Archive for the ‘#johnsonforpresident’ Tag

A Tale of Two Walls   Leave a comment

I don’t know why we keep watching the debates. Our candidate isn’t in them and I won’t be voting for either of the candidates that are. I think I have Brad halfway convinced not to vote for Trump. But, anyway, we watched them because we’re like moths to a flame that just cannot resist heading toward the pain.

In the middle of the debate, Hillary Clinton, perhaps not realizing that some voters actually study these issues, claimed that … unlike Donald Trump … she believes in building bridges, not walls.

Not a fan of the wall. Not voting for Donald Trump. The fact is that Hillary has never built anything her life. I doubt if she knows the first thing about bridges other than that they are a convenient way to get her chauffeured limosine to one of her staged events and the only wall she knows about is the one that has recently been constructed around her Chappaqua compound.

I say “compound” because … well, wealthy people have compounds and Chappaqua has a lot of wealthy people. Brad used to live there, so we know some of them. Only they aren’t so exclusive to build a wall around their houses.

Image result for image of wall around hillary clinton's compound

But, hey we know a thing or two about Hillary Clinton and building bridges. Over a decade ago, some members of Congress loudly objected to what they termed “ The Road to Nowhere.” Then Alaska Senator Ted Stevens had worked the project into a transportation bill to construct a bridge from mainland Ketchikan to  Gravina Island where Ketchikan’s airport is located.

The bridge would have been a much-needed alternative for those who must rely on a ferry across the choppy waters of Alaska’s Inside Passage.

Since there are no roads over the Tongass mountains into Southeast Alaska, some 200,000 passengers annually depend on airline travel, but the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects. 80% of Alaska communities are not accessible by road because, although we are the largest state in the union, we have the fewest lane-miles of road in the nation.

I personally didn’t have a beef with tabling the Gravina Island project because I know people who make a good living operating water taxis to the airport, but activities around the same time that the Gravina Island bridge proposal was struck down got my attention and drew my ire. Senator Joe Biden of Delaware had little trouble getting approval for a new bridge, partly financed with federal funds, to be built over his state’s Indian River Inlet between Rehoboth and Bethany beaches. After a series of complications including labor disputes, the Charles W. Cullen Bridge was finally completed in May 2012, just in time to accommodate summer beach-goers.

Like a lot of the infrastructure of the United States, the earlier Indian River bridges had fallen into dangerous disrepair. Our clogged, stalled cities now compare unfavorably with some of those in other countries, giving many of us a reason to believe the nation is in decline.

Recently there was an illustrated list on the Net of the world’s current crop of spectacular and unusual bridges.  It was kind of impressive, but not one of them was located here in the United States.

During the “Bridge to Nowhere” fracas, Congress expressed alarm at how high the bridge would have to be built to enable cruise ships and other substantial maritime craft to navigate beneath it.  Japan apparently met the challenge of the Eshima Ohashi bridge which soars across Lake Nahaumi, rising at a gradient of 6.1% to allow ships to pass below. It was the generosity of Allied victors that rebuilt Japan after World War II.  Seventy years later, that country’s technology is putting America to shame.

Every election year, the candidates promise to spend more taxpayer money improving our crumbling infrastructure.  They bait the trap with promises of massive job creation. Consider the very first of the Obama administration’s stimulus bills – the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — which pledged to go heavy on shovel-ready construction projects that would result in thousands of work opportunities.  They didn’t happen, by the way.  President Obama later joked that the shovels weren’t ready. Were they on back-order perhaps, maybe from China?

Even if the shovel-ready construction jobs were for real, how many American workers are actually trained to do them? The mindset of Americans has changed radically  since the Great Depression. Back then, people feared starvation and that realistic fear propelled desperate citizens to take on whatever employment they could find. Some of our country’s most formidable infrastructure was built by willing, hard-working neophytes who learned as they earned.

The current crop of out-of-work Americans has neither the empty bellies nor the passion to enlist in such physically grueling work. Democratic politicians mollycoddle the masses and justify illegal immigration by insisting there are jobs that Americas will not, possibly cannot, do!

So if those shovel-ready jobs were to somehow materialize, we would have to import the shovels and the workers to wield them. Although out population has multiplied many times since we industrialized America, we might still have to resort to what we did centuries ago: get our labor from the poorer  countries  around the globe. Some of these imported workers will have had experience in building infrastructure “back home.”  Can any of the desk-chained bureaucrats in Washington sense the ironic tragedy in this scenario?

The bottom line, written in red ink, is that for all the funds expended, the Obama administration’s vaunted economic policies have led  largely to a  dead end. The promised bridges to prosperity went nowhere. Now we find outselves on the cusp of another election. The politicians are making promises again. I think it’s kind of interesting that when Donald Trump dares to speak out on the obvious deterioration of our airports, bridges and roads, he is accused of needless pessimism by the Democratic challenger. It’s why Trump supporters pick him over her because they see him as a realist. They realize you can’t fix a problem if you pretend it doesn’t exist.

But both Clinton and Trump are just making promises they cannot and will not keep. The country is $20 trillion in debt. Any government money spent on infrastructure improvement now would have to come from some other area of the economy. What do we want to do without for the sake of better roads and bridges?

I don’t know that Clinton or Trump really understands that. They both live lives that are nothing like the lives you and I live. Hillary Clinton will never rebuild our bridges because she’s too busy building a wall around her own home to keep her safe from … uh, well, it would seem from the other rich people of Chappaqua New York. Are there a lot of millionnaires breaking into one another’s homes in that enclave of rich white people? Brad’s graduating class say it’s a pretty safe part of the country. Neither does Clinton hold herself to the same standards that apply to the rest of us. In Hillary Clinton’s world, she’s allowed to break rules and bomb countries, but the rest of us ought to pay our taxes and never criticize the government … unless her opponent should happen to win … then it’s okay to criticize the government.

Donald Trump has  never lived the life that you and I lead. By all accounts, he’s not been a perfect man. He’s built a business that employs a lot of people and provides valuable goods and services to willing customers. When that is compared to starting four wars and increasing the scope of two others … lying to Congress … leaving four men in harm’s way (that she likely caused) when she had something she could do about it, he’s a more positive choice than she is ….

Which is not saying a whole lot.

So, I look at the electoral field and apply my own standards to them. Gary Johnson didn’t become rich because he married the right man or because his dad was rich. He built a handyman company up into a multi-million dollar construction firm. His governmental service was an overall positive. New Mexico’s government was in fiscal crisis when he became governor and the state’s economy was in horrible condition. When he left office eight years later, he had a 70% approval rating, the state’s budget had a surplus and the economy of the state was growing. He did this by largely following fiscally conservative/libertarian economic policies. He’s not perfect, but he would clearly be a good choice on domestic issues.

Yeah, a lot is being made of his occasional flubs. Oh, my God, he doesn’t know where Aleppo is? Maybe, maybe not. He has said he thought it was an acronym and I can well believe that. But there’s an alternative way to look at it. His mind was not focused on Syria, which means he’s the only one in this contest who doesn’t want to bomb Syria into ruins.

So he can’t name a world leader he admires. I can’t either. Libertarians tend to be suspicious of leaders in general, so admiring them is a dodgy thing for us. I can’t think of a single one who rises to the level of my admiration today. There are a few leaders on the local level I admire, but I suspect I’d stop admiring them if they desired to go onto non-local office, simply because I would see the power going to their heads.

But, again, it really comes down to Gary Johnson would be a domestic policy president who would have to outsource his foreign policy to advisors. What is so wrong with that? Clinton and Trump are already both plotting which countries they want to subjugate under American hegemony or bomb into the Stone Age. Where has that Presidential mindset gotten us in the past? That’s right. $20 Trillion in Debt.

Maybe we need a president who focuses on what’s going on here in the United States … that worries more about our economic stability than whether England stays in the EU … who doesn’t draw imaginary lines in the sand of other countries, but leaves it to their leaders to decide what is best for them.

Imagine what we could do for our infrastructure if we weren’t always interfering in the business of other countries!

Oh, maybe we might even find the money to repair our bridges … or build some roads to communities in Alaska.


What Libertarians Want From Government   Leave a comment

Image result for image of gary johnson on energyLaurence Vance

Americans of all political persuasions want something from the government, including libertarians. But what libertarians want from the government is quite different from what liberals and conservatives want. Liberals want much from government.

To get an idea of just how much they want, just look at the new 2016 Democratic Party platform. Liberals, progressives, and socialists—all of whom always vote Democratic—want the government to:

Source: What Libertarians Want From Government

Posted September 17, 2016 by aurorawatcherak in politics

Tagged with , ,

A Treatment for Political Insanity   Leave a comment

Just trust them. Hillary Clinton would like it if you would just trust her to know precisely how much energy each American ought to use, where it should come from, how it should be generated, how we should get from here to there, and the effects that her plan will have on the global climate decades from now.

Image result for image of gary johnson on energyNo, she’s not a scientist and she’s driven around in chauffeured limousines, but she’s an “expert” who knows so much more than you do. If you embrace her energy plan, you will embrace “science,” “reality,” “truth,” and “innovation,” “our children,” and “the future.” If you refuse to comply, you reject all those good things AND you are probably also a “denier,” the catch-all slur for anyone doubtful that Hillary Clinton is actually an expert on this subject or many others or that she and her advisers know better than the rest of mankind how to manage our energy needs into the future.

Listening to her talk reminds me of reading F.A. Hayek. A brilliant economist, Hayek spent wrote many books over a 50-years career. Hayek explained that the greatest danger humanity faced throughout history has been a presumption by intellectuals, politicians, and bureaucrats that they know better than social forces on just about any given topic.

Sometimes that presumption might be presented as science but that’s really just propaganda. Civilization arises from, is protected by, and advances through the dispersed knowledge of billions of individual decision makers and the institutions that arise from them.

Society needs to know how to use scarce resources, how to navigate a world of uncertainty, how to form rules that turn struggle into peace and the individual’s who compose society can only do this if they are free to make decisions based on on-the-ground circumstances. No ruler, scientist or intellectual can substitute for the evolving process of decentralized decision-making based on trial and error.

That’s not good news for Hillary, who embodies the American version of “liberalism”. This ideology is anything but liberal, because it totally rejects liberty and strives for more top-down control. If you look around at what is good in the world today, it becomes a tough sell to say that government is among the good. Governments are responsible for every failing sector from health to education to foreign wars.

People like Hillary Clinton are stuck in an ideological vortex with no escape. They’ve embraced government planning and refuse to recognize its failures. They keep beating that drum, even when it makes no sense whatsoever, such as the claim that government can know everything necessary to plan the entire energy sector with the aim of managing the world climate.

Why should someone who cannot ensure the proper use of a single private server be trusted with the colossal power necessary to design and to oversee the remaking of a trillion-plus dollar sector of the U.S. economy (a sector, by the way, in which this person has zero experience)? David Bourdreux (economist)

Of course, Clinton is a hypocrite. She (and to be honest, her opponent) travel around in private jets that use more fuel in one hour of flight than you or I use in a year. We could also, in the interest of honesty, recognize that the American military that she wants control over is the single worst polluter on the planet. If we really believed that human-caused climate change is such a danger to the world, we’d start by cutting back US military operations. That isn’t in Hillary’s plan. Government gets to do what it must do. The rest of us are supposed to pay the price, bicycling to work and powering our homes with sunshine and windmills. By the way, wintertime in Fairbanks Alaska – two hours of sunlight a day and average wind speeds of less than 2 mph.

