Category Archives: libertarianism

Why Aren’t Dumb Republicans Calling Out Democrats For Devotion To DACA, Not America?

Debt, Democrats, Government, IMMIGRATION, libertarianism, Republicans

From the libertarian perspective, we want the Federal Government to shut down and not to open. Even a temporary shutdown, an exercise repeated annually to the same hysteria, will make little difference.

What never fails to surprise is the irredeemable stupidity of the Republicans—even though it, too, is as inevitable as water spiraling down a plughole. Tactically speaking, Republicans need to be shouting from the rooftops that Democrats are fighting, not for the American people, but for illegal aliens. What kind of party got to bat for non-citizens? A political party must represent its countrymen.

Cannabis And The Constitution

Constitution, Drug War, Individual Rights, Law, libertarianism, Regulation, States' Rights

Ron Paul is synonymous for principle. He has called on Jeff Sessions to resign over his marijuana putsch.

Principled libertarians are with Ron—and are never confused about the devolution of power away from the Federales to states and to individuals. Libertarians ought not to support the federal goons’ drug war.

As for the prattle about a constitutional amendment. There’s no need for further Constitutional centralization. Letting states and individuals decide: Now that’s in THE CONSTITUTION.

Cannabis is not in the Constitution because … look up the Tenth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

NEW COLUMN: Military Disasters: Gender Fluidity And Chicks In Camo

Cultural Marxism, Government, Left-Liberalism, libertarianism, Military, Paleolibertarianism, Sex

THE NEW COLUMN,  colorfully titled by the editor, is “Military Disasters: Gender Fluidity and Chicks in Camo” (“army men don’t want “mate who suddenly grows breasts and bats eyelashes”).

Now on WND, it revisits the reversed ban on LGBTQ in the military. Among all else, it challenges the idea that everyone is eligible to serve in government institutions, an idea that runs counter to the libertarian imperative to contain government growth and reach.

(Of course, tele-Judge Andrew Napolitano, a lite, left-libertarian, has celebrated the freighting of men with females in combat as a great step toward the ideal of “judging individuals based on their merits and not their group.”)

An excerpt:

President Trump’s July 26th LGBTQ directive, signaling his intention to ban the politicized transgender production from the theater of war, has been overturned.

Pursuant to a complaint filed by US service members (ISIS was tickled pink), a federal judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, blocked the enforcement of the president’s ban. “The reasons given for the ban do not appear to be supported by any facts,” she ruled.

Judge KK was not alone. Predictably, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had pooh-poohed the president, too.

Why “predictably”? Whether Republicans like it or not, the military is government; it works like government; is financed like government, and is marred by the same inherent malignancies of government. Like all government-run divisions and departments, the US military is manacled by multiculturalism, feminism and all manner of outré sexual politics, affirmative action, and political correctness that kills.

LGBTQ is a political program why? Central to the concept of “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Questioning” in the military is the idea of a group whose members have chosen to identify not as Private X or Private Z, but as a party to a political fraternity that promises and delivers an aggressive, noisy, sexual identity politics.

Evangelizing for the cause is implicit in the introduction of this political production into the military. Ditto payment for drastic elective medical procedures and the attendant hormonal maintenance.

In other words, LGBTQ in the military isn’t about enhancing a fighting force, it’s about introducing another state-driven reformation program. Egalitarian access here aims, inadvertently (as always), to grow an arm of government and, at the same time, “re-educate” the country.

Contra Judge Kollar-Kotelly, LGBTQ in the military is but another “Draconian social policy [enforced] without showing any interest in—and in many cases actively suppressing—good-faith information about how those policies [are] playing out at ground level,” in the prescient words of Stephanie Gutmann, author of “The Kinder, Gentler Military: Can America’s Gender-Neutral Fighting Force Still Win Wars?” …

… READ THE REST. “Military Disasters: Gender Fluidity and Chicks in Camo” is now on WND.com.

Busting Statist and Scripture-Based Fibs for a Borderless America

Economy, Hebrew Testament, IMMIGRATION, libertarianism, The State

THE NEW COLUMN IS “Busting Statist and Scripture-Based Fibs for a Borderless America,” now on the Unz Review. Or, WND.com. An excerpt:

When preaching immigration leniency and lawlessness in America, immigration bleeding hearts should lay off the Hebrew Bible, Leviticus 19:34, in particular.

The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the home-born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

One Rev. Ryan M. Eller, on Tucker Carlson’s show, gave a dissembling and misleading reading of the tract, in mitigation of the immigration status of Kate Steinle’s killer.

The reverend glibly translated the word “sojourn” to mean citizens living among you, the latter having created, presumably, an immutable reality on the ground.

In appropriating the Hebrew text to his humanistic ends, Rev. Eller left-out that Leviticus 19:34 is a reference to strangers who are temporarily in your country.

A “sojourn” is a “temporary stay; a brief period of residence.” The Hebrew word “ger” means alien, stranger, not citizen.

The Hebrew Testament is not the New Testament. It’s not the text you want to use in spreading the Christian, “We Are The World” dogma. For it revolves around distinguishing the Jews and their homeland from the nations of the world.

What is commonly called the Old Testament, I read in the Hebrew, free of the bowdlerization that often accompanies the Christianized translations. As I read it, our Bible was not meant to meld the Jewish People with the world.

The opposite is true.

While it evinces ground-breaking exploration of natural, universal justice—and a lot of not-so-merciful meting out of “justice”—the Hebrew Bible is something of a parochial document.

Undergirding what Christians call the Old Testament is a message of particularism, not universalism. The ancient Hebrews would have been appalled by many a modern, left-liberal Jew who has betrayed the nationalistic message underlying the 24 best-written books ever.

Mercy and justice are all Leviticus 19:34 exhorts. The tract reminds the Hebrews only that they suffered in Egypt as slaves to the Egyptians. Consequently, the people of Israel are to be kind to the strangers living temporarily among them.

Were the biblical author to have added a parenthetic statement, it would’ve been: “Fear not, the stranger will soon be on his way, or chased away.”

The Christian Saint Joan of Arc was certainly steeped in a sturdy nativism. …

… READ THE REST.  Busting Statist and Scripture-Based Fibs for a Borderless America” is now on the Unz Review. Or WND.com.