My Statement Of Principles Friday, Aug 31 2018 

Inspired by a recent Facebook post by a friend, I figured it was time to post not so much where I stand on the issues but how I can be expected to arrive at the stances I do. This is the statement of principles that I will seek to defend to the best of my God-given ability.

I am a classical liberal. Here’s an excellent essay for a short introduction to it, that I will quote in part:

Liberty is central to libertarians and classical liberals. It may be summarized as person, property, and consent, the individual’s dominion that others are presumptively not to mess with.

I believe taxation is fundamentally extortion and so are tariffs. I love cutting taxes no matter the reason because that money belongs to taxpayers.

I believe a nation is only as strong as its finances and fiscal responsibility is important. The only way to maintain strong and sound finances is to limit the size and scope of government.

I believe the only roles of government are to protect life, liberty, and property; provide infrastructure to facilitate commerce, and protect against common threats such as disease.

I believe in the primacy of the nation-state over foreign organizations such as the United Nations. I favor U.S. membership in that organization because it is a forum to debate the world’s issues peacefully. But any attempt to empower the U.N. and related organizations over American national sovereignty must be resisted.

I believe that the United States does not have permanent allies, but only permanent interests. Those interests in no certain order are protecting the freedom of the seas and skies, protecting our way of life, and protecting the American homeland from invasion and attack.

I believe that liberal democracy promotion is an important aspect of American foreign policy because liberal democracies do not go to war with each other. But I also reject nation building as both wasteful of resources and impractical in most cases.

I reject anything that empowers the group over the individual such as racism, sexism, homophobia, identity politics, communism, socialism, nationalism, and fascism. The smallest minority is the individual and individual rights are the only rights worth defending.

I strongly support decentralization. The government that should have the most authority should be the one closest to you. It is also much easier to influence your local government or move to another jurisdiction than to influence the national or global government.

The only reason why I reject anarchy is that it is impractical. Every classical liberal is a voluntaryist at heart.

I believe in God and I worship Him. However, I will defend your right to worship differently than I do or not at all. Every religion is subject and open to criticism, including mine. But I don’t believe anything is gained by attacking the adherents of that faith as people.

You have the right to live your life as you see fit, as long as you do not physically harm others or their property. But this does not mean you are immune from criticism.

I believe in freedom of speech and it means I must defend it from censorship by both government and private entities. Furthermore, it means I must defend those who I disagree with, even if they are scoundrels.

I believe that education is important. But parents should have the choice where and how to educate their child.

I believe that property rights are fundamental in a free society and are necessary for economic prosperity.

Finally, I believe that an individual has the right to trade or associate with another individual of their choice, regardless if that person lives on the same block or in another country.

If you support this or the rest of my work, please give a one-time contribution (through Paypal).


The GOP Needs To Solve Its Millennial Problem Thursday, Aug 30 2018 

The election of Donald Trump as president has not helped the GOP among Millennials. Young voters are still holding the nation’s ruling party in low regard.

According to a recent poll by NBC News and the University of Chicago’s GenForward, only 20% of Millennials identify as Republican. In contrast, 34% of Millennials identify as Democrats.

Once you start factoring in “leans”, it’s even worse for Republicans. When you factor in those who just “lean” towards a particular party, here’s the partisan breakdown:

50% Democrat

29% Republican

21% Independent

Believe it or not, the poll gets even more brutal for Republicans. Only 29% of Millennials believe the Republican Party cares about people like them. When you break it down among races, it’s even worse. Only 14% of blacks, 24% of Asian-Americans, 23% of Latinos, and 37% of whites believe the GOP cares about people like them.

GOP strategist Evan Siegfried has a few tweets about this poll that are interesting.

What are the issues Millennials care about? According to the poll:

Immigration 11%

Racism 10%

Healthcare 9%

Income inequality 9%

Education 7%

National debt 6%

Environment and climate change 6%

Economic growth 6%

Gun control 6%

Terrorism and homeland security 5%

Republicans actually do well on one of these issues….

That’s being unnecessarily harsh to Republicans because they have two of these issues in the bag. They do pretty well on economic growth, education, and terrorism. On everything else, they’re awful towards Millennials.

On immigration, all Republicans have is “build the wall.” Republicans generally ignore racism, the environment, and income inequality. Republicans pay the national debt little more than lip service. No wonder why Millennials aren’t buying what Republicans are selling.

Donald Trump is making things worse

The best ally Democrats have right now among Millennials is Donald Trump. Only 27% of Millennials approve of Donald Trump’s job performance. Only 20% of Millennials plan on voting for Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections.

Let’s go through some reasons why Donald Trump is making things worse for Republicans. On Trump’s signature issue of immigration, 44% of Americans believe it is motivated by race. Trump’s “very fine people” comments after the Charlottesville clash between the alt-right and Antifa last year also do not help. As for the environment, Trump is obsessed with reviving the coal industry, which is the dirtiest source of energy. Finally, the national debt is once again exploding under Trump.

Donald Trump and his movement are making the GOP’s situation worse among Millennials. Millennials are also less likely to embrace Trumpism because they cannot relate to it. Trumpism in many ways is nostalgic for a vision of America that simply doesn’t click with Millennials.

Why Millennials are important

Why are Millennials, who were born between 1980 and 1996, so important? Because they are now the largest voting bloc by age in America.

From the Pew Research Center:

As of November 2016, an estimated 62 million Millennials (adults ages 20 to 35 in 2016) were voting-age U.S. citizens, surpassing the 57 million Generation X members (ages 36 to 51) in the nation’s electorate and moving closer in number to the 70 million Baby Boomers (ages 52 to 70), according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. Millennials comprised 27% of the voting-eligible population in 2016, while Boomers made up 31%.

Thankfully for Republicans, Millennials punch below their weight in voting. In 2016, 61% of the American electorate voted, but only 51% of Millennials voted. The GOP can’t count on Millennial non-participation forever.

How to change this

Allie Beth Stuckey aka the Conservative Millennial tweeted this:

She’s right but Republicans aren’t listening. Instead of likability, empathy, and relatability we have “facts don’t care about your feelings.” Instead of addressing the concerns of Millennials, many Republicans are more interested in “owning the libs.”

Instead of trying to “trigger” Millennials, Republicans should make the argument for free market-based policies that will help Millennials. The hardcore “social justice warriors” will never vote Republican, but most Millennials don’t fall into that category.

Republicans should explain how they will get the debt under control, fix the environment, help with income inequality, fix healthcare, mitigate racism, improve education, improve the quality of life, and grow the economy. It does not require changing the party’s principles. But it does require being creative with policy.

There are signs of hope

There are signs of hope that some Republicans are beginning to take Millennial issues seriously. The American Conservation Coalition is trying to promote market-based solutions to help the environment. Rep. Tom Garrett (R-VA) has a student loan forgiveness plan. Gun rights activists are working to promote gun rights to Millennials. But Republicans need to do more.

Failing to reach Millennials could mean that Republicans could become as irrelevant as they were between 1932-1952. Back then, Democrats controlled just about everything. If Republicans can’t make inroads among Millennials, America could easily become a one-party state again.

If you liked this piece, please buy me a drink!

Why Stacey Abrams And Beto O’Rourke Intrigue Me Friday, Aug 24 2018 

Let me start by saying I probably disagree with 80-90% of everything Stacey Abrams and Beto O’Rourke are campaigning on and believe in. I’m about as far from a progressive as you can get. But both Abrams, who is running for Georgia Governor, and O’Rourke, who is running for the U.S. Senate from Texas, are running as unapologetic progressives in the South.

I despise milquetoast centrism of all stripes. Here are a couple of tweets to reinforce that point.

Now do I think either Abrams or O’Rourke will win? No. At the end of the day, both Georgia and Texas are still Republican leaning states.

But both Abrams and O’Rourke are running as unapologetic progressives. Stacey Abrams is running on gun control in Georgia of all places. Beto O’Rourke is also in support a so-called assault weapons ban, but also supports legalizing marijuana and supports the NFL players protests during the national anthem. Definitely not the platform of a Democrat running in Texas.

The usual Democratic playbook in the South has been to run a white guy who is populist on economic issues but relatively socially conservative. The perfect example of this is Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards who campaigned as a pro-life, pro-gun Democrat during his election. But most Democrats who follow that playbook have not had much success in the past. Why shouldn’t Democrats try something new?

Abrams and O’Rourke will and are exciting the progressive base in both states. But the problem is that the progressive base is not enough to win in the South. They need to find a way to not so much to reach out to center because to be frank neither of them can. Instead, they need to find a way to pull the center towards them. That and a lot of luck is the only way they can win.

I believe at the end of the day that the last thing American voters want is milquetoast centrist candidates of any political stripe. That explains the relative success that Stacey Abrams and Beto O’Rourke are having. They would rather have honest people who stand and fight for their beliefs, even if they strongly disagree with them.

If you like this post, buy me a cup of coffee or at least follow me on Twitter.

Also published on my Medium page

The New Political Spectrum Sunday, Aug 19 2018 

American and indeed global politics has undergone a transformation in the 21st century. We’ve seen the rise of challenges to the established order from both the left and the right. Increasing segments of the population in the Western world are tired of the same ol’ same politics.

It’s to throw away old terms like “conservative” “liberal” “libertarian” and all the rest. Those terms don’t really have any meaning in our new politics. “Populist” also is a flawed term. Populism at the end of the day is more of a mood than an actual ideology. Any political movement can be a populist movement with the right messaging.

I propose that American and Western politics for that matter is now a battle between four distinct ideologies, which we will see frequently shift alliances and strategies to advance their agenda, particularly outside the United States. Those ideologies are classical liberalism, nationalism, transnational progressivism, and socialism.

Here’s a brief description of those four ideologies with examples of who fits under those descriptions. The references will be to figures in American politics because that is my background.

Classical liberalism: It may also be called “conservatism”, “conservatarianism”, and “libertarianism” in the United States. Fundamentally, they believe that the only role of government is to protect life, liberty, and the “pursuit of happiness” as outlined in the Declaration of Independence.

It is easy to believe they are anarchists at heart but that is an oversimplification. Instead, they are most likely voluntaryists at heart, although most reject it and other forms of anarchy as impractical. An excellent historical summary of their beliefs, especially those who are Christian, is the cry from both English and American Revolutionary history “No King but Jesus.”

They are strong supporters of free-market economics, low taxation, property rights, and a very limited if any safety net. They are also strong opponents of so-called “crony capitalism” or the government favoring one business or industry over another.

On trade policy, they are also strong supporters of free trade and opponents of protectionism.

On social policy, there are strong disagreements on issues such as abortion and gay rights. But they are inclined to support devolving most social issues down to the state and local level. They also tend to strongly support things such as free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and criminal justice reform. Although many are skeptical of civil rights legislation and social justice causes in general. Many are skeptical of Islam, but most also strongly oppose discrimination against Muslims. Many oppose the war on drugs and most support allowing states to decide their own marijuana policies. They are also skeptical of things such as increased government surveillance of electronic communications.

On foreign policy, the spectrum runs anywhere from hawkish realism to non-interventionism. But they do share in common a skepticism of international institutions such as the United Nations and the European Union, which they view as threats to liberty and self-governance. They are also generally supportive of Israel.

On immigration, their views span anywhere from open borders (in extreme cases) to highly restrictionist, although not as restrictionist as nationalists. They generally support both high amounts of legal immigration and strong border security.

Examples: Ben Shapiro, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, the Koch Brothers, and Ronald Reagan

Nationalism: Nationalists can be broken up into two factions, civic nationalists (aka the alt-lite) and ethno nationalists (aka the alt-right). These two factions have significant differences and honestly hate each other, but they do have much in common. Their primary motivation is what is best for their country (civic nationalists) or for their race (ethno nationalists).

On economic policy, both factions pay lip service to capitalism but there are some alt-righters who do call themselves “national socialists.” But both groups believe that the economy must serve the interests of the nation first and foremost. They are also in support of a stronger safety net than classical liberals, but not as strong of one as socialists or transnational progressives. They also support increased infrastructure spending as a way to strengthen the nation.

On trade policy, Both factions generally support a model of economic nationalism modeled after the People’s Republic of China where tariffs protect domestic manufacturers from foreign competition and certain domestic industries and companies are subsidized.

On social policy, they are generally not concerned with issues such as abortion, gay rights, or the war on drugs although most do support marijuana legalization. They are strongly skeptical of civil rights legislation and social justice causes. They are inconsistent supporters of things such as freedom of religion, freedom of association, and free speech. They are also inconsistent when it comes to skepticism of government surveillance. Finally, anti-Islamic views are strongly prevalent in nationalist circles. Both civic nationalists and alt-righters have a strong reactionary side to them.

On foreign policy, they are anywhere from hawkish realists to isolationists. They oppose international institutions such as the United Nations and the European Union viewing them as a threat to national sovereignty. They have mixed opinions on Israel with alt-liters generally supportive of Israel and alt-righters generally opposed to Israel. Both factions, however, support the Trump administration’s travel ban on certain Islamic countries.

On immigration, they are very restrictionist opposing even legal immigration in many cases. If there is going to be legal immigration, they want to switch to a so-called merit-based system of immigration. They also support a wall on the border with Mexico and stricter domestic enforcement of immigration laws.

Civic nationalist examples: Mike Cernovich, Pat Buchanan, Tom Cotton, (policy wise) Donald Trump, Victor Davis Hanson

Ethno nationalist examples: Jason Kessler, Richard Spencer, David Duke, (rhetorically at times) Donald Trump

Transnational progressivism: Also called “neoliberalism”, “centrism”, or “globalism”. Generally, they believe in a post-constitutional and post-national vision for America and the world.

Here’s a summary of their ideology:

1) The ascribed group over the individual. 2) A dichotomy of groups: Oppressor versus victim groups, with immigrant groups designated as victims. 3) Group proportionalism as the goal of “fairness.” 4) The values of all dominant institutions to be changed to reflect the perspective of the victim groups. 5) The Demographic Imperative. (By this [John Fonte, who coined the phrase] means the view that, because of domestic demographic changes and global population flows, “the traditional paradigm of American nationhood [is] obsolete” and “must be changed into a system that promotes ‘diversity,’ defined, in the end, as group proportionalism”). 6) The redefinition of democracy and “democratic ideals.” 7) Deconstruction of national narratives and national symbols. 8) Promotion of the concept of postnational citizenship. 9) The idea of transnationalism as a major conceptual tool.

This ideological framework they largely share with socialists. But there are significant differences between the two.

On economic policy, they are generally “third-way” types who try to mix free market economics and socialism into a corporatist, mixed economy. Social democracy is also an accurate descriptor. They believe in progressive taxation and a relatively mild redistributionist fiscal policy. They also strongly support public-private partnerships, state investment and support of certain domestic industries, and strong state oversight and control over corporations. They also support infrastructure spending as a way to generate economic growth. Finally, they generally embrace government regulations as a way to shape behavior.

On trade policy, they support “managed trade pacts” such as NAFTA and the TPP. Indeed the TPP showed the way forward for transnational progressives on trade. It combined the lowering of some trade barriers and tariffs with provisions on things such as environmental protection and workers rights.

On social policy, they are strongly supportive of abortion rights and gay rights. They are skeptical of “negative liberties” and embrace “positive liberties“. They champion civil rights legislation and social justice causes, even above civil liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. They’re also less skeptical of government surveillance of electronic communications than classical liberals and socialists, but they’re more skeptical of it than nationalists.

On foreign policy, they believe in using American power to champion globalism in the guise of international institutions such as the United Nations. They strongly support the European Union and see it as a model. They have mixed opinions on Israel with some supporting the Jewish state as a model of democracy and liberalism while others oppose it as an example of racism, settler colonialism, and nationalism.

On immigration policy, they generally support more open immigration policies with many embracing open borders. They tend to view most opposition and skepticism of open immigration as racist.

Examples: Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Mike Bloomberg, Max Boot, Jennifer Rubin, most of corporate America, Elizabeth Warren

Socialism: Also known as “democratic socialism.” Their ideology can be summed up by this plank adopted by the Denver Democratic Party on behest of the local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America in March 2018:

We believe the economy should be democratically owned and controlled in order to serve the needs of the many, not to make profits for the few.

On economic policy, they believe in as much state control of the economy as possible. They believe in nationalizing things such as health care, education, and other industries. They believe in confiscatory taxation, high redistributive policies, and limited protections for property rights. They believe in a large and expansive safety net and strict controls and limits on corporations, if not outright nationalization. Many socialists reject private profit, which is in the current constitution of the Democratic Socialists of America.

On trade policy, they are strongly opposed to free trade instead believing in something called “fair trade.” They want trade deals that increase labor standards, environmental standards, and address human rights. They also oppose deals that limit or reduce spending on social programs among the partners.

On social policy, they generally agree with transnational progressives. However, they’re more skeptical of government power on things such as surveillance of electronic communications.

On foreign policy, they generally are skeptical of war and American military power. They often support deep cuts to American defense spending and unilateral disarmament. They support and want to empower the United Nations but are skeptical of the European Union which they view as neoliberal.

On immigration policy, they generally support more immigration, particularly of low-skilled workers and refugees. But they are skeptical of guest worker programs, which they view as exploitative. They have been outspoken about calling for the abolition of ICE and the Border Patrol. Finally, like transnational progressives, they see opposition to and skepticism of immigration as racist.

Examples: Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Keith Ellison, Ben Jealous, most of the Justice Democrats

Right now, the Republican Party can be seen as a coalition of classical liberals and civic nationalists with alt-righters playing an increasingly marginal role. The Democratic Party is a coalition of transnational progressives and socialists.

There is also a lot of overlap between the various factions. For example, Cassandra Fairbanks, the former Bernie Sanders supporter turned Gateway Pundit Washington D.C. correspondent, has feet in both the civic nationalist and classical liberal camp.

All four factions have benefitted from the destruction of the political ancien regime. For example, neoconservatives, who were the dominant force on the American right in the last decade, can be found on both the classical liberal and civic nationalist camps with some of the intellectuals becoming transnational progressives. On the left, socialists were not a thing until the Bernie Sanders insurgency in 2015 and 2016 against Hillary Clinton. With a majority of Democrats viewing socialism more favorably than capitalism now, the battle for the heart of the left is far from over.

Politics has changed a lot in the past decade. It will change again inevitably. This post hopefully will serve as a guide until that happens.

Also published on my Medium page.

The Trump Administration Proposes A Crackdown On Welfare Using Legal Immigrants Tuesday, Aug 7 2018 

The Trump administration is shaping up to be one of the most hawkish administrations on immigration in recent memory. But it is not just illegal immigration that they have in their sights. The administration is floating yet another plan to crack down on legal immigration into the United States.

The move, being promoted by Trump adviser Stephen Miller, is seen as targeting low-income legal immigrants. It would make it harder for them to be naturalized if they use a variety of popular welfare programs. It is already grounds for green card refusal if an immigrant is a “public charge” or reliant on the government for means of subsistence.

Under the current law, if a would-be immigrant is mostly dependent on public cash assistance for income maintenance or is required to be institutionalized for long-term care, they can be rejected for a green card. Basically, under the current law being a recipient of TANF, a similar state program, or being in long-term care defines one as a “public charge.” Other programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, Section 8 benefits, child care assistance, and short-term aid such as utilizing food pantries and disaster aid do not qualify as “public charge.”

The Trump administration wants to redefine “public charge” to add more programs to the list. Reuters first reported it in February and NBC News confirmed it this morning.

This is in addition to anecdotal reports from immigration lawyers and activists that the Trump administration has rejected more green card and citizenship applications than recent administrations in memory. But it should be noted that in the NBC News report, they analyzed the data and found that green card and citizenship approvals in the current fiscal year were on track with the fiscal year 2016 (data was not available for FY 2017).

According to Reuters, here are the programs that will now be added to the “public charge” list:

Among the benefits singled out in the draft rule for consideration are: health insurance subsidies such as those provided by the Affordable Care Act; the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); WIC, a federal program that feeds poor pregnant or nursing women and their children; transportation and housing vouchers; programs that help the poor pay their heating bills; and programs such as Head Start, which provides early education to low-income children.

Some benefits would not be considered in making the “public charge” determination under the draft regulations, including emergency or disaster relief, public health assistance for immunizations, attending public school, receiving free or reduced-price school lunches, and earned benefits such as disability insurance, Medicare and unemployment payments.

I have no problem with adding some of these programs to the “public charge” list. Honestly, I don’t want immigrants in this country who rely on welfare either through themselves or their children to live. Immigration has to work for the immigrant but it also has to work even more for those who are already citizens.

If I was in charge, I would restrict most of the programs in the first paragraph to only those who are citizens and green card holders. That is until I got rid of them for everyone.

I’m also fine with not counting the programs in the second paragraph as “public charge” either. Most of those programs are for limited scope and duration or benefit citizens as much as the immigrant. Either that or the immigrant pays for those programs through the payroll tax.

My objections to the proposal are the inclusion of Obamacare subsidies and Head Start to the list. As long as it is required under federal law to purchase health insurance, I can’t blame anyone for taking advantage of subsidies in order to comply with the law. It is unfair to penalize immigrants for using subsidies in order to comply with the law, which has not been changed (the individual mandate has merely been zeroed out).

As for Head Start, we want these kids in school. Yes, Head Start is an ineffective program that should be killed off. But having these kids in school enables the parents to be productive citizens and helps acclimate them to American culture and society.

This Trump administration proposal would fall on low and middle-income immigrants. Some such as libertarian writer Bruce Majors argue that a welfare state and a liberal immigration policy cannot coexist. (a longer form of his piece is here).

Majors wrote:

A better policy would do what libertarians are supposed to believe in: protecting Americans from being subjected to force and fraud, to robbery and expropriation. Anyone in the United States who is a net tax consumer activates the apparatus that has a gun aimed at and a jail cell (lien, fines, interest, and penalties) waiting for every American who is a net taxpayer.

It is tough if not impossible to determine who is a “net tax consumer” based on income alone. In his piece, Majors also doesn’t bring up that border enforcement has costs of its own, for example, the wall that Trump wants to build is likely to cost more than expected. After a certain amount of money, it costs more to secure the border than it is worth.

The solution is an expanded guest worker program for low-skilled workers. There are many parts of the country that have a labor shortage that needs to be filled. There are many people who would like to work in the United States. Let’s bring these willing workers and employers together.

Under this guest worker program, these workers can work legally in the U.S. for three years, with a chance to renew at least once. They are ineligible for all means-tested welfare programs except public schooling, Obamacare subsidies, and emergency healthcare. They can’t bring their dependents but they can go home for a certain amount of time to visit them. Finally, those who are here illegally but have committed no other crime can participate.

The Trump administration’s desire to have immigrants be less burdensome to taxpayers is well-intentioned, but it’s a flawed plan. It seems more of an attempt to limit immigration in general than just building a wall around the welfare state. Without a guest worker plan that would give us the immigrant labor we need, all this will do is harm the country in the long-run.

This Blog Is Back In Business! Monday, Aug 6 2018 

Wow, the last post on this blog was 4 years ago and featured my aborted attempt at podcasting. A lot has changed since then.

Just to give a brief summary. I’m still a professional writer and I’ve added some opposition research to my portfolio. I also have another website where you can view a link to some of my paid work. You can also contact me through the contact form as well.

Now I’ve decided to revive this old blog. First up, the blog is now simply my name. I decided to retire “Kevin’s Rants.” It no longer fits where I’m at in this stage of my life and my career. Although there will still be some ranting from time to time.

Secondly, I’ve decided to revive this blog in order to force myself to write every day. The only way I will improve as a writer is if I actually write every day and I fail to do that.

Third, I need a place where I can write things down that are too long for a Facebook status (by the way, you should add me on my Facebook page). There are many issues where I need to go in depth and I can’t do that on social media. Plus, this little free site can also serve as an additional portfolio to showcase my work to potential clients and publishers.

Fourth, I need a place where I can write stuff that isn’t necessarily for paid publication. Sure I have plenty of outlets to publish stuff, but I also write and think about things that don’t necessarily fit into an editor’s publication schedule. This is my sounding board for ideas.

Finally, I need a place where I can respond rapidly to events. Sometimes I don’t have the opportunity to pitch an editor when news breaks and I want to write something about that event. This site is a place to do just that.

Now the plan is the redesign my website in the next couple of months and add a blogging feature into that. But I plan on keeping this free website up. I’m a transparent person and I want people to see how I have evolved on issues. I also want people to see how I have grown as a writer.

I will also be cross-posting blog posts to my Medium page, which I will be reviving as well. So go ahead and follow me over there as well.

I will also be posting links to some of my paid work from time to time in order to get some additional eyes on it. Finally, when I get my Patreon page and other fundraising tools up and going, I will be posting on here. I will take every opportunity I can to get money from you, my readers.

I also need to clean up the social media links and even the blogroll. I will also post a link to my paid work elsewhere on the sidebar. Please be patient!

When I began blogging in college over 10 years ago, I had no idea where it would take me. Now that I have decided to restart this aspect of my journey, I would like to invite you to come along for the ride once again.

Real World Liberty Radio –Episode 1 Monday, Oct 6 2014 

The first ever episode of Real World Liberty radio is up.

This week’s topics:

  1. EEBBBOOOOOLLLLLAAAAA and how we need to calm down about it
  2. Obama’s war against ISIS and how the strategy is failing
  3. What do Lindsey Graham and Jeb Bush’s campaigns for president have in common? They’re reasons why we need a new GOP.

Please listen to the debut broadcast HERE and comment on what you think.

Reflections And Gratitude On Turning 30 Thursday, Sep 11 2014 

Today I turn 30 (yeah, I have a hell of a birthday, I know) and it has been an interesting few years. Been married and divorced, nearly lost everything and got it back, trapped in a dead end job and now doing what I ultimately love for a career. I’ve been privileged to meet so many people over the past few years and each one has been a blessing, even if I didn’t think so at the time.

While I’m not exactly thrilled with the fact I am getting older, nor am I exactly thrilled to have grey in my beard, today is a good day to take stock of everything I’m blessed with in my life. Without further ado, here’s a brief list of what all I have been blessed with recently.

  • My mother, I don’t know how much longer I’ll have her and I hate seeing her in so much pain, but truly no one else has stood by me in both good times and bad, although I do not deserve it.
  • This second one is easy, my managing editor Kyle Becker for officially discovering me four months ago and giving me my first big break as a professional writer/blogger/pundit. Also, my editor in chief Bubba Atkinson for accepting Kyle’s suggestion to bring me on board. Thanks a lot for the opportunity and here’s to hopefully many more years of working together.
  • The rest of my colleagues at IJ including Justen Charters, Mike Miller, Michael Hausam, Caroline Schaeffer, Jennifer Van Laar; my copyeditors and social media editors Becca Lower, Emily Hulsey, Bethany Cummings and everyone else behind the scenes at the office who help make IJR a great place to work. If I didn’t name you, thank you as well!
  • Jack Hunter, Ian Cioffi, and Ray Lehmann who are my editors at Rare, Liberty, and R Street Institute respectively. Thanks a lot all three of you for the opportunities I’ve had with your publications. A special shoutout to Zach Graves, the digital director at R Street and former United Liberty colleague, for putting me touch with Ray Lehmann. I also look forward to many more months and years contributing to your sites and publications.
  • To Jason Pye, Eric Cowperthwaite, Julia Porterfield, Fishie and Jay Caruso who have allowed me to write for their sites in the past; thanks a lot for the opportunity. I’ve learned from each of you and I wouldn’t be where I am today without your advice (even if I didn’t take it), your sites, and you taking a chance on me, regardless of how it ultimately turned out.
  • To Doug Mataconis, thank you for your friendship and for being an inspiration to me as a blogger; even when I don’t agree.
  • To Sara Brenner, my stint at Brenner Brief helped set me on course towards becoming a professional writer. For that, I’ll always be grateful. Another special shoutout to P-G Matuszak, BBN’s (former?) managing editor, whose work I had the privilege of editing and has endorsed me on social media with much praise. Thanks for your encouragement.
  • Finally, to each and everyone of you who has read my work, praised it, encouraged me, and/or shared my pieces; thank you from the bottom of my heart. Without you I cannot do what I do. You are the reason why I do this.

There are many of you that I have failed on a personal level, for that I’m sorry. I can only promise to try and right the wrongs and to be a better man.

As I hit this milestone in life, I promise to continue doing my best to entertain you, inform you, and inspire you. I also strive to not disappoint those who believe in me.

Here’s to many, many more years!


It’s official: Everyone who wanted the U.S. to help the Syrian rebels was wrong Wednesday, Aug 27 2014 

Told ya so!

Now we get the entertaining spectacle of the U.S. aligning with Syria and Iran to fight ISIS.

‘Patriarchy isn’t gonna smash itself!’ SlutWalk Chicago brings out feminism’s best [photos, video] Saturday, Aug 23 2014 

Great job feminists…….

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: