Even if you don't need this three-page consent agreement, share it with some frustrated Californian who might!
Free download here... http://www.bluerepublican.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Cam...
(Very funny with a very serious point.)
The politics of our nation since 9/11 have been the politics of fear.
Because of fear that one of us is a terrorist, we've allowed our intelligence services to listen into our private conversations; because of fear of terrorists from abroad, we have killed innocent people in foreign nations (supposedly to protect ourselves here); because of fear that our planes will get blown up, we let government agents put their hands on our children's crotches and look at our naked bodies, and because of fear that the economy will implode, we've given trillions of dollars to organizations that have brought us to that point.
None of it feels very brave or free. None of it feels very American.
Nations confident of their strength don't seek fights. The most powerful nations win without firing a shot. Nations confident of their security and the ability of their agents to maintain it don't compromise the dignity or legal rights of its citizens. Nations confident that the innovativeness and entrepreneurism of its people can provide prosperity don't reward bad custodians of financial resources to "save the system."
Rape may represent the greatest possible violation against a human being except, perhaps, for murder.
Any decent person sympathizes with the intent of those who would seek to prevent it by any reasonable means. Moreover, there are plenty of statistics regarding the prevalence of rape in our society – mostly, but not exclusively against women – that indicate a moral and cultural epidemic that must be addressed. I, like far too many people, am close to more than one victim of this evil and so nothing I write here is written lightly.
But I am genuinely concerned about what has recently occurred in California with a view to tackling the crime of rape on college campuses. As is so often the case when the details of behavior are legislated in reaction to the actions of the worst people among us, the results are likely to be much less noble than the intention, because the legislation eliminates the most general rights that should be enjoyed by everyone at all times, to protect a few people some of the time.
Late last week, the first state bill to require colleges to adopt an “affirmative consent” model in their sexual assault policies passed the California senate unanimously.
I don't know anyone of any political stripe in the United States who doesn't believe that for exactly the same job, a woman should be paid the same as a man, or that a woman should have the same standing as a man in law; that she should have the same political representation and equal social influence. If these more-or-less ubiquitous truisms are the fruits of feminism, then we all - men and women alike - have much to thank it for.
But I am sensing a tectonic shift away from feminism as an assertive philosophy.
Everyone knows the old saw, attributed to George Bernard Shaw, "Britain and America are two countries, divided by a common language."
Fortunately, there is a simple formula for translating between them: the British understate, while the Americans overstate. (The word, "Everyone" in the preceding paragraph is a nice example of the latter.)
If a Briton finds something to be good, he will declare it "not bad". An American will declare it to be "awesome". A translation table between the two cultures could therefore include,
"Good (Actual) = Not Bad (Brit.) = Awesome (Amer.)"
August 13, 2014
Many in America’s freedom movement still hope that the Libertarian Party will one day become a power on the political scene to challenge the Democrat-Republican monolith. But in 42 years it hasn’t happened, and it probably won’t happen. There are some very distinct reasons why the LP and all other alternative / independent parties fail. This essay will examine them.
The battle has begun. The National Independent Party is now officially launched to challenge the egregious monopoly that Democrats and Republicans have in America.
AFR's video speech, Why We Must Form a Second Political Party in America is our opening salvo to Washington and its relentless destruction of our country.
It signals the death knell of the Democrat-Republican monolith's control over our political system. It shows how to put forth a challenge in 2016 that will far exceed Ross Perot's campaign in 1992 - a true freedom challenge that will rock the nation and make history.
Last month, I did something I’d done only once before: I went to a range and shot some guns. Lots of guns. All shapes, ages and sizes.
This is a very strange thing to do for a guy born British. Guns feature nowhere in British culture.
Accordingly, I was unsurprised by the reaction of my mother when I called home and told her that I’d had a great time learning about firearms and discovering I wasn’t a bad shot, even with a second-world-war Enfield. “That’s the last thing I’d ever imagine you’d enjoy doing,” she said to me. She wasn’t being judgmental: it was an expression of genuine surprise.
“That’s because you just can’t imagine why nice or normal people would enjoy guns … because you don’t know any… no Brits know any,” I replied.
Mom thoughtfully agreed.
To a first approximation, American political history before the 18th century is British political history. As most American schoolchildren know, in the 17th century, John Locke crystallized the idea that human law should reflect Natural Law, but the idea that Law must serve the well-being of the people on whom it is imposed goes back at least to the Anglo-Saxons.
Since tyranny must shape to itself both the law and the political institutions of its day, it stands to reason that when a governing elite has gone too far in abusing its power, the fight back for liberty by the people at large does not start directly in the political realm or in legislation, itself.
Throughout history, changing a country's politics and statutes has been the final goal of forceful popular attempts to contain power, but mass-refusal to accept political abuses has always begun in the culture. "Culture" is a vague term so let us define it as the sum of actions of the citizens of a country, the attitudes that drive their responses to events, their expectations of what they may do and the memories of what they, and perhaps their ancestors, have always done.
Primary elections (and a runoff election of note) were held on June 24th in numerous states. Candidates for office were chosen to represent various political parties. The voters spoke one way or another. Millions of dollars were spent. The airwaves were clogged with advertisements, the mailboxes with literature, and the streets with signs. All of this should be changed, and here is why.
The purpose of a primary election is to select candidates for the general election. In many states, such as Oklahoma, the primary is "closed", meaning only those who are registered to vote Republican by a certain date may vote in the primary election. The reason for this restriction is that the primary election is the process to select the candidate that will represent that political party - and the platform, beliefs, values and virtues of that party - in the general election. In other states, there is an "open" primary, meaning anyone registered to vote can cross party lines (which obviously can present some serious problems).
Problem #1: Campaign Finance
In a "closed" primary state, frequently whoever spends the most money wins. While spending money is certainly an expression of free speech and should not be restricted politically, "purchasing" elections is a serious issue. There are two major Supreme Court decisions that have dramatically changed the landscape of elections. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission freed independent groups such as labor unions, corporations and associations to spend whatever they want on an election - as long as it is independent of the candidate's campaign. McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission struck down aggregate donations to political parties and candidates - meaning, there is no longer a cap on what an individual can donate (it was $117,000 for every two years to national parties plus federal candidates, with $46,200 of that being to candidates and the rest to a political party). Both of these decisions are good Constitutional rulings. The left frequently complains we need to reform "campaign finance" and "campaign spending", but they would do so at the expense of our Liberty. There is another way, which will be addressed shortly, that decreases the impact and influence of donations when choosing who the Party will nominate for office. The sad result is this - our elections have become auctions.
Problem #2: The Platform
The essential economic problem we confront today is that our dominant Keynesian intellectuals have abandoned reality. They do not grasp what they have wrought with the mountainous loads of debt and malinvestment that are overwhelming us. Much of this burden must be liquidated before genuine demand and growth can be restored, which will require radical reform if we are to evoke a genuine cure.
by Nelson Hultberg | Americans for a Free Republic
It began in the early 1940s. FDR had launched the New Deal’s collectivization of America, and a small but prescient group of libertarian and conservative intellectuals were in rebellion – such thinkers as Richard Weaver, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, John T. Flynn, Rose Wilder Lane, Isabel Paterson, and Ayn Rand, to be followed a decade later by the likes of Russell Kirk, Frank Meyer, and Murray Rothbard.
Out of their cerebral and activist efforts there began the movement to repeal the overweening statism that was infiltrating America from Europe via Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. The infamous year of 1913 was the infiltration’s major manifestation. FDR’s New Deal was its Rubicon. In reaction to the radical political changes taking place during the 1913-1940 era, today’s freedom movement was born.
It is not well-known by the general public, but when the modern freedom movement first began in the early 1940s, it was not split between libertarians and conservatives. It was one coalition unified in rebellion against FDR’s monster welfare state. By 1970, however, the movement had become tragically bifurcated. The radical economist Murray Rothbard took libertarians off into anarchy, while the traditionalist philosopher Russell Kirk drove conservatives into statism. This split has created two incomplete visions – contemporary libertarianism and conservatism – that are, in their singularity, incapable of effectively challenging the authoritarian mega-state.
Conservatives are caught up in the puritanical swamps of legislating morality and hegemonic conquest of the world, while libertarians chase the philosophical absurdities of moral subjectivism and ersatz individualism. Conservatives wish to return to the Middle Ages and mandate morality via the state, while Libertarians wish to do away with any reference to morality altogether. Conservatives revere leaders like Savonarola and John Calvin. Libertarians excite themselves with Larry Flynt and the Beatles’ “Nowhere Man.” Somewhere the Founding Fathers are twisting in their graves over each of these political movements and their embarrassing lack of comprehension concerning the requisites for a free and individualist society.
When people hear "UKIP", they usually think of Nigel Farage.
But the Chairman of the party is Stephen Crowther, and eloquent Brit who is referenced in this article.
Blue Republican Radio has an exclusive interview with Crowther, in which I press him on the question, "In what sense is UKIP libertarian?"
The answer is extremely interesting, and shows the importance of culture and history in politics.
I was a boring kid, more concerned with topping out in my next exam than with any sports team or rock band.
I think that was an early manifestation of a tendency I retain in my adult life and will likely take to my grave: a slight disdain for what everyone else thinks is great and, by implication, thinks that I should think is great. In other words, my precociousness as a child was an assertion of my individuality. Maturity as soft rebellion, if you will. In any youth culture, behaving like an adult is good a way to train as a future libertarian.
Although, as a kid, I mostly avoided pop music and sports (and still do), for some years, the music that I could guarantee to hear every day from my friends' desks at school was Nirvana and Guns 'N' Roses. Those bands provided the sonic backdrop of my geography revision and math homework.
Whatever grunge was, I wasn't. The school I went to was an old English manor house (check out the final scene of "If" -- that was our dining hall) and I was being educated among many who would in a few years be wearing academic gowns in the hallowed halls of Cambridge and Oxford Universities. I ended up being one of them. I certainly couldn't even imagine "dropping out" as a psychological possibility, let alone as something that could inform a culture. I mean, I wouldn't even know how to drop out or hate myself, to borrow from one of Nirvana's titles.
Many people regard Magna Carta as the first Constitutional guarantee of the basic liberties of the English-speaking world.
Fewer people know that Magna Carta wasn’t imposed on King John just because he abused his power (which after all has been true of most kings and governments throughout history), but because he had handed away the sovereignty of England to a foreign governing institution in Europe. That institution was The Holy Roman Empire.