This is not a political site. This is an anti-political site. We agree with the goals of individual liberty, free markets, and peace, no matter who gets the credit.


Obama is a Citizen, But of Which Planet?

The Truth is Out There
In my latest Jack Hunter-style op ed regarding the whole embarrassing (m) "birther" controversy, I provide a short, sweet, and to-the-point analysis of the real reason Barack Obama isn't qualified to be President of the United States.

By Wes Messamore - Guest Columnist
Editor of TheHumbleLibertarian


He Cured "Birthism", Now a Cure For Capitalism

My crack staff of unpaid researchers has succeeded in coming up with yet another great E-mail find. This time it's a cartoon from Scotland that points out that the world is laughing at America while it sinks beneath the economic sea after wave after wave of bad policy and ideology bash the only lifeboat available. Apparently the cartoon is not new, but sadly it's still relevant.

Many thanks to Butch for sending this funny yet sad cartoon.


Ron Paul Announces an Exploratory Committee - Rand Paul Comments on Video

The two best parts about this interview with Senator Rand Paul are where he explains just how healthy and robust Ron Paul is these days, and especially where he just tears Donald Trump to shreds. Absolutely classic. Enjoy:

By Wes Messamore- Guest Commentator
Editor of  The Humble Libertarian


Who is Gary Johnson and Why Would He Run For President?

I read a poll yesterday that claimed that well over half the people in this country could not name a single Republican Presidential candidate. While most of the people who read this blog are not among them, I still have doubts about whether even half of you know who Gary Johnson is.

A few days ago I wrote about the Presidential aspirations of a self promoting slickster with a super bad comb-over who has garnered some early poll support without ever having been asked any important questions about what he believes on the important topics of the day. It was a semi-serious piece about a semi-serious candidate.

The main thing that made it enjoyable to write was it gave me a chance to point out that he has a cat sitting on his head. Times are tough and amusement costs are up so it had a good "chuckle to expense" ratio.

But now it's time to turn our attention to a much more serious but less well known candidate who announced his campaign this morning and launched his website. Gary Johnson is known fairly well in libertarian circles but even though a huge number of Americans are actual libertarians, they do not self identify as such and don't keep abreast of the happenings in those circles.

Essentially they are just regular Americans who think it's better if we have a smaller government, lower taxes, less crazy regulations and fewer bailouts of crony capitalists. They generally think we should help our neighbors ourselves and otherwise just mind our own business. They think we should live within our means, personally and governmentally. In other words, they belong to the Tea Party even though they never joined. Like me, most of them were members for decades before it was even invented.

One of the most well read posts on this site was one written back in August of 2010 and was titled Maybe Gary Johnson For a Change? It went mini-viral when Gary mentioned it on his Face Book page. It was a short introduction to the former Governor of New Mexico (1994-2003) who was making noises about a run for the top executive job in the country and testing the waters by traveling the country making appearances at speaking engagements and on TV news programs.

So today is the big day for him to announce his run, and a good day for other people to learn something about him. I'll do my part by giving you the links and you do your part by educating yourself and your friends about him so you can better compare his positions and track record to the more well known candidates to come.

You don't have to endorse him. It's too early for either of us to do that. Too many things will be happening in the coming months as more people enter or exit the race and hopefully each of them receive a better vetting than our current President received by the so called press in this country.

Barack Obama was a little known, just elected junior Senator and former community organizer who jumped into the political scene on the strength of an ability to read a teleprompter and look cool to uninformed screaming college girls and other people of still  undeveloped intellectual curiosity. He got elected because people "hoped" he wasn't George W. Bush. (It turned out he actually was.)

Who ever heard of Billy Bob Clinton a year before he ran for President? Who ever heard of a peanut farmer named Carter a year before he was elected and ruined the country? So in my mind, name recognition isn't all it's cracked up to be. (For those who want to delve deeper into these issues, this site has info on political science classes: )

It's better if we don't get Trumped this time out. That's why I'm asking;  Who is Gary Johnson and Why Would He Run For President?


New Parlor Game - Let's All Stump the Trump

Only a short time ago it would have been hard to imagine that an interesting topic for a blog article would be about a Presidential aspirant who has a rather unsightly cat sitting on his head.

 But in the crazy political environment of the last ten years when the electorate decided to hire a "conservative" liberal named George Bush and a "hope for change" socialist community organizer named Barack Obama, who could blame a self promoting egotistical slickster with a TV show from pondering the possibility of throwing his cat into the ring?

Particularly Republicans, who have the world record for selecting dead bang losers for their Presidential candidates. It's not totally out of the question that they will follow up their success on that distinction by choosing someone with name recognition but nothing else. Donald Trump may fit the bill perfectly.

Donald Duck also has the "bill" and the name recognition, but not enough credibility with his uncle Scrooge to finance a credible campaign. Since both are cartoon characters, it might be the only meaningful difference.

