Beta
Skip to main content

Author: Jose Nino

Virginia Beach Shooting Took Place in Gun-Free Zone, Yet Media Demands More Gun Control

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Gun Rights, News, Second Amendment, Uncategorized. No Comments on Virginia Beach Shooting Took Place in Gun-Free Zone, Yet Media Demands More Gun Control

The shooting in Virginia Beach, Virginia on May 31, 2019, which saw a madman kill 12 people, has re-ignited the gun control debate in America. The usual calls for expanded restrictions came out of the mouths 2020 presidential hopefuls such as Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. Even celebrities such as Alyssa Milano got on Twitter to voice their displeasure with Congress’s inaction on passing gun control. She even criticized Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for not bringing up universal background check bill, HR.8, “up for a vote.” H.R. 8, which was passed by the House in February, was the largest gun control package to make it out of either chamber of Congress since the Brady Act was passed in the 1990s. If signed into law, millions of private gun sales and transfers could be subject to criminal penalties under this law. There are several inconvenient facts that gun control supporters are ignoring the Virginia Beach shooting in their cries for more gun control. First of all, the perpetrator, DeWayne Craddock acquired his .45 handgun legally. Like millions of other law-abiding American gun owners, Craddock had to go through the NICS background check. Most importantly, however, this shooting took place in another gun-free zone. The investigation from the Crime Research Prevention Center found that “Virginia Beach bans employees from being able to carry a gun” in public facilities, thus making them a soft target for mass murders. This trend is particularly notable when looking at schools throughout the country, which has been subject to the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The school shooting phenomenon is no coincidence when considering that 98 percent of shootings have taken place in so-called “gun-free” zones. Virginia Beach was a tragedy, but these types of events do not justify impulsive calls for more restrictions on the rights that millions of people in America exercise peacefully. Instead, policymakers should consider policies that allow armed individuals or at least private security entities to protect facilities that might be vulnerable to such attacks. Policies that enhance freedom, not control, should be our first impulses when confronting societal problems.

Cuba’s New Shortages Likely the Result of Price Controls

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Economic Liberty, Economics, Foreign Policy, News. No Comments on Cuba’s New Shortages Likely the Result of Price Controls

According to a CBC report, the Cuban government is now implementing a wide-scale rationing program. This program covers food products and basic goods such as chicken, eggs, rice, beans, and soap. Cuban Minister of Commerce Betsy Diaz Velazquez pins the blame on the Trump administration’s tightening of the U.S. trade embargo with the island nation. Some other analysts argue that reduced amounts of aid coming from Venezuela have contributed to this new economic crisis in Cuba. Venezuela provides subsidized fuel to Cuba so that it can meet its power requirements and earn hard currency on the market. However, there could be more to the story than these external factors. Shortages have been fixtures throughout Cuba’s history under the rule of its Communist party. Since Fidel Castro assumed control of Cuba in 1959, the Cuban state has dominated the commanding heights of the Cuban economy. This includes its implementation of price controls. As seen on multiple occasions, most recently with Venezuela, price controls inevitably lead to shortages of the goods that they are imposed on. This is simple economics. When the price system is distorted by regulations, artificial demand for the price-controlled good emerges. If the government mandated price ceiling ends up being lower than the price that suppliers are willing to bring a good to market, shortages start to pop up. The Cuban government enacted broad-based price controls in 2016 in response to rising food prices. Despite talk about a tepid market transition, Cuba seems to be reverting back to its old ways. Constant rationing of goods and services is typical of socialist economies which have largely undermined property rights and a rational pricing system. Indeed, Cuba is the Western Hemisphere’s first example of socialist failure. It joins countries like North Korea, Maoist China, and the Soviet Union in the economic hall of shame. Venezuela in its current form will likely join this list of misery. Nevertheless, U.S. sanctions are counterproductive. Ironically, they end up empowering the Cuban state and give corrupt politicians a scapegoat. By pointing to American sanctions, authoritarian leaders can keep their people distracted from the roots causes of their misery—their own government’s actions. In the end, the Cuban case shows that the laws of basic economics continue to be violated even in present times. If Cuba wants shelves to be stocked full of goods, it should quit blaming America and embrace a normal price system and make steps towards respecting private property for once.

