Nuggets of Wisdom

Monday, April 29, 2013

We Are The Weird

Saw this inspirational comic on Tumblr. Decided to share it along with a relevant quote from John Stuart Mill.

“In this age, the mere example of non-conformity, the mere refusal to bend the knee to custom, is itself a service. Precisely because the tyranny of opinion is such as to make eccentricity a reproach, it is desirable, in order to break through that tyranny, that people should be eccentric. Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor, and moral courage which it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time.”

― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Why Is This A Bad Thing?

Lamar Smith recently drafted a bill that would place criteria on government-funded scientific grants. In order to receive government funding, the research in question would have to be proven to act "in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense by promoting the progress of science."

Aside from the fact that this bill is written by the same man who wrote SOPA, I don't really see a problem with this. Isn't the whole point of government funding to fund stuff that benefits the American public? (Not that the government actually benefits the American public, but still...) So shouldn't a vital criteria for government-funded scientific grants be that they will go to research that will directly benefit the American public? Why is this a bad thing?

As most of you probably know, I'm not a huge fan of government funding, because it rarely funds anything useful; but if we are going to fund scientific research, it would be nice if that research was for discovering a cure for cancer or a new alternative fuel source, rather than studying snail sex or duck genitalia.

And yet this bill has raised the ire of PZ Myers and other "scientifically-minded" individuals who are decrying this as an attack on science and education. I don't get it. Why is it a bad thing to ensure that scientific funding benefits us?

Daily Pony: Rarity + Discord = ???

For today's Daily Pony post, I decided to share the first Pony-related item I saw on deviantART's front page. Why? Because I'm random that way.

Speaking of random...

Mystique by *XRadioactive-FrizzX on deviantART

This "beauty" is a fan character called Mystique, and if it wasn't blatantly obvious to you, it's supposed to be the child of Discord and Rarity.

I'm not sure what Rarity would see in him. Pinkie Pie I could understand. Same with Twilight Sparkle. I could even understand Fluttershy. But Rarity? That's just random.

But then again, Discord is randomness incarnate. So nothing about him or his shippings have to make sense, I suppose.

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Daily Pony: Raven is a Pegasister

Wow. It's been a long time since I created a "Daily Pony" post; and considering the lack of pony on this blog, what with it being called the "Libertarian Brony," I'd figure it's about time to create such a post.

The only thing I love more than My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is Teen Titans. So, for me, mixing the two together is like mixing peanut butter and chocolate: an epic combination!

Last week, the premiere episode of the Teen Titans reboot Teen Titans Go! featured Raven watching a parody of MLP:FiM called "Pretty Pretty Pegasus," which is especially meta since the voice actor for Raven is Tara Strong, who also voices Twilight Sparkle in MLP:FiM.

Twilight is best pony. Raven is best titan. And Tara is best voice actor!

Watch her in all her epicness in the video below:

Notice how Raven watches the cartoon on-line--like every good brony!

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Shane Killian Nails Feminists!

No, he doesn't nail them "that" way! Get your mind out of the gutters!

Instead, his video nails their blatant hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to advocating for gender equality--which, of course, means equality for them and their gender. (Men and women they politically disagree with? Not so much!)

My favorite part is when he smacks down the concept of "victim blaming":
[Apparently], I engage in victim-blaming because I want to educate women about risky behavior that increases the probability of them being raped, just like I want to educate people about running virus protection on their computers.

Hey, it's not their fault they got a virus. The blame lies solely on whoever writes these computer viruses. But why should we have to do anything different when we haven't done anything wrong?

How horrible it is to advise a victim or potential victim of a home invasion to install a deadbolt or alarm system? Actually, those things are okay, because they're not feminists issues; but as soon as you get to an issue such as rape, it's an unforgivable sin.

CISPA Is Dead--For Now!

If you've been trying to maintain faith in humanity, the past few weeks have not been the best time to do so, what with the Boston bombing, the Texas plant explosion, the ricin letters, the MIT officer's shooting, the 4/20 shooting, and all the while, our politicians exploiting these tragedies to push for more "security" and less liberty.

But take heart, comrades! With all the crap that's hit the fan within the past few weeks, some good has come of it.

Just recently, the Senate shelved CISPA, or the Cyber Information Sharing and Protection Act, which passed the House last week. So not only did the Senate manage to curb draconian gun control legislation, but it's now curbed draconian internet surveillance legislation. I'm starting to prefer the Senate over the House.

But don't get your hopes up too soon. This is hardly the end. Need I remind you that this is the SECOND time Congress tried to pass CISPA, and it will hardly be the last. Our government is dead-set at limiting our freedoms as individual citizens, especially when it comes to the Internet. Its past few attempts may have failed, but mark my words, it will not stop until it has the Internet under its Orwellian control. The fight for liberty is a constant battle, and we must remain ever vigilant.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

CISPA Explained With Sock Puppets

Nothing explains complicated hundred-page legislation than sock puppets! Sock puppets make learning anything easier!

If you haven't done so already, contact your senators! We must stop CISPA in the Senate.

Saturday, April 20, 2013

The Big Conspiracy

Hey folks! Do you want to learn the truth? You know? The truth! About 9/11. JFK. The moon landing. The Holocaust. Pearl Harbor. Obama's birth certificate. Hurricane Sandy. Sandy Hook. The Bible. The Elements of Harmony.

So do you want the truth? The whole truth? Nothing but the truth? So help you God?

Well, you can't handle the truth!

But in all seriousness, the truth is out there, and the truth will set you free!

So do you want the truth? A grain of truth? The gospel truth?  The honest to goodness truth?

Do you want the truth that THEY are hiding from us? You know? THEM! The Illuminati. NWO. Skull and Crossbones. Freemasons. Knights Templar. Zionists. Satanists. Reptilians. Bilderbergs. Rockefellers. Koch Brothers. George Soros. Team Rocket. The Borg. Queen Chrysalis.

Do you want to uncover the truth and expose their lies? Do you? DO YOU?

Well study this chart carefully and the truth will be revealed unto you:

If you can't make heads or tails of this chart, go listen to 24 hours of Alex Jones. It will all makes sense after that. Trust me. (Or can you?)

Government Starves The Poor

It's bad enough that a veteran who was brave enough to nearly die for our country is forced to scavenge through garbage cans for his next meal; but what's worse is that he was ticketed for doing so!
In March, a Houston police officer ticketed a homeless man for digging through trash in search of food. James Kelly, a 44-year-old Navy veteran, was cited for “disturbing the contents of a garbage can in [the] downtown business district.” The rule cited was a 70-year-old anti-scavenging statute that’s been revised over the decades to expand the types of containers protected from, in the law’s original language, “molesting."

HPD defended the ticket at first, explaining in a statement, “It is a violation for anyone to remove any contents … placed for collection of garbage, trash or recyclable material. An officer has probable cause to issue such a citation when a person is seen opening a lid and rummaging through contents of a dumpster or trash can.”

But then the story went viral. Media outlets from Fox News to the Huffington Post ran indignant squibs about the ticket. That’s when HPD clarified that Kelly wasn’t cited for trying to feed himself but for littering. “It’s not officers being inhumane,” Houston Police Officers’ Union President Ray Hunt told the Houston Chronicle. “It’s police officers responding to citizens’ complaints about someone removing garbage from their garbage can and leaving it on the ground. It’s creating a mess.”

Hunt said officers wouldn’t ticket someone just for removing food, although, according to the citation itself and the original HPD statement, Kelly was cited not for littering or for removing food but for having given an officer probable cause to believe he might remove food.
You have to "love" government doublethink: "We're not punishing homeless people for taking food from the trash: we're just punishing them for going through the trash in the first place!"

Clearly the city of Huston has their priorities straight: making sure the city streets surrounding garbage cans and dumpsters is clear of litter is far more important than making sure its homeless have a bite to eat!

This isn't the only insane Huston city ordinance preventing the homeless from being fed. The article also mentions an ordinance banning the distribution of food "to more than five needy people at once" on public property without written permission from the city.

This law is supposed to protect the homeless from food poisoning; but really, if you prevent people from feeding the homeless because of this, what other alternative do the homeless have but to scavenge through dumpsters where they're certain to eat something with food poisoning?

Oh wait! I guess we don't have to worry about that since dumpster diving is against the law. Now the only alternative is for the homeless to starve. Hooray for government!

And unfortunatley, Huston is not the only city with ordinances that punish people for feeding the homeless:

• Three activists were arrested in an Orlando park for feeding the homeless. The city bans feeding groups larger than 25 people on public property without a permit, and permits can only be distributed twice a year per location. (Because as we all know, the homeless can only be fed twice a year!)

• A Louisiana homeless shelter was forced to destroy 1,600 pounds of deer meat donated by hunters. Why? Because the state health department does not recognize venison as "an approved meat source" and health inspectors were unable "to verify how the deer were killed, prepared or stored.” Was there anything wrong with the donated deer meat? No. But the health department can't be too careful, now can it?

• State Nanny Michael Bloomberg banned food donations to NYC homeless shelters. Why? Because "it's impossible to gauge the items' salt, fiber, and other nutritional stats." (Somehow I feel the homeless care less about what they eat and more about eating period!)

• Across the country, churches and other private organizations have been prevented by local health departments from feeding the homeless. As always, it's always for health and safety reasons. (Because being fed a warm meal from a church is far risky than getting your meal from the dumpster--or worse, starving!)

• Before 2011, San Diego had banned Wal-Mart supercenters--which provide the poor with affordable groceries--from being built within city limits. The ban has since been lifted, but similar bans exist throughout California and other states. (Because providing the poor with cheap food oppresses them! "Social justice" requires them to be free to buy expensive organic food at Whole Food Stores instead.)

Time and again, we are told that we need the government to provide for the poor and needy, and we are warned that if we were to roll back government and allow the free market to take over, poor people would starve to death.

But stories like this and many others reveal the opposite to be true: needless government regulation prevents private individuals and charities from feeding the poor, forcing them to starve.

When are we going to learn that it's not the government's responsibility to look after the poor and needy? When are we going to realize that it's our responsibility? And how long are we going to allow the government to do more harm than good by looking after us?

The government may have good intentions, but good intentions pave the road to hello. It's time for the government to allow people to help others without sticking its nose into our business.

Stupid Anti-Gun Memes

Following the defeat of anti-gun legislation in the Senate, the left-wing blogosphere has exploded with face-palmingly stupid anti-gun memes. I spent most of last night scrolling through these memes on Tumblr, and I've decided to vent my frustration with them by debunking them one by one.

This is the most prominent meme, and as with most other gun control arguments (as well as any argument for limited rights), it relies on the "think of the children" mentality.

This is simply a false equivalency. First of all, kids play with Kinder Eggs, they do not play with guns. Second, Kinder eggs are a direct threat to children, as they contain small toys they could easily choke on, while a gun is an indirect threat to children, as some maniac could easily shoot them with it. Not everyone who owns a gun wants to shoot children.

For the record, banning Kinder eggs is BS, but so is banning assault weapons. Assault weapon bans will not prevent school shootings like Sandy Hook. That shooting occurred in a gun-free school in a state with the strictest gun laws in the country. Adding more gun laws will do nothing to prevent a similar shooting. Period.

Because as we all know, criminals obtain their guns legally, amirite?

Any argument for stricter laws, be it for guns or drugs, can be decimated with the historic example of alcohol prohibition. During that time, alcohol was criminalized. Did that decrease alcohol use? No. It only exasperated the problem by creating a black market for it, thus increasing violent crime.

Then we have the current drug war, where drugs are criminalized. Has this decreased drug use? No. It only exasperated the problem by creating a black market for it, thus increasing violent crime.

And yes, I realize background checks will not criminalize guns. It will simply make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns while criminals easily obtain theirs illegally. That's the problem!

I can't tell whether this is satire or not. My suspicions are that it is; but considering how blatantly stupid it is, it probably isn't.

This meme is simply disingenuous. There are numerous examples of armed homeowners defending themselves from invaders. The most recent example involves two men who were shot dead by an armed homeowner while attempting to break into his Fayetteville home last week.

There are hundreds of similar instances, and they can be found with a simple internet search for "armed home invaders." Anyone who claims guns can't protect you from home invasion are either ignorant or lying.

This meme relies on the "90 percent of Americas support background checks" statistic, which has proven to be pure BS! But even if it was legit, so what? My rights are not subject to majority rule. If 90 percent of Americans were against gay marriage, would that justify outlawing gay marriage? If 90 percent of Americans were for warrantless wiretaps, would that justify the PATRIOT ACT? Hell no! We are a republic, not a democracy. Democratic votes are only legitimate provided they do not contradict natural rights.

Ah yes, Australia! Whenever the anti-gun crowd wants an example of "effective" gun control, they always turn to the land down under.

First of all, mass shootings are aberrations when it comes to violent crime, and thus should not be used as indicators of violent crime rates. Norway has stricter gun control than Australia, and yet it didn't stop Anders Behring Breivik from gunning down 77 people.

As for Australia, numerous studies have shown that its stricter gun laws have had little effect on its homicide or suicide rates. Homicide may have decreased after its assault weapons ban, but homicide had been decreasing BFEORE the ban. And while Australia may have had zero mass shootings, the same can be said of its neighbor New Zealand, which does not have its same strict gun laws.

And pretty much any argument for stricter gun control can be shot down (no pun intended) with Switzerland. The country has laxer gun laws compared to its European neighbors, with the highest gun ownership rates in the world, and yet as the BBC reports, "the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are never kept."

If gun control advocates are as dumb as the memes they create, then its no wonder that their legislation always loses.

Friday, April 19, 2013

8th Grader Arrested Over Gun Shirt

A West Virginia 8th grade student was suspended, arrested, and charged with "obstruction and disturbing the education process."

And what did he do to land himself in so much trouble?

He wore a t-shirt with a rifle and NRA logo.

If you're shocked by this, then you don't know the absurd lengths our public schools will take to enforce zero tolerance laws.

This is the picture of the teenager and his "offending" t-shirt:

To be fair, the school's dress code prohibits clothing that displays violence, but a hunting rifle by itself hardly constitutes violence.

Celestia knows what would have happened if the kid had been caught eating a pop tart while wearing that shirt.

States: Our Final Refuge

Two states are currently involved with nullification bills to offset unconstitutional federal laws.

Indiana introduced a bill that "voids" all federal acts, orders, laws rules, and regulations made by the federal government that goes against the Constitution, and will make it so that any person or law enforcement that attempts to enforce these "void" federal laws will be charged with a Class D felony.

Meanwhile, the Michigan House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill nullifying the indefinite detention provision within the National Defense Authorization Act, thus prohibiting state law enforcement from enforcing it.

Many have argued that these nullification bills are themselves unconstitutional because they violate Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, otherwise known as the Supremacy Clause.

They don't! But even if they did, it would be the lesser of two evils. It would be far more preferable for the states to violate the Constitution in order to prevent the federal government from violating it.

There is no doubt that the federal government is currently out of control, as it now wields more power over both the individual citizen and the states than ever before.

The federal government can crack down on medical marijuana dispensaries, even in states where the drug is legal, despite the man in charge having promised never to do so.

The federal government can force American to buy health insurance, and if they don't, force them to pay a fine--excuse me, I mean "tax"!

The federal government can target American citizens for indefinite detention, lethal force, and even assassination without so much as a charge against them.

And right now, the federal government is considering a bill that will allow it to request information from internet service providers and other on-line businesses without need of a warrant.

It's clear that the federal government has no intention of abiding by the constitutional limitations placed upon it. Our last refuge is now the states, where we must fight back with nullification. If the federal government has no intention of upholding the constitution, than that responsibility now lies with the states. State rights may not be perfect, but right now, it's all we have left.

Jon Stewart Wrong On Guns

Jon Stewart tends to be right about many things. Gun control isn't one of them.

As with most other liberal media pundits, Stewart has lamented the Senate's defeat of stricter gun legislation.

The Daily Show with Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Broken Bad - Legislated Evil

Daily Show Full EpisodesIndecision Political HumorThe Daily Show on Facebook
The people in our country who've spent millions of dollars getting elected into a legislative body known as the Senate are making the argument "there's really no point in making laws because criminals are just going to end up breaking them."
Stewart is a smart man, probably the smartest in the media. I know he is smarter than this. He knows that stricter security measures have done nothing to prevent terrorist attacks. He knows that stricter drug laws have done squat to prevent drug trafficking. But yet he cannot seem to apply this same logic to guns. If the "War on Terror" hasn't prevented terrorism, and the "War on Drugs" hasn't prevented drug use, what makes him think a "War on Guns" is going to prevent gun violence?

I could easily cite statistics proving that gun laws have no effect on gun violence, but I don't feel I have to. At this point, claiming that stricter gun laws will prevent gun violence is akin to claiming leeches will cure typhoid fever. There is simply too much scientific and empirical evidence to the contrary. Anyone who believes otherwise should be mocked like those who believe the earth is the center of the universe.

Professor Forced Pupils To Vote Obama

"I pledge to vote for President Obama and Democrats up and down the ticket."

I want you to read that statement over and over again until you become angry enough to punch your computer screen. (But don't, otherwise you won't be able to read my blog post!)

A college professor actually required her students to sign this pledge in one of the classrooms at one of the public universities responsible for "educating" our children.

Yes, some left-wing radical professor--the stereotype you'd imagine a left-wing radical professor to be like--required her students to vote for Obama and the Democrats during the last election.

Political indoctrination doesn't become anymore blatant than this!

The good news is that this professor was fired; the bad news, she was allowed to teach in the first place!

This has to be the fourth time I talked about indoctrination in higher education.

First, there was the professor who told students that rape was okay as long as the girl was unconscious.

Then, there was the professor who called Republicans "angry old white men" and called for illegal voter suppression tactics against them.

Then, there was the professor who nearly cost a student his academic career and future merely for saying the f-word in a private conversation.

Now, we have this professor forcing students to vote for a political candidate and party.

How many "professors" have to be caught teaching our children bullspit until we realize that there is a serious problem with "higher education"?

At what point do we realize that our public "education" system is not designed for education, but rather indoctrination?

At what point do we realize that the "education" system is not designed to train the future generation to be critical freethinkers, but rather to be mindless automatons that unquestioningly serve the corporate state and the political elite that run it?

How many high school students have to graduate without basic math or reading skills until we realize that our "education" system is intentionally dumbing down the population?

How far do we have to drop in worldwide academic and education standards until we realize that our "education" system is a farce?

The first step in solving a problem is admitting you have one. When will the American people admit that we have an education problem--no, an education crisis?

Oh sure, some Americans realize we have a problem, but most suggest superficial solutions like "throw more money at it!"

No! Education funding is not the problem! We spend more on education per student per capita than any other country save Switzerland.

Trying to fix our broken education system by funneling more taxpayer money into it is like trying to fix a broken car by pumping more gasoline into the tank. You can fill the tank until it overflows, but until you fix the car, it isn't going to run.

That is where we are with our education system. We don't need to feed it more taxpayer dollars. We need to reform it. Heck, we need to scrap the entire system and create a new one from scratch.

But of course, the first step in doing this is to make people realize the system is broken to begin with, and it simply isn't going to happen as long as the people are programmed to reject any criticism of the system as "anti-intellectual" or "anti-education."

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Boston: Keep Calm And Carry On

Many of you are probably wondering what my opinions are on the Boston bombings. Quite frankly, I don't know.

When the bombings happened earlier this week, there was little we knew about them, and thus little for me to comment on. Even now, we still don't know much about them. Two suspects have been isolated, but even then, this is not for certain.

However, an op-ed released on that day sums up my sentiments exactly:
I’m safe. You are safe. 99.999999% of the country is safe. But there never is a completely safe, and there never will be. I refuse to let the terrorists win...And I refuse to give up another right to prevent another “Boston"...The bomber(s) isn’t the only one who wants you to be afraid. Remember that.

Good News, Bad News

The good news is that the Senate defeated gun legislation that would have introduced draconian background checks and assault rifle bans. The best part is getting to see the butthurt from Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein. There's nothing I love more than seeing libtards cry!

The bad news is that the House has passed CISPA, or the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protect Act. If this bill manages to receive approval from the Senate and President, then the federal government would be free to request user information from internet service providers without a warrant.

So while our gun rights are safe, our internet privacy may be lost. We preserve one freedom only to lose another.

Our federal government is like a giant squid suffocating us with its tentacles. Just when you've pried yourself lose from one tentacle, another one wraps around you more tightly, and as it does, deprives you of what little freedom you have left. You want to fight back, but the lack of oxygen makes it hard to do so. The question remains, how do we escape?

Great! This fishy analogy is  making me crave calamari, and I don't even like it. Bleh!

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Ricin Letter Sent To Obama

I'm sure most of you have heard about the ricin-laden letter that was mailed to Obama.

And if you're like me, you've probably heard or run across comments expressing regret--not that some lowlife scumbag would send such a letter, but that the letter never reached the president. Yes, some people are deplorable enough to want to see the president's life endangered.

Folks, please don't act like that!

I'm no fan of Obama, but I don't want to see the man dead. I don't want him to be assassinated. I want him indicted with war crimes, or at least impeached. I may not like the guy but I'm not going to wish death upon him. That's simply not American. Or human.

Monday, April 15, 2013

My Recommended Websites And Resources

This is a list of the websites and resources I rely on for my political news and information. If you enjoy my blog, you should consider bookmarking these sites. I highly recommend them.


Reason Magazine: If you don't read Reason Magazine, you're not a true libertarian. This is your number one source for news and political analysis from a libertarian perspective. Plus its editor, Nick Gillespie, is as intelligent as he is fashionable. (You've got to love his leather jacket!) Also, its YouTube channel features videos by Remy. He's made of pure awesome.

Lew Rockwell: Created by and named after the advisor and long-time friend of Ron Paul, this website provides your daily dose of anti-state, anti-war, and pro-market opinion, with columns written by some of the most prominent libertarian and anarcho-capitalist minds: Tom Woods, Peter Schiff, Thomas DiLorenzo, Gary North, Walter Block, Walter Williams, Pat Buchanan, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and of course, the dynamic duo themselves, Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell. The site also hosts a weekly podcast with interviews of prominent members in the liberty movement. (Disclaimer: This site contains its fair share of conspiracy theory. Expect to run across some anti-vaccination/anti-GMO/pro-alternative medicine lunacy.)

Mises Institute: The main on-line resource for Austrian economics, named after the founder of the economic school, Ludwig Von Mises. Not only does it provide insightful articles and columns, but also an extensive library of free downloadable e-books written by the greatest Austrian minds: Ludwig Von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard, and Lew Rockwell. A few personal recommendations: The Law by Frederic Bastiat, Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, Defending the Undefendable by Walter Block, Man, Economy, and State by Murray N. Rothbard, and The Left, the Right, and the State by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

Newsbusters: Reality doesn't have a liberal bias, but the mainstream media does, and Newsbusters cuts through that bias on a daily basis with reality. The on-line extension of the Media Research Center, this website dispels the spin, propaganda, and downright lies propogated in the liberal media. This is a must-bookmark site for anyone curious about liberal bias, as it routinely exposes liberal mouthpieces such as Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz, and Mike Malloy.

The Blaze: While founded by Fox "News" neocon Glenn Beck--someone who is as "libertarian" as Bill Maher (which is to say not libertarian at all)--this website manages to offer quality news articles from a "libertarian" perspective. Of course, by "libertarian" perspective, this is less in terms of foreign and domestic policy--which is just as neocon as Fox News--though it still manages to offer anti-state and pro-market opinion.

World Net Daily: While teetering on the far-right of the political spectrum, this news aggregator provides easy access to articles from conservative and libertarian-leaning websites across the net. If you're willing to overlook its warhawkish and socially-regressive commentary, especially by notable wingnuts such as Joseph Farah and Pamela Geller, this site provides a valuable resource for conservative news and opinion. Also, it has columns by Chuck Norris. That alone makes it awesome.

Other Recommendations: Daily Caller, CNS News, Big Government, Newsmax, Cato@Liberty.


Jack Hunter (a.k.a.: The Southern Avenger): This man helped prompt my evolution from a Religious Right-loving neoconservative into the libertarian I am today. He taught me that you can be critical of the Republican Party and still be a conservative. Born and bred in South Carolina, this libertarian-leaning paleconservative defends limited government, states rights, and free-market principles with a Southern vigor. A Barry Goldwater conservative at heart, he is openly critical of other conservatives—especially neocons like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Sarah Palin—as he is of progressive liberals. He is a huge supporter of Ron Paul and his son Rand, whom he helped co-author his book. That alone makes him--20 percent cooler!

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Having served as both a Superior Court Judge and a law school adjunct professor, Judge Andrew Napolitano is well-versed in Constitutional law, strongly advocating for limited government while denouncing all forms of big government—be it from the Left (through universal healthcare and over-regulation) or from the Right (through drug prohibition and warrantless wiretaps). Once a Fox News correspondent and host of Freedom Watch, he was booted from the network for his criticism of the former Bush Administration, which he considered guilty of war crimes. He continues to rule his legal expertise through his columns.

Chris Hedges: While I don't agree with 50 percent of what he says, the other 50 percent I agree with 100 percent. Having spent two decades as a foreign correspondent, he knows firsthand the horrors of war and oppression, and as such, is a strong vocal opponent of government and corporate tyranny. Though his anti-capitalist views are little to be desired, his anti-state and anti-war stances are more than commendable. Following the passing of the NDAA with its indefinite detention provision, he filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration challenging the bill, and nearly won! That alone makes him a worthy ally in the fight against the state.

Other Recommendations: The Gateway Pundit, Tom Woods, Thomas Sowell, Glenn Greenwald.


HowTheWorldWorks: Lee Doren is the intellectual heavyweight of YouTube conservatives. His claim to fame are his critique videos, where he slices through libtarded moonbat propaganda with logic, reason, and evidence. His most frequent target is libtard propagandist Annie Leonard, whom he has routinely bent over and spanked the ever-loving crap out of for her Story of Stuff propaganda films--many of which are shown in public schools! Love him or hate him, you at least have to admire him for doing his research before shooting his mouth off, unlike other conservative pundits.

LearnLiberty: Created by the Institute for Humane Studies, this channel provides educational videos on economics and politics. If you're looking for a resource to help you combat economic talking points, look no further than here. Though most are under five minutes long, these videos are jammed-packed with information that concisely debunk common economic myths about topics such as wealth inequality, minimum wage, and job creation.

LibertyPen: In a website awash with mental mindrot, it's fortunate that channels like this exist to stimulate intellectual thought and growth. This channel archives classic interviews and lectures of some of the greatest liberty-minded intellectuals including Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, John Stossel, and Judge Andrew Napolitano. Here you can view Ayn Rand's classic television interviews or John Stossel's television specials. Watch these videos and educate yourselves in all manners of life, liberty, and property.

POLIPOP: A collaboration of the best political YouTube channels: How The World Works, Drinking With Bob, Steven Crowder, Token Libertarian Chick, Southern Avenger, Adam Vs. The Man--though "balance" requires that it hosts its fair share of libtarded moonbats: Amazing Atheist, Liberalviewer, Old Fart Rants. Occasionally, this channel hosts debates where the greatest minds clash in a battle of wits. Some of its greatest battles included How The World Works vs. Amazing Atheist, Amazing Atheist vs. Southern Avenger, How The World Works vs. Liberaviewer--and the greatest battle of them all, Stefan Molyneux vs. Sam Seder. It's like professional wrestling, only with brains rather than brawn!

Other Recommendations: ReasonTV, Drinking With Bob, Steven Crowder, Token Libertarian Chick, Mike Shanklin.

Radio & Podcasts

LRN.FM: Want to listen to talk radio? Don't want to listen to neocon blowhards like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck? Then tune into the Liberty Radio Network: LRN.FM. Hosted in the Free State of New Hampshire, this network streams liberty-oriented audio live 24/7, with top libertarian radio programs and podcasts such as The Angel Clark Show, Adam Vs. The Man, Free Talk Live, and Anti-War Radio.

Bogosity Podcast: Hosted by Shane Killian (and occasionally co-hosted by Jonathan Loesche and Tim Dyson), this weekly podcast discusses politics, economics, and science from a skeptical, libertarian perspective. The podcast is divided into three segments: "News of the Bogus," which offers critical analysis on the week's events; "Biggest Bogon Emitter," which thoroughly debunks a egregious piece of "bogosity"; and "Idiot Extraordinaire," which highlights a person whose actions or words makes them exceptionally bogus. Sometimes, once in a blue moon, when the planets align, it will offer a "Silver Cluon Award" to an individual who goes out of their way to expose "bogosity."

Other Recommendations: The Peter Schiff Show, Adam Vs. The ManFreedomain Radio, The Neal Boortz Show.

Mobile Apps

Pulse: Want a convenient way to view content from your favorite websites, blogs, and social media networks? Then download this application for your phone, tablet, or computer. Customize it with feeds from your favorite sites and always stay up to date with their newest content. I use this app on my iPhone and iPad all the time to view the latest news from the websites above and more. This is a must download app for any news junkie. Download yours today from Apple iTunes, Google Play, or Windows Store. It's free to download and easy to use. Try it today!

Happy Legalized Theft Day

It's April 15. Today is Tax Day. Have you been a good obedient citizen and paid your fair share? If not, you're a greedy, selfish sociopath who deserves to rot in jail for the rest of his days.

Everyone must pay their fair share in taxes. How else will the state fund the things we need like drone strikes, drug raids, and corporate boondoggles? We need the government to provide us with the services we need, because it's not like the private sector can do that more efficiently and cost-effectively, right?

Remember, comrades, the government is us. Think of the government like a private club and taxes as the fees you pay to be a part of it--even though you never had a choice to join, and you're only associated with it because you happened to be born in the geographic location that it owne and controled. That may sound more like serfdom than membership, but shut up!

If you don't like paying taxes, then you should get the freak out and move to a libertarian paradise like Somalia. Obviously Somalia is the best example of a country with low taxation, as opposed to countries like Switzerland and Hong Kong, both with freer economies than our own, though hardly third-world hellholes like Somalia.

So shut the freak up and pay your taxes. It's the patriotic thing to do. After all, patriotism entails silent obedience and compliance to the state. That makes asking questions and voicing criticism tantamount to treason. So shut up!

To celebrate this glorious day of jingoism and hyper-nationalism, here's Taxman by the Beatles. A song that dares criticize taxes? Clearly these musicians are teabagging rednecks! It's not like they're hippie stereotypes or anything.

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Don't Like Guns Bumper Sticker

Dont Like Guns Bumper Sticker by ~BlameThe1st on deviantART

Don't like guns? Don't use one!
Don't like pot? Don't use it!
Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one!
Don't like violent video games? Don't play them!
Don't like junk food? Don't eat it!
Don't like porn? Don't view it!
Don't like prostitutes? Don't procure one!
Don't like raw milk? Don't drink it!
Don't like something? Don't do it. But don't prevent others from doing it!
That's called freedom!
What part of that don't you understand?

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Anti-Free Speech is Anti-Education

Nearly two years ago, a 30-year-old Hinds Community College (HCC) student was talking with his friend outside class where he complained about his exam grade: "this grade is going to f*** up my entire GPA."

He didn't drop the f-bomb during a class presentation. He didn't hurl it as an insult against a professor or other college official. He merely said it in a private conversation with his friend.

And yet this f-bomb, uttered in ear-shot of his professor, nearly cost this struggling father of two his academic career.

His professor reprimanded him for cursing and threatened him with detention--even though colleges don't have detention.

The professor filed a complaint, causing the student to be kicked out of his class, and costing him his financial aid eligibility.

His whole life would have been ruined had the Foundation For Individual Rights In Education not intervened with a lawsuit on his behalf.

This is hardly an isolated incident. The organization who represented this student, FIRE, monitors the negative effects of college speech codes across the country, and how they penalize students for "offending" others with their speech. As this and other students can testify, merely uttering something "politically incorrect" can jeopardize their entire college career.

This is why I stand by my statement yesterday that our public education system is designed for indoctrination rather than education. You cannot have education without the free exchange of ideas. Only when students are exposed to opposing viewpoints can they make a well-informed conclusion for themselves.

When you try to protect them from ideas or opinions that may offend their sensitive feelings, you protect them from gaining knowledge that may challenge their worldview and force them to critically-evaluate it. You cannot have education and political correctness. When you limit speech through censorship, then you no longer have education, you have indoctrination.

And yet people like me who point this out are considered "anti-education" and "anti-intellectual." No. Hypersensitive PC-Nazis who demand that education be limited to their bigoted, narrow-minded worldview are "anti-education" and "anti-intellectual."

You cannot have education without free speech, even if that free speech offends you. No one has the right not to be offended. Sometimes being educated requires you to be offended. As a wise person once said: "The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off."

And on that sentiment, here is an excellent video by Penn and Teller on free speech and education:

Friday, April 12, 2013

Public Education = Indoctrination

I know this is probably going to shock you all, but video footage was recently leaked of a far-left radical college professor acting like a far-left radical college professor. Shocking, I know!

In the 15-minute video complication, videotaped by a University of California student, political science professor Darry Sragow is shown going on multiple tirades against the Republican party, calling them "losers," "racists," and "old white guys."

"The Republican Party," he said, "is the last vestige of angry old white people."

The professor went so far as to suggest utilizing illegal tactics to suppress Republican votes. One teacher assistant even suggested stationing Black Panthers at polling locations to intimidate Republican voters.

The entire video can be viewed in its entirety below, though those with high blood pressure should refrain from doing so.

Watching this video in its entirety, I cannot help but notice how the vitriol spewed by this professor is similar to the rhetoric I see propagated throughout the libtarded blogosphere on sites such as the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and r/politics.

Usually, I'm tempted to dismiss such rhetoric as the incoherent babblings of uneducated libtards, but if this video indicates anything, it's that these libtards are anything but uneducated. They are, indeed, educated.

Of course, by "educated," I do not mean they were taught critical thinking skills that allow them to think for themselves; rather, they were indoctrinated into a political narrative that they were taught never to question. In other words, they were not "educated," but "indoctrinated."

And I know I probably sound like a crazy person accusing our institutes of higher learning of being brainwashing indoctrination centers. But when videos like this exist, how can I come to any other conclusion?

The stark reality is that our state universities are not providing the next generation with quality education. They are force-feeding them pro-government, pro-corporate propaganda--and once you drink the Kool-Aid, the damage done by the poison is hard to reverse.

Unfortunately, such indoctrination is not isolated to higher education. It starts as early as preschool.

Take for instance the following image of a crayon-scrawled message a Florida 4th-grader was recently required to write for his civics lesson:

“I am willing to give up some of my constitutional rights in order to be safer or more secure.”

With such blatant propaganda being forced upon our youth, is it any wonder that we have American citizens who are more than complacent about government infringing upon our Constitutional rights? Is it any wonder than Americans have no problems with warrantless wiretaps or gun control or indefinite detention or targeted assassination?

And why should they? It's clear from this image that our children are no longer being taught that those who are willing to sacrifice necessary liberty for temporary security deserve neither. If anything, they're being taught the inverse: those who trade liberty deserve security!

From day one, our children are taught to worship the state. If that sounds radical to you, I want you to think back to your first day of school. What was the first thing you were taught? The alphabet? Your times tables? No. The first thing you were taught was to salute the flag and recite the pledge of allegiance. No questions. No objections. No exceptions. You were taught to pledge undying, unquestioning allegiance to the state, and from that day until graduation, you were made to renew that pledge every single day. All the better to ingrain statism into our heads.

There is no denying this. Our public education system is designed for indoctrination, not education. If Christian schools indoctrinate children into Christianity, and Jewish schools indoctrinate children into Judaism, and Islamic schools indoctrinate children into Islam, what do state schools indoctrinate children into? The state!

So it should surprise no one that our school system is churning out uneducated illiterates. That is what it's supposed to do. It's not designed to train our children to become independent freethinkers, but unquestioning minimum wage workers and welfare recipients--unthinking masses who are so dependent upon the state that they are willing to accept the blatant corruption of those who run it.

This is why education reform is not a priority in this country. It is not a priority of our politicians. It never will be. The political elite that run the corporate state benefit from an uneducated populace unable to question or criticize their agenda.

If you don't believe me, then listen to good ol' George Carlin. He was against public indoctrination before being against it was cool!

There's a reason for this, there's a reason education sucks, and it's the same reason it will never ever ever be fixed. It's never going to get any better. Don't look for it. Be happy with what you've got... because the owners of this country don’t want that. I'm talking about the real owners now, the real owners. The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls. They got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying. Lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I’ll tell you what they don’t want. They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests. That’s right.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

14 Wounded In Texas College Stabbing

At least 14 people were wounded yesterday during a stabbing spree at a Texas community college carried out by a knife-wielding 20-year-old student, who has since been charged with the attack.

Clearly this isolated incident highlights the problem of America's lack of knife control. Only by passing common sense knife legislation can we prevent another tragedy like this from happening again.

I propose background checks for knife purchases, and that knife owners be placed in a national knife registry. Anyone wishing to buy a knife must first receive extensive knife training. Civilians are to be restricted to purchasing butter knifes. Anything sharper are strictly off-limits.

Of course, knowing the rampant knife culture in this country, a reactionary organization will surely rear its head, probably naming itself the National Knife Association, and obstruct this legislation on the behest of their rich donors in the knife lobby. They will probably propose a ridiculous alternative like providing armed guards in our public schools, or even arming teachers and school staff members with pocket knives. Only morons who believe that "knives don't kill people; people with knives kill people" would propose a solution as vapid as that!

Monday, April 8, 2013

Margaret Thatcher Dies at 87

"There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation" - Margaret Thatcher

I have mixed feeling about the former Prime Minister. On the one hand, she was an inspirational speaker against the evils of socialism. But on the other hand, both she and Reagan started the neoconservative trend of campaigning like libertarians while reigning like totalitarians.

They may have spoke well of limited government and free markets, but their actions rarely reflected it. This is especially true with foreign policy, as both were extremely hawkish, and started the "police the world" mentality that was inherited by their predecessors Bush and Blair.

So while I will not speak ill of the dead, neither will I blindly worship them. As much as the right lionizes these two, in the end, they were not demigods, they were flawed human beings. As such, we should recognize their flaws as well as their accomplishments.

Sunday, April 7, 2013

Anti-Gun Idiot: Gov Can't Confiscate Your Guns

Never underestimate the predictability of the stupidity of anti-gun nuts.

Miami Herald columnist Carl Hiaasen penned an anti-NRA screed where he predictably trashes the organization, accusing it of scaring gun owners in order to sell more guns.

The entire column reeks of your typical anti-gun, anti-NRA bullpucky, but one sentence is so facepalmingly stupid that you have to wonder what color the sky is in the alternate dimension Carl apparently resides in.

In an effort to counter the argument that a national gun registry may inevitably allow the government to easily track gun owners to confiscate their weapons, Carl replied thusly: "Oh sure. The same government that can’t afford to deliver mail on Saturdays is poised to send armed agents to every single house in the country to search for weapons."

The government already sends armed agents to bust down people's doors and confiscate their weed--be it medicinal or recreational. It's not a huge stretch of the imagination to assume they can send agents to do the same with guns.

In fact, I don't have to use my imagination. The government actually did that during Hurricane Katrina when they sent armed agents door-to-door to confiscate civilian arms, sometimes without warrant, and usually with excessive force.

"Oh sure. The same government that can’t provide hurricane relief after Katrina is poised to send armed agents to every single house in the country to search for weapons," I can hear Carl moan in retort.

Throughout history, totalitarian regimes from Nazi Germany to Stalinist Russia used gun registries to better confiscate civilian arms. It would be arrogant to assume it cannot happen here.

The federal government currently has the power to target American citizens for indefinite detention, lethal force, and even assassination. So excuse me for assuming that the same government arming itself against its own citizens is also disarming them in order to prevent them from fighting back. What a stupid and unfounded assumption for one to make!

Saturday, April 6, 2013

What Deregulation?

What Deregulation

The main narrative behind our economic crisis is that massive deregulation, especially under George W. Bush, created it. To this, one must ask, “What deregulation?”

If deregulation truly destroyed our economy, then the evidence would show that regulation in this country has been decreasing; instead, all evidence points to the contrary: that regulation has been increasing! The pages of the Federal Register, which contains every federal rule and regulation, have exponentially increased by 600 percent, from over 100 thousand pages in the 1940s to over 700 thousand pages in the 2000s. The EPA alone has increased their federal regulations by 220 percent, from over 7 thousand rules in 1976 to over 169 thousand in 2009. Over three thousand new regulations are enacted every year, with a new rule being created every 2 hours. Indeed, it’s no wonder that America ranks as the fourth most overregulated country in the world behind China, India, and Japan.

As for George W. Bush, who’s admitted to have “abandoned the free market,” his administration increased the number of new pages in the Federal Register by 22 percent, from over 64 thousand in 2001 to over 78 thousand in 2007. Regulatory spending alone had increased by 62 percent, from over $26 billion in 2001 to over $42 billion in 2009. These record achievements make him the biggest regulator since Richard Nixon!

Even when confronted with this evidence, most people still insist that deregulation destroyed the economy, arguing that it’s not the level of deregulation that matters, but the deregulation of certain industries—specifically banking. The example often cited is the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999, which repealed provisions in the Glass–Steagall Act that prevented commercial banks from doubling as investment banks. This repeal allegedly allowed banks to engage in risky investments that lead to the economic crisis.

However, most economists on both sides disagree with this assessment, arguing that Gramm–Leach–Bliley (which was passed by a bipartisan Congress and signed by a Democratic president) did not create the crisis, and in fact may have actually softened its impact on the economy. According to, “deregulated banks were not the major culprits in the current debacle. Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and J.P. Morgan Chase have weathered the financial crisis in reasonably good shape, while Bear Stearns collapsed and Lehman Brothers has entered bankruptcy, to name but two of the investment banks which had remained independent despite the repeal of Glass-Steagall.”

So if deregulation didn’t create our economic crisis, does that mean regulation did? In a word, yes. While a certain level of regulation is necessary, too much can create an unnecessary burden on businesses, especially small and new ones. This is why big business often lobbies for more—not less—regulation in order to crush their competition. One would assume that food companies would oppose stricter food safety laws, oil companies would oppose clean air regulation, and tobacco companies would oppose regulation on tobacco and tobacco advertising; yet Kraft Foods, General Motors, and Phillip Morris have all spent millions lobbying for the exact opposite! The end result is that federal agencies end up being controlled by the very corporations they were meant to regulate, thus creating “regulatory capture.”

Certain regulation, while well-meaning, can also throw a monkey wrench into the machine of the private sector, thus creating disastrous—albeit unintended —consequences. Case in point: the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, which required banks to lend loans to poor people so they could buy houses they couldn’t afford, thus aiding in the housing bubble, along with its inevitable burst when these people couldn’t pay back their loans. While the CRA may not have been the main cause of the economic crisis, it did play an underlying role in its inception.

It must therefore follow that if regulation has been increasing rather than decreasing, and if these regulations have done more harm than good, than the logical solution must be to decrease regulation and allow the market to correct itself without government interference. Most people would object to this, and claim that “further” deregulation would cause an economic collapse that would reduce America to a Somalian wasteland. This implies that countries with low levels of regulation and taxation are economically worse; however, all evidence points to the contrary. Both Hong Kong and Switzerland have freer economies than the United States, with Hong Kong ranked as the freest economy on earth. Both countries have low levels of taxation and regulation. They also have high GDP and living standards. The reason seems clear enough: with greater economic freedom comes greater prosperity and therefore greater personal freedom.

So now the economy stands on a crossroads where it can choose one of two paths: either it can follow the same-old narrative that deregulation ruined the economy and thus continue increasing regulation—which will only constrain the private sector and prevent it from creating new jobs, or it can look at the evidence, realize deregulation is not to blame for our economic mess, and commence freeing the market of unnecessary and burdensome regulations, therefore promoting economic growth and prosperity. Which will it be?

Friday, April 5, 2013

Yugioh Abridged Vs. The Police State

The following episode of Yugioh Season Zero Abridged contains a joke about the "YouTube Police Department" which can easily be a critique of the current police state:

Yugi: Have you ever arrested someone who was innocent?

Officer: Oh, all the time! It's crazy how many people we arrest that didn't do anything. I mean, we probably arrest more innocent people than we do criminals. He he he. It's crazy!

Yugi: Doesn't that seem like kind of a flawed system?

Officer: Of course not! This way, everybody who breaks the law gets punished.

[This is what the YPD actually believes]

Yugi: But so do the innocent people.

Officer: Look, I don't claim to understand the law. I just enforce it, blindy and without hesitation.

No, Vox, You ARE Misogynistic!

I know you all are probably getting tired of me ranting about Vox Day, but by Celestia's royal mane, I can't help it! I simply can't tolerate how this woman-hater gets away calling himself a "Christian libertarian" when he's clearly neither "Christian" nor "libertarian."

And I don't know which is worse: his misogyny, or the pseudo-intellectualism he uses to defend it. Take for instance the faulty reasoning he uses to explain why women shouldn't have the same rights as men:
Because women are collectively more short-sighted and more self-centered than men, giving them an equal voice in society is tantamount to a slow-motion execution for any society.  This is not theoretical, it is observable, as the equalitarian societies of Europe are already demographically in demise and in the process of losing their democracies and their property rights.

I understand that many people believe women's rights are important.  But are they more important than property rights?  Are they more important than democracy? What those who support women's rights are understandably reluctant to accept is that equalitarianism necessarily requires the elimination of democracy, property rights, freedom of movement, and even, in the end, capitalism and most of the tenets of Western civilization.  But like it or not, that is the choice that has been made, and is being made, even today.

The Founding Fathers of the USA were no more mindless sexists than the Conscript Fathers of the Roman Senate.  They knew full well what would happen if sexual equality was ever granted.  It is not a coincidence, still less ironic, that those who built the greatest and freest human societies have always vehemently opposed women's rights, while the totalitarians who most avidly sought to curtail human freedom it have tended to support them.
And this is the main problem I have with Vox Day: he tries to justify denying women individual rights using collectivist thought. To him, because women are collectively more "short-sighted" and "self-centered" as a gender, they are unworthy of the same individual rights as men. Vox Day is essentially using collectivism to argue against individualism. Some libertarian he is!

Even if there was empirical, scientific evidence that suggested women were more "selfish" than men--which there isn't--so what? Individual rights, by their very nature, are determined by individuals, not collectives.

The only factor that determines our individual rights is our humanity. Unlike animals, human beings have rights because our mental cognition allows us the capacity to be self-aware, or to recognize ourselves as autonomous individuals; as such, we recognize our need for certain rights such as life, liberty, and property in order to preserve our individual existence.

So the only factor that determines whether women have the same individual rights as men is whether or not they are human. If women are human, than they are entitled to the same individual rights endowed to all human beings. Women are human; therefore, they have human rights. It's that simple!

As such, there is nothing contradictory about "women's rights" and natural law; to the contrary, "women's rights" are the very extension of the belief that all human beings are created equal and endowed with inalienable, imprescriptible rights. The fact that we recognized women as human beings deserving of the same rights as men has not undermined Western civilization, it has only propagated it!

Granted, there are problems with feminism--or at least its modern incarnation, which is but a farce of the original. Originally, Feminism was about women having the same rights as men; now, it demands that women have more rights. Men do not have the right to kill their unwanted children or to demand special consideration in employment or to be protected from "offensive" speech, yet feminists suggest that abortion, gender quotas, and speech codes are all required for "women's rights." Those are not rights. Those are privileges!

But that's my gripe with feminism. Vox Day, on the other hand, seems to have a problem with women having rights at all, even the most basic rights such as voting or working outside the home. To him, women having the exact rights as men undermines Western civilization.

What proof does he have to support this chauvinistic assertion? None, of course!

Well, okay, he uses Europe as anecdotal evidence. Apparently, the entire continent is crumbling--not because of economic instability brought upon by central planning, excessive taxation, welfarism, and monetary inflation--but because women have rights!

And even when people point out his blatant misogynistic nonsense, he refuse to acknowledge it--which I guess is to be expected of any bigot. To him, his denial of women's rights stems not from a deep-seated hatred of women, but on reality. After all, reality has a misogynistic bias! (Why does that sound so familiar?)

But he guarantees that no one has to take his word for it, as he plans on creating a series of posts where he will empirically demonstrate why women are inferior to men and why the deserve no other right than to be chained in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant making him a sandwich.

Have at you, Vox! We'll be waiting for you vain attempts to defend your misogyny!

Stewart Rips Apart Monsanto Protection Act

On Wednesday's Daily Show, Jon Stewart ripped into the Monsanto Protection Act, a provision protecting genetically-modified food that Congress slipped into legislation anonymously without review by a committee and without most of them even knowing about it--even though it was brought up on the Senate floor by Sen. Jon Tester.

"Congress didn't know about a law they themselves passed?" Stewart asked. "So Congress is now operating on the same level of self-awareness as a flatulent grandpa?"

Yu-Gi-Oh: The Ebonics'd Series

Word up, yo! In this "groovy" episode of Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged, Seto Kaiba is told to "jive to the hand" after having his "Blue Peeps White Dragon" defeated by Exodia.

WARNING: This video may cause serious butthurt to the politically-correct.

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

College Professor: Rape Is Okay!

Following the Steubenville rape case, you'd only assume that no one would dare call it acceptable to take advantage of an unconscious girl (or boy).

But then you have University of Rochester professor Steven Landsburg posing this "enlightening" question on his blog:
Let’s suppose that you, or I, or someone we love, or someone we care about from afar, is raped while unconscious in a way that causes no direct physical harm — no injury, no pregnancy, no disease transmission. (Note: The Steubenville rape victim, according to all the accounts I’ve read, was not even aware that she’d been sexually assaulted until she learned about it from the Internet some days later.) Despite the lack of physical damage, we are shocked, appalled and horrified at the thought of being treated in this way, and suffer deep trauma as a result. Ought the law discourage such acts of rape? Should they be illegal?
Obvious answer: YES!

Any form of sex without consent is rape. This sexual act was committed without consent. Therefore, it's rape. Even if it doesn't result in any physical harm, the act itself was still committed without the victim's consent, and thus was a violation of their bodily autonomy. That makes it illegal, as it should be.

But that's how any sane individual, even one lacking a high school education, would answer the question. How does the more "educated" college professor answer it?
As long as I’m safely unconscious and therefore shielded from the costs of an assault, why shouldn’t the rest of the world (or more specifically my attackers) be allowed to reap the benefits?

Nobody. That's who!

Perhaps the rapist does, but only at the expense of the rape victim, whose bodily autonomy was violated. Nobody should benefit from violating another's individual rights. Period.

Sweet Celestia, how is that not freaking obvious?!

And you know what makes this worse? This guys claims to be a libertarian. You heard me: a libertarian. If he's a libertarian, than I'm a freaking Marxist!

No self-respecting libertarian should claim it's okay to rape someone as long as they don't know about it. By that logic, the government has a right to wiretap our phone conversations without a warrant just as long as we don't know about it. So why worry about the PATRIOT ACT?

In a just and sane world, a professor like this would be stripped of his title, kicked to the curb, and barred from ever teaching again; but knowing how messed up higher education is, he's probably going to retain his tenure.

Speaking of college professors unfit to teach, Columbia University recently hired a former Weather Underground radical who spent 22 years in prison after killing two cops. Of course colleges don't have radical far-left agendas. They only hire far-left radicals is all!

With such lunatics teaching the future generation, why is criticizing our education system considered so taboo and "anti-intellectual"?

SHOCKER: Krugman Was Wrong About The Internet!

It's a well-documented fact that Paul Krugman is wrong about everything. While more reputable economists were warning of the oncoming recession, Krugman suggested that a housing bubble should replace the NASDAQ bubble.

So should it be any surprise that Krugman was blatantly wrong about the internet?
* The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in “Metcalfe’s law”–which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants–becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.

* As the rate of technological change in computing slows, the number of jobs for IT specialists will decelerate, then actually turn down; ten years from now, the phrase information economy will sound silly.
If you're reading this, chances are you use the internet quite often. When was the last time you used a fax machine? If ever?

The painful irony is that Krugman rules the internet, as he does the media, with his economic ignorance. His NYT op-eds are widely circulated on-line though the blogosphere and social media. If you go onto r/politics, if you dare, chances are one of the first threads you'll stumble across is a Krugman screed.

The quack is propped up by the very media he once ridiculed and dismissed. It's sickening!

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

"Freedom In The 50 States" P.O. Libtards

The Mercatus Center, a libertarian think-tank, released its analysis of the 50 states and where they rank in personal and economic freedom.

The freest state in the union, surprisingly enough, was North Dakota, which scored exceptionally well on fiscal and regulatory policy with low taxes and government debt--it's high government spending none withstanding.

While the freest state may come as a shocker, the two least freest states should come as no surprise.
The least freest state? New York.

No! Really?! The state where Michael "Big Brother" Bloomberg is mayor over an anti-soft drink, anti-gun, anti-smoking, anti-formula feeding, screw-the-homeless, nanny/police state complex is the least freest state in the union? Color me surprised!

And the second least freest state? California.

No! Really?! The state whose insane government spending has driven it so far into the ground with debt that one of its cities has become the largest in the U.S. to declare bankruptcy comes in second place as the least freest state? Again, shock and awe!

These rankings are a reassurance to liberty lovers across the country. To government-loving libtards? Not so much.

As soon as these rankings were released, libtards across the blogosphere began flinging their poo at it like rabid chimpanzees. (Scratch that. That was an unfair comparison. Rabid chimpanzees are nowhere near as insane as libtards.)

Here's a rundown of some of their criticisms (and why they are so face-palmingly libtarded):

1) The Koch Brothers funded it!

Ah yes, those evil Koches! Those evil brothers notorious for such underhanded deeds as supporting gay marriage and stem cell research, opposing corporate welfare and warrantless wiretaps, and funding education, art, and medical research.

Those two heartless bastards who are trying to overthrow the government by corrupting our democracy--even though they only rank 85th in overall political donations, as opposed to the labor unions who rank as the top 10 political donors.

Sorry, but saying "Koch Brothers funded it: Your study is invalid!" is not an argument. It's a non-argument. It's an ad hominem attack, and thus, a logical fallacy. So let's skip this and move on to the others.

2) This only covers what libertarians consider "freedom."

Apparently, this study is invalid because it only defines freedom by how libertarians define it. And how exactly do we libertarians define "freedom"? According to Salon contributor Alex Pareene: "the right of people with money to keep it all, and for everyone else to f*** off."

This is simply disingenuous!

We libertarians realize that "freedom" is a completely subjective term, which is why we want it defined by individuals rather than government. We libertarians believe that everyone should be allowed to live freely provided they harm no one. So long as no one is killing, assaulting, raping, defrauding, or stealing from anyone else, they should be free to do whatever they want.

So yes, freedom is what we libertarians want, but it's also what everyone else wants. That's the very nature of freedom.

3) North Dakota isn't free because it bans abortion.

The biggest critique of this study is how North Dakota ranks as the freest state despite having the strictest restrictions against abortions. As the blurb to the Salon article sarcastically remarks: "Sorry, women! Your "freedoms" aren't as important as freedom from excessive taxation."

To be fair, libertarians are split when it comes to abortion. Some believe a woman's "bodily autonomy" includes her "right" to have an abortion, while other like myself rightfully believe that a woman's "right" to her body does not include the "right" to take the life of her unborn child. Some believe this is a federal issue, while others believe it should be left to the states. Despite this schism, most libertarians agree that abortions should not be government-funded.

But even if this wasn't a divisive issue among libertarians, and they all believed that "reproductive rights" do not cover abortion, so what? As I said before, a woman's "right" to her body ends where the life of another human being begins.

Sorry, but feminazis complaining about being denied their "right" to have an abortion is as heart-wrenching as slave owners whining about being denied their "right" to own slaves.

4) More people live in "least free" states than "most free" states.

I kid you not. This is a real argument!

The ever notorious anti-libertarian "skeptic" PZ Myers put it thusly: "The Libertarian version of freedom is embraced in the empty, underpopulated states like the Dakotas; the antithesis of the Libertarian version of freedom is found in California and New York, where the most people live." Therefore, these two states should set the standard for "freedom" rather than the Dakotas.

In other words, "freedom" should be defined by the geographic region inhabited by the most people. By that standard, Communist China is the global standard for freedom and liberty. But of course, no one is stupid enough to suggest we emulate China in terms of freedom. Oh wait!

But apparently, California and New York ought to set the American standard for "freedom" because more people choose to live in those two states. As Pareene argues, "most Americans have 'voted with their feet' and chosen to live primarily in our least free states."

That is an outright lie!

Americans are not moving to "least free" states. The opposite is true. More Americans are moving from "less free" blue states to "more free" red states. That's not an opinion of a right-wing think tank. That's a fact backed-up by our own government through census statistics.

Even if freedom were defined by where Americans are choosing to live, which it isn't, the message is clear: they prefer the economic freedom of red states over the economic bankruptcy of the blues.

5) Freedom equals free stuff.

This is the crux of all critiques against this study, if not libertarianism in general. It's similar to the second one in that it suggests "freedom" should not be defined by how libertarians define it, but how everyone else defines it--and by everyone else, they mean libtards.

And how do libtards define freedom?

Do they believe they should be free to own guns? No!

Do they believe they should be free to eat what they want? No!

Do they believe they should be free to send their children to whatever school they think is best for them? No!

Do they believe they should be free to have a job without having to join a union? No!

Do they believe they should be free from excessive taxation? No!

So how do they define freedom? With free stuff!

To libtards, "freedom" means free healthcare, free education, free housing, free food and water, and free everything else--and of course, by "free," they really mean paid for by everyone else, especially those evil rich people.

In other words, the libtard definition of "freedom" entails freedom from paying for anything or making their decisions. I'm sorry. That's not "freedom." That's "paternalism." That's the type of "freedom" little children have when mommy and daddy pay for everything and make all the big decisions.

How ironic then that libertarians like myself are described by libtards as "selfish children." We don't want to be children. We want to be adults. We want the "freedom" that comes with being an adult.

We want to make our own decisions. We want to pay for our own stuff. And we want everyone else to have that same freedom.

But of course, that means everyone else has to stop acting like children and grow the freak up. And sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon with the libtards.