Just a Couple of Things..

First off, I would like to speak briefly about the Kathy Giffin publicity stunt. At least that's what I believe it was. If you aren't familiar, then I will fill you in real quick. 

She did a photo shoot where she held a fake decapitated head that resembled President Trump's head. 

So, she did that, received a ton of backlash, then quickly apologized. 

Ok.. Fair enough. She did something that many thought crossed the line and tried to make amends. 

Good to go. Now let's move on, right? 


Well, she recently hired a lawyer and had a press conference where she claimed she was bullied by Trump and his family and was being discriminated against. Oh, yeah. She also claims to be a free speech activist.  

Really, Kathy? You're being bullied? Bullied by the guy and his family whose fake head you held up covered in fake blood appearing to have been decapitated?  

Did the President threaten to have you locked up? Not that there wouldn't be any precedence for that. To name just a few presidents that locked up journalists for speaking poorly of them were: Woodrow Wilson, Abraham Lincoln, & John Adams. I believe those first two are worshipped by the left.

As far as I know, all he and his family did was tweet how messed up it was for you to post that picture. 

Yet, somehow you manage to come up with the idea that you are being victimized "AGAIN" by another old white man. 

Seriously? GTFOH. 

The second thing I would like to talk about is Trump's pullout of the Paris climate agreement. 

So, every liberal and their non-binary, non-gender specific mom is pretty upset about that.  

But why?  

How many people who really think that climate change is a danger are opting out of their current lifestyles that use fossil fuel based products and throwing them out in order to nurture mothr Earth?

I would guess 99.9% aren't. Just slightly less than the percentage of the number of climate models that didn't prove to be accurate.  

Anyway, why should you expect your government to regulate (even further than it already is) corporations and businesses to sacrifice their profit to reduce their carbon emissions? Do people not realize that to do this will cost companies money, or even worse, completely shut down a company because they cannot afford the technology to reduce emissions? This will result in loss in employment gains or an increase of cost in product.

This whole climate change business is anti-human at its core. Meaning that we should sacrifice our well being so that nature can flourish. 

Except the thing is.. 

We are also a part of nature! 

And yes, I understand that there are "alternative" sources of energy. However, if you do the research you will find that these technologies are either extremely expensive or extremely inefficient. With perhaps one exception, that is nuclear technology. 

Making solar panels is terrible for the environment. The resources needed must be mined. This tears the landscape up and actually pollutes more.  

The only way for humans to not influence the climate in any way is to nearly eradicate most of the world's human population. The sick thing is, is that many liberals are for poulation control. 

Not to mention the whole Paris deal is just a dog and pony show for liberal leaders to pander to their uninformed voters in order to stay in power. 

If you think we should sacrifice in order for a rare insect to survive, then you are anti-human.

If you think you should be able to express yourself artistically in whatever way you feel fit , but want critics of your art work to be silenced, then you are anti-free speech.

Thanks for reading. 




The Libertarian Party Must Pander to the Military

I was listening to the Jason Stapleton Program the other day, as I do almost every day,  and I found myself in agreement with him. Like I usually do. I was agreeing with his criticism of the Libertarian Party official's description of military service members on his Facebook page.

What Jason basically said was that the LP is cutting themselves off of loyal advocates of liberty. 

I could not agree more.

Being a former memeber of the military, I often found myself running into liberty minded men and women in the military more than I ever have outside of it in civilian life.

With or without my anecdote their is still evidence to support my and Jason's sentiments.

For example, not only have military members supported Ron Paul and Gary Johnson more than other candidates (financially anyway), but they seem to be the only government employees that take their oath to the constitution serious.

While legislators and executive branch members trample and ignore the constitution daily, men and women in uniform are some of the most harsh critics of these oath breakers in office. If you dont believe me join the ranks with these "baby killers" and find out for yourself.

As I mentioned before and as Jason mentioned in his podcast, the proof is in the pudding. Service members overwhelmingly support the candidate that follows the constitution the most. Even though Gary barely mentioned the document or the military in his campaign, service members still understood the LP(Libertarian Party) platform of maximum liberty.

They got all that support without even pandering to the military! Ron Paul didn't even pander to the military much. Though, I believe he understood the importance of their support more than Gary Johnson.

Now, imagine if the LP or a Ron Paulesque republican candidate outright pandered to the military!

