15 May 2009
21 April 2009
29 March 2009
by Maverick W.
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY - So far, I honestly haven't seen a real effort put on by the Obama administration concerning this topic. He certainly talked about it during his campaign, but I think this was just a ploy for votes from the center. Also, I know AIG was bad, but the thing is, AIG is not the worst thing as of now. The AIG scandal was actually a smoke screen for what the DoT did the same week. They basically made one trillion dollars out of no where, and took it out of one pocket and gave it to themselves. Retarded? Yes. Dastardly? Yes. Change? No. There have only been very small efforts by Obama concerning fiscal responsibility, but not much.
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE - Not much to talk about, I still haven't seen anything important from him on this, so I'll just go off what he's said in the past (since all he does is talk) . I liked some things he has said about getting off of Arab oil and for new energy resources that we will bring us new jobs, but there is something there that disturbs me. Most likely the thing disturbing me is somewhat unneeded positions on global warming. I feel he should step away from saying or doing anything with the carbon emissions issue, nobody honestly cares about it and frankly it's a turn off and a waste of tax payer money. It increases the size of government, a government which has not been conducting the exact norm of good governance for some many decades. And that's what I don't like.
EDUCATION/SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT - There hasn't been anything concerning scientific advancement I've seen lately, so I'll just grade this part off of the education part. The six tenets state that Modern Whigs believe in "...providing common-sense solutions to enhance our educational system from pre-school to university-level studies." Again this is a vague statement I know, and it really doesn't give us anything to go on except your own definition of a "common sense solution". So, I guess I'll just do that. My definition of a common sense solution to education is getting rid of public schools and government; let private schools take the reigns. Basically, get government and teacher's unions out of the way of learning. Obama hasn't been doing this though, for example he is for; Free public college for any student with B-average. (Jul 1998), Pay for college education for those who commit to teaching. (Jun 2008), Nationwide program to reconstruct crumbling school buildings. (Sep 2007), Pay “master teachers” extra, but with buy-in from teachers. (Aug 2007), Guarantee affordable life-long, top-notch education. (Jun 2006). These are all big government ideas and do not further any one's education, only worsen it.
STATES RIGHTS - “Throughout my career, I’ve been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America. “When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president." -Obama Campaign Website. The Freedom of Choice Act states that "This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act." Now I want people to know, I am strictly neutral on the issue of abortion, the only feeling I have about it is that clinics should only be privately funded, not federally, state or publicly. This is just because I am an avid libertarian. But what peeves me about this bill is that it directly overturned a state's right to pass its own statewide law. Great, you disagree with it, so why should the federal government get in involved in this case? Should George Bush have got involved in state gun bans and overturned them? Would that sit well with Obama? No I do not think it would, so why the hypocrisy? Well, Mr. Obama, I feel all you're trying to do is force your views into state government, and that sir certainly violates both states rights and the constitution.
SOCIAL PROGRESSION - He hasn't done anything significant yet, so as of now he is ungraded.
VETERANS AFFAIRS - Recently Obama has been talking, keyword= TALKING about improving Veteran's Affairs. But his actions show different plans. The other week he hung wounded vets out to dry in an attempt to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of wounded veterans with service-related injuries. This screws wounded vets and the country in general over in a couple of ways:
- Small businesses will refuse to hire these folks because it will drive up their insurance costs.
- People will stop volunteering for military service.
- Coverage limits for wounded veterans could be exhausted by the veteran’s injuries alone, leaving the rest of the family without coverage.
- Everybody’s insurance rates will increase to cover the costs now incurred by private insurance companies in caring for the wounded veterans.
The leader of the nation’s largest veteran’s organization says he is “deeply disappointed and concerned” after a meeting with President Obama the other day to discuss his proposal. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases. “It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan,” said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. “He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it.” Obama is obviously trying to fulfill big government dreams and fantasies of him saving the health care crisis; in the process he is betraying a lot of wounded heroes. This is very unfair to those who serve and it scares me due to the fact that the Legion's leader said he refused to hear any arguments that would oppose his plan, even though he [Obama] said early on that he would end "group thought" or agreeing with anything the administration does no matter what it is.
CONCLUSION: It seems the Obama Administration is going through a lot of failures and some come throughs, mostly scandals though as with any presidency. I don't see him as being anything "special" or "Messiah like" in the next four years. I see him as the next Carter actually... What I feel he is becoming now is simply a step towards completely and permanently "centre-lefting" the federal government, state governments and the free market in general. I feel he is trying to create a social democracy, which is a centre-left ideology that came about in the 19th century Socialist movements. It basically combines the two opposing economic systems of capitalism and socialism with crude compromises and policies. Recently the most apparent social democrat to be president was Bill Clinton, but he was specifically a "Third Way" adherent of social democracy; which instead of crude compromises and policies, it tries to "synthesize" capitalism and socialism. But Obama this time is attempting to move towards an all the way social democracy domestically, while keeping the "Third Way" tone in foreign policy. Now, how do I feel about trying to combine capitalism and socialism?
OVERALL GRADE: D+
17 March 2009
16 March 2009
by Maverick W.
-Becuz I got high, becuz I got high, becuz I got hiiiiiiiggghh
Well after reading that the MWP membership spiked +800 due to Rush's little crack whore fight with Micheal Steele and RINOs, I just wanted to extend my arm out and say "Thank you sir, that was really nice of you to practically fucking your own party in the asshole. Seriously, that was really nice of you."
And if you're wondering, yes, I am that disgusting.
12 March 2009
by Maverick W.
-Carol Moore, that's hot. (false)
Well, since she deleted the neolibertarian article at wikipeida, thus destroying neolibertarians' right to exist as an ideology, a user named ApocalypseNow115 on wikipeida tried to bring the neolibertarian article back first starting with a section is the main libertarian article. He wrote a bad one at first, but then revised it and shortened it down and it was actually a pretty good description. But miss Moore (ironic last name huh?) wasn't having that. She tried to state that he had something to do with a post at Libertarian Defense Caucus that criticized her, and tried to claim that he was marking "self-published" content as his sources. I can vogue for one, that ApocalypseNow 115 has nothing to do with my blog and I have never met or even spoken to ApocalypseNow115. As for the other neolibertarian sites Apocalypse sourced, they'll have to come out themselves and announce they are not him. But then after Moore was done chastising an actually fair wikipeida user, some nut hole (most likely Moore) did a very unfair thing and removed about half of the section and change this sentence "Neolibertarians advocate maximizing civil liberties while upholding national security objectives." to "Neolibertarians advocate maximizing civil liberties while upholding authoritarian national security objectives." Which basically asserts neolibertarianism is "authoritarian" or "fascist" to the average person.
Now, I ask my readers, please take a wonder at the post title link to Moore's blog, read all you want and come back.
Ok, so based off of that BS, we can tell Moore is the one who doesn't deserve to create and edit wikipedia articles because she is obviously biased in her actions, she doesn't care about fairness and simply wants to silence the neolibertarian (she'll refer to it as "fascist zionist neocons") ideology. What honestly makes you think she is fair in editing? As far as I've seen, she's been pushing her agenda (like a neocon ironically) to make radical anti-war libertarianism seem like it's "AWWWWWRIGHT".
So you know what we have to say to you Moore? How come you can state your opinions, protest things, and be biased, but we can't even be given the common courtesy of being called an ideology? Are you miss Moore a neocon? You sure sound like one (you use these terms to divide us as Americans against each other, so now I shall do the same to you).
11 March 2009
by Maverick W.
Well, originallyI thought Root was just another freaky isolationist of LP. But I now I would like to endorse him because of the following reasons:
- Ron Paul freaks think he is a neoconservative zionist
- Stronger on defense than most libertarians
- Would be the first Jewish president (I'm not a jew, but I think it would be cool)
- Citizen politician
- Is an avid laissez-faire capitalist
- Much more sensible libertarian
- Has an actual plan to get elected (in 2020, which is fine and also realistic)
- Actually has the balls as an libertarian to criticize Ron Paul (and thus attacked)
- Never seen him foaming at the mouth about some conspiracy related B.S.
He sounds very much like a neolibertarian to me, if I would have known more about him I would have supported Barr's campaign this past election season (goddamn hockey moms I tell ya, they're just the sweetest pieces of ass, but so fucking dumb). Once he was elected to the VP slot, the Ron Paulies quickly denounced him saying "this was a neocon take over of the LP". Even though he is no where near neocon, but very neolibertarian indeed. Based on the picture above he would not only be the first jew in the white house, he would also be the Player in a management profession (PIMP) in the white house. It certainly would be fucking sweet to see hooter's girls, strippers, magicians, and luchadors coming down Pennsylvania Avenue for a visit to the WH. The only thing I feel to criticize him on is his graphics (you know how that shit pisses me off). I just simply don't like his campaign logo. It doesn't even look serious or credible, which is what this man is.
So I have taken the liberty in making a new one for him, tell me what you think:
06 March 2009
by Maverick W.
I am sure, many of you in the Ron Paul crowd who read my last post are thinking "THE NEOCONS INVADED LIBERTARIANISM! *gasping and crying* HELP ME RON PAUL!". But no, they didn't. We are NOT neocons. And here's why:
I am going to explain to you how we neolibertarians differ from neoconservatives on foreign policy.
The neocon stance is, after militarily defeating a dictatorship, the best option is to proceed into Clinton-esque nation building. This is another main part of neolibertarianism where we vastly oppose neocons. The better option is, once a regime is defeated to instead allow the capitalist system to operate after a military victory. If capitalism is allowed to operate, the former subjects of the militarily defeated governments will naturally arrange governments (whatever the form) which are, if only out of political expediency, more friendly to their subjects' new found economic freedoms and therefore much less likely to jeopardize the benefits which capitalism offers. This is "Classical liberal regime change" or "Laissez-faire regime change", not the ill conducted nation building associated with "Democratic regime change".
That is the difference, no nation building or real influence except for allowing the ability for capitalism to take effect. I ask libertarians, you like capitalism right? Classical liberalism creates free and prosperous societies right? So what's wrong with letting a previously authoritarian country become capitalist? The other difference is that neocons choose security over liberty most of time. We do not. But (isolationist) libertarians always choose liberty over security, putting that liberty in danger of being taken away. Neolibertarians believe that the choice between the two is a false one. They are inseparable and must be balanced so that one may help maintain the other. That is another unique feature of neolibertarianism.
This is why neolibertarianism is a better, more effective form of libertarianism. We are for limited classical liberal domestic government, but are also for a robust, capable and innovative military/foreign policy. I call this Vegrandis domi , grandis in urbs. (Small at home, great in town.) Neocons are essentially, interventionist Democrats who left for the Republicans (hence "neo or new conservative") during the 60's. Neocons are more for this mobster like mentality of beating enemies into submission and then "lending" one thousand bucks to them so they'll be our friends and become an asset in the future (and the latter part is an assumption).
Neolibertarians are sometimes unfairly considered just another form of conservatism. This is a half-truth. I absolutely can't stand social conservatives of the GOP, and I vigorously disagree with modern liberals, progressives and social democrats of the Dems. The Third Way adherents are much more reasonable, but still I disagree with them. But I really just don't understand the head in the sand, lock down the hut, let no one out and let no one in mentality of radical "libertarians". I feel since 9/11, the libertarian movement is really not all that libertarian anymore. They've basically been hijacked by anarchist bloc members posing as "libertarians", which is ironic because that is what neocons did in the 60's to the GOP. True libertarians are not for anarchy, for anarchy has no law, and with out law, there can be no freedom. The best form of government libertarians should shoot for is a republic, a constitutionally-based federal republic specifically. Not an isolationist one though, or what I call a "porcupine state", but an armed republic. It would a very strong republic indeed. But alas, she is not an empire or authoritarian state, you see it still retains its republicanism (not talking about the GOP stupid, look up the damn term) and free society status. You see, an armed republic is essentially this (I'll start talking like a dictionary now): a neolibertarian concept of libertarian or classical liberal government advocating a constitutionally-based federal republic that has very large, innovative, capable and robust military, homeland security, and intelligence forces at its disposal for defense and pro-active actions against threats to said country's citizens, its interests, or foreign allies and civilians. Domestically it advocates extremely small or no intrusion into personal or economic rights of law-abiding citizens, though if military or security threats arise domestically, it stresses the exhausted use of law enforcement and homeland security forces against said threats before resorting to military action. It does not advocate an authoritarian state or empire, in contrast, it advocates an anti-thesis of all forms of authoritarianism and stresses the use of force against threats against economic, personal, religious, and political freedoms. An armed republic also advocates the maximizing of the country's constitution and civil liberties of the country's people while upholding all national security objectives at the same time. Economically it stresses less government control and more laissez-faire capitalism. Socially, it stresses rugged individualism and an upholding personal and religious rights and liberties. An armed republic in my opinion is not only the neolibertarian dream, but the Founding Father's dream for America. Not a country which likes to go to war, but goes to war so that peace AND freedom shall come through. I am sure no fellow neolib enjoys or gets excited at the possibility of our men and women dying in the battle field, it is truly an unbearable and sad price of our freedom and we wish there was another way. But alas, there is no other method to obtain freedom sometimes. There was a 60's hippie saying "Better red than dead", and now some anti-war and even our fellow libertarians are saying "Better Saddam than dead". Well let's be clear, what does "red" and "Saddam" really mean? It means slavery and oppression. So let's ask our fellow libertarians with anti-war tendencies, why better slavery than dead? I thought you were against slavery, against totalitarianism? Don't most anti-war or "pure" libertarians always chant the slogan of our founding fathers "Give me liberty or give me death!"? Well why the inconsistency? I feel these "pure" libertarians are redundant to the constitutional federal republic of what true libertarianism endorses. I feel they are populists at best and not libertarians. But that is the essence of what neolibertarianism hopes to build, and neolibertarianism is what the soul core of what true libertarianism is; the fact that liberty shall reign not only in America, but throughout the whole world. We are glad that people in America still have the power and freedom to be obviously and grossly wrong. So by proxy, "pure" (populist) libertarians prove themselves wrong everyday on the issue of national security. The fact that they are still talking and protesting are the fruits of our service men and women's labor. So in conclusion - yes, we neolibertarians have our similarities with neoconservatives and even neoliberals, but our vast differences can only be shown in actual practice, which has not yet been done.
01 March 2009
by Maverick W.
Today I am not talking about Modern Whigs, Bush, or Obama foreign policy. No, today I am talking about another one of my ideologies: Neolibertarianism
First let's define it, the people at QandO.net define it as the following:
- Pragmatic libertarian; Hawk or strong on defense
- Hobbesian libertarian <-- Incorrect
- Big-Tent libertarian
I'd like to contest we Neolibtertarians are not Hobbesian in any way; the people at www.neo-libertarian.com define this part differently. Instead this is what they describe it as, and this following description is what I accept Neolibertarianism to be:
- Pragmatic libertarian; Hawk or strong on defense
- Lockean libertarian <-- Correct
- Big-Tent libertarian
That's right, good ol' John Locke. The father of classical liberalism, and inspiration for the founding fathers, and philosopher of freedom. That is who we champion.
Now the following is a doctrine most Neolibertarians abide by:
When given a set of policy choices,
- The choice that maximizes personal liberty is the best choice.
- The policy choice that offers the least amount of necessary government intervention or regulation is the best choice.
- The policy choice that provides rational, market-based incentives is the best choice.
In foreign policy, neolibertartianism would be characterized by,
- A policy of diplomacy that promotes consensual government and human rights and opposes dictatorship.
- A policy of using US military force solely at the discretion of the US, but only in circumstances where American interests are directly affected.
Now the next thing I'd like to touch on is the symbol for Neolibertarianism. Many Neolibertarians, much like the regular libertarians, use Lady Liberty. I suggest we Neolibertarians divert from this and be a little different. I suggest the Statue of Freedom or Armed Freedom. She is a great candidate for the face of Neolibertarianism and is a majestic symbol of Locke's novel idea: Freedom. It's right in her name for god sake's! You can take a good gander at her above.
The word "neolibertarian" has actually begun to take a shift in meaning since 9/11. In the pre-9/11 world it meant a libertarian who embraced incrementalism (still does) and aligned themselves with the New Left movement of the Vietnam era. While the paleolibertarians held no compromise attitudes and pushed for an alliance with paleoconservatives.
Today, in this post-9/11 world, a Neolibertarian is someone who embraces incrementalism, but favors a more interventionist foreign policy, pro-war on terror, and extremely hawkish when it comes to national security. Paleolibertarians though, haven't really changed in the past years.
When I was still a Republican, I was apart of two main factions; South Park Republicans and the Nation Security-oriented group. The South Park Reps were the young, libertarian associated bunch of the GOP, and the NatSec Reps were the defense hawks of GOP. These hawks often associated themselves with Neolibertarianism, as did I, and also as Senator John Warner displayed.
So that's what I'll be saying about Neolibertarianism so far, I'll be doing more on it soon. I will also be releasing an essay for a much needed neolibertarian corollary to the Bush Doctrine: Dirty Harry Corollary.
"[A]s every man has a power to punish the crime, to prevent its being committed again, by the right he has of preserving all mankind, and doing all reasonable things he can in order to that end: and thus it is, that every man, in the state of nature, has a power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing the like injury, which no reparation can compensate, by the example of the punishment that attends it from every body, and also to secure men from the attempts of a criminal, who having renounced reason, the common rule and measure God hath given to mankind, hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tyger, one of those wild savage beasts, with whom men can have no society nor security..." -John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government
18 February 2009
by Maverick W.
What do all these pictures have in common?
They all signify how retarded some voters are thinking that by voting for Obama they would reverse anything Bush or Cheney did.
For those who thought Obama would bring "Change" click the post tittle and start crying into your pillow, I'll be laughing along with W and Barack.