Yes that’s right we have moved over to our own self hosted site. The URL is
So come by and take a look!
We ARE MOVING!
Posted by John Newell on October 17, 2012
https://rightsofliberty.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/we-are-moving/
Was Crowley Wrong? And Did Obama Call It An “Act Of Terror?” – No and Yes
Well Obama decided to study this time around as opposed to the first debate where her arrogantly believed it was going to be an easy victory for him over Romney. That is a good thing because now we have something closer to a real debate. I must say it was refreshing to have both Obama and Romney defend and attack in real time, while looking directly at each other.
While I was following along the myriad of Tweets from political commentators and journalists I saw a massive outcry when moderator Candy Crowley sided with Obama in defending him from Romney’s accusation (or questioning) of whether or not Obama called the attack in Libya on September 11th 2012 as an “act of terror.” The outcry mostly came from the right claiming that he did not call it an “act of terror” and instead focused on the religious aspect of it as a riposte to an amateur anti-Islam film.
Well I read the entire speech by the president conducted on the following day of September 12th in the Rose Garden. While many journalists are desperately picking apart words, I also side with Obama that he did in fact attribute the attack as an “act of terror.” Also in my personal opinion I find it absolutely refreshing that a moderator, a journalist to boot, addressed the truth in real time. Many are angry with Crowley, and I would be too if she was actually incorrect. If she was incorrect then it would show she was speaking out of personal opinion and obviously showing favoritism towards one candidate. What she did was address the truth while not letting an incorrect accusation, which can obviously be researched due to it being about words in a speech and not a matter of opinion, go unnoticed.
The president was advised to spin the attack as a riposte to an amateur film, which was a very incorrect thing to do, while turning it around and finally addressing the attack as it truly was, an act of terror. Proudly I must say that not at one moment did I actually fall for the silly spin, instead I always believed and saw the attack as an act of terror morbidly celebrating the anniversary of 9/11.
Please don’t just take my word for it, instead take the president’s: Read the full post »
Posted by John Newell on October 16, 2012
https://rightsofliberty.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/was-crowley-wrong-and-did-obama-call-it-an-act-of-terror-no-and-yes/
Scandalous Minnie Mouse Display
Minnie Mouse never looked more attractive thanks to Barney’s department store in NYC. The new holiday window display is set to be a new and improved Minnie Mouse being 5ft 11″ and a whopping size 0. Well while everyone seems to agree that there’s nothing wrong with thin tall women, some are saying there is something wrong with altering the image of a classic children’s cartoon character to fit in with the “IN” crowd.
Ragen Chastain of Los Angeles feels strongly that this is incorrect so much as to set up a petition to the Display Communications Manager of Barney’s to not go through with the upcoming planned holiday window display.
There is nothing wrong with tall thin women. There is something wrong with changing a beloved children’s character’s body so that it looks good in a dress that almost nobody looks good in – adding to the tremendous pressure on young girls and women to attain photoshop perfection. The problem isn’t with Minnie’s body, it’s with a dress that only looks good on a woman who is 5’11 and a size zero.
That little girl who is going to become a 5’4, size 12 woman can’t just become a 5’11, size 0 woman when she wants to fit into a dress that was designed by someone who couldn’t be bothered to make a dress that looks good on someone who is not a model.-Ragen Chastain Read the full post »
Posted by John Newell on October 12, 2012
https://rightsofliberty.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/scandalous-minnie-mouse-display/
Meet Vice Presidential Candidate Judge Jim Gray
Earlier this evening I was able to meet and talk with libertarian vice presidential candidate Judge Jim Gray. The majority of his speech was focused on abolishing drug prohibition as I had figured it would be. He did touch on other subjects like the Department of Education, Department of Energy and Department of Commerce. I don’t feel the need to write about his stances on the departments because with these three departments libertarians seem to decide unanimously that they all should be shut down or at the least reformed tremendously.
The location where he spoke was a small art gallery in downtown Phoenix where one can find numerous small shops, galleries, restaurants and bars. Basically it’s a hipster and hippie alike, hangout part of town. I know this well considering I frequent a few bars in the area. A hippy chick artist was in the front of the gallery painting away with her dreadlocks pulled back. When I entered to see her and the small gallery I first thought that maybe I was in the wrong place. She confirmed with me that I wasn’t and that Jim Gray would be speaking in the back patio. I weaved my way through the gallery to find the back patio where the audio was being set up by other hippies. Needless to say this was the stereotypical location for someone to speak out against prohibition of drugs. I imagined if any neo-cons were to find out about this speech they surely smirk self righteously. Read the full post »
Posted by John Newell on October 9, 2012
https://rightsofliberty.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/meet-vice-presidential-candidate-judge-jim-gray/
Petition For Dr. Ron Paul To Be Nominated For The Nobel Peace Prize
The Nobel Peace Prize’s very name was diminished when Barack Obama won it in 2009. At first I didn’t feel so strongly but after four years of bombing innocent Muslims cowardly with drones, I became rather against The Nobel Peace Prize, seeing it now as promotional tool used by politicians as opposed to an award given to worthy individuals who through their efforts were strong proponents of peace and positive human evolution.
After awarded to Obama how could anyone possibly see the awards merit anymore? The award was given to him due to his promotion of nuclear nonproliferation and a “new climate” in international relations fostered by Obama, especially in reaching out to the Muslim world. This appears truly absurd if one looks at the President’s track record of “war on terror.” He took over the “war on terror” after George W. Bush only to surpass Bush when it came to assassination and bombing of and in the Muslim world – the same world he was awarded for promoting peace to. Read the full post »
Posted by John Newell on October 9, 2012
https://rightsofliberty.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/petition-for-dr-ron-paul-to-be-nominated-for-the-nobel-peace-prize/
The Time Traveling Contrarian
One question I’m positive the majority of you are familiar with and have been asked, I will visit now in a somewhat contrarian way, which I hope someday soon will be a view shared by the majority. In one way or another the question which begs for the suspension in belief about time travel, “If you could travel back in time knowing what you know now, to the summer of 1939 and to be fortunate enough to be alone in a room armed with Adolf Hitler, would you kill him?” I will make an approximate guess that roughly nine out of ten people would answer yes, with very little hesitation. I will now alter the nature of that question with another similar one. If you could travel back in time to around May of 1889 and found yourself alone with the infant one month old Adolf Hitler, would you kill him? I imagine the answer the majority would respond to this alteration of the original question, after a pause for contemplation, with the answer no. No one of sound mind would want to be a baby killer regardless of the baby (short of Rosemary’s).
In reference to my stating how I will visit this question in a contrarian way, I mean this by stating that I wouldn’t kill Adolf Hitler in either scenario and wish to explain my reasoning. Coming from angles of economic theory, political science, philosophy and neurobiology I can explain my contrarian position. In recent studies mostly put forth by acclaimed neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris, free will has proven to be impossible. Every decision we make as human beings comes from neurological processes that deal both with physiology and psychology. Our brains operate uniquely from person to person. Someone with the genes and brain patterns of a serial killer (i.e. the serotonin needed for rational behavior of response isn’t produced enough in the frontal cortex) can turn out not to be a serial killer and instead a rather pleasant human being. This being due to their past experiences and environment that they were raised in. If for example a person with this disease* is raised in a loving family with good relations with both their parents and their siblings this can possibly, and has been proven to in some cases, alter their genetic programming ( not necessarily altering exactly but rather countering) and train their behavior to be responsive in a similar way as the average person who does not suffer from this deficiency. Read the full post »
Posted by John Newell on September 28, 2012
https://rightsofliberty.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/the-time-traveling-contrarian/
Sen. Rand Paul and the Truth Behind Anti-American Sentiment
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul recently addressed the Senate on the topic of foreign aid and anti-American sentiment in an excellent speech. He brings forth many true stories about the dangers of foreign aide and global policing. He brings up solutions to diplomatically deal with foreign nations. I would possibly bore you if I listed them so allow Senator Rand Paul to explain everything in his honest speech.
Posted by John Newell on September 22, 2012
https://rightsofliberty.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/sen-rand-paul-and-the-truth-behind-anti-american-sentiment/
Wasting Your Vote?
This is the question and often times the statement thrown at Libertarians and Independents when discussing how we’re planning on voting for a third party candidate. I’m sure you all know this quite well. This scare tactic works to some degree too. The threat comes in a few different forms which I will address. One is if we vote for a third party we will throw the election to Obama. Another is we should vote for the candidate that is closest to our beliefs of liberty but the closest candidate of the two parties. The other classic one is “choose the lesser of two evils.”
I’ll address them in order. First voting for a third party should not be viewed as throwing an election. It should only be viewed as choosing the right candidate that you believe in. If you don’t vote Republican it means the Republican candidate did not sell their position to you and obviously did a poor job in attempting to do so. So why reward them? If you don’t vote Democrat then it’s the exact same issue. Why reward them for not selling their position? Vote for who you choose based on their policies and your personal values. If you vote otherwise then you are truly wasting your vote. Read the full post »
Posted by John Newell on September 21, 2012
https://rightsofliberty.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/wasting-your-vote/
Refuse to Vote?
There’s no denying that between Libertarians exists barriers. Some Libertarians are more Anarchists or Anarcho-Capitalists; while others consider themselves to be Classical Liberal or Constitutionalists. My heart is with those who are idealists, while my hands work for those who are realist [subjectively speaking of course] who are not apathetic to politics and the processes thereof. I’m addressing those who have been involved with the Liberty movement when I say: we all have freedom of choice here, the choice to opt out of voting, to be apolitical, to vote Libertarian Party, to infiltrate Republican Party, to switch back to the Libertarian Party, etc. I preface by saying, we are Libertarian because we hold a common credo: The Non-Aggression Principle.
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” These words were spoken by Edmund Burke, a supporter of the American Revolution. Samuel Adams and The Sons of Liberty did not choose to opt out of the system. They organized, from the taverns to the farms, from the piers to the courthouse, and they fought the system! The founders of this country were not apathetic to the blatant tyranny, they required no approbation from the British crown; they used violent force which is only justified in the defense of life, liberty and property. They were the first society that believed in self-governance. So why should we give up today? Especially as government continuously grows in power and exercises force wherever possible. Read the full post »
Posted by andy4liberty on September 20, 2012
https://rightsofliberty.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/refuse-to-vote/
Principles of a Free Society
In a truly free society there are a few principles we should live by. These truths have become very evident in the recent years on interventionism by the U.S. government in policies, laws and the policing of the world. I guess it doesn’t surprise me that they are not clear to the masses due to the extreme conditioning we citizens have gone through since our childhood.
If these simple principles were at the forefront of our political beliefs we would see prosperous longevity in our economy and in our happiness as a whole. And as opposed to many other attempts at sound policy these principles cost the country absolutely nothing. I wish to outline these principles.
As a government we should refrain from forcing issues upon others because with every force there is a counterforce. Nor should we defeat enemies by force of arms for even when violent actions are well intentioned at first these actions always rebound on ourselves. This has been evident in recent years with our various entanglements with the Middle East. It does no one good economically nor does it any good for national prosperity.
In dealing with the issue of violence it should be of only the last possible resort for survival. In victory over the enemy we shouldn’t rejoice and declare victory as a triumph but instead with our heads held low in despair. While yes we may have found ourselves in a situation with only one option of survival we shouldn’t be proud of our victory because then we are also proud of the confrontation. This is a sign of men hungry for power. Read the full post »
Posted by John Newell on September 19, 2012
https://rightsofliberty.wordpress.com/2012/09/19/principles-of-a-free-society/
- if(typeof(networkedblogs)=="undefined"){networkedblogs = {};networkedblogs.blogId=1128481;networkedblogs.shortName="rightsofliberty";}
Rights Of Liberty 