In lieu of a 2 Paragraphs 4 Liberty this week, I am sending to you this 5 ½ minute video of Governor Gary Johnson discussing our nation’s foreign policy for the last how many years. In this video you will see the Gary Johnson that I know, and I wanted you to know him too. But time is short, so please pass this on to your social media world, because this is THE candidate who can both lead and unite our great country!
We get the government we deserve, and recently we have not been doing a particularly good job. This can change with GGJ.
Thank you, and Life is Good!
Judge Jim Gray (Ret.)
Oct. 13, 2016, Salt Lake City, UT — In a new Internet video focused on foreign policy, Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson says, “We need a chess player in the White House, and we need policies guided by principle, not politics.”
Citing the foreign policy of the past two Administrations, Johnson says, “We know that the erratic military interventions of the past 15 years have not made Americans safer. And it’s pretty difficult to see how we’ve made anyone else safer either.
“Is Iraq better off today than it was before we invaded? Is Libya more stable or ‘safer’ since we helped topple its government? 15 years later, is Afghanistan any more democratic or safer than it was before we made it the subject in a nation-building experiment? And in Syria today, are our bombs actually stopping a massive human tragedy?
“And then, the most important question is: Has any of this made America safer, freer or more secure? The answer, unfortunately, is NO.”
Outlining an approach focused on clear objectives, Johnson continues, “First, let’s be absolutely clear. The President’s first and most solemn responsibility is to keep us and our freedoms safe, especially from foreign attack. If the government does nothing else, it must do that.
“Keeping us safe means having a military capability that is unquestionably second to none. And if we stop asking our military to intervene in civil wars, build nations and replace the government of other nations, we can afford to defend ourselves without bankrupting ourselves.
“Our foreign policy must support America’s interests — the most important being our own security. That seems obvious, but for some time now, that hasn’t been the case.
“We must expect and demand that other nations shoulder the responsibility for their own defense and economic well-being. We are broke. We’ll honor our commitments to NATO and the agreements we have with allies, but we can’t keep picking up the tab for the national defense and economies of other nations.
“We must not ask our military to engage in conflicts without a clear mission and clear authorization. In Afghanistan and Iraq, what were our objectives — and when could we possibly know when “mission accomplished” arrived?
“We have the finest military in the world, and the finest men and women serving in it. They deserve better than being sent on impossible missions with no clear purpose. They signed up to protect and defend America — not to risk their lives in civil wars without even knowing for sure which side they are fighting on.
“And when we send our military out to risk their lives, the least we can do is give them the support of constitutional authorization from Congress. As President, I will honor the Constitution and insist on congressional authorization if and when it comes time to send our troops into harm’s way.”
###
from WordPress http://ift.tt/2eAVt3K
via IFTTT
How/why can the government prohibit us from gambling? Because gambling addictions can ruin people’s lives, or enrich some unsavory people? Because often gambling proceeds are untaxed? Because gambling is immoral? Etc. and etc. Okay, then how/why can government approve or at least allow some types of gambling for adults, such as horse or dog racing, state-run lotteries (note the irony?) and almost all forms of gambling in places like Las Vegas and at Indian casinos? In fact, how is that gambling essentially different than “playing the stock market,” or even fishing?
So we now have seen the first debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, which any neutral observer would define as much more of an entertainment spectacle than a substantive discussion of the issues. Indeed, much of the entertainment consisted of a sophomoric exchange of falsehoods and panderings to various interest groups. Instead of being presidential, it was more like watching a reality show or an episode of “House of Cards.” So let’s all do America a Big Favor, and lobby, argue and advocate for a third candidate to be in the last two debates!
If the government controlled the development of goods and services do you believe technology would be anywhere close to where it is today – in anything? Of course not, because government has far fewer incentives to take risks and be creative. Actually the same thing is true regarding big established companies, as opposed to smaller or at least younger ones. For example, let’s talk about the automobile.
Companies and employers are constantly being regulated – by their customers, employees and competitors. That means that if a company gets “bad marks” from its “regulators” it loses revenue, loses its employees to other businesses, or even goes out of business,. Of course government does have a place in regulating the marketplace. Sometimes some companies get such a market share that they can forcibly restrain trade, and some employers are predators that take unfair advantage of their workers. But regulations should be used only when market forces and the criminal laws are ineffective. So we need far less than regulation than we have today. Not only is it a question of better results for more people, it is a question of Liberty! 
The Democratic candidate for president is threatening to do damage to at least six groups that thrive on Liberty. Why? Because many of those groups are challenging vested interests to which she is beholden. But the Libertarian candidates of Governors Johnson and Weld will support them. These six groups are home-schoolers, charter school supporters, concealed-carry permit holders, fracking workers, users of e-cigarettes and vapor products, and Uber drivers and others in the “sharing” economy. So everyone who is in or supportive of those groups should realize that their liberties are being threatened, and they should vote accordingly.
Recently my good and thoughtful friend Judge Frank Firmat (Ret.) and I were talking about how blessed we are. And all the more so because we appreciate our blessings. For example, only one in 20 people in the world live in America, and often, as in my case, by a sheer “luck of the draw.” Millions of people all around the world would give virtually anything to live where we live. Furthermore, we are healthy, blessed with a moderate amount of intelligence, have good friends and family, have many interesting experiences and can be well paid for our time.
Since I am currently writing a musical about the Constitutional Convention, I am particularly aware of the debates by and feelings of the Founding Fathers as they struggled to create what would become the greatest document of the Age of Enlightenment. And any inquiry will readily disclose that the Founding Fathers felt that the most important function of government was to protect individual liberties from government encroachment. (The second most important function was to keep us safe from foreign nations and from each other.) Furthermore, and to hammer the point home, the 9
Like the old saying goes, “Money Talks.” And, on the issue of medical marijuana, money has resulted in the institutional corruption of the federal government. This is a harsh charge, but demonstrably true. How so? Because the federal government, on the one hand, classifies the natural cannabis (marijuana) plant as a Schedule I Drug – which by definition means that it has no medical value whatsoever, joining heroin and LSD – at the same time it classifies Marinol, which is a synthetic marijuana, as a Schedule III drug, like Tylenol with Codeine. Therefore marijuana cannot be prescribed by a medical doctor, but Marinol can be. How could this inconsistency occur? The answer is that a plant cannot be patented, but a synthetic substance can be. So big pharmaceutical money has corrupted the federal government’s decisions by successfully lobbing for different treatment for marijuana and Marinol. 
I have two friends whom I met while I was a federal prosecutor in the United States Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles. After they left that office, they formed law partnership, but their real passion was establishing a restaurant. So as they went along they put their resources into a restaurant and tried to make it work. But it didn’t. So they continued to practice law, and tried again – with the same results. Unfazed, they tried it a third time, and now they are the owners of California Pizza Kitchen. (They don’t practice law anymore. . . .)
+a.jpg)
