This is glorious.
I’m not a Trump supporter by any means, but the reasons I oppose him are different from the social justice warrior progressives out there.
This is glorious.
I’m not a Trump supporter by any means, but the reasons I oppose him are different from the social justice warrior progressives out there.
This past week proponents of an independent California gained a small victory in their movement, as their Secretary of State Alex Padilla has approved a petition initiative to begin collecting signatures from voters.
Thanks to the recent vote in Great Britain to leave the European Union, which was dubbed #Brexit, California’s movement has taken on the hashtag name of #Calexit. The movement, which has gained steam after the the overall meltdown of the American Progressive Left after the election of Donald Trump, is not actually a new one. The Yes California Independence Committee PAC has been around for a couple of years.
From their website:
Yes California is the nonviolent campaign to establish the country of California using any and all legal and constitutional means to do so. We advocate for peaceful secession from the United States by use of an independence referendum to establish a mandate, followed by a nationwide campaign to advocate in support of a constitutional exit from the Union. By joining this campaign, signing up as a member, donating, volunteering, or otherwise supporting this important cause, you agree to these nonviolent principles.
While Yes California supports and encourages Californians to stand up and take direct action, to be bold, and to unapologetically demand the liberation of the people of California from its captors, we explicitly reject conduct or speech inciting open rebellion against the American government.
The idea of secession is not actually a new one in California, while the #Calexit people want to leave a Federal Government that they do not view as being attuned to their Progressive Political leanings, there is a much older movement within California’s more rural Northern State’s to breakaway and create the 51st State, The State of Jefferson.
I find it quite interesting that there is a group of people within California who feel that they are being bullied by the Federal Government & the Electoral College, who feel that they are culturally out-of-step with the rest of the Unites States — but who are completely oblivious the plight of their fellow Californians who feel the same way towards them.
Now, do I think that there is a reasonable chance that someday soon California will become a sovereign nation-state? No, I think there is about as much chance of that happening as there is of Donald Trump nominating Rosie O’Donnell to the US Supreme Court.
However believing that something is going to happen and believing in the right for that thing to happen are two completely different things. It was the inspiration for the name The State of Jefferson, who wrote the greatest declaration of secession of all time, otherwise known as the Declaration of Independence.
Thomas DiLorenzo, of the Mises Institute, wrote a few years back an article about the Jeffersonian secessionist tradition posted at LewRockwell.com:
Thomas Jefferson, the author of America’s July 4, 1776 Declaration of Secession from the British empire, was a lifelong advocate of both the voluntary union of the free, independent, and sovereign states, and of the right of secession. “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form,” he said in his first inaugural address in 1801, “let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.”
In a January 29, 1804 letter to Dr. Joseph priestly, who had ask Jefferson his opinion of the New England secession movement that was gaining momentum, he wrote: “Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern . . . and did I now foresee a separation at some future day,, yet should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family . . .” Jefferson offered the same opinion to John C. Breckenridge on August 12 1803 when New Englanders were threatening secession after the Louisiana purchase. If there were a “separation,” he wrote, “God bless them both & keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.”
I am firmly of the belief that, while not everyone may realize it on a conscious level or express it in these exact terms, the human heart yearns for liberty. Supporters of a strong and all-powerful Federal Government will bring up the “…one Nation under God, indivisible…” part of the Pledge of Allegiance or say things like the Civil War and Texas v White ‘settled’ the issue of secession.
As far as the Pledge of Allegiance goes, while I truly feel blessed to have been born in the what is still the greatest country on God’s green earth, I pledge my allegiance to no one. I am a free man, nobody owns me and I am not subject to the rituals of blind devotion to the State because of a pledge written by a socialist decades after our Republic’s founding.
The United States of America came to be after the Thirteen Original Colonies successfully used the God-given right to self-determination in unshackling themselves from the chains that tied them to King George’s England.
Ron Paul in a 2009 CNN Interview said:
The biggest surprise to me was the outrage expressed over an individual who thinks along these lines, because I heard people say, well, this is treasonous and this was un-American. But don’t they remember how we came in to our being? We used secession, we seceded from England. So it’s a very good principle. It’s a principle of a free society. It’s a shame we don’t have it anymore. I argue that if you had the principle of secession, our federal government wouldn’t be as intrusive into state affairs and to me that would be very good.
We as a nation have endorsed secession all along. Think of all of the secession of the countries and the republics from the Soviet system. We were delighted. We love it. And yet we get hysterical over this just because people want to debate and defend the principle of secession, that doesn’t mean they’re calling for secession. I think it’s that restraining element of secession that would keep the federal government from doing so much. In our early history, they accepted the principles of secession all along.
