People should vote their conscience

cruz-trump-2016I’ve been known to “real-time” tweet during political events, like the State of the Union address or the primary debates for both the Republicans and the Democrats. Thousands of others do the same. It has become a means for political junkies to feel like they are making their voices heard. Social media is an amazing innovation. Anyone with a smartphone, tablet or computer connected to the internet can become a news-talk station of one.

In the last few days, I’ve decided to spend less time commenting (in fact very few tweets each evening) and more time reading what others were saying. I started to experience that sinking feeling you get when you sense something is going wrong, but are powerless to stop it. There were some very good tweets, with thought-provoking analysis and insights, on both side of the aisle. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority seemed to be involved in a contest to see who could be fastest with a smarmy, wry tweet full of hyperbolic vitriol. Very few were listening and even fewer could maintain a civil discourse. There was no conversation taking place. Both sides were entrenched, having painted themselves into their respective corners with such a wide gulf between, that both sides felt they needed to fire intercontinental ballistic insults in an effort to score a hit.

It was all about finding a GIF or a screen grab and rapidly making a meme to share. It was about crafting venomous retorts, full of bile with a hint of acerbic wit.  Sometimes the insults were moronic; others sophomoric. Some were full of utter hatred. Across the spectrum, emotions were running high and, for the most part, were ruling the day. Logic and reason were lost in the deafening white noise of nonsensical protestations.

A very good friend of mine has repeatedly stated that both candidates are equally unqualified. A new hashtag has begun to run — #NeverHillaryandNeverTrump. In fact, I am hearing from more and more who will not vote at all. Those who are thinking of voting have said, beyond finding a third party candidate or a write-in, their conscience will not allow themselves to vote for the “lesser of two evils.”

First, let me try to get you to think about this for a moment. This coming election cycle has candidates across the board: local elections, state-wide races, congressional races and the presidency. Though the presidential race bring out the masses, it’s the local races that have an immediate impact on our day-to-day lives. No matter what, you must vote! Do not stay home because of only one line on the overall ballot.

Second, I want to address this notion of “the lesser of two evils.” I am so tired of this hyperbole. It is an overused and ridiculous cliche. But, let us go with that, since so many buy into this platitude, hook, line and sinker. Is not another way of saying one person is less evil than another, is to say that one person is better than the other? After all, what makes one person “less” evil than another? It’s because one person has a little more good in them than the other? If that is the case, why can’t we turn it around and say you have to pick the best of the two options before you?

We are so mired in the negative that we now spend all of our energy literally trying to find something wrong with everything! We are quick to complain, slow to praise. We go out of our way to post lines and lines of angst and frustration on social media and rarely take a moment to spread joy and happiness. If you doubt me, just go through your feeds right now and take a quick tally of the posts in the last few hours? Unless all of your friends are crazy-cat-ladies, it will be easy to show how social media has become the conduit for negativity. We look for “perfect” candidates and then spend our time and energy looking for any misstep, flaw, problem or difference of opinion they may hold and then publish those failings (in our minds) to the masses online.

Let’s take this one step further. Let’s pretend we have convinced ourselves that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are so terrible, that neither one deserves our support. Are they both equally terrible? Do their poisonous spheres reach equally wide? Do their evil tendrils fill the same number of cracks and crevices? Are their villainous dispositions equally capable of corrupting the exact same number of hearts and minds?

Alternatively, does Hillary Clinton surround herself with the same kinds of people with which Donald Trump surrounds himself? Has Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments mirrored, precisely, those of Donald Trump’s? Of course not. Despite what Leftists wish, we are all individuals and thus are all unique.

So, if we believe in the uniqueness inherent within each of us, it becomes clear that even if someone isn’t your preferred choice, you can pick the better of the two. It isn’t about some self-imposed morality. The choices laid before us were a result of millions of shared voices. Just like the world really is not out to get you (being you are 1 of billions), the world is not out to hold you responsible for the presidency. The only way that holds any truth is if you are the only one who votes. To think your one vote is tantamount to 30 pieces of silver is to suffer from extreme delusions of grandeur.

Donald Trump was not even in my top 10. I kept waiting, like so many, for him to wash out with his many missteps and stupid comments. But, people are angry with career politicians and the corruption of big government. People are tired of sending fresh voices to change the direction of our nation only to see the hammer of special interests and powerful insiders crush the good out of people. Americans, by and large, are tired of being lied to, with one empty promise after another spewing mindlessly from the lips of our elected leaders. For years we’ve heard the rising cry for an outsider — someone with no connection to Washington, D.C. And, when that guy comes forth, warts and all, he wins more primary votes of any Republican in the modern era. That same “fly-over” country that we all defend from the elitists in the northeast and the left coast are the same ones who wanted Trump.

You cannot in one breath, talk about the collective wisdom of the common man in middle America, and then in the next, wail about them being misguided and fooled into selecting the wrong candidate. You do not get to move the goal posts because you are disappointed with the way the game is going. And the worst move you can make is to self-righteously proclaim you are so superior to everyone else that you are going to take your ball and go home under the guise of now being morally superior, all while abdicating your personal responsibility to do your civic duty.

The primaries were a chance for everyone to get in the pit, slinging as much mud as we could at each other, battling it out until one survivor remained. That was the time to bite, kick, punch, scream and rally forces to do battle. The smoke has now cleared and though we all have our various collective wounds, the internal fight has to end — for the sake of our nation.

I mentioned above that it is impossible to see both candidates as the same. One is better than the other, if only in the influence they will have on our body politic for years to come. I do not believe there is anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton will submit Constitutional conservatives to the Supreme Court. She will do all she can to infringe further on the 2nd Amendment. She will continue to explode our national debt. She will continue to shrink our armed forces, ignore the problems inherent with illegal immigration and open borders, allow more and more unfettered refugees from Islamic held territories into our country, expose our national secrets, will lie uncontrollably and will be able to be bought by the highest bidder. We all know this. This is not conjecture. This is fact. This is her track record and there is no indication she would act differently as Commander in Chief.

Is it possible that Donald Trump would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court? Yes, but seems less certain based on the list of names he said he would consider. Would he work to infringe upon or repeal the 2nd Amendment? He has repeatedly said he wants to protect it and is proud of being endorsed by the NRA. Will he explode the debt? Perhaps. He has mentioned a number of programs and initiatives, but he’s also said he wants to bring business back to America by lowering the corporate tax rate to 15%, making it one of the best rates in the industrialized world instead of one of the worst. As a businessman, he wants to win, so why would this be different as the CEO of the US economy? Trump has declared a need to rebuild and strengthen the armed services because he wants to restore law and order, both domestically and in terms of national defense. We know he wants to close the open southern border and fix illegal immigration. Is he lying? He wants to stop the influx of refugees from known terrorist strongholds. Will he pretend he never said that? Will he expose our national secrets? Will he lie uncontrollably? Will be be able to be bought by the highest bidder? I do not believe it, but only time will tell.