When I first read about her energy plan, I saw images of Mao’s China and remembered Lenin’s first speech after he took control of Russia’s economy. Why would any self-interested politician make the need for reduced living standards a centerpiece of her campaign?

Sure, most people tell pollsters that they favor renewable energy to stop climate change. Nobody wants to be called a “denier”. Clearly very few people really care enough to forgo the benefits of modern life, which is probably what will save civilization itself from plans like hers. It’s encouraging that nobody seems to put much stock in her plan for our future.

Do you ever stop to marvel at how quickly the political class has leapt from simply monitoring the weather (and getting forecasts wrong more often than not) to the absolute certainty that extreme and extremely specific application of government force is the way to deal with it?

“The sacralization of climate is being used as a great loophole in the rule of law, an apology for bad science (and even worse economics), and an excuse to do anything and everything to have and keep power.” Max Borders

Let’s be honest about our history. Everything done as public policy in our lifetimes has yielded little more than unpayable debts and unworkable programs, while creating an apparatus of compulsion and control that robs society of its inherent genius. Try to do anything in the United States that is truly innovative. Come back to me in several years after you’re done filling out the paperwork for the environmental impact study.

As Einstein said “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.” We ought to know by now that it doesn’t work, but the power-hungry elites just move on after every failed attempt, finding a new rationale to sustain a failed model of social and economic organization.

If man is not to do more harm than good in his efforts to improve the social order, he will have to learn that in this, as in all other fields where essential complexity of an organized kind prevails, he cannot acquire the full knowledge which would make mastery of the events possible.

He will therefore have to use what knowledge he can achieve, not to shape the results as the craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather to cultivate a growth by providing the appropriate environment, in the manner in which the gardener does this for his plants.

There is danger in the exuberant feeling of ever growing power which the advance of the physical sciences has engendered and which tempts man to try, “dizzy with success”, to use a characteristic phrase of early communism, to subject not only our natural but also our human environment to the control of a human will.

The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society — a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.  FA Hayek’s Nobel speech in 1974

Image result for image of gary johnson on energyWe seek to become tyrants because that is something awful in human nature. Call it a product of the Fall, if you like. We are all infected with it, though some of us struggle against it, while others embrace their meglomania. Which is why it is dangerous to give too much power to those who seek to be tyrants and who claim for themselves an ideology that aims for total control over society “for our own good.” We ought to have learn from the past mistakes found in history and recognize that millions or billions of people making individual decisions that balance and counter-balance one another is a much safer method of organization than the will of one person backed by similarly-minded tyrants imposed upon the world.

If I make a bad decision, it affects me and a small circle of my friends and family. If the president of the United States makes a bad decision, it potentially affects the whole world.

Gary Johnson is a libertarian who must live in the world that we have currently. Therefore, he has energy policies, but take a look at what those policies are and see if you can find a big difference between him and his opponents? Yeah, he favors allowing the individual decisions of Americans to power the energy decision rather than forcing people to walk in lockstep over a cliff.

Johnson Could Win By a Landslide   1 comment

My husband Brad became a basket case this last week, according to Hillary Clinton. He’s a Trump supporter. We’ve discussed it. He doesn’t love Trump, but he thinks he’s better than Hillary and he has a chance to beat Hillary. Brad doesn’t think Gary Johnson has a chance to winning the election and he doesn’t want to waste his vote and endure 4-8 years of Hillary’s tyranny and probably 25 years of a Clinton-selected Supreme Court. I find a lot of people feel that way. I hear their concerns, but I don’t care. I’m done voting for the lesser of two evils, so I’m going to vote for someone I don’t have to hold my nose to justify.

Image result for image survey clinton trump unfavorables

My reasons for not voting for Trump are many. I don’t bend over backwards on topics of race. I believe reverse racism is a real thing that is as wrong as traditional racism, but we’re ignoring it at our peril. I don’t believe Trump is actually anti-immigrant, but I think there are probably a lot of well-meaning Muslims who will get caught up in his efforts to control a view. I don’t like the surveillance state and I don’t think Trump will do anything to make it go away. Everything I’ve studied in economics says protectionist tariffs have negative consequences and Trump is pro-protectionist-tariff. Yes, he’s a brilliant business man, but he can’t take the US government into bankruptcy when the balance sheet won’t balance.

My reasons for not voting for Hillary are many. I’ve read her books and she’s a tyrant that just hasn’t come to power yet. I oppose nepotism in government and she is the poster child for nepotism. She has no economic experience to speak of. She is pro-universal health care, damn the American people’s wishes. She’s a war-monger who as Secretary of State presided over the US instigation of four wars that we didn’t need to be involved in (and probably wouldn’t have happened if we hadn’t created the right conditions for them) and the expansion of the two wars we were already in. Did I mention I read her books? In her latest book, she not only took credit for those wars, but gloried in them. They are her proudest achievements. She thought the Obama administration was remiss in not starting more of them. I’m sure the people who have died in Libya, Egypt, the Ukraine and Syria praise her for all the help.

The other day, she showed her true colors – labeling one-quarter of American voters as “deplorable.” This is on par with Obama’s labeling western Pennsylvanians as “clingers” for holding American values like faith and gun ownership in higher regard than his elitism esteems necessary. The difference is that Clinton is not a black man who can wave around the slavery meme whenever she wants. She’s a white woman raised in a securely middle-class home who has succeeded rather well in the world. So while people find excuses for Obama being a bigot, Hillary comes off as a bitch on par with Mitt Romney saying he was going to ignore the people who didn’t agree with him. That one statement cost Romney the 2012 election. Will independents be as smart about Clinton?

