids these days aren’t encouraged to go beyond the minimum requirements, and it’s because the State has willingly and knowfully dumbed them down to where they don’t care about important issues when they should. Gone are the days when students actually cared about the Constitution, or the Revolutionary War. Gone are the days when students enjoyed math and science. Gone are the days when kids mostly liked school. Those days won’t be coming back if we remain on this path.

Calling for an end to current education system is a big thing. I know, but it is only serving to help screw kids and future generations over. What should be done? The following would be a start:

  1. Counties / Cities should end their public systems, and the students should go to private institutions. This would allow for market forces to dictate which schools are better, and allow for competition to be the regulator of who succeeds, and who fails. Remember, parents want to see results, and if their kid is doing well in a school, chances are, they’re not going to want to leave. At the same time, the money used in the public system would be returned to the taxpayers, and their rates would be lowered in adjustment with the lessend roll of government.
  2. Governments should be barred from controlling the schooling of it’s own populace. Currently, the standards are set by the states. Even though there are private companies who make the books, at the end of the day, the state sets the standards.
  3. Government needs to be removed from the college campus. The ideologies of the campuses these days are more leftist and marxist if anything. The state governments hold control over the major universities, and even in more conservative states, the ideologies of the left are more prevalent. You rarely hear about how theres a right-leaning college, and I could only name Hillsdale College and Liberty University as the two I know. The rest are either leaning-left, or progressive bastions, and that is harming our students. Students are being coddled worse than they were in High School. Many are fine with the ideological bullying that takes places, when college should be a forum of debate. Some want “safe spaces”, where they’ll be sealed off from ideas their minds simply cannot handle, such as dissenting opinions. You call this preparing them for the future? I call this making the slaves to the state.
  4. We need to fix the economy. When those college students get out, now, there aren’t the jobs they trained for out there. They end up taking up the smaller, less paying jobs that teens are supposed to be taking on to get some introductory work experience. Want it fixed? Time to take a scalpal to government policy and spending.

Remember those quotes above? Well, we’ve given the state control over  the textbooks. We’ve perpetuated lie after lie about our education system, like how Common Core has better standards for students. We’ve gone and dug a hole so deep that it’s going to be tough to get out of, but if we pull on enough roots, and we have the will to climb out, eventually, we can do it.