One final thought if you are still part of the #NeverTrump crowd (and was the subject of a prior piece I wrote last month), Congress is the check and balance against the power of the Executive Branch. Many of the initiatives President Obama has been allowed to push through are not because it was allowed by the Constitution, but because the Congress chose to abdicate their own responsibilities in keeping his overreach in check. Given the two possibilities facing us, which candidate would make it easier for Congress to fight future overreach? Would fear of being labeled misogynistic continue to have the same paralytic effect as being labeled racist has had?

I’ve heard many say they must stay true to their conscience, which will not allow them to vote for Donald Trump. At first glance, I understand from where that is coming. I would like to look at this, but from a different angle. I would prefer to ask, is allowing someone with Hillary’s known record, over Donald’s unknown, to ascend to the presidency, an act of good conscience? Based on the facts we all know, I would argue that it is far more objectionable to let Hillary win. Trump might be a horrible alternative, but when compared to what we know, to elect not to pull the lever for him is the real unconscionable act.

Hillary’s email server: willful deceit or gross negligence?

Comey and Hillary

Earlier today, much of our collective breaths were held as FBI Director James Comey took to the microphones to discuss the finality of the investigation into then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. One line stood out prominently in his opening comments: No one knows what I am about to say.

Really?

Let us examine the timeline from Tuesday of last week through to today’s press gathering. In a secret meeting, that was not supposed to be known, but was somehow accidentally discovered, the public found out Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch met on a runway in Phoenix, AZ for an impromptu discussion. The controversial liaison erupted in the media and online about the nature of that meeting, given the FBI investigation was ongoing and their recommendations would eventually land on Lynch’s desk. Why would the Attorney General of the United States put herself in a position of the appearance of impropriety by agreeing to a secret meeting with the husband of the woman who was being criminally investigated?

The initial response was, it was a “chance meeting” where they discussed the Clinton’s grandchildren, golfing and other non-official topics. Isn’t it odd, though, they had their security details stationed outside the plane and not on-board? No one was left within earshot of any of their conversation.

While we were all asking, “What did they really talk about?” the Justice Department was busy filing a brief to protect any and all emails that took place between the senior staff of the Secretary of State’s Office and the Clinton Family Foundation. All of those senior staff were under the direction of Hillary Clinton. Why did those emails need to be isolated and sealed for more than 27 months? (We still have to wait and see if the motion is granted.)

By Friday, three days after the meeting between Lynch and Clinton had been taking up all the oxygen in the room, the Attorney General, through a spokesperson at the DOJ, said she would accept whatever recommendations that were given to her by her senior prosecutors and the FBI, to include FBI Director James Comey. This gave rise to varying predictions from all the talking heads across every cable-news network. Some said Lynch met with Bill Clinton to let him know his wife was going to be indicted, but Lynch was going to insulate him and the Clinton Family Foundation through her action to block the release of those emails. Others saw the opposite, that Hillary was going to be safe, but only as it related to the private email server, and Lynch was trying to protect the family by sealing the emails between the Secretary of State’s Office and Clinton Family Foundation personnel. Regardless of the finding of the FBI investigation into her use of a private email server to conduct government business, the question still remains: why isolate those emails?

On Saturday, the FBI spent 3½ hours interviewing Hillary Clinton, an indication their case was moving toward completion. The meeting was said to have been voluntary on the part of Hillary Clinton, who met with several investigators at FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. The talking heads were back throughout the weekend, concluding the FBI had all the information they needed and the interview was meant to see if she would contradict herself or their findings. Who knew we were less than 48 hours away from the big press release by the FBI Director himself?

Earlier today (Monday morning), the press reported Hillary Clinton would be flying with President Barack Obama on Air Force One to a campaign appearance in Charlotte, NC, where the President would help the presumptive democrat nominee in her bid for the presidency. Once bitter rivals during her former attempt to win the office, and many have suggested there is no love lost between the Clintons’ and the Obama’s, this projection of solidarity has been one of the strongest shown yet by the President toward Hillary Clinton.

Then, just a few hours after the announcement of Hillary Clinton and President Obama flying together to a rally, FBI Director James Comey takes the stage to tell us about the FBI’s investigation into her private email server and it’s outcome. At this point, having read this far, you likely know the FBI has determined that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against herAfter spending more than 15 minutes explaining all of the rules and statutes she broke, detailing the missing emails they had to piece back together, the exhaustive search to rebuild whole conversation chains, the many emails that were classifed, some to the highest level possible at the time they were being sent/received (not just up-classified after-the-fact) and the likelihood hostile actors infiltrated her private email server, FBI Director James Comey came to his odd conclusion. “No reasonable prosecutor would bring charges.”

Wait…what?

This can only lead to one of two conclusions:

  1. There is an act of willful deceit taking place within multiple agencies in the Executive Branch; or,
  2. There is an act of willful negligence and incompetence within multiple agencies in the Executive Branch.

There can be no other way to interpret the timeline of these events.

Let’s look at FBI Director James Comey’s statement that no one had any knowledge of the findings of the FBI investigation, nor the words he was about to say. If that’s the case, why did Attorney General risk the optic of being caught with Bill Clinton, less than one week before the FBI’s findings? If she knew there would be no recommendation for charges, it means James Comey is lying. If she didn’t know, it means Loretta Lynch was incompetent in her lack of basic judgment.

Similarly, President Obama publicly revealed he would attend the rally with Hillary Clinton just hours before Comey was set to read his statement. Why would the President put himself in the situation of being joined at the hip with a woman who was going to be indicted? Once again, it appears Comey must have been lying about no one knowing what he was going to say. Otherwise, it means the President was showing a lack of judgment by taking a major risk in being seen on Air Force One with someone about to be charged with felonious activities.

Finally, going back to Comey’s full statement — the overwhelming majority of which castigated Hillary Clinton and the Secretary of State’s Office with an intense tongue-lashing for their incompetence and gross-negligence in the protection of highly classified information and proper regard for national security — how can he let her off the hook by claiming there wasn’t enough evidence of an intent to break the law? He just spent a quarter of an hour detailing all of the evidence. Besides, how many times have we heard the phrase, ignorance of the law is no excuse?

Are we really going to accept that a former First Lady, a former US Senator from the state of NY and a former Secretary of State had no ability to understand the importance of protecting our national secrets? Are we to allow the smartest woman in the room to use the “whoopsie” defense? Is FBI Director James Comey letting Hillary Clinton off simply because she looked at him and said, “My bad”? What does this say about the confidence in the FBI’s ability to do their job?

