Archive for the ‘#nevertrump’ Tag

Dodging Bullets & Taking Cover   2 comments

I’m convinced … was convinced for years prior to her candidacy … that a Hillary Clinton victory would have been disasterous for freedom. Her victory would have meant a third consecutive administration dedicated to dismantling the institutions that have kept America free, and replacing them with the social vision of the arrogant elites. That would have been a catastrophe for our generation and the foreseeable future.


Think about her response when Mommar Khadafi was killed.

“We came, we saw, he died.”

Khadafi was a bad man, but Hillary revealed herself as an equally bad person with that comment. It opened a window into her personality where true evil lives.

Image result for image donald trumpSo we dodged the Hillary bullet, but we don’t know how many other catastrophes the Trump victory is fomenting. His victory represents the American backlash against elites that we’re seeing all across the Western world. Ordinary people are angry at the arrogance of the elites leading their countries. A lot of that anger is expressed over the migrant crisis in Europe, but America has had that same crisis for decades. Mindlessly flinging open our borders to people from societies that hold values fundamentally different from our own may work for the arrogant elites who are insulated from the negative consequences ordinary people face, but that carelessness with societal effects has a lot to do with that rage.

Ordinary people are the ones who experience crime in the most personal way. The elites, again insulated in their blue zones where there is a cop on every corner to assure they don’t see anything they don’t want to see, often rail against law enforcement, but they’re not the ones being shot by overzealous and heavily armed gestapo troops.

We’ve seen riots in cities in Europe that looked a lot like the riots in Ferguson, Missouri. We like to pretend their different because America “is a racist country”. But the fact is that the reason for Ferguson was the same as for the European riots. It’s not about racial oppression. It’s a result of allowing police to run roughshod over the rights of citizens who don’t have the power to do anything effective in opposition.

The election of Donald Trump won’t fix anything. The elites show no sign of rethinking their collectivist dogmas. Just look at the dozens of newspapers, broadcast stations and blog posts complaining how awful it is that women are still constrained by the mythical “glass ceiling.”

I actually find that phrase insulating. I see no ceiling. Am I just supposed to know it’s there? How? Is it because female pundits keep repeating the phrase? Is that what makes it exist? Is it like a tolpa in Supernatural … belief in it gives it power?

Hillary Clinton and like-minded demagogues keep insisting that women don’t receive as much income as men when compared as groups, but many factual studies show that if you factor in things like same hours worked and continuous years in the same occupations, the income of men and women has a difference of about 6 cents and even that is vanishing and reversing in some fields. Where men and women compete in the same fields and have the same longevity on the job, there is no demonstratable difference in pay.

That goes against the preconceptions of most politicians and media people, so they ignore the facts in favor of their own agenda. You’d think Donald Trump’s surprise victory would send them back to their drawing boards to rethink their assumptions on more than just Trump, but so far that doesn’t seem to be what’s happening.

I’m not just talking about Democrats here. The Republican establishment isn’t exactly introspective. If they were, they might reconsider their arrogant assumption that they alone know what kind of presidential candidate is needed to win elections. They keep picking the likes of Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney — who lost — while being surprised by successful Republican candidates like Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump.

I’m not a fan of Donald Trump. He could take a pause and consider his own actions too. Seriously! Acting like a petulant adolescent might thrill his core constituents, but the polls didn’t really show him winning until the end when he started acting more like an adult.

The Donald scares me. Wild cards are never trustworthy. Was he acting when he acted like an unruly teenager? Or was the mature adult the act? I don’t know. I have some familiarity with strong personalities in their 70s … my husband liked Donald Trump in part because he reminds him of his father. I like my father-in-law, but I wouldn’t want him to be president because … he’s a wild card.

So what can we expect for a Trump administration?

I’m going to try to figure that out in the next few days.

Donald Trump’s Plan to Fence Foreigners Out and Americans In   Leave a comment

I am personally a fan of fences. I agree with Robert Frost’s neighbor that good fences keep us neighborly. Establishing boundaries between what is mine and what is yours is a net good. Less of my stuff walks away because I have a five-foot fence around my property. The neighborhood kids trample the flowers on our frontage, but not the ones inside the fence. My dog can exercise in the yard without dragging a rope behind her. When my kids were young, they knew where the boundaries were without being told. I’ve discovered no down sides to a fence around one’s yard.

Image result for image of migrant farm workersSo, I get the appeal of building a fence to keep out those who we feel are not good for the country. There are good reasons for wanting to control immigration in a country where, if you can hide your income, you get stuff paid for by other people. And who better than an illegal immigrant to be able to hide their income, then use false identification to get free stuff paid for by those of us who, because we’re legitimately employed Americans, cannot so easily hide our incomes. Very few of us have the Donald Trump option of massaging the tax code so we pay no taxes. In a world where it feels like our government is sucking us dry and giving us very little in return, a wall is appealing. Lela

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted October 20, 2016 by aurorawatcherak in politics

Tagged with , , ,

Hillary’s Economically Clueless Plans Will Create Poverty | Daniel J. Mitchell   Leave a comment

Hillary Will Tax You to Death... And Then Tax You for DyingBecause of my disdain for the two statists that were nominated by the Republicans and Democrats, I’m trying to ignore the election. But every so often, something gets said or written that cries out for analysis.

Today is one of those days. Hillary Clinton has an editorial in the New York Timesentitled “My Plan for Helping America’s Poor” and it is so filled with errors and mistakes that it requires a full fisking (i.e., a “point-by-point debunking of lies and/or idiocies”).

We’ll start with her very first sentence.

Source: Hillary’s Economically Clueless Plans Will Create Poverty | Daniel J. Mitchell

Trump’s Big-Government Budget Plan | James Capretta   1 comment

Trump's Big-Government Budget PlanDonald Trump issued a revised economic plan last week, and claimed it would create 25 million new jobs over ten years, driven by 4 percent real annual growth. Real growth from 1983 through 2000 — the long period of expansion started under Ronald Reagan that many now understandably look back on with such fondness — averaged just 3.8 percent annually. Beating that over the coming decade would be remarkable, and highly unlikely, given that growth has topped 4 percent in only three of the last 61 quarters.

It should surprise no one at this point to hear Donald Trump make over-the-top promises. He’s been doing that his entire adult life, and especially over the last year.

The Status Quo Plus More Spending

Trump’s supporters say they are attracted to him because he is breaking all the normal rules, and it is certainly true that he has defied political convention in the way he has run his campaign. But with respect to policy — what he would actually do if elected — Trump invariably tells his supporters what they want to hear, whether it is true or not. That’s nothing if not typical for a presidential candidate.

Source: Trump’s Big-Government Budget Plan | James Capretta

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


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.

Even progressives in the media are stifling amazement at the chutzpah of Hillary Clinton   Leave a comment

Source: Even progressives in the media are stifling amazement at the chutzpah of Hillary Clinton in refusing to allow open questioning by members of the media at a press conference. Anyone with common sense understands that this is a disqualifier for the pre…

Posted August 30, 2016 by aurorawatcherak in Uncategorized

Tagged with , ,

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.

The Libertarian Ideal

Voice, Exit and Post-Libertarianism


Social trends, economics, health and other depressing topics!

My Corner

A Blog Showcasing My Writing and Me

The Return of the Modern Philosopher

Deep Thoughts from the Shallow End of the Pool

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: