AuthorTopic: Libertarian Ideas and Viewpoints  (Read 69834 times)

Offline Golden Oxen

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12062
    • View Profile
Government is out of control and permeated with worthless stupid ass holes.  :-\
                   
         

Finally. A major victory for common sense



By Simon Black - August 01, 2018

Via Sovereignman.com

In a major victory for common sense, a group of cosmetologists defeated an insanely stupid regulation passed down by the state of Louisiana.

Louisiana, just like the other 49 states in the Land of the Free, governs licensing requirements for dozens… hundreds of professions… ranging from athletic trainers to tour guides to barbers and cosmetologists.

And most of the time the licensing requirements are just plain idiotic.

In Louisiana, for example, the State Board of Cosmetology had formerly required an unbelievable 750 hours of training (which costs thousands of dollars) simply to be able to thread eyebrows.

(If you’re like me and totally unfamiliar with eyebrow threading, check out this video. You’ll probably agree that 750 hours of training is totally ridiculous.)

And so, in conjunction with the Institute for Justice, several Louisiana-based cosmetologists filed a lawsuit against the Board.

The Board backed down… passing a new regulation exempting eyebrow threaders from such pointless licensing requirements.

One down. 2,214 to go.

That’s right. According to the Institute of Justice’s study License to Work, there are over two thousand licensing requirements across the Land of the Free… and that’s just for low income jobs like manicurists or floor sanders. We’re not even talking about doctors and dentists here.  ::)

Another study from the Brookings Institute shows that nearly 30% of US workers require some sort of state license. That’s up from just 5% in the 1950s.

Many of the licenses truly defy any logic whatsoever.

The State of Michigan, for example, sees fit to require 467 days of education and training to receive a barber’s license, but only 26 days to be a licensed Emergency Medical Technician.   :icon_scratch:

The State of California requires aspiring tree trimmers to have 1,460 days of education and training. But pre-school teachers only require 365 days.

The District of Columbia requires 2,190 days of education and training to be an Interior Designer, but ZERO days to be a school bus driver.

The State of Iowa requires 1,460 days for athletic trainers, but just 370 for dental assistants.

What exactly are these people trying to tell us about their priorities? Trees and furniture are more important than children? Hair is more important than health? Abs are more important than teeth?

It’s all quite bizarre.

But there is one occupation I noticed that is conspicuously absent from this list.

And it’s a big one.

Not a single state in the union has a licensing requirement for this profession.

And that’s an incredible irony given that this occupation gets to tell the rest of the occupations how much training they require.

Did you figure it out?

It’s politicians.


Just think about it: Barbers and manicurists require hundreds of hours of training.

But the people who have the power to pass idiotic legislation, waste taxpayer funds, declare war, tell us what we can/cannot put in our own bodies, and regulate every aspect of our lives, don’t even have to be literate.

(And judging by some of the laws they pass, that may very well be the case.)

ttps://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/finally-a-major-victory-for-common-sense/ :icon_study: :icon_study: :icon_study: :icon_study:


Offline Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15825
    • View Profile
Government is out of control and permeated with worthless stupid ass holes.  :-\
                   
         

Finally. A major victory for common sense



By Simon Black - August 01, 2018

Via Sovereignman.com

In a major victory for common sense, a group of cosmetologists defeated an insanely stupid regulation passed down by the state of Louisiana.

Louisiana, just like the other 49 states in the Land of the Free, governs licensing requirements for dozens… hundreds of professions… ranging from athletic trainers to tour guides to barbers and cosmetologists.

And most of the time the licensing requirements are just plain idiotic.

In Louisiana, for example, the State Board of Cosmetology had formerly required an unbelievable 750 hours of training (which costs thousands of dollars) simply to be able to thread eyebrows.

(If you’re like me and totally unfamiliar with eyebrow threading, check out this video. You’ll probably agree that 750 hours of training is totally ridiculous.)

And so, in conjunction with the Institute for Justice, several Louisiana-based cosmetologists filed a lawsuit against the Board.

The Board backed down… passing a new regulation exempting eyebrow threaders from such pointless licensing requirements.

One down. 2,214 to go.

That’s right. According to the Institute of Justice’s study License to Work, there are over two thousand licensing requirements across the Land of the Free… and that’s just for low income jobs like manicurists or floor sanders. We’re not even talking about doctors and dentists here.  ::)

Another study from the Brookings Institute shows that nearly 30% of US workers require some sort of state license. That’s up from just 5% in the 1950s.

Many of the licenses truly defy any logic whatsoever.

The State of Michigan, for example, sees fit to require 467 days of education and training to receive a barber’s license, but only 26 days to be a licensed Emergency Medical Technician.   :icon_scratch:

The State of California requires aspiring tree trimmers to have 1,460 days of education and training. But pre-school teachers only require 365 days.

The District of Columbia requires 2,190 days of education and training to be an Interior Designer, but ZERO days to be a school bus driver.

The State of Iowa requires 1,460 days for athletic trainers, but just 370 for dental assistants.

What exactly are these people trying to tell us about their priorities? Trees and furniture are more important than children? Hair is more important than health? Abs are more important than teeth?

It’s all quite bizarre.

But there is one occupation I noticed that is conspicuously absent from this list.

And it’s a big one.

Not a single state in the union has a licensing requirement for this profession.

And that’s an incredible irony given that this occupation gets to tell the rest of the occupations how much training they require.

Did you figure it out?

It’s politicians.


Just think about it: Barbers and manicurists require hundreds of hours of training.

But the people who have the power to pass idiotic legislation, waste taxpayer funds, declare war, tell us what we can/cannot put in our own bodies, and regulate every aspect of our lives, don’t even have to be literate.

(And judging by some of the laws they pass, that may very well be the case.)

ttps://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/finally-a-major-victory-for-common-sense/ :icon_study: :icon_study: :icon_study: :icon_study:

Regulation and licensing started from a good place (protecting the public from harm) but turned into something very different, which is taxation and revenue. It's all about the money now.

Our assistants now have to be certified, and its a rip-off they can't afford. I have to spend money on background checks and other credentialing requirements for any employee who works with me in the operating room, even though they are paid 100% by me and are under my direct supervision and covered by my malpractice insurance, etc.

More bullshit every year.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline Agent Graves

  • Rookie
  • Bussing Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarian Ideas and Viewpoints
« Reply #557 on: August 02, 2018, 04:36:55 PM »
Over-regulation and compliancing:- only in the western world, is something I point out to white supremacists every time I hear about our leaders wanting "low IQ brown immigrants who are easier to control".
Junior  Operative, FBI Counter-Doomsdaycult Taskforce

Offline Golden Oxen

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12062
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarian Ideas - THE REAL “FAKE NEWS” FROM GOVERNMENT MEDIA
« Reply #558 on: August 07, 2018, 05:03:01 AM »

     

 

THE REAL “FAKE NEWS” FROM GOVERNMENT MEDIA




STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS

THE REAL “FAKE NEWS” FROM GOVERNMENT MEDIA

By Scott Lazarowitz - August 05, 2018

Facebook has announced its campaign against “fake news.” But, according to some workers’ own admission, conservatives are being censored.

And Google also wants to censor “fake news.” But Google also was shown to treat conservative websites, but not liberal ones, as “fake news.”

The same thing seems to be going on with Twitter. And again, conservatives are complaining.

But who is to decide what is “fake news”? Who will be Facebook and Google’s sources for real news?

In 2013 the U.S. Senate considered a new shield law to protect journalists. In the lawmakers’ attempts to narrow the definition of a journalist, some Senators including Sen. Dianne Feinstein only wanted to include reporters with “professional qualifications.”

“Professional” publications such as the New York Times, the “Paper of Record,” would apparently be protected.

So one can conclude that the New York Times can be a source of “real” news for Facebook or Google, despite all the Times‘ errors, screw-ups, and corrections, right?

According to one NYT former reporter, the Times has been a “propaganda megaphone” for war. Also a partner with the CIA to promote Obama’s reelection bid.

Or CNN, “The Most Trusted Name in News” which wins its own “fake news” awards with its errors, screw-ups and corrections.

During the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign, there were collusions between then-CNN contributor and DNC operative Donna Brazile, who was outed by WikiLeaks in her giving candidate Hillary Clinton questions in advance for a CNN Town Hall.

Other emails that were leaked to WikiLeaks informed us that reporters obediently followed instructions from the Hillary Clinton campaign on how to cover the campaign. These include reporters from the New York Times such as Maggie Haberman who said the campaign would “tee up stories for us,” and Mark Leibovich, who would email Clinton flunky Jennifer Palmieri for editing recommendations.

And Politico reporter Glenn Thrush asked Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta for approval of stories on Clinton. Thrush was then hired by the New York Times. After Thrush was then suspended from NYT over allegations of sexual misconduct, the Times ended the suspension, stating that while Thrush had “acted offensively,” he would be trained to behave himself. Hmm.

But all this from the 2016 campaign reminded me of the “JournoLists,” the group of news journalists who participated in a private forum online from 2007-2010. The forum was to enable news reporters to discuss news reporting and political issues in private and with candor, but also, it was revealed, to discuss ways to suppress negative news on then-2008 presidential candidate Barack Obama.

