Trump Ending Frivolous Wars

Can this even be happening?

Not since Richard Nixon has an American President actually managed to end an armed conflict that wasn't just won outright. Let's face it, this country no longer fights wars with winning them in mind. Not at all, we fight them to keep the military arms industry afloat.

The United States is the top seller of military arms in the world. We sell twice as much weaponry around the world as #2 Russia. For our weapons industry, PEACE is the enemy. Having peace break out anywhere in the world is bad for business. And because of the diligent efforts of past Presidents and war industry Senators in the U.S. Congress, business has been very, very good.

Since the end of WWII, the war strategy of the U.S. has changed from winning to a constant rotating presence that hasn't proved a bit effectual in winning, stopping or preventing further pain and misery to the countries we occupy. It's really about not killing the job. And if some people get killed along the way, well, that's just business.

Finally out of Syria

We had no business being there in the first place. It was not our conflict since Syria is and remains a sovereign nation. That's supposed to mean something. If it wasn't for the Obama financed "Arab Spring" and his blatant arming of ISIS in the region, the Syrian civil war would have been over years ago and much less blood would have been shed. This intervention only prolonged the war and the pain war inflicts. Russia has every right to defend it's interests in the country since it has had a strong and legally binding relationship with Syria and Assad since at least WWII. That's supposed to mean something too.

Colonial interests drive Europe to press for Syrian intervention. The French in particular remain keenly interested in getting their hooks back into the region and have been behind much of the information surrounding the phony "gas attacks" that seem to serve as an excuse to deplete Syria's dictator Bashir Assad's ability to defend his government from the outsider-backed insurgency.

We were only in Syria so that Bashir Assad and Russia would not win. But legally and in the eyes of the world, there was only so much we could do. Our government and that of France kept trying to manufacture a reason to commit more resources to ultimately overthrow Assad to plunge the country into Libyan style chaos in the hopes that Russia would find their base on the Mediterranean no longer tenable but U.S. public opinion and independent voices in our government would not support such subterfuge.

Now it's time to end the charade.

The United States efforts to overthrow world powers "we don't like" has no basis or support in our laws. It has no reasoning beyond those of a tyrant and have brought us no satisfaction or good results for all the money and time we've spent.

But the U.S. military machine has plenty of time and plenty of money, doesn't it?

Enter the War Hawks.

Representatives of the Military Industrial Machine have come out against President Trump's move to end a military conflict. Florida Senator Marco Rubio has been a big supporter of armed conflict in the Middle East in his 8 years in office. It didn't take too much checking to find out why.

Florida has the largest war industry machine in the nation with 20 major military installations and nearly all of the nation's leading defense contractors. Florida also boasts $13.6 Billion in Department of Defense contracts. In fact, the scope of the state of Florida's involvement in the American "War Effort" is outright staggering.

Now what are they going to do if we stop fighting in the Middle East? Doesn't America know that all those bombs feed people?

At least now I know how Senator Rubio got elected. He's made a deal with the Devil.

A quick search on North Carolina, home to Senator Lindsay Graham, another sudden war hawk, brags on it's "Invest in North Carolina" brochure that they have the Third Largest active duty and reservist population in the United States and yields a skilled workforce pipeline for the defense industry. It has 5 major military bases and is #4 in military economic output with $11 Billion in Department of Defense contracts.

This is why Senator Lindsay Graham supports continued fighting in the Middle East. After all, it's only uneducated non-American poor people we're killing.

The Longer We Stay, the More We Fight

I originally hadn't bought into the "We're making more Radicals" argument when it was originally posed, incidentally, by the Democrats who now suddenly want us to keep our military presence in the Middle East, but over time I find that the region just never seems to run out of people wanting to throw themselves at a tank with a bomb strapped to their body. It reminds me of Major Colonel Bill Kilgore's line in the Vietnam movie "Apocalypse Now" when he asks rhetorically, "Don't these people ever give up?"

It's easy to convince people that the United States is coming for them when they are in your country shooting the place up.

Getting out of Afghanistan

After 17 long, long, long, long years in this country, are they any better off? Are WE? I mean all the "good will" we have sewn over there will come back in Spades, right? They still hate us. They hate us when we are there and they say we've abandoned them when we leave. All they want is our money and they'll never become an independent nation if they take it. It's a circular paradox that is no longer our problem.

We defeated the Talaban when they blew up the Twin Towers in New York way back when and now they've undergone a number of reformations and they either are still a force to be reckoned with or they aren't but frankly they aren't. They are a bunch of armed radicals that will exist whether the U.S. is there or isn't there but without us being there, they will have less guns and weapons to be anything but a group of Muslim killing Muslims since there will be no more Americans to shoot at.

We can't stay there forever and at some point either they will have to take care of themselves or they won't. It's been 17 years. GW Bush spent 7 years trying to get the Afghans ready to fight for themselves. Obama spent 8 years trying to get them ready and they've had 2 years under President Trump. How much more time will they need if they still aren't ready after all this time?

Anyone saying we are "abandoning" Afghanistan now after spending more time there than anywhere in the United State's history of warfare, is just trying to stay on the War Gravey Train that being on the side of Rome often provides. It's a spurious argument.

The Kurds

There is no easy, cheap or quick solution to the Independent Kurdish State issue. The Kurds have always helped out the U.S. in the region. They've fought under both GW Bush and Obama and they're helping now but the glaring fact remains that the United States has neither the authority to establish a Kurdish State or the resources to defend one should they try.

Turkey will not allow an independent Kurdish state under any circumstances and will bring their considerable might against one if established. We weren't in Syria to help the Kurds establish an independent state. They know this. They will have to keep fighting for their independence.

We Have our Own Problems

And a major problem right now is Security at the U.S. Boarder. There is no logic in fighting foreign wars for foreign interests when are going to end up losing the nation here at home.

The American Taxpayer shells out more money than most people in the world produce in a year on defense and welfare spending and both are out of control. The working U.S. citizen scrimps and saves for their retirement and most workers try to sock away dough for their later years. This becomes increasingly hard to do when so much is taken out of your paycheck before it even gets to you.

War is frivolous when it accomplishes nothing. As an industry, it is immoral at best. At worst, it's industrialized murder and whether it is waged in a "humane" fashion or not makes no difference if we are just going about it by rote.

Time to think of the people who fight our wars. We owe it to them and the military families that when we fight, we will fight with purpose and to ultimately win and not so that a military corporation can keep it's stock numbers up. We don't need to have a war for every generation to keep military traditions alive. We should try to interrupt this pattern one time just to see what happens.

Peace could become a habit. 

I Wish Dick Cheney Would Just Shut Up

I know there is some unwritten rule that past presidents don’t open their mouths and interfere with their successor while they are running the country and I think this should go for former Vice-Presidents as well. 

Especially since George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are probably the biggest reasons why we got Barack Obama as President, Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader and that fiasco of fiasos, Obama-Care.

I hate to break it to Mr. Cheney but George Bush was no great shakes as president either. Although he didn't spend nearly the amount of money that Obama has, it wasn't for lack of trying. G W Bush still spent way too much taxpayer money on give-a-ways and vote buying. 

He piled onto the bogus and wasteful War on Drugs, forgoing education, prevention and treatment and instead focusing on attacking the demand side of the equation by channeling most of the money to law enforcement and building more jails. He spent Billions in his efforts to curry favor with the law enforcement industry and buying their votes. 

He also connived to expand Medicare with his Prescription Drug “Improvement” plan with its prescription drug benefit coverage which was just a vote-buying scheme for the AARP at the future expense of their grand kids who will be the ones left with the crippling balloon payments once grammy and grampy have gone to the big beyond.  Instead of cutting costs for Medicaid, which was pretty much broke at the time, George W. Bush expanded its benefit payouts, increased costs and provided no funding mechanism for the budget increases thus ballooning the deficit by an alarming amount. 

Then there was Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” attack on education. It provided all of the bureaucracy and none of the means to pay for its implementation of new testing for students or the hiring and training of more teachers. This funding was left for the states to provide at local taxpayers expense. Thank you Mr. President!

And ALL the Republocrats went along with it in the same lock-step the Demlican Leftists are being accused of now. People like the former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi and former House Majority Leader Tom Delay, R-Texas, people so driven to follow the President that they totally disregarded the political and financial fallout. History now shows how massive the fallout was. 

And for Dick Cheney’s part, just how "divested" of Halliburton was he when the organization when they got those massive contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan that reaped Billions for the company and it's shareholders at the expense of the American people.

The Bush Administrations prosecution of the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq left a lot to be desired. It was almost as if they went about it like union contractors and didn't want to “Kill the Job” by actually trying to win. After all this time there was never any lasting change in the country. There were never any decisive victories and the Administration left legitimate Prisoners of War to languish in Guantanamo Bay instead of setting up a Military Tribunal to try them in a timely fashion, preferring to let the next administration do that part. The Bush/Cheney Administration should have tried them quickly and remove any future of botching the job. But that wasn’t the point was it? The Iraq war was all about the money.

Rand Paul isn't alone when he openly accused Dick Cheney of pushing for the Iraq War so that Halliburton could profit.

Until Barak Obama came along, it was GW who was spending money like a sailor on shore-leave. Obama just picked up his baton and ran with it. At this point in history the arguement shouldn't be so much a case for Obama being the worst President ever but more about who are the worst Presidents ever since back-to-back both GW Bush and Barack Obama have proven to be a deadly duo to this nation.
 

And one has to laugh when Cheney accuses the present Republican Party of Isolationism because they,  over a decade and Multi-Billions of dollars later, with little to show for the lives and other resources expended, didn't want to continue the wars in the Middle East! 

So for Dick Cheney to come out and say ANYTHING right now looks to me to be a FEEBLE attempt at political redemption.  It’s like saying “Yes, we were a bunch of fiscally irresponsible screw-ups but look at Obama, he’s really BAD!”

Please Mr. Cheney, haven’t you caused enough damage to the United States already?

Please just go away.

The Constitutional Disconnect Over Anwar al-Awlaki (part II)

Under the Freedom of Information Act, although the all-important reasoning behind the decision is still redacted, most of the memo associated with president Obama's order of the drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Muslim extremist and U.S. citizen, has been released.

We now know that it was a person named David Baron, then the acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Council. HE is the one who concluded that killing al-Awlaki would be legal for the U.S. government to carry out based on the conclusion that al-Awlaki's citizenship did not protect him from the use of force abroad. Mr. Barron was assisted by another lawyer for the Justice Department, a Mr. Martin Lederman. We only hear their names now because they are just a small part of the vast unelected nameless-faceless hive of bureaucracy that is writing law over the citizens of this country.

Now they are passing death sentences and we didn't even know it until now.

Neither of these people were judges. They were lawyers, lawyers attempting to justify the lawlessness of the actions of their President and their government.

Both the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution address the right of a U.S. Citizen to the Due Process of law. In a nutshell: If an individual is facing the lose of his life, liberty or property, the law of the land requires that individual receive notice, representation, a hearing and most importantly, to be judged.

So there we have it. Mr. Baron, Mr. Lederman and Mr. Obama: Judge, Jury and Executioner. All done with the sweep of a pen. No hearing, no jury and no lawful judge.

Killing Anwar al-Awlaki going on three years ago was an unlawful act and has set a dangerous precedent for U.S. citizens tomorrow.

It is now PROVEN that our leaders had abandoned the founding principles of their Country, their Constitution and their Faith in a desperate attempt to reverse the the rise of opposition to and the impending collapse of our despotic and destabilizing interventions into the affairs of sovereign nations in the Middle East.

It has all proven to be false and useless in the long run.

(original text below - originally published March 5th, 2013)

"I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.” - Rand Paul

My copy of the U.S. Constitution makes no distinction where an American citizen may be whether it be on American soil or in Yemen, they are still entitled to the same protection under the law.

Everybody applauded when a drone strike killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American Citizen, in Yemen without any due process of law. Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Mitt Romney and Texas Governor Rick Perry, all expressed praise for Obama’s drone strike on what actually turned out to be the U.S. Bill of Rights.

President Obama signed an order in 2010 that put al-Awlaki on the governments “Kill or Capture” list but the President had no Constitutional authority or legal precedent to sign such an order. He just ordered it and almost everybody in Congress, went along with it.

It was also said many times by the so called right wing television and radio wags that al-Awlaki had forfeited his rights under the Constitution by taking up arms against the United States. No he didn't, he couldn't. But the comfortably established, well paid and certainly well fed public face of American Conservative thought had NO PROBLEM with the killing of al-Awlaki and openly said so.

And here we are.

So with the announcement by The Government that these very same drones are going to be deployed right here in the good old US of A and whoa, NOW it’s a problem!

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, that figurehead for the Department of Justice, has sent a letter to U.S. Senator Rand Paul stating that he can see a legal justification where these drones could be brought to bear upon other American Citizens right here on U.S. soil. Well what did you expect?

But how can they do such a thing? We are American Citizens, what gives them the right? Gee, let’s think about that one, shall we?

You can't pick and choose which part of the Bill of Rights you wish to believe in and when you wish to believe in it. You take them as a whole or you take none of them. It's a document for all U.S. Citizens and not just a few. And good deeds, like nice speech, needs no Constitutional protection.

But that didn’t give pause to the people who are now suddenly outraged about the deployment of drones on the North American continent. They see no connection between the death of al-Awlaki and the possible use of drones in the U.S. for the very same reason.

It's this kind of Wrong Thinking that has fostered the erosion of our civil rights and emboldened Government to reach for more power. What if the government now declares a certain person or group of people to be in "Revolt"? Who shall be the next to forfeit their rights by opposing Government?

But don't worry; it can't happen here, right?

Has-Been Warmonger Republican Bashes Rand Paul, Tea Party

Former member of the President George W. Bush administration and interim ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton was quoted as saying that Ronald Reagan would be "rolling over in his grave" to hear Rand Paul praise him.

This is over-the-top grandstanding for the Republocratic Party on his part and he is, after all, a Republican Party loyalist. But his real point in the interview strikes home at what I feel has plagued Libertarians since our modern conciousness and that is: We just have a hard time expressing our core beliefs to the public.

I've heard Ron Paul stumble over the "So you want to legalize drugs, even heroin?" question many times. This is most likely a result of being called "nuts" over and over again for decades because up until recently most people actually thought the War on Drugs was working and making things better. Well we all know how that turned out. I've heard Rand Paul answer the same question with an emphatic "Yes".

There should no longer be any ambiguity as far as telling the world where a Libertarian's principles lie. At least we HAVE principles. And the world is coming around more to our way of thinking because, let's face it, they can see the failures of the Republocrats and the Demlicans. Our ideals, no, they are not perfect but they are far closer to what a free people need. Freedom works everywhere it is applied.

When it comes to Iran and Nukes. It's a hard question to answer on the grounds that our allies do not want Iran to start making Nuclear bombs. But it's going to happen. My answer to that question is: If Europe, Saudi Arabia and Israel do not want Iran to have The Bomb then they better get busy and do something about it.

Why is it up the the United States to bomb Iran? Because that is just what we do?

Or how about the UN? Phhhbt! I make joke! Man, I crack myself up.

They ALL have the bomb over there in case you haven't heard. France, Syria, Israel, Russia, China. Nobody is stopping THEM from doing something about Iran. It's their neighborhood.

As far as John Bolton is concerned, he has done some creditable service and is, for the most part, a conservative but he is part of the "old guard" of the Republican party that has become the biggest obsticle to the Tea Party and it's candidates. He is for the status quo of the Republicans which is now part of the problem rather than the solution.

The Left Wing press will have him on every screen since he's bashing Rand Paul and the Tea Party. He will willingly become their useful idiot because there's one thing both parties hate more than each other and that's the Tea Party. I don't ever have to listen to this guy again because I already know what he's going to say.

Iran is going to get the bomb because nobody is going to stop them. Niether party has done so up to now so how is a prospective candidate supposed to say he's going to bomb Iran when the present administration isn't going to bomb them either.

Bolton the War Monger just longs for the old days when we could just go in and bomb another country "because we said so." Well that was before we've wasted political capital, boatloads of taxpayer money and America's youth on wastesful "make work" wars for well over a DECADE.

Oh, and by the way, We're Broke!

Now we're going to bomb Iran? Get real. If we as a nation had kept our sword sheathed until we really needed it, we wouldn't be in this situation.

And THAT's a Libertarian principle.

Nine Myths About Libertarianism

Myth #1 Libertarians are Isolationists.

This is trotted out every single time some radio wag is asked to comment on either Ron Paul or Libertarians in general. Libertarians are decidedly not isolationists. What they call for is Free Trade and Non-Intervention in sovereign nations. How can you trade with another country if you isolate yourself? You can’t. It is apparent that the current regime that has been in power in the U.S for decades always wants to either buy influence or intervene overtly (militarily) or covertly (politically) with any country they choose to as a matter of policy. Libertarians find this to be a really bad idea in the long run and history proves this to be true.

Myth #2 Libertarians are Anti-War Peaceniks

Another fib boasted mostly by right-wing hawks. Libertarians believe in a time to fight and a time for war. Was it not that noted founding Libertarian; Thomas Jefferson himself who sent the Marines to smash the Barbary Pirates of Tripoli in 1804? Yes it was! Why did he do it? To stop them from interfering with U.S. shipping and commerce, that’s why. That’s the free trade part of Myth #1 for those not paying attention.

The difference is that Thomas Jefferson did not want to make an industry out of war which has been the case for the last oh, 50 years! I don’t know who made any money on Korea but the US armament factories have reaped a bundle ever since. The U.S. exports twice as many weapons of war as the second place country (Russia). Anybody born after 1956 will tell you that we as a nation have been in a virtual state of war since they’ve been alive: Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Panama, Gulf War I, Gulf War II, the Arab conflicts and now Libya and beyond. No price can be put upon the agony these endless military conflagrations have caused. 

These wars never end. They are no longer meant to be won. Libertarians see this as a colossal waste of lives and national resources. Free trade and non-intervention would have caused many of these conflicts never to be started. The U.S. has 700 military bases world wide. Why? Can’t Greece, Germany, Japan, South Korea and Europe take care of themselves? Libertarians think that it’s about time these countries take an interest in their own defense.

Yes, Libertarians prefer peace but if it comes time to fight, it will be time to win and the full force of a United States of America should be felt. Without the will to win, a war should not be undertaken.

Myth #3 Libertarians Want to Legalize Drugs

This is no myth. The Drug War is a pronounced and utter failure which has turned our inner cities into hell-holes and has corrupted our system of government. Nobody believes that it is working; nobody believes that we are better off since the drug war began (with the exception of FOX’S Sean Hannity). Time to legalize them and instead of paying Billions of dollars to government corrections and enforcement, we should instead turn this massive amount of money to treatment and education. I have a more detailed rant in the archives of this blog. It’s worth a look.

Myth #4 Libertarianism Have Visions of Utopia

We all know Utopia is not an option. There is no perfect world there is no perfect system. But neither is the welfare state! Libertarians know that welfare isn’t about compassion or helping people when they’re down. It’s about State Control. The State taxes, transfers and decides who gets the money. Welfare is a disincentive to work.  Self-Reliance is self-fulfillment. The people on the left are well aware of this yet they continue with this policy. Why? 

Now we’ve always had to pay somebody for protection, either the King, the Overlord or whoever was in power at the time. These “taxes” paid for the protection of the “taxpayers” by the overall power of the Feudal Lord/State so nothing has really changed in that regard.

The problems come when the State becomes unwieldy, over bureaucratized, ineffectual at it’s basic functions and takes too much money out of the economy so that the people who pay start to falter. Libertarians believe that government has its hands in too many pies and is using taxpayer money to buy the vote. This is something to be stopped.

Myth #5 Libertarians are Anti-Tax, Anti-Government Nut-Jobs

Although I’ve met a few ah, “Overly Committed” folks who describe themselves as Libertarians, I can’t say there are any more of them than there are of Left-Wing Welfare State Loving Nut-Jobs or Right-Wing Warmonger Nut-Jobs. Probably less since Libertarians are a smaller group that the previously described. They do seem to stand out in a crowd though since they tend to dress in fatigues and either carries a big flag or “Don’t Dare Take My Gun” sign. God love ‘em. But by and large, Libertarians are just regular working people who are educated and in tune with how our current system of government is working. Libertarians know that wealth does not come from government and they tend to see the issues a little differently than those on the Left or Right side of the political spectrum. There is another way of looking at things.

Myth # 6 Libertarians are Racists

Libertarians love anybody with a job or who is looking for a job. As a matter of principle, they are decidedly color-blind. In fact, Libertarians feel that highlighting race at all in the way government functions ie: inquiring about race on government forms or societal segregation or the awarding of benefits based on race is bad policy. It is as Martin Luther King has said: “Judge not a person by the color of their skin but by the content of their soul.” Time to walk the talk like MLK did. I swear some of the scenes of our inner cities and the people who profit by “speaking for my people” should have MLK spinning in his grave at 100,000 rpm. Just like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

Neither side has taken any steps at ending this practice when they had their chance to do so.

Conclusion: Libertarians have well defined principles but individuals interpret them as they see them. Libertarianism is not really a party since it is made up of individuals in the pursuit of their own dreams. When there is commonality, there is consensus. We all want the same things: The pursuit of happiness, safety in our homes and businesses, to raise our children in a safe and open environment, to have a level playing field for business and to have equal opportunity for all to prosper. We cannot guarantee results or success but people deserve the best chance to succeed without government intervention.

 Myth #7 Libertarians are for Big Business and are Anti-Environment

There is a big difference between free-enterprise and the collusion of large businesses with government to artificially procure for themselves a larger market share over their competition. Libertarians regard this collusion, as seen most recently with Bank of America, CitiBank and General Motors as Un-American and would be illegal in a Libertarian governed United States. Libertarians do not believe in Stimulus or Bail-outs. In fact, there would be no GBEs (Government Business Entity) in a Libertarian administration like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. These were doomed to fail from the start since there was never any incentive to curb lending since the government guaranteed all mortgages they purchased. We still have yet to find out just how much Fannie & Freddie has spent in public funds but the final tally will be staggering.

Libertarians believe that by putting money back into the pockets of the people to spend the way they wish will we as a society have the opportunity to achieve the things we want in life. Not utopia, just better.

As far as the environment goes, we have had government watchdogs for decades and still the environmental disasters continue. Libertarians believe that what is bad for the environment is bad for business. Libertarians are as environmentally conscious as anybody else out there perhaps a bit more so since our natural resources are linked to our individual pursuit of happiness. But we also acknowledge that resources, especially renewable resources like trees are to be used and harvested. The setting aside of lands and forests to not be used or to prohibit the clearing of brush for the purpose or fire-roads and fire-breaks is counter productive. Nobody is for cutting old growth forest but trees are being cut down and replanted all the time. Excessive fees and over regulation of any industry will lead to illegal and unregulated activity such as wildcat clear-cutting of forest and illegal dumping in wildlife areas. We’ve all seen it. Libertarians believe that by making it easier to recycle materials and waste will the environment stay clean.

Myth #8 Libertarianism is a Cult

Although Ron Paul seems to have a cult-like following, so does President Obama. Is Liberalism therefore a cult? It’s hard to shake a person’s beliefs but at the very least Libertarianism is about the individual and not the collective. If I want what you have, I’ll work for it. I will not petition the government to pass a law to make you give up what you have for me. If belief in the individual’s ability to achieve and in the right of personal ownership is a cult then yes, Libertarianism is a cult. It is a cult of self reliance instead of the reliance on the State. It is freedom or at least the closest belief system to freedom. Libertarians believe they can provide for their own retirement better than the government can. They believe that they themselves know better than government what to do with the money they earn.  If the economy is indeed 75% consumer driven, then how come government is always taking money out of the hand of the consumer?

Contrary to popular belief, people got along just fine for centuries in this country without a Social Security system or a Graduated Income tax. You cannot get married today without permission from the State. The church can’t just marry you. That would be illegal.

Myth #9 Libertarians Are Against Assisting the Poor

There is more than one way to assist the poor. You can hand them a fish in the form of Welfare or you can really help them by having a job for them to go to.

Unemployment used to last 26 weeks when I started working. When did you get a job? When Unemployment ran out! Well now Unemployment never seems to run out. Some have been on extensions for 3 years. When’s that person going to find a job? When Unemployment runs out!

Libertarians also know there are many charities that help the poor. The biggest and most efficient in the United States is The Salvation Army. But they don’t give out checks. They give you three hots, a cot and work. You still have to earn it. The Salvation Army is by far more efficient with the money they take in than the government. And therein lies the answer.

Without the government confiscating so much of our cash, we would be free to give to the charity of our choice. Americans already are the most giving people in the world but with private charities we have the best way to get help to those who truly need it on a more intimate community level rather than a nameless, faceless state that doesn’t know who’s money they’re throwing around.