Either Hillary Clinton is one of the most incompetent, ignorant, grossly negligent and disqualified person to ever be considered for any state office, let alone the Presidency of the United States, or she has been willfully deceitful, flouting the law and demonstrating her unworthiness to be President. Regardless of political affiliation, painting Hillary Clinton in either light leads to the same conclusion — she is unfit to be the Commander in Chief.

She is either grossly negligent or she is willfully deceitful. Or maybe she is just too big to jail.

 

The EU is nothing more than a bloated HOA

Brexit-39-650For anyone who has ever come under the auspices of an over-zealous, obnoxious and hindering home owners association (“HOA”), the #Brexit vote will become immediately clear. The vote had nothing to do with wanting to hurt the world economy, deprive economic opportunity to its citizens or bankrupt a nation. On the contrary, it’s the dashed hopes and good intentions of the HOA making such accusations in the face of the UK’s referendum to leave the European Union (“EU”). In some ways, it feels appropriate to see a nation who once believed in the divine right of kings, whose empire stretched around the globe, who then became subjugated under the will of an ever-reaching, untouchable authority, reach the same conclusion we Americans did back in 1776. The #Brexit vote was simply a vote for freedom.

The advent of the home owners association was sold as a way to work together to keep the value of each person’s property growing. Who would not be seduced by the promise of carefree living and recreational amenities for a dollar or two a day? Similarly, the EU was meant to provide a single block of European nations to help maximize trade negotiations with the rest of the world. Every country was going to benefit from the shared power of a single union all working together. Ambrosia was going to flow from the streams while manna would fall from the skies.

Then the HOAs began to slowly morph. The power held by a few could literally impose such controls as approving the only paint colors allowed, mandating mailbox designs, telling residents where to park, how to light their homes, how to landscape or decorate and the list goes on and on. The elitists get to push their world view onto the rest of their fiefdoms and if any dare oppose, those leaders can file actions designed to lead toward the potential annexation and foreclosure of a person’s home. HOAs, instead of benefiting the residents (citizens), have come to benefit municipal governments, builders/developers and the many other sectors who have found a way to feed off of the hapless homeowners (people), such as property managers, legal services, landscape design and maintenance, pool maintenance, CPAs, insurance and banks.

HOAs become a double-tax on the home owner. Not only do residents pay taxes to their local governments (who have shunted their responsibility to maintain sidewalks, lighting, etc. within the subdivision over to the HOA), they also have to pay the annual dues to their HOA to maintain those very same items! And, as many now know, those dues often are not used properly and facilities fall into disrepair and neglect. Eventually, the topic arises: the need to increase the annual dues to cover “unexpected” (failing countries) costs for repairs (to prop up). The financial hits keep coming. But, rest assured, it’s all for the good of the increased and guaranteed protection of property values, right? Just how much value is provided when the surrounding infrastructure and amenities fall into disrepair? What happens when certain parts withing the union are not really contributing to the whole?

Now replace the term HOA with EU and convert the subjects of paint color, mailbox placement and landscape maintenance with such analogous discussion points as immigration law, border control and mandated value added taxes (“VAT”) on certain goods or services. The similarities are inescapable.

But we live in a free society with protections afforded to us by the Constitution, right? Tell that to the military veteran who wants to fly the American flag on a pole in his front yard as a demonstration of his First Amendment right to freedom of expression. Not so fast, señor! The HOA has the ability to trump the Constitution of the United States of America, just as the EU has slowly developed the same ability to force nations to cede their own sovereignty to a handful of bureaucrats in Brussels whose might and authority rivals the kings of old.

Last week, the UK had enough. They had been paying their dues (to the sum of close to £350 million pounds a week) and watched as their judiciary became subject to laws overriding their own rulings. Members of parliament were finding close to 60% of their discussions regarding self-governance had to be filtered through (or were started by) the governing body of the EU. Their ability to be unique, free and independent was slowly eroding and they came to the decision to end it. They were no longer interested in being tied to the onerous and pompous rules of an unregulated and dictatorial HOA. As much as the new elitist, professor-class in government wanted to keep them in the collective (where resistance is futile), the people understood there was far more to gain in being an independent and free United Kingdom, than to continue their subjugation under the yoke of the EU.

On a final note, the UK hasn’t gone bankrupt. The “company” has not been dissolved. The fact that world markets went tango-uniform for a couple of days is more of a reaction to those elitists who are committed to squashing individuality in favor of conformity, than to any real worry over the UK’s economy evaporating. The country is still there. Their economy is still there. And, like the homeowner who suddenly finds increased finances after the HOA is dissolved, they will begin to engage in free-trade around the world, without being controlled by someone else.

Understanding #Brexit is as easy as understanding how many feel about their HOA. Those who love to control others and the forced collection of wealth through fear are likely the ones bemoaning a free and independent United Kingdom. There will always be those who have created an existence at the expense of the pain and misery of others. This past Friday, the UK plucked those leeches from their body. As Boris Johnson, former mayor of London, stated to the press, “Today represents our independence day.”

Somebody queue up the Bill Pullman monologue from ID4. And pour a dram. Cheers and congratulations to our friend across the pond.

It’s about time.

 

 

Maybe Congress will do its job if…

TrumpvHillaryI almost always try to choose my words carefully in any situation. Maybe it’s my background as a writer (both fiction and commentary). Maybe it comes from my many years behind the radio microphone. Perhaps it comes from being a husband to my wonderful wife and father to our four beautiful girls. Or maybe it’s a combination of all of the above, sprinkled with a healthy dose of rationality and reason.

I am not a #Trumpkin. But, I’ve never been #NeverTrump. Throughout the primary season, I was not a fan of Donald Trump. But, I didn’t feel the need to make ultimatums about him, either.

My hope is for everyone to read this article to the end before making up their minds about my reasoning, and I worry the only way to accomplish this is to put all of the aforementioned caveats in place. I’m not trying to alienate either side — at least, not yet.

The art of having a conversation is dying faster than teaching cursive in elementary school. It is becoming lost in the noise of all the hashtag-Never X (#NeverX), where X is someone’s rage du jour. A conversation does not mean you have to agree with the other party. It does not mean they have to change their minds after listening to you. It means each party is granted equal opportunity by the other party to present their thoughts and ideas. It’s an exchange. Each party takes time to listen and digest the words of the other before responding. Maybe common ground can be found. Maybe we agree to disagree. Maybe we learn some new perspective and it helps reform or reshape our own views. Maybe we do the same for someone else.

This has always been the underlying goal of every piece we publish here at Freedom Cocktail. A logical, reasoned conversation in order to educate and learn at the same time. When we shout others down and invent some new-found right in the Constitution of not being exposed to any contrary thoughts or ideas, there is no conversation. And, without the conversation, there is no growth. None.

Onto my topic.

