Nicholas Sarwark appeared on Dave Smith's Part of the Problem podcast this week following the debate between them on Gene Epstein's Soho Forum.  The podcast is embedded below.

The exchange begins respectfully between the two and it only really breaks down when they begin discussing what each describes as the #1 issue facing America and the Libertarian Party. 

Sarwark believes this to be "Racism" while Dave Smith believes it's "Foreign Policy / The War State". 

This is when things get heated.  

Sarwark argues that President Trump's Wall on the southern border is racist because it disproportionately affects Mexicans, who have brown skin, and not Canadians who are white.  For simplicity, we'll ignore the other implications of the southern wall for now (ie., open borders, the movement of drugs that exist in the south which isn't a problem on the northern border).

He also notes that President Trumps “Muslim Ban“ was racist because the people in those countries are brown skinned, even if, admittedly, not all countries on the list were Muslim, nor were all Muslim countries added. 

He even claims that the death of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville during the "Unite the Right" protest is proof that racism exists and that it is more important than the death of thousands overseas.  

Dave Smith pushes back against this well moral inequivalence, but my focus is on something different.

At this point, Nick Sarwark doesn’t understand his own contradiction. Who are we at war with? The bombs that we drop, who dies when they explode?

If, very overwhelmingly, we are only killing brown people isn’t our foreign policy just as racist as the Wall?  Isn't it just as racist as the Muslim ban?  Is our foreign policy only killing Norwegians? Or is it killing brown people in the Middle East?

Nick, if you want to stay consistent please keep beating the drum against these policies that overwhelmingly affect minorities. Your conversation regarding our failed justice system because it inordinately affects minorities is ON POINT. 

Take that point to its logical conclusion though.  Our foreign policy also disproportionately affects minorities.  And by “affect“ I mean it kills them, ruins families, eliminates entire family trees, destroys cities, introduces famine, and also just happens to executed with OUR tax money.

The episode ended well with a dual call from Nicholas Sarwark and Dave Smith for people to join the Libertarian Party.

The Libertarian Party isn’t just made up of people who talk about liberty on the Internet, quite the opposite. Libertarian party is made up of those who actually show up.

Show up. Oust Nicholas Sarwark.  Principles over Party.

To say Occupy Democrats used the New Zealand tragedy to attack Trump would be an understatement. But with context, it’s an extremely weak link that actually ends up furthering the shooter’s objective.

-The shooter wrote an 87 page, rambling manifesto, which I won’t link to. He mentions Trump just once in those 87 pages, on page 21.

-In a section where he lamely interviews himself, he asks a bunch of questions including “are you a supporter of Donald Trump?” He responds, “as a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? Sure. As a policy maker and leader? Dear God no.” A mixed assessment to be sure, and throughout the manifesto he never mentions or gives a thought to Trump again.

-His primary concern and inspiration came from Europe, not America. From the terrorist attacks there, Muslim immigration and his experiences traveling throughout Western Europe, particularly France. Above all, he was quite preoccupied with France and their recent elections. His primary interest in the US was to inflame tensions over the 2nd amendment and ultimately cause a civil war over racial lines.

-The only politician specifically mentioned as an inspiration was Sir Oswald Mosley, a British politician from the early to mid 1900s who was in the Labour Party before later embracing fascism.

-Throughout the manifesto, he expressed agreement with views from across the political spectrum, enough so that those looking to malign their political enemies could claim that he embraced their views. For example, he expresses sympathy with socialism, claimed his favorite government was China, was an environmentalist “eco-fascist”, played Fortnight, etc. These were also taken out of context by some on the right, in an attempt to pin him as a sort of leftist.

-But, in context he had little in common with the left, and expressly hated communist/antifa types. Just as he despised conservatism and capitalism. His actual views align with no major political group in existence today, yet some are trying to pin his views on their political enemies. Which, incidentally, furthers his actual goal and purpose of the attacks.

-His primary motivation was to sow political division, in order to bring about a broader future conflict among racial and cultural lines. His hope is to facilitate the breakdown in dialogue and foment hatred, to the point where people start gravitating to their basest instincts to align with their ethnic group, and bring about violent conflict. In this respect, Occupy is furthering his mission.

Follow Meme Policeman on Facebook for more.

A pet peeve of mine.
​
Yes, "Socialism" is bad, yes it's failed, yes it's caused millions to perish in mass starvation. Yes anyone can look at its report card and with intellectual honesty report its demerits.
But what people are calling socialism today on your Facebook timeline is actually just Big State Welfarism. 

It's another example of words being taken over and misrepresented to mean something they don't.

Socialism means the workers control the means of production (more Venezuela-ish than Nordic model) not just Big-State-steal-from-everyone-to-give-to-those-less-fortunate-than-yourself-you-bigot!

What people are actually pushing for today is more big government running charity vice private non-profit operations. Who do you think is more efficient?

As a resident expert (self-appointed, of course) with a first-hand view in how the government spends money... YOUR money, let's just say that 'wanting government primacy in any entity whose mission is to increase the public good' is shortsighted.

What are your thoughts?

Full Biased Article in question: David Lynch pens open letter to Donald Trump: “You are causing suffering and division”

Look, I get it.  I have low expectations of our president being a competent, rational, professional human being...

BUT I didn’t get past the first eight words of this article. 

“In typical Trump fashion, America’s first illiterate president...”

These articles are a dime a dozen.  They take no mental fortitude, and take no journalistic bravery to write.

Journalists have far too long insulted our intelligence with this hyper-partisan, divisive drivel.

Call them out when you see them, demand journalism, because it's lacking today. 

The link above is an archived link so they get no analytics and no clicks for their advertisers.

This whole ‘everything about trump is bad and horrible’ hysteria drowns out real issues. It’s quite clear it’s not going away and is part the media’s strategy until 2020. 

It’s similar to the ‘George Bush Stole the Election’ cadence that was incessant from 1999 until September 11, 2001 when pushing the media’s support of never-ending war rose above all else.

• We just started a Space Force with no credible space threat. For the record, we’re already $20+ trillion in debt. Why is there no Tea Party, ahem, fiscally responsible voices on either side? Write THAT article and I’d read it.

• The government can take your property via ‘civil asset forfeiture’.   They don't even need to accuse you of a crime.

 

• We are at war, the longest war in the History of America, and no General or Admiral is able to define an exit strategy or what ‘Victory’ looks like. There are real people who are living through the policies of 536 elected officials.

Think this father in the image below could care less about the Trump Soap Opera that CNN and MSNBC uses to feed 90% of their coverage?  You're probably right.  He probably doesn't.  He's a man trying to live some semblance of life.  It's probably a challenge.
​

What would the United States (and the world) look like had we invested that money in, you know, humanity?  
​

But instead, we are 20+ TRILLION in debt.  With what to show for it?

​This nation was founded by a class of people who saw a long train of rights abuses. They sought refuge from a government that had a blatant disregard of their rights, their privacy and their tax dollars. 

Start supporting real journalism everywhere you can find it. It’s a shame that actually ‘finding it’ takes effort. 

​When your friends share it, call our any blatant partisan 'team sport', Republican-Democrat partisanship.  Demand more.

What media do you follow?

I like Geopolitical Futures and Stratfor for worldwide geopolitical events without left-right political bias. 

Domestic soap opera?

I’m stuck with just have to mash together what I’m offered and realize that there is media bias implicit in each outlet.

​Thoughts?
​

My faith in humanity has been restored.

Typically, when you talk about politics on Facebook, your chances of getting cancer go up exponentially.  It counter intuitive, actually.  You'd think people would not go out of their way to publicly prove their political ignorance in such a public forum.   But you'd be wrong.

C-SPAN publicly asked it's followers a simple question, "Your ideas to streamline federal government?"

I expected the common political drivel involving the use of force to punish your political enemies.  Jail the Democrats, Jail the Republicans, etc.

Instead they hit a vein that goes beyond Left-Right Politics.  People want smaller government and government that is effective and not wasteful.  

For example:

"Shut down 80% of the federal departments. Set up GoFundMe pages and allow people to give their dollars to programs they value, voluntarily."

"Stop taxing us for more services than defense. The federal government's only job is to protect us from threats. Not buy up land, regulate business, hand out entitlements, etc. That is the state's job. Enact term limits and prosecute politicians when they commit felonies, espionage, etc. "

"Pare back to just the essential duties outlined in the constitution, leave the rest to the states, and you'll reduce it by 75%."

"Actually this is an idea stated in jest by Ben Shapiro, but I think it might work - bring our representatives and senators back home to their districts/states to actually live with their families/constituents and face the consequences of their decisions with those they are supposed to be representing. They can vote with an app. They do everything else with one. That would end hired lobbying, make the legislative branch, at least, truly accountable, and clean out the swamp big time"

"Fire half the federal employees, do away with the Department of Education, the Energy Department, The Airport screeners. If you're working for the Federal Government and you're classified as non-essential you shouldn't be there!!!"

"Pass a constitutional amendment that specifically says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

Oh wait never mind it’s already in the bill of rights. So let’s just follow the constitution then."

"Get rid of 75% of the agencies, Dept of Education, BLM, EPA, etc. Cut back IRS and tax laws and make it an agency that provides tax advice and helps people know how to pay taxes, House and Senate have six months each year to get the job done (no lifetime salaries and benefits)...then they have to go home and are subject to the same laws and benefits all citizens have to live by. Supreme Court Justices must retire at the age of 75 or sooner if they fall asleep during hearings."

"No more increases in military budget until the Pentagon can fully account for the trillions of dollars it has "lost". Congressional pay should be reduced to the average income of the state that each Representative and Senator represents. Drop all health care coverage for Senators and Representatives.  Shutter ICE. End corporate welfare, using the savings to ensure solvency for both Social Security and Medicare. Oh, make it illegal for Senators and Representatives to work for lobbyists and enact term limits for Senators and Representatives (3 terms in Senate, 6 terms in the House)."

"Stop the congressional lifetime pay check and benefits. (Congressional welfare...)They have all become millionaires....they don't need the lifetime pay check. Give some of that money to our disabled veterans."

"The government has specific powers and duties under the constitution. Bring it back to the original purpose to serve the people. It was this way in its writing to prevent exactly what it has come to now, a cash cow of corruption to those in DC"

"1. Congress passes a law making it illegal for federal employees to collectively bargain or lobby. Bureaucracies use political power to grow themselves. 2. Get rid of the federal retirement system and replace it with 401K or some other portable pension. High wages and early pensions draw slackers and keep non-performers and mediocre performers on the job. 3. Immediately cut 15% of federal positions. Agency directors and supervisors have no financial incentive to reduce payroll. Conversely, an easy way to currently justify a promotion in the federal system is to add subordinates, not to produce results. Forced to do the job with fewer employees, supervisors would be forced to get rid of the dead wood. 4, Substantial cash incentives paid to federal employees who discover ways to improve efficiency. 5. Congress passes balanced budget and creates law requiring all future budgets to balance. 6. Abolish Department of Education and return education management to states."

"Eliminate all government pensions, move half of our military bases off foreign soil, make food stamps (EBT) only used for basic foods (ground meat, oatmeal, etc), simplify law (as opposed to exponentiation) and enforce diligently such as "run from the police in a motor vehicle: 5 years minimum in jail, privatize what is failing (ie schools, prisons), and legalize anything involving consent (drugs, prostitution, etc)."

Faith in humanity restored, indeed!

Here is something to think about with the whole immigration debate:

I worked closely with really good local national Afghans who risked their lives in Afghanistan for 5-8 years waiting on approval to get a special Visa to come to America.

They embedded with infantry units to help translate for US & Coalition forces. Day in and day out they were in combat and despised by their fellow Afghans. They were targeted, many lost their lives, their families were kidnapped and beheaded and placed in public squares to send a message and yet they still pressed on helping us in the hope of a better life. Many are still waiting today to come here. Mind you this is after years of waiting and waiting and risking their lives daily. So who deserves to come here for a better life? Is it the person who directly benefited the US and put their lives on the line for us, or the person who breaks the law b/c they want what America can provide. What is more fair, since we cannot take in the entire world?

Is it more fair for people to just cross an open field, hide in a shipping container, hide under a boat, then melt into a city, fly under the radar, get benefits that our tax money goes to, then expect amnesty from Congress or is it more fair to reward those who directly contributed to our country before ever getting here?

What about all the women and children that are raped at the hands of coyotes and human traffickers at multiple points along their journey because our immigration laws have historically been weak and they think they can just come here and get right in. Traffickers take advantage of that and abuse the people who often pay their entire life savings to enter our country illegally.

Is that cool, why isn't the MSM speaking out against that?

Perhaps these scumbags wouldn't be in business if they knew it would lead to nowhere if they couldn't get across the border.

There's more to the issue than just "So and so wants a better life so it's a travesty that we don't give it to them". There are Billions of people all around the world who want to come here. The bottom line is we provide immigration to people, legally, that have skills we need. This is common for all developed countries in the world. It has to benefit us as a nation, not crooked politicians who want voters dependent on the government, which is why they push mass illegal immigration.

Go check out Ellis Island and look at the immigration history and the requirements people had to go through to get here. It wasn't just a free for all like the lying MSM tries to make it out to be.

Most logical Americans are fine with people coming into our country legally. We welcome them and uphold them when they strive to make a better life for themselves, as long as they Integrate, Embrace American Values, Embrace Freedom, Embrace Hard Work, Embrace our Language and Embrace our History.

But when you break the law and cut ahead of others and then demand rights, then you get rejected by most Americans.

I simply see this as the truth. I welcome all immigrants who enter legally and want to embrace America.

I work with tons of legal immigrants that are now Americans and most of them love our country more than average Americans do. They have built a phenomenal life for themselves and those around them and understand what our country is about when you follow the law. Matter of fact I don't doubt for a minute that a large majority of the illegal immigrants simply want to make a better life for themselves.

I also know many of their children and of course they have a different view. I sympathize with their parents as I sympathize with all of the other people I have met around the world who live in poverty and want to come here.

But at the end of the day everyone has to understand we have laws that have to be followed which includes an order of merit for immigrants. We simply cannot intake millions of illegal immigrants and sustain an economy.

-Guest Post

-Editor’s Note: Instead or politicizing, which most will do, why not demand accountability from our representation? If the policy is failing, change the policy. Unfortunately, there is no political will to do so.

Well, here's some news:

According to Jeff Weaver, 2016 campaign manager for Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator "is considering another run for the presidency."

The silver lining of that: it's a potential "teaching moment."

The entirety of Bernie's political philosophy, if we can call it that, is: "We want X; therefore, the state should violently distribute X."

And if you oppose this juvenile ideology, you "hate the poor."

Even though every last thing Bernie favors would make the poor less employable and give them fewer options.

I actually put together a full-length refutation of Bernieism, a book called Bernie Sanders Is Wrong.

Here's the table of contents:

PART I: Should the U.S. Model Itself After Scandinavia? 

Chapter 1 
No, Sweden Is Not a Model to Emulate 

Chapter 2 
The Truth About Denmark, the “World’s Happiest 
Country” 

PART II: Should the Government Spend Money on 
Alternative Energy? 

Chapter 3 
Wind and Solar Power? Don’t Make Me Laugh 

Chapter 4 
The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels 

PART III: Is a $15 Minimum Wage a Good Idea? 

Chapter 5 
High Minimum Wages Hurt the Vulnerable the Most 

Chapter 6 
Robert Reich Is Just as Wrong as Bernie Sanders 

PART IV: Would More Government Intervention 
Improve the Economy? 

Chapter 7 
Is “Capitalism” the Problem with American Health Care? 

Chapter 8 
Should Employers Be Required to Offer More Fringe 
Benefits? 

Chapter 9 
Is There a Gender Pay Gap We Need to Close? 

Chapter 10 
Is “Inequality” an Important Problem? 

Chapter 11 
Does Free Trade Harm American Workers? 

Chapter 12 
What’s Wrong with the Overall Sanders Approach? 

It's free. In fact, here it is:
 
http://tomwoods.com/d/bernie.pdf
Enjoy!
​
- Tom Woods

South Korea credits Trump for opening door to talks with North

Hopefully someone in the state department will give Trump cue cards to read from so he doesn’t mess this up. Here’s a few talking points to start from:

• We aren’t quite sure that you’re serious about denuclearization, but we want to believe you.
• If you denuclearize, we’ll lift all sanctions and freely trade with your people. We’ll provide a market to bring you technology, medicine, nutrition and quality of life.
• We want you and South Korea to reconcile your relationship peacefully without U.S. intervention. We want to facilitate peace, but let’s be clear, it’s peace between you and South Korea. Success or failure is yours alone.
• Lifting sanctions and opening up North Korea to the world would increase the quality of life of every North Korean citizen and the history books will attribute it to you (Kim Jong Un). Make no mistake, you will go down as a humanitarian hero, a man whose leadership changed the trajectory of a country and changed the livelihoods of millions of citizens.
• The United States will leave the Korean Peninsula once peace returns.
• Again, we don't really believe you, but we want to believe you because your citizens deserve humanity:

1985: North Korea signs Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
1992: North Korea signs historic agreement to halt nuclear program! (#1)
1994: North Korea signs historic agreement to halt nuclear program! (#2)
1999: North Korea signs historic agreement to end missile tests
2000: North Korea signs historic agreement to reunify Korea! Nobel Peace Prize is awarded
2005: North Korea declares support for "denuclearization" of Korean peninsula
2005: North Korea signs historic agreement to halt nuclear program and "denuclearize"! (#3)
2006: North Korea declares support for "denuclearization" of Korean peninsula
2006: North Korea again support for "denuclearization" of Korean peninsula
2007: North Korea signs historic agreement to halt nuclear program! (#4)
2007: N&S Korea sign agreement on reunification
2010: North Korea commits to ending Korean War
2010: North Korea announces commitment to "denuclearize"
2010: North Korea again announces commitment to "denuclearize"
2011: North Korea announces plan to halt nuclear and missile tests
2012: North Korea announces halt to nuclear program
2015: North Korea offers to halt nuclear tests
2016: North Korea again announces support for "denuclearization"

Voter ID laws should not be controversial. A few points:
​
--You must have a government-issued ID in order to drive.
--You must have a government-issued ID in order to fly.
--You must have a government-issued ID in order to ride a train.
--You must have a government-issued ID in order to enter this country and almost any other.
--In many venues, you must even have a government-issued ID in order to buy alcohol, buy tobacco, and be admitted to bars and clubs.

Voting is an even greater responsibility than any of those. Why, then, is it so controversial to require a government-issued ID in order for a person to vote in government elections? Voter fraud isn't a significant problem in this country, but it also isn't non-existent--and any fraud is too much fraud. Requiring voters to present a valid form of identification is one of the easiest, cheapest ways to eliminate one avenue of engaging in fraud.

Many argue that it discriminates against Hispanics and other demographics that are less likely to have government-issued ID's. In my mind, there are two responses to this.

First, all laws affect demographic groups differently. There is no such thing as a law that affects everyone in precisely the same manner. This isn't by itself a reason not to enact a law. If it were, then we could have no laws at all. (For example, even speed limit laws disproportionately impact demographics with higher rates of automobile ownership. Federal minimum wage laws disproportionately impact states with more low-wage earners. And so on.)

Fundamentally, however, there's absolutely nothing standing in the way of anyone in any demographic of getting a government-issued ID. We commonly associate ID's with driver's licenses, but that's a misconception. It is definitely true that not everyone can get a driver's license, but not everyone needs one. States also issue plain ID's.

That brings me to my second point: cost. If state ID's cost $15,000, then there may be validity to the discrimination argument. They don't though. In some states, ID's are completely free, and in most others, they cost no more than $10. If you're a citizen, then you can get one of these ID's at little or no cost. Thus, the only people who truly are locked out of voting by ID laws are people who are not U.S. citizens, and it's illegal for them to vote anyway.

Many counter this by saying, "True, but low-income and less educated demographics frequently do not know how to get these free ID's."

​Come on, folks: Individual responsibility is an important value in this country. If you don't know how to do something that you need to know how to do, then you must take some initiative and figure that something out. Acquiring a state ID is simple, and figuring out how to do it doesn't even require an Internet connection.