Why I'll be voting for Robert Sarvis for U.S. Senate

      In the race for the Senate seat of Virginia, there is a 3 way battle going on right now. Despite what the media may have told you, there are three men running for the seat. What, the media told you there was only two? Figures, that's a common tactic used by the mainstream media, since they are bought for and the mouthpieces of the two corrupt and long overdue political parties. They ignore 3rd party candidates and therefore, people who only listen to the mainstream media, and nothing else, do not hear about the 3rd party candidates.
     Anyway, back on topic. We have Robert Sarvis of the Libertarian party, Mark Warner of the Democratic party, and Ed Gillespie of the Republican party. The later two will continue to destroy America bit by bit. If you think I'm exaggerating by saying the word "destroy," just look at our country, and tell me it isn't an exaggeration. We are trillions upon trillions of dollars in debt, we are like a crazed psychopath with an unlimited credit card. Our image and strength abroad is the laughing stock of the world. We are the target of attacks because we cannot stop killing people overseas. Our economy is still in shambles, thanks to the crony capitalists and the 1% completely destroying the middle and lower classes of America to gobble up more wealth for themselves. The "War on Drugs" is wrecking havoc through communities around the country, the NSA knows every single thing we do on the internet and the vast majority of Americans don't care, undocumented immigrants pour into this country by the millions, a generation of young adults have no future because of the recession, I mean, if that isn't destruction, then what the fuck is?!
     Warner and Gillespie support all of this destruction. Their parties support and orchestrate all of it, they thrive off it. The 1% has never been better off than they are now. So that's why I'm voting for Sarvis, because he and other libertarians seek to end of all this.
     Here, I'll go by an issue by issue basis, stating Warner's or Gillespie's opinion on the issue, and then Sarvis's, and explain why I like Sarvis's opinion better than the formers.  

     1. The national debt and budget crisis.
     Mark Warner has no problem not balancing the budget, just borrow more money, that's his solution. That, and raise taxes. Because us pesky lower class workers aren't paying enough in taxes, apparently! "Warner told CNN in 2011 that he is convinced that when it comes to managing federal finances, long-term bipartisan planning is a superior way to lowering debt than a balanced budget amendment."
      http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/jun/30/mark-warner/warner-has-changed-position-balanced-budget-amendm/
     Mark Warner has voted with President Obama a whooping 97% of the time. Nothing says lap dog like doing everything your master tells you to. And we all know how much Obama's economic policies have totally wrecked this nation's economy: He's increased the deficit by at least 57%, and he's borrowed 60 TRILLION DOLLARS since taking office.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/9/obamas-national-debt-rate-on-track-to-double/
    Warner had a hand in all that....97% of it, to be exact. He thinks going trillions of dollars in debt is perfectly okay. He never stops to think "Hmmmm, maybe we'd better take a look at all of these wealth transferring policies and see if all of them are Constitutional." Damn the Constitution, Warner and his fascist pigs have money to steal!!    
     Conservatives routinely tout that they do not spend a lot and can balance a budget. Apparently they haven't looked at the debt since 2001. Despite stereotypes that Democrats borrow and go into debt and conservatives spend less and balance the budget, the fact is, they're dead wrong. Gillespie was part of the Bush administration, and we all know how well that group of brain dead retards did. Bush increased the deficit by 38%.
     Sarvis won't do what either man did. Straight from his website:

     Let's face it: Neither Republicans nor Democrats, neither Ed Gillespie nor Mark Warner, has any credibility when it comes to protecting taxpayers' money and shepherding scarce resources. Both parties have enacted new, expensive entitlements. Both parties have increased discretionary spending. Both parties have supported wars of choice.

      I pledge to make debt-reduction and balanced budgets a priority. I support simplifying the tax code, reforming entitlements, and cutting bloated budgets—including military spending. And I support a balanced budget amendment and protections against accounting gimmicks.

I’m also the only candidate who supports expanding and protecting both economic and personal freedom—and I understand how they are linked. For instance, our failed War on Drugs contributes to the United States having the highest incarceration rate in the world. That’s not only unjust, it's expensive and perpetuates poverty. By unleashing freedom, we will expand economic growth and opportunity, and in turn, reduce the burden on the safety net.

     http://www.robertsarvis.com/debt-spending-and-balanced-budgets

     Sarvis would run the national debt like a person who runs the money of a household. When you have $200 to spend for the week, do you say "Hmmmm, now how to make that $200 last so I don't go over?" or do you say, like a dumbass maniac "Oh I'll just spend all of that and when I need to buy more I'll just put it all on my credit card and after that I'll just get a loan from the bank, etc." 