Over the last 7+ years, the Congress of the United States of America has not functioned as the Founding Fathers intended. Not even close. Our Constitution created a unique form of government based on the principle of three, co-equal branches of government. Not one strong branch, one middle-ground branch and one weak branch. The checks and balances inherent were put in place to make sure all three branches remained separate but equal.

This has not been the case since President Barack Obama took office. The Executive Branch has given us countless examples of presidential overreach — from the gun-running scheme of Eric Holder’s DOJ with Fast and Furious, to the President picking and choosing which laws (or parts of laws) should be followed or ignored, to the IRS targeting conservative organizations and colluding with the DOJ, to the back-door methods of legislating through regulation via the EPA, the FCC, the State Department and more.

Congress, specifically the opposition party, though labeled obstructionist, has been unable or unwilling to stop the Obama agenda since he took office. Without a single Republican vote, Obamacare went sailing through the Congress on the eve of the Christmas holiday. The government (specifically the Executive Branch) now effectively controls 1/6th of the US economy.

In their quest to control or curtail the 2nd Amendment, through multiple executive orders, our President has unilaterally expanded background checks, closed supposed “loopholes” and tightened the process for law-abiding gun owners because, “Congress won’t act!” He has openly admitted he will take pen in hand because the legislative branch of government will not do what he wants.

President Obama is quite shrewd. He always sets the table with a negative before imposing his will, playing the part of the reluctant hero. He will paint the other side with words like, “they have failed to act,” or, “refuse to take action,” or, “continue to ignore the will of the people.” It is then followed by a pronouncement that he will somehow have to find a way to impose his will and make legislation happen without Congress. Hillary Clinton has often applauded this maneuver, stating, “Congress won’t act; we have to do something.” And now she is the presumptive Democrat nominee to become the next Commander in Chief. Why would she not want to have the same authority?

This premise that Congress exists solely to pass the laws demanded by the President flies in the face of how our country was designed to function. Congress is a separate but equal branch of government. Not a lesser branch or a powerless branch. Equal.

Obama asks Jefferson about Constitution flawThe fact the Legislative branch can stop the agenda of a sitting president is not a flaw in the design — it is intentional. Our Founding Fathers never wanted (nor should we) a king! No matter how much you may want the agenda of one president implemented by executive decree, are you equally willing to accept the same authoritarian form of governance when the opposition is in office?

The logical question to ask is why have legislators allowed themselves to be relegated to mere marionettes, attached by strings to the will of the President and the Executive Office? It’s fear. Fear of being labeled racists. Fear of being derided for opposing his agenda because of a false narrative over skin color. Fear of being mocked and scoffed by the mainstream media for being bigots and obstructionists solely due to the race of the President. As a result, the Republicans in Congress have refused to wield their Constitutional authority to be the check and balance against the will of the President. They have not exercised the powers granted to them to ensure a balanced and stable government, regardless of whom is in office. They have abdicated their role for fear of being painted as racist, bigoted, backward neanderthals, and have set a dangerous precedent, which must be reversed if we are to remain a Constitutional Republic.

Now imagine what this same Congress will do if Hillary Clinton is elected president? All of the same fears will remain because an all too-willing propaganda wing of the Democrat Party, the mainstream media, will just replace the word “racist” with “misogynist” and the word “race” with “sex”. Imagine four (or eight!) more years of a castrated legislative branch. We are already on the cusp of monarchical governance after almost 8 years of the current regime. How much longer can we go before the role of president becomes, for all intents and purposes, an actual monarch?

We need the Legislative branch to start working as designed. We need legislators who revere and follow the Constitution. I know there is a sub-set of the body politic who believe being a “true conservative” means never compromising your principles. There are some who will vote for some third or fourth party candidate so they can feel good about #NeverCaving. If only it were such a black and white case to make.

Can a wall be built if Congress refuses to fund it?

Can executive orders installing backdoor legislative programs be implemented if Congress withholds the tax dollars necessary to make them happen?

Can Supreme Court justices be whisked through and appointed with wanton disregard for their backgrounds if Congress chooses to live by the advice and consent clause?

It should never matter the race, sex, religion, age, sexual identity or preference of anyone in office. Congress should have been doing its job all along, but they have allowed themselves to become irrelevant. It is going to take some time before the Legislature feels comfortable wielding their Constitutional authority again.

If you really want to help this Republic get back to it’s Constitutional roots, we need to get the Legislative branch to stop living in fear. Like it or not, putting Donald Trump in office, a white male, an unprotected class, may be just the shot of chemotherapy this Congress needs to shed the cancer of fear and inaction. It is not going to be pretty. It is going to make us sick. But, it is the only logical choice if you do revere our Constitutional Republic.

 

We, the Selfish Libertarians

There’s this meme going around which reads, “All cats are libertarians. Completely dependent on others but fully convinced of their own independence.” The implication is that libertarians have deluded themselves into thinking they have the skill set to provide everything they need in life on their own without assistance. They have deluded themselves into thinking they can farm, build a car, make a house and build a furnace.

all-cats-are-libertarians-mary-fanningDoes anyone in their right mind really think libertarians believe this? Only the complainers who want to smear the philosophy who don’t understand it think this. When you meet a libertarian, ask them if they think this. None but a mentally disturbed person (or a really skilled one) would claim this.

No, libertarians understand very well they’re dependent on other people but what they want, is to choose who to interact with and not be forced through a government program or policy on who to interact with. So the meme remains true. But without the implication of delusion of being able to provide everything on their own. What we want, is the freedom to seek out the best people to rely on, not have a certain set determined for us.

The biggest complaint I’ve seen as of late is that being a libertarian means being selfish. Being a libertarian, they say, means only looking out for yourself and be damned your neighbors and community. But again, those that say this haven’t done their homework on what libertarian means.

The platform of the Libertarian Party reads, in part, “We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.”

Does any of this sound selfish so far? Sounds to me like everyone gets to play and be nice and be happy. I’ve yet to find anyone who can reasonably disagree with this. Wait, I mean, unless they’re ready to claim that A) Other people know better than most other people how to live so they should be put in charge; B) Some lifestyles are not appropriate even if they don’t hurt anyone and must not be allowed; C) Those smarter people from A should be allowed to monitor some people to make sure their happiness isn’t too happy or happier than others.

A, B, and C are exactly what the complainers are engaging in when they say libertarians are selfish. They think that other people from a magic land of perfect people, pulled from maybe Plato’s Philosopher Kings, should be anointed (elected) to take a bit from some people and give to other people and that it’s okay to use force because if they didn’t, some people wouldn’t voluntarily help their community. It’s forced cooperation. They claim it’s necessary because without it, people can’t seem to take care of each other voluntarily.