But only one of them can actually answer questions about his positions on issues, so let's see if we can ask a few questions that the "journalists" seem to have forgotten while spending most of their time trying to create the carnival atmosphere required to re-elect their favorite big government barker. It's time well spent creating that atmosphere though because if people actually have to focus on job performance, broken promises, failed stimulus plans and rejected (but enacted) healthcare schemes, their hero is the next Jimmah Carter.

The "Donald" (as the creepy Trump likes to be called) is just the vehicle for such a scheme and if I was a conspiracy theorist as the Donald is pretending to be, I'd say he struck a deal with the White House cabal to distract the limited attention of many of the likely voters in the 2012 election. But I'm not, so I won't.

The game is simple, we ask easy questions about Trump's fundamental beliefs and track record and then determine the score by counting the number of times the mainline media doesn't do the same. As you might have guessed, there is no winner.

So here are a few, just to start the game:

1. Mr. Trump, other than President Obama's birth certificate (or lack thereof), please tell us what your main issue is for the campaign. Then tell us specifically what you intend to do about it and how you plan to get the congress and the American people to agree with you. So far there has been no word on the issue much less the solution.

2. Give us your views on the US Constitution. It's relevance, what it allows the federal government to do and please be specific as your interpretation of each item in the bill of rights. It should only take a few moments away from firing apprentices on your "reality" show.

3. How would you approach the budget issues? Short and long term please.

4. Is there a debt crisis looming? And if so, what do you propose?

5. Tell us about the level of taxation and the current system for raising revenues.

6. Tell us specifically how you would be different from the last few Presidents in dealing with foreign affairs, like an atomic Iran, and the ever increasing militarization of China?

7. Can you tell us about your plans to prosecute the three wars we are now engaged in?

8. How will you deal with the illegal immigration issue?

9. Is there an inflation problem of unimaginable significance on the horizon, and if so, what do you propose?

10.  You said in an interview a few days back that we should seize the oil fields of Iraq and Libya. Why did you say that?

Bonus question.  Do you think that anyone really believes you are a small government Tea Partier?

Finally the question that really has me puzzled. It's to the debatable number of people who have answered "yes" to the poll question about whether they would vote for you or not.

Have you lost your minds? Or are you just planning to vote for "anyone but Obama?"

In either case, as your man Trump says, You're Fired.


Dancing With the Stars, the Chicago Way

President Barak Obama doing the twist during his first campaign stop of the 2012 re-election bid. He was in Chicago competing in the dance contest while trying to woo the voters who didn't vote for him in 2008 but loved Chubby Checker. Meanwhile the newly elected Mayor Rahm Emmanuel waits his turn to compete in an effort to dethrone the current Chicago soft shoe champion, outgoing Mayor Richard Daley.

While admitting that Obama has a cultural advantage in the dance competition, Emmanuel accepts the President's invitation to be his partner the couples portion to see if they can out step the current champ; Mayor Daley and his partner Alderman Tunney.  (pictured below waiting in the wings for their turn)

"We're gonna twisty twisty twisty 'Til we turn the house down!"
Chubby Checker commenting on the President's budget battle with the House of Representatives.


I Feel So Much Safer Now

TSA finally addresses the terrorism threat posed by short people.


Obama Printing Millions of Paper Coupons, Good for One Gallon of Gas

April 10, 2011 by Dan Mitchell

The next time you decide to go on a trip or vacation, consider getting a bunch of these Gas Coupons.

I didn’t realize it, but these coupons are good for one gallon of gas at most retailers. I have seen them around, but until recently never took advantage of them, I never realized their actual worth.

You probably have one or two just lying around somewhere, now is the time to use them before they lose their value, and it’s too late!!

These coupons can be obtained at most banks and retail stores across America.

Reposted by permission of the author.


Hungry for a Budget Deal? Eat the Rich

Well, this guy is rich, but I'm guessing he will kill your appetite no matter how hungry you are. (Unless, of course, you crave a slob-burger and an order of flies)

Unfortunately it looks like I'm stuck in wonksville for the immediate future unless I can think up another topic to blog about soon. But it's hard to get off this "budget news" cycle when it's all over the web every day. And I keep getting great material sent to me by my hard working group of unpaid web observers.

A few days ago I received two such items. One from a reader named Lisa via email and another from a savvy web-spotter named Homer who feeds me the best stuff going around the email circuit.

The first is an article from the Daily Caller describing a political slush fund that is funded with five hundred million of your tax dollars and scheduled to ramp up to two billion dollars a year by 2015. (and in perpetuity) This one comes to us courtesy of Obamacare in the "Anti Obesity" section and I take personal offense since that section seems to be aimed squarely at me.

I guess that now that they passed Obamacare we get to find out what's in it. I suspect Nancy Pelosi already knew.

Slush funds are nothing new of course and Democrats have no monopoly on them. They are merely "The Chicago Way" gone national. But it's a great article if you have any indignation left in your "outrage tank" this week. You should read it here.

The second item is a video. Homer may have known when he sent it that it would end up here. If so, he guessed correctly because I think it is possibly the best of the many fine videos I have ever posted on this site.

Most of my regular readers will only see what they already know, but posted in a more persuasive and fun way than before. But for some honest liberals and other Democrats who don't usually think in the same step by step organized manner as we do, but rather make decisions and judgments based on their heart and feelings, it might just be that one video that makes them realize that the end of the welfare state is near.

Not because mean old Tea Partiers or the hated Republicans will destroy it, but because (like Michael Moore) it collapsed of its own weight, when as Margret Thatcher once said, we ran out of "other people's money."

So I suggest you send a link to it to all your honest liberal friends. I know you might not want to risk it, but as the saying goes, "those who matter don't mind and those who mind don't matter."

As for "eating the rich", I'm not in danger of being consumed, but our country certainly is.


Ryan vs Obama - Charting the Budget Battle

In One Chart, Everything You Wanted to Know about Ryan vs. Obama
April 5, 2011 by Dan Mitchell

Forget all this talk about giant “spending cuts” of $6.2 trillion in Congressman Ryan’s budget plan. That’s music to my ears, but it’s also based on Washington’s bizarre budget math – i.e., the screwy system where politicians can increase spending but say they’re cutting spending because the budget could have grown even faster.

What really matters is how much money government is spending this year compared to how much money will be spent in subsequent years. Using this common-sense benchmark, let’s look at two competing proposals.

According to the new numbers released today, Congressman Ryan’s budget plan will result in government growing, on average, by almost 2.8 percent annually over the next 10 years.

President Obama’s budget plan, by contrast, would increase the burden of government spending by an average of nearly 4.7 percent each year.

This chart compares the two budget plans. Because Chairman Ryan does not let spending grow as rapidly, cumulative spending over that period will be $6.2 billion less than it would be based on the President’s plan. That’s an impressive amount of money that taxpayers will save if Ryan is successful, but it’s not a spending cut.

Not surprisingly, the big spenders in Washington are claiming that the “spending cuts” in Representative Ryan’s budget are “harsh” and “extreme.” But Ryan’s proposal would allow the budget to grow faster than inflation, which is projected to average less than 2.1 percent annually over the 10-year period.

Good fiscal policy is very simple. Restrain the size and scope of government so that outlays grow slower than the private sector. If that happens, the burden of federal spending will shrink as a share of economic output.

That’s exactly what happens with Ryan’s plan. By 2018, the federal budget will drop to less than 20 percent of GDP. That still doesn’t bring us back to where we were at the end of the fiscally responsible Clinton years, when federal spending consumed only 18.2 percent of GDP. But after a 10-year spending binge under Bush and Obama, Congressman Ryan’s plan would move America back toward fiscal responsibility.

This article is reprinted with the permission of the author.
Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, blogs at International Liberty


Why Are Republicans Proposing Higher Spending Levels?

Thanks to LibertyWorks for the image
 I know it's April Fools Day, but this is not a joke, at least not on my part. And although you might think the people running our government are fools, it's not just on this day.

It seems the gag is on us. And it's being pulled by the media and anyone else who would have you believe that there are any cuts in federal government spending being proposed by anyone who matters, even those mean old extremist Republicans in congress.

The fantasy would work like this in my life; I propose a budget for myself to spend a lot more next year than I spent last year. Then I re-propose to scale the first proposal back and merely spend somewhat more than last year, and then I call it a "cut" and tell you how much progress I'm making in controlling my spending.

That's the reality of what is happening in congress right now as house Republicans wrestle with senate Democrats over how to pay to keep the government operating for a few more weeks.

The media is talking about cuts that don't exist. These Republicans are not proposing to spend even a tiny bit less than last year, much less several years ago. And this at a time when rational people (Tea Partiers) have sent a clear message to their elected representatives that they want LESS spending, MUCH LESS spending. They don't want scaled back plans, they want actual cuts, large cuts.

Recently I wrote a piece titled The Sixty Four Thousand Dollar Question that pointed out how miniscule a GOP proposed $61 billion budget cut actually is in the context of the total amount of  government spending. I hope you saw the video that accompanied it which demonstrated how to keep these things in perspective. If not, you can just click the link above and see it now.

Now it looks like the Republicans might cave in and settle for half that paltry amount for fear of appearing extremist. It's time to send them a message, if you, like me, think the country (and our children's future) is in imminent danger of swirling the bowl sooner rather than later. Better call them up and inform them that their chance of being the candidate after the next primary elections is swirling around the same bowl if they don't get serious about this quickly.

When President Bill Lewinski left office the budget was about two thousand billion dollars a year. Under President Barak Carter it's about three thousand eight hundred billion dollars a year. And the Republicans are proposing to "cut" it by thirty one billion.  If you paid off your $3800 credit card bill with a minimum payment of  $31 a year, how long before you would be ready for a new shopping spree?

Notwithstanding the oft quoted (but incorrect) national debt figure of fourteen thousand billion dollars and my possibly fuzzy math, you get the idea that it might be a while before you hit WalMart again.

So if the answer to why Republicans are proposing higher spending than last year is because they fear being called extremists by Chuckie Shumer and NPR, then what would a guy like Senator Rand Paul who wants (as a start) to cut five hundred billion the first year be called?

I'd call him a Presidential candidate. And not just on April Fools day.