As far as I’m concerned the Declaration of Independence clearly set the precedent and Texas v White is an unjust ruling that no free people should abide by. While the outcome of the Civil War did rightfully end the greatest evil ever perpetrated on mankind, the practice of slavery, it does not end the precedent set forth by the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence.
Walter Williams, libertarian professor of economics at George Mason University wrote:
On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, “Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.”
The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil – evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content.” The New York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”
There’s more evidence seen at the time our Constitution was ratified. The ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said that they held the right to resume powers delegated, should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought that they could not maintain their sovereignty.
With all that being said, as I have previously noted, while I believe in California’s right to leave the Union I seriously doubt that it will happen. Even if the #Calexit folks somehow manage to collect the required 585,407 valid signatures from registered voters over the next 180 days, they still face a long uphill battle in their movement.
However as long as the odds are, I do tend to agree with Marcus Ruiz Evans, one of the Founders of Yes California, who said “America already hates California, and America votes on emotions.”
The election of Donald Trump sure proved that.
While on the campaign trail last October after then-candidate Trump insinuated that he may not accept the results of the election, the main stream media and the democrats rightfully attacked him for it. Sen. Hillary Clinton said “…by doing that he is threatening our democracy.“
That was on the campaign trail, the day after the election democrats were singing a different tune. On the night of the election, after Trump had surpassed the 270 electoral votes needed to secure the victory, Clinton refused to come out and address her supporters at her election watch party. All her distraught supporters heard from the campaign was a statement from John Podesta saying there would be no comments until all votes were counted.
Finally, only after President Obama has called her urging her to concede and after Trump had delivered his victory speech, did Clinton call Trump and offer her concession.
For the next few weeks many on the American left proceeded to attack our republic’s system of government calling for the end of the Electoral College.
Green Party candidate Jill Stein raised millions of dollars to pay for recounts in Wisconsin and Michigan, only to end up deepening her campaign’s coffers while strengthening Trumps margin.
Then they claimed that Russia interfered with American democracy by affecting the results. They didn’t mention that the only “interference” was exposing the lies and deceit of the Democratic Party. They basically said, pay no attention to the truth about their actions that the Wikileaks emails exposed, just pay attention to Russia.
The same people who openly mocked Trump for suggesting that he may not accept the results, were now saying that Russia “rigged” the election in his favor.
Imagine their reaction had Clinton won, Gary Johnson had raised money for recounts and the Republicans has insinuated that the election was “rigged” in Hillary’s favor.
Donald J. Trump has done something that a whole lot of people, myself included, never thought that he would even come close to accomplishing. He has been sworn in as the 45th President of the United States of America. The biggest reason this has happened?
The hypocrisy of the so called “progressive” American left.
Not only did they sit by and cheer on Obama as he continued doing all of the things that they hated George W. Bush for, things that they called Bush “literally Hitler” for — they gave him a fucking Nobel Peace Prize and painted this fake narrative of him as this honorable and respectful man of peace and justice. They were completely quiet for 8 years of endless war, drone strikes and bombings in more countries than his predecessors, the killing of more innocent civilians than his predecessor. Not a peep as the Obama administration doubled down on the illegal, anti 4th Amendment spying of American citizens by the NSA.
They continue to spread the ridiculous and completely false notion that his was a presidency full of transparency and devoid of scandal.
They were quiet as he used the power of the Federal Government through the IRS to attack political enemies, even after they were caught destroying the hard drives with evidence. Not a hush from the American left as the Obama Administration was caught selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels. Crickets, when they were proven to fabricate a story that the Benghazi massacre was a response to “some video.” They ignored the fact that his secretary of State bypassed National Security protocols and set up her own private email server and destroyed the evidence when caught. Actions that would at the very least would not allow anyone else to ever hold the position of mailman yet alone the highest office of the land.
The American left applauded the growth of government through Obama’s bypassing of congress and appointment of czars, his vast imperial powers through his unprecedented use of executive orders and the growing activism via the legislation from the bench of his judicial appointees.
Now that someone you don’t like has those same powers at his disposal, you “peaceably protest” by throwing rocks at banks and spitting in the faces of law enforcement officers?
The “progressive” American left has poisoned the waters of political discourse by screaming false alarms of racism, sexism, any other “-ism” you can think of and so-called privilege at every turn.
When you continue to irresponsible label half of the country as racists and bigots don’t act all surprised and proceed to cry like spoiled little babies when they don’t vote along the same lines as you.
I didn’t vote for Donald Trump either, I opted out of being forced to choose between the eviler of two lesser’s and voted for Gov. Gary Johnson. In that my conscience is clean.
That being said the way leftists are reacting over Donald Trump is sickening. I am embarrassed for you.
If the “progressive” American left really wants to know why Donald Trump is President?, all they have to do is to look in the mirror.
I am, at least as of the time that I am writing this post, a registered Republican. Truthfully however, at this point that is only because of the ridiculous ballot access laws and Ohio Senate Bill 193. I am not currently a member of the Libertarian Party, nor do I have any sort of affiliation with any member of the Libertarian Party.
Recently I have seen an article by a former legislative aide for Rep. Ron Paul, that was posted at the Ron Paul Institute make the rounds on libertarian leaning social media sites. The title of the piece, “Libertarian Party Chairman Denounces Ron Paul’s Support for States’ Rights” caused an eruption in comments across Facebook.
The article was loosely about an interview that Nicholas Sarwark, the current chairman of the Libertarian Party had on a Lions of Liberty podcast recently. I say “ loosely” because the entire basis of the article was a completely taken out-of-context piece that used one line out of a forty minute long interview.
I even saw a liberty minded Facebook friend of mine re-post the article with the comment “Looks like the Libertarian Party is being destroyed by socialists.” I can understand given the title of the posting at the RPI how a liberty minded individual might get upset , I mean denouncing Ron Paul and for supporting States Rights of all things.
The thing is, if you listened to the actual Lions of Liberty podcast, you would see that at no point did Nicholas Sarwark ‘denounce’ Ron Paul or Ron Paul’s support for States Rights.
But hey, let’s not allow things like facts to get in the way, no one can speak ill of muh Ron Paul.
The Ron Paul discussion in the podcast started at about 25:30 minutes into the interview and came after a discussion about the Gary Johnson campaign and how Bill Weld displeased many hardcore libertarians. Sarwark himself admitted that many of the things that Bill Weld said during the campaign were not things that he would have said, or things that he necessary agreed with. His point was however, in growing the Libertarian Party as a viable third option — do you want a pure ideological person standing on a soapbox speaking to ten people or do you want a slightly less pure person with a giant microphone who is able to reach millions?
Mark Clair, the host of the podcast, responded by saying that he thought a lot of ideologically libertarian leaning people got spoiled by Ron Paul and his manner of speaking libertarian ideas. Clair, then went on to say that “…we still have to look at Ron Paul and what his… success was, I mean he floundered out of the Republican Primary.” Clair followed up with talking about how the bigger thing to look at Ron Paul was at how many people he turned on to the idea of liberty, partly because of his ‘ideologically pure’ libertarian message. Moving forward Clair wondered how do liberty minded people turn on more people to the liberty message as not everyone can be Murray Rothbard.
Sarwark, in talking about Ron Paul, commented that you ‘run a very dangerous line’ if you get too caught up with any one personality, be it in politics or any other aspect of life.
His point was that there is no one true pure as fresh snow ideological libertarian and everyone is capable of being wrong on some things. He had mentioned how he had spoken to Ron Paul supporters who if you were to mention an issue that Ron Paul was not a pure libertarian on they would twist themselves up into pretzels while trying to say otherwise because “Ron Paul could do no wrong.”
Sarwark also pointed out that the strength of libertarianism is that the principle doesn’t care who the messenger is. It is either a libertarian position or its not, no one is perfect and its okay to not be pure and it is also okay to be able to call out the things of libertarians that are not really libertarian positions.
Sarwark was particularly talking on same-sex marriage, citing Ron Paul whom for a long time said that it should be up to the States. His point was that “States rights” do not trump individual rights or civil liberties.
Clair, even agreed mentioning how you see people get caught up in personalities, such as opposing something, but then supporting it because Obama does or opposing something but then supporting it because Trump does. Then saying that he agrees with about 95% of what Ron Paul says but “heaven forbid” you mention that other 5% and then the name calling ensues.
That is exactly what happened with the reaction after the article was posted on the RPI website.
Nicholas Sarwark did not “denounce” anyone and “the socialists” are not taking over the Libertarian Party.
I swear libertarians are more often then not, their own worst enemy.
Also, in regards to the whole “States Rights” issue, the 10th Amendment provides that the “powers” not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the States and/or the people.
States don’t have rights, we the people do.
Nicholas Sarwark, rightfully stated that you can’t use “States Rights” to allow government to take away individual rights based on gender, race or [in this case] sexual orientation.
The 10th Amendment does not provide for allowing the States the “right” to trump the natural individual rights of American citizens.
Early this morning, President-elect Donald Trump took to social media to announce his desire to take a piss all over the Bill of Rights. “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!” Is what he posted to twitter.
That belief is a slap in the face to those who truly value our liberty.
In the 1989 US Supreme Court case, Texas v. Johnson, a split court (5-4) held that burning an American flag as political protest is a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment.
