No, 2016 Won’t Be The End


If you’ve been around Republican or conservative circles within the past few months, you’ll notice quite a few nay-sayers and downtrodden folks, depressed and upset over how bad things have been for them in 2016. What went wrong, you ask?:

Continue reading


A Comparison Of The Presidential Candidates Messages Following The Pulse Shooting

gary facebook

A lot of being said these past few days since the Pulse Shooting occurred, and specifically, this post will look at what the top 3 Presidential candidates are saying, by looking at Facebook posts (official statements).

Gary Johnson (L):

gary facebookgary twitter

Donald Trump ®:

trump 1trump 2

For more fear mongering, see his Twitter feed: [Link]

Hillary Clinton (D):

clinton 1

For more fear mongering, see her Twitter feed: [Link]


Also, there isn’t any fear mongering in his Twitter feed. Literally, you can look. He’s not calling for a ban on Muslim immigration (like Trump) or calling for a heavier restrictions on guns (like Clinton). He’s being this called a decent human being.

John McAfee Goes Up Against Trump & Clinton

I love John McAfee. There, I said it. Seriously, I have a bromance for this guy. This wonderful tech genius is making me really love him more and more with everything his campaign releases, from his campaign ads to his graphics and so on.

In one of his more recent ones, he decided to compar himself against Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and his does a terrific job of making the two authoritarian psychopaths look almost the exact same, and shows the alternative that he is offering to the American people, should he be the Libertarian nominee.

Without further ado, here it is.

static1.squarespace.commstiffanymadison@gmail.comcarl saganmstiffanymadison@gmail.commstiffanymadison@gmail.commcafee patriot acttsamcafee tsaencryptionmcafee encryptionstatic1.squarespace.commcafee compares donald hillarywarmcafee warwar spending chartmcafee unitydownload

Source: [X]

Authoritarians Are Authoritarians, Regardless Of Political Party


For the last week, what have I been treated to by people in their Facebook, Twitter, and so on tirades? I will post these few examples of what has been the basic premise for my experience.

There’s this:

13102715_1015183188568376_6184046860963151887_n (1)

Then there’s this:


Then there’s this little video from The Blaze’s Tomi Lahren:

Then there’s stuff like this:

And this:

And this:

 And finally, this:

My first observation is that these people expect me to blindly come behind their candidate, and not say a word? Lol, that’s cute. If anything, they’re helping to drive away people. Social media supporters of Trump have known some very vile people, particularly The Forbes Group and Roger Stone. These people have been acting like little childish pricks since the day someone refused to throw their support behind their candidate.

It’s this mentality that will keep me away, and will keep me from considering him in the first place. But the next thing I really want to get to is that these supporters reveal something more deep and disturbing about Trump, and probably, how he will govern.

Trump is an authoritarian: it’s as simple as that. I believe it, and a lot of other people will back me up on that. Trump will govern as an authoritarian. He thinks he can come in, and everyone will bend to his will, but that is not how Washington DC works. He is a fool if he believes it. He is also a fool if he thinks he can appoint “really good people” (whatever the hell that means, since Obama said pretty much the same thing, along with every other President). That gimmick has been going on since the cabinet was formed back with Washington himself. Though as of late, we’ve gotten terrible people, and I for one don’t see that changing.

If you think that Obama’s use of the Executive Orders was bad, I can’t wait for you to see President Trump (that just doesn’t sound right). If this guy can’t work with Congress, and he’s souring a lot of them, then what’s his next and only option? Executive orders. All of a sudden, “conservatives” will be hailing President Trump, for moving past Congress, and “doing what needed to be done”, at which point, I will call them out for being hypocrites, and call out the liberals trying to call them out, since they were silent on Obama.

At some point, you have to come to the realization that Trump is an authoritarian, and a Keynesian authoritarian, which should concern the crap out of libertarians (I’m looking at you, Walter Block). He will not be good for the domestic policy of the United States. What one has to expect from this is an expansion of government that WILL control more of our lives.

Now, let me address something else: voting. Trump supporters are making the claim that in not supporting Donald Trump, the #NeverTrump movement is supporting Hillary Clinton. Now, let me be clear: #NeverTrump encompasses a lot of people from a wide prospective of the GOP and electorate. It is mostly the neo-conservatives who have begun supporting Hillary Clinton. But the rest remain just not Trump. Many, like me, have chosen to go to a third party, like the Libertarian Party. This vehicle is the most readily available and deployable vessel there is when in comes to a national third party, and there is no one even close to competing with them. I will be voting for whomever is the nominee, largely because I know that THEY WILL REPRESENT MY VALUES. Under Trump, it’s subject to the day.

