Archive for June, 2016

Rand Paul: Donald Trump ‘little bit’ more worrying than …

The Kentucky Republican is languishing in the low single digits in the polls as Trump and Cruz lead the pack in the GOP primary, but Paul said the prospect of a Trump presidency concerns him.

"I do worry a little bit more about Donald Trump," Paul told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Thursday. "The main reason I do is that I believe he wants more power to come to him and 'he'll take care of us all' if we just give him more power, but I'm from a limited government tradition."

The attack was an echo of attacks Paul made Wednesday, including comparing Trump to Gollum, a villain from "Lord of the Rings" who is corrupted by his quest for the powerful ring.

"I think what Trump wants is bad for America," Paul said.

RELATED: Paul says Trump is Gollum

But Paul said he has concerns about both the billionaire businessman and Cruz, attacking both of them on foreign policy.

"I don't think (Trump) has a consistent foreign policy," Paul said, but "I do think that he and Ted Cruz that want to make the 'sand glow' ... I think if you do indiscriminate bombing in the Middle East, you may well create more terrorists than you kill."

He also attacked Cruz for flip-flopping on issues based on what's politically expedient.

"I think Ted Cruz's problem is one of authenticity right now," Paul said.

He mentioned that the Texas senator voted with Paul on a bill to rein in government surveillance, but that Cruz said in a debate that he voted for the bill because it allows the government to collect more records of terrorists.

Paul said the libertarian-minded voters that support him are turned off by that.

"Our people pause at that and say, 'My goodness, is he trying to have it both ways?'" Paul said. "That kind of leap back and forth and trying to have it both ways really we think is Cruz's biggest problem right now."

Read this article:
Rand Paul: Donald Trump 'little bit' more worrying than ...

Libertarian Reddit: Social News from a Libertarian Point …

subscribeunsubscribe124,849 readers

201 users here now

Frequently Asked Questions

IRC CHANNEL: ##Austrians on irc.freenode.net

Webchat Link: /r/libertarian's in #Austrians IRC channel

This subreddit is for both philosophical and political libertarians of all kinds including, but not limited to the various "types" listed below. It is in no way aligned with the Libertarian Party. /r/Libertarian is a community to discuss free markets and free societies with free minds. As such, we truly believe in spontaneous order and don't formally regulate content (A practice encouraged by site reddiquette). A few general guidelines will help everyone:

Reading Group

Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia

Discussion Thread

Topics:

Types of Libertarianism:

People:

On Authority:

On War:

Libertarians Around the World:

Informed Discussion:

Major Subreddits:

External:

a community for 7 years

This is a new ad format that we are currently testing. We often try new types of ads in a limited capacity. If you have feedback, please let us know in the ads subreddit.

This area shows new and upcoming links. Vote on links here to help them become popular, and click the forwards and backwards buttons to view more.

Enter a keyword or topic to discover new subreddits around your interests. Be specific!

You can access this tool at any time on the /subreddits/ page.

Rendered by PID 16727 on app-694 at 2016-01-22 22:44:47.085703+00:00 running 0740420 country code: US.

More:
Libertarian Reddit: Social News from a Libertarian Point ...

Democrats (and Liberals) Hate America

Recently, I had a birthday. The great thing about getting older is that Im able to see patterns in life that I was not able to notice when I was younger. For instance, certain developments happen year after year, decade after decade, and by being able to see these kind of patterns, Im actually able to be a little bit ahead of the curve. One could even argue that some of this has made me a bit more cynical, too.

As an example, every year, I hear politicians talking about the national debt, but every year, it goes up. Im skeptical anytime I hear politicians discussing this issue because there is no evidence that they care about it at all. If they did care about it, they would act responsibly, reduce federal expenses, and actually pay down our debt. Or they would (at least!) pass policies that would actually increase economic growth so dramatically that the debt would be a much smaller percentage of our economy.

Then there are those who are always chanting for peace--despite the fact that, in human history, peace has not been the natural order of the world. There will always be war, tyranny, and dictators. War is literally part of the human condition. We might not like it, but it is what it is. The only thing that changes with regard to war is the technology used during wars. I always think it is quite funny how a few minutes chatting with some people playing a video game like Battlefield yields more common sense and rationality than politicians who have been in office for 40 years. As a recent example, I recently asked people in a video game whether the game should introduce Miranda warnings, requirements that the enemy actually shoot you before you shoot back, a requirement to determine how many women and children are located in a particular area, and a time out if you use excessive force against the enemy, etc, etc. The answers were colorful, but it is clear that they said no! Not a single dissent. If only people who played video games would be in charge of war!

On another random note: I have noticed that politicians promote college for all as some kind of pathway to the middle class. Since past college graduates have done quite well in life, there is an assumption that college is necessary for every single American. I personally believe that IQ probably explains more of the success that most college graduates of the past have experienced. Since half the population will have below average IQs, colleges have had to respond to the dumber students by creating remedial classes in math and English, as well as ridiculously lame majors like grievance studies. In the end, a lot of colleges are just graduating students with fancy degrees in useless majors and tons of debt.

More here:
Democrats (and Liberals) Hate America

Could documentary ‘Weiner’ cost Hillary Clinton women’s votes …

NEW YORK A new documentary about the 2013 mayoral run of disgraced ex-Congressman Anthony Weiner could be the latest thorn in the side of Hillary Clintons presidential campaign.

Previewed exclusively by the New York Times this week, Weiner was deemed by the paper a visceral film that is a potentially distracting issue in Clintons campaign, as Weiners wife, Huma Abedin, one of Clinton's closest advisors, appears throughout.

The Times says Weiner shows how Ms. Abedin with facial expressions ranging from hurt to hostile copes with the second sex scandal to engulf her husbands career and crush her hopes of becoming a powerful political wife.

After it premieres at the Sundance Film Festival, Weiner will be released in theaters on May 20, and is slated to have a TV premiere on Showtime in October, just weeks ahead of the general election.

Tony Sayegh, a Republican strategist and Fox News Contributor, said the Weiner repercussions could be very real for Clinton, and cost her the support of some female voters.

Among the more damaging is that it reveals another example of how hollow the war on women argument is when coming from the Hillary camp, disabling that most favorite of perennial liberal ad hominem attacks is the equivalent of taking Superman's ability to leap tall buildings away, Sayegh told FOX411. For both Anthony Weiner and Bill Clinton, their sexual misconduct went well beyond the realm of a boys will be boys defense.And it was Hillary and Huma to the rescue all in the name personal advancement.That is not a story Hillary wants out there, especially through a more popular medium that has the ability to reach a broader audience.

But Brad Blakeman, a member of former President George W. Bushs Senior Staff and a Professor of Public Policy, Politics and International Affairs at Georgetown University, says the documentary is the least of Hillarys concerns.

If you like Hillary, the film will reinforce the vast right wing conspiracy and if you dont like Hillary the film will just validate what you already thought, he said.

Dan Gerstein, an independent political strategist and owner of Gotham Ghostwriters, a ghostwriting agency that specializes in speeches, agreed with Blakeman that while the documentary could be a distraction to Clintons presidential bid, she has bigger fish to fry.

It affects her aide, he said, referring to Abedin. Its an indirect negative, and therefore the press finds it more interesting than the public does. Im not trying to say its a positive by any means. Clinton has much bigger issues affecting her campaign than a side show like this.

One person who couldnt care less about the movie? Weiners sexting partner, Sydney Leathers.

Im not concerned about any of it coming back up because I find it hilarious. Its not a big deal to me, Leathers told FOX411. Its certainly not a good look for Hillary.There are comparisons to be made between Weiners behavior and Bills behavior. I find it fascinating the way Huma and Hillary have handled infidelity in their marriages.It seems they apply a Dont Ask, Dont Tell Policy when it comes to [their husbands].

Leathers, who found herself entangled in yet another sexting scandal with Indiana State Rep Justin Moed in 2015, had a few more words for Weiner.

He should just be happy anyone cares about him after he resigned from Congress and had a failed mayoral bid, she added. What other unemployed, sex obsessed, creepy middle-aged men have documentaries coming out about them?

FOX411 reached out to Anthony Weiner, Huma Abedin, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and filmmakers Josh Kriegman and Elyse Steinberg, but did not receive comment.

Diana Falzone is a FoxNews.com reporter.You can follow her on Twitter @dianafalzone.

Go here to see the original:
Could documentary 'Weiner' cost Hillary Clinton women's votes ...

What is censorship? – Undergraduate Courses

By: Chad Hawthorne CS3604, Spring 1997

The definition of censorship from the American Library Association is, "The change in the access status of material, made by a governing authority or its representatives. Such changes include: exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes." [3]

A debate on censorship could cover volumes of law books. There are hundreds of modern day cases on the subject, many of which have reached the Supreme Court. This page is not an attempt to delve into every aspect of censorship, a task that the author finds daunting. This resource explores American's beliefs on censorship, some examples of censorship in academia, and how the issue of censorship relates to digital media, including the Internet.

Censorship takes many forms in our country. From the outright banning of books and information, to the more subtle censorship of persuasion. Despite the importance our country places on freedom of thought and the freedom of speech, there have been countless efforts throughout our history to curb those freedoms. Frequently these efforts are successful, either in the outright banning of information or a curb in the freedoms once allowed. According to UPI the censorship of textbooks, novels, and classroom materials was at its highest level in 10 years in 1992.[2] An organization dedicated to protecting constitutional liberties, People for the American Way, reports that "'censors' were more active in 1991-92 than in any other year, with 376 'attacks on the freedom to learn in 44 states." [2] Not only are these 'censors' more active but their efforts are more successful than at any point in the four years previous to 1992. According to the People for the American Way, "Forty-one percent of the materials challenged were removed or restricted in some fashion."[2] Censorship is not limited to books and physical media, it also has effects on the Internet and the digital world. Censoring material on the Internet has become an important issue for countries around the world. Censorship is an ongoing issue and the battle to stop censorship is one that has roots in the very beginnings of our country.

To understand Americans beliefs on censorship it is valuable to learn exactly where these values originate and to learn how they are being challenged. Our beliefs in freedom of speech and our values that limit censorship are exemplified in our constitution and the associated bill of rights. The framers of the constitution drew their values and concepts of civil liberties from many sources, including the ancient Greeks and contemporary English philosophers. From the ancient Greeks came forth the idea of 'natural law' and the concept of equality. [5]

Another more contemporary influence was the writings of the 17th century English political philosopher, John Locke. One of Locke's major contributions was the idea, "[T]he end of law is not to abolish or restrain but to preserve and enlarge freedom."[5] This idea translated into our bill of rights, ratified December 15, 1791. The first item in the bill of rights states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "[5] This first amendment to the constitution serves as the basis for our freedoms of speech and the cornerstone of censorship debates in the United States. Many efforts to censor ideas, books, and electronic media have been challenged based on this amendment to the constitution.

One of these challenges to the law came in a 1982 Supreme Court case, Island Tree School District v. Pico. This case answered the question of who has the right to remove books from a school library and on what basis. The Island Tree Village school board removed from the school library ten books that it considered, "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and just plain filthy."[4] Some of the books banned included classics such as, Kurt Vonegut's Slaughterhouse Five, Richard Wright's Black Boy, and Eldridge Cleaver's Soul on Ice. The Supreme Court admitted that the school board has discretion to create and maintain a school curricclum and to further appropriate civic and moral values. However, the Supreme Court announced important limits on this discretion; it said that the First Amendment extends to "the right to receive ideas" in the context of a school library, where "a student can literally explore the unknown."[4] The court stated that school officials may not engage in the "narrowly partisan suppression of ideas" by removing books from the library simply because they contain ideas that they disagree with.[4] This case was the basis from which all other school censorship cases would be evaluated. Six years after this historic case there came another case, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier.[4] This case brought up the question of weather the school administration has the right to censor and limit the content of a school newspaper. It was decided that the school administration does have the right to review and edit the content of a school newspaper. The court qualified their decision by stating that administrators decisions must be based on, "legitimate pedagogical concerns."[4]

The fine line between "legitimate pedagogical concerns" and "narrowly partisan suppression" is constantly being redefined and challenged by new censorship cases. These cases involve old forms of media and information, as well as new digital media. Censorship is not promoted by just one political group or social advocacy organization, however, according to the ACLU, "the greatest threat today comes from the fundamentalist right, with its ideological hostility to other religious or philosophical systems, to homosexuality, to sex education, and indeed the basic idea of secular education."[4] The censorship debate in academia is frequently a debate about children. It concerns what is appropriate for children to read, learn, and see. It involves censoring teachers and school administrators all in the name of the children. This debate about what children should learn is the basis for censoring the Internet here in the United States. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 censored most forms of digital media on the basis that children were getting obscene material over the Internet.[1]

In the United States censorship of the Internet reared its head in 1996 with the Telecommunications Act. In the Telecommunications Act there is embedded in Title V a measure called the "Communications Decency Act" or CDA. The CDA limits "obscene, indecent and offensive material" on the Internet.[1] This act makes it illegal to distribute pornography or other indecent material to minors over the Internet or any other digital media. It is a bold step in censoring the cyber-world, and limiting free speech. There was a tremendous debate about weather this law was needed and what effect it would have on the Internet community. Previously there were few laws governing the Internet and it was generally considered as bastion of global freedoms. However, this new law signified an effort by the government to censor peoples thoughts and ideas, under the guise of protecting children.

Other countries are also trying to grapple with the problem of indecent material on the Internet.[6] All of these actions have the effect of limiting personal freedoms and censoring the general public. Although other governments have different values and ideas about freedom of speech, their values and decisions affect everybody in this increasingly global environment, including us in the United States. The Internet has given citizens of every country the ability to communicate and transfer information across borders. This presents a problem in the area of censorship. If one country passes a law governing the use of the Internet, how is it to be enforced in this global environment? For example , "A German court has already acted to prevent users in that country from accessing sexually explicit Internet discussion groups. The court forced CompuServe, a US-based online information service, to block access to about 200 of the thousands of "Usenet" groups to be found on the Internet."[6] Clearly the laws and regulations made by one country have an effect on the Internet community at large, regardless of where a user lives. The ethics and censorship beliefs that Americans hold so valuable can conceivably be challenged and thwarted by the laws of another country.

In conclusion, the censorship one country takes to limit personal freedoms can have a ripple effect through governments around the world. This censorship often stems from the need to protect children from obscenity and "adult" topics. The need to protect children is most obvious in the nations schools, where censorship is frequently carried out, and even upheld by the courts. Now, with the development of digital media, children are learning about the world from the privacy of their homes. Must this digital media be censored and freedoms curtailed to protect children? Hopefully a solution will be found that protects children and freedoms.

See the article here:
What is censorship? - Undergraduate Courses