Elizabeth Warren’s Declaration Of Dependence And How To Combat It Saturday, Jul 19 2014 


Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren delivered a speech to the Netroots Nation, which is a gathering for progressive bloggers and activists. In her speech, the crony captialist outlined her “11 Commandments Of Progressivism”, because apparently she thought she can do one better than God.

Here they are:

-“We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we’re willing to fight for it.”


– “We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.”


– “We believe that the Internet shouldn’t be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality.”


– “We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.”


– “We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.”


– “We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.”


– “We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.”


– “We believe—I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work.”


– “We believe that equal means equal, and that’s true in marriage, it’s true in the workplace, it’s true in all of America.”


– “We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.”


– “And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!

Lots of things about equality and government doing things for people, but nothing about freedom and responsibility. What these are a bunch of easily refuted talking points and ultimately, a declaration of dependence. Just give the government more control over your life and it will give you things.

What we on the center-right need to do is develop our own alternative version to this. We need to remind people that free markets are what create prosperity. We need to stop the left from falsely calling themselves the “party of science” and expose their quackery on GMOs, nuclear power, and vaccinations in addition to their alarmism on climate change. We need to address the real problem of student loan debt with free market solutions such as allowing student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy and allowing banks to include a student’s major in assessing risk. We also need to remind the American people that Social Security is need of reform or it won’t be there for future generations. Finally, we need to promote a culture of responsibility and push back against the mentality of “my body, my choice, your wallet”.

We cannot allow the left to define the narrative any longer. We must push back with our message of freedom, hope, and prosperity. More importantly, we need to develop real world solutions to the problems facing the American people and we need to communicate it effectively.

We need to quit allowing the left to put us in a position where we can be defined. In other words, people on the center-right need to stop saying stupid things (looking at you Todd Akin and Chris McDaniel).

I’m glad Elizabeth Warren has laid out the battlelines and now it is up to us be up for the challenge and crush her and the left’s statist agenda.


What To Do About Iraq? Sunday, Jun 22 2014 


Eleven years after the capture of Baghdad by U.S. Forces and two years after the last American troops withdrew from that country, Iraq is burning. Militants from ISIS, which is an offshoot of al-Qaeda, are marching towards Baghdad and the Iraqi Army, which the U.S. has spent billions of dollars to help train and equip, has all but disintegrated. The country is on the verge of collapse.

There are increasing calls for the United States to get involved in this conflict. After all, the United States did contribute to the instability by the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. Indeed, the U.S. appears to be laying the groundwork for an air campaign against the ISIS militants. However, this would be a mistake because here’s an opportunity to get America’s enemies at work killing each other instead of focusing on the Great Satan.

The thing to know about Iraq is that it’s not so much a country, but a collection of various tribes who have nothing in common who were thrown together by Western leaders after WWI. You cannot build a nation where there is nothing in common and when the various constituent groups are more interested in their own selves and not in the greater good. The best solution in the long-term for the entity known as Iraq is a three partition with an Shiite Arab state in the south, a Sunni Arab state in the north, and a Kurdish state on the Turkish border. Any attempt to prop the failed entity known as Iraq will wind up being a wasted investment.

The Mahdi Army, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American troops and our new allies in Iraq

The Mahdi Army, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American troops and our new allies in Iraq

Now Iraq’s misfortune can be America’s opportunity. America’s enemies are gathering their forces for the new battle of Iraq. The Iranians and their Syrian allies are already intervening on behalf of the Shiite led government of Iraq. With the Sunni jihadists growing stronger and pulling forces in from Syria, here’s an opportunity for both sides to fight a long stalemate and hopefully sap each other’s strength. There are downsides, the first of which is that one side is going to ultimately prevail. Another downside is that this war will create a humanitarian catastrophe and will result in many civilians being dead and displaced. Finally, such an unstable, war-torn environment may wind up spawning an Osama bin Laden type such as the war-torn Afghanistan did.

Our new Iranian allies

Our new Iranian allies

While the U.S. must be ready to act if these guys threaten American interests or plot attacks against the homeland, getting involved in Iraq would be a major mistake. There is no upside to American intervention where would be flying combat air support for Iranian troops. Why give America’s Islamist enemies, whether Sunni or Shia, a new focus for their attacks when they’re fighting each other? 

America’s role in Iraq should be limited to supporting an independent Kurdish state, where Americans are welcomed and are generally liked, because of our role in securing their de facto independence in 1991 with the “no fly zone” imposed on Saddam’s Iraq after the first Gulf War. Plus, the Kurds have oil.

Speaking of oil, maybe it’s time we started developing our own energy reserves domestically and stop relying on places that hate us for our energy needs.

Chris McDaniel And The Buckley Rule Monday, Jun 9 2014 

This election, I have generally supported candidates that can be best described as GOP establishment. In Texas, I supported Senator John Cornyn’s re-election. I also supported Senator Mitch McConnell’s reelection in Kentucky. In North Carolina, I wound up supporting House Speaker Thom Tillis’s nomination for the Senate over Greg Brannon. However, in Mississippi I have supported Chris McDaniel’s primary challenge to Senator Thad Cochran from the beginning. You’re probably asking what the difference is and it’s simple, the people I opposed earlier in the year I don’t believe could’ve won in November against the Democrat and Chris McDaniel can. It does not do the cause of liberty any good to nominate a liberty-minded candidate who will lose in November versus a guy who can be pressured to support us depending on the cause.

William F. Buckley is one my political heroes. I have always enjoyed his work and I’m a firm believer in the Buckley Rule. Those of us who are interested in seeing liberty advance have an obligation to not only support a liberty candidate but more importantly, to support the most viable liberty candidate on the ballot. A liberty candidate’s viability should not be confined to whether or not they can win a Republican primary but whether or not they can win a general election as well. All too often, many liberty activists forget about the general election and are too focused on defeating the “establishment” and all too often over look the obvious flaws in a candidate just because they’re “pro-liberty” or “anti-establishment”.

I opposed Steve Stockman, Dwayne Stovall, Greg Brannon, and Matt Bevin because I did not think either of those four men could prevail against their Democrat general election opponents and their nominations would be ultimately a net loss for liberty just as the nominations of Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, and Christine O’Donnell were. It does no good to defeat the establishment GOP candidate, who can be persuaded on a case by case basis to support our issues and people, if we cannot win in November.

Whereas I opposed Stockman, Stovall, Brannon, and Bevin because they were sure losers in November, I strongly support Chris McDaniel and have since the beginning of his candidacy because he is the most viable liberty candidate who can not only defeat Thad Cochran but also he can hold the seat in November.

Thad Cochran’s record (which I point out in my earlier linked piece) is one of the most abysmal for a Republican in the Senate. Higher spending, social authoritarianism, undermining civil liberties, and a too interventionist foreign policy; Thad Cochran has consistently voted for all this. Thad Cochran has demonstrated both through his Senate record and the way he has conducted his campaign that he is beyond repair. He must go.

We have an opportunity for a serious upgrade in Chris McDaniel on many of those issues.

While we should challenge candidates in the primary, we have an obligation to back candidates who can win in November. Some of our candidates won’t survive the vetting of a primary and that’s fine. We learn our lessons and move on while supporting the most liberty-friendly and viable candidate in the general election.

Meanwhile, encourage your friends in Mississippi to vote for Chris McDaniel on June 24th.

HGTV Hosts Fired For Being Conservative Christians And Why That’s Wrong Monday, May 12 2014 

Twin brothers David and Jason Benham were set to host a flipping show on HGTV called “Flip It Forward”, however today HGTV has decided to not go forward with the show. The decision was made after a liberal website, Right Wing Watch, accused the two brothers of being right-wing extremists because they opposed abortion, gay marriage, and divorce.

The Daily Caller reports that the two brothers have issued a statement.

In a statement, David and Jason Benham said: “With all of the grotesque things that can be seen and heard on television today you would think there would be room for two twin brothers who are faithful to our families, committed to biblical principles, and dedicated professionals. If our faith costs us a television show then so be it.”


In their statement Thursday, David and Jason Benham said they are “saddened to hear HGTV’s decision.”

“The first and last thought on our minds as we begin and end each day is; have we shined Christ’s light today?” the statement read. “Our faith is the fundamental calling in our lives, and the centerpiece of who we are. As Christians we are called to love our fellow man.”

They added: “Anyone who suggests that we hate homosexuals or people of other faiths is either misinformed or lying.”