Swiss Voters Approve Gun Control

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Gun Rights, Issues, Libertarian Stances on Issues. No Comments on Swiss Voters Approve Gun Control

Swiss voters overwhelmingly approved gun control in a referendum on May 19, 2019. These gun control restrictions would put Switzerland more in line with European Union rules on firearms. This ballot initiative passed the referendum by a 64-36 percent margin. Before the referendum took place, gun rights activists in Switzerland worried about this measure and its potential for gun rights infringements. The restrictions apply to non-EU member Switzerland because it is part of Europe’s Schengen open-border system. Switzerland’s failure to comply with these restrictions could have seen the country kicked out of the passport-free Schengen zone and the Dublin joint system for dealing with asylum requests. After Islamic terrorists killed hundreds of people in mass shootings in Paris in 2015, the EU tightened laws on the purchase of semi-automatic rifles that were used in those massacres. Further, the EU made the tracking of weapons in national databases easier. The initial proposal that the EU wanted Switzerland to comply with received pushback because it entailed a ban on a Swiss tradition of veterans keeping their rifles. Swiss officials were able to negotiate certain compromises for veterans and shooting sports participants. However, there was still pushback from Swiss gun owners who viewed this ballot initiative as a potential infringement on the country’s sovereignty. Switzerland has built a reputation over the past century as one of the most pro-gun countries in the world next to the U.S. So this move definitely deals a major blow to its pro-gun reputation. This is just a firm reminder, that despite all the gun control regulations that Americans must endure at the federal and state levels, the U.S. remains the most pro-gun country on the planet. However, there is still much work to be done. Switzerland shows that even relatively pro-gun countries can fall for gun control. Now more than ever, those who believe in freedom must be prepared to fight back in the culture and political spheres to uphold our rights. If not, we will most assuredly see our rights slowly wither away.

Columbine Survivor, CO Minority Leader Supports Armed Teachers

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Gun Rights, Issues, News, Second Amendment. 1 Comment on Columbine Survivor, CO Minority Leader Supports Armed Teachers

Columbine massacre survivor and now Colorado State House Minority Leader Patrick Neville supports the idea of armed school campuses. Neville recently endorsed the idea of school carry in an interview with NPR in the wake of the STEM school attack in Highlands Ranch, where one student was killed and several others were injured. He argued that the students at the school would have been safer if there had been a legally concealed handgun on campus the day the shooting took place. Neville argued that “I think that probably wouldn’t have – the shooting probably wouldn’t have happened in the first place.” The State Representative then expanded: “One of the reasons I propose this bill year after year is the fact that it’s a major deterrent. If they (school shooters) know they’re going to go in there and face opposition and they don’t know where that opposition’s going to come from, they’ll probably think twice about doing it in the first place. So I think they probably would have been safer had it actually broken out. But I think it probably would have prevented it from even happening in the first place.” Neville is onto something when discussing campus security. Since the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was signed into law, schools have effectively turned into soft targets for mass murderers. Research has indicated that the overwhelming majority of shootings take place in these areas, roughly 98 percent to be exact. However, there are signs that this trend could be reversed with Florida signing Senate Bill 7030, which gives school boards the power to allow trained teachers to be armed on campus. Although this legislation is not the ideal libertarian solution, it’s a step in the right direction. SB 7030 reasserts local autonomy for schools while also gradually advancing the idea of an armed campus. Colorado is definitely in need of such legislation. Once one of the most pro-gun states in the country, Colorado has slipped in recent years thanks to gun control measures passed after the Aurora shooting in 2012. Now, Guns & Ammo magazine puts it in an abysmal 40th place in its ranking for most gun friendly states. Representative Neville is on the mark when it comes to armed campuses. Getting teacher carry passed in Colorado at the very least would stem the tide of gun control that’s been surging in the state for the past decade.

Texas Legislators Try to Sneak Gun Control Program Into Budget

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Personal Liberty, Property Rights, Second Amendment. 1 Comment on Texas Legislators Try to Sneak Gun Control Program Into Budget

Gun rights in Texas are being subjected to a subtle attack. A safe storage campaign was recently snuck into a massive spending bill that is set to arrive on Governor Greg Abbott’s desk. This presents an awkward challenge for the sitting Governor Greg Abbott. This gun control provision is essentially a $1 million public safety campaign on gun storage. Abbot can still technically veto this spending program through the use of his line-item veto power. Pro-gun groups like Texas Gun Rights called on its members to demand that Governor Greg Abbott used his line-item veto to take down this backdoor gun control program. Safe storage laws have been a relatively popular gun control proposal implemented in numerous states. At first glance, this appears to be reasonable. Who doesn’t believe in the safe storage of firearms? But there’s more to the story than meets the eye. Dr. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center points out that firearm storage mandates “effectively disarm citizens in a time of urgency.” In a study for the Journal of Law and Economics, Lott uncovered that over 300 more murders and close to 4,000 more rapes occurred each year in the states that mandated firearms storage. In effect, these laws make it harder for people to defend themselves in high-pressure situations where every second is precious. A firearm storage mandate could put a person under attack at major risk if they cannot quickly access their firearm. 2019 has been a disappointing year for pro-gun activists in the Lone Star State. Pro-gun Constitutional Carry legislation was killed during the session, putting any hope of Texas becoming the 18th Constitutional Carry state in the nation to rest. Texas still has a relatively pro-gun environment, but its political class remains complacent and does not take the next step in restoring gun rights by passing Constitutional Carry. Now, Texans have to fend off a milquetoast gun control scheme from a supposedly “pro-gun” legislature. Texas gun owners don’t need taxpayer-funded virtue signaling to learn gun safety. Civic organizations such as gun clubs have taught millions of Americans gun safety for decades, all without government mandates. Let’s give civil society a chance for once. A robust civil society that solves social problems is what allowed America to become the most prosperous nation on earth. How about we go back to basics, shall we?

Ron Paul Gets Red Flag Laws Rights

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Elections and Politics, Gun Rights. No Comments on Ron Paul Gets Red Flag Laws Rights

Although he’s out of office, former Congressman Ron Paul continues to share wisdom on controversial pieces of public policy. He recently sounded off on the so-called “red flag” gun confiscation laws in a piece for The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity. Paul astutely observes that a “common trick of big-government loving politicians is to give legislation names so appealing that it seems no reasonable person could oppose it.” Indeed, this is a clever trick. It is a marketing ploy by busybody politicians to get people to accept their tyrannical schemes. Certain notable pieces of legislation such as the “PATRIOT Act” and the “Access to Affordable and Quality Care Act” had innocuous titles, despite the negative long-term implications that came with passing these laws. Paul uses the example of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Again, another law with an otherwise harmless title. Who could possibly be against stopping domestic violence? When dealing with legislation, there is always more to story than meets the eye. According to Paul, the Violence Against Women Act “provides federal grants to, and imposes federal mandates on, state and local governments with the goal of increasing arrests, prosecutions, and convictions of those who commit domestic violence.” As a strict constitutionalist, Paul recognizes that the VAWA is another example of unconstitutional legislation. He points out that the “Constitution limits federal jurisdiction to three crimes: counterfeiting, treason, and piracy. Other crimes like domestic violence are handled by state and local governments.” The law’s unconstitutionality doesn’t stop there. According to the VAWA, any time an individual’s wife or domestic partner places a restraining order against them they are then prohibited from owning a firearm. Paul views this as a “blatant violation of the Second Amendment’s prohibition on federal laws denying anyone the right to own a gun.” One may think that Paul is condoning domestic violence, but they’d be mistaken. Paul, instead, makes the case that only state and local officials have the power to determine if “someone subject to a restraining order, or convicted of a violent crime” will have their Second Amendment rights taken away. The current VAWA at least protects due process before someone is stripped of their gun rights. But that could be changing in the next few months. The U.S. House passed new legislation that not only reauthorizes the VAWA but adds several modifications to this legislation. Particularly troubling is a new provision that enables authorities to take away a person’s gun rights based on a weak allegation that the person was involved in an act of domestic violence. Effectively, a person can lose their Second Amendment rights in seconds “without even having an opportunity to tell their side of the story to a judge.” It would be a mistake to believe that red flag laws have support with just Democrats. Since the Parkland shooting in 2018, red flag laws have been a rallying point for Democrats and Republicans alike. A Republican Governor in Rick Scott signed Florida’s red flag law in 2018. Now, Republicans like Lindsey Graham are proposing their own red flag laws in Congress. The dangers of red flag laws go beyond the hypothetical. Maryland police shot and killed 61-year-old Gary Willis when they knocked on Willis’ door while trying to serve him a gun confiscation order early in the morning. These confrontations will become more frequent if red flag laws become widespread. Otherwise innocent civilians could lose their lives in these situations because they assumed that the police knocking on their door were trying break into their house. Indeed, domestic violence is a problem. But that does not necessitate that the government takes unconstitutional measures to resolve it. Instead, we should focus on rebuilding civic institutions that help reduce anti-social behavior. Not every problem has to be solved by the state.

The Drug War is Slowing Coming to an End in Texas

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Drugs, Economics, Issues, News. No Comments on The Drug War is Slowing Coming to an End in Texas

Could marijuana legislation come to the Lone Star State? Bexar County District Attorney Joe Gonzales announced on May 16, 2019, that Bexar County’s D.A. office will not prosecute people who possess trace amounts of hard drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine under .25 grams from here on out. Additionally, the DA’s office will no longer prosecute marijuana possession of less than an ounce. Bexar County encompasses major cities like San Antonio, which is its county seat. Bexar County’s latest move is part of a bigger trend taking place across the Lone Star State. Dallas County D.A. John Creuzot announced in April that his office would not prosecute first-time marijuana offenders or individuals who possess trace amounts of drugs under .01 grams. In the same token, the Travis County D.A. declared a similar policy for possession of hard drugs under .01 grams. Research from Reason discovered that petty drug possession makes up the bulk of narcotics-related incarcerations in Texas. Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union conducted a study which found that 78 percent of people incarcerated for felony drug possession in the Lone Star State had under a gram of drugs on their person. Trivial activities such as drug possession have played a key role in America’s mass incarceration trend of the past few decades. However, this disastrous Drug War might be slowly coming to an end. Since Colorado legalized recreational marijuana in 2012, other states have followed suit with their own legalization, decriminalization, or non-enforcement schemes. With Texas, starting to catch on to this wave, the Drug War might be in the terminal stage.   Indeed, the fight for drug reform in the Lone Star State will be tough, but any kind of progress is welcome. Some of Texas’ largest counties are off to a good start.

Commemorating Tank Man

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Libertarianism, Military, News, Personal Liberty. No Comments on Commemorating Tank Man

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests. The June 4, 1989 protests captivated the world’s attention as students took to the streets of Beijing to demand democratic reforms. What looked like the first step towards China’s eventual democratization, the optimism surrounding these protests came to a crashing halt when the Chinese government responded with repression. In the ensuing weeks, the world was shocked as they witnessed a country gradually reforming its top-down economy take an authoritarian turn when the citizenry demanded more freedoms. Because the Tiananmen Square incident is complex, we must go back in history to see what led to the culmination of this event and what it has meant for China in the present. China’s Radical Communist Experiment China’s 20th century was tumultuous, to say the least. In 1949, the Communists had fully consolidated their hold over China’s mainland and opposition forces were forced to retreat to the island of Taiwan. With full control of the levers of the Chinese state, Mao Zedong had tremendous ambitions of turning the once bullied country into a world power. To take China to the next level, Mao initiated the Great Leap Forward, in which the Chinese state embarked on an attempt to transform industry and agriculture in the country through central planning. Like other central planning schemes, the Great Leap Forward failed due to its abandonment of private property and a rational price system. This failure went beyond economic performance; lives were lost in the millions.  An estimated 20 million to 75 million people died during the famine caused by the Great Leap Forward, marking yet another case of democide. Although Mao’s image took a hit after the Great Leap Forward’s failure, he channeled his authoritarian power during the Cultural Revolution of 1966 to 1976 in an effort to purge Chinese society of any lingering bourgeois influences. This program also failed, as economic growth stagnated and the civil liberties of millions of people were violated in the process. From Communism to Economic Pragmatism Mao’s death in 1976 created a power vacuum of sorts. His ambitious programs were acknowledged as failures, thus discrediting his close associates in the eyes of Communist Party leadership. The Chinese Communist Party was in need of a new strategy to move the country forward. When Deng Xiaoping became the de facto leader of China in 1979, he understood Maoist policies had greatly impeded China’s economic growth. Channeling economic pragmatism, Deng began to liberalize the Chinese economy. Several market reforms such as land privatization and the creation of special economic zones helped China’s economy get off the ground. While limited in nature, China’s reforms did have a profound impact from the outset. China’s yearly GDP growth rate hovered around 9.5 to 11.5 percent from 1978 to 2013. During this period, millions were able to able to break free from extreme poverty. An economic miracle was brewing in China, as experts around the world marveled at the country’s superpower potential. However, economic growth does not necessarily operate in a vacuum. As traditionally authoritarian societies like China grow economically, the citizenry, especially the newly empowered middle classes, will clamor for more political freedoms. Milton Friedman famously argued that economic freedom is a precondition for political freedom. At first glance, this dynamic looked to be the path that China was headed towards in the 21st century. However, on the fateful month of June 1989, all hopes of democratization in China would come to a crashing halt. The Calls for Western Democracy Intensify in the 1980s The 1980s were a transformational era for Chinese politics. With a more stable economic footing, the Chinese middle class demanded Western-style democratic reforms such as democracy, government transparency, and free speech. These calls were not met on deaf ears. One of the more reform-minded Communist Party leaders, Hu Yaobang, the General Secretary of the Communist Party from 1980 to 1987, began floating the idea of introducing democratic reforms in China. However, his calls for political liberalization irked the “Eight Elders” of the Communist Party, who despite their willingness to pragmatically reform the Chinese economy, was not ready for political reforms. As a result, Hu was forced to step down from his position as General Secretary in 1987, effectively becoming a political recluse afterward. His death on April 15, 1989, had a ripple effect across the country. Student protestors demanded that the Chinese government restore Hu’s legacy once he was buried. They used Hu’s death to channel their frustrations with political corruption, employment opportunities, inflation, and the lack of political freedoms. These protests started to gravitate towards Beijing in Tiananmen Square, a site of great significance in Chinese politics during the 20th century. The May Fourth Movement of 1919 and the proclamation of the People’s Republic of China on October 1, 1949, took place in this public square. History was also made on June 4, 1989, but in this case, it ended in tragedy. Chinese Leadership Saw Democratic Reforms as an Imminent Threat As the protests in Tiananmen Square erupted in April, Communist party leadership grew weary of the political threat these demonstrations presented. The Chinese State Council declared martial law on May 20 and sent roughly 300,000 troops to Beijing. Once military forces reached Beijing on June 4, they fired on the demonstrators. Estimates put the casualties of the Tiananmen crackdown ranging from hundreds to thousands of deaths. The day after the repression, on June 5, 1989, gave birth to one of the most riveting images of the 20th century. A man, famously known as “Tank Man” or the “Unknown Rebel,” blocked the path of a convoy of tanks leaving Tiananmen Square. For several minutes, the man had a peaceful standoff with the tanks, which ultimately ended in him being pulled away by two men dressed in blue. The man’s fate has still not been determined and rumors say that he was executed shortly after. Some speculate that he may have fled the Chinese mainland. China’s Authoritarianism Lives On Tiananmen Square was a turning point in Chinese history. After its partial liberalization of the economy during the 1980s, the Chinese state firmly re-asserted its authoritarian grip when pressure for democratic reforms arose. Three decades later, free speech is still muzzled in China. Under Xi Jinping’s rule, the Chinese state has partnered with politically-connected tech companies to implement one of the most comprehensive censorship programs in human history. Even with sensible economic reforms, the Chinese state’s grip over society remains strong. In contrast to the West, which reached impressive heights thanks to radical decentralization, the Chinese tale is one of centralization and authoritarian rule. Its famous dynastic cycle has witnessed Chinese empires rise and fall for more than three thousand years, with centralization being a fixture of Chinese dynasties at their peak and socio-political disintegration at their nadir. The 20th century saw it take small steps in breaking this cycle, as Taiwan separated itself from the Chinese mainland and took a market-friendly path which brought it both prosperity and enhanced political freedoms. Although a long-shot, the movement for Tibetan independence also offers a way out of China’s centralized status quo. In times when separatism is gradually becoming normalized in certain parts of the world such as Europe, it makes sense for this trend to go global, especially in regions that have never really tasted the benefits of competing jurisdictions like China. Decentralization in China could be an actual leap forward for the country.

Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange Indicted On Espionage Act

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in First Amendment, National Defense, News. No Comments on Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange Indicted On Espionage Act

The Trump administration has taken a bold step in undermining First Amendment rights by indicting Wikileaks founder Julian Assange for revealing classified documents under the Espionage Act. This is the first time that a publisher has been charged under this law. The Justice Department’s indictment charged Assange with 16 counts of receiving or disclosing material leaked by Chelsea Manning, an Army intelligence analyst at the time. The actions took place from 2009 to 2010. The charges cite provisions of the Espionage Act that criminalize the disclosure or obtainment of any defense information that “could be used to injure” the U.S government. This law does not draw an exception between reporters and publishers, but previous administrations have abstained from using the law against journalists out of fear of violating the First Amendment. John Demers, the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, said: “The department takes seriously the role of journalists in our democracy and we thank you for it.” Demers then added that “It has not and never has been the department’s policy to target them for reporting. But Julian Assange is no journalist.” Demers claims that WikiLeaks’ publication of the names of U.S. government sources put people in China, Iran, and Syria. WikiLeaks declared that the prosecution marks “the end of national security journalism and the First Amendment.” The Wikileaks founder also received a 50-week sentence for skipping bail in the U.K. in 2012. The past month has been hectic for Assange, as he was originally arrested in April at the Ecuadorian embassy in the U.K. and could now face extradition to the U.S. Then President Barack Obama invoked the Espionage Act more than all previous presidents combined, and Trump is now following in his footsteps. Assange could face 180 years in prison if he is convicted on all the charges levied against him. Assange has been one of the fiercest critics of defense interests and has made it a point to expose corruption at the highest levels of government. For that reason, political elites want to silence him.   The Espionage Act, which was passed in 1917, is living up to its original intent. It was used during World War I, along with the Sedition Act, to put the clamps down on anti-war speech and others who “interfered” with the war effort. One of the most famous people prosecuted under the Espionage Act was socialist activist Eugene V. Debs. Slightly over a century later, the Espionage Act’s tyrannical legacy is being channeled again to silence the most prolific leaker of our generation in Julian Assange. For a president who benefited from Assange’s leaks on the campaign trail in 2016, it would be disgraceful if Assange is fully prosecuted under Trump’s watch. Beyond cracking down on leakers, this latest arrest could open up a Pandora’s Box of free speech abuses for the general populace.

Americans Are Flocking to Low-Tax, Business Friendly States

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Economic Liberty, Economics. 5 Comments on Americans Are Flocking to Low-Tax, Business Friendly States

ZeroHedge recently reported an interesting trend occurring in the United States. A U.S. Census Bureau map details some interesting patterns. Areas highlighted in purple, where the population is growing, are located in the West and the South. Those in orange, areas where the population is dropping are situated in the North and East. Although the Sun Belt does have considerable allure because of its weather, there are other institutional and economic factors at play. For example, seven of the ten counties with the largest population increases were in Texas or Florida. Of note, Florida and Texas don’t feature the kind of income tax boondoggle we see at the federal level and even some anti-growth states like California. According to the Freedom in the 50 States Index, Florida and Texas are ranked first and tenth in terms of overall economic freedom, respectively. Interestingly, North Dakota has two of the fastest growing counties in the country, McKenzie and Williams County. In the same freedom index, North Dakota is ranked sixth. On the other hand, there is evidence that some of America’s largest urban centers are shrinking. From 2017 to 2018, New York City has seen a decline in its population. The Wall Street Journal reports that “New York’s population dropped 0.47 percent  to 8.4 million by July 2018, compared with the previous year.” Although small, this could be the beginning of a negative trend as the city is starting to embark on a new path of anti-growth policies such as the Green New Deal and its insistence on keeping big spending intact. The Chicago metro area’s population dropped for four straight years according to the Census Bureau: “There were 22,000 fewer residents in the 14-county metro area than in 2017, a drop of 0.2 percent, and the first time since 2010 that the area’s population has slipped below 9.5 million people. Cook County, which accounts for 55 percent of the population in the metro area, lost 24,000 residents.” This is an interesting case study of a larger macro-trend taking place in America. People are fleeing coastal areas and solidly blue states with burdensome governments for the more sleek, affordable, and business-friendly Sun Belt and Great Plains states. That’s the beauty of competitive federalism, which allows jurisdictions to compete for the best talent and citizens. This is what helped make America and Europe prosperous over the last 500 years. This type of competitive decentralization should be embraced and expanded upon in order to ensure prosperity for future generations.

Liberty Reps Should Take Stronger Stance Against Intervention in Venezuela

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Libertarianism, Military, National Defense. 2 Comments on Liberty Reps Should Take Stronger Stance Against Intervention in Venezuela

Since Juan Guaidó’s attempt to stir up an uprising in Venezuela on April 30, 2019, talks about potential American military involvement in the country have heated up. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo did not discard a military option in Venezuela during an interview with Fox Business. Liberty-minded Representative Thomas Massie offered his thoughts on the Venezuelan crisis on Twitter. Massie stated the following:  
“The violence in Venezuela is appalling. I hope both sides can resolve their differences peacefully. However, if the American people support engaging in military action in the region, then the Constitution requires proper congressional approval first.”
The Kentucky Congressman continued:
“That is why I’m an original cosponsor (the only Republican) of H.R. 1004, a bill that would require congressional authorization for any military action in Venezuela.”
Although Massie does raise an interesting point about how the DC political class has routinely abandoned constitutional procedure in declaring wars or conducting or other military operations, the Congressman misses the big picture. Interventionism constitutionally authorized or not, should not be pursued. Simply put, the U.S.’s century-long legacy of kowtowing to the military-industrial complex is stretching its defense resources thin and putting the country on the road to potential fiscal collapse. We already see this with nation-building schemes in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have the U.S. spending $1 trillion on each campaign respectively. 2,350 troops were lost in Afghanistan and 4,488 troops in Iraq. Even worst is the civilian casualties, which certain estimates point to nearly 250,000 dying in these conflicts. Thankfully, the U.S. is considering scaling back its presence in Afghanistan in the next five years. Getting in Venezuela, a country that has already become a geopolitical chessboard with China, Russia, and Iran present in some shape or form, will lead to another protracted conflict. In fact, it can be argued that this geopolitical block’s presence in Venezuela is a form of blowback in response to the U.S’s meddling in the Middle East. Potential unintended consequences such as a refugee crisis washing up on our shores could be a reality that the U.S. must cope with in this scenario. All in all, Venezuela’s collapse is a home-brewed affair. However, it does not follow that the U.S. should get involved in a military invasion. Let’s hope that cooler heads prevail in Washington D.C.

Sen. Cory Booker’s New Gun Control Scheme Is A Massive Power Grab

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Gun Rights, Personal Liberty, Second Amendment. No Comments on Sen. Cory Booker’s New Gun Control Scheme Is A Massive Power Grab

New Jersey Senator Cory Booker unveiled his new gun control scheme on May 6, 2019. And it’s quite radical.   A USA Today report highlights how Booker’s plan calls for the enactment of a national licensing program for firearm owners. Of all the 2020 Democratic candidates, Booker’s gun control is the most comprehensive and draconian. Under Booker’s plan, potential gun buyers are required to take mandatory safety courses and undergo a lengthy interview process to acquire a 5-year gun license. Booker made the intentions of his plan clear:
“My plan to address gun violence is simple — we will make it harder for people who should not have a gun to get one.”
Additionally, Booker’s proposal consists of bans on assault-weapons, bump-stocks, and high-capacity magazines. Furthermore, Booker’s package also features monthly limits on firearm purchases. On the political speech side of things, Booker pledges to investigate the National Rifle Association’s tax-exempt status. In recent months, this has become a controversial development as the NRA is currently under investigation by the New York Attorney General. At the moment, the New York AG is determining whether the NRA still qualifies for tax-exempt status. Regardless, of what certain individuals in the liberty fold think about the NRA, this kind of political witch hunt does put the free speech rights of other political organizations at risk. Booker’s plan is no surprise when considering that the state he represents, New Jersey, is one of the most anti-gun states in the nation. For example, Guns & Ammo Magazine places it in 50th place for states that are friendly to gun owners. Only New York has a lower ranking. Ever since the Christchurch, New Zealand massacre, Democrats from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Bernie Sanders have come out in support of more radical gun control. It seems that this has become an issue that has united Democrats across party lines. To be fair, the Trump administration has implemented gun control of its own through the Justice Department’s bump stock ban and the passage of “Fix NICS,” which provides more funding to the U.S.’s unconstitutional background check system. Nevertheless, the Overton Window is shifting towards more firearm control at the federal level. The Democrats are the ones floating the trial balloons at the moment. But if past trends are indicators, Republicans will likely follow suit, albeit at a slower pace. In the end, everyday gun owners will lose.