Disclaimer: The Nothington Post staff does not subscribe to any of Alex Jones's conspiracy theories, nor his sensationalism, celebrity worship, and other errors.
Jones was uncomposed and overly boistrous in his debate with Piers Morgan on gun rights. People say that he made liberty people look bad. Indeed, maybe he did. Many conspiracy theorists theorize that he is a double agent who is trying to make liberty people look bad. But it seems Jones's conduct during the debate was a manifestation of his spark plug personality and not deliberate sabotage. That same fiery temperment has made him famous and has also drawn many people to liberty philosophy. Even if he isn't a calm debater, people need to remember the good that he has done.
It's a fact that many Ron Paul supporters found the liberty movement through Alex Jones. Moreover, Jones always supports honest, anti-establishment, pro-freedom candidates like Debra Medina and Kurt Haskell. Despite his conspiracy stigma, Jones has the largest following in the liberty movement, with many fans not totally on board with liberty as well. The worst side effect of his conspiracies may be an overexuberant distrust of government among his followers, but consequently, no Alex Jones supporter could be found to be the chump of a cynical politician.
It's funny because even conspiracy people are developing conspiracies against Jones, saying that because he doesn't tout their worldview enough, he is an agent for the Illuminati or something. But even if this is somehow true, which it isn't, Jones has brought so many people to be "awake", as they call it, that the Illuminati or whoever would have to be totally stupid for sponsoring him.
Jones has a lot of legitimate information on his show that the rest of the media ignores. For example, Jones covers the Bilderberg meeting, an important meeting of world elites that the cowardly mainstream media ignores for fear of being called conspiracy theorists. Like the G20 or any gathering of world leaders, Bilderberg deserves attention, and Jones has nothing to lose in covering it.
In sum, Jones makes valuable contributions to journalism and the liberty movement despite his regrettable conspiracies.
_______________
Correction
We initally gave as an example of the mainstream media ignoring Michigan's law that oppresses small hog farmers at the behest of big
agra, and related that Jones had covered it. But we subsequently found an ABC News article about it, so we were wrong that the media ignored it. However, one could say that major media outlets did not cover it enough. If they had publicized it like they did the Trayvon Martin case, then Michigan probably wouldn't have any problems now with oppressive farm laws.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Friday, January 4, 2013
Gun Grabbers Use Propaganda Not Reason
Gun grabbers such as the ponytail man waste no time in using recent news of mass shootings as propaganda to fit their preconceived agenda of taking people's guns. They justify exploiting news of murders for political gain by saying that "if this particular gun control law were in place, fewer or no people would have died," and then they act as though those people who would oppose such laws somehow endorse the murders. If gun grabbers are going to throw the first punch, pro-gun people have a right to respond.
First of all, the gun grabbers are selling snake oil. They do not know for sure that the laws they propose would prevent murders. If clip sizes are reduced, then a killer could bring additional clips. If quotas are put on clips, a killer could bring an additional weapon. Economics tells us that there are substitute goods that can be used in place of goods to fulfill the same purpose, so even if all guns are successfully banned, alternative weapons and methods of killing would be sought by killers. If a killer wants to kill a certain number of people, he can find ways to circumvent bans.
It'd be one thing to introduce statistics on gun deaths in the US and and to estimate how many lives a proposed law might save. But in that case, the law would be somewhat testable, and if it failed to reduce deaths, then the gun grabber would look bad. To escape potential statistical scrutiny, gun grabbers opt to play on people's emotions by using news events of mass shootings or shootings involving famous people. You get the idea from these media propagandists that ordinary people who are shot individually elicit no need for anti-gun laws, as if their deaths are less important. Indeed, they are less important to the gun grabber, because they are not as useful in drumming up support for anti-gun legislation.
To answer the question as to whether people "need" to own high powered guns, I quote Sidney Painter in his book on French Chivalry: "Until the non-noble class obtained wealth, leisure, or a cheap, easily used, and effective weapon, the position of the feudal aristocracy was perfectly secure" (page 3). Notice that maintaining feudal aristocracy is partly reliant on the rulers (or government) possessing far superior weaponry to the commoners. The founding fathers wanted to make sure common people could defend themselves against, say, indian raids instead of being helplessly reliant on the government to protect them. Thus, the power structure would be unlike a feudal system in which only rulers could offer sufficient protection. In a land of liberty, commoners deserve to have effective weapons. These weapons should be as potentially effective in defense as the most effective weapon possessed by government agents who deal with similar threats. But because gun grabbers promote government coercion and not liberty, they see no need to support the right to own high powered firearms for people without government-granted status.
First of all, the gun grabbers are selling snake oil. They do not know for sure that the laws they propose would prevent murders. If clip sizes are reduced, then a killer could bring additional clips. If quotas are put on clips, a killer could bring an additional weapon. Economics tells us that there are substitute goods that can be used in place of goods to fulfill the same purpose, so even if all guns are successfully banned, alternative weapons and methods of killing would be sought by killers. If a killer wants to kill a certain number of people, he can find ways to circumvent bans.
It'd be one thing to introduce statistics on gun deaths in the US and and to estimate how many lives a proposed law might save. But in that case, the law would be somewhat testable, and if it failed to reduce deaths, then the gun grabber would look bad. To escape potential statistical scrutiny, gun grabbers opt to play on people's emotions by using news events of mass shootings or shootings involving famous people. You get the idea from these media propagandists that ordinary people who are shot individually elicit no need for anti-gun laws, as if their deaths are less important. Indeed, they are less important to the gun grabber, because they are not as useful in drumming up support for anti-gun legislation.
To answer the question as to whether people "need" to own high powered guns, I quote Sidney Painter in his book on French Chivalry: "Until the non-noble class obtained wealth, leisure, or a cheap, easily used, and effective weapon, the position of the feudal aristocracy was perfectly secure" (page 3). Notice that maintaining feudal aristocracy is partly reliant on the rulers (or government) possessing far superior weaponry to the commoners. The founding fathers wanted to make sure common people could defend themselves against, say, indian raids instead of being helplessly reliant on the government to protect them. Thus, the power structure would be unlike a feudal system in which only rulers could offer sufficient protection. In a land of liberty, commoners deserve to have effective weapons. These weapons should be as potentially effective in defense as the most effective weapon possessed by government agents who deal with similar threats. But because gun grabbers promote government coercion and not liberty, they see no need to support the right to own high powered firearms for people without government-granted status.
Friday, November 23, 2012
How Rand Paul can Win in 2016
Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh will try their best to derail Rand's presidential candidacy just as they did to Ron Paul. They will never mention him unless he becomes a threat in the polls, and if he does, they'll call him a nut, say he's anti-American for opposing the military industrial complex, and use other garbage pejoratives. Hannity will lament that Rand is the "only" Republican candidate he cannot support. Glenn Beck will fawn over neo-conmen like Santorum again. FOX News will commence with the usual combination of blackout and subtle ridicule. The National Review will extol the most fiscally liberal, pro-war candidate. These people are not stupid and know that Rand takes after his father... a lot. In fact, Limbaugh has already mocked Rand for his run-in with the TSA, and Levin has mentioned Rand in a tone of voice lush with hatred. Phony conservatives like Levin and Limbaugh influence many voters.
The 2012 Ron Paul campaign had way more grassroots support than any other. Ron Paul bumperstickers abounded months before the primary in each state, often as early as September 2011. Romney bumperstickers were only became evident in September of 2012. Ron Paul events routinely drew thousands. Romney was lucky to get more than several hundred.
But the grassroots support was not enough. The sheeple Republicans voted in the primary for the candidate the media said "could win": Romney. That is, the one who could win within the acceptable paradigm of being the world police and continuing unsustainable spending.
What's missing from the Liberty Movement is an elite media presence. But elite media presence requires support from rich, powerful people. The American Revolutionaries had wealthy financiers in 1776, and a good many of the wealthy elite, especially on Wall Street, need to be converted to liberty. Once this happens, it will be easier for a pro-liberty talk radio show host to become as popular as a Mark Levin or Sean Hannity.
