GJ has sent out this email:
Friends,
If you’re like me, you have watched an amazing argument take place among the presidential candidates over the momentous question of whether the term “Anchor Babies” is offensive or not.
We even have one candidate trying to save face by suggesting that this term actually applies more to Asian immigrants than to Latino ones. It must be a joke, but sadly, I don’t think they are joking.
Of course, the term “Anchor Baby” is offensive. How could it not be? I live in New Mexico -- and was Governor for eight years. Trust me. It’s offensive. Even more offensive is the absurdity of people named Bush, Trump and Clinton trying to decide what’s offensive to immigrants.
I have an idea. Let’s put the issue of birthright citizenship aside for a while and deal with real problems. For the record, in my opinion, if a young woman is enterprising enough to sneak across the border for the purpose of having a child who will then be eligible for citizenship in the U.S. -- and who can, 21 years later when he or she has reached adulthood, perhaps sponsor family members for legal status, that might be a family who will make pretty good Americans.
At worst, it is not a “problem” that needs to be anywhere close to the top of our national “to do” list, much less the lead story on the news.
We have an $18 Trillion debt. We are dropping bombs on the other side of the globe with no apparent strategy behind doing so. Congress will be returning to work in a couple of weeks to, among other things, make critical decisions about our privacy and civil liberties.
THOSE are the issues the politicians should be focused upon -- and the Our America Initiative is working hard to put REAL issues on the national agenda. If we don’t get government spending under control, illegal immigration won’t be a problem. No one will want to come to a nation whose economy has collapsed under the weight of unsustainable debt. Birthright citizenship in a nation that has destroyed liberty won’t be a very appealing opportunity.
Our America can’t put fiscal sanity, economic freedom or civil liberties on the front burner without your help. Go to Our America today and make an investment of $10, $25, $50, $100 or more in our work to solve REAL problems -- not just the ones that make for good sound bites.
Our America is YOU, and I appreciate your support!
Thank you!
Gov. Gary Johnson
Honorary Chairman
|
|
|
|
|
First, anchor babies sounds very descriptive to me. If a woman sneaks across the border from Mexico into the US, for the specific reason of having a baby in the US and, thus, the baby gains US citizenship that anchors a family to the US, then that sure does sounds like an anchor baby to me.
I have no idea if there are three anchor babies in America or a million, but it is absurd to call such a term, which is merely descriptive of a real life activity, offensive. Since when is truth offensive?
It is a distortion for GJ to focus on this topic this way. The real problem is the goodies that such anchor babies become entitled, by proclamation of the US government, becasue the mother slipped over the border. That's an outrage.
GJ also writes:
For the record, in my opinion, if a young woman is enterprising enough to sneak across the border for the purpose of having a child who will then be eligible for citizenship in the U.S. -- and who can, 21 years later when he or she has reached adulthood, perhaps sponsor family members for legal status, that might be a family who will make pretty good Americans.
No that is not good enough. It shouldn't be a woman who sneaks across the border to have a baby (and US entitlements for the baby). The only ones that should be allowed here are those who want a job here, are vacationing here, but none of whom have interest in citizenship. Let employers decide who they want to employ from Mexico and on what basis, not GJ. As for citizenship, as I have pointed out before, I am against giving immigrants any kind of documentation and am looking for the politician, who as part of his platform, wants to eliminate documentation for current Americans.
Like Rand Paul, GJ just mushes up topics in a fashion that confuses the fundamental elements of libertarianism, which at its core is the
non-aggression principle.Whether the term 'anchor babies' is offensive to some has nothing to do with liberty and misdirects the real problem with anchor babies, which is the US government goodies that await anchor babies becasue their
umbiblical cords have been cut in the United States.
-RW
Man, I hope someone better steps up to be the presidential candidate than Gary Johnson for the Libertarian Party.
ReplyDeleteDefine "better". I guess that's Block's purview.
DeleteOn the sliding scale of libertarianism, I can make a case that Donald Trump is better than Rand Paul- Block would disagree obviously...but along those same lines who would be better from a libertarian perspective, Gary Johnson, Rand Paul, or Donald Trump?
I only ask because in the realm of possibility, I still think there's a chance Trump still get bounced out by the GOP establishment- via some type of major hit job/personal life issue or more boldly some type of technicality/rules issue of some sort dragged out by the GOP.
You're seeing the Duopoloy trying to enact "sore loser laws" and the like(in VA for example)....here in SC there's a "purity pledge" being pressed for access to the Republican primary process.
Anyway, I think for those participating in politics(not me), using the Block method of libertarian scoring you have to ask yourself if Gary Johnson is more libertarian than Donald Trump. Some might say it's no contest....but I'm not so sure myself. I definitely think that if Trump had to use the Libertarian party after getting bounced out of the GOP that he would be far more "electable" than Gary Johnson.
Going back to RW's analogy of Mussolini and the whole "make the trains run on time" thing, I don't see Gary Johnson differing from Trump much in that regard and both Mussolini like in their commitment to an efficient/effective State.(bleh)
Last cycle Gary Johnson was calling for "efficient government" right on his campaign site, Fed transparency, and noted that he "opposes American involvement in foreign conflicts with no clear U.S. interest".
Trump has spoken about the reassuring nature of having a pile of gold backing the currency, which is a little more than "Fed transparency". Trump's decried the war in Iraq and it's clear Gary Johnson is no non-interventionist by his own statements above.
Both people seem to believe they can just run government better than the other guys....so I really don't see much of the difference between the two and hence think considering which is "more libertarian" a worthwhile discussion for those already subscribing to Block's view on political participation and methodology(which again, is not me).
You miss the point of GJ's letter. Our country was more important problems that need immediate attention and illegal immigration is not on the top of this list. As a true libertarian candidate, his priorities are on the illegal wars (foreign, terror, drugs), $10 trillion debt, and loss of our civil liberties. These are the REAL issues.
DeleteAren't welfare payments to received by anchor babies and their families a significant part of the $10T + debt?
DeleteThe real point being missed is not the babies or their mothers (or any immigrant, for that matter), but the fact that our government hands out the loot to them just for being here. And there's the real problem. Stop the 'entitlements' and the immigration issue pretty well goes away.
Delete─First, anchor babies sounds very descriptive to me.[...] the baby gains US citizenship that anchors a family to the US, then that sure does sounds like an anchor baby to me.─
ReplyDeleteThat would be because you haven't the foggiest idea of what you're talking about, Robert. Even though a person born in the United States from a foreign person who is not a naturalized US citizen is a US citizen by law, that does not mean the family is suddenly anchored to the US. That a LIE - a BIG, FAT LIE.
In the first place, the baby has to first grow to be 21-years-old before he or she can submit a PETITION to USCIS to grant his or her parents Permanent Residence status, a petition that at least takes THREE YEARS of processing time. For SIBLINGS, it takes a further 14 to 20 YEARS depending on the country of origin.
In the second place, the "baby" has to demonstrate he or she has a stable income that allows him or her to support the persons for whom the petition is made until those persons become US citizens themselves.
"Anchor baby" my sweet patootie. The reason why women want to have their babies in the US whenever they are able is to ensure a future for their BABIES, not for them personally. Being a US citizen confers some advantages to the children of foreign families, not least of which is the possibility of enjoying a better quality of life.
Why don't you talk to an immigration lawyer before you repeat these misconceptions which are the favorite pablum of faux conservatives, xenophobes and the economically-illiterate?
Let us check the facts first:
Deletehttps://egov.uscis.gov/cris/processingTimesDisplay.do;jsessionid=abco_i47Uz6u6a9Wn2Q9u
I-130 Petition for Alien Relative U.S. citizen filing for a spouse, parent, or child under 21 5 Months
what about 3 years?
Now the "stable income" claim. The only thing you actually have to do is submit a tax return. You need to earn 125% of the fed poverty lines. There should be no problem satisfying them unless you are gravely sick or a total wreck of a human being.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/2015-poverty-guidelines
That was a simple fact check. Now the pathetic part
**The reason why women want to have their babies in the US whenever they are able is to ensure a future for their BABIES, not for them personally. **
How does one distinguish between wishing good to his/her baby from wishing good to him/her self is a hard question. My guess is that putting your baby on welfare because you wish your baby good is becoming admirable. And sure, one does not become anchored to US because you child lives here. An ability to get US benefits later on simply comes along.
In general, RW is right. Immigration is subsidized (anchor babies is just a part of that; legal immigration is also subsidized in some cases).
"Being a US citizen confers some advantages to the children of foreign families, not least of which is the possibility of enjoying a better quality of life."
DeleteBy working hard and not getting a dime from anybody else's money? Do you actually think those mothers are thinking: "Yeah, today's America is a bastion of self-reliance, free market capitalism and individualism, just what my child will need to make a better life."
Are all these babies going to be libertarians (very doubtful)? Or will they merely add on to the pile of already existing U.S. citizen statists? In the latter case, define "better quality of life" in terms that libertarians can support.
So if you're going to use arguments that play to nothing but emotion (future for their babies; better quality of life), they better do so in a way that makes clear that America isn't simply opening the borders to a whole new wave of future welfare-state-champions.
Re: Aleksey Vishnyakov
Delete─ What about three years?─
That's how it takes to get the VISA once the petition is approved. Immigrant visas are subject to quota. Some parents of US citizens get luckier than others but on average the wait can take three years or more.
Don't you think I checked these things before? I'm an immigrant, Alex.
─Now the "stable income" claim. The only thing you actually have to do is submit a tax return. You need to earn 125% of the fed poverty lines.─
And that doesn't mean stable income? Besides that, you're throwing a convenient red herring: I didn't say you had to demonstrate you're *wealthy*.
─How does one distinguish between wishing good to his/her baby from wishing good to him/her self is a hard question. ─
The 21-years waiting time and Time Preference tells me it is not a hard question.
─Are all these babies going to be libertarians─
Another red herring. Did I make that claim? Who told you that issue is relevant at all? Why would I care if immigrants are libertarian? If they do not commit acts of aggression against others and their property, then they're libertarian in my book. I don't have to ask them.
─So if you're going to use arguments[...]─
Please be specific: do you mean MY arguments or the ones you just made up?
Re: Individualist,
Delete─By working hard and not getting a dime from anybody else's money?─
How else, Individualist?
─Do you actually think those mothers are thinking [...]─
I don't care what they're thinking. Their ACTIONS speak for themselves. Considering the following facts: these mothers are choosing America over other countries, the fact that people's Time Preference is more often than not very high and the fact that their kids would have to become 21-years-old before they can even begin to think about petitioning for their mothers to emigrate, then the conclusion can only be that the mothers want their babies to be American citizens for the sake of their babies and not so much themselves.
─better do so in a way that makes clear that America isn't simply opening the borders to a whole new wave of future welfare-state-champions.─
That ridiculous standard can apply to the native-born, Individualist. Let's make sure American women don't get pregnant lest America is populated by a future wave of welfare-state-champions.
I posit you this question: What if they *don't* become welfare-state-champions?
"─By working hard and not getting a dime from anybody else's money?─
DeleteHow else, Individualist?"
Are all immigrants working hard, Old Mexican? Or are a number of them involved in violations of private property and the NAP? Thus the question is relevant: how did they get to the U.S. and would these violations have taken place if various actions against such violations were permitted through libertarian absolute right to self-defense, defense of property and monetary compensation for damages?
"─Do you actually think those mothers are thinking [...]─
I don't care what they're thinking. Their ACTIONS speak for themselves. Considering the following facts: these mothers are choosing America over other countries, the fact that people's Time Preference is more often than not very high and the fact that their kids would have to become 21-years-old before they can even begin to think about petitioning for their mothers to emigrate, then the conclusion can only be that the mothers want their babies to be American citizens for the sake of their babies and not so much themselves."
Thank you for agreeing that they are NOT thinking about America as a bastion of self-reliance, free market capitalism and individualism; therefore they have a different kind of America in mind when they try to do what is "best" for their children. Speaking about caring: i don't CARE what they think is "best", for themselves or their children.
"─better do so in a way that makes clear that America isn't simply opening the borders to a whole new wave of future welfare-state-champions.─
That ridiculous standard can apply to the native-born, Individualist. Let's make sure American women don't get pregnant lest America is populated by a future wave of welfare-state-champions."
A person has a libertarian right to get pregnant. A person does not have a libertarian right to move any place they want. They would have to invited, and have permission to be anywhere that is private property, which in a libertarian society would be everywhere. You are arguing for rights of immigrants that they do not have, nor would have in a libertarian society. So your use of the pregnancy example is what is ridiculous.
"I posit you this question: What if they *don't* become welfare-state-champions?"
Considering the fact that there is still no such thing as "freedom of movement" in libertarianism, the question is irrelevant. Even a Mexican anarchist that is not specifically invited to someone's private property, has no right to go anywhere he pleases. You are using liberal-statist arguments pro-open immigration that do not exist within libertarianism.
If Johnson really wanted to tackle the issue he would address that people like Trump want the state to interfere in the free to hire, fire, rent to, an associate with whoever they choose. Liberties that conservatives claim to believe in (we all know that they dont). Not to mention that as you pointed out Bob that immigration is another central planning scheme.
ReplyDeleteRW:
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I don't care if the term is offensive.
Even if you are born here, your status should be that of your parents, if they are citzens of Mexico (or XXX country), then that is your citizenship.
As long as there is 'Welfare Cheese' and other Statist provided 'Benefits' - (in reality, goods stolen from the productive individual via the State), then we must limit immigration in this common sense fashion.
If there were no such 'Cheese', and no advantage to be taken by 'risk free citizenship', then 'Open Borders' would be far less objectionable.
But the concept of Anchor Babies, and the cynical use of them to help create a growing immigrant underclass to loot our substance & build 'State' power (as the secular Benvolent power, AKA 'god') should be abhorrent to a consistent NAP.
I say this even as a Libertarian Christian who desires to see the spread of Natural & Biblical Principles to set all cultures free from the various strains of tyranny they suffer from.
But to see America, which once held to this firm basic premise, become the premier example of 'Caesar State Worship' via various forms of 'secular government as - false - savior' is highly disturbing.
May God awaken our sense of Conscience to our Duty - to 'do justice & love mercy....' but not to not use the State apparatus to try to accomplish such an honorable goal.
That is soley the job of individuals, families, churches or other private associations.
LexRex 1620
Texas Republic
Nice lip service to the NAP, but restricting peaceful immigration in any way is a blatant violation of the NAP. The correct response to the welfare state is to end the welfare state, not aggress against peaceful people who merely wish to relocate from one land to another.
DeleteCalifornia, I imagine, has a bigger welfare state than South Carolina. Shall we make relocation from SC to CA illegal?
"Nice lip service to the NAP...."
DeleteWhen the welfare state is removed and we live in a private law society without government then I'll be for some open immigration. Until then. NO. Multiculturalism with government in the picture has been a disaster. In this case, reality is in the way.
There is no such thing as a "right to migrate" in libertarianism.
DeleteIn libertarianism, all property would be private (including the roads), and people would only have a right to be on their own property, or get permission to be on someone else's.
You are using today's state of affairs, which is NON-libertarian, as a template for libertarian arguments. That is the true lip service to the NAP.
Re: Individualist,
Delete─ There is no such thing as a "right to migrate" in libertarianism.─
Yes, there is: I *MOVED*.
─ all property would be private (including the roads)─
Aren't you the equivocator? Moving is NOT the same as trespassing. What if I make an agreement with the property owner (the owner of the road, for instance)? The fact that I can't use his road does not mean I suddenly lost my right to move. It only means I could not get into an agreement with the owner of the road.
Is Old Mexican's comments getting approved because he is instructive in some way, like when Homes tells Watson he is being instructive?
DeleteBeing on a road, or ingress in general, through private land where the owner has not given you permission to do so is trespassing. You may be moving alright, but you are still trespassing. You indeed have lost the "right" to move into that other person's land.
Re: John. I'm sorry, but that bullshit argument has nothing to do with NAP. That's excusing aggression for practical and nationalist reasons. Own it. Your position on immigration is not libertarian.
DeleteRe: Individualist. There is no such thing as right to migrate? Are you kidding? That's as meaningless as saying there's no such thing as "right to put on a hat." You're completely disingenuous.
Who cares whether everything *would be* this or that? It's not! You have no right to tell someone from South Carolina not to move to California. You have no right to tell someone from Mexico not to move to California. Go ahead and try to contrive a difference. Or are you just drinking Hoppe Kool-Aid?
One more thing about this nonsense "if it was private" argument. Even if I concede that *it matters* whether or not it should be private ideally, that gets us nowhere. I own the roads as much as you do because we were taxed equally for it. (Even if we weren't taxed equally, you wouldn't necessarily have the right to claim the road for yourself.) So if you want immigrants here and I don't, who decides? You? This is what's wrong with Hoppe's argument. It assumes bigotry on the part of the native population. Just absurd, and it taints him as a scholar.
Delete"Re: John. I'm sorry, but that bullshit argument has nothing to do with NAP. That's excusing aggression for practical and nationalist reasons. Own it. Your position on immigration is not libertarian."
DeleteOnly in your own deluded mind pal.
"─ There is no such thing as a "right to migrate" in libertarianism.─
DeleteYes, there is: I *MOVED*."
You are not living in a libertarian society. In a libertarian society, you would be arrested or forcibly removed if you *MOVED* onto someone's personal property without their permission.
"─ all property would be private (including the roads)─
Aren't you the equivocator? Moving is NOT the same as trespassing. What if I make an agreement with the property owner (the owner of the road, for instance)? The fact that I can't use his road does not mean I suddenly lost my right to move. It only means I could not get into an agreement with the owner of the road."
What is this ridiculous argument? If you cannot GET somewhere because the owners of the ways to get there do not get into an agreement with you, then you cannot GET there. You use this word "move" as if it means anything outside of context. You do not have a libertarian right to "move", unless it is on your own property. Outside of it, you can only have a privilege. If you do not have that privilege you ARE a trespasser.
So the question is: how much would immigration even exist to current degrees if all immigrants must have permission everywhere they go? Not just from the companies that employ them, but the roads they travel, the shops they visit etc.? It would be so restricted as to render any comparison to the current understanding of immigration meaningless.
"There is no such thing as right to migrate? Are you kidding?"
DeleteNo i am not.
"That's as meaningless as saying there's no such thing as "right to put on a hat." You're completely disingenuous.
Apparently you have trouble understanding the concept of private property. You OWN your head; you OWN your hat. Therefore you have a right to put on your hat. All of this changes when you are on someone else's private property. This is, for instance, why you are not allowed to wear a hat at your employer if he doesn't want you to.
This may all be a little too hard for you to understand, but it really isn't that difficult. So no, i am not being 'disingenuous', you are being hard of understanding.
There is no RIGHT to migrate in libertarianism, if you understand migration as moving from any place onto another place which happens to be owned by someone else. Just as you have no RIGHT to migrate onto someone else's back yard, into someone's house, or into someone's factory.
"Who cares whether everything *would be* this or that? It's not!"
I care, because i don't agree with aggression and don't plan on respecting it, even if i can do nothing about it.
"You have no right to tell someone from South Carolina not to move to California. You have no right to tell someone from Mexico not to move to California. "
Actually, i do have that right. I am doing it right now. Will i be arrested for doing so? Will a police officer come and take me away for telling someone not to move? You even have a hard time differentiating being saying something and using force to prevent something.
"Go ahead and try to contrive a difference. Or are you just drinking Hoppe Kool-Aid?"
That would be funny, since Hoppe is one of the libertarians i admire the least. Hoppe is AGAINST immigration morally (even if it is according to the NAP), whereas i am merely basing my opinion on what the NAP and private property rights would conclude, without putting any moral, subjective opinion on the issue of immigration.
"One more thing about this nonsense "if it was private" argument. Even if I concede that *it matters* whether or not it should be private ideally, that gets us nowhere."
DeleteTo put it in question ("even if i concede") clearly proves that you don't. This renders anything you have to say afterward irrelevant, since you've already taken your position and therefore any 'advise' you have is meaningless.
"I own the roads as much as you do because we were taxed equally for it. (Even if we weren't taxed equally, you wouldn't necessarily have the right to claim the road for yourself."
You're dull, aren't you? I *KNOW* i don't currently get to decide anything. DUH. We're not living in a libertarian society. But when someone professing to be a libertarian makes a moral claim in favor of immigration, it is important to let them know that in a libertarian society there would be no such thing as a "right" to migrate. The ironic thing is, there is also not NOW a right to migrate (because of state-restrictions) therefore your whole "i pay taxes too" argument is pointless, as even now while paying taxes you basically get to decide nothing at all about the matter. So why should i care about your argument? Right now you don't get to decide (because the state doesn't care about your opinion), and in a libertarian society you also don't get to decide (because you would no longer be paying taxes). The only thing you have is your obviously emotional plea on behalf of (open) immigration. Something i couldn't care less about, since in a libertarian society only property owners would get to decide who is welcome.
"So if you want immigrants here and I don't, who decides? You? This is what's wrong with Hoppe's argument. It assumes bigotry on the part of the native population. Just absurd, and it taints him as a scholar."
The funny thing is that i actually agree with you about Hoppe. But you obviously cannot make distinctions between what is GOING to be in the case of a libertarian society (which is MY point), and what Hoppe would PREFER it to be. Hoppe is a conservative trying to use libertarianism as a means to reach conservative goals. He has a problem with immigration, with drugs, with gays, with hedonistic behavior, pretty much the whole scope of conservative bugaboos. He thinks libertarianism is the best means to banish them out of his life. As long as no aggression is initiated i couldn't care less. But i am not a conservative. I am all over the place. The only thing that matters to me is whether the NAP and private property rights would allow for something. They would not allow for a "right" to migrate. Only a privilege to migrate.
Sigh. The PC brainwashing has been so thorough that even some so-called libertarians act like hysterical leftists. You'd think Gary would care about far more important things than a phrase.
ReplyDeleteAn "anchor baby" is not a citizen. The child, nor the parents, are under the jurisdiction, and that mean full jurisdiction, of the US. The idea of the anchor baby is rooted in an intentional misinterpretation of the 14th amendment.
ReplyDelete"Whether the term 'anchor babies' is offensive to some has nothing to do with liberty and misdirects the real problem with anchor babies, which is the US government "
ReplyDeletePrecisely...this could be an opportunity for libertarians to point out how in a society that respected private property rights as sacrosanct this problem would be small(and classified differently) and handled without the need for government for those that understood the root cause....but instead everyone(some libertarians included) get sidetracked on other issues.
*The welfare state is a private property issue(redistribution) that some illegals simply take advantage of.
*Trespassing is a private property issue that some illegals simply take advantage of.(but how can you trespass on "public" property? Only the gov't can decide...)
Private property is THE issue...everything else is just just a red herring.
If you are a hardcore libertarian and recognize that ultimately in an ideal world there would be no state(even if you doubt that such a world can ever exist) then you should focus on the core tenets of libertarianism in seeking answers/solutions: Private property and the NAP
We shouldn't be talking about these 'non-issues' such as immigration. So that is exactly what Gary Johnson does. Why is he not simply ignoring it and jump right into the "real" problems that he allegedly has a fix for without crushing the state?
ReplyDeleteApparently Joe Sixpack ought not to care so much about immigration; but the same Joe Sixpack can apparently easily be convinced that government should slash spending on the defense budget, on medicare and medicaid, social security etc.
Yawn, whom is he addressing anyway? Libertarians who may easily think he is a soft-balling wimp? Liberals who don't want to slash any spending and increase it? Or conservatives who roll their eyes when he tells them "anchor babies" is an offensive term (why should they CARE?) and that illegal immigration is not a problem.
The whole point to Gary Johnson himself evades me. He is a 'low tax liberal' that starts getting tics the moment he is called upon to propose something even slightly radical.
We need to end all immigration, illegal and legal, into the USA.
ReplyDeleteMexico itself deports millions of illegal Guatemalan immigrants from southern Mexico every year.
Re: Marcy Fleming,
Delete─We need to end all immigration, illegal and legal, into the USA.─
Because.... what? You don't happen to like immigrants? They scare you? What's the reason? What's your argument?
─Mexico itself deports millions of illegal Guatemalan immigrants from southern Mexico every year.─
First, it's not MILLIONS. It is not like the whole Guatemalan population attempts to migrate to Mexico every year, so stop exaggerating.
Second, who cares? Why would you think that what Mexico does is something worth emulating?
Yeah, sure, and watch the last competitive sector of US economy - the high tech - implode.
DeleteBesides, what you, with your fascist worldview in which state bureaurcrats have power to dictate where people can live and work - are doing at the libertarian forum?
Old Mexican, how about you going back to Mexico and work to change the Mexican immigration laws. And, while you are at it, change the laws respecting the Spanish language, welfare and who qualifies to run for Mexican government office.
DeleteJaimeInTexas
DeleteAnd why should he do that?
Because you think he's not 'Murican'? As if besides the Indians that were massacred, there is such a thing as a "real" American.
Good for GJ. This is good politics frankly. Let the GOP neanderthals and Bewnie Sanders court the xenophobes and nativists. At least GJ gives fed up Dems another option. Libertarians - sensible on immigration, drug policy, prison reform, foreign policy, LGBT equality. Keep growing the LP tent baby. Enough with trying to co-opt the disgraceful GOP.
ReplyDeleteGary Johnson is about as libertarian as...... well most liberals. He's a liberal through and through.
ReplyDeleteCitizen is just another word for slave, owned by the government.
ReplyDeleteIt is always nice to find out that my thinking is shared with people who's opinion I value.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/08/bionic-mosquito/mass-migration/
"It is always nice to find out that my thinking is shared with people who's opinion I value."
DeleteIt tends to happen that you value someone's opinions when you share them, and vice versa.
Would be more impressive if you valued the opinions of someone you have a habit of disagreeing with.
Actually, I do. One Patrick J. Buchanan.
DeleteJust for one example
Delete