“Over the last decade, we’ve sold thousands of homes with the guiding principle of producing value and breathing life into each family that has crossed our path, and we do not, nor will we ever discriminate against people who do not share our views,” the Benhams said.
This comes on the heels of the forced resignation of Brendan Eich from Mozilla after it was revealed he donated money to California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage and the calls for a boycott of Chick Fil-A for its owners’ opposition to gay marriage in 2012 and 2013.
Liberals tend to only support tolerance and diversity when it is beliefs that they agree with. This needs to stop. As a society, we need to be accepting of our disagreements and not go after people’s jobs and livelihoods when someone dares to express an opinion that is unpopular and that we may disagree with. A society where people cannot work and live along side people they strongly disagree with on moral and political issues is a closed society and eventually becomes an unfree society. The true measure of diversity is diversity of thought, not just of skin color.

Bundy Ranch Conservatism: All Hat, No Cattle Saturday, Apr 26 2014 

The standoff at the Bundy Ranch between Cliven Bundy and the US government over unpaid grazing fees has turned into a political disaster for the right. As I pointed out in my last post, Cliven Bundy has no case and he should not have been the recipient of conservative and libertarian support in the first place. However, many conservatives and libertarians decide to champion the man’s cause as somehow a glorious struggle against big government and the Muslim Kenyan Communist dictatorship of Barack Obama, although Bundy did not own the land in question in the first place. Many of these people cheered when an armed militia was able to prevent the Bureau of Land Management from carrying out their lawful duty to enforce a court judgement against Bundy.

The farcical nature of the Bundy Ranch standoff came to a head when the New York Times published a story on Wednesday where Bundy made some racist remarks about blacks and compared public housing to slavery:

But if the federal government has moved on, Mr. Bundy — a father of 14 and a registered Republican — has not.

He said he would continue holding a daily news conference; on Saturday, it drew one reporter and one photographer, so Mr. Bundy used the time to officiate at what was in effect a town meeting with supporters, discussing, in a long, loping discourse, the prevalence of abortion, the abuses of welfare and his views on race.

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Conservatives and libertarians should have seen this coming a mile away when they championed this cause which deserved no champion. The reason why we on the right continue to have to have people like Cliven Bundy, Todd Akin, and others continually embarrass us is because we have become an intellectually and morally bankrupt movement. As a movement, we care more about outrage seeking; throwing out cheap and meaningless slogans such as “we the people”, “cut spending”, “restore the Constitution”; and sprinkle in some Reagan quotes and quotes from the Founding Fathers and this is what has posed for modern conservatism in the age of Obama. Instead of doing the hard work required of a loyal opposition such as developing a credible alternative to the left, the right seeks out and turns into celebrities people such as Cliven Bundy, Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Sarah Palin, Allen West, and many others and turns them into sound bite machines and fundraising products who continually spew goofy and kooky things for the benefit of the far-right base of the Republican Party. The best description for this kind of “conservatism” is Bundy Ranch conservatism because that ranch is where the American people got the full serving of this insanity. The worst part of Bundy Ranch conservatism is that its adherents, whether they call themselves conservatives, libertarians, and Tea Partiers, sincerely believe that they are a majority of the American people. Having these people in the driver’s seat will result in the ruin of the liberty movement.

The lesson to be learned here is just because someone says “we the people” a lot and talks about “restoring the constitution” does not mean that their cause or candidacy is one that should be embraced by the liberty movement. Case in point is Greg Brannon and his candidacy for the United States Senate in North Carolina. Greg Brannon has emerged as the “true conservative” challenger to the establishment candidacy of North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis. In fact, FreedomWorks is holding a “grassroots rally” for him this weekend. To be blunt, Greg Brannon’s views on many issues are going to come off as utterly insane to most average Americans. Buzzfeed has highlighted 13 of the nuttiest things Brannon has said including comparing property taxes to the Holocaust and the Soviet Union, ran an organization that frequently posted blog posts advocating conspiracy theories, says democratic debate of issues is “socialism”, accuses President Obama of “instituting a socialist dictatorship”, has compared abortion to slavery and the Holocaust, has also called President Obama a fascist, thinks the American political system is comparable to Nazism, and believes the Second Amendment allows private ownership of nuclear weapons. In addition, Brannon has plagiarized Senator Rand Paul’s website (who has endorsed Brannon), claims Obamacare is part of a “global conspiracy to control life”, and Brannon was found guilty by a civil jury of misleading investors for a company he was a board member of (his co-defendant was acquitted of all counts). Clearly Greg Brannon is not someone we should associate ourselves with, no matter how good he may seem on the issues. It’s as if someone decided it was a good idea for the most nutty member of the local Tea Party or the Infowars Fan Club to run for office.

The reason why people embrace Brannon, despite the fact that he cannot be considered a credible candidate, no matter where or what he is running for, is because there are many media personalities, “grassroots activists”, and political organizations who are invested in failure. The worst thing that can happen for some “in the movement” is for the left to be defeated and for the size and scope of government to actually be rolled back. Once that happens, the outrage seeking will have to go away because there will be no more excuses and people will demand results. Then perhaps the hard work of developing a credible alternative to the left’s statism and making the ideas of liberty relevant to the real world would have to begin. It’s time to start moving away from Bundy Ranch Conservatism and start building a real world libertarian conservationism that can win elections and have mass appeal among the American people.


Bundy Ranch Is A Symptom of What’s Wrong With The Right Tuesday, Apr 15 2014 

I have never been more ashamed to be a part of the liberty movement than over the past week. Conservatives and libertarians have been rallying to the defense of Cliven Bundy, a rancher who refuses to pay grazing fees to the Bureau of Land Management and grazes on public land he is not allowed to graze on nor does he own this property in question. Bundy refuses to accept the authority of the United States government and says he will only pay fees to the state of Nevada and the county. Federal judges have been ruling against the man’s absurd arguments for years. Cliven Bundy has no respect for the rule of law and he is certainly not someone worthy of defense. The fact that conservatives and libertarians have been defending this man is a disgrace and illustrates of the failures of the right as a movement and an ideology.

I remember when conservatives and libertarians believed in the rule of law. I remember when they believed every citizen, regardless of their background and privilege, had to obey the same set of laws and those laws were enforced fairly and equally. I remember when the right believed that the proper way to change a law was to use the legal and political process, not calling an armed militia. The rule of law is a necessary component of a free society. No person should be above the law, whether it be the government or an average citizen. If we encourage government to selectively enforce the law instead of trying to change it just because we disagree with it, that invites tyranny.

Even more disturbing than defending a man who has no regard for the laws of the United States is the refusal to condemn the presence of armed militias. The Bundy Ranch incident I fear has introduced the gun and the armed mob into American politics just as the Freikorps introduced the gun and the armed mob into the politics of Weimar Germany and we saw where that led. A private armed militia with no public accountability is as much of a danger to liberty as any police force or standing army, in fact probably more so for the simple fact that in our represenative Republic, we can fire the civilians who are in charge of the police in the military. There is no replacing a commander of a self-proclaimed militia through elections or appealing to his civilian supervisors.

Equally troubling are the frequent calls to revolution. We the people have representation through our House of Representatives and Senate. We elect a president every four years. Like it or not, Barack Obama is the legally and legitimately elected President of the United States. I’m sorry to disappoint the far right, but he didn’t steal either election instead he persuaded a majority of Americans to vote for him. The birth certificate is also real. If you want to change the laws and the system and have some legitimacy while doing it, go out and win some elections by persuading the American people to vote for you. To threaten to engage in armed revolution or mobilizing militias to threaten and intimate Federal law enforcement when there are peaceful ways to change policy is not just merely immoral, but is tyrannical as well. This demonstrates that they believe they should be exempt from the same laws that we should follow. Before you engage in revolutionary acts to change the law, you have the moral responsibility to use the political and legal process to achieve your goals peacefully.

I want a much smaller government on all levels. I want individuals and families making more decisions instead of bureaucrats and politicians. I want a lot fewer laws than we have now. I also want everyone accountable to the same laws whether they are a politician, policeman, or a rancher; regardless of their background. In America, no man is the law nor are they above the law, or at least that what it should be. There is no room in a free society for the politician or policeman who abuses the law nor is there room for the vigilante who sees themselves as above the law.

When we as conservatives and libertarians embrace mob rule, we are essentially turning our backs on liberty and freedom. While mob rule can be accomplished by the ballot box through an unrestrained democracy, in history it has more often than not been accomplished with the sword. One of the reasons we create governments is to keep the mob in check.

While we must remain eternally vigilant against tyranny, we must also reject the mob mentality like we saw on display at the Bundy Ranch. Instead, we need to rededicate ourselves to the first principles of individual liberty, the rule of law, constitutionally limited government, a strong civil society, and most importantly, a society where disputes, disagreements, and change are solved and accomplished peacefully. To be frank, this means rejecting the grievance chasing pundits and hatemongers who have characterized the right for 20+ years.

It’s time for the right to return to principle and abandon the hate and the perpetual outrage.

Want to start writing? Tuesday, Apr 8 2014 

I decided to sign up for something called HubPages which is apparently a network of sites providing useful information. Supposedly, you can make some money from it. On my “hub”, I think I’m going to dedicate it to encourage and advise people who want to start writing.

