As President: My Imaginary Campaign Promises

I’m a big Ted Cruz fan, but he’s got one major flaw: he promises too much. Since I am not in the running for the presidency (I’m not 35 yet), I have nothing to lose by listing the policies I intend to enact after being elected (this applies to Trump, Clinton, Sanders, and the rest of them too). Without further ado, here are my dreamy campaign promises:

  1. Bring our troops home and have them secure the border

This move would kill several birds with one stone. We would be able to reduce military spending and inch closer to a balanced budget, end the illegal immigration disaster, assist veterans by keeping soldiers out of harm’s way in the first place, terminate entanglements with barbaric nations abroad, protect our children and teachers from crazed gunmen, foster a sense of community and trust between citizens and soldiers, and reunite our men and women in uniform with their families.

Bringing the troops home would be easy. We just have to cut our losses and quit while we’re ahead. Upon returning to the US, our military personnel would set up bases on our borders and get used to a life of less action and more safety. Some soldiers, as well as able veterans, could take jobs as armed security for our schools and universities effectively making school shootings a thing of the past. In addition to guarding schools, these soldiers could also assist gym teachers and coaches in ramping up the exercise regimens for our students, which would have a positive impact on childhood obesity and mental toughness which our universities seem intent on destroying.

A radical idea would be to allow our troops to freely engage in enterprise. Reserves and off-duty soldiers could form bands and sports leagues, and charge citizens admission to spectate during live performances. They could also find ways to manufacture physical and digital innovations which could help them figure out what they want to do with their lives after serving. This would help our troops avoid boredom, stay productive, enhance their business skills through practice, and result in extra funding for the military from citizens in a voluntary manner.

Obviously, certain sections of our armed forces would be trained for war and kept away from leisurely assignments. There is no doubt that we need to maintain the most powerful and overwhelming military in the world in order to maintain our freedoms. This is both self-evident and constitutional.

  1. Halve the salaries of elected officials and federal employees

The term is civil servant. The federal employees who collect our taxes, restrict our rights to free enterprise, and “care for” our veterans cost us about a quarter of a trillion dollars per year. While it is unclear exactly how much more federal employees make than average private sector workers, a recent study suggests that bureaucrats out-earn the people they are meant to be beholden to by 78%.

Regardless of the exact numbers, we need fewer people looking for careers in the industry of destroying our freedom, and more people looking for jobs that enhance our societal prosperity. If government jobs were not so lucrative, they would attract selfless individuals who sincerely desire to improve our state of affairs or people who have been so successful that they don’t need the money. We must be wary of ambitious individuals who seek to micromanage our lives. And we should certainly not incentivize them to attempt to.

On the other hand, businesses that depend on satisfying the market (unlike the government which steals its capital) would attract discontented government workers who leave their posts for greener pastures. Since so many of these people are highly capable and highly educated, businesses would thrive thanks to their contributions and our economy would be more likely to improve.

  1. Create a simple flat tax

The current tax code has more words than the Bible. Not only do Americans generally need to hire Andy Dufrane-esque specialists to interpret this nonsense, it is highly unlikely that our anointed government overlords have even read the tax code themselves.

The main problem with the tax code (as well as government regulations in general) is that they are too complicated for hard-working people to understand or have time to read. Our country was founded on the idea that our populace must be well-informed. But because civics classes hardly even exist and our politicians write laws in manipulatable, hieroglyphic codes, it’s time to throw out the tax code and replace it with a document that can be read and filled out by anyone within an hour or two.

While it’s sure to drive certain people insane, we should impose a flat tax. There are several reasons this is the best way forward:

  1. Equality– We should have equal treatment under the law. There should not be different standards for different individuals. This is a moral imperative and a basic American value. We should all pay the same rate.
  2. Where’s the line?-With a progressive income tax, different people pay different rates when they have different levels of income. But how is it fair to force a person making $150k to pay 39% while a person making $140k only pays 30%? These arbitrarily drawn lines are not reasonable; no one is so wise as to know at exactly what threshold they should exist and when they should be changed. We need more modesty and less perfectionism in government. Simplify, simplify, simplify!
  3. Closing Loopholes-The current tax code advantages the wealthy as they are able to hire lawyers and accountants who can find glitches in the system to exploit. A simple flat tax would eradicate this unfair benefit and put average and uneducated individuals on the same playing field as the wealthy and powerful.
  4. Bring the wealth home-Currently, there are trillions of US dollars residing in offshore bank accounts in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands. This does not help anybody in the USA. By establishing a reasonable flat tax, we will encourage our billionaires to store their money here at home increasing our overall wealth. Do we want to fail to tax fleeting wealth at 40%? Or do we want to successfully tax exorbitant wealth at a sensible rate?
  5. Welcoming investment-While US businesses are wisely moving factories and film studios abroad, we continue to whine and demand job creators pay more. We are creating a hostile environment for businesspeople and investors, and that will hurt all of us. By establishing a simple flat tax, our own businesses, as well as foreign investors, will flood our industries with cash, and increase our prosperity and opportunity to find good jobs.
  6. Getting some skin in the game-At the moment, nearly half of the country pays nothing in federal income taxes while the richest Americans pay far more than their fair share even after prevalent tax evasion. At the same time, the untaxed portion of the country is granted the right to decide how much other people should be forced to cough up. Tyranny by the majority is not how America was intended to run. By establishing a flat tax, every American will be able to empathize with paying taxes, and will think twice before voting for politicians promising to raise them. We need to act like adults, not entitled children. We should all pay, or none of us should pay.

I also think it would be possible to add a provision to the flat tax which would lower the rate for Americans truly unable to pay. However, they should still be required to contribute a minimal amount of cash or forfeit certain rights.

  1. Abolish federal minimum wage laws

Federal minimum wage laws unintentionally hurt the poor, women, and minorities, but that’s beside the point. The federal government has no business setting wage standards. We are not Communist slaves; we are free Capitalists. Individuals must negotiate with employers freely, or live by their state’s standards. The minimum wage is a Constitutional and economic failure, and we must realize this before it’s too late.

  1. Replace all federal welfare programs with monthly cash payouts

Our current system is infantilizing, expensive, and negligent. It encourages bad behavior, an entitlement mentality, and does nothing to assist the poor in moving up the economic ladder. While the intentions of welfare are probably good, the results are deplorable. Assuming that certain individuals or classes of people are unable to manage food, housing, and other needs by themselves and within their communities is what is known as the soft bigotry of low expectations.

By sanctioning monthly cash payouts, we would save money and encourage personal responsibility. Instead of rationing food stamps, assigning housing, and forcing health insurance payments, the federal (or preferably state) government would hand out cold hard cash to recipients that can be used to buy whatever they’d like or put away into their savings accounts. People who may never have had the experience of dealing with money would finally have the chance to educate themselves on the right ways to invest, save, and spend. Additionally, the bureaucracies that incessantly complicate, politicize, and corrupt welfare systems would eventually be removed, and power would return to the people.

While the ultimate goal should be to remove welfare altogether, this is not the time to do it. Unlike progressives, we must progress instead of legislate instant gratification. We must first reform welfare, and at some point down the road, eliminate it for the sake of reason, justice, and humanity.

  1. End the war on drugs

Drugs are a state issue, not a federal issue. The federal government has no authority when it comes to telling people what to put in their bodies and what they can sell. States, this is your jurisdiction.

  1. Bite the bullet on social security and immigration

Social security is a mess and there are somewhere between 11 million and 30 million illegal immigrants residing on US soil. There’s not much we can do to improve these situations, so we have to accept a spanking for our mistakes, and set ourselves up for a better tomorrow.

The federal government got in over its head by taking on the responsibility of organizing retirement packages for every US citizen. Aside from the fact that it’s completely unconstitutional in the first place, the program was poorly planned and has been terribly managed like most government initiatives.

But our predecessors made our retirement-aged citizens a promise, and we are forced to keep it. My plan is to make a simple, lump sum payment to all citizens who have paid into Social Security. It’s time to cut our losses, and learn from our mistakes. This will obviously drive the debt up several trillion dollars, but it will put is in a position to lower the debt in the near future. We can ask Americans anticipating social security payments who are financially comfortable to consider sacrificing some of their social security or to forfeit their entitlement altogether as a patriotic contribution for the future of our great nation.

I would apply a similar treatment to the illegal immigrant situation. If elected, I will grant temporary amnesty to all undocumented immigrants. While this may sound crazy to some, a few temporary provisions could be put in place to make it make sense:

  1. States could be encouraged to tax or fine employers who hire amnestied immigrants over American citizens for the first several years after amnesty is granted. This would keep immigrants from taking American jobs and driving down wages.
  2. The monthly cash payouts awarded to Americans on welfare would not be available to amnestied immigrants. Without the allure of free stuff, many non-contributing illegals would likely return home.
  3. All non-English languages would be removed from government buildings and documents. This would force immigrants to either adapt to the local culture or head back home.
  4. Amnestied immigrants who commit crimes before becoming full citizens could be deported upon conviction, and forbidden from ever returning.
  1. Repeal the 26th Amendment

With kids living with their parents longer than any time since 1940 and more people continuing to be students after high school, 18-years-old is not what it used to be. The electorate should be well-informed and experienced in the game of life. The youngest voters today are neither. As president, I will repeal the 26th Amendment and push to raise the voting age to 35.

So, can I count on your imaginary vote?

As President: My Imaginary Campaign Promises

Don’t Call People Stupid; Prove Them Wrong or Shut Up (Part II)

In Part I of this entry, I promised to cite examples of poor discourse in America on both the left and the right in my second installment. While it’s fair to question my sincerity at this juncture, I can’t find relevant examples from the right, and have had to make cuts to my list from the left. However, a nasty comment from someone who was clearly not a Progressive on a Breitbart article inspired me to write this in the first place, so there’s that.

While I wish I could shame everyone for failing to take advantage of their inherent Freedom of Speech, Liberals are the ones who need to look in the mirror and seek humility in this arena the most. Hopefully, the following will illustrate why.

Campus Controversies

As you have likely heard by now, both Yale University and the University of Missouri have made recent headlines for speech and race related issues. Several Yale students were upset by an e-mail suggesting they tolerate racially insensitive Halloween costumes or engage the people wearing said costumes about why they are offensive. This was offered as an alternative to supporting the authoritative banning of distasteful getups. The letter was interpreted as racist by a group of students, and they threw an obnoxious tantrum about it. A mob of students refused to consider views that differed from their own (particularly those by Silliman College “master” Nicholas Christakis whose wife had sent the previously mentioned e-mail), and called for certain individuals to lose their jobs for disrupting their “safe space”. At the University of Missouri, two stupid and irrelevant “racist” incidents have driven a mob of students to rise up against the “institutionally racist” system on campus. The two “attacks” were a swastika of poop drawn on a bathroom wall and some drunk idiots yelling “nigger” at a black student (though the only proof that these incidents occurred are a photo of the swastika and the aforementioned student’s unproven claim).

What this has to do with campus administration, I do not know, but that’s who the students targeted. Several officials have stepped down since the students began crying about it, including President Tim Wolfe.

These instances perfectly illustrate the problem with PC policing on campus. The disgruntled students did not simply desire to make their voices heard; they aimed to silence the opposition and destroy their livelihoods. This is unacceptable behavior. No one demanded the students agree with opinions they opposed. Diverse and unique opinions were presented, and the students engaged in blatant, shameless, and unforgiving intolerance. They, with the assistance of communications Professor Melissa Click, went as far as physically preventing a student journalist from documenting the situation at Mizzou.

In the ensuing days, students from campuses across the country engaged in a “million student march” to demand the government give them more money. One student appeared on the Fox Business channel with Neil Cavuto to explain her group’s demands. Cavuto calmly and reasonably questioned the young woman’s understanding of economics and government, revealing the student’s ignorance on the matters at hand. The thing to keep in mind is that Cavuto, a Conservative, did not bash the Liberal girl’s brains in with reason and economic common sense. He calmly and politely used the Socratic Method to encourage the student to think about exactly what she was calling for. This was an educational experience for viewers at home, and will hopefully serve as the same for the idealistic learner in the debate. Cavuto set a great example for all who wish to discuss politics, economics, and social issues, and, to her credit, the passionate student, though flustered, remained polite and reasonable. As a young woman, she is still learning about how the world works, so scolding her for her completely understandable ignorance would have been a massive failure.

What has taken place at Yale and Mizzou is embarrassing, and should not be tolerated by campus administration or educators, and definitely not by the public. The right cannot solve this problem; it is the left’s mess.

The Ad Hominem Assault of Ben Carson

As I wrote in a previous post, Dr. Ben Carson is a great and “unsmearable” man no matter how hard the Liberal media wishes the contrary were true. Carson may have exaggerated and dramatized a few details of his life story, but I would be distrustful of and bored by any person who didn’t. The important thing to remember here is that how stab-ly the Good Doctor attempted to stab a classmate, how hammer-ly he wanted to hit his mom with a hammer, and how scholarship-ly the scholarship West Point offered him was, the minor details of Ben Carson’s biography have nothing to do with his proposed policies or hopes for America. If Carson were vying for the title of most explicitly accurate autobiographer in the universe, his smearers might have a point. But for those of us interested in politics, there is nothing to see here.

Another form of vitriol the left spews at Ben Carson are attacks on his personal beliefs. A meaningless, ancient video of Carson talking about the pyramids of Egypt with nothing more than intentions of inspiration is being treated by the left like a drone strike by a Nobel Peace Prize winner on a volunteer hospital. Ben Carson, like the rest of us, is allowed to say and think weird stuff. He can say what he wants when he wants to. This is America! If Carson were demanding to excommunicate Egyptian pyramid experts who did not accept his theory, we’d have a problem. But what innocent and silly thoughts about prehistoric mysteries have to do with politics is beyond me.

From a fundamental standpoint, science does not actually prove anything. To claim that science provides us with absolute truths is intellectually dishonest. Science is a fantastic tool that is capable of guiding us towards knowledge, but strong scientific evidence is not equivalent to the figurative Word of God. In the same way that we must engage in critical thinking and skepticism when listening to the media, our government, religious institutions, and Hollywood, the scientific community is undeserving of supreme authority as well. The day science is given freedom from questioning is the day it becomes a religion, and no longer practical in the public sphere.

Some people are essentially calling for the heads of climate change deniers, and they sure as hell won’t be voting for a Republican anytime soon.

There is nothing wrong with saying Ben Carson would make a bad president. There is nothing wrong with criticizing policies you disagree with. There is nothing wrong with saying that a person’s religious views affect the way you vote. And there is nothing wrong with saying you will never vote for a certain political party.

But to lie about and attempt to destroy the reputation of another individual because you disagree with him? That’s not debate, nor is it in the spirit of Freedom of Speech.

Zoey Tur Manhandles Ben Shapiro

As a guest on Dr. Drew Pinsky’s Dr. Drew On Call, Conservative writer and political commentator Ben Shapiro challenged the status quo’s acceptance of transgendered people as healthy members of society. While certainly brash in expressing his views, Shapiro questioned our lack of skepticism involving the mental stability and societal impact of nodding and smiling in acceptance of transgenderism. He also pointed out the obvious fact that from a biological standpoint, males are males regardless of how they identify. Though it is completely reasonable to disagree, and strongly at that, with Ben Shapiro’s point of view, the panel focused on Shapiro’s word choices and his respect for people’s feelings, not his arguments.

Then, shockingly, the debate got physical. Transgendered journalist Zoey Tur was sitting next to Shapiro. Instead of refuting Shapiro’s claims or agreeing to disagree with him, Tur grabbed him by the back of the neck and said “you cut that out now, or you’ll go home in an ambulance.”

Worse so, the other guests not only failed to come to Shapiro’s defense, they lectured him about how he caused himself to be assaulted and threatened with serious violence. The don’t blame the victim adage was thrown out the window in defense of political correctness and valuing feelings over principles and facts.