As far as candidates for talk radio go, perhaps the best hope for the urban areas is Peter Schiff, who has a radio show advancing a libertarian worldview. But we still would need a conservative Christian who will speak to middle America. Most people won't admit it, but Alex Jones has influenced many people to become Ron Paul Supporters, and guessing from the local scene, as much as 15% of all Ron Paul people were directed to like Dr Paul and liberty itself by Jones. Indeed, Jones professes to be a Christian, but he isn't quite conservative in the way he does things. His sensationalism and conspiracies may not appeal to most Republicans. We need someone who can speak to conservative social sentiments while also tactfully promoting liberty, small government, and a non-interventionist foreign policy without any conspiracies or obsession with globalists. Tom Woods may be decent for a "Firing Line" kind of show on PBS if the liberal PBS would allow such a show, but as a radio host, Woods's keen intellectual mind may be too fast for the average person. Jack Hunter may not be gregarious enough for radio. We need someone. If Jones gains popularity, it would certainly help, but non-conspiracy people will be better able to sway undecided voters toward Rand.
As far as television, FOX News needs to reinstate Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedomwatch, and it needs to become as popular as "The O'Reilly Factor". A Buchananite Republican needs to get a show on some network, and maybe Lou Dobbs could lean more towards liberty. Stossel needs to be put on prime time more often. We need to win these little "elections" before we can win Rand the big one. I am confident that if liberty people have half as much time as the neo-cons, they will do just as well, if not better.
Print media is picked over by liberals and shallow moderates. The New York Times will never employ another Henry Hazlitt. In any case, every single copy of the National Review must be replaced with the American Conservative as soon as possible. Get your friends to switch. The New American, The Freeman, and Reason Magazine all need to gain prominence as well.
This is not to say that we can slack on grassroots efforts, as those will have to be stronger than ever to bring about a Rand victory.
Anyway, it seems impossible that we'll have representatives in elite media by 2015, in time to sow seeds for the 2016 presidential primary election. But unless we reach the masses on this level, we're finished. The Internet and word of mouth can only do so much. We must reach the sheeple.
The 2012 Ron Paul campaign had way more grassroots support than any other. Ron Paul bumperstickers abounded months before the primary in each state, often as early as September 2011. Romney bumperstickers were only became evident in September of 2012. Ron Paul events routinely drew thousands. Romney was lucky to get more than several hundred.
But the grassroots support was not enough. The sheeple Republicans voted in the primary for the candidate the media said "could win": Romney. That is, the one who could win within the acceptable paradigm of being the world police and continuing unsustainable spending.
What's missing from the Liberty Movement is an elite media presence. But elite media presence requires support from rich, powerful people. The American Revolutionaries had wealthy financiers in 1776, and a good many of the wealthy elite, especially on Wall Street, need to be converted to liberty. Once this happens, it will be easier for a pro-liberty talk radio show host to become as popular as a Mark Levin or Sean Hannity.
As far as candidates for talk radio go, perhaps the best hope for the urban areas is Peter Schiff, who has a radio show advancing a libertarian worldview. But we still would need a conservative Christian who will speak to middle America. Most people won't admit it, but Alex Jones has influenced many people to become Ron Paul Supporters, and guessing from the local scene, as much as 15% of all Ron Paul people were directed to like Dr Paul and liberty itself by Jones. Indeed, Jones professes to be a Christian, but he isn't quite conservative in the way he does things. His sensationalism and conspiracies may not appeal to most Republicans. We need someone who can speak to conservative social sentiments while also tactfully promoting liberty, small government, and a non-interventionist foreign policy without any conspiracies or obsession with globalists. Tom Woods may be decent for a "Firing Line" kind of show on PBS if the liberal PBS would allow such a show, but as a radio host, Woods's keen intellectual mind may be too fast for the average person. Jack Hunter may not be gregarious enough for radio. We need someone. If Jones gains popularity, it would certainly help, but non-conspiracy people will be better able to sway undecided voters toward Rand.
As far as television, FOX News needs to reinstate Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedomwatch, and it needs to become as popular as "The O'Reilly Factor". A Buchananite Republican needs to get a show on some network, and maybe Lou Dobbs could lean more towards liberty. Stossel needs to be put on prime time more often. We need to win these little "elections" before we can win Rand the big one. I am confident that if liberty people have half as much time as the neo-cons, they will do just as well, if not better.