     A fiscally responsible manages his finances within his budget; a Republican or Democrat says "To hell with my budget, I wanna spend this much, so let's borrow this much right now!"

     2. Civil Liberties.
     Mark Warner and Gillespie see us as cattle, as fodder to grow their sadistic fascist empire. They do not give a flaming fuck about any one of your human rights. If breaking your human rights meaning getting more money or power for them, then they will not think twice about fucking breaking it.

• Ed Gillespie has worked for the Republican party for decades, a party that has persecuted Muslims both here and abroad. He will surely believe he believes in the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights when it comes to protecting religion...unless your Muslim. Then to hell with your religion, we're Amurca here! Just type "The Republican party and Islam" and you'll get all the examples you need of how this party persecutes Muslims. Hell, see how the Bush Administration dealt with Muslims here in America after 9/11. 
• Both do not support your freedom of speech. Both Warner and Gillespie support the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the NSA surveillance, etc. If you say anything against them, then you're automatically and without question a terrorist. If they saw this blog, they'd call me a terrorist supporter, even though they're the ones who are supporting terrorism, (we'll get to that in second). So that's the 4th Amendment out the fucking window!
•  Bush created Guantanamo Bay, and Gillespie was part of that administration. Obama loves Guantanamo, keeping it open even though 6 years ago he said he would get rid of it, (when's he going to get that?). Mark Warner has no problem with Guantanamo Bay, after all, he votes with Obama basically all the time, and has been a part of the Democratic party, which has kept the Bay open for years when they could've gotten rid of it. So, both Warner and Gillespie have no problem getting rid of the 5th Amendment if it's in the name of "national security." Oh, and the 6th Amendment as well, that comes under the rights broken by both parties with the creation of Guantanamo and the mass arrests right after 9/11, in which people were kidnapped from their homes in the dead of night, held without charges or access to lawyers. Does everyone just fucking forget about that and act like it didn't fucking happen?!   
• Both parties support asset forfeiture. This is a law that originally was designed to halt drug operations, but now, as usual, the cops abuse this law and use it to legally steal money from people. That's right, if they find you with a large amount of cash, (large amount is subjective of course), then they can say "Oh it's drug money," and without any evidence or a trial, steal your cash. Then, they use it to buy nice and pretty things for their police department. Most people can't get their money back even through a trial, and even then, a trial takes months and months, and all the while, you don't have your money that you legally worked for and paid taxes on. Fucking bullshit.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2014/09/11/how-cops-got-a-license-to-steal-your-money/ Using cash to pay your landlord because you don't have checks? Better not get pulled over while going from the bank to home, otherwise, you might get robbed  by the boys in blue. Gonna use cash to buy an expensive item and you don't want to use a credit card because of all the identity theft recently? Better not get pulled over coming from Best Buy or Home Depot to home. Sarvis wants to end this fascist and highway robbery rule. He stands up for human rights, saying "No, I don't care who you are. If you don't have evidence that this money is drug money, then you cannot steal it. Every person has the right of personal property, and no one, not even the police, can steal it."  

    3. Foreign Affairs
    This is where libertarianism really shines in comparison to neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism. Conservatives and liberals are basically identical when it comes to foreign policy, identically fucking retarded. Just take a quick look around the world and you'll see the oppression and destruction wrought by our foreign policy over the decades.

• Mark Warner and Ed Gillespie want the "War on Drugs" to continue. We'll talk about the domestic issues of this "War" in a little bit, but right now, we'll talk about how it affects our foreign policy, more specifically, Mexico, and South American countries, (Yes, Mexico is in NORTH America). Warner, Gillespie, and the whole Democratic and Republican party want to keep giving millions of dollars to the Mexican military and government. People conveniently forget that the Mexican government and military is a fascist machine that oppresses and kills their own citizens. Look at any number of these human rights reports and tell me: Is this where you want your tax money going to?!

          http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/mexico

          http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/220667.pdf

          http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/mexico

          http://www.ohchr.org/EN/countries/LACRegion/Pages/MXIndex.aspx

         Many people refrain from criticizing the Mexican government and military, because "the drug cartels are worse so we gotta support them," or because they don't want to be seen as racist. I say fuck all that shit. Race has nothing to do with it. The Mexican government and military are oppressive regimes that are not in line with American values. They do not deserve our hard earned tax dollars, not because of their race, but because of the specific terroristic and fascist actions their military and government have taken. They take away Mexicans' freedom of speech. They torture innocent people charged with no crime. They do not give them trials. They deny their citizens a way to defend themselves; with only one legal gunstore in all of Mexico, many Mexicans are forced to buy guns illegally to defend their friends and family from cartel thugs and corrupt Mexican "security forces." 

       Not only that, but there are many American "advisers" that actively help Mexican security forces carry out raids and tortures. Now, do you like the fact that armed American men paid by the government are helping a terrorist regime kill and oppress their own citizens? Warner and Gillespie love that. They feed off the blood and suffering of innocent Mexican citizens. They are crazed beasts who's bloodlust is never satisfied. Tens of thousands of Mexicans have died over the decades, and what do Warner and Gillespie say? More guns! More advisors! More repression! Less rights!

      Sarvis is completely opposite of this demonic mindset. He opposes giving military aid to any country, for if no military aid was given, then there is no chance of it being misused for terrorist activities. He opposes military aid, regardless of the race or religion of the country in question. So that means no weapons, ammo, and training for Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria, etc, all of these countries who oppress either their own people or another people with U.S. made weapons.
      Not only that, but libertarianism refuses to trade or do business with terrorist governments. Trade and business is taxable, and we cannot allow taxes from our trade and business to be used to oppress and kill innocent people. On principle, that is what we must do. We cannot continue to have innocent blood on our hands just so we can make a quick buck. So, that means no more trade with China, Russia, India, etc, all of those corrupt fascist and/or communist regimes.

      But if we do that, opponents of libertarianism would say, then we would not be able to buy all those cheap goods from these countries, especially China. Good, bring these jobs here back to America, who has plenty of people unemployed or underemployed who would love to work any one of those millions of jobs that would be brought back here. Opponents of this idea would say that the price of these goods would go up, because we cannot make them as cheap as China can. Well in that case, if morales are not involved in the decision process, if we are only going by the price it takes to produce something, then let's reintroduce slave labor in the U.S. to make those goods as cheap as they are made in China. Now you see how stupid it sounds. You support slave labor overseas to make your cheap ass stuff, but then as soon as someone suggests that Americans do the same, then suddenly that's off limits.
     Fact: sometimes you pay a monetary price to stand by your morales. We do that every day by saying no to slave labor, even though slave labor is cheaper than paying a worker to make something. The same must apply to this case: We will pay more for goods in order to stand by the moral of not giving money to terrorist regimes so they can oppress and kill their citizens. Americans are innovative. We will find a way to make those goods in a cheap enough fashion that other Americans can buy them.
     Another plus of libertarian foreign policy is that we only fight if we are being attacked by another country. No more making up data and lies to invade other countries for their natural resources, (Iraq and Afghanistan). No more fighting to keep tyrants and corrupt governments in power, (Somalia, Nigeria, Pakistan, etc). No more creating enemies so then we have an excuse to fight them (Al-Qaida, ISIS, etc). We have this novel idea that people don't like being bombed for no reason. WHO WOULD'VE FUCKING THOUGHT OF THAT, RIGHT?!

     4. War on Drugs
     So here is where we can talk about the devastating effects the War on Drugs has at home. Warner and Gillespie love the War on Drugs. They want it to be waged forever. They love locking people up for doing actions that affect no one but themselves. Warner and Gillespie have the mindset of "Hey, since I think drug xyz is immoral to use, I'm going to force EVERYONE to think this way by making it illegal!" or "Hey the Constitution says nothing about this drug xyz being illegal. Well fuck the Constitution, fuck Americans' rights, since I think it should illegal, then it is going to be illegal!"

     Both parties want to continue to throw huge amounts of money at this "problem" and it not be solved, ($51 BILLION A YEAR, on average, to be exact). Both of them want to continue to arrest Americans, so many that we have the highest concentration rate of citizens in prison IN THE WORLD. They want to continue to make drugs illegal, even though, if they were legal and taxable, would bring in $46.7 BILLION in revenue annually.
     http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics
     Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, why the hell do you think it would work for any other drug? Why do you think you have the right to tell people what they can and cannot put in their own body? It's not your fucking body!
      Sarvis says "Hey, unless an action is infringing on someone else's human rights, then I don't have a problem with it. It shouldn't be illegal. Things should only be illegal if they break someone else's human rights. Does someone smoking pot have any effect on me? No, so I have no right to tell him/her not to do it." I know, it's so simple that it ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE.      

     Republicans usually have a "holier than thou" complex, especially when it comes to drugs. They think they are doing God's work by prohibiting these drugs from being legal. 1st of all: fuck your religion. This country was founded on the principle that people cannot force their religious beliefs onto other people. So if you think smoking weed violates your religion, fine, that's your interpretation of the Bible. But don't go around thinking that is the only possible interpretation and forcing everyone else to abide by your personal beliefs.
     Democrats have a similar attitude, but without the religious overtones. They think they are so damn smart that they know what's best for you, better than you do. They want to be in control of your personal decisions, not you.

     5. Economics
     Bush tanked the economy, and Obama is continuing to hold it down in the mud. There, that should be reason enough not to vote for either party on the principle of economics, because both parties have shown that they are not able to manage the national economy. They only look out for the 1%, their bloc of power, and fuck everyone else.  Gillespie was part of the Bush administration, the one that, you know, ruined the lives of millions of people throughout the world, but especially Americans with its disastrous economic plans. And Warner votes with Obama 97% of the time. So he's signed off on basically every single economic policy that is continuing the recession, keeping the middle and lower classes down, keeping the underemployment high, etc, etc.  

      Does the above picture make your blood boil? Do you understand the full implications of what it is saying? Bank of America foreclosed, it failed, as a business, it tanked. Done. Finished. But Bush couldn't allow that to happen. So he bailed them out on the taxpayer's dime. So the bank still exists. Even though it failed, even though it's own decisions and policies caused its failure, Bush cheated and gave it another life. It's like a student getting an F on a test because he's a dumbass and didn't study, but the teacher feels bad for him and gives him an A anyway.
    But wait, it gets better. After being resurrected by the sweat of ordinary workers like you and me, Bank of America went through tax loopholes, intentionally ignored by the Bush and Obama administrations, and paid ZERO taxes on the $4.4 billion in profits. The administrations ignore these loopholes, because it is their cronies and supporters who exploit the loophole to pay no taxes. Year after year they leave the loopholes intact. See, if you or I tried to do that, we would be arrested for tax fraud. But if you're a member of this exclusive club, created by Obama, then you don't have to pay any taxes at all. Some capitalism. Some democracy.
     How is this remotely fair? I am dirt poor, yet I still pay about 25% of my salary to taxes every year, if you combine all state, federal, and income taxes together. Yet Bank of America, who made a billion times more money than I ever will, did not pay a single penny on their profits.  
     Warner and Gillespie favor bailouts for failing companies. Where's the taxpayers' bailout? Sarvis, on the other hand, does not support intervention in the economy. He has a Master's in Economics from George Mason University, so I think he knows what the fuck he is talking about. If a company fails in the economy, then that gives an opportunity for another company to take that niche and offer a better service/product in its place. This is how a economy is supposed to work. It's like if the government kept on propping up the carriage companies when car companies were rising in the 20's. We wouldn't have cars because the government wouldn't allow the carriage companies to naturally go out of business and make room for the new company of transportation. If Bank of America failed, then a new bank would rise and take its place, only it would learn from Bank of America's mistakes, hence, be a better bank. They would offer better services at better prices. This artificial propping up of archaic/inefficient companies is only hurting the economy in the long run. Bank of America knows it doesn't have to do good in the economy, because if it fails, the government will just bail it out again. There is not incentive to provide a good service at a good price.

     6. Secure the border.
     Both major parties are not seriously guarding our southern border. That is why we have 13 million plus illegal immigrants in this country. It also means that criminals, gang members, and terrorists can cross our southern border with ease, and cause havoc in our nation. A huge percentage of illegal immigrants commit murder in this country. And terrorists have been caught trying to enter the U.S. through the unguarded southern border: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/10/07/Report-10-ISIS-Fighters-Arrested-Crossing-Southern-Border
     Each party has its own reason to not put more troops at the southern border. They do not care about the welfare or safety of Americans. Democrats keep it open because they have this totally fucked up notion that keeping illegal immigrants out of this country is somehow racist against Hispanics. Well, then that means every country in the world is racist towards Hispanics, including Hispanic countries, because every single country in the world, including every single Hispanic nation, has immigration laws and procedures. Not one single country has completely open borders, because its national suicide. Its completely logical and rational to have procedures about who and when someone can enter your country. But nope, Democrats are paranoid about even possibly being considered racist, so they leave the border open for anyone, including rapists and murderers, to enter our country without anyone knowing. Apparently, not letting people break international law with impunity is racist. Who would've thought. Democrats also don't want the border guarded because the illegal immigrants overwhelmingly vote Democrat in elections. Coupled with the Democratic campaign of not having to show an I.D. to vote, this idea is a goldmine to get illegal votes in elections for Democrats.
     Republicans purposely leave the border open so they can bash Democrats for it, using the reasons I just listed above. Libertarians however, realize the rationally and logical benefits of not having a completely open and monitored border. So they advocate for a faster legal immigration process while advocating for a tighter guarded border. For how to more tightly guard the southern border, read my past post The immigration reform that we actually need:  http://noholdsonfreedom.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-immigration-reform-that-we-actually.html
      If any of this seems extreme, that's because it is. Desperate times call for desperate measures. The two main political parties have allowed this situation to become desperate and extreme on purpose, so that when people like me call for the only real solution to the problem, they can whine "Oh you're a dangerous radical, your idea is racist and would never work." This way, they can continue doing whatever they want, and there is no real opposition to their plans, because anyone who offers a decent solution is a "radical."

     So there you have it, the six main reasons why I'm going to vote Sarvis instead of Warner or Gillespie. I invite anyone to explain why Warner's or Gillespie's ideas on any of these six issues are better than Sarvis's. Usually, I don't get any alternate explanations, only that Sarvis's ideas "are too radical and won't work." Like the Democrats and Republicans' ideas are working?! I mean c'mon. Do you want a continuation of the status quo? It sucks! I'm open to change my mind on these issues if someone can convince me of a better plan, but so far, no one has been able to do so.
                     

   

 
    

Why I'll be voting for Robert Sarvis and not Ken Cucinelli or Terry McAuliffe

     The election for Governor of Virginia is less than a week away. The candidates are Republican Ken Cucinelli, Democrat Terry McAuliffe, and Libertarian Robert Sarvis. Wait, there's a third candidate? I thought there was only Cucinelli and McAuliffe. I mean, that's all the media talks about, (Of course they do. They wouldn't want to give attention to a non-establishment supporter, RIGHT?!)

      I will be voting for Sarvis for a number of reasons. It's really no contest. Cucinelli and McAuliffe are both God awful candidates. It's a testament to both the parties' decadence that this is the best they can come up with. So here are the reasons:

1. Cucinelli opposes gay marriage. Sarvis supports it. 

     I'm as straight as they get, but I support gay marriage. Why? Because there's no reason not to. All the conservative arguments against gay marriage are complete and utter bullshit:

• Gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage. Really?! Look at the stats at marriages now in days. 45% of all marriages end in divorce is a low ball estimate, some estimates say as high as 65%. Abuse is rampant, cheating is a plague, people being their children's friends instead of disciplining them when they do illegal or immoral things is the new norm. So, all that doesn't ruin the sanctity of marriage, but gay marriage will? Yeah right. Someone else's marriage has no effect on how I see my marriage or what it means to me.
• Gay marriage is against Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. No. It's. Not. You can read the Torah, Bible, and Quran from front to back, and you will find absolutely NOTHING about banning gay marriage. This is just another example of people using religion as a cover to protect their own hatred ideals. Besides, let's just say for argument's sake, that Christianity does ban gay marriage. Fine, then you personally, don't get married. But just because you think you shouldn't do something, does not give you the right to shove that ideal down someone else's throat, and say to them that they have to have the same opinion about this certain something that you do. 
• More gay marriages end in divorce that heterosexual marriages. There is no conclusive evidence that shows this. Yes, some websites say so, but other websites, which are just as credible, say no. So one of them is lying. Which one is it? I don't know. That's why it's inconclusive. Besides, let's just say for argument's sake, that more gay marriages end in divorce than heterosexual marriages. So, using that same logic, we should ban Christians from getting married, because more Christians get divorced than Muslims. We should only allow Muslims to get married in this country. If we made that law, people would be up in arms, rightly so, because that's infringing on their rights. So why should we do the same thing to gays if Americans would riot if that same thing happened to them? 
• Gay marriages lead to more trouble making kids, lower grades, etc. Again, no conclusive evidence. Sure, you can find a scientific study done by a influential organization that says so, but then you can turn around and find another scientific study done by another influential organization that says completely the opposite. Besides, even if it were true, since when did America ban everything except the group that is the best? That's like looking at schooling demographics, and banning all races from going to school except Asians, because Asians do the best in school. It's insane!

      2. McAuliffe supports fascist gun control, Sarvis does not.

       Gun control restricts peoples' inalienable right to defend themselves. It hurts law abiding citizens while helping criminals and thugs. There is really no argument here. The thing that will hurt citizens the most will be limiting magazines to only 10 rounds. I don't know about you, but if I'm facing 2 thugs each with gun that can hold 30 bullets, I'd sure as hell want a gun that can hold 30 bullets rather than 10. It's still possible to beat them, but a smaller magazine will just make it harder. And in a life or death situation, you want every advantage you can get.

     3. Cucinelli voted to not raise the minimum wage.

      http://votesmart.org/bill/3821/11799/50871/minimum-wage-increase#.UnFgFBBKQTs
      One of the most basic things they teach you in economics is that the minimum wage must be proportional to inflation and standard of living. Well, the neo-cons have been so successful in keeping the minimum wage down for decades, while inflation and the standard of living have skyrocketed. If the minimum wage was proportional to inflation today, it would be more than $10. (Look it up, I'm not gonna waste my time putting a link for this well known fact).
     Cucinelli follows the standard Republican mantra of not giving a flaming fuck about the poor people working their asses off to put food on the table. He just wants to lower taxes for his super rich friends and supporters, while squeezing the middle class out of existence and forcing them into the poor class.

      4. McAuliffe wants to increase Medicaid, furthering our national debt and furthering peoples' dependence on government.  Sarvis does not.

     http://votesmart.org/public-statement/800471/issue-position-healthcare-and-virginias-economy#.UnFidxBKQTs
     Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has the right to take money from hard working people and give it to other people? That's right, nowhere. The Constitution does not give the federal government the right to run such programs as Medicaid and Medicare. Those two programs are an overwhelming huge part of our federal debt. As tragic as peoples' stories are, we just cannot afford to keep these programs. They're running our country into the ground. Do I sound heartless because I don't want to give money to Grandma and poor kids? Maybe. But I don't think it is heartless to say to someone who is old and sick "I'm sorry, but I am in debt up to my eyeballs. My financial situation is a complete and utter wreck. I really can't afford to give you any money right now."
      What the government should be focused on is strengthening the economy enough so that people do not need to rely on Medicaid and Medicare and lowering ridiculous medical costs so they don't cost the same as a house to get a simple operation done. There's nothing in the Constitution saying that the states themselves cannot provide Medicaid and Medicare, just so as long as they don't use federal money. People should also change their spending and lifestyle habits so that they're not completely broke when they get old. For example, in many other countries, old people move in with their children when they cannot live and work on their own. The child then pays for much of their old parents' expenses, eliminating the need for such programs as Medicaid and Medicare.

