Skip to content

Tag: Jacob Hornberger

More Fallout from “Libertarian” Party Elites Snubbing the Grassroots Voters

As I mentioned before, the elites of the “Libertarian” Party held a virtual convention in which they decided to nominate Jo Jorgensen for President, even though in state primaries Jacob Hornberger won many more votes from the actual LP voters. “Libertarian Party voters in primaries gave Jacob Hornberger 9,035 votes with 7 state wins, while they gave Jo Jorgensen 5,034 votes with 2 state wins,” I wrote.

And then I wrote about Jorgensen attending a Black Lives Matter candlelight vigil, and she tweeted, “It is not enough to be passively not racist, we must be actively anti-racist.” Of course, I’ll bet she doesn’t include being actively anti- anti-white racist. If anyone does that, oppose anti-white racism, then one will be labeled “white supremacist,” etc. So much for equality.

But now, Robert Wenzel has posted or reposted a tweet with a photo showing Jorgensen elbow-bumping her VP nominee, Spike Cohen. The horrible and horrifying thing about that is they are wearing those face masks whose only purpose is to show obedience, compliance, and submission to government authority. That is soooo un-libertarian.

Libertarianism is about the Non-Aggression Principle. We oppose the initiation of aggression. It is also about self-ownership, private property rights and freedom of association, in my view.

What is government? Government is by its very nature, aggression. The government has assumed for itself the authority over the lives and property of the people. The government owns the people, frankly, and the government — that is, its bureaucrats and their enforcers — can order you to do this or that, can arrest you, drag you out of your home, terrorize you, steal from you, etc. with impunity. They own you.

So, when we have political candidates who supposedly represent the “Libertarian” message, i.e., the anti-aggression anti-interventionism message, when they show themselves wearing the very symbols of submission to government control and authority, and the very symbols of the suppression of speech and dissent, they show themselves to be not particularly libertarians, or perhaps just clueless.

Yes, they should have the freedom to wear the mask if they want to. But they shouldn’t for the aforementioned reasons, but also because the masks are unhealthy, and shown to not prevent transmission of viruses. The sole purpose of the masks is control.

The LP conventioneers should have gone with the voters’ decision to nominate Jacob Hornberger.

On Voting Libertarian in 2020

I had written previously about the Libertarian Party’s virtual convention, in which the conventioneers decided on Jo Jorgensen to be their LP nominee for President for 2020. And I was thinking of writing more about Jo Jorgensen, even though Jacob Hornberger received many more votes than she did in the state LP primaries, and Hornberger should have gotten the nomination. But the latest with Jorgensen is a reminder that I will not be doing that.

The upcoming U.S. Presidential election will not be legitimate anyway, no matter the outcome, no matter who “wins.” We will now have “mail-in voting” (a.k.a. mail-in cheating) throughout the USSA as well as “early voting” (a.k.a. early cheating) in many states. I think that any chance of these elections having any bit of legitimacy is finished. Add to that the tech companies censoring, de-platforming, and silencing anyone who opposes “social justice” warriorism and race-based and gender-based identity politics.

That is what daily life in Amerika is all about now. The President (Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump) continues to authorize drone strikes that kill and murder mainly innocent civilians overseas, that means nothing to millions and millions of schmucks in Amerika. The President continues with the unwinnable “war on drugs” slaughtering and falsely imprisoning and/or otherwise causing the deaths of many young black males. The morons all across the country don’t care about those things. And the idiots on the other side are obsessed with the National Anthem (a horrible song!) and the American Flag, that Bozo in the White House wants a law to protect, like it’s a human being.

So the Libertarian Party giving the nomination to Jo Jorgensen when it was Jacob Hornberger who, rightly, received the most votes in the state primaries, what a joke, that Libertarian Party. They are just as much elitist hacks as the Democrat and Republican party racket.

The latest from Jo Jorgensen? She attended a “Black Lives Matter” candlelight vigil. Okay, so she’s misguided and ignorant. So? However, she tweeted: “It is not enough to be passively not racist, we must be actively anti-racist.

Robert Wenzel writes:

Why can’t someone be passively not racist? For that matter, why is it a concern of libertarians if someone is a racist but does not violate the non-aggression principle?

Why must libertarians be actively anti-racist? Why should it be demanded of us, under the libertarian banner, to be an active participant in a black public relations effort?

Really, lady, I have enough of my own problems.

I have explained before that I think racists are clowns but if these clowns are not violating the non-aggression principle why is it a concern of libertarians qua libertarians?

Further, Jorgensen, may or may not realize it, but she is jumping on the bandwagon that is being run by very shrewd Marxist revolutionaries who want to destroy capitalism.

Even if I thought there was some merit to the BLM movement, which I don’t, I would stay far away from this effort. The top operators know how to take advantage of alliances. As one of the founders of the Black Lives Matter organization put it, “We are trained Marxists.”

If you are not part of the inner circle, you are a useful idiot to them.  Jorgensen is not part of the inner circle. She is falling into a trap fighting to eliminate “systemic racism” that doesn’t exist (Not to be confused with a few random racists who do exist). BLM  is a front group, a tool, of some very strategically-skilled power-hungry communists.

What the hell is Jorgensen thinking?

Answer: She’s not.

Now, I’m not the biggest fan of Pat Buchanan, but he recently wrote about the “Black Lives Matter” phenomenon, in his article, The New “Systemic Racism” That Is Coming. Basically there are activists in the USSA who want to erase the idea of “not discriminating against someone based on race,” as well as erase that from various state constitutions and probably the Civil Rights Act, so they can institutionalize discrimination against whites and Asians.

But the “Black Lives Matter” organization is led by self-admitted Marxists who don’t believe in freedom, equal justice, due process, and a “color-blind society.” They also don’t believe in private property and freedom of association, freedom of thought and conscience and free exchange, and the libertarian non-aggression principle. They are Marxists.

People who are “libertarians” should not stand with such an organization that is opposed to all the important libertarian principles. And that’s my view on that.

So Jo Jorgensen is now insisting and demanding that we be “actively anti-racist.” Right, Jo. When these race-obsessed activists include anti-white racism as a part of being “anti-racist,” then maybe I’ll support them. When we have millions of white people who haven’t harmed anyone, who haven’t “discriminated against black people” in all their lives, then I would say that they, too, have a right to not be the target of anti-white racism just as much as innocent black people have a right to not be the target of anti-black racism. Right?

But anyway, the Libertarian Party reinforced its more recent moniker as “a joke” when they selected Jo Jorgensen as their 2020 Presidential nominee, even though Jacob Hornberger got many more votes in the primaries.

The “Libertarian” Party Continues to Stray in 2020

I was going to write another scathing critique of the “Libertarian” Party in its nominating someone to be its 2020 Presidential nominee other than the one who actually got the most votes during the primaries. But I have moderated my scathing critique to being a little less scathing.

In a virtual convention in May (virtual because of the scamdemic panic and hysteria and irrational cancellations), the delegates to the LP convention nominated 63-year-old psychology professor Jo Jorgensen for President, and 38-year-old retired web designer Spike Cohen to be their VP nominee.

Meanwhile, actual Libertarian Party voters in primaries gave Jacob Hornberger 9,035 votes with 7 state wins, while they gave Jo Jorgensen 5,034 votes with 2 state wins. At the virtual convention in May, there were 4 rounds of votes by delegates, who despite the difference in popular vote nevertheless gave Jorgensen the nomination. (Info from Wikipedia on the primaries and the LP national convention.)

I had been annoyed at the Libertarians giving Jorgensen the nomination and not Jacob Hornberger, given his apparent better understanding of and communicating the principles of libertarianism, and the need for dismantling the welfare/warfare state and especially its enabler the IRS, and also given that he had received many more votes from actual grassroots libertarian voters than Jorgensen had received.

However, I can see one possible reason why Jorgensen received more endorsements by former candidates and delegates to the convention, that being that Hornberger may have been a bit too aggressive in his style of campaigning and/or writing on his campaign blog. One example was a.) his criticism of candidate Adam Kokesh’s answer to a debate question on Medicare, and b.) the accusation that Hornberger lied about Kokesh’s position.

Now, it seems to me that Hornberger didn’t lie about Kokesh but had not stated clearly what Kokesh’s view on Medicare was. But I think the damage was done, and this episode may have influenced some convention delegates in the negative direction. So much for the “will of the voters” in the primaries.

Another issue is that Hornberger isn’t afraid to say exactly what needs to be done. Some people just don’t like that. They are “afraid of losing votes” in the general election. Gary Johnson was a principles-compromiser in the extreme, although probably more because he just doesn’t understand the actual principles of libertarianism, the non-aggression principle, self-ownership and non-interventionism most of all.

For instance, abolish the CIA, the IRS, as well as the other totalitarian agencies. Kokesh also has made it clear that those things must not exist in a free society.

In his criticism of the aforementioned debate among several LP candidates that Hornberger attended but did not participate in, Hornberger noted that Jorgensen’s response to the question on Medicare was “Jo Jorgenson answered that healthcare costs be cut so that expenses go down.” So it appears to me that she is yet another “libertarian” candidate who is afraid to say that Medicare must be abolished (along with HHS and IRS, etc.) so that medical patients and doctors can establish their own payment contracts and it would be much easier for doctors to treat those in financial need for free, like it used to be.

Another possible reason the “Libertarian” Party conventioneers voted for Jo Jorgensen and not Jacob Hornberger is that the Party hacks maybe wanted to have a female nominee in the name of this more recent “social justice virtue signalling” phenomenon. The “social justice” mentality seems to have pervaded every aspect of daily life now, unfortunately.

One example of that “social justice virtue signalling” with the 2020 Libertarian Party convention was the LP’s selection of a keynote speaker. According to Wikipedia, “Black Guns Matter founder…Maj Toure was initially chosen to be…keynote speaker. This changed in November 2019, when Convention Oversight Committee Chairman Daniel Hayes rescinded Toure’s invitation…(citing) tweets posted by Toure that were perceived as being transphobic and anti-immigrant.” I’m trying to find any reference to Toure’s “transphobic” tweets online, but can’t find any. What exactly IS “transphobic”?

The LP then replaced Maj Toure with Larry Sharpe, the statist “libertarian” who, in his campaign for governor of New York in 2018, wrote in his policy page:

While Larry believes in freedom of association, he recognizes the need for measures that ensure marginalized groups, like transgender people, are protected. He supports band-aid measures, including GENDA, which is a law with specific components intended to protect people from discrimination due to their gender identification.” Excuse me, Larry, but the concepts of self-ownership and freedom of thought and conscience require that people be allowed to “discriminate” in their associations, their contracts and trades, and every other way, and for ANY reason!

Sharpe continues: “To truly advance rights for transgender people, as well as all those within the LGBTQ+ populace, it is ultimately Larry’s goal to encourage a culture that no longer requires these types of laws. We must work towards acceptance.” Excuse me, Larry, but many people don’t and won’t accept the LGBT agenda, homosexuality, or transgenderism, and they have a right to NOT accept those lifestyles if they don’t want to!

And he concludes: “It is imperative to acknowledge that if an individual’s actions have no impact on ourselves or others, nobody else has the right to assert dominion over that person’s identity or lifestyle.” Sorry, Larry, but people who don’t accept those lifestyles are not “trying to assert dominion” over those people’s identity or lifestyle, it’s quite the opposite! When a lesbian couple goes to court to force a baker to have to make a cake for them or else pay a fine, who is “asserting dominion”?

The intolerance of the “social justice” crowd now is that if someone doesn’t accept and bow down to “alternative lifestyles” they are shunned, shamed, banned from Twitter, fired from their jobs, sued, etc. Who is “asserting dominion” over whom, Larry (and all the other “social justice warriors” out there)?

Incidentally, Jo Jorgensen had proposed a slogan “I’m With Her,” referring to the Hillary Clinton “I’m With Her” slogan, and it seemed to get the thumbs down on that Twitter thread. (Although further down that thread she says it’s “just a joke.” Well, that’s good.)

So, the irrational “social justice” crap seems to have been infiltrated into the “Libertarian” Party just like most other areas of society, and the LP no longer seems to be concerned with being the Party of the non-aggression principle.

However, Jorgensen’s Issues page on Neutrality and Peace seems to say some right things. But she doesn’t get into the national security state in general, she doesn’t say we must abolish the CIA, FBI, NSA, DHS, TSA, ICE, etc., etc., which Jacob Hornberger has been saying for decades, along with Ron Paul.

But on Health Care she writes: “We can reduce the cost of health care 75% by allowing real price competition, and by substantially reducing government and insurance company paperwork. This will make health care affordable for most Americans, while also reducing the cost of legacy programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA.” Where’s “abolish”?

And on Taxes, she writes: “As President, I will work tirelessly to slash federal spending, make government much, much smaller, and let you keep what you earn.” Why isn’t she saying, “Government taxation of private wealth and income is theft. It must ALL be abolished forthwith!“? And, I think she really needs to say, “I will abolish the IRS and all taxes. And if Congress doesn’t go along, I will actively not enforce the income tax and other federal taxes by not only pardoning any ‘violator’ of any federal tax law but I will have arrested any agent attempting to enforce such ‘laws.’ If I swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, then that includes the Bill of Rights.”

I think that for the Libertarian Party to be consistent in its principles, it really has to acknowledge on its platform that the ultimate goal is to abolish the government completely, or at least the U.S. government a.k.a. criminal racket in Washington. But they don’t do that. Therefore, the Party is a statist party, just like the Republicrats and the Demopublicans.

But the Libertarian Party’s vice presidential nominee, Spike Cohen, has the right idea, at least on his website:

Because you own yourself, you own your life and labor.

Because you own your labor, you own the product of your labor. That product is your property.

Because you own yourself, your life, your labor and your property (including money), it is inherently wrong for anyone to take any of these from you.

If someone calls themselves “the government”, that doesn’t suddenly make it right for them to take from you.  Therefore, all government is inherently wrong and should end.

I am running for VP on a message of radical libertarianism; that is, that all interactions between people should be peaceful and voluntary, and that therefore there is no good reason for government to exist.

Democrats Rigging Debates and Primaries Again; Libertarians a Better Alternative

Another slow news week in Amerika, USSA. Coronavirus COVID-19 panic and hysteria that’s more dangerous than the actual virus itself, Undemocratic primaries and caucuses, tornadoes in Tennessee.

Is there any good news? Well, yes, the good news is that coronavirus COVID-19 probably isn’t as serious for most of the people as it could have been. It isn’t H1N1, or Anthrax. But the political situation, this 2020 election that began on November 8, 2016, is soooo unendingly annoying.

However, as the Presidential primaries and caucuses continue, there are other winners besides the major party candidates the media are obsessed with.

For instance, Jacob Hornberger won the Minnesota caucuses and California primary for the Libertarian Party. In North Carolina, Jacob was the top actual vote-getting candidate with 8.7% while “None of the Above” won with close to 30%.

Why don’t the media cover the Libertarian Party? I don’t think we can blame the government-run education system, because even during the 1980s the media would not cover the Libertarian Party, who are often mislabeled as “fringe,” even though it’s the goddamned Democrat and Republican parties who are “fringe” in their extreme statism and policies that the reasonable and rational “Founding Fathers” would NEVER have approved of! The Democrat and Republican policies are what the early Americans and Revolutionaries escaped from!

But with the Democrat party in this primary season, we can clearly see how “the fix is in.” The Democrat head honchos are rigging the primaries once again. This time they are favoring Joe Biden. One after another, the remaining “moderates” are dropping out of the race and endorsing the Alzheimer’s patient. Ans yes Biden clearly has Alzheimer’s.

Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar and Michael Bloomberg all endorsed Biden. Why would anyone in his right mind endorse someone who doesn’t know what state he’s in most of the time, and who is clearly in a major cognitive decline?

So, the Democrat higher-ups are telling the other candidates to drop out and endorse Biden. And it seems to me they are telling other “Important People” like Cher to endorse an Alzheimer’s patient. (Maybe Cher is in a mental decline?)

Caitlin Johnstone details the many occasions that Biden demonstrates why he needs to be in a nursing home, not the White House. Video after video after video. And people really voted for him in the primaries? However, some people in the comments are saying they had no idea he was that bad. Had they known…and all that. So, don’t people actually listen to the news? Are millions and millions of people that far gone, that far hypnotized by their stupid little devices like zombies?

By the way, elderly people aren’t the only ones with dementia, or early onset dementia. “Between 2013 and 2017, early-onset dementia and Alzheimer’s diagnoses increased by 83% among commercially insured Americans aged 30 to 44,” according Philly Voice as reported by Activist Post, with some references to cell phone use.

I can’t imagine Joe Biden as President. Who in his right mind wants this guy’s “finger on the button”? (I know I don’t.)

This tells me that they are letting Biden “win” all the delegates, which I am suspicious of, because on the news when reporters would informally poll people leaving the polling stations I heard several say they voted for Bloomberg. But Bloomberg apparently only got .000000001% of the vote, or something like that. I know I’m close. (You see what hundreds of millions of dollars will buy you in politics? Nuttin’! So much for “buying the election,” Liawatha.)

So, I think it’s ALL rigged. And so much for the “Democrat” party that doesn’t believe in “democracy.” It’s the “Undemocratic” Party. Another example is how they are now rigging the next debate to exclude Tulsi Gabbard even though she qualifies for it with her having received a delegate in a primary.

No, the voters who are members of the Democrat party do not get to hear another alternative to the two old drooling geezers, Biden and Bernie Sanders. And make sure there are plenty of restrictions in getting non-Establishment candidates on ballots in future primaries, Undemocrats. The voters do not have a say in these processes, only the “cigar-chomping” party leaders, hacks, hooligans and gangsters.

Anyway, if the Democrats “nominate” Biden, they will either replace him at the convention with Hillary or Michelle Obama, or tell him to pick one of those for VP. Then if elected he would step down and we would then have our “First Woman President,” which is debatable with those two.

And while I’ve been critical of the Libertarian Party in the past, at least they might have someone who understands the principles of freedom and non-aggression, private property rights and freedom of association. If they nominate Jacob Hornberger for President, he will not be another Gary Johnson, or another Bob Barr.

Unfortunately, Hornberger doesn’t want to get rid of the U.S. government’s centralized power apparatus altogether, which is what really needs to be done to restore our freedom, prosperity, and a peaceful society. But he’s certainly a lot closer to Ron Paul and Harry Browne, that’s for sure.

The next Libertarian Party primaries and caucuses will be in Missouri, Ohio, New York, Nebraska. And then after the LP’s national convention there are further primaries and caucuses in Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, North Dakota and D.C. (There’s a Libertarian Party in Washington, D.C.? Who knew?)

Are you a voter? I’m not.

Jacob Hornberger Has Won the Libertarian Party’s Iowa Caucus

Joseph Howe of the Iowa Libertarian Party writes:

The Libertarian Party of Iowa is pleased to announce the results of our first ever Libertarian Presidential Preference Poll. Libertarians gathered across the state at county level caucuses and conventions to elect officers, build county committees and select delegates to the 2020 LPIA State Convention. Additionally, The LPIA conducted a Virtual Caucus, ensuring the greatest possible participation and inclusion for Libertarians across the state. The LPIA, in the tradition of the Iowa Caucuses, held a Presidential Straw Poll to signal registered Libertarians preference for our Presidential nomination. We are pleased to announce the winner: Future of Freedom Foundation founder Jacob Hornberger, who took a commanding 47.52% of the vote. Rounding out the top five are former Rhode Island Governor and U.S. Senator Lincoln Chafee, 1996 Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee Jo Jorgensen, Veterans Against the Iraq War founder Adam Kokesh and software engineer and entrepreneur Daniel Behrman.

Candidate Total Percent
Jacob Hornberger 134 47.52%
Lincoln Chafee 36 12.77%
Jo Jorgensen 18 6.38%
Adam Kokesh 17 6.03%
Daniel Behrman 14 4.96%
John McAfee 10 3.55%
Vermin Supreme 9 3.19%
Other (Write In) 8 2.84%
NOTA 8 2.84%
Sam Robb 7 2.48%
Max Abramson 6 2.13%
Mark Whitney 4 1.42%
Arvin Vorha 3 1.06%
Ken Armstrong 2 0.71%
Keenan Wallace Dunham 2 0.71%
Souraya Faas 2 0.71%
Benjamin Leder 1 0.35%
John Monds 1 0.35%
Daniel Christman 0 0.00%
James Ogle 0 0.00%
Steve Richey 0 0.00%
Total Votes 282 100.00%

Congratulations!

Jacob Hornberger Announces Libertarian Party Run for President

It appears that Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger has announced a run for President as a Libertarian. I wrote about that recently, but now he has formally announced. It sure would be a good thing to get someone who articulates the principles of liberty as the Libertarian Party candidate. Not another Gary Johnson or Bob Barr, please. I intend to write more on his candidacy over the coming months, as I did with Ron Paul during the 2011-2012 Presidential campaign.

Jacob Hornberger believes strongly in the non-aggression principle, and supports non-interventionism in foreign affairs and non-interventionism in domestic life. No more militarism and empire overseas. He supports ending the drug war, abolishing the IRS and the income tax and letting the people keep and do whatever they want with their own money.

Without the institutional theft of involuntary taxation, the government can’t carry out all its criminal destruction abroad and at home, because no one in his right mind would voluntarily pay for the evil and criminality the government commits on a daily basis.

I linked to this terrific interview of Hornberger by Ernest Hancock a few weeks ago, and there it is again.

Here are his positions on the issues on his campaign website, Jacob for Liberty.

Here is his latest post on what to do with Medicare. He compares his answer to the answers of other announced Libertarian Party presidential candidates.

Jacob Hornberger’s background, from his website:

1950: born in Laredo, Texas, and raised on a farm on the Rio Grande.

1968-1972: Virginia Military Institute; B.A. in economics; elected class valedictorian: commissioned 2nd Lt., U.S. Army Reserves.

1972-1975: Law school at University of Texas at Austin; J.D. degree.

1973: Infantry school, Fort Benning, Georgia.

1972-1980: U.S. Army Reserves.

1974: Infantry school at Ft. Benning, Georgia.

1975-1983: Trial attorney in Laredo, Texas; licensed to practice in Texas, U.S. District Court, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court.

1983-1987: Trial attorney in Dallas, Texas; one semester as adjunct professor of law and economics at University of Dallas.

1987-1989: Program director at The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) in Irvington-on-Hudson, New York.

1991-1996: Three terms on Libertarian Party platform committee; keynote speaker at 1996 national party convention; awarded Thomas Paine Award for outstanding communication of libertarian principles.

2002: Independent candidate for U.S. Senate in Virginia.

1989-present: Founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF), a non-profit libertarian educational foundation; author/editor of 12 books, including Jacob’s newest book, My Passion for Liberty.

2019-2020: Libertarian Party candidate for president.

Here is his official announcement:

A Possible Libertarian Party Candidate for President

Occasionally I have been looking at Jacob Hornberger’s Jacob for Liberty website to see if there are any updates. He is contemplating a run for President on the Libertarian Party ticket. And I see that he has visited several state LP conventions this year, in Georgia, Alabama, Iowa, California, Colorado, Florida, North Carolina and Massachusetts.

What? Massachusetts? Where the fascist Gov. Charlie Half-Baker rules? There’s a “Libertarian” Party in Massachusetts? I can’t believe it.

Anyway, the Libertarian Party national convention is next May, I believe.

And there is a terrific and informative interview of Jacob Hornberger by Ernest Hancock of Freedom’s Phoenix. It was a lively hour-long conversation. Hornberger recalled his previous presidential run, in the year 2000 in which he had exposed some possible ethical violations with the Harry Browne campaign. And apparently he doesn’t like the schmoozing aspects of trying to get the various factions of the Party together, such as the conservatives, the “leftist” libertarians, the anarchists and the minarchists, etc. But he does want to convince people to join him in attempting to bring the country back to its freedom roots, in which there were no income tax and no IRS, no Federal Reserve, no drug war, no welfare state, no warfare state, no “national security” state, etc. For over 100 years the U.S. was without those awful totalitarian things and there was much more freedom and the fastest rise in the standard of living in history.

On Ernest Hancock’s Freedom’s Phoenix website bio, by the way, there is this quote that I like:

“There are two types of people in the world,… Those who wish to be left alone and those who just won’t leave them alone. What type are you?”

Exactly.

Now, with the imposition of the income tax over 100 years ago, we have seen how that has enabled the crooks and fraudsters to use the U.S. government as their own personal apparatus of enrichment at the expense of the workers and producers of America. And the Federal Reserve has enabled the banksters to do the same.

Without the income tax and Federal Reserve we probably could not have had all the entries of U.S. government/military into foreign wars that were instigated by false flags or otherwise deception. Trillions of dollars could not have been wasted and squandered on social programs, research grants, forced welfare redistribution, a “war on drugs” and a war on immigration and the current police state we have now.

With the income tax-theft as the biggest enabler of criminality ever in world history, getting rid of it would be the best thing not only for our freedom but our prosperity.

But the Democrats and Republicans don’t want to do that. They are two sides of the same statist/totalitarian coin.

Even the Libertarian Party in recent years has been pathologically wishy-washy on not just the income tax but all the other totalitarian fascist and socialist schemes that have been imposed on Americans for 100 years. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld have been the worst of the worst (so far), in my view.

The truth is, Libertarianism is based on the non-aggression principle, self-ownership, private property, freedom of contract and voluntary association. Nothing about “social justice,” climate change, gay rights, whether people go to church or not, preventing drug addiction, saving the Middle East from its own repression, nope, none of that.

Libertarianism is about freedom. Just note the Freedom’s Phoenix quote above.