And yet, it’s a myth. They can’t point to any group of libertarians actually neglecting their community. They can’t point to, say, New Hampshire which has a government most closely based on Libertarian policies and show the pit of selfish, disaster they predict. Their complaint that libertarianism is selfish is based on the same incorrect assumption drug warriors have; which is, if we legalize it everyone will be stoned!

The complainers, who mostly come from the Left of the political spectrum, are usually most at odds with the economic side of libertarianism. We’re actually quite in line with the social side. Libertarians and the Left agree that gay marriage should be legalized, we’re both generally in favor of ending the drug war, we’re both open for free speech and press, we’re both pro-choice and on and on.

So let’s look at some of the libertarian economic ideas and see if they really are selfish.

The complainers claim that our preference for a Minimum Wage of zero means we don’t value unskilled labor and would, if we could, pay them sweatshop wages. They claim we’d be a nation of robber barons, selfishly keeping profits and stepping on the little guy. On the contrary, the reason libertarians want to end the Minimum Wage is because it actually pushes people out of the work force. If the Left gets what it wants, which presently is a wish for $15.00 an hour, businesses would reduce their work force, and chances wouldn’t be taken on unskilled people. So the libertarian solution is actually less selfish because what we’re promoting is more employment.

The complainers claim that our view towards private property ownership means some businesses would deny service to some people based on color or religion or race or whatever factor is unfavorable to the business owner. It’s true some would do this. But I venture lots of people making this complaint don’t know how business works. Business owners recognize they’re in business to make money and a living. Denying certain groups of people would get around. People generally don’t share good service stories. They share bad service stories. If you own a business and say, choose not to serve black people, your business may very well fold. So you’ll probably serve as many people as possible. This myth of businesses suddenly becoming selfish and closing it’s doors to some groups if libertarian economics were installed is just not valid. The complainer can point to one or two bakers who refused a gay wedding. But I challenge them to find a significant problem like a large fast food restaurant or grocery chain engaging in this behavior. Or a motor vehicle company. If libertarian economics are suddenly put in place, McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Ford, Microsoft, Apple, General Motors, Southwest Airlines, you name it, will keep on serving everyone.

The second complaint about private property ownership says that our view means we’ll let the environment be trashed. But I’m not sure how this line of thinking goes. It’s always public parks and spaces that have the most graffiti and vandalism. Property owners have a vested interest in making sure their property and surrounding property are clean. They have an interest in not damaging or misusing the resources. A common complaint is that if Yellowstone Park were privatized, someone could buy it and turn it into a chemical dump. This is such a bunch of ridiculousness. Yellowstone Park’s value is being Yellowstone Park. Private ownership would keep it clean and safe for tourism to continue. I challenge that private parks are always better because owners are always ensuring they have a favorable place for customers to spend time and money where as government/public parks always rely on the mythical “someone else” to pick up the trash.

There are complaints that libertarians want to put health care into the free market and this is supposedly a death sentence to anyone who can’t afford it. The whole Right to Health Care movement is made up of people who think government should provide this very necessary service. But I never see anyone campaigning for the Right to Food and petitioning the government to take over grocery stores. Maybe because food is cheap enough while health care remains expensive. Fair enough. But the naysayers complain that it’s the greedy medical profession and industry that keeps it high because of the need. Well food is more important on a day to day basis and there’s no greed there. Doesn’t the food industry have just as much of an incentive to be as greedy? So why aren’t they? The answer comes down to choice. In most places, you have numerous grocery stores to shop from, big and small. In short, there is competition.

Why is it that a two-liter of pop is still about one dollar? Why is it that the top of the line cell phones are practically given away by phone companies in exchange for a service contract? It’s because of competition. In the medical profession, the problem is two-fold: Excessive government licensing and regulations and a general lack of competition. Prior to 1960, health care was rather accessible to everyone and doctors made house calls. Not any more. The government started up their own programs to help where they didn’t need to and drove up costs. Plus, the feds and states have regulations requiring certain things be covered where they’re not needed which makes you pay for things you don’t need. I know of someone right now who’s one-year-old daughter has maternity insurance, mandated by law.

What if the health care industry was in the same market as cell phones? This means deregulation and increase competition. And then you’d have truly affordable health care.

Competition is a theme here with all things libertarian. And maybe that’s another reason we’re called selfish. Competition sounds combative and, it sounds like someone will lose. But all competition means is several people make several businesses who compete for customers and this formula brings best services for cheapest prices to the consumers who will always be the winners. It’s working right now for cell phones, computers, two-liter sodas, television sets, automobiles and so many other products under the sun. Put health care into this formula and problem solved.

So as you can see, or should by now, libertarians want to see people excel and profit and prosper. We just have a different way of getting there. The Left considers government mandates and programs as the way to achieve this and libertarians argue a reduction of all that is the solution.

Will it work? Not for every one but it will for most. Libertarians aren’t selling utopia. Utopia doesn’t exist. It’s the Left who are trying to sell utopia with their claims that the right people in the right positions will be honorable enough to divvy up the goods and all will be happy. But we’re living that big government nightmare right now and it’s not working. At the very least, why not try the free market? We’re seeing government fail as a solution. Why does the Left want more government? Again, they’re seeking a utopia that doesn’t exist.

Libertarians are not selfish. In fact, our policies and positions help everyone get in on the action. Our platform is for everyone. The examples discussed above make it pretty evident the libertarian solutions are actions to bring more people into employment, more people into participating in business as owner and customer, giving more people access to health care.all-cats-are-libertarians-mary-fanning

So the problem of libertarians being labeled as selfish is a lack of education on what libertarian means and/or a desire to just smear because the Left has held on too long to the Utopian dream of the right people in the right positions theory. Big government (Democratic Socialist) policies have demonstrably failed. The continued push to impose them, expecting different results, is an act of faith. And faith means acting despite the lack of evidence. That’s what the Left is doing. There’s no evidence more government works. In fact, there’s evidence to the contrary yet they’re still holding on to it so they must engage in scaring people into thinking a free market, a libertarian solution is selfish.

Nope, it’s time to try what works. Let’s try the free market, the less selfish position, because we have ample evidence it works to help all people. If you want to help all people, why not give it a try? At the very worst, we can always go back. But I’m betting after a few years of a libertarian society, you won’t want to. Because no society has ever crumbled or found themselves in trouble when they’ve used too much reason.

Now go read on other topics covered in the Libertarian Party platform here. You’ll see the language is all about helping everyone. There’s nothing selfish about it. I challenge anyone to read it and find evidence where it says something about keeping out undesirables or having enough money so that others can’t get at it. And if after reading it you continue to claim this selfish nonsense, you do it at the expense of your own reputation for being disingenuous. Feel free to knock the free market. Feel free to bring up evidence against it. But libertarians being selfish? That’s ad hominem, uneducated and unfounded.

WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE: Wyoming Delegates

cowboys

Being that I’m in Wyoming I suppose it’s time to come clean about what happened here during our caucus – the terrible secrets and scheming are honestly just too much to bear. Clearly Trump and his supporters were totes cheated here in Wyoming and they deserve to know the truth.

May the GOP have mercy on our souls…

The year was 1890 in the newly formed state of Wyoming, and a bunch of GOP elitist cowpokes were sitting around a campfire talking about horses and guns because yeah, that’s what they talked about then. One particular elitist, a John W. Smith out of the Cody area, took a drink of his sarsaparilly and said, “Ya’ know, in 126 years this feller by the name of Donald J. Trump is gonna run for president and boy howdy, we shore don’t want that,” (see, I’m writing him with an accent so you can get the full experience).

Another elitist by the name of Big George Wilson -who had all of his teeth no less- nearly choked on his sarsaprilly and piped up, “Tarnation! We cain’t have that! We better start putting a plan in place NOW to keep that varmint outta office,” (ok, so Big George sounds a little like Yosemite Sam… sue me).

So John, George, Paul and Ringo… errr… I mean Bob, yeah that’s it, Bob, sat around that campfire plotting to make sure the establishment would keep one Donald J. Trump out of the White House, even though it was still 126 years away. See out here in the west we have to plan really super early because of the mountains and stuff. Luckily they wrote everything down so over a century later the good people of Wyoming could FINALLY enact their evil plot to cheat the Trump people out of their vote.

DIABOLICAL I TELL YOU. YEEEHAW!

For the first time ever I am sharing a few of the more important details of how we made sure Trump did badly in Wyoming – Trumpers may want to take notes.

  • We made sure women COULD vote here – yes, Wyoming was the first state in the union to give women the right to vote, and considering 70%+ of women despise Trump this played a large part in our process to STEAL his delegates.
  • In Wyoming we have a caucus and a convention which truly is a representative republic at work – we elect our delegates here to represent us, which is ultimately what the founders intended when they created our REPUBLIC. Apparently this whole “being a republic” thing is cheating to Trump and Trump supporters… MWAHAHAH!
  • Candidates were invited to come here and speak to and with us… super sneaky. You see in Wyoming we take our politics very personally and we expect a lot from the people we vote for – we’re not fans of talking points, rhetoric and drama, we want to hear your facts, your ideas and your policies. Clearly this also put Trump at a disadvantage. Take that Trump campaign!
  • Oh yeah, and we deliberately made it snow so Palin would cancel on us – or she got confused and thought she wasn’t supposed to be here? Not sure on that. Side note, the scheming snow did not keep Cruz from coming here and speaking.
  • We don’t let Democrats vote in our GOP process here – this is the ultimate cheat, right? You see, we understand Democrats may be tempted to sabotage the process and give us a candidate we don’t want (sound familiar?) and so yeah, we don’t let that happen. Ever. WE’RE SUCH CHEATERS.
  • And of course most importantly, never squat with your spurs on – ok, not sure what this has to do with keeping Trump out of the White House BUT it’s good, sound advice.

There are a few other parts about making sure everyone carries a writing utensil if Trump visits the state (even the elitist cowboys knew Trump would be scared of pens way back then), some details about how we only support candidates who wear cowboy boots and eat their steaks RARE but you get the gist… we’ve been plotting for over a century to “steal” delegates from Trump.

Shew! Talk about planning and perseverance… boy howdy.

Colorado Caucus Causes CHAOS!

caucus-cartoon

Colorado has been in chaos… CHAOS I TELL YOU! Who knew something as mundane and let’s face it, as boring as a caucus could cause such CHAOS and MAYHEM in the political world? (try to say caucus causes chaos five times fast). Let’s face it, we’re experiencing a reality show circus-style election cycle where the leading GOP believes Planned Parenthood does good work and he loves the individual mandate in Obamacare nothing should be all that surprising.

For the last several days I have seen so much nonsense, like how “WE THE PEOPLE” weren’t allowed to vote in Colorado and that THE ‘STABLISHMEN and ‘ELEETZ are trying to silence us and steal our voting rights. IT’S ALL A PLOT I TELL YOU, A PLOT STARTED 156 YEARS AGO TO STEAL THE ‘LECTION FROM TRUMP (ugh, using that many capital letters is literally painful for me)! After trying to debate this with literally hundreds of Trump supporters I thought maybe it was time to make this really super simple, use a bunch of single-syllable words and explain what a caucus is and how it works.

See, I’m a giver… let’s get started.

Ok, so what is a caucus?
Well boys and girls, a caucus is a meeting of the members of a legislative body who are members of a particular political party, to select candidates or decide policy (so a bunch of Republicans or Democrats). It is also a group of people with shared concerns within a political party or larger organization. Yup. That’s it.

Still with me? Rock star. So what’s the purpose of a caucus?
So glad you asked… the purpose of caucuses is to elect precinct committee persons and delegates to county assemblies. That means people vote for other people to act as delegates… THE PEOPLE VOTE. Got it? The people, not some mythical establishment monster pooping on the Constitution and laughing maniacally as he destroys your VOICE! Nope. Just people. I know, crazy.

What happens at a caucus?
During a caucus, a bunch of insiders and puppy-kickers sit around making fun of Trump and brag about the money other candidates bribed them with… OK NOT REALLY. Here’s the boring reality of a caucus, attendees (aka NORMAL PEOPLE) elect officers who will be responsible for organizing political activities within the precinct (or where PEOPLE LIVE throughout the state). Caucus attendees also elect delegates and alternates to represent the precinct at the political party’s county or district convention. Boring again, right? And hey, if you are a candidate and you make an effort to be involved guess what, you’ll do decently. Moving on.

Who can vote in a caucus?
 Listening to Trump supporters , clearly only people who hate Trump and know the secret evil establishment Satanic handshake in Colorado were allowed to vote – just kidding. Basically in order to vote in any precinct caucus you must be a resident of your state, have registered to vote 29 days before the caucus and be affiliated with the party holding the caucus for at least two months prior. That’s it. And sure, if you’re a Democrat looking to take a dump on the GOP and sabotage us during our primary season you won’t get far in a caucus, but otherwise, seems pretty easy.

How are delegates selected?
Voters (again, PEOPLE) in each group are invited to give speeches supporting their candidate and try to persuade others to join their group. At the end of the caucus, party organizers count the voters in each candidate’s group and calculate how many delegates to the county convention each candidate has won. I know, you probably thought they sacrificed small animals and drank blood but nope, they give speeches, try to persuade others to their way of thinking, and then delegates are awarded. Ooooh shady right?

