Dear GOP Missourians: It’s Either Auggy Bear or Epic Vote Fail

59e3d57778100-image

Austin Wade Petersen is the person I am nicknaming ‘Auggy Bear’, based on one of the nicknames he’s clarified are his in his “Why do Politicians Lie” video.

A Center-Wing Independent voter’s Advise to Missouri Republicans; Fresh from Cheshire, Connecticut.

If you read this story by the highly factual Moderate left journal “St. Louis Today”, you learn from the get go that Republican Party staffers both nationally and in Missouri paint this dude named Joshua Hawley as the unavoidable nominee for the Senior Missouri Senator job. And I specify ‘senior’ because as far as I know every state has two senators, one senior and one junior. On top of this I did some Googling and most of the searching I did in search of the Politico poll that Austin talked about with Missouri voters being very opposed to Joshua. And everything I found instead was stuff about mainstream media painting Hawley as the unavoidable nominee of the Missouri GOP. However, I imagine the 99% of you visiting this via Minds.com already know this, the MSM is lying about the Austin vs Joshua debacle. For the other 1% of visitors to this blog, MSM does not believe in factually reporting the news while admitting to specific political loyalties, the MSM would rather forge a narrative and then call themselves the definition of politically neutral.

Sorry, MSM and Google Search Results! That’s not how the primary will go!

The actual political climate among Missourians as St. Louis Today highlights is one wherein voters are purely Anti-Hawley, and Anti-McConnell. The only difference between what I am saying and what they said is I am defining what they mean by ‘Anti-Establishment’. And I can gather this despite the fact that I was born in Derby CT and bred to be a Cheshire CT native for life. Plus, I have done an early childhood travel to Oregon once and several Middle School and High School era travels to Longboat Key, a lovely Floridian small town built on a chain of isles. Aside from this I have never been to Missouri, though I did almost go there to celebrate Independence Day with Austin and the rest of his fanbase around me using Uber. But I had no clue how to use it affordably for a Grocery Clerk like me who’s mostly able to give him just $10 every 2 or 3 weeks. Which FYI I will keep giving him until August 7th of 2018 when the voting gets going.

Breaking Down everything right with Austin Petersen

Let me break this down to the people of Missouri despite the fact that I am not a Missourian, please? You guys have, in a 19 hour drive west of me, have a genuine…

  • Honest and Simple
  • Non-religious
  • Openly Secular Humanist
  • Individualist and Federalist
  • Market Liberalism activist
  • Intellectual guru on different libertarianisms

Running to become your senior senator! While this post of mine may remind me of something I should have said to the Libertarian Party in April of last year, I must ask you this. If you guys are purely anti-McConnell, then I advise voting 100% for the Auggy Bear on that August Day I found via Google to be your primary voting day. Thanks,

~Kyle Perkins

Advertisements

What I might do if I my efforts to grow the LP go nowhere by November 2017

democrat-republican-1

I am at very high risk of needing to sell out the 2-party system. Which one should I try penetrating though?

I am unsure what direction I should go in to advance Liberty in America and around the world.

Okay so I see my efforts to grow the LP are having indisputably no payoff. I have friends including one from work who are all members of my ‘Cheshire Liberty Town Camp’, a Libertarian Party institution that has a grand total of… eight members. No-one is joining, even though I have raised large awareness of it, but this is not the only thing pushing me in the head to quit the Libertarian Party.

Why I want to quit the Libertarian Party.

Basically, it is a list of factors, meaning incentives, in chronological order. Allow me to list them like this.

  1. First on Facebook they censored the intellectually legendary Kevin Bjornson, 2nd in command of a caucus I am into called Libertarian Defense Caucus, from their Facebook wall.
  2. Before, during and after the above wrong; the LP stuck obsessively to the pile of mold I call Antiwar dot trash for foreign policy instead of truly reputable sources like RealClearWorld and RealClearDefense.
  3. Then in the 2016 election when they garnered their chance to destroy the 2-party system and political corruption in general by Austin Petersen… they did all they could to obstruct him, especially in Colorado.
  4. Once it was time for the ending of primary season, they nominated their worst option instead of their obvious best option who was truly Austin.
  5. Lastly, the nuking point for me was when that thing they call their Vice Chair went on Facebook and rigged a status update for everyone to see right on memorial day. A status update of him declaring all US troops to be mindless heartless murderers and having the audacity to compare them to the insolent DEA!

Where my Electoral Future lies…

I am not sure. All I know is I am quitting the Libertarian Party. Ideologically, there are no worries warranted regarding my principles and I. Frankly, until I pass away, I will still…

  1. Support free trade
  2. Support laissez-faire in general
  3. Want the entire American tax code repealed
    • and favor starting over from scratch with the FairTax
  4. Support gay marriage
  5. Equally oppose both abortion and the death penalty
  6. Oppose abstinence only and the War on Drugs
  7. Prefer individual choice over government regulation
  8. Advocate a foreign policy meshing Empire of Liberty with Capitalist Peace Theory
  9. Believe a free society only stays free by having an immensely powerful military
  10. Demand unconditional free expression for the sake of the flourishing of science and of atheism

However, I am going to find a party affiliation. I have massive problems with the idea of me trying to redirect either party to my ends, as follows.

Rights and Wrongs with going Republican

Rights

  1. In every 100 Republicans and 100 Democrats, there are 12 liberty Republicans and 6 freedom Democrats.
  2. America’s electoral map is an ocean of red with tiny Caribbean clones of blue.
  3. I have more values in common with the Republicans than with the Democrats, says iSideWith, 47% of Republican values compared to 27% of Democrat
  4. The Republican Liberty Caucus was founded on giving Pro-Military, Pro-Israel, Pro-Empire-of-Liberty libertarians like me a new electoral home.
  5. The GOP has plenty of fringe opinion clubs on social issues that I can gleefully get along well with.

Wrongs

  1. Donald Trump has proven himself to be someone I want nothing in common with, not even party affiliation.
  2. Some of the Republican Liberty Caucus lately is going, very remorsefully, to Non-interventionism, the foreign policy ideology that’s proven in practice to do nothing about the global growth of liberty except allow statism aka tyranny to push this growth backwards, globally.
  3. Perhaps the GOP tribalism might be tougher for me to push aside than is currently my electoral life in the LP.

And with going Democrat

Rights

  1. My politics were initially that of a John F. Kennedy style ‘freedom Democrat’, until I fled the Democrats to go be in the LP.
  2. I live in a state, Connecticut, where Democrats fare better normally than Republicans
  3. The Democrats have their own version of the RLC, called the Democrat Freedom Caucus.
  4. I was raised by a couple of strong Democrats but never was more loyal than ‘Independent lean Democrat’.

Wrongs

  1. The party since JFK times has been taken over by cultural marxist, self incriminated, flagrantly bullying swine.
  2. Democrats, after JFK, built a foreign policy record of retreat, defeat, surrender, appeasement, apology, Antiwar candidates, Non-interventionism, and of being respectful to Tyranny-states; all of which ~ again ~ do nothing about world advancement of liberty except for reverse it.
  3. Only 6% of Democrats fit the label ‘freedom Democrat’ and/or ‘JFK Democrat’.

Conclusion

I might just return to where my heart and mind are electorally… being registered to vote as an Unaffiliated Voter. Independents like I am at heart make up 70% of the liberty movement. Thanks all my readers!

~KSP Perkins

Why this Cheshire CT voter endorses Austin Petersen for Federal Senate 2018

AP4Senate

Austin Petersen for US Federal Senate in 2018, says yours truly.

First off, who is Austin Petersen for those who don’t know?

Basically he is a former LP voter and last year was their best candidate for office, even according to major libertarian polling. Here is the evidence.

LP Pie Graph

I once used this poll to break this down to many of my fellow Libertarian Partiers.

Frankly Austin is a genuine, honest to all, Non-religious, openly Agnostic Atheist, radical minarchist, and he is running again for a federally high office. However, this time he is running for federal office as a Republican, which to me does not matter. His principles are what I am going to analyze here.

Footnotes before I begin reasoning my individual endorsement

My first discovering of Austin Petersen was in February 2016 on iSideWith, after my attempt at infiltrating the GOP primary and winding it down to just Rand Paul vs Marco Rubio failed. Yes, I actually was briefly a GOP voter August 2015 to February 2016 with every intention to making Trump not an option in the primary. My goal there was to make it impractical to vote for anyone other than Paul’s domestic policies vs Rubio’s foreign policy. Because I found theirs to be the best domestic policies and best foreign policy the GOP had to offer in their 2016 primary for the record. Again, this I will explain why in the very next post after my post about my LP institutions. As for Austin I side with him a little over 90% of the time. Even the LP as a party never scores this high!

My list of Reasons for Endorsing

Commenting on what’s on his Priorities list…

  • He recognizes as I do that healthcare is neither a privilege nor a right, but rather a service, a giving of medicinal labor, not an entitlement.
  • He shares my acceptance of the fact that only private marketers create jobs, and that job creation is not something politicians ever do.
  • He knows full well, like I do, that our tax system is totally broken and that it’s best to open-minded reforms that overall reduce the tax burden. Like he said on the Rubin Report, “I am open to any reforms to this tax system we have, like I can be reasonable, and what we have now for taxation is just excessive”. However, this is where Austin and I deviate almost not at all. While he wants to get rid of the IRS and all taxes in America for a 15% flat tax on all incomes, I want to end the IRS and all taxes in America for a 15% flat tax on all sales, and I also want anyone whose hourly income is $15 or less to be exempt from taxes. Also, while Austin and I both oppose carbon tax, I have a proposal for the carbon emissions thing: make renewable energy sales exempt from sales tax.
  • Austin and I can basically stand together on the $20 trillion national debt. Again, he’s on Rubin Report record as saying “We have gone into the Twilight Zone in our spending!” I suspect he is still running on his penny plan, which cuts overall government spending by 1% every year. By the logic he applies to this, spending is another place where Austin and I almost do not differ. My spending cut proposal would basically be the “Dime Agenda”, which would cut overall spending 10% from every federal dollar not spent on defense. But no, Austin likely will not exempt defense from the penny plan.
  • Prohibitionism. Such a bad idea, Austin and I both know. Plus as Larry Elder, a favorite pundit of mine, pointed out: “The constitution was never amended for the alleged ‘war on cannabis’, so why is no-one arguing it’s actually criminal what the government is passing as drug policy?” Thus, I am very much behind Austin on the issue of forfeiting the war on cannabis, and I agree and Larry agrees with Austin that we must start by declaring the drug ‘epidemic’ as a medical problem to be solved compassionately and not a criminal problem, and not to be solved harshly.
  • What I agree with on Austin in military spending… is that the Pentagon should have been and needs to be audited every single year, at the very lowest frequency level. Basically I notice he is mindful on the world around America, and he is one of the very few Nonintervention types I have seen who avoids confirmation bias. Also, I am with him on opposing nation-building, and defending our population and our true friends who truly love us. However, I found on iSideWith that I side with Austin a little under 70% on foreign policy. For starters, I am more inclined to say as Jason Stapleton does [on the Rubin Report] that there is no right even for the freest society to go to war over interests. As Stapleton said there “What’s interesting is that even the most liberty-minded regime will find foreign elements it will refer to as ‘interests’, at all times.”

Any other ways I differ from AP?

Frankly, that 30% or so in foreign policy is the only notable difference source between AP and KSP. I don’t know how he wants to go about free trade, but I do know him and I both favor free trade. Also I know that I want to go about it by unilaterally lowering foreign markets’ regulatory burdens to nothing. He favors relying on Letters of Marque and Reprisal to shut off terrorist militias like ISIS and the Taliban. But as for me, I think terrorism and genocide are only truly defeated when the regimes who are known to do genocide and/or terrorism are destroyed. I like this Marque Letters idea, sure, but I also think going after their sponsors is far more important. Plus if there is indisputable evidence of a tyranny planning a future attack on human lives, then I think every free society has every right to shut off that tyranny. Lastly, I merge capitalist peace theory, which asserts that free societies are inherently far more peaceful than tyrannies, with Empire of Liberty, a Thomas Jefferson theme about how the way to end barbarism is to make every nation a free society.

Other than this…

I still fully support Austin Petersen. And here are my main reasons, finally.

  1. I know from the military budget agenda he ran on last year I can trust him to make American military stronger in cost-lowering ways like swapping out expensive & semi-deadly F-35s for affordable & very deadly A-10s.
  2. I know from reading about Letters of Marque that I can trust Austin on the benefits of hiring an army of mercenaries.
  3. I know from watching his chat with aspiring Georgian Houseman David Abroms, who I actually take glee in having donated $5 to for the record, that’s on the correct moral side of the Arab-Israeli War and of issues faced by Anti-statist muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Majid Nawaz.
  4. I know from his chats with Penne and Teller and a journalist called Glenn Beck, who I never knew how to feel towards until Austin’s chat with him, that I can trust him to stay adamantly Pro-America without ever resorting to the misanthropic trash we call nationalism.

Best luck ever to you Austin!

~KSP Perkins

Why this former Democrat Voter Now Votes Libertarian Instead

Why KSP Perkins votes Libertarian

Here is a quote that sums up why I vote LP these days. Let me explain in giant detail please.

This post was inspired by a YouTube video starring one of my favorite pundits.

Basically, I have screen capped the above image from a video about John F Kennedy and if he were alive today. It has radio host and 2016 Libertarian National Convention debate moderator Larry Elder as its narrator. The whole point of the video, you can watch it here, is about which of the two major parties would JFK belong in if he were here today. Basically my goal with this post is to explain why I vote LP by comparing and contrasting my political opinions to the political orthodoxies that Democratic Partisans hold to as of 2012-2013, when in short they abandoned me.

Race

Let me be frank, please. My outlook on race is a very simple one that has nothing to do, as far as I can tell, with either of the two mainstream parties. I want all individuals of all races being treated like individual human beings, and I want equality of opportunity. No, this is not equality of outcome, but rather the idea that the playing field should be level for everyone, like have the playing field by one big flat-land.

As of my Senior Year of High School named by time frame above, equality of outcome and valuing someone for one’s race in place of one’s individuality, is Democrat Orthodoxy. That’s why Affirmative Action is so revered by the Democrats is because is it tells people to use their race or color but never their individual work ethic or talents as means of getting richer and smarter in life.

Meanwhile, I never felt anything positive about the idea of playing favorites toward individuals on basis of any factor besides the factor of how much oneself cares about the project that be. And I never will either. Like when I was going to Middle School I devoutly despised the idea of students being favored based on whether they fetishize football and other sports. And not based on how good their grades are or how well they treat people like me who are more often geeks than jocks. Not exactly a legit comparison I think, but the general idea is still the same: playing favorites with people for arbitrary traits that have nothing to do with work ethic or with the golden rule. And I still oppose this general idea for being tribalistic.

Economics

Even in my old Democrat voting days, I was still in favor of low taxes and of never taxing anyone who makes less than $20 per hour. Grant you, my thoughts on how to make that happen for America have changed twice in my life. First I was a man of copying and pasting Australian tax bracket list where the rates are 0%, 10%, 23%, 30% and 45% for the poor, working class, lower middle, upper middle, and rich respectively. Then I moved on to wanting a flat tax where everyone making more than $20 per hour pays 20%. Now I have moved on again, but this time to favoring ending all of Taxation in America including the IRS and starting from scratch with a 20% national sales tax that’s only paid by those who’s income is more than $20 per hour.

What about the Democrat Party? Well, they seem to think there are lazy, no-job-having brats who are entitled to a “fair” share of the manual labor I do as of 2014 for a mere $11 per hour and I worked 18 hours per week and it dropped to 16 hours weekly. Which leads me into the next difference between me and the Democrats. I believe in earning a better living through better work ethic and self-improvement, and these Democrats keep raising the minimum wage forcing my employer to cut my hours, then my employer blames it on the students coming home from college. Basically this means that the minimum wage is trash to me. Even when I was a teen, I did used to believe minimum wage jobs to be tools for learning the value of hard work, not for living independently of parents.

Regulations-wise, I believe that the regulatory burden faced by everyone; business, labor and consumers; should be one sentence long: Treat Others Like You Want Them To Treat You. Even in my early teens, I used to be someone who wanted the whole regulatory burden to be the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [30 articles with 1 or 2 sentences each].

But even though the UDHR was authored by a Democrat, today’s Democrats see even the UDHR as alarmingly open to abuses of workers. Instead the Democrats prefer an 87,000+ rules monstrosity where each rule is a multi-paragraph essay at the very shortest. And a novel at longest. Even though this makes endless room for loopholes and for truly corrupt practices, Democrats prefer this anyway.

Foreign Policy

Here is something where I deviate heavily from both the Democrats and the LP. Basically these two seem to agree to a paranoid, conspiracy theorist idiocy against any level of America being BFFs with obvious free societies like Israel, and against any level of America being a harsh moral critic of obvious tyrannies like Saudi Arabia. On top of this the Democrats and LP seem to agree to a naive pacifism that actually believes that only America and Israel can ever do barbarity and that all other nations will forfeit barbarity if we just pledge to, in the words of many fellow LP voters, “Trade and Diplomacy Alone”.

Whereas me, I believe very wisely that our nature keeps us one with tyranny being always the norm and liberty aways the fringe. To me, human nature is just a bunch of animalistic kill or be killed irritabilities and impulses. So far as have learned reading up history, liberty is only the norm where and when people slaughter and ruin any and all tyranny to keep liberty the societal norm. Which is why I oppose downsizing the US military, is because I believe any free society, let’s not care who it is, needs an enormously strong military to stay free. It is also why I favor a very alert foreign policy is because that’s the other half of a free society staying free. It’s by having an alert foreign policy that fixates on Trade and Defense, not Trade and Diplomacy.

And I am in the Libertarian Party instead of the 2-party system because I genuinely believe it will be a lot easier for me to improve the LP in the ways the LP needs to improve itself in order to make the 2-party system very vulnerable to abolishment.

The Bill of Rights

Even though the video I opened linking to calls this category ‘gun rights’, I believe the entire Bill of Rights and defending all ten amendments equally is too important for anyone even me to single out the second. If anything, I should be constantly using the First Amendment as my example as I want a college degree in Computer Science, and as all sciences inherently need unlimited free expression to work at all.

Anyway, here I go. I believe that the Bill of Rights needs to be treated as unconditional and never to be regulated even by the Supreme Court, who has no authority to regulate the Bill of Rights by the way. There is nothing in Article Three of the Constitution, the part that defines the Supreme Court, that gives it the authority to set limits to… the freedom of religion for example. There is also nothing in the constitution that gives any branch of government any authority to allow public schools to shut off freedom of expression or freedom of association. Nor is there any power for any of the 3 branches of government to regulate the rights to lobby, petition, or protest.

However, Democrats do not care about any of this. They clearly hate science as they are the party shutting off freedom of speech and freedom of association and freedom of religion on university campuses. Using the 1st amendment as the most important example to me, Constitutional rights are only conditional if you blindly go with Democrats, or Republicans, on everything.

Sexual Freedom & Gender Equality

Now, here is something I am going to touch on multiple things with regard to. The closest of which to untouched will be abortion, just FYI. Basically I believe women should have all the same constitutional rights and economic freedoms as men. Also, I believe that no-one should ever be played favorites with on grounds of gender for any reason when it comes to civic trials for example. And I want women to be able to live their life as they choose and I want the same freedom of choice for men too.

Meanwhile, Democrat Party authorities are out there crazily pushing female supremacy and marketing it as gender ‘equality’. Well, they don’t want to accept the fact that true gender equality comes from Equal Treatment Under the Law, and from Equality of Opportunity. Just like true racial equality comes from.

As for the freedom factor, I just want a permissive society where women are just as able to marry who they want and wear what they want as men are. And of course as far as pregnancy goes, I adamantly support comprehensive sex ed, I am all for morning-after pills, I can easily appreciate pregnancy counseling and any of the ten services I said here that I respect Planned Parenthood for providing. However, I do not support abortion for reasons also explained there. The reasons I am Pro-Life have to do with having discovered my Science & Atheism argument for the idea that life starts at fertilization.

Closing

For short example, if a woman who votes Democrat agrees with me in full or even in majority part on race, economics, the bill of rights, sexual freedom and also on gender equality; then she does not belong in the Democrat Party. She belongs in the same Strong Military favoring, Alert Foreign Policy favoring pocket of the Libertarian Party that I’m native to instead. Thanks for reading this massive one!

~KSP Perkins

Suicidal Foreign Policy Actions and Exempting Healthcare from Freedom of Choice ~ A Donald Trump Update

maxresdefault

Been a while since I genuinely cared what this cult of personality was or is up to! What is new?

After seeing this video [warning; some mature language; if that’s not for you then the video is not for you]…

…I decided to craft my own perspective on the three things that were touched on there. Firstly, Donald Trump recently revisited his travel ban from seven different Greater Middle East nations. Secondly, Trump is selling $35 billion of weapons to Saudi Arabia per year for ten years. Thirdly, his replacement of Obama Care with Trump care is being skewed even by the video as mandating coverage denial. Okay, so allow me to break these down from my own unique angle.

Part One; Travel Bans vs Freedom of Movement

Okay, so unlike CNN, Politico provides actually impartial reporting on the travel being partly in effect until October. Apparently the only reasons people from Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Iran, and Yemen are allowed to travel to America are education and family. For example, they are not allowed to travel here for business trips or to visit musicians who perhaps visited them first.

Now from a foreign policy perspective this makes no sense at all, because the state sponsors of 9/11 are not on the list. That is; Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Egypt, and Afghanistan are, in order from biggest degree to smallest degree, the state sponsors of 9/11 and of ISIS. So if the idea is to stop travel from nations who have sponsored 9/11 and as of 2011 are sponsors of ISIS, then why ban a random slew of nations who has little if anything to do with 9/11 or with ISIS?

As for the immigration perspective this is against the 9th and 14th amendment rights to respectively freedom of movement and equal treatment under the law. Now, I am not denying the negatives of Europe having adopted total open borders, what I am going to say to you is this. That’s not a lesson in how there is anything good at all about nationalism, which spoiler alert there is nothing right with nationalism. Instead, this is a lesson why we need to merge total freedom of movement with the historic Ellis Island vetting system. Basically that means medical exam, moral exam, English class, Civics class, done. And by done I mean “free to formally apply for citizenship”. It has nothing to do with Amnesty because from what I know, amnesty is being arbitrarily granted citizenship without having to fill out any kind of application. And I speak that as a 3rd side of the immigration and refugee debate, a side that says exactly as I do. The libertarian and objectivist hybrid side of the refugee debate.

Part Two; The Weapon Sales To America’s Enemies

Ugh— why exactly are we selling weapons to the biggest-time foe of the seven I singled out above? Seven countries who are known to sponsor Al-Qaeda and the Taliban but nowadays mainly ISIS! Far as I’m concerned, the Hamas and Hezbollah sponsoring nations of Iran, Syria, and Iraq are really just secondary targets of American Self Defense. But selling weapons to those who should be our primary targets is nothing short of suicidal.

And we are selling them $35 billion of annual weaponry for ten years! That will basically be enough for Saudi Arabia and its six fellow ISIS-sponsors to put ISIS up to a massive domination if not destruction attack against the American People. One that will make 9/11 look in comparison like a matter of 3000 people stubbing their toes all at once.

A proper policy with regard to the Greater Middle East, to me, is an instant and soulless ending for the primary foes. Meaning the total destruction of any and all Legit Military Targets under Saudi, Pakistani, Qatari, Emirati, Lebanese, Egyptian, and Afghan control. Not only this I also say include any and all political establishment actors and institutions in those nations as legit military targets. After these regimes are destroyed, we need to bring most of the victors home and leave a few thousand behind to allow a free society [aka capitalism] to take root.

Part Three; Still no freedom of Healthcare choice!

Anyone who interprets me honestly knows I am very into the notion that total freedom of choice is the answer to every question in standard of living. But medically, no, instead We The People have to settle for what I call “Reducing Normal Obama Care to Diet Obama Care”. And here is what TJ who did the video I opened on linking to is saying. He is saying that people are going to be forced to give up their health insurance under this new bill.

Two problems I have hearing this from someone I have my atheism and my live & let live outlook on lifestyles in common with. One; wasn’t TJ very against Obama Care for being, in his words, “A mandate to buy private insurance” and “Essentially just a gift to private insurance companies“? What it really does, from what I can gather, is it gives up on forcing Americans to buy private insurance. And in essence it is the revoking of that corporatist approved gift to private health insurers. And the new bill does this by ending the individual mandate, from what I can read from Wikipedia who TJ screen capped from. No, I am not defending the bill, I am just pointing out features that I don’t think were pointed out in the video. I accept that generally it is not the healthcare reform we need. What is needed?

To me, the answer is in four words. Total Freedom of Choice. Basically this means I think the answer is to pass a bill that has nothing to do with Obama Care or Diet Obama Care, one that does something totally different. One that motivates market competition for insurers to provide the best health insurance possible for the lowest prices that Supply And Demand will allow. That way, consumers will not need to stick to plans where the health insurance companies can treat them anyhow as the companies will get consumer money no matter what. Instead, health providers will only get their monthly profits by treating their communities like family. And that ethic will be for the same reason as the prices: Lack of Subsidies.

Thanks for reading!

~KSP Perkins

I Want Nothing to do with Pitch Perfect 3

erb-lincoln

Is PP3 F—ing Kidding Me With This Blah Blah Blah!?

I promise my reasons are not about me being political

Instead, it is the movie trailer itself that is overtly occupied with politics. Hollywood is not even trying to hide its bias against liberalism, and for anti-liberal Marxism, anymore. And the Pitch Perfect Three trailer is unconditionally evidence to prove this fact of life. I will be describing this trailer in objective & neutral detail to everyone as I am not wanting anyone to have any incentive to go see the movie it’s advertising.

What I saw in the first trailer

So, like 20 seconds in they are painting far-left radical marxist lies about Western Culture as reality. First was the lie that no Westerner believes women can win at anything but culinary arts. Then was the lie that white privilege and thin privilege are somehow realities. And they topped this 20 seconds off with the lie that women are systemically oppressed in aspiring to be surgeons. So I count my blessings that this triple-dishonesty painting of theirs didn’t give me AIDS. Next, we see the one of the protagonists who is not slim wearing a red hat that says ‘Make America Eat Again’. Like my god… I can write good jokes, and real satire, that even teen girls would prefer over this trash! How on Earth do I not have a depressed skull fracture from having seen this vile film trailer, again? And as for the trailer’s side of this story, how is it not overtly occupied with far-left partisan tribalism again?

What I make of the trailer

As someone who more often doesn’t mind dumb looking trailers, this trailer is way too stupid for me to have any respect for human life if it even makes One Dollar off people seeing it. I genuinely hope this movie’s theatrical turn out puts all involved in its creation into irrevocable and unsustainable monetary debt to the world around them!

And if there are any actors and/or actresses in this ‘Pitch Tribalism Three’ as I call it, who are tremendously talented who are in this upcoming garbage… You guys are murdering no-one’s public image but yours by doing this movie. And if you lose your careers to this movie then…

Know I will be seeing to it you cannot restore due to newer, at-least-as-well-acting actors and actresses taking over the acting market in place of you. I will adamantly oppose any sympathy being directed at you for this movie having ended your respective careers.

What People should watch instead (this is the part where and when I cheer you readers and also myself up)

Guys and Gals, why not come to my Vid.me channel and follow it while I post videos there every Thursday, every Friday and every Saturday? I will be posting there starting this very week and I will do the recordings for it Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. There are four shows you can see therefore I will have, when Hollywood is poisoning the Christmas Well at theaters with the infernal trash I talked about above, Four Christmas Specials. These shows are (genre in brackets):

  • Free Society Diary (Politics)
  • Battle for Middle-Derp (Gaming)
  • Militant Evolutionist (Brainfood)
  • Cloth N Cook (Lifestyle)

And the Christmas Specials (CS) will be as follows:

  • Free Society Diary CS = “How the Saudi King Stole Christmas!”
  • Battle for Middle-Derp CS = “Durin’s Bane the Snowman!” (featuring re-textured Balrog!)
  • Militant Evolutionist CS = “Merry Saturnalia, fellow Christmas Lovers!”
  • Cloth N Cook CS = “Forging Santa’s Workshop out of meat alone”

So please, look forward to those! Thanks in all my readers!

~KSP Perkins

Why the Libertarian Party needs to be the party of the Digital Economy more than of anything else

spending-bitcoins

Bitcoin and its competitors, the epitomes of currency in the Digital Economy.

If the LP Emphasized being the Party of the Digital Economy, it would have destroyed the 2-party system during the 2016 election.

Here, I have a lecture to give about why my party (I am registered to vote in my town of Cheshire CT in the Libertarian Party) needs to make Digital Economy its top priority. The reason I am registered to vote as a Libertarian is because I don’t respect the two party system. As far as I am concerned, it is inherently a virulent and cancerous false dichotomy. But also, I share nearly all if not exactly all public policy principles with the Libertarian Party domestically.

Geopolitically the result of this is I can have a far easier time making the LP smart on foreign policy, which I see it is not and to me that’s the LP acting slightly less than its best. And I say slightly because it’s only two public policy fields to smarten the LP on: foreign and defense. Meaning it is legendarily rare for me to make a case to my own party about why it should promote one of its domestic policies within a certain reality.

Hence this might be one of very few cases I make about why the LP should promote free enterprise from within the Digital Economy. So here we go, my readers!

Pushing School Choice from within the Digital Economy

Let’s not engage in identity politics of any brand when I encourage the LP to take Marco Rubio’s methods of pushing school choice. Marco’s idea of making college a much more worthy investment than it is at present is to make colleges transparent to aspiring college students about the values of college degree paths.

You’ll also notice in this external link that the funding of students would be changed into a matter of private investors funding students’ college tenures. In return, the students would owe a small share of the salary of the first job they get back to the investors. That way, investors can seek only the highest-quality classes with the lowest prices possible for that quality for the students they invest in.

Also, there is this case that I ask my party the LP to make for emphasizing online college taking. Online courses are better for every aspect of college other than making friendships, and if you are someone who like to make many friends you may need to take a mix of online and in person classes. We as a party ought to allow states and towns to decide which of these school choice options to make for public schools.

  • Scholarship Credits
  • Voucher System
  • Charter Schools
  • Magnet Schools
  • Home Schooling
  • Education Budget Accounts

And allow state and local electorates to choose two or more if they so choose.

Liberating Currency in the from within the Digital Economy

You know how I opened this post with a bitcoin pic? Well, I believe that ending the fed and replacing it with free banking means doing so from within the concept of Digital Currency. As far as models of free banking go, we as a party need to look to the Scottish model free baking when they had a few different government banks to go with private banks all having a right to make their own currency. Basically Scotland when they were doing this had the most prosperous and most civilized banking ever devised by people.

Okay, but how do we keep that within the Digital Economy? Well, I propose we promote a version of Scottish free banking where every private bank can make their own virtual currencies and their own crypto currencies. In essence, this is because most people these days get direct deposit into debit cards, credit cards and/or ATM cards like I started with. I should know, I get direct deposit every week into my People’s Bank ATM card only to push at least half of it every week into my NetSpend debit card.

Anything else I can discuss?

Yes, I can, let’s promote freedom of choice in healthcare from within the Digital Economy somehow. Specifically we need to say things like these.

  • “Ending the War on Drugs will allow pregnant women to buy birth control online or at the medicine aisle of grocery stores.”
  • “Ending the War on Drugs will allow Americans to get back tax dollars many if not most would rather spend on health insurance!”

And I think I am going to stop there for now, I will give more examples in other posts. Thanks for reading this one, in the mean time!

~KSP Perkins

Not All Libertarians Are Pacifist-Until-Attacked Thinkers. A Geopolitical Post.

trade2520facilitation_source

The essence of the liberty movement’s foreign policy is free trade

Buying into the Ron Paul vs Neocons false dichotomy in foreign policy helps no-one but the vile and corrupt Normie Parties.

Essentially I have done this a few times before but I gotta come clean about something before we begin. This online diary is basically for me to keep getting better at articulating my thoughts as I post them in enormously different ‘how I say it’ plans.

Now that this has been verified, let us begin.

Like a dictionary definition libertarian, I think up my own individual view of the world around me and indeed of the world around America. So let me start with what I believe. Then I am going to put you through a Six-Flags-model water ride of polling facts about how regular rank & file Libertarian Partisans think on Geopolitics!

My Point of View on a Foreign Policy level

Basically, I believe that the very first pillar of the Free Will’s foreign policy Doctrine is free trade. No, that does not mean trade deals or anything to do with the alt-right’s fake definition of globalism, real definition of that word here.

Instead, free trade means undermining foreign economies’ regulatory burdens as stealthily as can be without military involvement. It means using harshly delivered diplomacy to forbid foreign governments from regulating their people’s trade overseas beyond a tariff burden and the golden rule. Free trade means demanding that our own government keep the same tariff rate on all trades with all foreign markets, with no other mandates besides the golden rule attached.

Next there is the diplomacy field. As far as I am concerned, the diplomacy field of Free Will Doctrine’s foreign policy is to play very heavy favorites with other free societies. From only negotiating and compromising with nations who are freer societies, to being a vicious trash-talker against despotic filth pits.

Also, I believe that a capitalist regime is the best-behaved, most peaceful regime possible to live under. And that the sort of moral freedom and governmental integrity that capitalism makes normal is best preserved by an unfathomably powerful military. And I also believe that the best way to keep the healthily disruptive freedom that capitalism speeds up scientific progress with going eternally is to be militarily vigilant worldwide. Not militarily active at all places at all times, but rather militarily vigilant.

  • active = acting on all foreign issues at all times
  • vigilant = only acting on foreign issues that pose serious threats to the liberty of one’s friends or one’s people

Lastly, how should a free society’s military fight? Well, to me it is a matter of not using warfare to spread the values of liberty. Instead, the military facet of Free Will’s foreign policy deals with, according to me, the time when a certain despotic filth pit threatens the free society. When there’s indisputable evidence the planned-market regime is planning to attack or has already attacked the free-market regime, then the latter needs to reply callously to the former. The capitalist regime must drive its military to do Take No Prisoners to the statist regime’s troops and to do Scorched Earth to the statist regime’s infrastructure. Whatever the pro-capitalism liberal regime needs to do to soullessly smash the planned-economy fascist regime. And once the planned-economy fascist regime is destroyed, then the pro-capitalism liberal regime can think about imposing liberty onto those the anti liberalism planned economy used to rule before it threatened violence onto the free market regime.

How Regular Rank and File libertarians look at foreign policy

As always, I look into the Pew Research Surveys from 2011 and 2014 to talk about typical libertarian foreign policy. Basically, while most libertarians are opposed to global paternalism and nation building, those are not the only normal sentiments in this Independent-majority movement in foreign policy.

For starters, half the liberty movement believes the best way to ensure world peace is through US military strength. Half also believe that overwhelming military annihilation of state sponsors of terrorism is often the only way to defeat terrorism. It’s only a third who believe both opposites. Next, it is only 5% of the liberty movement that resonate with Anti-American rhetoric like from AntiWar.malware [as I call it], fully 38% feel how I feel about America as a country. The facts-backed feeling that America is flawed but the best country there is. The majority sentiment [56%] is that America is one of the best countries on Earth along with other Western-world nations.

Curiously, the liberty movement and the regular rank & file Libertarian Partisans are both split somewhat evenly between multilateralists and unilateralists. However, the thing that mostly unites unilateralist libertarians and our multilateralist counterparts (I’m a unilateralist myself) is a hostility which I fully espouse to the United Nations as an institute. Also, most libertarians want honest friendship with China, but that sentiment I am not sure if it still exists as our relations with China are hard for even me to fully grasp. And you are reading from a foreign policy super-nerd here! Libertarians as a movement appear to be evenly split on trade deals, half the movement like trade deals, the slightly bigger half want to push free trade onto foreign economies instead of making trade deals.

Unlike the AntiWar.malware rhetoric would suggest, most libertarians including me believe that Islam puts more religious fanatics up to more war crimes than any other organized religion. And comparing that faith’s history to other faiths, I’d say that’s a historically accurate sentiment. However, we predictably don’t allow that to get us into any anti-Bill-of-Rights ramble of fear-mongering. Instead pretty much all of us keep on defending freedom of religion and right to privacy including for American muslims.

Closure

Thanks for reading this big one, other people of internet!

~KSP Perkins

If I Run for House of Reps in 2020

nick-offerman

One can expect me to be the kind of Ron Swanson of the House of Reps. Except for I’ll be 26.

Firstly, let me get the facts about the House of Reps out of the way.

Basically the House of Representatives, or as I call it House of Reps, is the majority of the Congress (100 Senators, and 435 what I deem ‘Housemen’). What the House of Reps does for America, or is supposed to do, is explained here. In other words, if I do run, all of my ‘rules for rulers’ will be in Article One Section Two of the Constitution. Powers which I could share with like 534 other people, president excluded, are in Article One Section Eight. And I could be one of five people representing Connecticut, in my case I’d be vocalizing the 5th congressional district since my town of Cheshire is part of CT-5.

But this is all assuming I do choose to run for Houseman for CT-5. Which I am extremely unlikely to do because I just don’t like the idea of me running for office.

The strategy I would run on.

Basically, all you need to know for now is I would be hybridizing the 2016 POTUS campaign strategies of Rand Paul and Marco Rubio.

The principles I would run on.

Basically, I’d run on a platform of free markets, civil rights, and Empire of Liberty in foreign policy. Here is what the first ten of my pledges would be. Pledges numbered, benefits bulleted.

  1. To sign the FairTax into law after rewriting its monthly refund aspect to be $8,400 per year for all Americans regardless of age and of income, still billing the feds for it monthly.
    • This will give the feds a Net revenue of $2.8 trillion annually (average American spends $56k annually x 325 million Americans = $5.4 trillion Gross annual, – $2.6 trillion on tax returns = $2.8 trillion)
    • It will also end the income and payroll taxes, endings that are highly desired by every American economist from almost every political ideology!
  2. To amend the constitution to not allow any regulation of business beyond the phrase “Treat your customers and underlings as you yourself wish to be treated.” Also to not allow any regulation of labor beyond the phrase “Treat your customers and your superiors as you wish to be treated.” Lastly to not allow any regulation of consumption beyond “Treat those you buy from as you wish to be treated.”
    • This would repeal regulations which do nothing to benefit either one of civil rights or the digital economy; in the simplest, most anti-loophole and anti-corporatism way possible.
    • This amendment would save small businesses with 1 to 20 workers each roughly $11,000 per worker in annual compliance cost.
  3. To amend the constitution to only allow environmental regulation by classifying pollution and littering as very severe property crimes, and even then only to be addressed by state and local polices.
    • This would reduce the EPA to its founding role: to use environmental sciences to make non-ideological cases for items like renewable energy, reusable grocery bags, & other items like those.
  4. To invoke the first amendment right to freedom of expression to change every public school in America into a charter school, meaning one that is free from any regulations that are not matters of strictly enforced accountability for academic merit, and whose teaching material is set multilaterally by scientists, historians, and parents.
    • This would allow parents some scrutiny over teachers as to invoke the would-be stringent accountability, the other share of scrutiny over teachers going to people who are scholars on the subjects.
    • Also this would make public schools incentivized to try to excel in truly being the best schools in America!
  5. To reclassify the drug epidemic as a medical ill and not a criminal offense in one year, then make the next year about legalizing birth control where medicines are sold, and the third year about legalizing cannabis oil where medicines are sold, and the fourth year about making it a civil right to make cannabis juices for vaping.
    • This would put countless non-violent, golden-rule-abiding innocents out of jail!
    • It would also stamp out drug cartels as mentioned in the NPR article I linked the phrase ‘highly desired’ to above.
  6. To invoke the 1st and 14th amendment rights to freedom of association and equal treatment under law (respectively) to kick the government out of marriage and instead have each marriage be a privately owned nonprofit contract between genuinely romancing adults.
    • This would benefit marriages of every consenting adult nature possible, and would make forced marriages and child marriages the only marriages left to make and enforce laws against!
    • It would also allow police to pay more attention to clamping down on forced and child marriages as they would no longer be distracted by any genuinely romancing adult marriages!
  7. To amend the constitution to only allow Congress to negotiate and compromise with other free societies, and even then only proportional to how free they are according to averages of numeric scores found here and here.
    • This would send a reminder to the world around America of what America’s founding roots are that would raise American integrity overseas to off the chart highs!
    • Also, this’d make every tyranny on Earth either try to regime change themselves or provoke us into rage against them, this way tyrannies are exposed as what they are in front of the entire species!
  8. To reshape the United Nations to only be inclusive to Western cultured Free Societies. And to have abolition in mind for the UN if they fail to comply with this reshaping plan.
    • This would remind the world that America stands for human freedom and human dignity
    • It would also allow for greater American Independence and also to allow independence for other western-cultured free societies besides America, too!
  9. To draft and pass a bill to allow banks to print and compute their own currencies for as long as they play by the golden rule reiterations outlined in pledge 2, above.
    • This would give Americans freedom of choice in currency and allow them to trade dollars for bitcoins and/or competitors to bitcoin.
    • This freedom of choice would also make Americans want to take personal responsibility for learning currency exchange rates, so that they dodge the potential for confusion (which I admit is very real) independently.
  10. To enact something I’d call the ‘Half It Plan’, which would cut two quarters from every federal dollar of foreign aid, of veteran’s pension, and of all non-defense budgets too. Cutting two quarters a year, every year for four years, and then amending the constitution to mandate a balanced budget on year five.
    • This would reverse the breakdown of families caused by Lyndon B. Johnson by his ‘war on poverty’, thus restoring the access of poor kids to their fathers from birth.
    • Also this’d create conditions for a surplus to grow to a level where it would only take 11 years, no more & no less, to pay off our entire national debt.
    • Lastly this’d create liberation of the people from fiscal dependence on government without debarring from them from finding work or from starting businesses of their own.

Closing

Sorry for making this so long everyone! But thanks for the read, everyone!

~KSP Perkins

Who Would I Vote For (As of 2017)?

awake

I do not buy into false dichotomies. Or anything that comes off as one.

As of Late January to Early February 2017, and including now, this is the official ‘who I would vote for’ portfolio of Kyle Stoddard ‘Perkino’ Perkins.

Okay, so I have done this at least once a year every year since 2014, when I started this blog. Back then, I was someone who was electorally a Center-right (meaning barely Republican enough to qualify as GOP material) and religiously a Secular-morality Deist.

These days, I am a secular morality atheist with a purist commitment electorally to make to forging the Libertarian Party of America into the dominant party of American elections. Including and primarily by means of making it the dominant party in Cheshire, my town in Connecticut. However, I must also do this by forging it into a party that promotes Fiscal conservatism from within the Digital Economy, endorses Cultural liberalism from within the Constitution, and adopts a foreign policy of the following principles.

  1. Superpower US Military
  2. American Exceptionalism
  3. Unilateral Free Trade
  4. Anticipatory Self Defense
  5. Capitalist Peace Theory

Anyway, time for me to go into the fine details.

In America from 2017 until I am dead because elderly (which I predict will be in the 2060’s), I’ll vote for.

  1. Libertarian Party

Why? Re-read the introductory content for the first reasons why. But allow me to be more clear on the leadership role to add more reasons why.

I am the founder and director of the Cheshire Libertarian Town Committee. And if anything is true about my electoral needs, I am going to need to stop splitting tickets. I am going to need to hurry up and run Cheshire citizens for public offices. After educating them about a properly effective libertarianism at dominating Cheshire CT town level politics.

But the reason I chose the Libertarian Party over either of the main two is because it is very obvious that the two main parties are one in the same. The only difference is that they disagree over whether to make America another Soviet Russia (what SJW Democrats want) or another Nazi Germany (what ‘Trumpkin’ Republicans want).

In Ireland from 2017 to present, I would vote for.

  1. Fine Gael

Why? Because, from what historic factoids I can learn about them, these guys domestically combined a longtime commitment to fiscally libertarian policies with, so far, an 85 year evolution on culture for them to be slowly but surely more into Civil libertarianism.

From what I know about Fine Gael thanks to Mark Humphrys, one of my top political influencers, they are Pro-Defense, Pro-America and Pro-Israel all in one foreign policy package.

And this part is only here because I am ethnically about half or more Irish.

In Britain, based on recent events, who’d I vote for.

  1. Tory Party (aka Conservative Unionist Party)

Why? Even though I am an adamant supporter of federalism, it is clear to me that of all British parties the Tories come closest to my beliefs on a core values and principles level.

Not much else to say about Britain at the moment.

In France, based on recent events, who I’d vote for.

  1. Les Republicans (no, not the GOP. Just their own party in the French electorate)

Why? Because from what policy ideas I can attribute to them, they come off to me as the leading party in standing for the principles listed numerically below.

  1. Free Enterprise
  2. Personal Freedom
  3. Equal Opportunity (no, not equal outcome!)
  4. Rule of Law
  5. Free Expression
  6. Freedom of Association
  7. Freedom of the Media
  8. Religious Liberty

And on foreign policy, from what I can gather from their defeated 2017 presidential candidate, is about destroying the Islamic Totalitarian threat to humanity at its source. Specifically by destroying State Sponsors of Jihadi Terrorism. However, their candidate lost the election by selling out, from what I have heard about him, hence I do not mention his name. Please ask someone else for his name.

Conclusion

Basically, I am a center-right, culturally liberal guy with strong support for free markets, small government, and humanist culture. With a foreign policy mindset of unilateral free trade, anticipatory self defense, and capitalist regime change; here is my rationale for the third principle. And that decides how I would vote. And how I plan to make the Libertarian Party electable. Thanks everyone!

~KSP Perkins