At a demonstration during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Gregory Lee Johnson, a member of the evolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, was involved in a political demonstration that turned violent. The demonstrators marched through the streets, shouted chants, destroyed property, broke windows and threw trash, soiled diapers, beer cans and various other items, and held signs outside the offices of several companies. At one point, another demonstrator handed Johnson an American flag stolen from a flagpole outside one of the targeted buildings.
Johnson was charged with violating a Texas law that prohibited the desecration of a venerated object. He was convicted, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000. He appealed his conviction to the Fifth Court of Appeals of Texas, but he lost this appeal. On appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals the court overturned his conviction, saying that the State could not punish Johnson for burning the flag because the First Amendment protects such activity as symbolic speech.
The case eventually made it’s way to the Supreme Court and in their decision the court found that the right to free speech does not end at the spoken or written word, but also includes “symbolic speech.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, in his concurrence expressed the sentiment that sometimes standing up for liberty, means standing up for things that you don’t agree with.
The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result. And so great is our commitment to the process that, except in the rare case, we do not pause to express distaste for the result, perhaps for fear of undermining a valued principle that dictates the decision. This is one of those rare cases.
Our colleagues in dissent advance powerful arguments why respondent may be convicted for his expression, reminding us that among those who will be dismayed by our holding will be some who have had the singular honor of carrying the flag in battle. And I agree that the flag holds a lonely place of honor in an age when absolutes are distrusted and simple truths are burdened by unneeded apologetics.
With all respect to those views, I do not believe the Constitution gives us the right to rule as the dissenting Members of the Court urge, however painful this judgment is to announce. Though symbols often are what we ourselves make of them, the flag is constant in expressing beliefs Americans share, beliefs in law and peace and that freedom which sustains the human spirit. The case here today forces recognition of the costs to which those beliefs commit us. It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt.
This morning after seeing, Chairman of the Libertarian Party, Nicholas Sarwark post his own brief thoughts on flag-burning to Facebook, I went ahead and shared my own updated version of that
I want to make this clear, I believe that the act of burning the American flag is a sick and disgusting thing to do. Furthermore, I believe that individuals who purposely desecrate the flag are asshole’s of the highest order.
I just believe that, you either believe in liberty or you don’t. Those flag burning assholes have the same right to burn Old Glory as I have to think they are assholes for doing it.
I will defend their right to be assholes until my dying breath.
In a conversation about the topic with a co-worker, I was accused of being “lukewarm” on the issue and told that burning a flag is disrespectful to the brave soldiers who died for that flag.
To that I said, only tyrants lock people in jail for the victimless crime of burning a piece of cloth. No man died for a piece of cloth, they died for the idea that that piece of cloth represented. Amongst those ideas, as our founding fathers so eloquently put it is that we “… are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
To lock someone up for burning a flag, makes us no better then the type of despots we claim to have opposed, if we start doing that… then those soldiers who many claim “die for the flag,” will truly have died for nothing.
During the 2012 Republican Presidential primary, when Donald J. Trump flirted with the idea of entering his name into the race, but ultimately decided not to run, I did not give it too much thought. He’s the type of person that loves attention and the flirtation was just a way to drum up some extra viewers for his NBC Reality television program.
Then early on in this year’s cycle, I didn’t take his candidacy seriously “He’ll drop out before the debates,” I thought. Then the debates started and I thought, “he’s a circus clown, no one is going to take him seriously as a candidate.”
Boy was I wrong.
Not only was Donald Trump taken seriously as a candidate by the American people, not only did he win the Republican Party’s nomination, something this #NeverTrump Republican thought unfathomable — he actually went ahead and won the whole damn thing.
On Friday, Jan. 20, 2017, on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, Chief Justice John Roberts will administer the oath of office to the 45th President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump. I of course will have to learn to like the taste of crow, because I thought there was a snowball’s chance in hell of him getting elected.
At no point in the election process did I even entertain the thought of supporting Donald Trump. As an American citizen that values our sacred duty to cast our votes in our republic’s election process, staying home was just not an option.
Despite some misgivings with him and despite a whole lot of misgivings with his running mate Governor William Weld, I cast my vote for Governor Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and for that I hold no regrets, my conscience is clean.
One day later, its morning again in America. Today the sun still came up over our already great nation, that doesn’t need to be “made great again,” because it already is. Today also, the day after the elections are over, there is another sacred duty that we, as a people have. That is to gracefully, respectfully and with honor accept the results of our Republic’s election process and to wish success to our new President.
There will be plenty of time to hold President-elect Trump’s feet to the fire, there will be plenty of time to fight some of the anti-liberty beliefs that he has expressed, but that is not what this post is about and that is not what this day is about.
The amount of sadness and anger I have seen over the results of this election is just shear madness. On one end, as a libertarian (with a small “l”) It just proves my belief that the President, ANY President has too much power. On the other end it shows what kind of sore losers we have become.
I’ve seen people, and I don’t mean irrational young millennials, but people in the 60’s who should know better, ending relationships with family members over disagreements. It’s maddening.
I don’t know who the original author is, but I saw the following posted on Facebook today and thought it great.
I am now scared and worried about our children and our children’s future. Not because of who or who was not elected as our next president, but because of YOU. Our children will not have direct contact with whomever is in office. They will, however and sometimes unfortunately, have direct contact with you and the offspring you are raising. The society our children are growing up in is full of coddled, entitled and ungoverned people.
Quit teaching your children to be little cry babies when something doesn’t go their way. Teach them how to learn and grow from an unpleasant outcome instead.
Quit teaching your children to gloat when it does go their way. Teach them to be humble instead.
Quit teaching your children to put blame on others. Teach them they are only truly responsible for their own actions instead.
Quit teaching (or badgering rather) your children they should or shouldn’t believe in things because that’s your political view or religious view. Teach them to believe or feel however they want to. Teach them to be an individual.
QUIT being your kid’s best friend. Teach them the meaning of no instead. Teach them to work for what they want instead. Teach them what rules are and how to follow them instead.
Our children do not look to the president or any other elected official for a leader. They look to YOU, their parent for guidance and leadership. So if you want a better future for them, then start making one. Raise your children into adults you would want to lead our country.
I and many people like me did not want Obama to become President. 8 years and two-terms later, our Republic still stands. When Donald J. Trump leaves office and makes room for his eventual replacement, our Republic will still stand.
It’s a great day to be alive and it’s a great day to be an American.
It has come to my attention, as of late, that I have been a little overboard in my bashing of the Republican Party Presidential nominee.
So, as a registered Republican and a liberty-loving conservative, in an effort to show loyalty I will use this post to bash progressive Democrats and their idiotic progressive beliefs.
Can you believe the progressive agenda that the Democrats want to push on our republic?
They want to destroy small business and cause the price of goods and services to go up like crazy by increasing the minimum wage? Who in their Conservative loving mind would agree with that?
They believe that “everybody has got to be covered” and show support for the countries of the world that have single-payer health care system. And get this, when asked whose going to pay for it? They say “The governments gonna pay for it.” Who in their Conservative loving mind would agree with that?
They believe in ridiculously burdensome high taxes on the job creators, causing them to not hire as many workers and not produce as much goods. When talking about taxes they even say things like, “If you look at actual raise, some very wealthy are going to be raised…” Who in their Conservative loving mind would agree with that?
How about their hatred of the First Amendment. They say things like “I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws…” So much for freedom of speech under those progressive Democrats huh? Who in their Conservative loving mind would agree with that?
How about their love of the baby murdering organization founded by an evil racist, Planned Parenthood? They say things like it does “good work for millions of women” and they slam the “so-called conservatives” who disagree. Who in their Conservative loving mind would agree with that?
How about the way they want to force private business owners to hand out government forced paid maternity leave? Who in their Conservative loving mind would agree with that?
They want to drastically increase Medicaid, Medicare, social security and infrastructure spending massively. Racking up even more trillions of dollars of debt, and kicking that debt down the line for future generations to have to deal with. Who in their Conservative loving mind would agree with that?
Or how about their silly slogans like “Hope & Change,” or “I’m With Her,” or “Make America Great Again.” We all know that progressives believe that America is not great and only they (through big government) can make it great again. Who in their Conservative loving mind would agree with that?
No Real Conservative Republican in their right mind could support those progressive Democrat ideas. It’s a good thing we have a real Conservative Republican as our nominee… oh wait, those are all Donald Trump beliefs.
Man are we screwed, America.
This past Friday evening, prior to his team’s preseason game against the Green Bay Packers, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick decided, in an act of protest, not to stand for the traditional playing of the national anthem prior to kickoff. Kaepernick defended his actions with the following statement:
“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”
I won’t go into the details of the type of responses towards his actions Kaepernick has received, but if you check out the comments section of any pro-Trump website or almost any twitter user that has the hashtag #TrumpTrain in their bio, you’ll be subject to some stuff that might even make the most hardcore Klansman blush.
Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t agree with Kaepernick’s actions one bit, furthermore, I disagree with his reasoning behind his refusal to stand for the anthem. The idea that the Unites States of America, in 2016, is a country that “oppresses black people and people of color,” is a flat-out ignorant belief to hold.
That being said I find it somewhat ironic that many of those who are the most vocal in their disdain of Kaepernick’s stance are those who consider themselves conservative. What is so conservative about blind devotion to the State?
Had our Founders wanted a national anthem at the creation of our republic, would they have not taken the time to adopt one? It wasn’t until the 20th Century, thanks to the father of the modern progressive movement, Woodrow Wilson, that we even had an “official” national anthem.
Woodrow Wilson, the man who pretty much spent his entire life trying to destroy the dedication to natural rights and limited government that the framers put into our republic through our founding documents, is the man who spearheaded the effort to make The Star Spangled Banner our national anthem. Let that sink in for a moment.
Patriotism and love of country are not bad things, as a matter of fact American conservatism has always included a strong sense of both. What is alarming in recent years, particularly in this most recent election cycle, is the confusion of patriotism and nationalism, the latter of which goes against the heart of the conservative principles of individual liberty and limited government of which our republic was founded.
The 49ers organization issues the following response to their quarterback’s actions:
The National Anthem is and always will be a special part of the pre-game ceremony. It is an opportunity to honor our country and reflect on the great liberties we are afforded as its citizens. In respecting such American principles as freedom of religion and freedom of expression, we recognize the right of an individual to choose and participate, or not, in our celebration of the national anthem.
They are absolutely right
If you disagree with Colin Kaepernick and want to show your displeasure with the 49ers and the NFL for not taking stiff action against his act of defiance by boycotting the team, the league or their sponsors that is also your right as well.
While I don’t hold the somewhat radical view that suggests that standing for the national anthem or reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is designed to deprive one of individuality while instilling blind nationalism — I can’t in good conscience deny someone the freedom to refuse to stand, even if I find his reasoning repulsive.
Comedy Central’s @midnight with Chris Hardwick, recast The Golden Girls with Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Vladimir Putin and Little Fatty, I mean Kim Jong-un. The result is hilarious… and scary.
During his acceptance speech this past Thursday night in Cleveland, at the closing of the 2016 Republican National Convention, Donald Trump used the word “violence” a total of eleven times. The word “freedom” was used just once, and it was used in context of “freedom” from free international trade.
In contrast Sen. Ted Cruz, in his speech on the Convention’s third night, used the word freedom twenty-one times and the word “violence” just once.
Trump’s speech, which clocked in at 1 hour and 15 minutes, was a full on display of a spoiled egotistical madman demanding to be anointed into the highest office in the most powerful nation in the world. The Republican Party’s nominee painted a picture of an America that is under siege from urban crime, terrorism and rampant immigration.
Trump’s portrait is of an America that is fraught with rising homicide rates, filled with Americans being killed by those entering the country illegally. It was a portrait of an America that looks more like the events of the Purge film series then the America I see everyday when I step out of my door to head to work.
Trump’s entire speech was completely devoid of any substantial details as to how he would get anything done, just threats and points on how the government should be made bigger and stronger and given more authority with him at the head of it controlling every part of American life.
It has become a sad occurrence over the course of the last few Presidencies that political figures have been likened to evil dictators of the past. The code pink left during the administration of George W. Bush had constantly compared him to Hitler, leftist ideologues have a long history of trying to compare Republicans to Nazis, and they have always been wrong.
Republican’s have always, or at least have claimed to, stand up for the limited government, free market principles outlined by our Founding documents — principles that are against everything the Nazi’s (National Socialists) stood for.
Enter Donald Trump.
In 2016 the Republican Party has abandoned all pretenses of being the principled party of limited government, free people and free markets. This could not be anymore evident by the uproar over Sen. Ted Cruz’s great convention speech and the warm embrace of Donald Trump.
Sen. Ted Cruz urged Republicans to “Stand and speak, and vote your conscience. Vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom… (so that) we will be able to say, ‘Freedom matters… ‘” and Trump’s supporters took it as an attack on their candidate. What does that say about Trump’s base, it says that they know that Trump is not a person of conscience or is principled enough to defend the Constitution.
Now under the reign of Donald Trump, the Republican Party now embraces liberal concepts of federal wage controls and fighting the “gender wage gap.” Trump’s Republican platform embraces a “do as I tell you,” message to private business and anti-free trade policies that will increase the cost-of-living for all Americans.
Some of the same useful idiots who were attacking Bernie Sanders for his socialist policies are now embracing Donald Trump for openly supporting those same policies. In the same way the hardline enforcers of long gone socialist regimes attacked anyone who would dare speak ill of the Dear Leader — Trump’s New Republicans have gone nuts on Ted Cruz for standing up for liberty, because if you are not for Trump you must be defeated.
Trump laid out an argument for unlimited government under a single man, but don’t worry he’s not a tyrant, he’s a “Republican.”
Thanks to the Republican party, a party that helped to fight the Cold War, Donald Trump is frighteningly close to achieving his vision for Trump style National Socialism. Donald Trump is a threat to not just everything that the Republican Party was founded on, but he is an threat to everything our Founding Father’s held near and dear. The Republican Party itself and the misguided idiots who claim to be liberty loving conservatives, yet look at Trump through the eyes lovestruck teenage girl looking at the latest teen idol, deserve just as much blame for allowing this to happen as Trump has for leading the charge.
Congratulations Republicans, you have become everything you have claimed to hate. It’s not Socialism, its “Republican Socialism”.
Being a law enforcement officer is a difficult and often times thankless job. Police officers are at risk countless times throughout the day while conducting their job duties, a potentially life-threatening situation can arise at any moment with no warning what-so-ever, because of this they have to be prepared for all possible scenarios with every encounter.
They are not highly paid, for a job at any given moment may cause them to pay the ultimate sacrifice while in the line of duty. The men and women who choose to put on the uniform to “serve and protect,” are husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts.
The great Paul Harvey once said, “A policeman must be a minister, social worker, a diplomat, a tough guy and a gentleman. And, of course, he will have to be a genius, for he will have to feed a family on a policeman’s salary.”
However, they are still not infallible and they are most definitely not absolved from criticism, especially when that criticism is warranted. Much like it appears, upon an admittedly quick review, may be the case in two separate police involved shooting deaths this week in Louisiana and Minnesota. In both of those situations, the law enforcement officers were white and the shooting victims were black.
The first of the two incidents that occurred this week was in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 37-year-old Alton Sterling, was standing in the parking lot of the Triple S Food Mart, selling CDs, something he had done for years, with permission of the store’s owner.
According to a “source with knowledge of the investigation” CNN reports that at some point in the evening on Tuesday, Sterling was approached by a homeless man asking for money.
The man was persistent, and Sterling showed him his gun, the source said.
“I told you to leave me alone,” Sterling told the man, according to the source
The homeless man then used his cell phone to call 911, the source said.
The details about the 911 call shed new light into the Baton Rouge police’s high-profile fatal shooting of Sterling, a 37-year-old black man.
A graphic cell phone video of the shooting was shared widely on social media, quickly sparking local protests and drawing national attention. Federal authorities have taken charge of the investigation. Read More…
In the grainy first video that was released to social media Tuesday evening, Alton Sterling was seen being wrestled to the ground by two officers, someone can be heard shouting, “He’s got a gun! Gun!” One of the officers then holds a gun over Sterling. Soon after, multiple shots are heard.
A second video obtained by The Advocate, emerged Wednesday evening, also captured on a cellphone, but from a different angle.
After watching both the original video and then the second video posted above, I don’t know if I am ready to say that it was cold-blooded murder, but there is no doubt in my mind that Alton Sterling would be alive if not for the actions of those two police officers.
The second incident this week occurred Wednesday evening in Falcon Heights, Minnesota, where 32-year-old Philando Castile was shot and killed after being pulled over for a busted taillight. Much like the previous shooting in Louisiana, this one two was captured on a cellphone and shared to social media.
Castile’s girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, the passenger in the vehicle, live streamed the incident on Facebook, starting from the point after the shooting took place.
What we saw in the video was a remarkably calm & composed woman watching her boyfriend as he bleed out. We saw a police officer, weapon still drawn and pointed at the dying man, shouting and swearing and not keeping his cool.
Stephen Green, aka Vodkapundit, had an interesting breakdown, on his thought of the video, which I tend to agree with.
When you are legally carrying, you refer to your pistol as a “firearm” so as not to alarm the police when you inform them that you are carrying, and to indicate that you have received proper training. The word “firearm” is supposed to help put the officer at ease in a tense situation.
Throughout the video, Reynolds refers to Castile’s pistol as a firearm. That might be a small detail, but it is a compelling one. Reynolds kept her calm and used the proper language in a life and death situation. I’m inclined to believe then that she has had some kind of firearms training. When she says at the start of the video that “He’s licensed to carry, he was trying to get out his ID,” I’m inclined to believe that, too.
What the video doesn’t show is how Castile was pulling out his license. Was he as cool and calm as Reynolds? Was he moving quickly? Had he used the word “gun” or “weapon” when telling the police officer that he was carrying? Was he following instructions? Were those instructions lawful?
We just don’t know, but there are some things we may reasonably conjecture — subject, of course, to whatever new evidence may come out later.
According to Reynolds in the video, Castile had “never been in jail, anything. He’s not a gang member, anything.” Add that to the calm, good sense, and tactical knowledge demonstrated by Reynolds, and my inclination is to believe that Castile’s behavior during the initial phase of the traffic stop was also lawful and proper. Read More…
I agree with those sentiments, we don’t know what happened before the video started rolling, however based solely off Reynolds’ actions and demeanor in the video, I tend to believe that Castile would be alive today if not for the actions of that police officer.
In a press conference today Reynolds shed more light on the incident.
“I’m the woman who recorded the video,” said Reynolds, referring to the footage she streamed last night on Facebook Live, in which Castile could be seen bleeding through his shirt while Reynolds’s young daughter looks on from the back of the car and a police officer stands over Castile with his gun drawn.
“We got pulled over for what allegedly was supposed to be a broken taillight,” Reynolds said. “[The police officer] let us know that we had a broken taillight. He asked us, were we aware of it and we said no. As we said no, he tells us to put our hands in the air.”
According to Reynolds, she and Castile complied with the order, at which point the officer at the driver’s side window asked Castile for his license and registration.
“My boyfriend carries all his information in a thick wallet in his right side back pocket,” Reynolds said. “As he’s reaching for his back pocket wallet he lets the officer know, ‘Officer, I have a firearm on me.’ I begin to yell, ‘But he’s licensed to carry.’ ” According to Reynolds, the officer started firing shortly after.
According to Castile’s uncle, Castile died of his wounds around 9:30 p.m. at the hospital where he was taken after the shooting. According to Reynolds, “nobody checked his pulse” in the immediate aftermath of the shooting.
Instead, Reynolds said, she was placed in the back of a police car as other officers “soothed” the officer who fired on Castile. “They pulled him over to the side and they began to calm him down and tell him that it was OK and he would get through this,” Reynolds said. Read More…
Philando Castile, a law-abiding and legally licensed concealed carry permit holder who was exercising his God-given 2nd Amendment rights is dead because of the petty law enforcement of a busted tail light. I apologize if that sounds like hyperbole, but it is the truth. A busted out tail light is the excuse that the officer had to stop Castile and begin an interaction during which some point something happened that made him uncomfortable or nervous. Was it Castile’s skin color? I don’t know, I’m not going to begin to question what is inside the heart of a man, especially with limited evidence.
I’m not going to go the “Trumpservative” route and say that all cops are great and Alton Sterling & Philando Castile have criminal records. I’m also not going to go all “social justice warrior” and say that cops are evil and are systematically targeting black men.
The truth is somewhere in between.
Shame on anyone who calls themselves a liberty-loving Constitutional Conservative and is not absolutely outraged at the total denial of the civil liberties of these two men. It doesn’t matter what their skin color, gender or sexual orientations were. They are both dead because their Civil Rights were violated and anyone who refuses to see that is blinded by hatred, bigotry or stupidity.
A lot of people are angry, and rightfully so. I don’t know what the answers are, I just hope that we are able to find it.
What the fuck has happened that 7 years after the tea party movement started, many of the same people who called themselves liberty loving small government conservatives are now fawning over a progressive democrat authoritarian like sailors on shore leave at a strip club?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
(U.S. Const. amend. IV)
Until the past few years with the rise of NSA spying and TSA pat downs, the Fourth Amendment has not been talked about as much as the Second or First. That does not make it any less important, as a matter of fact eliminating Fourth Amendment Rights, pretty much eliminates First & Second Amendment rights along with them.
Recently, Democrats in both New York and California have introduced bills that would outright ban the sale of mobile devices with encryption technology. The similar bills introduced in California by State Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove) and in New York by Assemblyman Matthew Titone (D-Staten Island), if passed, would require all smartphones that are sold to be “capable of being decrypted and unlocked by its manufacturer or its operating system provider.”
Cooper’s reasoning puts a novel spin on the same, tired “The police can’t do their jobs unless tech companies do it for them” argument. This time, he used human trafficking as the boogeyman that needs defeating and which can only be accomplished if the government has unfettered, disk-level access to its citizens’ cell phones.
“If you’re a bad guy [we] can get a search record for your bank, for your house, you can get a search warrant for just about anything,” Cooper told ArsTechnica. “For the industry to say it’s privacy, it really doesn’t hold any water. We’re going after human traffickers and people who are doing bad and evil things. Human trafficking trumps privacy, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.” Apparently human trafficking also trumps the 4th Amendment as well. Read more…
Forcing everyone into using un-encrypted mobile devices and opening up not just the government sector thieves but private sector thieves as well to be able to access your private information is much worse. People use their smart phones today for banking, medical information and a whole host of other legal activities that require privacy.
While I agree that human trafficking is a disgusting and vile criminal activity that has to be stopped, it is not more important than the fundamental right to privacy. If a warrant can be obtained for all those other things it can be obtained to search a smart phone as well.
For more Click Here.