Archive for Presidential Election


Posted in For Free Trade, Uncategorized with tags , , , on July 25, 2016 by cavalier973

If the Trumpspawn can let the “Sen. Cruz’s dad helped assassinate JFK” story slide, then I feel no compulsion in refraining from posting this, potentially true, story.

It’s  from the Huffington Post, for what it’s worth.

Update: the plaintiff withdrew her suit a few days before the election.




The Lion and the Loony

Posted in For Free Trade, For God with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 24, 2016 by cavalier973

If you didn’t hear, Senator Ted Cruz gave a speech this past Wednesday, in which he asserted that the policies of Hillary and Obama were objectionable, and that the principles by which the Republican Party ostensibly stand–Americans’ freedom and support for the Constitution–needed to be defended. Great speech.

Oh, he also said that voters should “vote their conscience”, up and down the ticket. This was greeted with outrage by the Trumpspawn, because it was a signal that Sen. Cruz wasn’t going to bend down and lick Donald Trump’s tiny orange toes, as had nearly every other major GOP political leader. Excellent work, Senator. Instead of “Lyin’ Ted” it is “Lion Ted” (as in, you know, being brave as a lion. Lions as they are known in popular culture, anyway, because I’ve read that actual lions–but I digress).

With Trump, it is important that he always be seen as the Top Man, and Sen. Cruz’ refusal to bow and scrape thwarts that image. If it becomes widely known that someone is willing to call Trump out for a phony, and not take his bullying like a cringing crony, then Trump loses that image of “tough guy that can get things done.”

All Cruz said on Wednesday night was that people needed to vote for the Emperor who was actually wearing clothes. It’s not his fault that Trump parades about bereft of any conservative principles with which to clothe himself.

The following day, Sen. Cruz explained why he did not speak the words “I endorse Donald Trump”: it was because he took his vow to love and honor his wife, and his duty to honor his father, more seriously than his pledge to endorse Trump. I think, also, the good Senator was reluctant to endorse someone whose proposed agenda had very little in common with the actual Republican Party platform–which is supposed to be about limited, Constitutional government. Incidentally, Trump himself had already broken the same pledge some weeks prior, and stated at that time that he neither needed nor wanted Senator Cruz’s endorsement.

So, why did Sen. Cruz agree to give a speech at the GOP convention if he wasn’t going to endorse Trump? Because it was the GOP convention, not the Trump convention. I suspect that Sen. Cruz saw that no one was going to talk about freedom and the Constitution if he didn’t do it. Trump certain wasn’t going to talk about such mundane things when he could talk about himself, and about how he is able to save us all from all bad things because he’s Trump.

The day after the GOP convention ended, Trump was in a press conference, and started again to complain about the one guy with the courage to remain standing in his presence. He repeated the tabloid-sourced story that Mr. Cruz was associated with Lee Harvey Oswald, implying that the senior Mr. Cruz was somehow a part of the JFK Assassination. “It’s terrible; it’s just terrible” (or words to that effect).

In other words, Trump just broadcast to the world that he is a loony. Rather than responding to Sen. Cruz’s “snub” like a normal human being, and ignoring it, or even like a half-way competent politician, and using it to his advantage, and then turning his attention to his real opponent–Hillary Clinton–Trump feels compelled to deal with this slight against himself. He even openly mused about starting a Political Action Committee to fund someone to run against Sen. Cruz in the 2018 Texas Senate primary.

I wonder if Sen. Cruz knew that his “non-endorsement” was going to send Trump back to Loony-Town, and was trying to subtly show that the GOP had nominated someone who is not stable.

Trump is not conservative, either. He’s pro-abortion (practically speaking; he still lauds Planned Parenthood), anti-free market (he likes for the government to take people’s lands to give to businessmen and hates the idea of people making the best use of the product of their labor), and believes that if the government puts you on a secret “no-fly” list that your 2nd amendment rights can be abrogated.

What the GOP leaders who are now criticizing Sen. Cruz for his principled stand are really saying is: “Don’t worry about freedom or the Constitution. Join us in celebrating the bold decision to nominate a Democrat to be our standard bearer. Here, have some orange Flavor-Aid!”



There is a meme spouted by some of the Trumpspawn these days, that if one doesn’t vote for Trump then one is “voting for Hillary”. On the other hand, the Zergswarm that makes up the Democratic Party voter base are saying that a failure to vote for Hillary is a vote for Trump. Logically speaking, then, voting for neither of them is the same as voting for both of them! Win, and win!

I’m thinking that Trump will win this election. As of July 24, the Democrat (“Democratic”) Party is splintering, hard, over the leadership’s scandalous treatment of socialist Bernie Sanders, which was revealed in a WikiLeaks email dump. Hillary is not well-liked, even by (especially by?) her supporters. She’s personally a jerk of Trumpian proportions (heh), and will do anything to make a buck and keep her corruption-infused hide out of prison.
It is known.
I wonder if she will even survive until election day; she seems to have some medical issues (That xenomorph is about ready to burst from her chest, and, um, what is going on here?). If she wins, and manages to eke out a first term, I doubt things will be as bad some fearful folk assert.

I am not going to write in Sen. Cruz’s name this November. He urged people not to do that. Besides, there are other options for anyone who still (as Sen. Cruz does) cares about American liberty and Constitutionally restrained government (this, naturally, excludes the Democratic Party). One option is the Libertarian Party, whose ticket is Gary Johnson and William Weld. I am uninterested in voting for this ticket, since the Libertarian Party has a platform that favors antepartum infanticide, but Johnson/Weld is gaining  in the polls, and it would be a good thing, I think, if a third party were able to break through the two-party barrier that has been imposed by the two major parties.

The other choice for liberty lovers is the Darrell Castle and Scott Bradley ticket of the Constitution Party. This is a much better team. I disagree vehemently with the Constitution Party’s stance on Free Trade (they assert, if I remember right, that free trade leads to socialism(!)), but since the GOP has nominated an anti-free trade, pro-abortion ticket this year, there is no reason for me to vote Republican.

Losing the world and saving my soul, and all that jazz.


President Bush wins a fourth term

Posted in For Free Trade, For God with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 7, 2012 by cavalier973

Peel away the rhetoric, and one can see that Obama’s reelection will result in the same Progressive-neocon policies that he’s been enacting since 2008.  Buy land and gold and silver to protect yourself, and if you need some sort of political outlet, then focus on state politics.  Elect state representatives who will stand up to the FedGov; that’s really the only realistic hope the liberty movement ever had.

It should be quite obvious that the best thing to happen would be for the country to split up into regional nations, and get rid of the Federal Government.  Most people are too scared of liberty to ever consider this possibility, unfortunately.

Too bad the GOP didn’t nominate Ron Paul; he could have won the election by hitting Obama where he was truly weak: foreign policy.  Most Americans are really tired of the whole “perpetual war” policy that Bush started and Obama embraced.  Oh, well; at least I got to write his name in (that’s right; there was a space for write-ins on the MS ballot, after all.  They just don’t count a write-in vote unless one of the candidates on the ballot are in some way incapacitated).

Both Obama and Romney are unfit for office

Posted in For Free Trade, For God with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 4, 2012 by cavalier973

Chuck Baldwin tells it straight

Posted in For Free Trade, For God with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 4, 2012 by cavalier973

Oh, boy, does he ever.  If one reads this article and still insists on voting for Romney as the “lessor of two evils”, or whatever, then one has the comprehension capacity of a turnip.

An excerpt:
“As I have noted in previous columns, the differences between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are miniscule on virtually every salient issue. They both supported TARP; they both supported Obama’s economic stimulus package; they both supported so-called assault weapons bans and other gun control measures; Obama has an “F” rating from Gun Owners of America, while Romney has a “D-” rating from GOA; neither man supports a balanced budget; neither man opposes foreign aid; they both supported the bailout of the auto industry; they both have a track record of being big spenders; they both fully support the Federal Reserve; they both oppose a full audit of the Fed; they are both supporters of universal health care; both men are showered with campaign contributions from Wall Street; neither of them wants to eliminate the IRS or the direct income tax; both men are on record as saying the TSA is doing a “great job”; they both supported the NDAA, including the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process of law; they both supported the renewal of the Patriot Act; they both believe that the President has “executive power” to assassinate and kill; both support the “free trade” agenda of the global elite; they are both soft on illegal immigration; they both support NAFTA and CAFTA; they both have a history of appointing liberal judges; they both believe the President has the authority to take the nation to war without the approval of Congress; and neither of them has any qualms about running up more public debt to the already gargantuan debt of 16 trillion dollars.”

Answering’s questionnaire

Posted in For Free Trade, For God with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 25, 2012 by cavalier973 has posed its questionnaire concerning the upcoming election to a variety of folk.  Here are my answers:

1.  Which presidential candidate are you voting for and why?
I’m leaning toward Gary Johnson, now, although I was ready to vote for Virgil Goode a couple of weeks ago, because of the antepartum infanticide issue.  Well, since millions of  “pro-life” Christians are quite willing to vote for Romney, who is effectively pro-choice, then no one can really say anything against a pro-life Christian who is voting for Gary Johnson.  I’m unsure how committed he is to non-interventionism, while I’m pretty sure that Goode is solidly opposed to the “War on Terror.”  On the other hand, Goode is clearly insane when it comes to that police state-creating initiative popularly known as the “War on Drugs.”  I care not one whit for narcotics, and advise anyone who considers using them to “just say no.”  But the “War on Drugs” is not about ending drug use.  It is, rather, the gov’t’s way to implement the legal and logisitical framework for martial law.
Free Trade is also another major issue where G. Johnson is superior to Goode.  The Constitution Party incredibly believes that free trade leads to socialism, and so they oppose it vociferously.  This means that Constitution Party candidates are in reality in favor of government control of people’s purchasing decisions.  Just like Mitt “I’m a buffoon when it comes to economics” Romney.