My first “hub” is some advice for those who are beginning writers.

Please check it out!

The Assualt On Tolerance By The Tolerant Friday, Apr 4 2014 

I strongly believe in a diverse, tolerant, and liberal society. I believe in not just tolerance when it comes to different races, religions, genders, and sexual orientations; I believe more strongly in the tolerance of ideas, especially those I strongly disagree with.

Unfortunately, the tolerant, liberal society I love and value so much is under attack, often by many of the same people who view themselves as “tolerant”. The latest case in point is the firing of Brendan Eich, the CEO of Mozilla. Eich’s crime in the eyes of the tolerance police is the fact that he made a $1,000 contribution in support of California’s Proposition 8 in 2008. Proposition 8 sought to deny state recognition of same-sex marriage in the State of California. It passed, but was overturned by the US Surpreme Court in 2013.

Now I disagree with Eich on Proposition 8 and I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn it. I support same-sex marriage, however, I have nothing but contempt for those who went after Eich’s job. One of the most important things about a liberal, diverse, and tolerant society is the fact that people who have differing ideas, even those ideas that a majority of us would disagree with, could work and live together in peace. Such a diverse society and tolerant values allow us to be able engage in civil political discussions about anything without the threat to someone’s livlihood or the threat of a boycott designed to put a company out of business.

These tactics of trying to have a man fired or boycotting a business because you disagree with their owner’s or executive’s political beliefs is a sign of immaturity and frankly are the tactics of thugs and bullies. Boycotts are free speech and I support the right to free speech, however just because you have the right or are legally able to do something does not mean you should do that act. Cheating on your spouse or partner is legal in most jurisdictions, however, it is probably not a good idea to do it. Not only are you betraying that other person’s trust, but you are a scoundrel. You can legally boycott anything, however, if you’re doing it based on the political beliefs of the owners and executives, you are an immature bully who cannot handle an opposing point of view.

What boycotts and the lynch mob mentality in politics does is make even the slightest disagreements personal and it makes people afraid to express their viewpoints. In order to have a healthy, tolerant, and liberal society; people must have the assurance that they can express whatever political viewpoints they believe without having their livlihoods threatened. Using the tactics of bullies, even in the name of “tolerance”, is not very tolerant at all and it leads to self-censorship, which is just as dangerous to the American body politic as state censorship.

Private power and civil society can be just as coercive as the state and that is one of the reasons I am not an anarchist. I believe that the excesses of private power and even civil society must be kept in check by the state.

As a society, we benefit from being able to freely express our points of view; whether it be free from state coercion or the coercion of private parties. Whenever we allow ourselves to get into a lather over what a man’s political beliefs, especially to the point where we target his livlihood, we diminish this freedom. If we believe in tolerance, we must believe in tolerance for all political ideas, especially those which are unpopular. Anything less is an assualt on the liberal society and invites us on the road to totalitarianism.

New Brenner Brief: Lindsey Graham Cronyism Friday, Mar 21 2014 

My latest column at Brenner Brief details the latest cronyism from South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. This time, he’s going to bat for casino magnate Sheldon Adelson after Adelson hosted a fundraiser for him in Las Vegas last year.

Read it here.

An Editor’s Thoughts Thursday, Mar 13 2014 

Note: I’m not talking any specific publications, this is not meant to be an expose

As an editor for someone else’s publication, you are called on to edit pieces you don’t agree with. Sometimes, you receive pieces that you strongly disagree with. As an editor, I have a tough call in front of me. Do I edit this piece to the best of my ability or do I spike it or do a terrible job editing it?

Since I edit for someone else, I usually cannot for content. Only the publisher/editor in chief can make the decision on content. Plus as a writer, I tend to only write for sites that allow me to write whatever I want. As an editor, I feel bound to give the same courtesy to my writers.

The best way for me to handle a piece I disagree is to first and foremost do the best job editing it. Secondly, once it’s published, if it’s a disagreement I feel strongly about, I will comment in the public comments section highlighting my disagreements.

I don’t like spiking pieces based on content or trying to take editorial control of a writer’s piece. I have written at publications with an overly hands on editor and I did not enjoy it. I felt hampered as a writer.

All in all as an editor, I must respect the free speech of my writers while at the same time, I still reserve the right to publicly disagree with them.

« Previous PageNext Page »

%d bloggers like this: