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

Nicolas Maduro the Tyrant and Murderer and the Fate Venezuela Needs Him To Get

bn-th622_venhun_p_20170504174912

This farm used to be packed with many pigs. Nationalizing farms caused it to empty drastically.

Venezuela was South America’s richest country! What happened?

Okay, so I had a very vague understanding of this issue until about 11 pm of the evening of this post. But then this tyrant named Nicolas Maduro went and nationalized all Venezuelan farms and did central planning for prices, wages, and currency production. This is currently causing a famine that so far has killed 35 people. Which is small, but I am going to carefully explain to you how that can be stopped from ballooning to something like 35 thousand or 35 million. After explaining to you what I know about the world around me in the context of Venezuela’s situation.

Attempting utopia and rejecting capitalism from any public policy field in particular has never worked.

Capitalism may be a flawed economic doctrine, as in it does leave it entirely up to consumers what markets can and cannot do including in terms of worker treatment. But it is the best we have as it is the only one that has trained consumers to truly be concerned with the quality of what they buy. It’s also the only one that’s trained consumers to actually be concerned with the conditions of workers, as well as the work ethics of workers.

Here in the Digital Age, this is obvious in the existence of tools like Yelp and Meta Critic and Rotten Tomatoes! People go to these places to be honest about their individual experiences at markets. Personally, I learned this lesson about economics from reading Game Informer reviews of video games during my teenage life. If I see that a game has been found to be unplayable or if it is found to have endless amounts of rude or trashy content that ESRB – the content maturity rating people for games – gave the game a free pass on, then I do not buy a copy of that game!

Also, when a Yelp review indicates that a restaurant or a grocery store is poorly managed in any way, whether its badly treated workers, lazy work ethics, corrupt practices for upholding store policies, or whatever else; I boycott that place! No two people may have the exact same IQ, but easily any consumer is smart enough to know full well who to buy from and who to boycott out of existence when deciding which corporations decide which fates!

Intentions vs Outcomes

Anyone who knows how I feel about intentions vs outcomes will tell you I am gleefully and chirpily dismissive of even the best intentions if the outcomes are all atrocities.

So for example, socialists may want to stamp out corrupt behaviors by corporate executives, but their policies (tons of different taxes, spendings bigger than revenues, regulatory burden the weight of 1000 blue whales, putting politicians in charge of corporate standards) actually produce the outcomes of worsening corrupt behavior by private sectors execs and/or corrupting politicians themselves.

Meanwhile, capitalists tend to have varying intentions (because we are all individualistic Actual liberals), but what we all have in common is that our policies (only one kind of tax, revenues bigger than spendings, regulatory burden the weight of half a memory foam pillow, letting consumers boycott the corrupt corporates out of existence) are the policies that make the outcomes of truly reducing if not eliminating corporate corruption.

What needs to be done for Venezuela?

Well, Venezuela needs capitalism back, but it seems like Maduro is getting more and more power unchecked. So what I say we do for the plan is we work to unilaterally privatize Venezuelan farms. And also to unilaterally overturn Maduro’s price and wage and currency controls and put measures in place to make sure he cannot restore his power grabs. That way we can see him and his regime collapse without losing any American or other Western world lives. Thanks readers!

~KSP Perkins

What Capitalist Regime Change is, why I support it, and why I advocate for it.

judge-2-6-1897

Political concept art in an 1890’s news magazine about the Thomas Jefferson concept ‘Empire of Liberty’

To be defining the terms

Firstly of all, what exactly is regime change in general?

  • Regime Change is the act of converting the political atmosphere of another country into some different political atmosphere.

Next, we must define capitalism in an honest way.

  • Capitalism is an economic system and doctrine of private individual ownership of items and talents, of investments which are decided by individual decision, of prices, profits, and wages rising every time demand gets bigger than supply, and of these three dropping every time demand gets smaller than supply.

Finally, we can talk about what democracy is.

  • Democracy is a government wherein supreme power is voted on by the people, often on the basis of majority rule and of ‘wisdom’ of the crowds.

Okay, so now we have three solid pieces of a legit jumping point.

Contrasting Two forms of Regime Change

Okay, now let us look at the difference between Democratic regime change vs Capitalist regime change.

Democratic regime change means once the free society has militarily defeated the tyranny that either threatened or assailed it, the free society then…

  • sends its military into a nation-building campaign that sets up the natives of the tyranny with whatever kind of society they want as long as it features semi-annual elections.

Capitalist regime change means once the free society has militarily defeated the tyranny that threatened or assailed it, the free society… you ready for this?

  • Pulls a huge majority of its surviving victors home and leaves something like 10% or 20% of the surviving victors behind to guard the flourishing of free markets and free trade in what used to be the tyranny.

So in essence, Capitalist regime change is the action we took with Germany and Japan after World War Two and the action we took with South Korea after the Korean War.

Any errors with this idea?

As with any idea formulated by people, there are flaws to Capitalist Regime Change, and no these do not include the fact that it’s a form of regime change. And it most certainly does not include the focus of capitalism on the individual and its open favoritism to smarter work ethics, those are some of the best things ever about capitalist regime change.

The actual major flaw of Capitalist Regime Change is that it takes about half a century for free markets, free trade and free enterprise to finish raising government integrity and raising moral freedom for long enough for American military oversight to stop being needed by the foreign society.

Another big flaw with Capitalist Regime Change is you are keeping a few thousand US troops on a foreign soil they just destroyed the latest ruler of over undeniable evidence of that latest ruler doing state sponsorship of terrorism. Tends to be dangerous for the American troops, or if some other free society like Israel or whoever is doing it, then it’s still dangerous for the overseers. Mainly, as this is the big factor for why Capitalism takes a while to take root even with totally no nation building and with no world-police acts of nannying foreigners whatsoever. Basically you will have surviving acolytes of the previous despotic statist regime that will take up arms over how they see free trade and free migration altering the society they used to callously enforce tyrannical grip of.

Why I favor a foreign policy of Capitalist Regime Change

Because tyrannical societies are barbarians who forfeit all rights to national sovereignty by rejecting individual liberty and by rejecting free enterprise. And also, there is already a case I did for how Peace On Earth is going to totally require the making of every country in humanity into a Free Market economy with no monopolies.

As for here, I will do short summary. The root cause of terrorism, genocide, slavery, famine, war, and other atrocities done by abusive authorities, governmental or otherwise, is Non-capitalism. Not America, not Israel, not Neocons, not Zionists, not even bigotry. Only non-capitalism.

Lastly, I will say this. I find it consistent with the doctrine of free will and the principles of individual liberty to favor a form of regime change that imposes the economic system & doctrine that has created more prosperity and more transparency than any other devised by people. Thank you readers;

~KSP Perkins

Peace Activism vs Defensive War (Libertarian Case Against Antiwar Candidates or Antiwar anything)

A Libertarian case against ‘peace activist’ foreign policy

The truth is that liberty is a rare thing in the world, and only ever exists when people are eager to kill to establish and protect it… barbarians, tyrants and fascists are far more common because human nature is raw, animalistic, kill-or-die barbarism.

As the owner of the Cheshire Libertarian Town Committee, and of PD-PAL News (PD-PAL = Pro Defense Pro America Libertarianism), and a very-rare-time The Libertarian Republic anchor myself, I oppose antiwar activism. However I do not discount the moral need to keep a free society’s warfare well within the Western World norm of Right of Self-Defense.

If you don’t know already, the reality I can add to Keith’s details, is there’s only two root causes of war of aggression, meaning unprovoked acts of warfare against a neighboring society.

  1. Non-capitalism
  2. Anti-capitalism

See here for why I say that.

Diplomatic Self-Restraint vs Anticipatory Self-Defense

Which one of these two courses of actions gets more killed? The statistical reality for free societies is that it’s actually diplomatic self-restraint that gets more people killed.

It was well known during World War II that Adolf Hitler wanted to annex the entire world and purge it of any dissenters to National Socialism. Basically, that means that he wanted in part to conquer the United States. Early war against Hitler’s Germany in 1933 would have saved 21 million Non-combatant lives. But instead we decided to wait until General Tojo attacked us in Pearl Harbor for telling him to stay away from Britain’s then Southeast Asian colonies. Then we lashed out against Hitler for his attack on us over our attack on Tojo.

Speaking of Hideki Tojo, his rule over Japan got 6 million people killed, and even though only 68 of those were Americans, a 1936 war against Tojo’s Japan would have saved not just 68 American lives but 6 million human lives including those 68 Americans.

And of course World War One did nothing to really achieve any moral good, but a 1909 war against Ottoman Turkey would have saved 2 million lives ranging from 1.5 million Armenians, to 250,000 Greeks to 250,000 Syrians. And yes, Right of Self Defense does double as an option to use force to defend lives of others.

So in short, the painful reality in foreign policy is that war is inherently the only answer to evidently clear threats of foreign aggression.

To give another example, in 1917 when the Bolshevik Revolution went on and threatened to enslave the entire globe [including America] to communism, a 1917 war against Soviet Russia would have stopped the Cold War from erupting against America in 1941, long after saving 62 million human lives, foreign and American alike.

Libertarian Opinions on Foreign Policy are not all the same!

If you came here from an external link, then you noticed the 48% statistic and the rambling about how 48% of libertarians oppose antiwar activism. Where did I learn this?

Back in 2011, Pew Research Center found that half the liberty movement is very rejecting of pacifism.

Outside of the LP anyway, 67% of libertarians are Independents as opposed to Democrats or Republicans. To keep us on topic, I must point out more libertarians believe American military might is what ensures world peace than doubt. While it can be guessed that 33% believe war is not the answer to self-evident threats to the American People, 48% accept that war is inherently the only answer to self-evident threats to the American People.

Section Nine of this report, combined with all this military related data and some updates to some of it made in 2014, tells something about most libertarians on average.

Here is what the average is in the libertarian movement

Most libertarians, statistically meaning 54%, just want a domestically focused America that practices an anti-United-Nations brand of multilateralism and values stability over democracy in the GME, while still knowing that stability requires capitalism. Most libertarians, again meaning 54%, want American foreign policy to also be about getting friendlier with European and East Asian markets alike, refusing to sacrifice liberty for greater safety, and recognizing Islam as the world’s most eager religion at the moment to unprovoked war of aggression. Militarily, most libertarians want American foreign policy to be about accepting that most problems in the world would be worse without US interference, accepting that American military vigilance worldwide is what keeps world peace, and that overwhelming military force is always the only way to defeat actual threats to the American people.

Thanks everyone for reading my case against antiwar activist laws and platforms and policies,

~KSP Perkins

How to End War And Famine: Make Every Country a Free Market Capitalism Land

Introduction

Capitalist Peace Theory

What is a Free market? And what is Capitalism? Merriam-Webster dictionary explains.

Some very simple points I want to make quite clear. And yes, I will try to keep each sentence 20 words or shorter in length.

  1. Ethnic Diversity does not lead to war or to famine. Countries with minimal ethnic diversity tend to be the most eager to civil war.
  2. Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and even Religious Affiliation. All of these basically avoid correlating to war and famine.
  3. As much as I respect democratic peace theorists, I don’t see as big a tie between democracy and peace as I see between capitalism and peace.
  4. According to me, based on what I can gather data-wise, only one thing fully correlates to terrorism, genocide and other anti-humanism atrocities. Socialism and Statism in any form at all inherently correlate to a belligerent, barbaric, misanthropy land. Capitalism inherently correlates to a land of peace, commerce, honest friendship and of no alliances needed. This is not an argument but rather an empirical fact.

How to End War aka How to End Famine

Free market countries limit their disputes with each other to just peaceful ones. Often these lead to Agreeing To Disagree. Planned market countries incessantly go to war with each other like war is water to them. And planned market nations obsess on war against free market nations.

Historical Quotes on Capitalist Peace Theory

Immanuel Kant, who I personally don’t know enough about to really pass any intellectually honest judgement onto, said this:

  • The spirit of commerce, sooner or later, takes hold of every nation, and has no room for warfare.
  • In his 1795 essay “Perpetual Peace”

Norman Angell, who individually I only know for this quote, had this to say:

  • Trade interdependence in modern economies makes war non-profitable!
  • In a speech he perhaps delivered in either 1911 and/or 1913.

Regulatory Burden vs Upholding Individual Liberty for all individuals equally

Many will try to argue, I suspect, that an absurdly giant regulatory burden is the only thing…

  • preventing toddlers from starving to death
  • holding abusive CEOs in check
  • keeping human rights the norm of the human species
  • allowing people freedom of choice in healthcare
  • allowing people freedom of choice in education
  • allowing people to choose secular morality in place of organized religion

None of these “people” who argue this get any sympathy from me, NONE. Instead I am going to preemptively debunk them right here and now.

  • Broken Windows Policing
    • Constitutional problem with this kind of policing (in America, anyway). Stop and Frisk for example is toxically anti-4th-amendment.
    • In essence, I would argue that if police would invoke and enforce natural rights to life, to liberty and to pursue happiness there would be no need for a regulatory burden
    • And in turn, I’ll doubly argue that if there was no regulatory burden then police would free to do “broken windows” policing from within what’s allowed in the Bill of Rights.
    • But no, in America anyway, police have to be super glued to 80,000 regulations that have nothing to do with upholding life, liberty and pursuit of happiness equally for all individuals.

Capitalism: demonstrably Better at ‘Treat others as you wish to be treated’ than Any form at all of Socialism

Key to moral freedom and to governmental integrity, for the most part, is what free market capitalism is.

Economic Freedom maps:

Heritage Foundation map left, Fraser Institute map right. But then look at the maps below.

Left is Transparency International map of Corruption Perception Index. Right is World Index of Moral Freedom map. There is a mostly diamond-hard correlation painting capitalism as both key to transparency and key to permissive society.

Conclusion

In case you need a simpler case than even what’s laid out above, here.

  1. The root cause of famine in humanity is Anti-capitalism
  2. The root cause of refugees in humanity is Anti-capitalism
  3. The root cause of poverty in humanity is Anti-capitalism
  4. The root cause of pollution in humanity is Anti-capitalism
  5. The root cause of corruption in humanity is Anti-capitalism
  6. The root cause of war in humanity is Anti-capitalism
  7. The root cause of genocide in humanity is Anti-capitalism
  8. The root cause of terrorism in humanity is Anti-capitalism

Lastly, I am going to now thank you all for reading this,

~Perkino

PS I am lately trying to get away from the ‘LDA’ label, especially as my true nickname all along was and is and will always be ‘Perkino’, to be honest.

How to Win the War on Terror

US troops

United States military gathering to a cause

Some Advice on how to claim victory ‘against terrorism’

So I was browsing TIME Magazine’s official site and stumbled across an article posted by someone to and for The New Yorker. Specifically this article talks about the Syrian refugees and Donald Trump and the title of this thing I am replying to is ‘How to Lose the War on Terror‘. But let me stress that the article touches minimally on the titular topic, and here I am doing a responsive article that’s more on the subject than what it’s replying to.

1. Call the Enemy out by Ideology Name

One major intellectual influence of mine, Yaron Brook, tells us masterfully that a military cannot fight a tactic, and that terrorism is a tactic. He calls out the enemy properly by whipping up the term ‘Islamic Totalitarianism‘, the official name for the ideology of ISIS and their various assorted State Sponsors. Islamic Totalitarians are a political sect of Islam who seek to control every aspect of life on Earth according to puritanical intake of the teachings of the Koran and of the Hadith, specifically Sharia. Some synonyms that exist for Islamic Totalitarianism are Islamic Nationalism, Islamic Radicalism, Political Islam, Salafism and Khomeinism. One synonym I propose in order to wake many of my fellow libertarians up to the reality of its threat to libertarian ideals is Islamic Statism. So we do have a handful of options as to what exactly to call the enemy out by. World War Two was not a war against blitzkrieg but against Nazi fascism, and the US Civil War was not a war against threat-making but a war against White Supremacy. Personally I think it is intellectually honest to call these enemies Islamic Statists and/or Salafis.

2. Adopt a tough Foreign Policy Doctrine

By tough foreign policy, what I refer to in this step is to formulate a doctrine that accepts the painful realities that directly tie into foreign relations and national defense. Here is what I propose.

  1. Unilateral Free Trade
    • Go around the world circumventing foreign governments’ power over their respective societies by lowering their tax burdens, tariffs and regulatory counts to absolutely puritanical zero.
  2. Annihilation of State Sponsors of Jihad
    • With Jihad being the official name for Sharia-motivated terrorism, it should not matter to America or any of its 34 different OECD friends whether a state sponsor of Jihad is theocratic or a government of secular personalism.
  3. Preventive War
    • If we sit around and wait for a regime where Sharia applies in full to start actually sponsoring Jihad, or especially for such a regime to finish prepping its establishment military for attack then we have legit waited for too long.
  4. Capitalistic Regime Change
    • Before telling me that this is some kind of untried mass of idealist trash, let me explain to you the difference this has against Democratic regime change. As we have seen in Germany after obliterating the Nazi regime, bringing a majority of US troops home while leaving some behind to oversee the fostering by private merchants of capitalism lead Germany to become a whole new free society. While the Democratic RC of letting the people build whatever kind of democracy they want, no matter how anti-capitalist & no matter how anti-libertarian, has failed us in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

3. Treat all Islamic Totalitarian regimes in the Greater Middle East as imminent threats

If a regime is on this simple map here and it is marked in purple, then Victory ‘against terrorism’ requires We The People to brand the regime an imminent threat to the American People and also to libertarian values. No further comment needed here.

4. Militarily strategize to care purely about Victory against this Totalitarian menace

What do I mean by this? I say we need to school the US military into caring fanatically about one thing and one thing only: Victory. And this kind of schooling totally requires the United States military to be trained to spend each and every battle obsessing on total destruction of absolutely all Legitimate Military Targets, but that’s not exactly enough. We need to train the US military to passionately add any and all civil service based actors, institutions and objects as LMT; and all while keeping the exact battle plans top-secret. For the military history of American self-defense has about two or more fine examples of targeting enemy-employed civil service being mandatory to getting radically quick and fiscally libertarian victory.

5. Steps 1 to 4 should have been the plan fifteen years ago.

And this is all I have to say. Thanks for reading, and I would appreciate you my reading public signing below onto donating $1.75 per month every month, please & thanks.
“Subscribe

~LDA

Trump’s Focus on Christian Refugees and What this Atheist Thinks of that

syrian-refugees-unhcr-photo8

Syrian refugees escaping into Western world countries like the United States.

President Trump has announced a plan to make Christians priority number one in his Syrian refugee policy.

Alright, so forty-fifth president of the United States Donald J. Trump has recently announced a plan for his Syrian refugee policy, and he wants to lend total priority to Christian refugees among them. I don’t claim to know why that is but I suspect this may not exactly produce more good than harm. Whether he is trying to make us a Christian country or trying to keep out muslims, I am not going to talk about either of those notions here. Instead I am going to talk about what I predict, and I am going to propose an alternative.

My Prediction for this favoritism policy

I do not see the planned agenda of favoritism toward Christians among the Syrian refugees as leading us into a heartening future. Rather I predict that freedom of religion will very slowly disappear, because there is no freedom of religion in a nation that declares that only one organized religion can freely cross the nation’s borders.

But also as an atheist with my own secular morality, I very basically do have to ask a great many well crafted questions to our first orange president. What about all of the atheist and deist and other secular morality abiding refugees who are fleeing persecution by the Islamic Totalitarians, just like the many Syrian Christian refugees are?

Also what about all the Syria escapees that practice some other Non-muslim faith that’s also not Christianity, like Judaism for example? And lastly what about the muslims who are trying to escape to our nation to get away from Islamic Totalitarianism?

What could be a better solution to the Syrian refugee crisis?

Ellis Island spelled the solution to this current problem in the 1890’s when it was taking in immigrants from Europe, some of whom were the first of my fellow ethnically Irish Perkins to come to America. And the very first Irish American Perkins had to go through a legion of tough medical checks, and a legion of tough criminal checks, and that was all the border control they had to deal with. Then these immigrant ancestors of mine were free to apply for jobs and also for citizenship, which as one can tell by my titular self-descriptor above… my Perkins ancestors from Ireland did!

But anyway, the Syrian refugees should be processed the same way no matter their faith or non-faith. Disease check, Security check, then free to apply for jobs and citizenship. In other words, the never granted amnesty to any of the first Irish Americans of my family, and nowadays these Syrian refugees should have to formally apply for citizenship just like my Ireland immigrant ancestors had to do.

In closing, I must say that all of the escapees need to be processed Ellis Island style, so that we can add workers to our economy and build a free market in labor while filtering out any Islamic Totalitarians among them.

What do you guys think? Do you think we need Ellis Island immigrant policy? Or are you just loving the intellectual honesty here? Either way, please sign onto donating $1.75 per month to this humble journal, thank you all;
“Subscribe

~LDA