How do they figure out how many delegates each candidate gets?
In the GOP each state chooses either the proportional method (based on PERCENTAGES) or a “winner-take-all” method of awarding delegates. Each. State. Chooses. This is key. Not every state does this the same way, and sure it can be confusing BUT if you even just Google your state and “primary process” you can find it pretty easily, and I bet you can even find the rules! *gasp* Under the winner-take-all method, the candidate getting the most votes from a state’s caucus or primary, gets all of that state’s delegates at the national convention. Make sense? Nothing villainous here folks, nothing sneaky. If you want to be involved you just have to make the effort to be involved.

Is that it?
Pretty much, yeah. And sure, there are more steps like a convention but let’s start here because obviously far too many people (including certain candidates) are confused or being deliberately obtuse on this process and we need to keep it simple.

See? If you just spend a teensy bit of time educating yourself on this process it’s obvious no one cheated in Colorado and that the only reason Trump didn’t do better was for the same reasons his supporters are angry now, he didn’t bother to learn the process. Sloppy, disorganized campaigning was his downfall, not the devious puppy-kickers at the caucus.

Madison Did It Better

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as conceived by James Madison, went like this:

“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed. The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.”

In hindsight, keeping this version instead of the zero calorie version we now have would have been best. Why? I won’t make you wait to the end of this essay to find out. The reason is at the end of the first sentence in Madison’s original: “nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”

The Freedom of Conscience.

This means, quite simply, that you have the right to your own thoughts and mind. You have the right to believe anything you want. You have the right to conduct yourself in good manner according to your own will, desires and convictions. This, of course, is provided you do not infringe on this right for others to do the same.

And yet, we’re stuck with the diet version of the First Amendment where no mention is made of Conscience. This, has sadly led to the problems were facing now with Religious Rights Bills and the LGBT community.

In 1993, the federal Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which forced the government to find the least restrictive means when they found a “compelling reason” to interfere in a religious freedom. The government was not allowed to “substantially burden” a person’s exercise of religion.

The 2014 Burwell vs Hobby Lobby case changed all that because it changed the definition of “substantially burdened”. Now something as simple as birth control was considered a substantial burden. This precedent loosens up the doors of what else can be considered burdened.

Think about it. I can’t sue my employer if he requires me to work on a Sabbath Day when I want the day off to attend a baseball game. But I could sue my employer if this caused me to go against my religious belief that I was prohibited. Clearly, from this example, religion is granted preferential treatment.

Freedom of Religion bills, in whatever language they choose, are a veiled freedom to hide your conscience behind your religion. They absolve the person from responsibility. However, a better idea is to enact a Freedom of Conscience bill. This would keep with the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but force the opinion holder to be accountable for their beliefs and actions that result from them. James Madison’s original First Amendment would have brought this out.

The Freedom of Conscience bill would also solve the controversy regarding who you must interact with, conduct business with.

Here are two scenarios:

Scenario #1) I own a bakery. And a black man and white woman come in and ask me to bake a wedding cake for their pending wedding. And I say, “By Deuteronomy 7:3, where the Lord prohibits the marriage between two cultures; whereas the white culture subjugated the black man and was given possession of his land by the Lord for the Lord allowed this according to plan, the races should not be mixed.” And I wrap it up with some poetry and say, “By Daniel 2:43, just as a mixture of iron and clay will not hold, neither will a marriage of mixed people.” And then, “It is against my religion, I won’t make that cake.”

Scenario #2) I own a bakery. And a black man and white woman come in and ask me to bake a wedding cake for their pending wedding. And I say, “That is yucky. I do not think black and white should mix. Black people would still be throwing spears in Africa if it weren’t for Europeans bringing them to civilization. In good conscience, I won’t make that cake.”

Which scenario is worse? I challenge the worse is Scenario #2. It’s because in Scenario #2, we immediately know that the hypothetical bakery owner is bigoted and this couple should share some harsh words and immediately take their business elsewhere. They should also contact the local media and let this bakery fold under it’s owner’s own terrible attitude. The bakery owner is responsible for his own opinions and therefore, responsible for trashing his reputation.

In the first scenario, that isn’t possible. The shield of religion is in place. The bakery owner can absolve his opinion by saying he’d love to bake the cake but, god says he can’t. He can act like he’s under duress by the only thing ensuring his afterlife. Man is beneath the gods and we can’t make another man choose between man’s law and his gods. And so in Scenario #1, the man can still mingle in polite society. The media would be criticized if they treated him poorly.

And yet we allow this very behavior in hypothetical Scenario #1 with the rash of State Religious Freedom bills that have been circulating over the past few years. As of this writing, there are twenty-one states with bills enacted into law which gives special permission to deny a service or product on the basis of a person’s religious conviction. Although Scenario #1 is bigotry against a black and white couple, what the religious freedom bills have mainly been engineered to accomplish is to deny services and products to the LGBT community if a person holds a religious conviction against the lifestyle. I say, engineer a bill, if you must, to make the bigoted business owner accept responsibility for such a belief. Enact a Freedom of Conscience bill instead.

Wouldn’t a Freedom of Conscience bill be superior? Everyone, religious or not, would have a recognized right to interact with, or not, and do business with, or not, people of their choice. And they’d have to go about their lives taking responsibility for their choices.

If the bakery owner does not want to be part of a Nazi wedding, he doesn’t have to bake a Nazi cake. If a photographer doesn’t want to photograph a lesbian wedding, he wouldn’t have to. If a business did not wish to set up more than two restrooms (male/female), they wouldn’t have to. If a surgeon chose not to perform sex-reassignment surgery, he wouldn’t have to. However, they would have to admit that these were their personal choices and would suffer the consequences or, perhaps gain support as I suspect a denying Jewish baker on a proposed Nazi cake would earn. In any case, what these examples demonstrate are allowing the free market to choose who stays in business and who doesn’t. No one gets a pass because their god told them this is how things are done. They can’t pass off their conscience on an ancient text. No, in a Freedom of Conscience bill, they would have to take responsibility for their choices and accept the consequences.

I’ll say it one more time, a Freedom of Conscience bill would allow everyone to benefit living their lives, interacting or not with the people of their choice. Everyone would also have to take responsibility for their behavior and, in a true free market, suffer or thrive.

Now, I hear the objection. “How would this hold up in, say, Nazi Germany?”

Good question. It wouldn’t. Because Nazi Germany wasn’t a free market.

Although the Jew in Germany was persecuted and looked down upon for centuries, they were emancipated in 1848. From then until the rise of the Third Reich, German citizens frequented the businesses of Jewish doctors, lawyers, store owners and thousands of others. Despite the deep seated anti-Semitism, the market dictated welcome interactions. And if one particular citizen was too anti-Semitic to frequent a Jewish business, he went elsewhere or competed in the market by opening his own competing business. It was only when the Third Reich came around that through state sanctions, the Jewish citizen was reduced to non-citizen and problems occurred. Now the anti-Semite did not have to compete. He had Hitler authority.