For instance, according to the Daily Caller, some members of the group discussed their criticism of a 2008 debate in which Obama was questioned on his association with the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The Nation‘s Richard Kim wrote that George Stephanopoulos was “being a disgusting little rat snake.” The Guardian‘s Michael Tomasky wrote that “we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy.”

Spencer Ackerman, then with the Washington Independent and now of the Daily Beast, wrote, “If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

The Nation‘s Chris Hayes wrote, “Our country disappears people. It tortures people. It has the blood of as many as one million Iraqi civilians — men, women, children, the infirmed — on its hands. You’ll forgive me if I just can’t quite dredge up the requisite amount of outrage over Barack Obama’s pastor.”

(But has Hayes criticized Obama’s assassination program, or Obama’s bombings or the blood on Obama’s hands? Just askin’)

In an open letter, according to the Daily Caller, several of the JournoList members called the ABC debate a “revolting descent into tabloid journalism,” because of the moderators’ legitimate questions on Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

So, in today’s Bizarro World, objectively questioning a candidate on a controversial issue is now “tabloid journalism,” but making things up like “Trump-Russia collusions” and repeating the propaganda over and over – that’s not “tabloid journalism.”

The JournoLists also included reporters from Time, the Baltimore Sun, the New Republic, Politico, and Huffington Post.

Now, are those the sources of “real news” that Facebook, Google and Twitter want to rely upon to combat “fake news”?

And who exactly were the “JournoLists” promoting? Obama?

Regarding Obama’s own crackdown on actual journalism, Fox News reporter James Rosen was accused by the feds of being a “co-conspirator” with State Department leaker Stephen Jin-Woo Kim in violating the Espionage Act.  Rosen’s correspondences with Kim were seized by Obama’s FBI, along with Rosen’s personal email and phone records. The FBI also used records to track Rosen’s visits to the State Department.

Apparently, then-attorney general Eric Holder went “judge-shopping” to find a judge who would approve subpoenaing Rosen’s private records, after two judges rejected the request.

Commenting on James Rosen and the FBI’s abuse of powers, Judge Andrew Napolitano observed that “this is the first time that the federal government has moved to this level of taking ordinary, reasonable, traditional, lawful reporter skills and claiming they constitute criminal behavior.”

And there was the Obama administration’s going after then-CBS News investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson, possibly for her reporting on Benghazi and Fast and Furious. Attkisson finally resignedfrom CBS news out of frustration with the company’s alleged pro-Obama bias and with CBS’s apparently not airing her subsequent reports.

In 2013 CBS News confirmed that Attkisson’s computers had been “accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions.” In 2015 Attkisson sued the Obama administration, claiming to have evidence which proves the computer intrusions were connected to the Obama DOJ.

In Attkisson’s latest lawsuit update, after her computer was returned to her following the DOJ Inspector General’s investigation, her forensics team now believes her computer’s hard drive was replaced by a different one.

Now back to “fake news.”

After Donald Trump locked up the Republican Presidential nomination in May, 2016, there were significant events in the next two months. Fusion GPS and former British spy Christopher Steele colluded to get opposition research on behalf of Hillary Clinton, the FBI applied for FISA warrant to spy on Trump campaign associates, and Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner had a possibly set-up meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower.

Also within that same period, the DNC claimed that its computers were hacked but the DNC wouldn’t let FBI investigate. The Washington Post published an article claiming, with no evidence presented, that “Russian government hackers” took DNC opposition research on Trump.

It was very shortly after the November, 2016 Presidential election that the Washington Post published an article on a “Russian propaganda effort to spread ‘fake news’ during the election.” To escalate the media’s censorship campaign perhaps?

The campaign against “fake news” coincided with Obama minions at FBI, DOJ and CIA apparently panicking over a possible Trump presidency and their allegedly abusing their powers to attempt to take down Trump.

So the news media seem to be on a crusade to fabricate “Trump-Russia collusions” and repeat it over and over, and to vilify, ignore and squash actual investigative research and reporting on what exactly the FBI and DOJ bureaucrats have been doing. Call such real investigative reporting “fake news,” “conspiracy theory,” and so forth.

In the end, Facebook, Twitter and Google might want to reconsider relying on the mainstream news media led by the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN, and instead include citizen journalists and non-government-sycophant media to provide news and information.

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has noted that the Founders generally viewed the freedom of the Press to apply to every citizen to print, publish or express accounts of events. We really need to highlight that kind of old-fashioned, honest journalism.

***

Scott Lazarowitz is a libertarian writer and commentator. Please visit his blog.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/the-real-fake-news-from-government-media/ :icon_study: :icon_study:

Offline Golden Oxen

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12062
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarian Ideas and Viewpoints - Rand Paul Against the World
« Reply #559 on: August 11, 2018, 08:36:27 AM »
How much of this is fact or just talk is conjecture. David Stockman  a favorite financial commentator of mine called attention to this article today.

Posting because Rand would have been my pick for President of the United States.

                         



Rand Paul Against the World
 A new report suggests the Kentucky senator is singlehandedly preventing war with Iran.


   Not long ago, Donald Trump’s national security advisor John Bolton was promising regime change in Iran by the end of this year. Uber-hawk Bolton has long wanted war with Tehran. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo isn’t much different, and has even advocated bombing Iran. Secretary of Defense James Mattis has previously recommend U.S. airstrikes against Iranian targets.

Today, Bolton says the U.S. does not to seek regime change in Iran. So does Pompeo. So does Mattis.

Why?

President Trump has been known to be hawkish on Iran. Politico observed Wednesday: “Trump has drawn praise from the right-wing establishment for hammering the mullahs in Tehran, junking the Iran nuclear deal and responding to the regime’s saber rattling with aggressive rhetoric of his own….” There are also powerful factions in Congress and Washington with inroads to the president that have been itching for regime change for years. “The policy of the United States should be regime change in Iran,” says Senator Tom Cotton, once rumored to be Trump’s pick to head the CIA.

    Ron and Rand Paul Cut Through the Foreign Policy Noise
    A Madman on the National Security Council

So what, or who, is stopping the hawks?

Politico revealed Wednesday some interesting aspects of the relationship between Senator Rand Paul and the president, particularly on foreign policy: “While Trump tolerates his hawkish advisers, the [Trump] aide added, he shares a real bond with Paul: ‘He actually at gut level has the same instincts as Rand Paul…’.”

On Iran, Politico notes, “Trump has stopped short of calling for regime change even though Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and Bolton support it, aligning with Paul instead, according to a GOP foreign policy expert in frequent contact with the White House.”

But this part of the story was the most revelatory: “’Rand Paul has persuaded the president that we are not for regime change in Iran,’ this person said, because adopting that position would instigate another war in the Middle East.”

This is significant, not because Trump couldn’t have arrived at the same position without Paul’s counsel, but because it’s easy to imagine him embracing regime change, what with virtually every major foreign policy advisor in his cabinet supporting something close to war with Iran. “Personnel is policy” is more than a cliché.

Paul and Trump apparently like making fun of some White House staffers, as Politico also reported: “the Kentucky senator and the commander-in-chief have bonded over a shared delight in thumbing their noses at experts the president likes to deride as ‘foreign policy eggheads,’ including those who work in his own administration.”

Eggheads indeed. For every foreign policy “expert” in Washington who now admits that regime change in Iraq was a mistake (and a whole slew of them won’t even cop to that), you will find the same people making the case for regime change in other countries, including Iran, explaining how this time, somehow, America’s toppling of a despot will turn out differently.

“So let’s understand that the people pushing for regime change in Iran are seeking to destabilize and harm the country…” writes TAC’s Daniel Larison. “Just as many of the same people did when they agitated for regime change in Iraq and again in Syria, they don’t care about the devastation and chaos that the people in the country would have to endure if the policy ‘works.’”

These are the same Washington foreign policy consensus standard bearers who would likely be shaping U.S. foreign policy unfettered if 2011 Libya “liberator” Hillary Clinton had become president—or any other Republican not named Trump or Paul.

When it comes to who President Trump can turn to for a more sober and realist view of foreign policy, one who actually takes into account past U.S. mistakes abroad and tries to learn from them, at the moment it appears to be Paul against the Washington foreign policy world.

President Trump hired regime change advocates as advisors presumably because he wanted their advice, yet there’s evidence to suggest that at least on Iran, certain hawks’ wings might have been clipped.

Most importantly, on arguably the most crucial potential foreign policy decision the president can make—one that could potentially start another disastrous U.S. Middle Eastern war—it appears to be Rand Paul who is literally keeping the peace.

Jack Hunter is the former political editor of Rare.us and co-authored the 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington with Senator Rand Paul.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/rand-paul-against-the-world/  :icon_study: :icon_study:

Offline Karpatok

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 1427
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarian Ideas and Viewpoints - Rand Paul Against the World
« Reply #560 on: August 11, 2018, 09:04:26 AM »
How much of this is fact or just talk is conjecture. David Stockman  a favorite financial commentator of mine called attention to this article today.

Posting because Rand would have been my pick for President of the United States.

                         



Rand Paul Against the World
 A new report suggests the Kentucky senator is singlehandedly preventing war with Iran.


   Not long ago, Donald Trump’s national security advisor John Bolton was promising regime change in Iran by the end of this year. Uber-hawk Bolton has long wanted war with Tehran. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo isn’t much different, and has even advocated bombing Iran. Secretary of Defense James Mattis has previously recommend U.S. airstrikes against Iranian targets.

Today, Bolton says the U.S. does not to seek regime change in Iran. So does Pompeo. So does Mattis.

Why?

President Trump has been known to be hawkish on Iran. Politico observed Wednesday: “Trump has drawn praise from the right-wing establishment for hammering the mullahs in Tehran, junking the Iran nuclear deal and responding to the regime’s saber rattling with aggressive rhetoric of his own….” There are also powerful factions in Congress and Washington with inroads to the president that have been itching for regime change for years. “The policy of the United States should be regime change in Iran,” says Senator Tom Cotton, once rumored to be Trump’s pick to head the CIA.

    Ron and Rand Paul Cut Through the Foreign Policy Noise
    A Madman on the National Security Council

So what, or who, is stopping the hawks?

Politico revealed Wednesday some interesting aspects of the relationship between Senator Rand Paul and the president, particularly on foreign policy: “While Trump tolerates his hawkish advisers, the [Trump] aide added, he shares a real bond with Paul: ‘He actually at gut level has the same instincts as Rand Paul…’.”

On Iran, Politico notes, “Trump has stopped short of calling for regime change even though Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and Bolton support it, aligning with Paul instead, according to a GOP foreign policy expert in frequent contact with the White House.”

But this part of the story was the most revelatory: “’Rand Paul has persuaded the president that we are not for regime change in Iran,’ this person said, because adopting that position would instigate another war in the Middle East.”

This is significant, not because Trump couldn’t have arrived at the same position without Paul’s counsel, but because it’s easy to imagine him embracing regime change, what with virtually every major foreign policy advisor in his cabinet supporting something close to war with Iran. “Personnel is policy” is more than a cliché.

Paul and Trump apparently like making fun of some White House staffers, as Politico also reported: “the Kentucky senator and the commander-in-chief have bonded over a shared delight in thumbing their noses at experts the president likes to deride as ‘foreign policy eggheads,’ including those who work in his own administration.”

Eggheads indeed. For every foreign policy “expert” in Washington who now admits that regime change in Iraq was a mistake (and a whole slew of them won’t even cop to that), you will find the same people making the case for regime change in other countries, including Iran, explaining how this time, somehow, America’s toppling of a despot will turn out differently.

“So let’s understand that the people pushing for regime change in Iran are seeking to destabilize and harm the country…” writes TAC’s Daniel Larison. “Just as many of the same people did when they agitated for regime change in Iraq and again in Syria, they don’t care about the devastation and chaos that the people in the country would have to endure if the policy ‘works.’”

These are the same Washington foreign policy consensus standard bearers who would likely be shaping U.S. foreign policy unfettered if 2011 Libya “liberator” Hillary Clinton had become president—or any other Republican not named Trump or Paul.

When it comes to who President Trump can turn to for a more sober and realist view of foreign policy, one who actually takes into account past U.S. mistakes abroad and tries to learn from them, at the moment it appears to be Paul against the Washington foreign policy world.

President Trump hired regime change advocates as advisors presumably because he wanted their advice, yet there’s evidence to suggest that at least on Iran, certain hawks’ wings might have been clipped.

Most importantly, on arguably the most crucial potential foreign policy decision the president can make—one that could potentially start another disastrous U.S. Middle Eastern war—it appears to be Rand Paul who is literally keeping the peace.

Jack Hunter is the former political editor of Rare.us and co-authored the 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington with Senator Rand Paul.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/rand-paul-against-the-world/  :icon_study: :icon_study:
               Thanks for posting this GO. I certainly pray that it is true and that he can keep going strong. Rand Paul would also have been my first choice for president. Don't see that as ever happening now in the place that the US has very tragically become.

Offline Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15825
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarian Ideas and Viewpoints
« Reply #561 on: August 11, 2018, 09:54:50 AM »
My sentiments too, basically.

We do know that Ron Paul was and is a sane voice against war and military expansionism, and that Rand, if not exactly a chip off the old block, is at least on the same page. If he has a big influence on Trump, I'm very happy about that.

And yes, Trump seemed to have some of those same viewpoints during the campaign. But with Trump, no position is set in stone.  He isn't driven by convictions like a Rand Paul, who sticks to his guns whether his views are popular or not. That was the only thing I liked about Trump the candidate.

As we have talked abou here many times, when anyone is elected POTUS, it's like the Deep State sits them down in a secure room and tells them what they're going to do whether they like it or not, tells them they aren't in charge, unless the USMIC gives their blessing. Whatever it is, Obama went through it too, if you'll remember.

Maybe they have to meet with Satan in some dark portal to Hell that opens beneath the White House, and swear fealty and kiss his glowing ring.  Not sure. But there seems to often be quite an adjustment in rhetoric, subsequent to being elected.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline Golden Oxen

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12062
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarian Ideas and Viewpoints - Rand Paul Against the World
« Reply #562 on: August 11, 2018, 03:20:11 PM »
               Thanks for posting this GO. I certainly pray that it is true and that he can keep going strong. Rand Paul would also have been my first choice for president. Don't see that as ever happening now in the place that the US has very tragically become.

It certainly is a long shot Karpatok. Let's not give up hope entirely, stranger things have happened.

Donald Trump's run for office was viewed as a joke or publicity stunt by most, including me, when it was first announced. Many of our citizens are unhappy with the status quo politicians and as witnessed by President Trump's victory they can surprise those who have betrayed them. Rand has some very good qualities that might appeal to both sides of the political spectrum should the citizenry decide to teach the in crowd another lesson.
One thing I feel very confident about in my support of Rand and his father is there stance on these heinous military ventures. When the say they will stop them, you can bet on it is my sincere opinion. Something tells me you believe them as well and that it is not mere rhetoric.

Whatever, lets hope for the best outcome for our country.

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 14124
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Rand Paul, in Moscow, invites Russian lawmakers to Washington
« Reply #563 on: August 18, 2018, 05:00:24 AM »
Time to stick an enema tube in this thread. Rand Paul, along with a number of other Republican legislators (Independence Day in Moscow, anyone?) is a traitor, giving aid and succor to an American competitor. The old axiom, "Politics stops at the water's edge" is dead, dead, dead. And this pretender is among those who killed it, marching behind the Orange Lout.

Rand Paul has evidently developed a taste for rubles much like Dana Rorahbacher, "Putin's Favorite Congressman."

Rand Paul, in Moscow, invites Russian lawmakers to Washington

Moscow (CNN)Sen. Rand Paul on Monday invited Russian lawmakers to Washington after meeting Russian members of parliament in Moscow.

"I am pleased to announced that we will be continuing this contact," Paul, a Kentucky Republican, said in Moscow. "We agreed and we invited members of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Russia to come to the US to meet with us in the US, in Washington."
Paul is in Moscow meeting with Russian lawmakers in a trip he sees as a continuation of US President Donald Trump's diplomatic outreach to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and comes several weeks after Trump invited Putin to DC as well. Paul has been one of Trump's most outspoken supporters following the criticism Trump faced -- including from some within his own party -- for the US President's handling of his meeting with Putin in July. During a news conference in Helsinki at the time, Trump declined to back the conclusion of the US intelligence that Russia interfered with the US presidential election over Putin's denials, though Trump later said when he was back in the US that he misspoke.
Paul is also expected to meet with Russian deputy foreign minister Sergey Ryabkov and State Duma Foreign Affairs committee head Leonid Slutsky during his visit, and plans to continue speaking on Tuesday. The US delegation also plans to visit Saint Petersburg.
    When asked by CNN whether the issue of Russian interference came up, Paul said he had "general discussions about a lot of issues."


    ***
    RAND PAUL IS TRUMP’S PERFECT RUSSIA STOOGE
    The Senate’s resident wacko bird finds a new political family that shares his curious affinity for Moscow.


    Senator Rand Paul on Capitol Hill.

    The unlikely, unholy alliance between Rand Paul and Donald Trump, one a libertarian iconoclast, the other the cancerous center of the Republican party, has cemented itself in golf games and frequent phone calls. “They’ll talk on the phone and Trump will go on about Bedminster and golf and whatever else is going on; and Rand will drop in his libertarian ideas,” a source close to Trump recently told Axios. “And Trump will laugh and say, ‘This guy’s crazy’ . . . They won’t even argue. He’ll let him speak his mind.” Their friendship has manifested in a number of ways, including in Paul’s periodic abandonment of his principles to vote however Trump needs him to, and Trump’s apparent willingness to take Paul’s questionable advice. But while Trump’s affinity for Paul may, on some level, have been predictable—after all, they both love to needle Mitch McConnell—their friendship has recently veered in a less likely direction, as Paul comes to Trump’s defense on all matters Russia.

    On Monday, weeks after Paul made an impassioned speech on the Senate floor in support of Trump’s Helsinki summit—“The hatred for the president is so intense that partisans would rather risk war than give diplomacy a chance”—the Kentucky senator visited Moscow on a private trip to strengthen relationsbetween Russia and the U.S., a matter he called “in­cred­ibly important,” according to The Washington Post. (The U.S. Embassy in Moscow told the Post that Paul was not on an official diplomatic trip, and was traveling privately with a group.) Paul’s Russian jaunt reportedly included a visit with former Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak, who U.S. intelligence suggests is a spy, and whose undisclosed meetings with Jeff Sessions and Michael Flynn led indirectly to Robert Mueller’s probe into the Trump campaign.

    At the tour’s conclusion, Paul released a statement saying he was “pleased” to announce that the contact with Russia would continue: “We agreed and we invited members of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Russia to come to the U.S. to meet with us in the U.S., in Washington,” he said. For their part, Russian politicians reportedly have a laundry list of topics to discuss with Paul, including nonproliferation, sanctions, and alleged Russian spy Maria Butina. According to Russian media, State Duma foreign-affairs committee head Leonid Slutsky asked Paul about Butina’s “early release,” adding, “We hope and expect that our colleagues will conduct the necessary consultations with Washington, and tomorrow we can consult about a road map and the plan of actions [on Butina’s case].”

    In theory, Paul’s newfound zeal for improved U.S.-Russia relations fits with his libertarian ideals of limited government, stoked by his apparent distrust of the intelligence agencies urging Trump to retaliate against the Kremlin. “We’ve allowed too much power to gravitate to these . . . agencies,” he said last month during a speech at Turning Point USA’s high-school conference. But in practice, Paul, who has called the Helsinki summit “the sort of thing we should be doing”, is perhaps equally inspired by the president’s example, telling The New York Times that his trip would be “following up from the meeting that he had with Putin. Our goals are not necessarily, you know, finding world peace in one trip to Russia,” he added, “but our goals are to try to find some things that we could advance on.”

    Perhaps better than anyone else in Congress, Paul’s unusual position on the political spectrum reflects the growing convergence between the far left and the far right, which have found common ground in isolationism, distrust of authorities, and an affinity for Russia—his father Ron, a libertarian icon in his own right, has followed suit, frequently appearing as a guest on RT, a Russian state TV network adopted by both the extreme left and the extreme right as an alternative news source. (The day of Trump’s conference in Helsinki, Ron Paul told RT that the president’s friendly attitude toward Vladimir Putin was “great,” adding, “[the] best step ever” would be “getting rid of the sanctions on Russia.”) Into this emerging paradigm comes Paul, who finally seems to have found a home for his otherwise heterodox views. Whereas Russia is one of the few areas where the vast majority of the G.O.P. breaks with Trump, condemning his slavish devotion to Putin, Paul is—for once—truly aligned with the president, occupying the space where the screwball right and the White House converge: in Moscow.


    ***

    Once a Trump Antagonist, Rand Paul Emerges as His Russia Wingman

    Nearly everyone except Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, deemed President Trump’s meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a diplomatic disaster. Credit Erin Schaff for The New York Times

      WASHINGTON — When he ran against Donald J. Trump in 2016 for the Republican presidential nomination, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky quipped that “a speck of dirt would make a better president” than the bombastic businessman from New York.

      Then came President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, his government’s interference in a White House campaign in which Mr. Paul barely made a ripple and last week’s presidential summit meeting in Helsinki, Finland, which pretty much everyone but Mr. Paul deemed a diplomatic disaster.

      Suddenly, in the mind of the junior senator from Kentucky, Mr. Trump has soared from lower than that speck of dirt to high enough for Mount Rushmore.

      “The hatred for the president is so intense that partisans would rather risk war than give diplomacy a chance,” Mr. Paul fumed on the Senate floor last week in a long defense of Mr. Trump’s Helsinki meeting. “This is crazy.”

      As the lonely Senate voice extolling Mr. Trump’s diplomatic acumen, Mr. Paul has become the commander in chief’s wingman. He has nabbed broad visibility for views once deemed fringe, and coveted White House access: “Thank you @RandPaul, you really get it!” the president tweeted.

      It was the senator’s idea to suspend the security clearances of Mr. Trump’s political enemies, an idea embraced at the lectern by the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

      Mr. Paul plans to visit Moscow in early August as Mr. Trump’s envoy, “following up from the meeting that he had with Putin,” he said in an interview last week. “Our goals are not necessarily, you know, finding world peace in one trip to Russia, but our goals are to try to find some things that we could advance on.”

      Mr. Paul has other plans, too. “I continue to encourage President Trump that he would be a hero if he could end the Afghan war,” Mr. Paul said in an emailed statement on Thursday. He and the president, he said, “have a similar belief that we have been at war too long in too many places.”

      Even Mr. Paul’s libertarian icon of a father, Ron Paul, a former representative from Texas and three-time presidential candidate, has gotten into the act, making regular appearances on Russian state television to cheer for Mr. Trump’s stand against America’s “secret government.”

      Mr. Trump’s friendliness with Mr. Putin was “great,” the elder Mr. Paul told RT, a television network funded by the Russian government, the day of Mr. Trump’s news conference in Helsinki. For good measure, he added, the “best step ever” would be “getting rid of the sanctions on Russia.”

      The Paul family’s quirky views — father and son favor abolishing the Federal Reserve and legalizing marijuana, and oppose government spending from foreign aid to health care — have long attracted a hardy band of Birkenstock-wearing devotees.

      But Rand Paul is a solitary, at times cranky presence in the Senate, a legislator whose libertarian zeal once made him the sole opponent of a bill penalizing people who aim laser pointers at airplanes. He has denounced federal support for aging and disabled refugees, and called legislators “weak-kneed” over their failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act without a replacement. He is a firm “no” to taxpayer-funded junkets abroad (not that anyone invites him).

      Earlier this year Mr. Paul’s next-door neighbor in Kentucky body-slammed him while he was mowing his lawn, breaking multiple ribs in a fracas Mr. Paul said was over politics but the neighbor said was a lawn care dispute gone horribly wrong.

      Now, Mr. Paul’s vocal support for Mr. Trump’s overtures to Mr. Putin and the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, and his opposition to the Justice Department’s Russia investigation have made the senator famous for Washington.

      On Tuesday night, Mr. Paul drew an uproarious standing ovation from several hundred young people at the Trump International Hotel, where he spoke at a dinner for Turning Point USA, an organization for college-age conservatives.

      “The bigger your government, the less freedom you have,” he said, while standing next to a towering placard that read “Big Government Sucks.” Kicking off a 10-minute, not-entirely-factual tirade against the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., he asked: “Why do people mistrust their government? Because they’re lied to by people in government.”

      Mr. Paul’s support for the president’s efforts to shut down an investigation into the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russian election interference “fits with what I’ve been saying for a decade now,” he said. “We’ve allowed too much power to gravitate to these intelligence agencies.”

      Just hours before the idea became an official White House initiative, Mr. Paul suggested that former intelligence officials be stripped of their security clearance, including the former C.I.A. director John O. Brennan, who called Mr. Trump’s Russia stance treasonous.

      “I don’t think that ex-C.I.A. agents of any stripe who are now talking heads should continue to get classified information. I think it’s wrong,” Mr. Paul said on Fox News on Monday.

      They Criticized Trump. Now He’s Targeting Their Security Clearances.
      President Trump has revoked the former C.I.A. Director John Brennan’s security clearance. The White House said it’s considering pulling the security clearances for other former top officials, as well, many of whom have been critical of the president. Here’s what they’ve said.Published OnCreditImage by Al Drago/The New York Times

      Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and another Trump critic turned golf buddy, said last week: “I’m not shocked that Rand Paul feels that the F.B.I. and C.I.A. are a bigger threat than Russia. His foreign policy is, I think, out of sync. But if the president is embracing that kind of approach, I think he risks making some serious mistakes.”

      Mr. Paul’s anti-intelligence zeal has its roots in 2013, when the senator mounted a nearly 13-hour filibuster opposing Mr. Brennan’s nomination as C.I.A. director, raising broad questions over the Obama administration’s drone policy.

      In March 2014, after Russia’s forced annexation of the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine, Mr. Paul wrote an essay for Breitbart News warning America to stay out of it. “What we don’t need right now is politicians who have never seen war talking tough for the sake of their political careers.”

      “There is a time for military action, such as after 9/11,” he wrote. “There is a time for diplomacy and the strategic use of soft power, such as now with Russia.”

      That stand neatly encompasses where right meets left: A year ago, Mr. Paul and Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, were the only opponents of a bill imposing further sanctions on Russia and Iran. This spring, Mr. Paul threatened to do “whatever it takes” to block the confirmation of Mike Pompeo as secretary of state, saying that Mr. Pompeo’s support for military intervention in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Afghanistan did not square with Mr. Trump’s own views. Mr. Paul next delayed, then voted against, the nomination of Gina Haspel to replace Mr. Pompeo as C.I.A. director, saying, “I’m still concerned about her role in extreme rendition and torture.”

      Mr. Paul now says he is questioning Mr. Trump’s nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, over Judge Kavanaugh’s stances on privacy and government surveillance.

      But as with his threats to vote against the Affordable Care Act repeal that did not go far enough; against the president’s tax cuts, which did not cut deep enough; and against Mr. Pompeo, few believe Mr. Paul will make good on his threat against Judge Kavanaugh if his vote matters.

      It has, in fact, been a rough patch for Mr. Paul. Last fall, Mr. Paul had gotten off his riding mower at his home in Bowling Green, Ky., to move some branches when he was tackled from behind by Rene A. Boucher, his next-door neighbor. Mr. Boucher, who took a running start down a steep slope in Mr. Paul’s front yard, landed on him with such force that he broke several ribs and bruised the senator’s lungs.

      Mr. Boucher’s lawyers said the fight was the climax of a long-simmering dispute over Mr. Paul’s stacking brush too near his property. Mr. Boucher was sentenced last month to a 30-day jail term, and Mr. Paul is suing himfor damages.

      “The velocity of the hit was just more than pushing somebody down in their yard,” said Mr. Paul’s mother, Carol Paul. “He had no idea he was coming until he landed on him.”

      She is struggling not to see the blindsiding as a metaphor for the nation’s politics.

      “This is not the America I grew up in,” she said. “Everyone loved our country, loved our president and didn’t say horrible things and make up stories,” she said. “Rand is so intelligent and has so many good ideas. He’s not the kind that won’t listen, but he’s not going to go along to get along.”

      "It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

      Offline azozeo

      • Sous Chef
      • ****
      • Posts: 6862
        • View Profile
      Re: Rand Paul, in Moscow, delivers personal letter here's what it said...
      « Reply #564 on: August 18, 2018, 11:29:00 AM »
      Time to stick an enema tube in this thread. Rand Paul, along with a number of other Republican legislators (Independence Day in Moscow, anyone?) is a traitor, giving aid and succor to an American competitor. The old axiom, "Politics stops at the water's edge" is dead, dead, dead. And this pretender is among those who killed it, marching behind the Orange Lout.

      Rand Paul has evidently developed a taste for rubles much like Dana Rorahbacher, "Putin's Favorite Congressman."

      Rand Paul, in Moscow, invites Russian lawmakers to Washington

      Moscow (CNN)Sen. Rand Paul on Monday invited Russian lawmakers to Washington after meeting Russian members of parliament in Moscow.

      "I am pleased to announced that we will be continuing this contact," Paul, a Kentucky Republican, said in Moscow. "We agreed and we invited members of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Russia to come to the US to meet with us in the US, in Washington."
      Paul is in Moscow meeting with Russian lawmakers in a trip he sees as a continuation of US President Donald Trump's diplomatic outreach to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and comes several weeks after Trump invited Putin to DC as well. Paul has been one of Trump's most outspoken supporters following the criticism Trump faced -- including from some within his own party -- for the US President's handling of his meeting with Putin in July. During a news conference in Helsinki at the time, Trump declined to back the conclusion of the US intelligence that Russia interfered with the US presidential election over Putin's denials, though Trump later said when he was back in the US that he misspoke.
      Paul is also expected to meet with Russian deputy foreign minister Sergey Ryabkov and State Duma Foreign Affairs committee head Leonid Slutsky during his visit, and plans to continue speaking on Tuesday. The US delegation also plans to visit Saint Petersburg.
        When asked by CNN whether the issue of Russian interference came up, Paul said he had "general discussions about a lot of issues."

        *** [b][url=https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/08/rand-paul-donald-trump-perfect-russia-stooge][color=maroon][size=18pt]RAND PAUL IS TRUMP’S PERFECT RUSSIA STOOGE[/size][/color][/url] The Senate’s resident wacko bird finds a new political family that shares his curious affinity for Moscow.[/b]
        Senator Rand Paul on Capitol Hill.

        The unlikely, unholy alliance between Rand Paul and Donald Trump, one a libertarian iconoclast, the other the cancerous center of the Republican party, has cemented itself in golf games and frequent phone calls. “They’ll talk on the phone and Trump will go on about Bedminster and golf and whatever else is going on; and Rand will drop in his libertarian ideas,” a source close to Trump recently told Axios. “And Trump will laugh and say, ‘This guy’s crazy’ . . . They won’t even argue. He’ll let him speak his mind.” Their friendship has manifested in a number of ways, including in Paul’s periodic abandonment of his principles to vote however Trump needs him to, and Trump’s apparent willingness to take Paul’s questionable advice. But while Trump’s affinity for Paul may, on some level, have been predictable—after all, they both love to needle Mitch McConnell—their friendship has recently veered in a less likely direction, as Paul comes to Trump’s defense on all matters Russia.

        On Monday, weeks after Paul made an impassioned speech on the Senate floor in support of Trump’s Helsinki summit—“The hatred for the president is so intense that partisans would rather risk war than give diplomacy a chance”—the Kentucky senator visited Moscow on a private trip to strengthen relationsbetween Russia and the U.S., a matter he called “in­cred­ibly important,” according to The Washington Post. (The U.S. Embassy in Moscow told the Post that Paul was not on an official diplomatic trip, and was traveling privately with a group.) Paul’s Russian jaunt reportedly included a visit with former Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak, who U.S. intelligence suggests is a spy, and whose undisclosed meetings with Jeff Sessions and Michael Flynn led indirectly to Robert Mueller’s probe into the Trump campaign.

        At the tour’s conclusion, Paul released a statement saying he was “pleased” to announce that the contact with Russia would continue: “We agreed and we invited members of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Russia to come to the U.S. to meet with us in the U.S., in Washington,” he said. For their part, Russian politicians reportedly have a laundry list of topics to discuss with Paul, including nonproliferation, sanctions, and alleged Russian spy Maria Butina. According to Russian media, State Duma foreign-affairs committee head Leonid Slutsky asked Paul about Butina’s “early release,” adding, “We hope and expect that our colleagues will conduct the necessary consultations with Washington, and tomorrow we can consult about a road map and the plan of actions [on Butina’s case].”

        In theory, Paul’s newfound zeal for improved U.S.-Russia relations fits with his libertarian ideals of limited government, stoked by his apparent distrust of the intelligence agencies urging Trump to retaliate against the Kremlin. “We’ve allowed too much power to gravitate to these . . . agencies,” he said last month during a speech at Turning Point USA’s high-school conference. But in practice, Paul, who has called the Helsinki summit “the sort of thing we should be doing”, is perhaps equally inspired by the president’s example, telling The New York Times that his trip would be “following up from the meeting that he had with Putin. Our goals are not necessarily, you know, finding world peace in one trip to Russia,” he added, “but our goals are to try to find some things that we could advance on.”

        Perhaps better than anyone else in Congress, Paul’s unusual position on the political spectrum reflects the growing convergence between the far left and the far right, which have found common ground in isolationism, distrust of authorities, and an affinity for Russia—his father Ron, a libertarian icon in his own right, has followed suit, frequently appearing as a guest on RT, a Russian state TV network adopted by both the extreme left and the extreme right as an alternative news source. (The day of Trump’s conference in Helsinki, Ron Paul told RT that the president’s friendly attitude toward Vladimir Putin was “great,” adding, “[the] best step ever” would be “getting rid of the sanctions on Russia.”) Into this emerging paradigm comes Paul, who finally seems to have found a home for his otherwise heterodox views. Whereas Russia is one of the few areas where the vast majority of the G.O.P. breaks with Trump, condemning his slavish devotion to Putin, Paul is—for once—truly aligned with the president, occupying the space where the screwball right and the White House converge: in Moscow.

        *** [url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/us/politics/rand-paul-president-trump-russia.html][b][size=18pt][color=maroon]Once a Trump Antagonist, Rand Paul Emerges as His Russia Wingman[/color][/size][/b][/url]
        Nearly everyone except Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, deemed President Trump’s meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a diplomatic disaster. Credit Erin Schaff for The New York Times

          WASHINGTON — When he ran against Donald J. Trump in 2016 for the Republican presidential nomination, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky quipped that “a speck of dirt would make a better president” than the bombastic businessman from New York.

          Then came President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, his government’s interference in a White House campaign in which Mr. Paul barely made a ripple and last week’s presidential summit meeting in Helsinki, Finland, which pretty much everyone but Mr. Paul deemed a diplomatic disaster.

          Suddenly, in the mind of the junior senator from Kentucky, Mr. Trump has soared from lower than that speck of dirt to high enough for Mount Rushmore.

          “The hatred for the president is so intense that partisans would rather risk war than give diplomacy a chance,” Mr. Paul fumed on the Senate floor last week in a long defense of Mr. Trump’s Helsinki meeting. “This is crazy.”

          As the lonely Senate voice extolling Mr. Trump’s diplomatic acumen, Mr. Paul has become the commander in chief’s wingman. He has nabbed broad visibility for views once deemed fringe, and coveted White House access: “Thank you @RandPaul, you really get it!” the president tweeted.

          It was the senator’s idea to suspend the security clearances of Mr. Trump’s political enemies, an idea embraced at the lectern by the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

          Mr. Paul plans to visit Moscow in early August as Mr. Trump’s envoy, “following up from the meeting that he had with Putin,” he said in an interview last week. “Our goals are not necessarily, you know, finding world peace in one trip to Russia, but our goals are to try to find some things that we could advance on.”

          Mr. Paul has other plans, too. “I continue to encourage President Trump that he would be a hero if he could end the Afghan war,” Mr. Paul said in an emailed statement on Thursday. He and the president, he said, “have a similar belief that we have been at war too long in too many places.”

          Even Mr. Paul’s libertarian icon of a father, Ron Paul, a former representative from Texas and three-time presidential candidate, has gotten into the act, making regular appearances on Russian state television to cheer for Mr. Trump’s stand against America’s “secret government.”

          Mr. Trump’s friendliness with Mr. Putin was “great,” the elder Mr. Paul told RT, a television network funded by the Russian government, the day of Mr. Trump’s news conference in Helsinki. For good measure, he added, the “best step ever” would be “getting rid of the sanctions on Russia.”

          The Paul family’s quirky views — father and son favor abolishing the Federal Reserve and legalizing marijuana, and oppose government spending from foreign aid to health care — have long attracted a hardy band of Birkenstock-wearing devotees.

          But Rand Paul is a solitary, at times cranky presence in the Senate, a legislator whose libertarian zeal once made him the sole opponent of a bill penalizing people who aim laser pointers at airplanes. He has denounced federal support for aging and disabled refugees, and called legislators “weak-kneed” over their failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act without a replacement. He is a firm “no” to taxpayer-funded junkets abroad (not that anyone invites him).

          Earlier this year Mr. Paul’s next-door neighbor in Kentucky body-slammed him while he was mowing his lawn, breaking multiple ribs in a fracas Mr. Paul said was over politics but the neighbor said was a lawn care dispute gone horribly wrong.

          Now, Mr. Paul’s vocal support for Mr. Trump’s overtures to Mr. Putin and the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, and his opposition to the Justice Department’s Russia investigation have made the senator famous for Washington.

          On Tuesday night, Mr. Paul drew an uproarious standing ovation from several hundred young people at the Trump International Hotel, where he spoke at a dinner for Turning Point USA, an organization for college-age conservatives.

          “The bigger your government, the less freedom you have,” he said, while standing next to a towering placard that read “Big Government Sucks.” Kicking off a 10-minute, not-entirely-factual tirade against the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., he asked: “Why do people mistrust their government? Because they’re lied to by people in government.”

          Mr. Paul’s support for the president’s efforts to shut down an investigation into the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russian election interference “fits with what I’ve been saying for a decade now,” he said. “We’ve allowed too much power to gravitate to these intelligence agencies.”

          Just hours before the idea became an official White House initiative, Mr. Paul suggested that former intelligence officials be stripped of their security clearance, including the former C.I.A. director John O. Brennan, who called Mr. Trump’s Russia stance treasonous.

          “I don’t think that ex-C.I.A. agents of any stripe who are now talking heads should continue to get classified information. I think it’s wrong,” Mr. Paul said on Fox News on Monday.

          They Criticized Trump. Now He’s Targeting Their Security Clearances.
          President Trump has revoked the former C.I.A. Director John Brennan’s security clearance. The White House said it’s considering pulling the security clearances for other former top officials, as well, many of whom have been critical of the president. Here’s what they’ve said.Published OnCreditImage by Al Drago/The New York Times

          Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and another Trump critic turned golf buddy, said last week: “I’m not shocked that Rand Paul feels that the F.B.I. and C.I.A. are a bigger threat than Russia. His foreign policy is, I think, out of sync. But if the president is embracing that kind of approach, I think he risks making some serious mistakes.”

          Mr. Paul’s anti-intelligence zeal has its roots in 2013, when the senator mounted a nearly 13-hour filibuster opposing Mr. Brennan’s nomination as C.I.A. director, raising broad questions over the Obama administration’s drone policy.

          In March 2014, after Russia’s forced annexation of the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine, Mr. Paul wrote an essay for Breitbart News warning America to stay out of it. “What we don’t need right now is politicians who have never seen war talking tough for the sake of their political careers.”

          “There is a time for military action, such as after 9/11,” he wrote. “There is a time for diplomacy and the strategic use of soft power, such as now with Russia.”

          That stand neatly encompasses where right meets left: A year ago, Mr. Paul and Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, were the only opponents of a bill imposing further sanctions on Russia and Iran. This spring, Mr. Paul threatened to do “whatever it takes” to block the confirmation of Mike Pompeo as secretary of state, saying that Mr. Pompeo’s support for military intervention in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Afghanistan did not square with Mr. Trump’s own views. Mr. Paul next delayed, then voted against, the nomination of Gina Haspel to replace Mr. Pompeo as C.I.A. director, saying, “I’m still concerned about her role in extreme rendition and torture.”

          Mr. Paul now says he is questioning Mr. Trump’s nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, over Judge Kavanaugh’s stances on privacy and government surveillance.

          But as with his threats to vote against the Affordable Care Act repeal that did not go far enough; against the president’s tax cuts, which did not cut deep enough; and against Mr. Pompeo, few believe Mr. Paul will make good on his threat against Judge Kavanaugh if his vote matters.

          It has, in fact, been a rough patch for Mr. Paul. Last fall, Mr. Paul had gotten off his riding mower at his home in Bowling Green, Ky., to move some branches when he was tackled from behind by Rene A. Boucher, his next-door neighbor. Mr. Boucher, who took a running start down a steep slope in Mr. Paul’s front yard, landed on him with such force that he broke several ribs and bruised the senator’s lungs.

          Mr. Boucher’s lawyers said the fight was the climax of a long-simmering dispute over Mr. Paul’s stacking brush too near his property. Mr. Boucher was sentenced last month to a 30-day jail term, and Mr. Paul is suing himfor damages.

          “The velocity of the hit was just more than pushing somebody down in their yard,” said Mr. Paul’s mother, Carol Paul. “He had no idea he was coming until he landed on him.”

          She is struggling not to see the blindsiding as a metaphor for the nation’s politics.

          “This is not the America I grew up in,” she said. “Everyone loved our country, loved our president and didn’t say horrible things and make up stories,” she said. “Rand is so intelligent and has so many good ideas. He’s not the kind that won’t listen, but he’s not going to go along to get along.”




          https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/08/exclusive-to-gateway-pundit-trump-delivered-a-letter-to-vladimir-putin-here-is-what-it-says/


          EXCLUSIVE TO GATEWAY PUNDIT: Trump Delivered a Letter to Vladimir Putin – Here Is What It Says

          by Cassandra Fairbanks August 16, 2018
          The Gateway Pundit has obtained a copy of the letter that President Donald Trump gave Senator Rand Paul to give to Vladimir Putin.
          Senator Rand Paul delivered the letter to the Kremlin last week during his trip to Moscow.

          The letter, penned on August 1, begins with “Dear President Putin,” but has “President Putin” crossed out with thick black marker and “Vladimir” written over it by President Trump to make it more personal.

          It states that he enjoyed the meeting and looks forward to the next one in DC after the New Year.

          “It remains my view that it is vital for us to engage and to aim at improving relations between our countries,” the letter states.

          The official letter continues on to introduce Senator Paul, noting that he is a member of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a voice for expanding dialogue with the Russian Federation. The President explained that he was going to be in Moscow from August 5th to August 8th.

          The president wrote that Senator Paul would like the opportunity to meet with Putin so that they could discuss several topics that the senator is interested in such as “legislative exchanges, parliamentary dialogue, cultural and educational exchange programs, increased counter-terrorism co-operation, building on recent successes like the disruption of the St. Petersburg plot and resolution of the military conflicts in Syria and Ukraine.”

          The letter is signed, “Best Wishes, Donald.”

          Senator Paul did not end up meeting with Putin during his trip as he wasn’t in Moscow, but did meet with members of the Federation. The Kentucky senator told The Gateway Pundit that his trip was a “great success.”

          “I think it was a huge success. Our first day there we met with the Federation, which is the upper house of the Russian Parliament, and they agreed to continue our conversation by coming to Washington in November,” Senator Paul told TGP. “So, we believe that we will have members of the Federation and the Duma Foreign Relations Committee come continue dialogue.”

          Senator Paul and his team also met with Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union, who famously negotiated nuclear weapon reductions with President Ronald Reagan.

          “We were excited to meet with Gorbachev. I think Reagan and Gorbachev’s meetings in the 80s were incredibly important, and I think it’s important for us to remember that despite our differences, controversies and ongoing issues — dialogue is incredibly important,” Senator Paul said.

          Much like Reagan, both Senator Paul and President Trump understand that diplomacy is a strength.











          « Last Edit: August 18, 2018, 02:36:04 PM by Surly1 »
          I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world.
          You don’t know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

          Offline Golden Oxen

          • Golden Oxen
          • Contrarian
          • Master Chef
          • *
          • Posts: 12062
            • View Profile
          Libertarian Ideas - Why You Still Feel Like a Kid in Your Twenties.
          « Reply #565 on: September 16, 2018, 06:07:48 AM »

                           

           

          Why You Still Feel Like a Kid in Your Twenties. The Real Reason 30 is the New 20



          30 is the new 20. But it’s not because people are living longer.

          And if you just rolled your eyes and thought, “kids these days!” then you hit the heart of the problem.

          20-year-olds are not kids, but society treats them like kids.

          Historically, kids have started to be considered adults at around 13 years old, or sometime right around puberty.

          Of course, few people truly thought of 13-year-olds as full-fledged adults.

          But they were treated like adults. Along with freedom came responsibility for your actions.

          Because they were expected to act like adults, teens became full-fledged adult members of society within a few years.

          Usually, at around 18 or 20 years old, young adults would start being seen as equal members of adult society. By then the training phase was over.

          But these days, you are treated like a child right up until at least age 21 in the United States. Society doesn’t even begin to consider you an adult until almost a decade after puberty starts.

          But it still takes years to become an adult.

          In the past, teenagers practiced being adults. Now that practice takes place in your 20’s.

          So instead of going through the awkward “adult training phase” from 13-20, today you go through the same period from, say, 21-28.

          You get your first real job in your 20’s. But the company usually has to train you. Not just in the skills required for the job, but basic things like appropriate workplace behavior, using time wisely, staying on task, and showing up on time–or at all.

          Teens used to get 7 years of apprenticeship and be experienced skilled workers by age 20. They were ready to support a family. They had practiced responsible behavior. They knew how to take care of themselves, and how to navigate the adult world.

          According to Robert Epstein, Ph.D. in his book Teen 2.0: Saving Our Children and Families From the Turmoil of Adolescence:

              Through most of human history, young people were integrated into adult society early on, but beginning in the late 1800’s, new laws and cultural practices began to isolate teens from adults, imposing on them an increasingly large set of retrictions, and artificially extending childhood well past puberty.

              New research suggests that teens today are subjected to more than ten times as many restrictions as are most adults, and adulthood is delayed until well into the twenties or thirties.

          People grow up on a continuum.

          The natural way to grow up is to match the responsibilities with physical changes. You get bigger, and you can do harder physical work. Your brain develops, and you can solve tougher problems.

          As you gradually and naturally take on more responsibility for your own affairs, you get the freedom to match. You get rights and privileges, not at an arbitrary age, but instead when you prove competence to handle those responsibilities.

          That continuum has been smashed.

          Since the 1800’s, restrictions on teens have skyrocketed. During this same period, teenage rebelliousness war born.

          laws restricting teen behavior

          It started with labor restrictions, supposedly for the good of the children. But labor unions also favored these laws, eliminating lower paid competition from young people.

          Then mandatory schooling laws came. Young people were grouped by age and isolated from most adults. Instead of doing productive work, earning money and gaining skills, teens were institutionalized.

          Now schools concerned about attendance are dragging teens away from paying jobs and forcing them back into a failing, dangerous school system.

          Grouping students by age also means less exposure to people of varying ages. That makes it harder for kids to grow up, isolated from adults who could teach them how to be an adult. Instead, the peer group influences behavior.

          Marketers latched onto this to create a specific adolescent market or “teen culture.” Now that teen culture is spreading like imperialism, delaying adulthood worldwide.

              For most of human history until the time of the Industrial Revolution, the vast majority of chilren worked alongside adults as soon as they were able, and they transitioned to partial or full adulthood by their early, mid, or late teens.

              …in most industrialized countries today teens are almost completely isolated from adults; they’re immersed in “teen culture,” required or urged to attend school until their late teens or well into their twenties, largly prohibited from or discouraged from working…

          No longer can you naturally transition to an adult in your teens. Society will not allow it. The government has outlawed being an adult as a teen.

          So now you have to attempt to pick back up on becoming an adult after almost a decade of artificial childhood in your teen years and early twenties.

          This isn’t the 20-somethings’ fault. They didn’t choose to be treated like children well past puberty. They aren’t the ones who invented the scourge of adolescence.

          And in addition to becoming an adult, 20-somethings must also cope with the lingering effects of tyranny during their teen years.

          By now society has been conditioned to believe that teens are overall incompetent, irresponsible, and helpless.

          But to the contrary, the angsty teen didn’t even exist until after teens were restricted. It is not natural, it is not hormones. It is a terrible system.

          Frankly, it is a crime being perpetrated against teens and young adults. They have been robbed of their freedom, and this is leaving scars on society.

          The good news is, responsible teens and good parents, can work together to immediately begin to retake the freedom and responsibility young adults deserve.

          And that will be the subject for another article.

           
          https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/why-you-still-feel-like-a-kid-in-your-twenties-the-real-reason-30-is-the-new-20/  :icon_study:

          Offline Golden Oxen

          • Golden Oxen
          • Contrarian
          • Master Chef
          • *
          • Posts: 12062
            • View Profile
          Re: Libertarian Ideas and Viewpoints
          « Reply #566 on: September 16, 2018, 06:29:18 AM »
          This posting mirrors my sentiments exactly. GO         :'(          ***** 

           

          What I Don’t Like About Life in Post-9/11 America
          |
          By John W. Whitehead September 10, 2018


              “A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.”―Edward Abbey, American author

          Life in a post-9/11 America increasingly feels like an endless free fall down a rabbit hole into a terrifying, dystopian alternative reality in which the citizenry has no rights, the government is no friend to freedom, and everything we ever knew and loved about the values and principles that once made this country great has been turned on its head.

          We’ve walked a strange and harrowing road since September 11, 2001, littered with the debris of our once-vaunted liberties.

          We have gone from a nation that took great pride in being a model of a representative democracy to being a model of how to persuade the citizenry to march in lockstep with a police state.

          Osama Bin Laden right warned that “freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life.”

          These past 17 years have proven Bin Laden right in his prediction.

          What began with the passage of the USA Patriot Act in October 2001 has snowballed into the eradication of every vital safeguard against government overreach, corruption and abuse.

          The citizenry’s unquestioning acquiescence to anything the government wants to do in exchange for the phantom promise of safety and security has resulted in a society where the nation is being locked down into a militarized, mechanized, hypersensitive, legalistic, self-righteous, goose-stepping antithesis of every principle upon which this nation was founded.

          This is not freedom.

          This is a jail cell.

          Set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches, roving VIPR raids and the like—all of which have been sanctioned by Congress, the White House and the courts—our constitutional freedoms have been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded.

          Our losses are mounting with every passing day.

          Free speech, the right to protest, the right to challenge government wrongdoing, due process, a presumption of innocence, the right to self-defense, accountability and transparency in government, privacy, press, sovereignty, assembly, bodily integrity, representative government: all of these and more have become casualties in the government’s war on the American people, a war that has grown more pronounced since 9/11.

          Since the towers fell on 9/11, the American people have been treated like enemy combatants, to be spied on, tracked, scanned, frisked, searched, subjected to all manner of intrusions, intimidated, invaded, raided, manhandled, censored, silenced, shot at, locked up, and denied due process.

          In allowing ourselves to be distracted by terror drills, foreign wars, color-coded warnings, underwear bombers and other carefully constructed exercises in propaganda, sleight of hand, and obfuscation, we failed to recognize that the true enemy to freedom was lurking among us all the while.

          The U.S. government now poses a greater threat to our freedoms than any terrorist, extremist or foreign entity ever could.

          While nearly 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government and its agents have easily killed at least ten times that number of civilians in the U.S. and abroad since 9/11 through its police shootings, SWAT team raids, drone strikes and profit-driven efforts to police the globe, sell weapons to foreign nations, and foment civil unrest in order to keep the military industrial complex gainfully employed.

          No, the U.S. government is not the citizenry’s friend, nor is it our protector, and life in the United States of America post-9/11 is no picnic.

          In the interest of full disclosure, here are some of the things I don’t like about life in a post-9/11 America:

          I don’t like being treated as if my only value to the government is as a source of labor and funds.

          I don’t like being viewed as a consumer and bits of data.

          I don’t like being spied on and treated as if I have no right to privacy, especially in my own home.

          I don’t like government officials who lobby for my vote only to ignore me once elected. I don’t like having representatives incapable of andunwilling to represent me. I don’t like taxation without representation.

          I don’t like being bullied by government bureaucrats, vigilantes masquerading as cops, or faceless technicians.

          I don’t like being railroaded into financing government programs whose only purpose is to increase the power and wealth of the corporate elite.

          I don’t like being forced to pay for wars abroad that serve no other purpose except to expand the reach of the military industrial complex.

          I don’t like being subjected to scans, searches, pat downs and other indignities by the TSA.

          I don’t like VIPR raids on so-called “soft” targets like shopping malls and bus depots by black-clad, Darth Vader look-alikes.

          I don’t like fusion centers, which represent the combined surveillance efforts of federal, state and local law enforcement.

          I don’t like being treated like an underling by government agents who are supposed to be working for me. I don’t like being threatened, intimidated, bribed, beaten and robbed by individuals entrusted with safeguarding my rights. I don’t like being silenced, censored and marginalized. I don’t like my movements being tracked, my conversations being recorded, and my transactions being catalogued.

          I don’t like free speech zones, roving bubble zones and trespass laws that restrict Americans’ First Amendment rights.

          I don’t like laws that criminalize Americans for otherwise lawful activities such as holding religious studies at home, growing vegetables in their yard, and collecting rainwater.

          I don’t like the NDAA, which allows the president and the military to arrest and detain American citizens indefinitely.

          I don’t like the Patriot Act, which opened the door to all manner of government abuses and intrusions on our privacy.

          I don’t like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which has become America’s standing army in direct opposition to the dire warnings of those who founded our country.

          I don’t like military weapons such as armored vehicles, sound cannons and the like being used against the American citizens.

          I don’t like government agencies such as the DHS, Post Office, Social Security Administration and Wildlife stocking up on hollow-point bullets. And I definitely don’t like the implications of detention centers being built that could house American citizens.

          I don’t like the fact that police departments across the country “have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.”

          I don’t like America’s infatuation with locking people up for life for non-violent crimes. There are thousands of people in America serving life sentences for non-violent crimes, including theft of a jacket, siphoning gasoline from a truck, stealing tools, and attempting to cash a stolen check.

          I don’t like paying roughly $29,000 a year per inmate just to keep these nonviolent offenders in prison.

          I don’t like having my hard-earned taxpayer dollars used against me.

          I don’t like the partisan nature of politics today, which has so polarized Americans that they are incapable of standing in unity against the government’s abuses.

          I don’t like the entertainment drivel that passes for news coverage today.

          I don’t like the fact that those within a 25-mile range of the border are getting a front row seat to the American police state, as Border Patrol agents are now allowed to search people’s homes, intimately probe their bodies, and rifle through their belongings, all without a warrant.

          I don’t like public schools that treat students as if they were prison inmates. I don’t like zero tolerance laws that criminalize childish behavior. I don’t like a public educational system that emphasizes rote memorization and test-taking over learning, synthesizing and critical thinking.

          I don’t like police precincts whose primary purpose—whether through the use of asset forfeiture laws, speed traps, or red light cameras—is making a profit at the expense of those they have sworn to protect. I don’t like militarized police and their onerous SWAT team raids.

          I don’t like Department of Defense and DHS programs that transfer surplus military hardware to local and state police. I don’t like local police dressing and acting as if they were the military while viewing me as an enemy combatant.

          I don’t like government programs that reward cops for raiding homes and terrorizing homeowners.

          I don’t like being treated as if I have no rights.

          I don’t like cash-strapped states cutting deals with private corporations to run the prisons in exchange for maintaining 90% occupancy rates for at least 20 years. I don’t like the fact that American prisons have become the source of cheap labor for Corporate America.

          I don’t like answering to an imperial president who operates above the law.

          I don’t like the injustice that passes for justice in the courts.

          I don’t like prosecutors so hell bent on winning that they allow innocent people to suffer for crimes they didn’t commit.

          I don’t like the double standards that allow government officials to break laws with immunity, while average Americans get the book thrown at them.

          I don’t like cops who shoot first and ask questions later.

          I don’t like police dogs being treated with more respect and afforded more rights than American citizens.

          I don’t like living in a suspect society.

          I don’t like Americans being assumed guilty until they prove their innocence.

          I don’t like technology being used as a double-edged sword against us.

          Most of all, I don’t like feeling as if there’s no hope for turning things around.

          Now there are those who would suggest that if I don’t like things about this country, I should leave and go elsewhere. Certainly, there are those among my fellow citizens who are leaving for friendlier shores.

          However, I’m not giving up on this country without a fight.

          I plan to keep fighting, writing, speaking up, speaking out, shouting if necessary, filing lawsuits, challenging the status quo, writing letters to the editor, holding my representatives accountable, thinking nationally but acting locally, and generally raising a ruckus anytime the government attempts to undermine the Constitution and ride roughshod over the rights of the citizenry.

          Our country may be in deep trouble, but all is not yet lost.

          The first step begins with you.

          1. Get educated. Know your rights. Take time to read the Constitution. Study and understand history because the tales of those who seek power and those who resist them is an age-old one. The Declaration of Independence is a testament to this struggle and the revolutionary spirit that overcame tyranny. Understand the vital issues of the day so that you can be cognizant of the threats to freedom. Stay informed about current events and legislation.

          2. Get involved. Become actively involved in local community affairs, politics and legal battles. As the adage goes, “Think nationally, act locally.” America was meant to be primarily a system of local governments, which is a far cry from the colossal federal bureaucracy we have today. Yet if our freedoms are to be restored, understanding what is transpiring practically in your own backyard—in one’s home, neighborhood, school district, town council—and taking action at that local level must be the starting point. Responding to unmet local needs and reacting to injustices is what grassroots activism is all about. Getting involved in local politics is one way to bring about change.

          3. Get organized. Understand your strengths and weaknesses and tap into your resources. Play to your strengths and assets. Conduct strategy sessions to develop both the methods and ways to attack the problem. Prioritize your issues and battles. Don’t limit yourself to protests and paper petitions. Think outside the box. Time is short, and resources are limited, so use your resources in the way they count the most.

          4. Be creative. Be bold and imaginative, for this is guerilla warfare—not to be fought with tanks and guns but through creative methods of dissent and resistance. Creatively responding to circumstances will often be one of your few resources if you are to be an effective agent of change. Every creative effort, no matter how small, is significant.

          5. Use the media. Effective use of the media is essential. Attracting media coverage not only enhances and magnifies your efforts, it is also a valuable education tool. It publicizes your message to a much wider audience.

          6. Start brushfires for freedom. Take heart that you are not alone. You come from a long, historic line of individuals who have put their beliefs and lives on the line to keep freedom alive. Engage those around you in discussions about issues of importance. Challenge them to be part of a national dialogue. As I have often said, one person at a city planning meeting with a protest sign is an irritant. Three individuals at the same meeting with the same sign are a movement. You will find that those in power fear and respect numbers. This is not to say that lone crusaders are not important. There are times when you will find yourself totally alone in the stand you take. However, there is power in numbers. Politicians understand this. So get out there and start drumming up support for your cause.

          7. Take action. Be prepared to mobilize at a moment’s notice. It doesn’t matter who you are, where you’re located or what resources are at your disposal. What matters is that you recognize the problems and care enough to do something about them. Whether you’re 8, 28 or 88 years old, you have something unique to contribute. You don’t have to be a hero. You just have to show up and be ready to take action.

          8. Be forward-looking. Beware of being so “in the moment” that you neglect to think of the bigger picture. Develop a vision for the future. Is what you’re hoping to achieve enduring? Have you developed a plan to continue to educate others about the problems you’re hoping to tackle and ensure that others will continue in your stead? Take the time to impart the value of freedom to younger generations, for they will be at the vanguard of these battles someday.

          9. Develop fortitude. What is it that led to the successful protest movements of the past headed by people such as Martin Luther King Jr.? Resolve. King refused to be put off. And when the time came, he was willing to take to the streets for what he believed and even go to jail if necessary. King risked having an arrest record by committing acts of nonviolent civil disobedience. A caveat is appropriate here. Before resorting to nonviolent civil disobedience, all reasonable alternatives should be exhausted. If there is an opportunity to alter the course of events through normal channels (for example, negotiation, legal action or legislation), they should be attempted.

          10. Be selfless and sacrificial. Freedom is not free—there is always a price to be paid and a sacrifice to be made. If any movement is to be truly successful, it must be manned by individuals who seek a greater good and do not waver from their purposes. It will take boldness, courage and great sacrifice. Rarely will fame, power and riches be found at the end of this particular road. Those who travel it inevitably find the way marked by hardship, persecution and strife. Yet there is no easy way.

          11. Remain optimistic and keep hope alive.  Although our rights are increasingly coming under attack, we still have certain freedoms. As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we can still fight back. We have the right to dissent, to protest and even to vigorously criticize or oppose the government and its laws. The Constitution guarantees us these rights. In a country such as the United States, a citizen armed with a knowledge of the Bill of Rights and the fortitude to stand and fight can still be a force to be reckoned with, but it will mean speaking out when others are silent.

          Practice persistence, along with perseverance, and the possibilities are endless. You can be the voice of reason. Use your voice to encourage others. Much can be accomplished by merely speaking out. Oftentimes, all it takes is one lone voice to get things started. So if you really care and you’re serious and want to help change things for the better, dust off your First Amendment tools and take a stand—even if it means being ostracized by those who would otherwise support you.

          It won’t be easy, but take heart. And don’t give up.



          https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/what_i_dont_like_about_life_in_post_9_11_america   :icon_study: :icon_study: :icon_study: :icon_study: :icon_study:

          Offline RE

          • Administrator
          • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
          • *****
          • Posts: 33737
            • View Profile
          Re: Libertarian Ideas and Viewpoints
          « Reply #567 on: September 16, 2018, 11:23:59 AM »

          Now there are those who would suggest that if I don’t like things about this country, I should leave and go elsewhere. Certainly, there are those among my fellow citizens who are leaving for friendlier shores.

          There are friendlier shores somewhere?  Where is that?

          RE
          SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

          Offline moniker

          • Bussing Staff
          • **
          • Posts: 80
            • View Profile
          Re: Libertarian Ideas and Viewpoints
          « Reply #568 on: September 16, 2018, 12:02:35 PM »
          If you read Morris Berman's blog you get the impression that Mexico is the best of all possible worlds. But some of the crime there is beyond brutal.

          Offline RE

          • Administrator
          • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
          • *****
          • Posts: 33737
            • View Profile
          Re: Libertarian Ideas and Viewpoints
          « Reply #569 on: September 16, 2018, 12:20:40 PM »
          If you read Morris Berman's blog you get the impression that Mexico is the best of all possible worlds. But some of the crime there is beyond brutal.

          Morris also thinks Japan is an ideal society that will weather collapse better than the hated Amerikans.  ::)

          RE
          SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

           

          Related Topics

            Subject / Started by Replies Last post
          11 Replies
          3484 Views
          Last post May 15, 2014, 08:38:01 PM
          by Petty Tyrant
          Against Libertarian Brutalism

          Started by Jeffrey Tucker Geopolitics

          13 Replies
          2058 Views
          Last post August 25, 2015, 02:37:43 PM
          by Surly1
          2 Replies
          583 Views
          Last post December 01, 2015, 02:42:24 PM
          by Eddie