Modern Libertarian

Newt calling shots at Fox Iowa Debate?

2011-12-16T20:42:00.000-08:00

Preceding his bid for the Republican nomination, Newt Gingrich enjoyed a lucrative and beneficial relationship with our nation's largest right-wing propaganda outlet. As a FOX News contributor, Newt appeared on several segments as a commentator or panel member.

It wouldn't be of any surprise if Newt still maintains a strong working relationship with Fox, considering the fact that the news organization appears to be less critical of the former speaker. Neither is it of any surprise that Fox continues to beat the war drum, while misrepresenting the facts concerning Iran.

One of the most interesting aspects of the Fox News debate in Iowa was the curious manner in which Newt appeared to signal the moderators to silence his competitors.

Beginning at 30:43 and happening at precisely 30:47 in the debate video, Newt appears to give a strong look to the Fox News Debate moderators, which resulted in the camera focusing in on Michelle Bachmann, and her subsequent “dinging,” while criticizing the presidential front-runner. It is important to note that none of the moderators “dinged” any other candidate during the Fannie and Freddie exchange.

Between 1:36:53 and 1:37:01, Newt appears to look intently to the side of the stage, with Bachmann being “dinged” shortly after, and Gingrich giving a slight nod, aimed at the same corner of the stage.

Since the debate, Fox has worked in a diligent manner to promote Newt as the winner, while being critical of Bachmann and even less flattering toward Ron Paul.

Is Welfare Drug Testing Legal?

2011-12-11T13:30:00.000-08:00

By now, most Americans are aware of the controversial Florida legislation that would require welfare recipients to submit to drug testing as a condition of receiving benefits.

Detractors, such as the ACLU and Navy veteran, Luis Lebron, filed suit against the state of Florida. Lebron and the ACLU pose the argument that “pissing” welfare recipients constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment – more specifically-- the issue of “unlawful search and seizure.”

Shortly after filing suit, U.S. Federal District Judge Mary Scriven imposed a temporary injunction against the practice.

From a constitutional aspect, Welfare assistance is not a constitutional right, but rather a collection of voluntary programs, regulated by Federal and state authorities. Despite a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court (Dandridge v. Williams), Judge Scriven appears to question the already affirmed – the state and Federal authorities are granted the latitude to impose regulations concerning such programs.

This latitude is expressed each and every time a welfare recipient or applicant is asked to provide private banking statements, job history reports, pay stubs, utility bills, proof of assets, etc.

What is purpose of collecting all of this personal information?

Certainly the government doesn't collect your personal documents and history for recreational light reading purposes, or to “abuse,” let alone “discriminate” against you.

Understandably, this common type of “intrusion” is designed to prevent dishonest persons from abusing the system. The government, as well as the taxpayers, want the funds to be used effectively and properly.

Based on principle, which is worse? Having the government know your shopping habits, via banking statements, or letting them examine a cup of pee?

Neither sound like a palatable proposition in this writer's opinion.

However, these are the consequences associated with trading your liberty for a sense of security. When it comes to seeking extended or temporary help from big government, or even a family member, persons on the receiving end are subject to some level of vetting and/or conditions.

Why is that?

Because Grandma wants to help; not enable bad behavior—with the bad behavior being you using the received help for things that it wasn't intended for.

In keeping with Grandma's wisdom, a growing number of tax payers desire more layers of accountability from welfare recipients.

Because welfare programs are voluntary, recipients have the right not to take a urine test or provide such personal information on demand at the request of the government.

The catch is -- you will have to rely on the well-meaning and direct help from your family, as well as those in your community, that will hold you to a higher and more personal standard of accountability; instead of being subjected to government rules and regulation.

The bright side is that Grandma knows that you're basically a good person that's just going through a hard time. I'm sure she won't ask you to tally the value of the contents in your apartment, or ask you submit bodily waste samples to prove what she personally already knows.

However, the tax payers, like Grandma, are understandably a little more skeptical of persons they are not able to meet or know face-to-face.

Check out this informative video that describes the inefficiencies of the welfare state we currently support.

Groping-Guns-Granny Panties: The 'Best' of the TSA

2011-12-06T22:32:00.000-08:00

Since the inception of the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal government has been working overtime to give commuters an added risk of developing cancer, with a side of sexual harassment.

In this post, we will outline a few of the most notable stories involving government sponsored tyranny, via the arm of the TSA.

Lenore Zimmerman, an 84-year-old grandmother, was stripped-searched by JFK's boys in blue. Due to the woman's need for a back brace, officials thought it necessary to give Lenore a “private screening,” yet deny that any strip-search occurred.

In addition to Zimmerman, two other elderly women came forward to expose the practices at JFK Airport. Ruth Sherman, 88, and Linda Kallish, had their colostomy bags, defibrillators and insulin pumps checked – not to mention their panties dropped by the hands of the TSA.

Despite getting their jollies from gang-groping old ladies, they are at least proving to be as equally ridiculous with 17-year-olds that exhibit a personal sense of fashion-

Vanessa Gibbs,17, was detained in Virginia due to the design of her purse; a western-style purse with a fake looking design casting of an old six-shooter. Apparently, after telling the young woman “it was a Federal offense” to have such a purse design. It took the TSA several hours and a missed flight before the airport's finest determined the purse..... was in fact a purse.

Although public outcry against groping children is on the forefront of most criticisms, the TSA perpetrates this disgusting practice.

For 75 Billion dollars worth of taxpayer money, it sure seems the TSA and the Federal government gets off screwing over the American people, without even having the god damned common courtesy to give us a "reach-around."

Gay activist uses 8-year old boy as a political pawn

2011-12-06T19:59:00.000-08:00

The popular YouTube video, labeled “Activist Elijah With Michele Bachmann,” has exploded on the Internet with praises and criticisms.

While activism is an inherent form of speaking out against those who seek to circumvent the civil liberties of others -- most protesters make it a point to know what their protesting about – while expressing the free will to do so.

At the beginning of the video, the boy apparently let's out a defiant “No!,' before the mother cradles him by the armpits to Michelle Bachmann's signing table.

The timid, innocent boy, then gets a couple pats on the back and more “encouragement” to be his mother's mouthpiece.

With a few attempts, the boy managed to whisper in Bachmann's ear: “My mom is gay and she doesn't need fixing.”

Obviously disgusted by the actions of the mother, Bachmann rises up, glares at the mother, and gives the boy a smiling “bye bye.”

Despite well-founded criticisms voiced by gays and heteros alike, against the tactics employed to “mic-check” Bachman, the mother contends that her son came up with the idea and wanted to tell Michelle what he thought.

The apparent “Mic-check” of Bachman took place during an Occupy Myrtle Beach gathering, with the boy in company.

Modern libertarian is a strong advocate for equality and liberty for all; which includes the freedom for young children to be children without the added pressure of being a mouthpiece for someone else.

The ends never justify the means.

Should the government force the Milton Hershey School to accept a child with HIV?

2011-12-02T20:37:00.000-08:00

One of the hot topics brewing today concerns that of a 13-year old HIV-positive boy and the prestigious Milton Hershey school, based in Pennsylvania. The institution caters to less-fortunate children in the Pre-K through twelfth grades. Despite the child being on a regular course of HIV treatments that are said to reduce the risk of transmission significantly, the school administration decided to deny the child's admittance.

According to the amended American Disabilities Act, the school may not discriminate against those with HIV:

III.  Public Accommodations

1.   Q:  What is a public accommodation?

     A:  A public accommodation is a private entity that owns,
operates, leases, or leases to a place of public accommodation. 
Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities,
such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors  offices,
dentists  offices, hospitals, retail stores, health clubs,
museums, libraries, private schools, and day care centers. 
Private clubs and places run by religious organizations are not
considered places of public accommodation.

Anyone see a problem here?

Combating institutional discrimination with regard to actual “public,” or rather government controlled entities, doesn't seem unreasonable. However, imposing such guidelines on privately ran companies and/or schools represents a serious overreach by the Federal government.

Despite the relatively low chances of another child contracting HIV from the applicant, thanks in part to medicinal advances, either by sexual contact or from sharing a shaving razor, bloody fist fights, accidents, etc.--what would the Milton Hershey School's liabilities be if the child did in fact infect one or several children?

What would stop the parent(s) from suing? How many parents would pull their child out of the school, through legitimate concerns or fears born from ignorance?

While the Milton Hershey School is non-profit, it's success is dependent on having a good image and producing results; like any other private business or organization.

The court of public opinion, with a dose of free-market principles, may negatively impact the school, regardless if the “direct threat” loophole cited by the institution ends up being a viable defense. For the Milton Hershey School, the whole ordeal will turn into a lose/lose situation.

The question isn't whether the Milton Hershey School should admit the child; the question is if the Federal government has the right to force private entities into taking risk, no matter how significant, or to dictate who they should accept.

For more details on the restrictions, check out the ADA Questions and Answers page concerning HIV discrimination.

GMO Food May Cause Sterility

2011-11-28T18:35:00.001-08:00

Since the introduction of genetically modified crops in 1996, America's farmers have increasingly strayed from planting all-natural crops in favor for high-yield chemical resistant GMO strains. Although the benefits of such crops are often touted as being one of the greatest inventions to date in the farming industry, the “side-effects” of tampering with nature in such a way may be rearing its ugly head.

With over 90% of all soybeans grown in the United States being genetically modified, a Russian study on the effect of GMO soybeans on hamsters has caught the attention of several environmental watchdogs.

The study comprised of four groups of hamsters (five pairs for each group); the first group was fed high concentrations of GMO soybean based food, non-GMO soy for the second, the third group was fed a regular diet with GMO soy and the last group ingested a regular diet with no soy products.

The control group averaged a 5% mortality rate for newborn pups, while 25% of the pups died in the group that ate a normal diet of GMO soy. Even more shocking are the results of the group that ate high concentrations of GMO soy.

Only one female pup in the high concentration group was able to reproduce. Of those 16 pups that were born, 20% died.

The buck doesn't stop there. Subsequent hamsters in the GMO groups suffered from infertility and a smaller stature. Some formed incredible mutations such as hair growing in the mouth and altered cells in the testicles of males.

Farmers across the globe are also complaining of livestock infertility, in addition to mass die-offs associated with GMO crops.

What does all this have to do with the Libertarian agenda? Corporatism, government subsidies that encourage GMOs and the tyrannical foot soldiers of large Agriculture companies such as Monsanto all have a part to play.

Farmers are being continually harassed by government-backed conglomerates. In addition to new FDA regulations barring run-of-the-mill gardeners and "all-natural" farmers from selling unprocessed raw foods, local law enforcement agencies are going so far as to break up lemonade stands and conduct raids on organic farmer's markets.