This did not receive much attention outside of the alternative and Conservative media.

But what if their roles had been reversed? Had a Conservative thinker of, say, Bill O’Reilly’s ilk committed a similar assault against a transgendered individual, O’Reilly would have been crucified by society and possibly jailed or worse.

Tur’s brutishness is not typical of our preconceived notions of Liberal speakers, but it is another glaring example of the left’s unwillingness to have its views come under scrutiny, and its lack of maturity in debate.

Disinvitation Season

Conservative speakers are being disinvited to public speaking events at alarming rates. Over the past several years, dozens of speakers scheduled to give lectures at universities and other kinds of public speeches have been disinvited or forced to choose not to attend events due to protests by people with different views.

FIRE (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) has been documenting these cases and observing the phenomenon since 1999. While there are plenty of cases of Liberal speakers being disinvited to give lectures or commencement speakers, there is no doubt that Conservatives are far more often the targets, and Liberals are generally guilty of enacting resistance (Liberals even attempted to disinvite Bill Maher from speaking at UC Berkeley [which is supposed to be a bastion of free speech and expression]!). Check out FIRE’s website so you can see how this and other limitations on Freedom of Speech have been unfolding for yourself.

On the flipside, Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders was welcomed with open arms to speak at the notoriously Conservative Liberty University. Sanders’ supporters called it a brave and tolerant move on his part. This is despite the fact that there was no resistance to his presence, and the students he spoke to in a massive lecture hall behaved in a mature and polite manner throughout his visit. The truth is, it does not require courage to be a Liberal in Conservative territory. But when Conservatives step onto Liberal grounds, that’s another story.

Don’t Call People Stupid; Prove Them Wrong or Shut Up (Part II)

Don’t Call People Stupid; Prove Them Wrong or Shut Up (Part I)

I’ve had it!

As much as I hate Political Correctness with every ounce of my soul, the practice of submitting to the use of careful and inclusive language pales in comparison as a form of intellectual retardation when compared to the blatant refusal to reason and debate like adults at all.

While I believe this is a greater problem among leftists than it is on the right (and I’ll cite some examples in part II), close-mindedness is infecting all of us.

Although I strongly believe that humility is one of the most vital qualities one must develop on the path to adulthood, and that universal humility would solve problems of intellectual infantilization across the board, I am comfortable claiming authority and the moral high ground on this issue.

As a former principled Liberal turned principled Libertarian (or Objectivist or Classical Liberal, whatever), I have been on both sides of just about every political discussion. Though it’s not only fine but responsible to question my sincerity, I would testify before the highest court in all the land that I have done my best to tolerate opposing viewpoints and argue facts over feelings before, during, and after my political metamorphosis. I have never hated a person for what he or she thinks; I have only disagreed, though passionately at times. I hope you’ll take my word for it.

To Reason is to Humanize

Reason is what separates man from beast. A rattlesnake does not decide to shake its tail. As an intruder waltzes too deeply into its safe space, it responds to the exterior stimuli by unintentionally warning the potential threat to watch where it’s going. There is no critical thinking process. A long time ago, one of the rattlesnake’s ancestors developed an odd, maraca-like appendage on the end of its tail. That snake had babies with similar features, and down the line, one of those snakes twitched its noise-maker uncontrollably when it felt threatened. This aided that snake’s survival, and it went on to produce offspring with similar habits. This evolutionary innovation was so successful that an entire species came into existence, and it continues to thrive today. Not one of those snakes has ever engaged in the Socratic Method, taken a survey, or agreed to disagree. A rattlesnake is an irrational beast that survives without ever coming close to understanding the concept of survival.

As presumptuous and inaccurate as that recounting of the evolution of the rattlesnake may be, the main idea is that man is different. Man evolved alongside the rattlesnake, but at some point, shaking our tails became an ineffective survival strategy. Reason is what has helped our species flourish. Instead of hissing and growling at things we are uncertain of, we have figured out how to make conscious decisions. How this happened, I do not know, and I will not attempt to make up a story about it. But the bottom line is that it did happen, and we are gifted with the potential to reason today.

When we refuse to reason with people who disagree with us, we not only treat them as if they were beasts or children, we demonstrate our lack of humanity and maturity as well. Defend your argument, change your mind, or state that your reasons have led you to a different conclusion.

Don’t make load noises and confide in your safe space like a rattlesnake; it’s time to (hu)man up.

The End of Reason

When engaging in discourse and debate, there are a few things you can listen for that, if directed at you, will let you know you’ve reached the end of your counterpart’s ability to reason, as well as the end of his or her humanity as I previously explained. Some of these words and phrases are:

  • Racist
  • Sexist
  • Homophobe
  • Islamaphobe
  • Transphobe
  • Xenophobe
  • Bigot
  • Religious zealot
  • Idiot
  • Corporate shill
  • Liar
  • Lunatic
  • Nutjob

Assuming you are not stupid, crazy, or lying and that you do not judge individuals based on cosmetic factors or personal beliefs and practices, you have discovered the beast behind the homo Saipan face you thought you were reasoning with.

With all due respect to religious and secularly religious individuals, in the same way that God works in mysterious ways is an admission of the inability to reason any further, you are controlled by unprovable, ulterior motives is too. At least the former admission displays some sense of humility. By appealing to the will of God (assuming it’s done politely and with decent intentions), you humbly communicate that your opinion is understanding all of the reasons for everything in the world is beyond me. The latter admission of the inability to continue deeper into discourse arrogantly shouts I am better than you, I know better than you, and I don’t have to prove it.

Ritual sacrifice, witch burning, and crucifixions have been replaced with character assassinations. In the age of mass surveillance and information, this fate may be nearly as deadly as the barbaric practices of old.

“White Privilege”, “Institutionalized Racism”, and “The Patriarchy” are the new Original Sins.

In part II, I will list some examples of how the lack of mature discourse manifests on both the right and the left.

Don’t Call People Stupid; Prove Them Wrong or Shut Up (Part I)

Take #TheYaleUniversityChallenge!

Halloween 2016 may be nearly a full calendar year away, but it’s never too early to plan ahead! So, let’s start spreading the word about #TheYaleUniversityChallenge today!

What is #TheYaleUniversityChallenge all about? It’s a collective effort by the few, ubersmart, educated people in the US to end racazum in America forevzees!

#TheYaleUniversityChallenge was inspired by the brave students of the Silliman College campus at Yale University who stood up to their racazst “master” by shouting over him while he tried to explain himself and demanding he step down from his position. The wife of Silliman College master Nicholas Christakis had sent an e-mail to all Silliman College students suggesting that they refrain from banning racazst Halloween costumes in an effort to expand their intellectual prowess and ability to act like adults. Rather than banning costumes that could be considered guilty of cultarool apppropprishashon, the master’s wife encouraged students to either act like adults by speaking directly to people about why they perceive such costumes to be racazst or to be tolerant and avert their eyes altogether.


Remember, guys, Yale University is not only one of the top universities in America, it’s one of the best in the world. This means that everyone who goes to Yale is smarter than us, and we have to do as they say. Our “common sense”, “life experience”, and “personal goals and values” are racazst! Yale University students are our overlords and moral superiors, and it would be racazst for us not to listen to them. BOW DOWN!

To combat this racazum, we need to band together and take #TheYaleUniversityChallenge!

Here’s how it works! On Halloween 2016, ALL OF US will wake up at 6am and get our running shoes and #TheYaleUniversityChallenge t-shirts on. Then, as one, we will run a mile for each person who has been killed by a racally insansatav Halloween costume. It sounds like a great challenge, but we can do it, guys!

To get the word out, spread the hashtag #TheYaleUniversityChallenge all over social media! If we work together, we can surely end racazum forevzees!

And a special shout out to Missouri University for avoiding maturity, tolerance, open-mindedness, rationality, and critical thinking to get their racazst president to step down from his position because of something somebody else said that had no effect on anyone or anything! Great job, you fucking dweebs! Good luck paying off the loans you took out to “study” sociology! You’re really doing amazing things for society!

Take #TheYaleUniversityChallenge!