Print media is picked over by liberals and shallow moderates. The New York Times will never employ another Henry Hazlitt. In any case, every single copy of the National Review must be replaced with the American Conservative as soon as possible. Get your friends to switch. The New American, The Freeman, and Reason Magazine all need to gain prominence as well.
This is not to say that we can slack on grassroots efforts, as those will have to be stronger than ever to bring about a Rand victory.
Anyway, it seems impossible that we'll have representatives in elite media by 2015, in time to sow seeds for the 2016 presidential primary election. But unless we reach the masses on this level, we're finished. The Internet and word of mouth can only do so much. We must reach the sheeple.
The Other 1% is Politically Irrelevant?
One percent of Americans voted for Gary Johnson for President on the Libertarian Party ticket in 2012. Die-hards for freedom are about one percent of voting Americans.
After Obama's second victory, Left-liberals were quick to conclude that people who want more freedom are politically irrelevant. Granted, a liberal might construe social libertarian stances such as legalization of some drugs, immigration "reform", and even gay "marriage" as "acceptable" stances for freedom, with all others being completely irrelevant to the "progress"ive consensus.
It should be mentioned that Gary Johnson supporters were not the same as Romney supporters. They weren't going to put up with any candidate who supported the brown-shirtesque TSA, ominous legislation like NDAA2012, a growing welfare and warfare state, a falling dollar, etc. Both Obama and Romney never once claimed to stop any of these things, with Romney only seeming to promise to slow down government growth (except for in "defense" spending).
So, the other one percent, the Gary Johnson supporters, are they politically irrelevant? For the time being...yes. Johnson failed to accumulate the difference of votes between Romney and Obama in any state, not even being able to enjoy the status of spoiler that would be awarded by sarcastic reporters.
However, Gary Johnson/Ron Paul supporters can become politically relevant, but they must increase their numbers dramatically.
Several ways to do so are:
1. Talk to friends and educate them about liberty. Don't just vie for their votes given their existing, non liberty-oriented ideas. Maybe branch out to them on some liberty issue they support and then give them the full dose.
2. Organize outreach programs. Educational programs such as Foundation for Economic Education should take precedence. Hand out flyers in public places concerning liberty issues or ideas.
Political campaigns need to take a back seat for a while. There is no sense in running in elections to get votes from socialists and military worshipers, when neither have an appetite for freedom. Only in places where victory is possible, such as in Thomas Massie's congressional seat, should liberty candidates be given a lot of attention. This is not to say that third party candidates such as Gary Johnson who are severe underdogs should not run. They should run, but their campaigns should be un-apologetically pro-liberty. Nor should they consume all the time of liberty individuals or distract from winning people over to liberty philosophy.
People need to stop thinking campaign to campaign, and start thinking in the long term. If Gary Johnson die-hards could become at least 15% of the voting population, they could be able to sway enough fickle and lenient people to vote in many more liberty Republicans than the three congressmen and two senators* to be in the Federal government as of 2013.
3. Give up truly irrelevant things to make more time for liberty. Sports especially need to take a back seat, unless you're actually profiting from it like Peyton Hillis. When we have more freedom we can again indulge in such things.
4. Finally, giving up is exactly what the "progress"ives and poser neo-cons want Gary Johnson/Ron Paul supporters to do. Winning the hearts and minds may be difficult and perhaps even impossible given the loyalty institutions of socialism tend to ensconce from people who have lived with them. But perhaps, the reason we're here in the first place is that liberty people haven't been vocal enough to counteract the temptations of socialism (if doing were possible).
5. This talk of secession is nonsense. Not that secession is bad per se, but we simply don't have enough influence in any state government to commence with seceding anywhere. We might as well theorize about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin. When we reach heaven (Lord willing), we'll find out, and when there is a heavenly atmosphere of liberty in a given state, we'll discuss secession.
___________________________________
*They are Amash, Massie, and Bentovolio. Walter Jones and Dennis Kucinich are helpful as well. The Senators are Rand Paul and Mike Lee.
After Obama's second victory, Left-liberals were quick to conclude that people who want more freedom are politically irrelevant. Granted, a liberal might construe social libertarian stances such as legalization of some drugs, immigration "reform", and even gay "marriage" as "acceptable" stances for freedom, with all others being completely irrelevant to the "progress"ive consensus.
It should be mentioned that Gary Johnson supporters were not the same as Romney supporters. They weren't going to put up with any candidate who supported the brown-shirtesque TSA, ominous legislation like NDAA2012, a growing welfare and warfare state, a falling dollar, etc. Both Obama and Romney never once claimed to stop any of these things, with Romney only seeming to promise to slow down government growth (except for in "defense" spending).
So, the other one percent, the Gary Johnson supporters, are they politically irrelevant? For the time being...yes. Johnson failed to accumulate the difference of votes between Romney and Obama in any state, not even being able to enjoy the status of spoiler that would be awarded by sarcastic reporters.
However, Gary Johnson/Ron Paul supporters can become politically relevant, but they must increase their numbers dramatically.
Several ways to do so are:
1. Talk to friends and educate them about liberty. Don't just vie for their votes given their existing, non liberty-oriented ideas. Maybe branch out to them on some liberty issue they support and then give them the full dose.
2. Organize outreach programs. Educational programs such as Foundation for Economic Education should take precedence. Hand out flyers in public places concerning liberty issues or ideas.
Political campaigns need to take a back seat for a while. There is no sense in running in elections to get votes from socialists and military worshipers, when neither have an appetite for freedom. Only in places where victory is possible, such as in Thomas Massie's congressional seat, should liberty candidates be given a lot of attention. This is not to say that third party candidates such as Gary Johnson who are severe underdogs should not run. They should run, but their campaigns should be un-apologetically pro-liberty. Nor should they consume all the time of liberty individuals or distract from winning people over to liberty philosophy.
People need to stop thinking campaign to campaign, and start thinking in the long term. If Gary Johnson die-hards could become at least 15% of the voting population, they could be able to sway enough fickle and lenient people to vote in many more liberty Republicans than the three congressmen and two senators* to be in the Federal government as of 2013.
3. Give up truly irrelevant things to make more time for liberty. Sports especially need to take a back seat, unless you're actually profiting from it like Peyton Hillis. When we have more freedom we can again indulge in such things.
4. Finally, giving up is exactly what the "progress"ives and poser neo-cons want Gary Johnson/Ron Paul supporters to do. Winning the hearts and minds may be difficult and perhaps even impossible given the loyalty institutions of socialism tend to ensconce from people who have lived with them. But perhaps, the reason we're here in the first place is that liberty people haven't been vocal enough to counteract the temptations of socialism (if doing were possible).
5. This talk of secession is nonsense. Not that secession is bad per se, but we simply don't have enough influence in any state government to commence with seceding anywhere. We might as well theorize about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin. When we reach heaven (Lord willing), we'll find out, and when there is a heavenly atmosphere of liberty in a given state, we'll discuss secession.
___________________________________
*They are Amash, Massie, and Bentovolio. Walter Jones and Dennis Kucinich are helpful as well. The Senators are Rand Paul and Mike Lee.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Tom Corbett Lies at RNC
According to PA Republican delegate Anthony Antonello of Pittston, Tom Corbett lied when announcing the delegates choices. There were 72 total delegates and 67 supported Romney. When announcing the allegiance of the remaining five delegates on the Convention floor, Corbett lied saying they supported "Paul Ryan", when in fact they supported Ron Paul! Antonello, Tom Boggia, Brian Dougherty, Tom Martin, and Thomas Brown all supported Ron Paul but had their positions misrepresented by the soulless Pennsylvania governor.
Lemmings in the GOP have said that Tom Corbett is "a good Christian man". I wish I could ask them whether they think he told a "good Christian lie".
Lemmings in the GOP have said that Tom Corbett is "a good Christian man". I wish I could ask them whether they think he told a "good Christian lie".