The left doesn't need to pander to the military. They basically have every other aspect of government and their agencies they can pander to in order to get votes. They can make unrealistic promises on education, health and safety, and welfare through financing the Dept of Education, FDA, entitlements, etc...

It is a vital strategy for the left.

On the other hand..

 The right has had the military and police communties and those sympathetic to these occupations to which to pander. Unfortunately, the republicans of this country have exploited and abused our police forces and military forces.

I believe this is an amazing opportunity for libertarians and libertarian republicans to point out the flaws of the right.


But we don't do it by insulting their intelligence or their motives. Which is how I percieved the Vice Chair's facebook post.

And we definitely don't do it in the typical republican form. We do it in the libertarian form of liberty and justice.

Explaining that we want them to be succesful in defending the constitution and liberty. Explaining that we will not endanger their lives for the profit of politicians and corporations who have their lobbyists LOBBYING FOR WAR!

We must explain to them how their support of candidates who wish them to arrest non violent "criminals" are destroying the very concepts they have taken an oath to defend.

We must explain to them that they should not be so enthusiastic to carry out regime change of tyrants overseas for tyrants here at home.

We must pander to these communities who have a skewed view of what liberty is. Because their view is skewed, but they (for the most part I believe) revere and romantaicize the idea.

The party of liberty is THEIR party!

They just don't know it yet..

And those who support men and women in uniform will follow their lead towards liberty.

However, we must first be willing to go out of our way to reach out and save these people from falling into the death traps their politicians have set in place.



Services are not rights


If you think we should take care of each other, I agree. If you think we should have elected and unelected bureaucrats take care of us, I disagree.


You can't legislate a legitimate service. No govt can predict where resources should go or not go in order to bring about innovation and progress.


No, govt can predict what practices should succeed or fail.


No govt can set prices accurately.


This is why socialism and communism ultimately fail.


Health care is a service, not a right. I am sorry to tell everyone this, but you cannot escape that reality.


Services in open markets flourish the most.


Over the last couple decades the greatest uplifting of the poorest of the poor in the world have been brought out of abject poverty due to their over bearing governments freeing up their markets.

And NOBODY talks about this!

China and India are rushing out of 3rd world status at an alarming rate because they simply gave just just a little bit of freedom to their people to provide for themselves. Something that people inherently want to do, because we own ourselves.


Capitalism may not be perfect because it is freedom and free people will make mistakes. However, throughout history no other system has brought more people out of poverty or created as much wealth. The freer the markets the more prosperous and free we will be.



Lindsey's Arrogance: A Commentary of Tucker Carlson's Interview with Lindsey Graham

A few days ago Tucker Carlson had Senator Lindsey Graham on his show (Tucker Carlson Tonight) for an interview and it was a great insight into the mind of this man. Within the first minute of the interview Graham calls Obama’s inaction in Syria a mistake. He implies Obama took no action out of weakness in his leadership. When in reality it was the voice of the American public which influenced Obama’s decision. Graham seems to either have forgotten or just does not care about the fact that the U.S. has been at war and involved in several other conflicts for the last 15 years.

Around the second minute of the interview he claims that political parties are the backbone of democracy.


I’m not even going to try and take on that convoluted statement. Also, why do so many politicians keep referring to our system of government as a democracy? If you’re going to work in government, then you should probably understand and at the very least know what system of government in which you work.

Anyway, he goes on about how Russia needs “slapped in the face” for the hacking of the DNC and RNC. Then he also admits that this is a common practice among many countries, including the U.S.

So, should the U.S. expect countries they hack and spy on to put troops on their borders and sanctions on them? I wish that would have been a point Tucker made. However, Tucker does do a great job at pointing out the double standard of how we treat China in regards of hacking and territory expansion.

Also, Obama has been anything but a ‘dove’ on foreign policy. Not that I’m trying to defend that, but it’s the truth. Osama Bin Laden was taken out under his administration. The mission was carried out on sovereign Pakistani soil supposedly without their government’s knowledge. We are still in Afghanistan; not to mention all the drone bombing missions that have taken place in several countries and without (to my knowledge) congressional approval. One of these missions killing a U.S. citizen without any sort of due process. This is anything but a weak foreign policy.

Graham says Obama threw a pebble at Russia and he wants to throw a rock. When Tucker brings up the double standard with China and the question of putting troops on their border and sanctions of them this nut says enthusiastically, “Count me in!”

And I don’t just call this guy a nut because of his aggressive foreign policy views, but he gives the creepiest smile just before the five minute mark. He does this after finishing his point on deathly serious issues, like the decaying relationship of the U.S. with Russia and China.

Tucker then brings up the possibility of his 19 year old son having to fight and maybe even die to protect the sovereignty of the Ukraine. Graham tries to justify the possibility of Tucker’s son dying for the Ukraine with poorly thought out fear mongering by saying, “The last time we let a county start gobbling up European countries we had World War Two.”

I just have to say as Donald Trump would say.


I’m pretty sure the extremely one-sided deal and harsh treatment of Germany after World War One had more to do with the rise of Hitler and the start of World War Two. Another point I wish Tucker would have brought up is that the when the Allied powers tried to stop one European country from taking over other European countries was, in fact, World War Two and it resulted in the horrific devastation that nearly every country in Europe felt.

Also, if Graham thinks Russia taking power of these countries is so bad, why did the U.S. not try and free them when they were under Soviet control back when the Russian government was 100 times more of a threat than the current regime? As far as I know the U.S. never made such a fuss for Ukraine. In fact I believe that we let the Soviets have it in the deal we made after World War Two!

Graham then has the nerve to say, “I don’t want to live in a world where somebody can take from another just because they can. I don’t want to live in a world where people who want to be free are oppressed and kicked around by bullies.”

Again I say, WHAT?!

Excuse me, Sir, but your job literally depends on those very things in order to exist!

Wow! Not only is he nuts, but stupid as well! Maybe that is why he doesn’t understand the difference between a democracy and a republic.

He then goes on to talk about wanting “Syrians to know that America is their friend. Not their enemy.”

Well, after destroying their neighboring country (Iraq) and destabilizing the entire Middle-East, I think the ship has sailed on trying to convince any Middle-Easterner that the U.S. government is their friend.

Graham tries to imply that it would be bad for the U.S. if the Iranians had their ‘puppet’ (Assad) in power. However, Tucker then explains to him that the Assads have been in power for the last 50 years and things have been peaceful. For the most part that is true.

Thankfully Tucker is not as much of an idiot as many other news hosts and pundits. As a matter of fact, I’m actually quite impressed with him lately.

Graham then (once again) blamed Obama for the mismanagement of the Arab Spring. Does this guy think the Obama’s position was President of the World and not President of the United States of America?

Yes… Yes, he does. As he stated earlier in the interview “world order means a lot” to him.

And he thinks he knows how to make order of over 7 Billion people.

The arrogance..

The interview is posted below if you would like to watch.

If you liked this post (even a little bit) please like and/or follow us on Facebook and Twitter!

Thank you for your support!



Fake A** Protestors

Anti-Trump protestors are nothing but posers. I am sure that most of the leaders of the protest movements that will be taking place on inauguration day are legit, but as for the masses, they’re losers. SORE LOSERS! As libertarians we all know why these phonies will be out in streets waving their signs made out of material bought from billion dollar retail stores. It’s not because they hate big corporations, or that they hate the drug war, or that they hate all the drone bombings and military conflicts.

It’s because of IDENTITY POLITICS!

These people have no principle. It’s simply my team vs your team.

We all know that once you brush away the thin veil of minor differences between the two parties they are nearly one in the same.

It is so frustrating to see subjects that many of us hold as extremely important issues used as leverage so that their team can be the team screwing up all the important issues. Before Obama was in office and Bush was in the White House all you heard about was terrible war atrocities and scandals on the news. Anti-war activists were a dime a dozen back then. Now, all you hear from the left is pro-war propaganda. Specifically with Russia.

This is what identity politics gets you.

Yes, it will be nice to see leftists back on our side if Trump does escalate tensions with Russia and other countries. (Because that’s literally all it will take for them to jump ship back to the anti-war side.)

But, I think as libertarians we need to be the principled rational societal leaders that we are and call out the frauds and fakes. They are not our allies. They will stab us in the back as soon as they get the chance.

We also need to be wary of overly defending Trump. Though, leftists will call us alt-right or Trump supporters just for simply pointing out that news reports are flat out lying about the man.

That is because they don’t understand principle.

In my personal opinion the left are more dangerous than the right. But like I said before, they are more alike than different.