      5. Both Cucinelli and McAuliffe do not want to legalize marijuana or end the ridiculous war on drugs. Sarvis wants to do both.
      http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues/drug-reform
     Cucinelli and McAuliffe both believe that the government knows what's better for you than you do. They believe the government knows how to better spend your money than you do. They believe that since they personally do not believe smoking marijuana is a good idea, then that means they should force that idea down peoples' throats, and make it so no one can smoke it.
      If you think that smoking marijuana is bad/immoral, fine, I have no problem with that. Then don't do it then! But don't try and make everyone else think that same way!
      Outlawing marijuana gives power to the Mexican drug cartels, because now they have a monopoly on selling the stuff, because legal companies can't. Estimates say that a whooping 60% of the cartels' profits come from selling marijuana:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/opinion/19longmire.html?_r=0

     Just imagine if every ABC store also sold marijuana, for example. You could get it virtually in any town, and for much cheaper, because getting stuff on the black market is always more expensive than getting something the legal way. It wouldn't be profitable for the cartels to sell it anymore. Boom. There goes 60% of their profits. With a crippled income, it makes it a hell of a lot easier to fight them. But Republicans and Democrats want the war on drugs to continue. They want Mexican citizens to be continued to get kidnapped and beheaded. Why? Because as long as there is a war right next to us, the government can continue to sell weapons to both the cartels and the Mexican government. War is a racket. They can continue to get money for training the Mexican army and police. They don't give a flaming fuck about the Mexican people. They just want money money money.  
     Prohibition didn't work with alcohol, and it's not working with marijuana. The government should not micro-manage peoples' individual spending habits on luxuries. They should stop viewing casual users as criminals, just like casual users of alcohol are not alcoholics.

     And there concludes my list. This is not a completely full list, just the top 5. Notice that both Cucinelli and McAuliffe both have ideas that I like. Cucinelli does not favor gun control. I agree with him on that issue. McAuliffe supports gay marriage. I agree with him on that issue. The thing is that their negatives far outweigh their positives. Sarvis is the only one where I agree with him on all the important issues and the majority of issues in general.

Robert Sarvis, Libertarian candidate for governor of Virginia

Vote on November 5th!            

 

Obsession with Non-Violence: Detrimental to Oppressed People

          I recently watched a video on Al Jazeera English, titled “The US and Honduras.”

          http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/faultlines/2012/08/201281381310569607.html

          Its 24 minutes long, so I don’t expect you to watch the entire thing. The summary of it is that the U.S. gives political, economic, and military support to the Honduran government, which is ridiculously corrupt, and its military and police forces engage in routine kidnappings, torturing, executions, and assassinations of numerous Honduran civilians, including human rights activists and members of the LGBT community. Not only does the U.S. government know that the Honduran government regularly does all of these things, but it directly “supervises” and “advises” in these activities.

          Now, before we go any further, imagine how you would feel if a powerful foreign country was doing the same thing to the United States, in your state, or in your county? I ask this because many people cannot look at an international issue, and understand why people feel a certain way in it, because they themselves have not been in that certain specific situation. I have no problem doing this, but not all my readers might. In order to understand why a people feel a certain way, often they must envision how they would feel if the exact same problem was occurring to them.         

          So, I ask you, what if a powerful foreign country, such as Russia or China, was propping up an even more corrupt government here in the U.S., funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to the American military and police forces, which were in turn, kidnapping unarmed American civilians, torturing them, locking them in jail without access to a lawyer, medical care, executing them and assassinating them? Wouldn’t you feel just a tad pissed off at Russia or China? Since they are the one reason why this particular U.S. government is able to stay in power. Would you call the Russian government or Chinese government terrorist supporters? They are supporting people who are killing unarmed civilians, by the way.

          Now that we are in the right frame of mind, let’s move onto my main point. My problem with this video is that the Hondurans were not saying “You know, this whole liberal non-violent thing protest against the government just ain’t working. No matter what I say, all they’re gonna do is shoot me in the head. They couldn’t give a flying fuck about human rights. Hmmmm, maybe I should take up arms to defend my rights, as many ideologies, political philosophies, and religions support!” Only a few Hondurans were brave enough to take up arms to defend themselves, such as this older campesino (peasant):

          I am fed up with this liberal non-violent trend that has swept most of the world, the idea that there is no such thing as legitimate violence, even in cases of self-defense. These Hondurans are so brainwashed by this trend, that they think it is unacceptable to get guns and ammo to protect themselves, their families, their community, etc. They cry and cry about their situation, yet won’t try something that has a good chance of improving their situation.

          Take Libya for example. At first, in the beginning of 2011, the Libyan people tried peaceful protests against the Gaddafi dictatorship, as well as they should, because at first, the very first, they were not under attack. But as soon as the dictator’s thugs came out and starting shooting them by the dozens, in the hundreds, then the Libyans said “Now we have the right to defend ourselves.” Peaceful protests would’ve done nothing against Gaddafi. Look where armed resistance got them. They over threw Gaddafi, and now have voted in a legitimate, representative government that was chosen BY THE PEOPLE.

          The Honduran government has no legitimacy; it is corrupt beyond hope or reform. It is deliberately killing its own civilians for profit. They get weapons, ammo, training, i.e. a stranglehold on power, from the U.S., and in turn, they have to kill a few civilians to look like they’re fighting a legitimate “war on drugs.” Therefore, the Honduran people have every right to fight to defend themselves. But they refuse to.

          This state of mind is very detrimental to peoples who are under an oppressive regime or foreign occupation. The people are suffering more because they are not exploring all of their options to free themselves. Take Palestine for example. They have not fought a sustained campaign against the Israelis since the 2^nd Intifada. Sure, some groups launch a few missiles every once in a while, which hardly do any damage at all. And every once in a while they do a small border attack that maybe kills like 1 Israeli soldier. But by and large, the Palestinian people have given up on armed resistance. Now, they do peaceful protests, boycotts, petitions, etc.

          And what do they have to show for it? Israel is still stealing land, water, and resources from them in the West Bank, they’re still setting up illegal settlements, checkpoints, roadblocks, settlers are attacking unarmed men, women and children, etc, etc. In Gaza, Israel is still bombing civilians with jet fighters and helicopters, shooting at children with machine guns and tanks, drone striking women in marketplaces, etc, etc. Something tells me that this whole non-violent thing isn’t working!

          We have to reverse this trend, it is only benefiting corrupt governments, terrorists, and foreign occupations. We have to let people know that yes, you have the right to life, you have the right to defend yourself from injury and death. This right is backed by, like I said before, major ideologies, political philosophies, and major religions. It is not a radical belief. It is not an extremist belief. It has been with man since the dawn of civilization. Even cavemen knew that if someone was attacking you with a club, that you didn’t have to just sit there and get whacked to death. You can defend yourself!

          This belief is not saying that violence just for the sake of violence is okay. Violence should be an absolute last resort. Violence should never be used except to defend yourself, help others who are defending themselves, or defending others that cannot defend themselves. In case you haven’t noticed, the main word here is defend. Violence is legitimate in these cases.

          At the 20 minute mark, Aldolfo Facusse, a Honduran businessman, says “What do you do if someone breaks into your house? What do you do? Do you let them do whatever they want to do to you? Or will you defend your home and your person?” I agree 100%.  

          Towards the end of the video, a Honduran man said “We don’t need guns. We don’t need bullets. We need other things that are going to improve our living conditions.” I would reply with “The fuck you do! Do you know how you can improve your living conditions? Get guns, get ammo, set up sentries in your villages to protect civilians from the police and the army, engage in the police in light, fast, guerrilla attacks, using the jungle and villages to hide and blend it. Coordinate with other villages, set up brigades, routes of smuggling and communication. Steal military vehicles, guns from the police and the army, buy weapons from smugglers in the black market, get political, monetary, and military help from other countries and foreign groups. Guess what you’re going to have after you throw off the yoke of oppression? That’s right, among other things, such as freedom, dignity, respect, opportunities to improve business, commerce, etc, you’re going to have improved living conditions.”

          In conclusion, this obsession with non-violent is not cute, it’s not sophisticated, and it is certainly not more noble or greater than legitimate violence. Non-violence has its rightful place: against governments that would be willingly to change due to political pressure, realization of a bad policy, good people in the government working to change it, etc, etc. Martin Luther King Jr. knew this; this is why he remained steadfast in non-violence in his campaign for equality and dignity. The American government was willing to listen to him; President Johnson finally passed legislation that gave African Americans rights and freedoms. This is an example of where non-violence was better to used than armed struggle. It is also important to remember that legitimate armed struggle also has in its place: in situations like in Honduras, Palestine, Afghanistan, Syria, Burma, and other countries whose governments or foreign occupation is keeping people down in the dust by depriving them of numerous basic human rights.    

(Picture is from Al Jazeera)