As I was completing this essay I ran into this essay. I think it’s an excellent companion (and maybe superior to my own). I recommend reading it. It doesn’t only address the Nazi wedding cake, but Jim Crow Laws. Freedom of Conscience benefits everyone in a real free market. If the states currently having problems with their Freedom of Religion bills looked more towards a Conscience bill, accusations of state sanctioned preferential treatment for religion wouldn’t be an issue.

You have the right to your own conscience and either welcome diverse people into your business, personal life, or not.

You have the right to be a fool by harboring bigoted beliefs. But you must accept you chose this.

You have the right to destroy your own reputation. But you must accept you chose this.

You have the right to your own thoughts and should be allowed to live accordingly, granted, of course, you allow others the same.

But as long as the free market is allowed to operate, the bigot will fail and the person looking to serve and diversify and find kindness and charity for all, will thrive.

The Orange, The Crazy and a Bottle of Yoohoo

download
The title of this blog sounds like a bad country western song… which isn’t too far from the truth since I’m writing about Trump. – PB

Greetings from a #NeverTrumpSupremacist.

Oh, you didn’t hear? Not only are folks who are against Trump,  “Never Trump,” but apparently we’re also supremacists, along with other feel-good terms like RINO, cuck, whore, slut, GOPe, establishment, die-bitch-die and Cruz Street Walker (my personal favorite). Clearly the #NeverTrump movement is SO belligerent with our facts, actual policy ideas and concerns around a liberal turned republican for five minutes running for president that we in some way are the bad buys. The villains. It’s not the Trump supporters threatening our lives and calling us race traitors and mudsharks who are unkind, no no, it’s those of us insisting the Constitution still matters who are the bullies.

The supremacists if you will.

I guess not wanting an authoritarian like  Trump to represent the party in some way is what makes us “supremacists”… which I suppose is a catchy insult if you’re a brain-dead, drooling, ass-backwards, swallowed his tongue, Branch Trumpidian with an AlwaysTrump tat on your forehead but for the rest of us who are capable of thought, it’s just silly.

Sure, us dastardly ol’ #NeverTrump folks speak out against their orange God and are proactively doing what we can to educate the masses on the joke and fraud the man is but to relate us to a movement of hate? Hrm. I suppose the irony of  Trump supporters accusing others of being hateful is lost on these folks… but I digress.

Wisconsin of course brought out the uber-crazy-on-meth in the Trump supporters, with plenty of chest pounding and screeching about CHEATERS, CUCKS and MEDIA oh my! Those scheming cheese heads and their establishment governor Walker sprinkled magical Cruz dust on the state to keep Wisconsinites from voting for Trump! IT’S TRUE. They dumped a vat of mind-altering drugs that tasted like beer and brats in the water system there just to make sure Trump got screwed by the GOPe. In fact, it was the Soros chem-trails that the government insists aren’t real that cost ol’ Donny the Badger State… you betcha.

The reality in Wisconsin, and in the other states Trump has lost, is that Trump himself is sabotaging his campaign with ignorant behavior, obnoxious talking points and temper tantrums that would make any three-year-old tell him to settle down and take a nap. For the past two weeks watching his campaign has been like watching a soap opera, in fact he should rename the campaign, “The Orange and the Crazy.” His tiny-hand circus is what cost him Wisconsin (and North Dakota, and Texas, and Iowa, and Oklahoma, and Utah, and Maine…) and it may actually cost him a large chunk of his home state of NY if he doesn’t somehow get it together.

So while the #NeverTrump movement is effective and has made an impact, we can’t take full credit for what appears to be the Trump campaign imploding. Ultimately it has been Trump and Trump alone who has hurt himself with voters, he really has been his own undoing.  And luckily we can sit back and watch this bizarre soap opera like good little supremacists, laughing our asses off with a large bowl of popcorn and a bottle of Yoohoo.

Yes, even supremacists drink Yoohoo… look it up.

It’s Prolife, Not Just Pro-Baby

Healthy-eating
Please welcome my first guest blogger, the lovely, talented and brilliant, @artist_angie! – PB

Most of you know me as @artist_angie on twitter. Make some jokes play some hashtags Angie, but we need to talk and it’s going to require more than my normal 140 characters and goofy approach on twitter. We need to have a serious conversation about Donald Trump and the damage he did to the Pro-Life Movement.

In an interview with Chris Matthews, Mr. Trump said there would have to be “some form of punishment” for women who sought abortions IF abortion was illegal. Ok I get it. You look at the sentence and you say well if it was illegal shouldn’t they pay consequences if they broke the law? Or maybe you say IT WAS CHRIS TINGLE UP MY LEG MATTHEWS!!! He was trying to hurt him, give him a break!  My answer to you is no it is not the woman who should pay any consequence and Trump gets no break, because a true pro-lifer could navigate that question easily without damage to our brand and his response showed he had no idea what the heart of being pro-life is. Trump simply used a leftist caricature of what he thinks pro-lifers are and ran with it.  The idea we would want to punish an already wounded person is ridiculous.

I’ve been involved in Pro-life causes, clinics, etc. since I was 18 years old (that is a long time, I am old). Our goal was and remains to protect and preserve life – that includes both baby AND mother. We want to help her, not punish her. We understand some of the long lasting and damaging consequences of abortion. Some women seek abortion because they have already been victimized and our goal is to show them some of the harsh consequences of abortion and aid them so they don’t get further victimized by the procedure itself. If you are wondering what the correct answer would be to the Matthews question, here you go:

“As a pro-life conservative my heart is to preserve ALL life. Both that of the child and to nurture the mother, not to punish her. If the procedure was deemed illegal we would seek punishment against the provider performing the act, not the mother.” 

We need to be realistic, abortion is never going to be illegal and we should work from that point of view. We work to limit the number of abortions and sway public opinion. We have made great strides in the last 10 -15 years polling shows most people are against partial birth abortion and are ok with some restrictions on standard abortion. This is all good but it still does not mean we will not have to pay many dues and take a huge hit for the damage Mr. Trump did in one small sentence.

I am Pro-Life because I really do believe all life has purpose and meaning. You can’t volunteer in a life clinic and not understand that the mothers are the key to the movement, they are the people making the hard choices. The choice is hard, no matter what they choose. We do not need caricatures or stereotypes thrown on us or the mothers. Each person who walks in a life clinic or an abortion clinic is a scared human being, sometimes as young as 13 or 14 yr. old girls. They have a life and they are just as precious as the baby they carry.

If you understand nothing else from this post, please understand that both mothers and children are important and being pro-life for 99% of us is not just about the baby but truly is about nurturing and preserving LIFE, both mother and child.  WE ARE PRO-LIFE not PRO-BABY and we will keep fighting even when the blows are thrown at us from a person who is supposed to be on our side.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,225 other followers