Finger Food

A few morsels….

Blue is the New Red

It really is funny to see blue states turning all pro-slavery all of a sudden.  Don’t believe me?  California just hired Eric Holder for various expected legal battles with Trump. 

Mr. de León [Democratic leader of the Senate] said he expected California to challenge Washington — and defend itself from policies instituted in Washington — on issues including the environment, immigration and criminal justice.

What does this have to do with slavery?  Sounds like nullification and tenth amendment stuff.  Dare I say the words: STATE’S RIGHTS!  For years we have been told this is code for rednecks who want to bring back slavery.  Turns out that bluenecks are joining the party.

My two cents?  If you ever thought it worthwhile to support the government on any issue, chip in a few nickels to the California State’s Rights Fund (I just made up the name).  Anything that decentralizes power is of benefit to the libertarian cause.

Libertarian Party Minus Libertarian Equals…What, Exactly?

I have many years ago given up any thought that the Libertarian Party might actually hold to a message that is libertarian.  But sometimes the stupidity reaches new highs (or is it lows).

Marc Clair interviewed Libertarian Party National Committee Chair Nicholas Sarwark.  If you ever doubted that the only objective of the LP is more money, this interview will disabuse you of this stupid idea.  If you ever believed the message mattered more than the number of votes, you will find this an impossible view to hold after spending a few minutes listening to Nicholas.

Now, the LP is free to have whatever objectives it likes; my only point is that I have never heard it so plainly stated.

I won’t bother with the denigrating comments made about Murray Rothbard or Ron Paul (beginning around minute 25 / 26); such comments are mandatory if you want to be an acceptable beltway libertarian.  Throw out a few strawmen and half-truths and anything is possible.

I will only comment on one point, a statement from the party chair: “State’s rights is not a libertarian position.”

Now, I will agree with this statement if one is arguing from the position of libertarian-anarchist theory; as there is no room for “states” in such a theory, there can be no such thing as “state’s rights.”  But Nicholas, focused on winning votes in order to place libertarian candidates in positions of state a federal government, likely isn’t arguing from such a position.

So all I can say is….read the above tidbit again on blue being the new red. 

What does Nicholas think libertarianism in this world means?  Every decentralization of power means more choice at a lower political level.  While I myself prefer this to continue all the way down to the family level, it cannot be denied that a decentralization to 50 states offers more liberty than conglomeration under one.

Some libertarians really are stupid.

As an aside…I was equally disappointed in the interviewer, who knows better about the value Ron Paul brought to his own life, let alone to the exponential growth of interest in libertarian theory and Austrian economics due to Ron Paul’s two runs as a republican.  One can find more respectful ways to state disagreement on specific issues; one also might point out when the interviewee says things that logically make no sense.  One need not argue endlessly, but one need not agree with gusto, either.

Hillary’s Last Stand

Bill and Hillary plan to attend Trump’s inauguration.  You see, the vote count challenges didn’t work; the changing Electoral College votes thing didn’t work; the we won the popular vote story didn’t work.  Perhaps Hillary wants to be nearby in case some bad luck befalls Trump moments before his hand goes on the Bible.  She can then rush onto the stage and save the republic.

Speaking of bad luck befalling Trump…

Trump the Blabbermouth

So much talk about Trump not being in control of the words coming out of his mouth; so much concern that he will be rash in his decision making; so much fear that he will push the wrong button in a moment of rage.

The truth is that those making such accusations don’t fear any of the things they say they fear.  What they fear is getting outed.  What they fear is Trump saying something like “the intelligence is bogus” when, in fact, the intelligence is bogus.  What they fear is Trump saying “the media is lying to you” when, in fact, the media is lying to you.

Of course, Trump has to know that such talk will put him in the crosshairs…literally.

If ever there was a man and a circumstance for a president to go public questioning the JFK story, this is the man and this is the circumstance.  First and foremost, it will be an act of self-preservation; any dastardly deed that befalls him thereafter will be plainly seen as an inside job – whether it is or not. 

Second, it will completely change the dialogue – on everything.  A majority of Americans don’t buy the official JFK story.  They are just waiting for someone in authority to say so.  Trump has demonstrated a desire to change the dialogue on many things…unfortunately, not everything and not always to the good…but….

Anyway…after this, nothing will be off limits – not 911; not global warming / cooling / climate change.  Nothing.