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
2012 Pennsylvania Election Endorsements
Federal Candidates
President: Gary Johnson (Libertarian)
US Senate: Rayburn Douglas Smith (Libertarian)
CD 10: Phil Scollo (D)
CD 11: Lou Barletta (R)
CD 17: Laureen Cummings (R)
State Candidates
Attorney General: Marakay Rogers (Libertarian)
Auditor General: Betsy Summers (Libertarian)
State Treasurer: Patricia M. Fryman (Libertarian)
PA 120 Aaron Kaufer (R)
PA 119 Rick Arnold (R)
PA 12 Daryl Metcalfe (R)
US Congressional Candidate Endorsements Outside Pennsylvania
Kesha Rogers (D) TX -22
Kurt Haskell (D) MI -7
Justin Amash (R) MI -3
Kerry Bentivolio (R) MI -11
Art Robinson (R) OR -4
Thomas Massie (R) KY -4
Randy Weber (R) TX -14
Explanations
Gary Johnson, President -Why not choose the lesser of two evils in Romney? We believe Romney will be very similar to George W. Bush or fusion of Bush and Obama. We expect from him: unnecessary wars with Iran and Syria, retention of a significant amount of Obamacare, and increased overall spending largely due to increases in "defense" spending. Romney will expand TSA molestations, drones spying on Americans, NDAA 2012, and many other anti-freedom trends. Such incremental increases in tyranny and fiscal irresponsibility are the very things people are mad at Obama for. Romney has already shown a liking for strong arm tactics in his maneuvers to prevent Ron Paul from being considered for a vote at the GOP convention, and God knows what he'll be like once elected. Finally, for every neo-con warmonger such GW Bush, there follows a left-wing despot like Obama. Although Romney may be slightly better for the business climate today, in the long run he represents a temporary slowing down and not a reversal of detrimental policies.
Every four years, sages clamber for the American people to stop compromising and vote against a candidate who represents the establishment coterie of a political party which has had 150 years to be corrupted. And every year the mindless masses, due to a prisoner's dilemma mentality and fear, vote to keep out the major party candidate they dislike most. A lot of this is due to brainwashing in the media that accentuates differences between Republicans like Romney and Democrats like Obama, when functionally they are nearly identical. Obama maintained Bush's increases in spending, and George W Bush increased the benchmark of annual federal spending by more in his last four years than Obama has in his first four years.
Those voting for Gary Johnson know that they are voting for an honest man. Johnson is actually more qualified to run for president than Romney, having served two terms as governor instead of one, and having been named one of the most popular governors during his tenure unlike Romney.
Prior to becoming governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson started a business from the ground up which would eventually employ over one thousand people, and unlike Romney, he never received a bailout.
Johnson aims to solve all the problems of the day. He favors sustainable, sane levels of defense spending, and has a track record as governor of reducing spending and balancing the budget. Johnson knows how to say no, and has the backbone to veto all forms of excessive spending. His libertarian philosophy is conducive to a small government that permits maximum freedom for all. Thus, Gary Johnson is actually different from Obama in his preferred policies. Until the GOP and their talk-radio brainwashers allow the people a candidate such as Gary Johnson, they will not receive votes from anyone who is honest and fully informed, who also cares about fiscal well-being and personal freedom.
Libertarian Party candidate Rayburn Smith understands liberty and is a fiscal conservative. He will vote to curtail waste in the "defense" budget, and will oppose the burgeoning police state mentality and draconian measures such as NDAA2012.
Rayburn Smith's Republican opponent, Tom Smith (no relation), is an idiot who does not think for himself and believes the consensus among the Republican establishment is the only standard of truth. Case in point, Tom Smith deferred to Pat Toomey and Allen West on the indefinite detention clause in the NDAA 2012, without ever developing an opinion of his own on the subject. His only opinion seems to be conformity with the establishment. Tom Smith also stated that we must have a "balance" between liberty and security. Politicians only say that when they want to take away liberty, never when they want to allow more of it. It is clear that Tom Smith will not stand up for your freedom as long as he can use that ridiculous rationale for backing down. On the other hand, Rayburn Smith makes liberty a priority will protect us from tyrannical legislation.
The video below displays Tom the moron Smith's answer to a question on NDAA.
