Connect with us

Libertarians

Montana Libertarian candidate for Senate drops out, backs Republican

Published

on

Montana Libertarian candidate for Senate drops out backs Republican

The Libertarian Party is often used by Democrats to siphon votes away from Republican candidates. Republicans and Libertarians differ on many issues, but both tend to share concerns about privacy, limiting government, and individual responsibility. They often fight for the same freedoms that Democrats want to take away.

Montana’s Libertarian candidate for Senator, Rick Breckenridge, dropped out of the race and endorsed Republican Matt Rosendale following a campaign mailer that went out touting the Libertarian as the “true conservative” in the race. The mailer was not claimed by any group and did not have a return address.

Jon Tester, the Democratic incumbent in the race, claims to have no knowledge of the mailer. But a similar tactic was used on his behalf six years ago.

Breckenridge does not agree with some of Rosendale’s beliefs, but they share a distaste for “dark money” influencing elections. The use of dark money on his behalf to derail the Republican candidate was the last straw that prompted him to endorse Rosendale.

Libertarian Candidate Drops Out of Montana Senate Race, Backs Rosendale

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/31/libertarian_drops_out_of_montana_senate_race_backs_rosendale_138519.htmlLibertarian Rick Breckenridge has virtually no chance of winning. But his participation has threatened to peel away votes that might otherwise go toward the Republican and boost Tester’s chances next week.

The mailer comes two days before President Donald Trump plans to hold a campaign rally in Bozeman supporting Rosendale — the president’s fourth visit to the state and an indication of how much the White House wants to unseat Tester. Trump has blamed the Democrat for derailing the nomination of his first choice to head the Veterans Affairs department.

My Take

There’s a desperate need for a valid third party in the United States. It appears unlikely the Libertarian Party can do it after failing for so many decades. Is it time for a new one to arise?

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Healthcare

San Francisco demonstrates pure hypocrisy by wanting to boot Juul

Published

on

San Francisco demonstrates pure hypocrisy by wanting to boot Juul

Some believe vape products are a wonderful way to stop cigarette smoking, both for those who are currently smokers as well for future smokers. Others see it as a gateway through which kids can become addicted to nicotine and eventually start smoking real cigarettes. That’s a debate that should be happening through education and public awareness. Unfortunately, San Francisco doesn’t believe in people being able to think for themselves properly, so they’ve decided to consider another measure that will protect the people from their own stupidity.

At the center of this measure is Juul, the fast-growing vape company that happens to be based in San Francisco. Lawmakers have been out in force proclaiming the company is evil and how they don’t want them anywhere near San Francisco. They don’t want e-cigarettes sold in the city. They don’t want the people to be able to have them shipped to the city. They don’t want them used in the city.

Let’s keep in mind that this is a city with more drug addicts than public school students, a rampant homelessness problem, and so many regulations that people need a herd of lawyers just to navigate the process of trying to do business there. They’ve elevated the cost of living to be so prohibitive, only the truly wealthy can live there comfortably, yet it’s a city that proclaims to be caring of their fellow men. In reality, they’ve crafted an authoritarian society within the boundaries of the United States that has been empowered to subvert rights at a grand scale.

Here’s their grand plan:

One bill that Herrera and Walton introduced at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting would ban the sale and shipment of e-cigarettes to San Francisco stores and customer addresses until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration begins a vetting process known as a pre-market review, in which manufacturers must prove their products are appropriate for public health before selling them on the market.

The city already bans youth-friendly flavors like candy and fruit in tobacco products through Proposition E, which voters passed in 2018. Physical stores are barred from selling them. The bill would ban all e-cigarettes regardless of flavor so long as they contain nicotine, and it would also ban the shipment of such items to private residences in San Francisco.

The second bill would ban companies that sell, manufacture and distribute tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, from city property. San Francisco already prohibits tobacco companies from doing business on city property, and this measure would explicitly add e-cigarettes to the existing ban. The proposed bill would not be applied retroactively, so it would not kick Juul out of its current space at Pier 70, but it would prevent e-cigarette companies from leasing city property in the future.

Juul is not producing an illegal substance. It has not been accused of breaking other laws in the way it operates its business. Studies have been done with mixed results about whether or not Juul is a gateway for nicotine use by children, which is why the city voted to ban fruity and other kid-friendly flavors. But rather than address the actual problems within their dysfunctional city, they’d rather draw attention to the evils of vaping.

It’s a wonder how any Libertarians or liberty-loving conservatives can continue living there. It’s the nanny state of nanny states.

San Francisco has become a punchline of a city. They don’t believe in individual rights. They do believe that government can and should try to solve everything. If any American city needs an infusion of conservatism, it’s San Francisco.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Returning to sanity, the greatest benefit of limited government

Published

on

By

Returning to sanity the greatest benefit of limited government

The ever-expansive government born of collectivism results in power for the elite and insanity for everyone else.

How did we get to this point? How did we get to a situation where reading the news is akin to trying to drink from a fire hose in attempting to take in the events of the day?

There were times in the not so distant past were this wasn’t the case, when we could go about our business not having to waste time with such concerns. This is clearly a vestige of a political movement that wants to impose expansive government on every aspect of our lives. The elite of the collectivist Left would prefer a society driven to distraction intimately involved in everyone’s private life. The only way we can survive this is by reversing course back to a point where government and society doesn’t control every aspect of our lives.

Colleague JD Rucker started this conversation with his article on limited government in continuation to the insane situation we find ourselves. Two important points being that we need dispense with tribalism and that Liberty can only survive when the government is limited.

Individualism vs. Collectivism, Limited vs. Expansive government, Liberty vs. Tyranny

In the engineering field, any analysis of a situation begins with basic equations and principles. In this case we begin with the two primary sides of politics, the individual and collectivist mindsets corresponding to Limited and Expansive government models.

  • Those trying to conserve Liberty: Libertarians, Conservatives and true Liberals are on the political Right of the individualist mindset.
  • Those trying to expand government for their own benefit in property and power: Leftists, socialists, communists, fascists, Statists, etc. are of the collectivist mindset.

To be sure, there are those who would prefer to keep these discussions in a far more complicated realm. Their motivation showing a desire to confuse the issue and obscure their actions. One cannot analyse any form of technology without delving down to the underlying equations and the same holds true for politics. If the examination shows one side is motivated by a desire for power, then this is the conclusion, no matter how certain factions would like this to be concealed.

Liberty is maximized when government is minimized

The critical point in this analysis is that expansive government is antithetical to freedom.

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.”
Thomas Jefferson

This theoretical expression is borne out by practical reality. Authoritarian systems are clearly bereft of freedom. One would be hard pressed to demonstrate that national socialist worker’s party Germany or the old USSR were paragons of Liberty and human rights. Even the present day examples of socialist Venezuela or communist North Korea are more akin to open air penitentiaries than places of freedom.

Supposedly the argument is that free college, free housing, free health care, free food, free childcare and even free money is ‘freeing’ to some – but not all. The problem is that all of this is funded at some point by other people’s money, with the bite hitting ‘progressively’ lower and lower as people of the higher classes figure out methods to stop their property from being stolen. None the less, there will be those who will effectively be reduced to involuntary servitude, the opposite of being ‘Liberated’.

The problem has always been one of those who wish to get something for nothing and those who desire power no matter how it’s obtained. Without strict limitations on government, such people will always find a way to empower themselves at the expense of everyone else. Therefore, those people have to be constantly monitored, else they implement some new program here or a new tax there.

It becomes a rhetorical law of attrition, were people just become worn out trying to keep the power hungry in check. They may get upset at one issue, only to overlook another that crops up somewhere else.

Do you trust the government?

This is the critical questions of our time. Most people will answer that they don’t, albeit for differing reasons. However the central theme still remains.

  • If one does not trust the government, then why would anyone want it larger with expanded power?
  • If one does not trust the government, then why would anyone want it in control of one’s health care?
  • If one does not trust the government, then why would anyone want it to have a monopoly on the use of force?

We could go on and on, but the point is clear, a government that is inherently untrustworthy should only have limited power. This is why the strict limitations on government reveal the sheer genius of the founding fathers and the superiority of the American system of limited government.

The preservation of sanity by limited government

A government with strict limitations as to it’s proper functions [such as formulating and imposing budgetary restraints on itself] as well as what it cannot do doesn’t have to be watched 24/7. The citizens can be assured that they can go about their business without worrying that the government will grow out of control.

This is why we need to get back to a government that lives within its bounds and budget. This is why politicians of all stripes should have limited power in a limited governmental system. That is the only way to conserve Liberty and our sanity.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Economy

Justin Amash goes after Wilbur Ross following out-of-touch shutdown statements

Published

on

Justin Amash goes after Wilbur Ross after out-of-touch shutdown statements

Representative Justin Amash (R-MI), a Libertarian in Republican clothing, went after Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross this evening on Twitter. He openly wondered how Ross was confirmed despite lacking the economic credentials.

The 81-year-old investor was hit with wide criticism from both sides of the political aisle after offering insensitive answers to questions about those affected by the partial government shutdown. It was a blow to the President’s attempts to change the optics of the government shutdown. Most Americans are laying the blame on him.

The President took to national television last weekend to offer a DACA compromise to the Democrats in exchange for his border wall. That combined with revelations that Democrats had voted twice to strike down paychecks to government employees were helping shift the narrative in favor of the GOP.

Ross effectively erased the shift.

As optics of shutdown were starting to tilt towards Trump, enter Wilbur Ross

https://noqreport.com/2019/01/24/optics-shutdown-starting-tilt-towards-trump-enter-wilbur-ross/“As I mentioned before, the obligations that they would undertake, say borrowing from a bank or a credit union, are in effect federally guaranteed,” Ross said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

The Secretary also noted that the 800,000 affected federal employees only account for “a third of a percent of our GDP,” insinuating they were statistically insignificant in respects to the nation’s economy.

My Take

Amash is absolutely correct. Even before the gaffe on television earlier, Ross has been ineffective in his role. The economy is doing well because of tax cuts and public sentiment. Ross is out of touch and over his head.

Image Source: Wikimedia Commons


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report