The Trump supporters will claim we’re all just voting for Hillary, and want her to win. This is not true. We’re voting against BOTH Trump and Clinton. In case you haven’t noticed, #NeverTrump despises both of them, but recognizes that neither of them are good in any way, shape, gender, etc… There isn’t much that differentiates the two, so what point does it make to vote for either one? In reality, there is no point.

Are the Trump supporters upset that I won’t support their candidate? Probably, but they’ll just call me an idiot, or a cuckservative (how grown-up of you), or some other put down. These people have had enough with Republicanism, and now, they want their own dictator, who will say what they want to hear. They’ve suspended reason for security and comfort. They’ ve given up hard truths for comfortable lies. This, ladies and gentlemen, is how a nation dies.

Remember, if you liked this, please, give it a like by using the button below. Also, share it for your friends to read, as I know that they could always use a good read.

The Similarities Between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton


Donald Trump & Hillary Clinton: these two clowns are going to be their parties nominee’s for President, and since no one is left on the Republican side, and Bernie’s chances have evaporated on the Democrat side, there is little hope for anything different at this point. In this post, I will be going over some pretty interesting similarities between the two parties presumptive nominee’s, to show you that these two aren’t really much different.

#1. Healthcare

Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump believe that everyone should have healthcare, a fallacy and utopian ideal in reality. This has also been seen in his fairly recent support for Universal Healthcare, which is contradictory to his healthcare plan released by his campaign. And furthermore, his healthcare plan has no mention of even trying to deal with the FDA and it’s effects on the pricing of new and general prescription drugs entering or already on the market, which he should have covered, seeing as how it’s a part of the reason why healthcare costs are rising. At least Hillary Clinton will talk about them, but recommends the completely wrong treatment though.

#2. Taxes

Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are fine with continuing the progressive income tax that is currently in place. And while Trump’s plan looks like it may lower taxes, Trump’s rhetoric has been that of raising taxes, specifically on the highest income earners (which his plan proposed lowering the rate from 39.6% to 25%). When pressed on this contradiction:

Pressed on the contradiction between his latest comments on taxes and the September tax plan, Trump said that he expected his original proposal was a “a concept” and he expected that it would be changed following negotiations with Congress.

“By the time it gets negotiated, it’s going to be a different plan,” Trump told ABC. He emphasized in interviews with both ABC and in a separate interview with NBC’sMeet the Press that his priorities were lowering taxes on the middle class and businesses.

I wonder how much of it will change, seeing as how this plan is now only “a concept”.

#3. Minimum Wage

Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton agree that the Minimum Wage should be raised. And for Trump, this is troubling, because he has flip-flopped on this issue a lot, even saying today (May 9th) that the Federal Minimum Wage should now be eliminated. Someone needs to make up their damn mind and stay there.

#4. Foreign Policy Advisors

Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have foreign policy advisors from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which has been behind the neo-conservative, interventionist foreign policy the country has had for a very, VERY long time. He has met with them, and talked with the group’s head as well. Notice that the non-interventionists have not been involved with CFR.

#5. Tariffs

Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump want to impose new tariffs against Chinese Imports. Their rhetoric on currency manipulation is actually quite the same, making one wonder where they get it from.

Could I go on? Probably. But, these are just a few of the similarities between the Donald and Hillary. Both of these two’s supporters will vehemently deny any of this, and will probably bring up something about the mainstream media, or you being an idiot who is brainwashed and doesn’t know the truth. That, however, is wrong, and these people need to realize that the candidates they support really aren’t that different.

What Would Henry Hazlitt Think About Trump’s Trade Policy With Mexico And China?

download (1)

Donald Trump loves talking about Tariffs: he talks about them quite constantly actually. He’s gonna slap a tariff on Ford cars made in Mexico. He’s gonna slap tariffs on China (say that in Trump exaggerated way now). It seems like the so-called fair and free market supporter that he is is in favor of some unfair policies, and policies that will hurt American workers, as they’ve done so in the past.

Today, I’m talking some Henry Hazlitt, specifically on tariffs and trade policy (because those two seem to be the two of the core points in his campaign). To start, allow us to examine some select words from Chapter 11 of Henry Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson” on tariffs, and to do this, we need to first read over an example that Hazlitt gives:

Now let us look at the matter the other way round, and see the effect of imposing a tariff in the first place. Suppose that there had been no tariff on foreign knit goods, that Americans were accustomed to buying foreign sweaters without duty, and that the argument were then put forward that we could bring a sweater industry into existence by imposing a duty of $5 on sweaters.

There would be nothing logically wrong with this argument so far as it went. The cost of British sweaters to the American consumer might thereby be forced so high that American manufacturers would find it profitable to enter the sweater business. But American consumers would be forced to subsidize this industry. On every American sweater they bought they would be forced in effect to pay a tax of $5 which would be collected from them in a higher price by the new sweater industry.

Americans would be employed in a sweater industry who had not previously been employed in a sweater industry. That much is true. But there would be no net addition to the country’s industry or the country’s employment. Because the American consumer had to pay $5 more for the same quality of sweater he would have just that much less left over to buy anything else. He would have to reduce his expenditures by $5 somewhere else. In order that one industry might grow or come into existence, a hundred other industries would have to shrink. In order that 20,000 persons might be employed in a sweater industry, 20,000 fewer persons would be employed elsewhere.

But the new industry would be visible. The number of its employees, the capital invested in it, the market value of its product in terms of dollars, could be easily counted. The neighbors could see the sweater workers going to and from the factory every day. The results would be palpable and direct. But the shrinkage of a hundred other industries, the loss of 20,000 other jobs somewhere else, would not be so easily noticed. It would be impossible for even the cleverest statistician to know precisely what the incidence of the loss of other jobs had been—precisely how many men and women had been laid off from each particular industry, precisely how much business each particular industry had lost—because consumers had to pay more for their sweaters. For a loss spread among all the other productive activities of the country would be comparatively minute for each. It would be impossible for anyone to know precisely how each consumer would have spent his extra $5 if he had been allowed to retain it. The overwhelming majority of the people, therefore, would probably suffer from the optical illusion that the new industry had cost us nothing.

It is my contention that Trump may actually be aware of this. Maybe he does not care, and he’s willing to go ahead and do it anyways. His tariff proposals will mean that ALL CONSUMERS will pay a higher price on goods, be they the foreign goods with the tariff, or the domestic goods at the higher price. This is a gross manipulation of the free market, and further promotes a big government that Donald *occasionally* professes to hate.

This brings me to the next thing from Hazlitt which I will quote from him, specifically referring to the earlier example, and what would happen with wages:

And this brings us to the real effect of a tariff wall. It is not merely that all its visible gains are offset by less obvious but no less real losses. It results, in fact, in a net loss to the country. For contrary to centuries of interested propaganda and disinterested confusion, the tariff reduces the American level of wages.

Let us observe more clearly how it does this. We have seen that the added amount which consumers pay for a tariff-protected article leaves them just that much less with which to buy all other articles. There is here no net gain to industry as a whole. But as a result of the artificial barrier erected against foreign goods, American labor, capital and land are deflected from what they can do more efficiently to what they do less efficiently. Therefore, as a result of the tariff wall, the average productivity of American labor and capital is reduced.

If we look at it now from the consumer’s point of view, we find that he can buy less with his money. Because he has to pay more for sweaters and other protected goods, he can buy less of everything else. The general purchasing power of his income has therefore been reduced. Whether the net effect of the tariff is to lower money wages or to raise money prices will depend upon the monetary policies that are followed. But what is clear is that the tariff—though it may increase wages above what they would have been in the protected industries—must on net balance, when all occupations are considered, reduce real wages.

Allow me to use an example: the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930, which increased tariffs on a large number of imports to protect American industries. This was after the Depression was already well underway. The result of Smoot-Hawley was to begin a trade war, where countries raised tariffs on the United States. This crippled all exports in EVERY country, and what you saw was a worsening of the Depression, and sinking the US into further troubles. More people suffered after something intended to help them was passed. This WILL be the result of the Trump tariff plan, whether you like it or not.

You will raise tariffs, but you will not raise wages, you will not make productivity better, you will not make people better off, you will not. It simply won’t work, not in the current climate of business. And do not tell me how Donald will make that better, because I know it’s not going to happen.

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.