President: Gary Johnson (Libertarian)
US Senate: Rayburn Douglas Smith (Libertarian)
CD 10: Phil Scollo (D)
CD 11: Lou Barletta (R)
CD 17: Laureen Cummings (R)
State Candidates
Attorney General: Marakay Rogers (Libertarian)
Auditor General: Betsy Summers (Libertarian)
State Treasurer: Patricia M. Fryman (Libertarian)
PA 120 Aaron Kaufer (R)
PA 119 Rick Arnold (R)
PA 12 Daryl Metcalfe (R)
US Congressional Candidate Endorsements Outside Pennsylvania
Kesha Rogers (D) TX -22
Kurt Haskell (D) MI -7
Justin Amash (R) MI -3
Kerry Bentivolio (R) MI -11
Art Robinson (R) OR -4
Thomas Massie (R) KY -4
Randy Weber (R) TX -14
Explanations
Gary Johnson, President -Why not choose the lesser of two evils in Romney? We believe Romney will be very similar to George W. Bush or fusion of Bush and Obama. We expect from him: unnecessary wars with Iran and Syria, retention of a significant amount of Obamacare, and increased overall spending largely due to increases in "defense" spending. Romney will expand TSA molestations, drones spying on Americans, NDAA 2012, and many other anti-freedom trends. Such incremental increases in tyranny and fiscal irresponsibility are the very things people are mad at Obama for. Romney has already shown a liking for strong arm tactics in his maneuvers to prevent Ron Paul from being considered for a vote at the GOP convention, and God knows what he'll be like once elected. Finally, for every neo-con warmonger such GW Bush, there follows a left-wing despot like Obama. Although Romney may be slightly better for the business climate today, in the long run he represents a temporary slowing down and not a reversal of detrimental policies.
Every four years, sages clamber for the American people to stop compromising and vote against a candidate who represents the establishment coterie of a political party which has had 150 years to be corrupted. And every year the mindless masses, due to a prisoner's dilemma mentality and fear, vote to keep out the major party candidate they dislike most. A lot of this is due to brainwashing in the media that accentuates differences between Republicans like Romney and Democrats like Obama, when functionally they are nearly identical. Obama maintained Bush's increases in spending, and George W Bush increased the benchmark of annual federal spending by more in his last four years than Obama has in his first four years.
Those voting for Gary Johnson know that they are voting for an honest man. Johnson is actually more qualified to run for president than Romney, having served two terms as governor instead of one, and having been named one of the most popular governors during his tenure unlike Romney.
Prior to becoming governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson started a business from the ground up which would eventually employ over one thousand people, and unlike Romney, he never received a bailout.
Johnson aims to solve all the problems of the day. He favors sustainable, sane levels of defense spending, and has a track record as governor of reducing spending and balancing the budget. Johnson knows how to say no, and has the backbone to veto all forms of excessive spending. His libertarian philosophy is conducive to a small government that permits maximum freedom for all. Thus, Gary Johnson is actually different from Obama in his preferred policies. Until the GOP and their talk-radio brainwashers allow the people a candidate such as Gary Johnson, they will not receive votes from anyone who is honest and fully informed, who also cares about fiscal well-being and personal freedom.
Libertarian Party candidate Rayburn Smith understands liberty and is a fiscal conservative. He will vote to curtail waste in the "defense" budget, and will oppose the burgeoning police state mentality and draconian measures such as NDAA2012.
Rayburn Smith's Republican opponent, Tom Smith (no relation), is an idiot who does not think for himself and believes the consensus among the Republican establishment is the only standard of truth. Case in point, Tom Smith deferred to Pat Toomey and Allen West on the indefinite detention clause in the NDAA 2012, without ever developing an opinion of his own on the subject. His only opinion seems to be conformity with the establishment. Tom Smith also stated that we must have a "balance" between liberty and security. Politicians only say that when they want to take away liberty, never when they want to allow more of it. It is clear that Tom Smith will not stand up for your freedom as long as he can use that ridiculous rationale for backing down. On the other hand, Rayburn Smith makes liberty a priority will protect us from tyrannical legislation.
The video below displays Tom the moron Smith's answer to a question on NDAA.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Letter to NuPo: Wilkes-Barre Walmart has Unbearably Long Lines
Many people are complaining about the excessively long lines at the Wilkes-Barre Walmart. One commenter reports "They have like 20 cash registers and only put on 3 cashiers."
Each line is at least five customers long on any given day. It almost feels like a welfare line, and to a degree it is, since many of the people pay with food stamps.
The Wilkes-Barre Walmart store manager ought to be replaced with someone who will not force customers wait a half hour in line. There ought to be a protest and a public awareness campaign to stop the idiot manager from making our citizens' lives miserable.
Hiring more cashiers would mean more local jobs and would probably encourage more people to shop at Walmart since they would not have to suffer the inconvenience of long lines. But the miserly manager probably cares more about pinching a few extra pennies by not scheduling an adequate number of cashiers, just to give a little more money to the Walmart corporation.
But if all Walmarts were similarly understaffed, it could mean lower prices across the board in addition to more profits. Thus, the cost of a lower price would not only be felt in sweatshops in Asia but also in the long breadlines at Walmarts.
However, other Walmarts, such as the one in Pittston, reportedly get by fine without such long lines, so the Wilkes-Barre one should be able to do so as well. Moreover, the Wilkes-Barre Target and Kmart always seem to have plenty of cashiers, and they seem to be able to turn profits.*
The Wilkes-Barre Walmart's scandalously long lines must be hard on cashiers too, because if there were more of them, they would conceivably get a break instead of having to constantly scan and bag items for impatient, grumpy customers.
The goal should be NEVER a longer than three minutes waiting time per customer: about the length of time it would take to wait behind a shopping cart packed with stuff that is paid for with a slowly-validated welfare card.
_______________________________
More Complaints about Wilkes-Barre Walmart's lines:
http://www.yelp.com/biz/walmart-wilkes-barre
https://foursquare.com/v/walmart-supercenter/4b4632f2f964a520d01926e3
*We do not know how much additional profit could be generated by under-staffing cashiers, and how much this additional profit would be used to lower prices nor the degree to which it would affect the overall price of items. However, if one Walmart has long lines due to insufficient cashiers and another has plenty cashiers, then the one with long lines is effectively subsidizing, to a degree, the low prices of the one with sufficient cashiers. This is not fair, and there should be a uniform sufficiency of cashiers among all Walmarts.
Each line is at least five customers long on any given day. It almost feels like a welfare line, and to a degree it is, since many of the people pay with food stamps.
The Wilkes-Barre Walmart store manager ought to be replaced with someone who will not force customers wait a half hour in line. There ought to be a protest and a public awareness campaign to stop the idiot manager from making our citizens' lives miserable.
Hiring more cashiers would mean more local jobs and would probably encourage more people to shop at Walmart since they would not have to suffer the inconvenience of long lines. But the miserly manager probably cares more about pinching a few extra pennies by not scheduling an adequate number of cashiers, just to give a little more money to the Walmart corporation.
But if all Walmarts were similarly understaffed, it could mean lower prices across the board in addition to more profits. Thus, the cost of a lower price would not only be felt in sweatshops in Asia but also in the long breadlines at Walmarts.
However, other Walmarts, such as the one in Pittston, reportedly get by fine without such long lines, so the Wilkes-Barre one should be able to do so as well. Moreover, the Wilkes-Barre Target and Kmart always seem to have plenty of cashiers, and they seem to be able to turn profits.*
The Wilkes-Barre Walmart's scandalously long lines must be hard on cashiers too, because if there were more of them, they would conceivably get a break instead of having to constantly scan and bag items for impatient, grumpy customers.
The goal should be NEVER a longer than three minutes waiting time per customer: about the length of time it would take to wait behind a shopping cart packed with stuff that is paid for with a slowly-validated welfare card.
_______________________________
More Complaints about Wilkes-Barre Walmart's lines:
http://www.yelp.com/biz/walmart-wilkes-barre
https://foursquare.com/v/walmart-supercenter/4b4632f2f964a520d01926e3
*We do not know how much additional profit could be generated by under-staffing cashiers, and how much this additional profit would be used to lower prices nor the degree to which it would affect the overall price of items. However, if one Walmart has long lines due to insufficient cashiers and another has plenty cashiers, then the one with long lines is effectively subsidizing, to a degree, the low prices of the one with sufficient cashiers. This is not fair, and there should be a uniform sufficiency of cashiers among all Walmarts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)