2a.  Between Barak Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding economic freedom, including such things as industrial policy, free trade, regulation, and taxes?
It’s really hard to say.  Romney has a bit of the rhetoric on his side, but his China-bashing shows he has very little understanding of the free market.  Obama is a thorough moron on the subject.  If one could trust a candidate’s rhetoric, I’d say that Romney is better, but one must remember that Romney thought that the government forcing people to purchase health insurance (which his Massachussetts health care plan did) was a “free market solution” to the “problem” of people not having health insurace (regardless whether or not they actually needed it.)  AND Romney thinks that trade is a zero-sum game.  The man’s a buffoon.  He’ll get into office, and try the same Keynesian nonsense that George “I had to violate free market principles in order save the free market” Bush did, resulting in more monetary inflation (which will, at some point, turn into price inflation with a vengeance), more regulation, lower production of goods and services, and a lower quality of life for any and everyone who does not work in an industry favored by the FedGov.

2b.  Between Barak Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding social freedom issues such as gay marriage, free speech, school choice, and reproductive rights?
Both of them have openly stated a desire for (and in Obama’s case actually took action to effect) the power to throw American citizens in prison without a trial.  What is so astounding to me is so many so-called conservatives aren’t in any way upset about this.  If Romney came out and said that he believes that the FedGov has the authority to go into people’s homes without a warrant and confiscate their firearms, I would at least hope that “conservatives” would be up in arms, demanding that Romney retract that position.  Well, his support for the NDAA of 2012 is actually worse than such a supposed attack on the 2nd amendment.  If the president can throw you in prison without a trial, then he can take your firearms away at a whim; he can, in fact, do any variety of unConstitutional activities with impunity.
As to the social issues, Obama is openly for child-murder, Romney is secretly for it (when he says he supports the right of a woman to get an abortion for “health reasons”, that includes “mental health”, which means basically anything.  If a woman feels depressed about having a baby, then she can go to the doctor and get permission to kill the child to “protect her mental health.”)  Antepartum infanticide is a clear violation of the “non-aggression principle”, so it’s hypocritical for self-describe libertarians to support the heinous practice.  On the other hand, the crime of murder is a state matter; Federal Authorities rarely investigate murders, and it’s better for liberty generally that murder be prosecuted by state and local authorities.
There’s no such thing as “gay marriage”, as marriage, by definition, is a heterosexual union.  I don’t care if two men (or two women) want to hold out the preposterous idea that they’re married to each other, what I’m opposed to is them getting the government to use violence to try to force me to say the same thing.

2c. Between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding foreign policy, military interventions, and the global war on terror (including domestic restrictions on civil liberties)?
As I mentioned before, both loonies are in support of the NDAA of 2012, which should be a deal-breaker for anyone who considers himself a devotee of the Constitution.  On the war itself, Obama is clearly Bush’s third term; if he were a Republican, then you would hear no end of praise for him from the likes of Muttonhead Limbaugh and Snotnoggin Hannity with regard to his foreign policy.  This is the opposite of the economics question, in which both are approximately equally bad though Romney has better rhetoric.  Obama’s 2008 anti-war rhetoric is better than Romney’s insane proposals to continue the puerile, counterproductive, stupid policy of perpetual war, but Obama never even tried to live up to his campaign rhetoric.  It’s a bit ironic, but had Obama followed through with his campaign promises, then the economy would be doing quite a bit better than it is currently doing; the wars are destroying the American economy more quickly than even “Obamacare” will when it gets fully implemented.

3.  Who did you vote for in 2000, 2004, and 2008?  Bush, Bush, and McCain.  What a hideous thing to have to live down, too.

4.  Apart from the presidency, what do you think is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall?  There are various state initiatives that seek to legalize marijuana.  While I oppose marijuana use, I support state governments trying to thwart the will of the Federalis in every issue that they can. 

5.  Reason’s libertarian motto is “Free Minds and Free Markets.”  In contemporary America, is that notion a real possibility or a pipe dream?
  Well, when the Federal Government eventually collapses under its own weight, then the free market, at least, will become a reality posthaste.  Until that time, it will grow in power whether the Republicans or the Democrats are in charge.

Chuck Baldwin tells it straight

Posted in For Free Trade, For God with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 19, 2012 by cavalier973

He compares contemporary Americans to the Children of Israel who craved the “comfortable” slavery of Egypt to the liberty they possessed.