Baltimore, Deja Vu

I wasn’t going to write about the riots in Baltimore. It wasn’t because it’s not topical or important, it’s that I didn’t want to simply rehash the same complaints I had regarding the events in Ferguson, MO. There are many parallels regarding the people involved, reasons for the riots and the driving factors that would lead them to riot in the first place. A young black man with a criminal record dies while in police custody, a downtrodden people, a bubbling tension with the police just waiting for the final straw. Mix in the final ingredient, a few agitators, and you have a recipe for violence and riots. There are differences too, but they hardly seem to matter at this point.

Instead of re-hashing my Ferguson blog, I’m going to explore possible reasons why and how we got to this point in the first place. Here’s what I came up with off the top of my head:

  1. War on Poverty
  2. War on Drugs
  3. Monetizing Victimization
  4. Politics of Fear

Of course these poor people marginalize themselves by the people they elect to office, but that is just a symptom of the problems I listed above. What appears to be a circle of life for these people and many others around the country when viewed from the surface, changes to a whirlpool when viewed from a different angle.

The war on poverty is, in my opinion, the largest reason for the current mindset of the American poor. It was a wholly unnecessary idea with the expressed purpose of creating dependency. That was not the stated goal, of course, but the goal none the less. The thought that a government can pay someone a salary in order to make them self-sufficient is, for lack of a better word, stupid. That the government would pay more for each child as long as no father is present is, for lack of a better word, intentional. The fact that they would pay poor people just enough to scrape out a meager existence without having to find work, but not enough that they out of their control is nothing less than cultural genocide. Since the “war on poverty” began in 1965 the poverty rate that had been falling steadily for 20 years became stable and has not changed to this day. Black unemployment has changed drastically. The first 60 years of the 1900’s show that black youth unemployment was about the same or better than white youth unemployment. The war on poverty specifically targeted the black population and while the poverty rate has remained unchanged, the unemployment for black youths is consistently increased and is now hovering around 70% in Baltimore and most poor, black areas of the country. This unemployment rate is twice that of their white counterparts. The war on poverty was designed specifically for this purpose, in my opinion. I think this because given the data and results of the program, no other conclusion seems likely.

The war on drugs is on the list because it builds on the failure of the war on poverty. Let’s face it, when you are poor, drugs are an easy way to make money. There is no question that being addicted to drugs has devastating effects on a person’s ability to be self-sufficient. Drugs destroy families, relationships and lives. I’ve seen addiction first hand in my family and wouldn’t wish it upon my worst enemy. I don’t think that being addicted to drugs should be illegal. We should see these people as patients instead of criminals. The people dealing these drugs are harming their society, but are not forcing people to buy, therefore, what they are doing should not be illegal. If drugs were made legal, I would worry about an increase in drug use, but the fact that these people would not have to fear jail time would allow them to more easily get the help they need. When drugs are not hidden they can be made safer and drug cartels would essentially vanish. When you look at Freddie Gray’s record, almost all of his crimes were drug related. When our prisons are filled with mostly non-violent drug offenders it contributes to unemployment and government dependency. People with jail time find it harder than others to find gainful employment. I’ve never had to deal with drug use or incarceration, but I would imagine that these people have a less than rosy outlook on life after being chewed up and spit out by the system.

As the poor people in urban areas grow more and more dependent on the government, people have found ways to capitalize on the misery. These people are often called “poverty pimps” and similar things. They get paid by fomenting upheaval within the black community, extorting businesses with threats of racism, generally perpetuating the victimhood of these poor people. They create industries revolving around things like “multiculturalism” and “diversity”. These programs are designed to define the victims and villains in our society and thereby keep them in business. They create an, us vs. them mentality by inventing terms like “white privilege”, “triggering” and “social aggression”. These terms are specifically designed to keep poor people down. They, by their nature, mentally place poor black people on a lower footing than white people creating a never ending boogey man and cash flow for themselves. These are the worst kinds of people because they are often black people who grew up in poor neighborhoods that found a way to be successful by praying on the very people they claim to serve. They are the first to cry racism. They are the first to call for justice, as long as that justice gets them paid and a little more power. These people are part of the problem because they use the power of language and uplifting sounding speech to convince a people already downtrodden by welfare and unemployment that there is no hope but through more government and of course, themselves.

The politics of fear refers to the vicious cycle of dependence created by government. The generation born into dependency has nothing to compare with. Dependency becomes the baseline for existence and threats to that existence are met with fear. The politicians who promise more are heroes and the ones who offer another way are rejected out of hand. They see people outside the system, but it has to look foreign to them. They might try to conform what they see into the reality of their own life. Others get more because the government lets them have more and they should be entitled to the same. The private sector is a foreign concept to these people trapped in generational welfare dependence. People trapped in dependence and the self-sufficient people in the private sector have a hard time communicating, or even understanding each other. Government dependent people are not stupid, or lazy, or shiftless. These are people who see government assistance as a normal part of life and often work, as long as the work does not interfere with the assistance. So many of them have drug offenses that a really good job is hard to come by. The industriousness by which they endeavor to make money under the table is impressive. These people are America’s greatest untapped resource. I firmly believe that a good free market education goes a long way. It may take generations to get out of the mess caused generations ago, but it is well worth it.

The bottom line is that the people rioting in Baltimore are being manipulated by the government they depend on so much and poverty pimps that make money on their misery. The fact that they are angry at the system that, at the same time, sustains them and controls them might be a sign that big government answers are being looked at with skepticism. Maybe when the dust settles someone can go in and show them that there is another way. Freddie Gray wasn’t the reason for the riots, he was just the last reason. I can’t and won’t condone any riot. However, when I have a choice to support people or government, I will always choose people, even these people. I’m not excusing their actions, I don’t understand their actions. The concept of rioting eludes me. These are criminal acts that cannot be justified, but we should not give up on them. In the horrific videos shown on the news, there were some nuggets of hope. All is not lost.

It’s a Conspiracy, Man!


I want to take a little time this week to talk about conspiracy theories. It seems like there are so many out there that it is hard to keep track of them all. Libertarians seem to get caught up in them more than most for some reimagesXIRKE86Gason. Of course not every libertarian, or even a sizable fraction of libertarians are conspiracy nuts, it just seems that way because of people like Alex Jones and the like. Libertarians are actually more informed than Republicans or Democrats on political philosophy. This is true because in order to call yourself a L(l)ibertarian there would have had to, at one point or another, been some reading done as to what exactly L(l)ibertarians believe and why. This is not true for the major parties. Generally, you are a Republican or Democrat based on what your parents were, much like religion. You might be wondering at this point, for instance, what the difference is between a Libertarian and a libertarian. Google it. If you decide to do that you will run across terms like, “classic liberal”, “minarchist”, “anarcho-capitalist”, “anarchist” and a bunch of others. When you look at who believes conspiracy theories, Democrats do when a Republican is in office, Republicans do when a Democrat is in office and Libertarians do when either is in office. I think we fall into the conspiracy trap is due to our visceral mistrust of the government.

The big conspiracy theory making the rounds this week is the military training operation Jade Helm 15 and the Walmart closings. The conspiracy theory goes something like this, Walmart is being paid by the government to turn the 5 closed stores into FEMA death camps when Jade Helm 15 starts actually pulling people out of their homes during the military exercise that is just a cover and precursor to martial law. The home invasions and town raids will be videotaped to be used later in news stories. The stock untitled (4)footage will be used as brand new footage of an enemy invasion, and paid actors will be used to reenact riot scenes, much like the Boston marathon bombings. The media will act as willing accomplices in the charade, of course. Obviously since there will be the appearance of an invasion, Obama will have to declare martial law on the whole country and postpone elections indefinitely, making him the permanent president and eventually dictator supreme. I’m sorry if I missed anything. That was actually just a hodge-podge of all the different theories I read about on Facebook this week.

Seriously? Can we not do this please? 9/11, Eugenics, New World Order, Illuminati, chem-trails, Rothschilds, killer vaccinations, moon landing hoax, Kennedy assassination, population control, Builderberg, Katrina, Boston Marathon bombings, Sandy hook and the countless others I can’t think of off the top of my head weren’t enough? Now we have to add Walmart FEMA death camps? At least do me the favor of finding out how martial law works before you go down this road. Do me the favor of looking at much simpler explanations if you don’t like the “plumbing issues” reason given by Walmart. The labor union dispute reason that some are claiming is at least plausible, but who knows? Do me the favor of resisting the urge to comment on the articles written by unknown authors, writing for little know websites, shared by anonymous people on a Facebook page with thousands of followers that advocate for this conspiracy theory(or some version of it). Do me a favor and let this one die. When we perpetuate these kinds of things it makes it much more difficult to have serious conversations about things that really matter.

Fimages (7)eel free to share this opinion as a rebuttal to those articles if you feel like you have to comment on it. I’m an unknown author, writing an obscure blog no one reads. It will fit right in.

Noninterventionism vs. Isolationism

The presidential race is starting to heat up. Several prominent republicans like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have thrown their hat in the ring. There is very little to differentiate between the votes of these candidates while in congress, so it would probably be better to note where they disagree. One of the things that republicans get wrong when looking at foreign policy is mistaking isolationism for noninterventionism. I guess it’s an easy mistake to make when the popular guy always wants to bomb somebody but there is a distinct difference between the two.


The belief that a country should not be involved with other countries: a policy of not making agreements or working with other countries.

This means that an isolationist country does not allow its citizens to leave and does not allow other countries in. Isolationist countries have strict anti-immigration policies. This is an extreme way for a country to do business. This does not mean that you are just against war. Being against war would be a symptom of this belief system. There are no American politicians who are isolationists. A notable isolationist country would be North Korea. Libertarian leaning politicians are the furthest thing from isolationists.


Refusal to become involved in another country’s business, problems, etc.

This means that noninterventionist countries freely trade and deal with foreign countries but do not want to get involved with local disputes when it has no direct relation to their country’s interest. This means that if a country’s civil war does not directly affect my country, then I will let that country work its own affairs out. Noninterventionists have generous immigration policies. If America was noninterventionist we would cease to be the world’s police. A notable noninterventionist country would be Sweden. Most libertarians would probably put themselves in this camp.


A government policy or practice of doing things to directly influence the country’s economy or the political affairs of another country

Republicans, especially establishment Republicans, and Democrats have had political gains by getting away from noninterventionism. Becoming world police gets Republicans elected. This is the bottom line. They have done a good job using patriotism to convince country loving Americans that we need to bomb places that have no direct impact or threat to America. President Clinton, Bush and Obama have used the military much more than previous presidents. War was pretty cool for a while, especially when Democrats did it. A notable interventionist country is America.

The tide is changing. The people, especially young people, are getting blood weary. War weary. Republicans are moving toward libertarianism which is decidedly noninterventionist. This is where you will find the differences between the Republican candidates. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, the probable Republican frontrunners, voted the same way over 90% of the time, but they have very different ideas regarding foreign policy. Rand Paul is a noninterventionist and Ted Cruz is a definite interventionist. It’s doubtful that foreign policy will dictate the winner of the Republican nomination, but something has to differentiate the two.

Just remember when you hear people throw around the term “isolationist”, what they really mean is “noninterventionist”. What they really, really mean is “they won’t tell other countries what they should do!” This is a tactic designed to shame people into war. This is a tactic to paint anyone who won’t, “put boots on the ground”, as unpatriotic, even when the “ground” is nowhere near America and no threat exists to our sovereignty that would require “boots”.

Being noninterventionist does not mean that one country will not help another one. It does mean that one country should respect the sovereignty of other nations, even when those countries may seem crazy. If a trade partner or ally is being invaded by a crazy country and asks for help a noninterventionist may decide to help, even if there is no direct benefit other than the trade partnership or alliance. An isolationist would not even know it was happening and an interventionist would not abide a crazy country invading a partner and would bomb the crazy country without being asked.

Ask yourself, “Which of these best describes me?” Remember your answer, you may need it in the future.

Religious Freedom and the Law

The big news this week is that the state of Indiana just passed a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The passage of this act caused an avalanche of bad press for Indiana, complete with boycott’s, outraged Hollywood actors and CEO’s who vow to never visit the state again. Apparently, they are in an uproar because letting people have religious freedom opens the door for religious nuts to openly discriminate against gay people. There are a few things surrounding this media circus that I have a problem with. My opinion on the matter may make both sides mad, but I’m going to risk it.

First, when it comes to private business, the freedom of association is more important than anti-discrimination laws. Period. If you have a religious belief that gay people are immoral, white people are the devil, black people are inferior or whatever other horrific thing you claim that your religion teaches you, more power to you. You should be able to sell your products to just the people you want to sell them to and refuse to sell to anyone else. The market place will sort you out. I certainly would not patronize any place that thinks that way and I doubt the vast majority of people would either.

Second, let’s be clear, the law in Indiana is very similar to what 19 other states and the federal government has. The law is not designed to allow the open discrimination of gay people. This is almost identical to the federal law that was passed by Bill Clinton. This was also essentially similar to the RFRA passed in Illinois that then state senator Barak Obama voted in favor of. The difference that the talking heads keep referring to is that the Indiana law puts corporations and businesses into the category of “people”. The problem with placing outrage in this particular basket is that all the other laws basically do the same thing. If they didn’t before, the Hobby Lobby decision means that they are that way now. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. After reading many points of view on this, I get the feeling that the opposition the Indiana’s particular RFRA is completely based in fear, and the perception that republicans are just bigots. Had this come from a democrat governor, I doubt there would be nearly as much outrage.

Let’s move on to the public reaction and my problem with the democrats. There was a boycott called for by large corporate CEO’s, musical acts, actors and others who are jumping on the bandwagon. In theory I don’t have a problem with private call for a boycott, but I wonder how trying to hurt private business people in Indiana for decisions made by the state government makes any sense. I don’t know how boycotting, “Indiana”, can possibly make any difference. Are these people boycotting the other 19 states also? No? No good press in that I guess. Are these people outraged at the federal government and president Obama who voted for a RFRA? No? I guess when democrats do it, it’s cool. Apparently the fact that these laws have been around for the last 20 years or so and there have not been any documented cases of businesses turning away gay people just because they can makes no difference to these boycotters. I might point out that being gay 20 years ago was not nearly as cool as it is today. Here’s an idea, why don’t you wait for something to happen at a local establishment and then boycott that particular business? Crazy right!

Republicans, don’t think you’re off the hook. I applaud the attempt at restoring the right of association. I applaud the attempt to transfer a bit of the power back to the people. What I can’t understand is that with one hand you want to reduce the size of government when it comes to religious freedom, but with the other hand you try to make laws against same sex marriage. Therefore, making government bigger for gay people. Small government is small government. Freedom is freedom. You need to be consistent, even if you don’t like it. Is there any wonder why people might be suspicious of your motivation when you have a history of treating people differently? How about if there are no victims, don’t get involved? Gay marriage does not affect anyone but the two people getting married. I get that gay marriage goes against your religion, but the government is not there to enforce your religious beliefs.

The other thing I have a problem with is that the republicans absolutely will not admit that the possibility exists that a business can use this freedom to discriminate against someone, anyone. The truth is a business would be able to do that. Instead of dancing around it, the republicans could use the opportunity to explain freedom of association and why it’s not a bad thing, even if discrimination actually occurred. Which it doesn’t. How can discrimination not be a bad thing? The short answer is that it would redirect money into the correct pockets. What I mean is, if a baker refused to cater a gay wedding, for no other reason than he hates gay people, that couple would simply go to a baker that would cater the wedding. Instead of forcing the first baker to take their money, they would be giving business to someone who actually wanted it. On the flip side, if someone found a niche’ in the gay wedding market, they could refuse to cater straight weddings if they chose, strictly because they were straight. Association, people, it’s a good thing.

The bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with this law. I get why gay people would be suspicious, but the good thing about this is that they would have the exact same freedom to associate that the religious people would. I would not doubt in the least that this is a poorly written law, almost all of them are. Laws are written by people in government after all. Even if those evil, bigoted, homophobic republicans wrote this law specifically to allow the discrimination against gay people and their weddings, it still helps gay people. When power is transferred from the government to the people, even for nefarious reasons, it is good for the people. All of them. A government cannot say that some people have the freedom to associate and others don’t. Anti-discrimination laws are there so the government doesn’t treat people differently, not to force one group of private citizens to associate with another.