She has tried to pull that statement back, but the words are out there and they are hurtful, elitist, untrue, and bigoted. That Hillary has shown us her inner thoughts about the working-class of this nation is NOT a reason to vote for Trump. It should be a reason to not vote for Hillary. The fact is that if you’re a hard-working white person who couldn’t afford to go to college because of the economy Hillary’s husband created, goes to church, believes the Bible informs your life, and thinks you ought to have a voice in how the country you live in conducts itself and treats you … Hillary Clinton and her supporters thinks you’re deplorable and should only be allowed to participate if you vote the way they say. If you haven’t had an effective raise in 20 years and you resent that your kid can’t get an after-school job to pay for college because someone with a Sonoran accent and no visa has taken it, and you think the government ought to listen to the people of all regions and not just the blue ones, then you’re not worth the time of day for Hillary Rodham Clinton and her elitist hordes.

That would be almost enough to convince me to vote for Trump … except I have made a better choice and I think Trump doesn’t mean most of what he says. This could be where I reveal myself, because I am a college educated bi-racial from a working class family who recognizes that my parents were more knowledgeable on a whole host of topics than many of my teachers. So, I’m speaking to the 60% of most of the supporters these two have who say they don’t like their candidate, but they don’t like the other candidate more.

gary-johnsonIf you limit your choices to the two main parties, you’ve limited yourself to choosing between two tyrants who, after the election, will commence ignoring you so they can enact their own agenda. You don’t have to limit yourself. The only reason “third parties never win” is that the voters fall for the propaganda that “third parties never win”. They don’t vote for third party candidates because they believe this lie. If you choose to ignore the lie just this one time, a third party candidate could win because 60% of half the voters times 2 is – 60% of the electorate. If everyone who doesn’t really like their candidate stops buying the lie, Johnson wins by a landslide and the other two split the remaining 40%.

So Brad has some thoughts on being called a basket case and I agreed he could post them, pending my approval. #basketofdeplorables, #neverhillary, #nevertrump, #johnsonforpresident


I’d Like a President #basketofdeplorables   1 comment

Image result for gary johnsonI would like a president who wants to represent the entire country and not put people in separate baskets with some designated as untouchable.

Either Hillary or Trump is going to give me that, so I am voting for Gary Johnson. Who cares if he doesn’t know (on a moment’s notice) where Allepo is? At least he’s not insulting pluralities of the nation’s voters in an effort to get bigots to like him more.

Image result for gary johnson quotesImagine if we had a president who asked all the parties to sit down and discuss things like grownups while allowing individuals to retain their rights to be themselves and not be dominated by others. What could we accomplish?

Just thought I would introduce some sanity into this stupid food fight.


Can We Talk?   1 comment

So Trump has supposedly regained his lead in the polls and Hillary is trailing … again. Trump, supposedly a racist, spoke at a black church about unity and there were protesters who wanted to silence him, which just made him look better than them. Meanwhile, Hillary’s email scandal is the news cycle that just keeps giving.

Image result for images of clinton trump johnson

I’m not voting for either one of them, but I keep watching. It’s sort of like one of those really bad dead teenager movies where you know how it’s going to end. You really wish you had the energy to get up off the couch and go do anything more productive than watching this, but you can’t stop. You just keep peeking through your fingers, wincing at every stupid scene, because you can’t help yourself.

Sadly, elections — especially the every-four-year rumble for the White House — have consequences that affect all of our lives. I’d love to be able to just ignore it, but who wins is of major importance. It’s too bad we can’t actually influence the outcome with our votes.

This year’s circus is more entertaining than most, mainly because Trump’s candidacy represents.a shakeup of the standard playbill.  Whatever else comes of this electoral competition, I’d welcome almost any nonviolent break in the American status quo.

I have to make this clear – I do not want a violent revolution. I don’t believe we need to start shooting at one another to change things for the better. In fact, I’m pretty sure that shooting at one another will not have a desired affect.

I also understand the appeal of regularity. When I was young, I didn’t really understand this allure, but as I’ve gotten older, I recognize that regularity wraps us in comfort and stability. I feel for people who feel threatened by the idea of change. Change is terrifying, especially if you don’t know who is in charge of the transformation. Do they mean well? If they mean well, will their goals come with negative unintended consequences? I understand completely. But this country has been slowly sliding downhill for a long, long time and now we are sitting on the edge of a precipice from which there may well be no escape. Refusal to change means we accept going over that cliff, maybe sooner, maybe later, but certainly, we are going over.

Times of social transitions bring uncertainty into our lives, but they also allow ordinary people to think and act for themselves — and that’s a good thing. We should strive for much more thinking and acting for ourselves.



So freed from the choice of picking a side, I’m wondering what happens afterward.

Donald Trump knows how to work a crowd and he knew what the crowd has been waiting to see. When Hillary came out with her ridiculous slogan “I’m with her”, he blew her out of the water by saying “No, I’m with you,” meaning the American people. He really knows how to stroke our instincts. Furthermore, he never admits an error. He doesn’t apologize. I suspect we’re all exhausted with our politicians trying to twist themselves into pretzels to be the “perfect” candidate. Trump isn’t perfect. He doesn’t pretend to be and the crowds truly admire him for it.

Trump may be all about self-promotion. That is certainly what turns me off about him. Still, I think the populist candidate truly means to keep his promises. At least he’ll try. He may have to make some truly questionable compromises with the Democrats to make good on his promises, but the Great Dealmaker will do what he has to do to make it happen.

What terrifies me is what he will give away to seal the deal. To bring jobs back to the United States is entirely possible in a perfect world. In a world where Donald Trump has to negotiate with Democrats to make it happen, what does he have to parlay with? What’s worth dealing away to achieve goals he considers important?

I’ll leave you with that thought experiment for a while.


I think Trump will enjoy the political arena where deals are a part of the game. It’s when he encounters the unelected elites who are really in charge that he’ll wish he never ran for the highest office in the land. The deep-state elites have had their way, more or less unchallenged, for a century. Yeah, they’ll do “let’s make a deal” some too, but sooner or later, conflict will arise and it’s entirely possible that Trump will end up buried next to JFK.

Then there’s Hillary Clinton. What can we say about Hillary? Her moral compass spins aimlessly. We all know this. Her judgment is lacking on so many issues. But there are still a lot of people who want her as president because …. I’m admittedly perplexed why anyone would vote for Hillary. Okay, she’s a woman and I’m a woman, so I should want her to be president, right? Well, I’m a woman and I at least have a working moral compass, so why don’t you elect me instead? Not really. I can’t think of anything I would want less in life than to be president of the United States, but my point is that we shouldn’t just be electing a woman as president because we had a black guy last time. That didn’t really work out all that well. Remember the doubling of the national debt? Just electing a black man or a woman or a Hispanic or an American Indian because it’s their turn this time is just plain stupid. There’s approximately 126 million women we could elect to the White House. How is that the one with the broken moral compass is the only one qualified? We could wait until the next time around and maybe elect a woman who is actually qualified to be President? Why do you have to have a woman so badly this time around that you will vote Hillary into office? Or is it that you can’t allow Donald to win? Okay. I can buy that … except that would mean voting for Hillary and I am never voting for Hillary.

But let’s say you do that. Once in the Oval Office, Hillary will be … Hillary. Just as when she was Secretary of State, she will (most likely) drag the country into more wars than Trump will. She’s not a negotiator like he is. He actually enjoys it. She believes people ought to do it her way. That sort of attitude leads to wars. She claims he’s the one who won’t negotiate, but his whole career has been about negotiation while hers … not so much. The deep-state elites in the State Department will tell her what they want to do, which is to enforce their “stability” on the entire planet. How do we know this? Because that is what she did when she was Secretary of State. Her cozy relationship with these career elites with their commitment to global “stability” means we can’t win any wars we get into, but we can’t lose them either, so we’ll just sort of pretend to fight them, consuming young American lives and destroying foreign countries, digging the country deeper into debt, putting more and more pressure on the economy and making things less safe at home, which will require more militarization of the police, less liberty for citizens and God help us when all those chickens come home to roost.


So, no matter which way this insanity turns out, I think we’re going to see some cracks in the American facade.

If Hillary gets to live in the White House, the bell may finally ring for the millions of Americans who want to believe in a God-blessed government. They’ve maintained that illusion for nearly 20 years, but under a Hillary Clinton administration, they should probably wake up and smell the blood-soaked coffee. Hillary won’t be substantially different from Barack Obama. Her domestic and foreign policies aren’t all that different from his. But his turned out not to be a whole lot different from George Bush’s. Start wars we have no idea how to end and placate the voters with domestic programs that we have no idea how to pay for … oh, wait, is someone besides the President in actual control of the country, someone who stays on from administration to administration?

Pay no attention to the men behind the curtains!

Do you prefer the status quo of continuing the same failed policies of the last two administrations that will eventually drag us over an economic and social cliff or the tumult of a president who might actually change a few things … though at the risk of irreparable damage to the country and possibly an assassination?


Hmmm? That’s a hard one. Which is why I can’t vote for either one of them.

I’m old enough (barely) to remember the Kennedy assassination. That one event was like the starting shot in a time of social transition. It wasn’t the fall of Rome, but it definitely cracked open the settled comfort of the previous era. For a decade (approximately 1965 through 1975) every ridiculous and sometimes damaging idea was allowed to be yammered about in the public square where people were encouraged to think about them. Yeah, a lot of it was crack-pot crap that wasn’t worth the time to record, but at least we were thinking. The communists, the objectivists, the hippies and the Jesus freaks all mixed together in a confusing mess where everybody had a voice and were hoping to make the world a better place with it.


Nowadays we’re not allowed to talk about alternative ideas for fear of being called racist, sexist, nationalist or anarchist. How dare we upset the placid waters filled with the rotting debris of civilization. We have to keep a lid on things. We can’t have people thinking or doing things that the elites haven’t vetted. We might hurt ourselves or hurt someone’s feelings or look ridiculous.


And that’s what I find so entertaining about this particular political circus. Donald Trump provides a clear alternative to Hillary Clinton’s “same ole, same ole”.

I’m not voting for either one of them, but I want to thank the Donald for his willingness to say things that aren’t supposed to be said and let the chips fall where they may. I’m in favor of anythng that makes us stop and think, even if I disagree with it, even if the man espousing those ideas is someone I cannot embrace.

So, finally, can we talk? We might want to get started on that before talking about anything important is banned.

A Response to Brad’s Presidential Pick   1 comment

So, I’ve been formatting my latest book and asked Brad to post something to keep the blog active. I suggested Lew Rockwell or Chitina fishing photos, and I expected he’d at least be funny. Instead, he came out publicly for Trump.

I love Brad and he has a few good points. And I’ve read a fair number of libertarian pundits who are voting for Trump, so Brad is not completely off in the woods without a compass. I’ve said that if I had a gun to my head and was forced to choose between Hillary and Donald, I would choose Trump as the lesser of two evils, but we’re talking shades of difference that are so slight that you really aren’t sure if you’re right.

I’m opting to not vote for either one.

I agree with Brad and others that the left is eroding traditional social and economic values and that unchecked migration from the third-world is causing major problems in the United States. Trump at least gives those issues lip service and it doesn’t sound like lip service. I don’t believe that Trump is going to fix those problems and he may make them worse.

The major flaw of democracy is that idiots vote and we’ve had a long line of idiots voted into office and that includes into the Oval Office.

For libertarians and libertarian-leaners like me, we’re left with some basic choices in choosing representatives:

  1. We can support a very unlibertarian candidate who we hope will be less harmful than the other candidate.
  2. We can support a candidate who is so unlibertarian that society will be irreparably harmed and the government will collapse and maybe libertarianism will prevail in whatever emerges.
  3. We can support a libertarian candidate who will get 1% of the vote (that was my choice in 2012).
  4. We can renounce voting as unprincipled, and choose to wield zero influence and hang out in the powerless anarcho-libertarian echo chamber.
  5. Concentrate on local and state elections and ignore the harm the president can do — just pretend it doesn’t exist.

Brad is not as consistent as I am and so he wavers between Option 1 and Option 4 with a smattering of Option 5.

I reject Option 1 entirely. I used to vote that way, but I don’t any longer — not since the day I entered the voting booth planning to hold my nose for Mitt Romney and realized that I couldn’t do it.

We don’t know going into the voting booth that a candidate will honor his or her promises. Not all that long ago, Donald Trump sounded a LOT like Hillary Clinton (pro-abortion, warmonger, gun-grabber, universal health care, etc., etc.)  There’s no contract from Donald Trump that he will not change his mind and why would he honor his promises if those promises got in the way of accomplishing his goals?  Trump is a deal maker and he will make deals with the left if it accomplishes his goals.

Donald Trump is paying lip service to issues conservatives care about, but you don’t know what Trump will do. He may do a 180 in office and reveal his inner progressive once again. He’s done it before.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter if the boot on your neck is the left or the right one — either one will oppress you. Yes, I agree, the liberal progressives are threatening our very existence. Mass illegal immigration risks destabilizing the country. Public education is rendering successive generations unable to think. The welfare state is destroying the family unit. Political correctness threatens free-ish speech and is removing entire categories of information from political discourse and scientific inquiry. It seems like every other week, our current president has involved us in another war from which there is no escape. And, the last two administrations have sunk us $20 trillion in debt. This is unsustainable and risks our current safety.

For those reasons, Donald Trump is slightly better than Hillary. What he is claiming to offer might offset liberalism by a tiny degree. I took like that he has taken some provocative stands and refused to back down or apologize for stating the truth. I take a perverse pleasure in seeing him manipulate the media to his benefit. While they report on what they see as totally outrageous and unpresidential behavior, they provide him free advertisement. That shakes up the propaganda machine and that’s not a bad thing.

I am totally in favor of conservative values like sobriety, honesty, individualism and the nuclear family. I know that all cultures cannot peacefully co-exist when some of them hold diametically opposed beliefs and are forced to share the same physical environment.

I just don’t think Trump will fix those problems. Trump doesn’t behave like someone who is defending his believes. He behaves like someone who doesn’t care how much you attack his beliefs because they aren’t his. Consider the way he responds to criticism. He doesn’t attempt to refute his critics from logic. He dismisses and insults them.

Maybe Trump took the red pill and had an epiphany about how the world really works, but I want proof that he actually did. His past behavior shows he worked with Democrats and liberals to get things he wanted done. I don’t much like the idea of compromising with Marxists to get ahead and I know Brad doesn’t either.

We really can’t expect any different from a businessman who is also an actor. He’s mastered telling people what they want to hear, regardless of whether or not he believes it himself. This doesn’t prove he’s being deceptive, but then there’s his liberal donation record. Where is the proof that Trump will fix any of the problems conservatives and libertarians see looming? Where is the proof that he will fix them in a way we would perceive as a benefit?

Trump is not a conservative. He’s barely a RINO. He does not respect the private property of others. He supports eminent domain. He does not value laissez-faire capitalism or competition. Trump has no problem using the state to crush his opposition in the well-known progressive phenomenon where corporations use left-wing politicians to destroy their competitors. Trump was in bed with those corporations and the same politicians they used.

Trump’s policies also would not resemble a free market. Trump believes in a welfare state. Trump believes in funding Planned Parenthood and other cronyist organizations. Trump does not favor international trade. These are all elements that are hostile to a free market.

I feel for people who live in border states. They’ve been under siege for a long time and I can see where Trump’s wall seems attractive. It’s a rallying point, a sales pitch. He knows a lot of people don’t know that an enormous percentage of immigrants do not pass through the border, but rather fly in and overstay their visas. Additionally, many immigrants could tunnel below the border and bypass it some other way. A wall would do little to solve both of these problems.

Unfortunately, the two main parties failed to give us a good candidate for 2016. You get to choose your dictator if you insist upon voting main party. I doubt Gary Johnson will be the savior of the free-ish world, but I think he will do far less damage to the nation than either Hillary or Trump and he might possibly lay the seeds for a moderating of progressivism.  I can imagine that, were he elected president, we might have discussions about efficacy of liberty and the free markets that we are not currently having. Instead, we’re arguing over what flavor of tyranny we want to embrace and they pretty much taste the same.

I’ve chosen to vote for a potential for real change in a direction that I can approve. If we all choose to vote our conscience, to say “no” to both Hillary and Trump, we might actually be influencing the world in a positive direction.



Posted August 23, 2016 by aurorawatcherak in politics

Tagged with , , ,

Dissatisfaction with Clinton and Trump has Libertarian Johnson hoping Alaskans go third-party   Leave a comment

Alaskans don’t like Hillary Clinton. They didn’t pick Donald Trump.

Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson believes Alaskans will want him — if they simply get to know him.

“Given just how polarizing Clinton and Trump are … I think we occupy a big six-lane down the highway that 60 percent of Americans occupy and I’m willing to bet 60 percent of Alaskans occupy,” Johnson said by phone on Friday.

During a campaign swing through the Rocky Mountains, Johnson spoke with the Juneau Empire’s editorial board for 30 minutes, offering his stance on Alaska issues in a pitch to voters who already appear open to his ideas.

In June, Alaska Dispatch News commissioned a poll from Alaska Survey and Research, a firm operated by Ivan Moore of Anchorage.

The results of that poll were never published by ADN. In a four-way race among Republican Donald Trump, Democrat Hillary Clinton, Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Moore found 39.4 percent of registered Alaska voters supporting Donald Trump. For Clinton, the support was 30.4 percent. Johnson was a strong third at 15.6 percent.

(Editor’s Note: The Moore poll for ADN, of 670 registered voters in Alaska between June 16 and June 20, asked respondents’ preference for president in two ways. The first question had three choices: Trump had support of 45 percent, Clinton 41 percent and undecided 14 percent. The second question, which included other candidates, showed Trump at 39 percent, Clinton at 30 percent, Johnson at 16 percent and Stein at 6 percent, with 9 percent undecided.)

“I was surprised Johnson was as high as he was,” Moore said by phone. “At the time we did the survey, I think Johnson’s national polling average in a four-way (race) was about 7 percent.”

Read the rest of the article on Alaska Dispatch News.

Where is Johnson on the Issues?   Leave a comment

Libertarians believe in liberty, enterprise and personal responsibility:

“Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government’s only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud,” the party’s website says.

Gary Johnson.jpgGary Johnson rightly calls the Democrats and Republicans “slightly different flavors of the status quo.”

I’m going to be honest here and say I’m not particularly fond of his running mate and I don’t agree with Johnson himself on every issue, but he is WAY ahead of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Here’s where Johnson stands on 11 key issues:

Johnson would eliminate loopholes and deductions for special interests; get rid of “double taxation” on small businesses; and, eventually, replace income taxes with a tax on consumption. The Libertarian Party platform calls for the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service.

Johnson and Weld both tout their economic records as governors. They would cut over-regulation that they say is stifling entrepreneurs and small businesses. Remember Johnson became governor of a state (New Mexico) that had deep deficits and a trashed economy. He turned it around and left surpluses and a healthy economy. Weld was a red governor in a deep indigo blue state (Massachusetts) so had to work under a lot of regulations.

Johnson opposes government surveillance of private communications and financial transactions and favors an unregulated internet. He was an early supporter of gay marriage. (I would get prefer to get the government out of marriage altogether so that nobody can force another into participating in their gay wedding against their beliefs). Johnson also supports a woman’s right to have an abortion.(I consider abortion to be morally reprehensible and preventable with modern contraception. I said I didn’t agree with Johnson on every issue) He opposes restricting gun ownership, except with respect to the mentally ill, and thinks Americans would be safer if more people carried guns. “Responsible adults should be free to marry whom they want, arm themselves if they want, and lead their personal lives as they see fit — as long as they aren’t harming anyone else in doing so,” his website says. (Weld is not as consistent. I will probably detail him sometime soon. Unfortunate, but this is one of those times when you just ignore the vice-president and hope that the healthy presidential candidate lives to a ripe old age — kind of like Joe Biden).

The role of the military and foreign policy in a Johnson administration would be to “protect Americans from harm and allow us to exercise our freedoms.” Johnson would stop using the military for “nation building” and “policing the world,” which he says has created new enemies and kept the country in a state of “perpetual war.” (I think once he got into it, he’d find it’s hard to dismantle such an apparatus, but his presidency could be a step in the right direction … not the gutting of the military, but a return to its original mission).

Johnson says his background as the former governor of a border state informs his understanding of immigration policy. He is critical of Trump’s plan to build a wall. Johnson would make it easier for immigrants, after a background check, to get a work visa and a Social Security card so they could pay taxes. And, isn’t that really the issue here, that they come here, work for below minimum wage (thus undercutting legal Americans ability to get jobs), don’t pay into the system, but then suck away resources that the rest of us pay for. If they were forced to compete on a level playing field with legal workers, they would probably choose to return to Mexico because the incentives would be taken away.

Johnson believes “tough on crime” laws have criminalized aspects of our personal lives that should not be the concern of the state. He cites the war on drugs as an example, and calls it a failure. Johnson also is critical of mandatory minimum sentences that prevent judges from using their discretion.

As president, Johnson would take marijuana off the federal government’s list of controlled substances, allowing states to legalize its recreational and medicinal use. He favors taxing and regulating the marijuana business. “We need to treat drug abuse as a health issue, not a crime,” he says. I’m double minded on this. I think marijuana and other drugs do immeasurable harm to our society and individuals and families within our society, but I think the war on drugs has been a disaster. Prohibition doesn’t work. We need to find other ways of dealing with the real problems of drug addiction in our country.

Johnson would abolish the federal Department of Education and eliminate the Common Core curriculum. He favors school choice and competition to foster innovation. He’s also spoken in the past of favoring local control of schools. Historically, schools performed better when there was local control. The outcomes of schools nationwide have consistently declined since the creation of the Department of Education.

The Libertarian candidates would refocus the Environmental Protection Agency on its core mission of protecting the environment. Johnson says the climate “probably” is changing and that humans “probably” have something to do with it, but they question whether government’s efforts to combat it are working, or worth the expense. He favors science-based environmental regulation that does not involve social engineering.

Why Would You Vote for HER?   2 comments

I’ve said this before. I will say it again. I am not a Trump supporter. I will not be voting for Trump in November. However, if someone put gun to my head and said I had to vote for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump (no third way and no not voting), I would choose Trump. Why?

Lesser of two evils! Yes, I think Donald Trump is not as evil as Hillary Clinton … but I’m not voting for him.

You claim you’re with her. Okay. I doubt she’s with you, which is what we really want in a president, but …. Really?

I don’t think Trump is with us either, but here’s the thing — Hillary Clinton destroyed 30,000 emails, some of which were classified. Even thought some of them were found, she is still denying that any of this happened. Source: James Comey, FBI director.

While being investigated for potential prosecution for the above, the former Secretary of State’s husband, who is former President Bill Clinton, inappropriately met with current Attorney General Loretta Lynch who was originally appointed by President Clinton in 1999 as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.  Bill Clinton is a lawyer. He knows just how illegal it is for him to meet with the prosecutor outside of judge’s chambers. He KNOWS. And, yet, the attitude is, no big deal, we just talked about our grandchildren. If you believe that, there’s a bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you for a great deal. Source: Discover The Networks

This woman you want to support for President, along with Bill Clinton, uses a so-called non-profit charitable foundation in Canada that serves as a front to skirt around U.S. laws that forbid foreign governments from financially influencing U.S. elections. Here’s a list of the names of leading donors to that foundation.  Click right here.

Are you still with her?

Before you cast your vote , maybe you would you like to see the list of donors who gave over $21.7 million in speaking fees to Hillary Clinton. These are the people she will beholden to she occupy the Oval Office. The list is provided here.

According to a CNN article, since 2001 (when they left office), Bill and Hillary Clinton combined have earned $153 million in paid speeches. Are you still with her?

Hillary Clinton, while serving as Secretary of State, said there were 60,000 emails and she deleted ~30,000 of them because they weren’t “work-related.”  Yes, but did Hillary Clinton erase incriminating emails that involved The Clinton Foundation? She claims she has a right to privacy.  Source: Business Insider) You aren’t so naïve as to believe those deleted personal emails involved discussion about her grandchild or recipes for cookies?

Unlike many other countries in the world, the U.S. is ruled by laws and no one, regardless of position, is above the law.  The “rule of law” is the reason why so many immigrants come here, to escape from countries ruled by despots, who are above the law.

Hillary Clinton is above the law now that she has not been held accountable for her email/security breach.  At least that is what articles appearing in various news sources say.  Sources: The Hill, The Federalist, CNNAmerican Spectator.  As one news source said it: “She is too big to jail.” Source: Jewish Press

What if we learned that Presidential candidate Donald Trump had falsified his tax return or disclosed information from a government briefing of Presidential candidates and then sent an emissary to meet with the Attorney General of the United States to avoid prosecution?  Would you demand his prosecution?

What would happen to you if you were in court and you or an emissary of yours made contact with the judge?

In 2011, U.S. Army soldier Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning was accused and later convicted by court-martial for violations of the Espionage Act for leaking classified documents.  Hillary Clinton then commented: Classified information “deserves to be protected and we will continue to take necessary steps to do so” because it “affects the security of individuals and relationships.” Source: Huffington Post

Did Hillary Clinton jeopardize national security for personal gain?

Do you stand with Hillary or the rule of law?

Tax the middle class?

Regardless of which side of the political spectrum you are on or which political party you identify with, America has a big problem – declining incomes and massive unemployment.  Government benefits for the poor are so extensive that they exceed what an entry-level job would pay.  Why apply for work if you bring home more money through welfare? In many instances, the so-called poor on the government dole have passed the middle class. Those middle-class folks who have some money in the bank are seeing it dwindle in value due to interest rates on banked money below the rate of inflation.  Housing costs, once 20-25% of income, have risen to 46%, nearly half of middle-class income.

Hillary Clinton isn’t going after the super-rich (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet,Michael Bloomberg, George Soros), who support her campaign for President. And to be perfectly honest, Donald Trump has his own billionaire supporters (Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who is said to “own Congress” and is “ready to buy the Presidency” is one—source: New York Magazine), but Hillary Clinton is the candidate who says she will raise taxes on the middle class, not just billionaires.  Here is Hillary Clinton speaking for herself with billionaire Warren Buffet listening behind her.  She says, emphatically, “We are going to raise taxes on the middle class!” Source: Zerohedge

The American news media are dominated by six major corporations (source: Business Insider) that are said to spread the illusion that Americans have a choice in this Presidential election. All have unequivocally come out on Hillary Clinton’s side.

Here are ten minutes of TV news clips gleaned from various news sources (MSNBC, CNN) where interviews with negative broadcasts about Hillary Clinton have simply been cut off.  Source:

A CNN News host recently said: “We (CNN) could not help her (Hillary Clinton) any more than we have… she’s got just a free ride so far with the media.”  Source: The Political Insider. An entire book (Whitewash –, written by respected journalists from the watchdog organization Media Research Center, has been written about what the news media won’t tell America about Hillary Clinton.

Are you still with her?

Why? Because you don’t like Donald Trump? I don’t like him either, which is why I am not voting for him. There is a third way. TAKE IT!

The Libertarian Ideal

Voice, Exit and Post-Libertarianism


Social trends, economics, health and other depressing topics!

My Corner

Showcasing My Writing and Me

The Return of the Modern Philosopher

Deep Thoughts from the Shallow End of the Pool


Jacqui Murray's

Steven Smith

The website of an aspiring author


a voracious reader. | a book blogger.


adventure, art, nature, travel, photography, wildlife - animals, and funny stuff


The Peaceful Revolution Liberate Main Street

%d bloggers like this: