libertarianism (2)

"The land of opportunity has become the land of shrinking prosperity ... Our government has failed us, we will take back our country. We will restore for a better future. This is our pledge to you." Kevin McCarthy, California Representative

Republican “Pledge to America” Says,

“We’ve Learned Our Lessons”^^

Everybody needs 100% of the time to be cynical about the actions of politicians. Having said that and admitted that the new Republican “Pledge to America” (linked at the top of this page) is, of course, aimed at answering the progressive Democrats claims that the G.O.P. is a “Party of ‘NO!’” nevertheless, any thinking voter has to be pretty impressed with the “Pledge’s” twenty-one detailed and inspirational but no-nonsense pages. One can only hope the party and its candidates will keep the Pledge to America” front and center over the next 43 days and BEYOND. Finally, the Republican Party seems intent on reverting to the Party of Lincoln, to libertarianism. A Libertarian is a social moderate and even rarely social liberal that is utterly fiscally conservative and Constitutionally conservative. About 65% of the TEA Party would classify as Libertarians, live and let live on social issues but deeply committed to fiscal and Constitutional conservativism . . . and the Pledge to America is indeed a libertarian document.

One last theoretical-political point, some will say, that Democrats protecting slavery were the conservatives in Lincoln’s time and that the brand new Republican Party, was the party of abolition and other radicalism. Not even close, elimination of slavery was seriously discussed by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin and George Washington before the Declaration, written by Jefferson, was approved. No, the words of the Declaration explicitly say “all men are created equal . . . endowed by their creator with certain UNalienable rights . . . life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, etc.” Springing back to the spirit of founding documents is real conservativism. Notice these truths about the G.O.P.’s “Pledge” . . . .

Social issues are barely touched. This is both smart and more importantly GOOD. When it comes to social issues (guns, abortion, drys vs. wets, gay rights, etc.) moderation is the key: respect old tradition and old law but don’t interfere needlessly with personal freedom. Don’t try to mandate social change through the ballot box or by edict.

Fiscal conservativism is the driving force behind 85% of the “Pledge’s” content. Get out of the way of the free market and out of the way of individual liberty and control by both the states and individuals over their own destinies. Constitutional conservativism is the glue that makes the whole thing worthwhile and workable. Common-sense Americanism is the result. A look at the chart depicting the Obamacare Law now on the books on page 16 is worth a billion times its weight in gold; as is the comparison chart of federal spending as a percentage of GDP on page 13 and the Federal Assistance chart on page 12. However, it’s not a perfect document. Let us point out two areas** where the pledge fell short, perhaps deliberately so:

1. No serious mention of “unfunded liabilities” such as Social Security, Medicare and the Federal Side of Medicaid and Welfare, etc. is made, nor any indication as to how to solve the total of $190TRillion drain these unfunded liabilities amount up to.

2. No serious treatment of term-limits is given.

Why were these “flaws” allowed? Probably because smart politics is the art of the possible and practical. Obama and the progressive Democrats were raised on Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” and ACORN’s propaganda-machine and take-it-to-the-streets mob law to become experts at nit-picking, deliberately causing confusion and using unfair sound-bites to create false impressions that appear to vilify conservatives. Why give these traitors ammunition?

Despite these shortcomings, IF they live up to their words and continue to be the party of NO MORE OBAMANATIONS and to fight relentlessly for these principles, Republicans will have re-energized the American political argument and earned the country’s trust. Congratulations, G.O.P!

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,


^^ Not directly relevant, but Rajjpuut would have gone to extraordinary measures to find a way to discuss Obama’s BIG LIE about the car (the economy) being driven into the ditch by Republicans in a footnote to the document. To wit . . . here’s the truth linked to the proof . . . .

** Using the same Cloward-Piven** strategy that DELIBERATELY created the bankruptcy of New York City earlier between 1967 and 1975 by deliberately overloading the welfare rolls . . . beginning especially after 1992, ACORN, OBAMA, First ACORN PRESIDENT Bill Clinton, and oodles of progressives (98% of them Democrats) DELIBERATELY were pushing the car toward a 500-foot cliff. George W. Bush jumped in and grabbed the steering wheel and hit the brakes. Bush was able to create a controlled-skid and guide the car to rest in a friendly-looking ditch!,_then_dismemberment_part_i.thtml

Read more…
Libertarian Rajjpuut is Offended by

Rand Paul's Ignorance

It’s always nasty when a politician gets hoisted upon his own petard especially if corruption or ignorance is involved. Rand Paul, a Republican (he calls himself a Libertarian) candidate, who just earned the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate from Kentucky is now mired in serious controversy. Paul says that while he approves strongly of nine of the ten provisions in the 1964 Civil Rights Act . . . had he been around he would have tried to modify the 10th provision which concerns potential discrimination in private businesses. The other nine provisions affect discrimination in publicly-funded institutions and government and Paul states his agreement with them.

Rajjpuut, is a REAL Libertarian. Let’s be clear here, 100% clear: Bill Clintonesque word-parsing is NOT what Libertarianism is all about. Mr. Paul does have a teensy-tiny point in what he says . . . but then he ignores 99.999999% of the spirit of Libertarianism in making his foolish argument. Too bad Mr. Rand, son of the well-known Ron Paul, doesn’t actually understand the political philosophy he espouses. So, exactly how is Paul right in saying that the private business provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act might have been improved? And how exactly did he miss the boat (the spirit of Libertarianism) with 99.999999% of his comment?

We’ve all seen those signs on business walls “The proprietor reserves the right to refuse service to anyone.” That’s the teensy-tiny part that Rand Paul got correct. No business should be forced to ever serve all customers entering its establishment. There are customers who come in shirtless, shoeless, stinking, etc. There are would-be repeat customers that have previously been kicked out of an establishment for obnoxious behavior. Refusing this class of undesirable customers is definitely within business owners’ rights. So far, so good, Mr. Paul. However, Mr. Paul clearly abused and misstated Libertarianism in virtually all of his objection to the ’64 Civil Rights Act and in the process, showed himself an extreme light-weight in intellectual ability.

“Whites Only” signs in the windows of a few Missouri businesses and all over the segregated south . . . “No sailors or dogs allowed in city parks” . . . “Our business is offered to ‘restricted clientele’ only” . . . “Jewish business is NOT desired” . . . “Colored” bathrooms and drinking fountains . . . are we getting the picture? That is clearly the core issue here. Should a private business open to the public be allowed to ban people because of skin color? religion? national origin? or other extraneous issues? Extending the question, can a private business open to the public, refuse to hire people because they’re, for example, freckled? black? a naturalized rather than a native-born citizen? etc.? etc.? That Mr. Paul does NOT understand the differences between what’s being described in this paragraph and the one immediately preceding it is a dramatic indictment of his lightweight-thinker status.

Once again, people MAY be legally refused service from a business for CAUSE, and for cause only. Then, if they violate the owner’s prerogative to ban them for cause , they can be legally barred by restraining orders issued by our courts. Eventually repeated violations can result in arrest and imprisonment. Banning people for extraneous reasons such as skin color, religion, etc. is a violation of their civil rights. Do you get that now, Mr. Rand Paul? A wise general picks his battles carefully, but you decided to debate on how many angels can stand on a pinpoint . . . foolish.

As a side issue, Rajjpuut would like to advise any serious conservative candidate to respond to questions on abortion, civil rights, “don’t ask-don’t tell, and the like with the simple declarative, “It’s the law of the land.” Conservatives need to stick to the point: discussions of fiscal responsibility; border security; security against terrorism; balanced budgets; Pay-Go legislations; unending deficits; runaway National Debt; almost $109 TRillion in unfunded obligations to Social Security, Medicare and the federal side of Medicaid -- unfunded obligations which are stealing our children’s and grandchildren’s future. Add in Obamacare, bailouts, stimulus packages, cap and trade, and lies about openness-transparency-and cleaning up Washington, D.C. and there are enough relevant issues that no sane statesman needs to get involved in legal hair-splitting . . . especially when he claims to be a Libertarian and hasn’t a clue about what Libertarianism is all about.

Politics is a strategic endeavor. In warfare, in business, in every strategic game you can think of . . . the road to victory always lies with creating a plan of attack making your own strong points into the crucial elements of the conflict and your weak points and your opposition’s strong points totally irrelevant. And, one more thing, holding the ball in the air and igniting a celebration on the ten-yard line is utterly stupid as well. Some conservatives are already cheering for their victory in November's elections . . . day-dreaming, in other words. Conservatives need to “do the frigging job” well and keep on doing the frigging job well and forget about headlines and applause and premature celebrations. The country is a center-right nation on the Constitution and on Taxes and Government spending and long has been a center-right nation. Irresponsible Conservatives today, Republicans and TEA Party folks who might feel that the country’s highest priorities are to repeal or weaken the civil rights laws; or the abortion laws or to institute creationism in public schools are misreading the sentiment of the voters even worse than Mr. Obama and his cronies are. Stick to business. Save America.

The country needs jobs. The country needs statesmen and stateswomen elected to Congress and then for them to clean up our financial messes and unchain the free markets and to initiate a new era of respect for the United States Constitution. Americans are almost completely offended by progressivism, particularly the economic results of that misconceived doctrine . . . perhaps wise conservatives need to learn to stick to the subject? Get real, if an issue does NOT advance the cause of fiscal conservativism and constitutional conservativism and help retake the country ignore it. ‘Nuff said.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,


Read more…