Saturday, September 10, 2016

How would a Libertarian President deal with threats, like North Korea?

What is the Libertarian/Christian  view on "National Defense"?

My dad asked an interesting question today. Essentially he asked:
How would a Libertarian President respond to U.S. National Defense issues (e.g. ISIS, North Korea, Iran, etc.)?

My answer is simple: Broken Window Foreign Policy
The emphasis should be on Short, Mission Specific, Police Actions that target single offenses, and not long term offenders. The emphasis should not be on open-ended occupations with a goal of nation building.
More on that at the bottom of this article. Let's walk through the thoughts on this step by step.

The Libertarian Platform on National Defense

The first few sections of the LP Plank #3, Securing Liberty, gives us information about the party position on National Defense. LP.Org (bold added by myself for emphasis):

3.0 Securing Liberty
The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

This means that the USA should almost never be the one to initiate force onto other nations, no matter how "good" our intentions. If other nations want freedom like ours, their people must rise, revolt, and institute their own freedom like our founding fathers did for us. We would be willing to offer insight or advice to those asking for our help, if it serves the interest of our peace, but will not fight their fight.

This falls in line with Christian ideology too. The most loving thing we can do for people is to let them handle their own lives. We can offer advice or counsel when it is sought, but we should not be enabling other's poor choices. Not when it's one-on-one, and not when it's nation to nation either.

3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.
The evidence is out, the verdict is in. After decades of "nation building" and "international policing", the world is far less safe.  The primary reason the Iraq experiment failed, is that the people did not want the democracy bad enough to overcome the obstacles making it happen themselves.

When the USA enters into conflicts inside other nations, we destabilize the region and allow violent bully factions to take over. This is because the inner will of the people had not built itself into the will to overcome. Scared people will just run to power for protection. One bully is replaced by another bully.

If the people of a nation want new leadership, they'll need to make it happen. The USA should not have been involved. Not to give weapons, not to fight, not at all.

Only in rare instances, when a thirst for a democratic republic can be proven, should we offer advice or counsel (but usually not weapons).

I cannot find a biblical reason for Christian's to endorse the US Government playing policeman of the world in this manner. Individual Churches and Christian's should absolutely go and offer help to the needy, but military force used on behalf of non US Citizens is an abuse of power. *I'm open to adjusting on this point (foreshadowing of things below), more on that in a moment.

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights
The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government’s use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton

On the surface, the #USPatriotAct seemed like a good idea to a scared nation.

"Protect Us!", the people cried.

So Fascist Dictator... I mean President George Bush instituted arguably one of the worst pieces of legislation in US History (#ObamaCare running a close second). This act gave the US Government power to over-ride your Constitutional rights in the name of safety.

Here's the problem... No human can be trusted with that much power. No human except Jesus, but he's not back yet. Until the return of Jesus, no human or group of humans can be trusted with that power. That's the reason the US Constitution exists in the first place.

Non-US Citizens are not afforded rights under the US Constitution. So some of these rights don't apply when gathering intelligence about a foreign enemy or from a foreign enemy who has publicly declared war on the USA.

We should work to gather intelligence, but never at the expense of US Citizen's Constitutional Rights... never. You want to prove a US Citizen is guilty, they deserve a public trial by jurry. Even if you are the NSA leading the prosecution.

*This is why I do not belive in US Citizen's being put on a national "No Fly" list until an open court jury trial found them guilty of terrorism. I'd rather ten got away than one innocent be persecuted.

3.3 International Affairs
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

It's time to cut off all funding of government money to all nations outside the USA. Humanitarian aide sent to other nations should be handled by private people and organizations, not governments.

US Military Force should be used for the defense of US Citizens, and the defenseless innocent.

Christian history proves that the Church is at it's best when it is out there doing the work of the Church outside the walls of the Church.

Schools, Hospitals, Science, and most of the wonderful benefits of modern western society were the result of Christians working in the world. It's the Church, not government intervention, that will benefit people's lives (one-on-one, and nation to nation).

What about ISIS, Iran, North Korea, and Other Threats Yet Un-named?

Let's evaluate "threats".

  • If the US had never gotten involved in foreign matters, ISIS wouldn't exist today in it's current form. We helped destabilize the region, and we are adding to it daily by our involvement there. More intervention without a clear short-term plan and purpose is like using more alcohol to cure alcoholism. 
  • North Korea is acting out, testing borders, and seeing what they can get away with.
  • Iran got money from the USA, and we negotiated with them... What the heck for? Now they are testing new waters, making new threats. They were emboldened by our lack of spine.

The world suffers when the USA gets half involved in anything... They also suffer when we get too involved and overstay our need to be there. But we cannot ignore credible threats to our national security.

Then there is the NAP (Non Aggression Principle)

What I'm about to say may sound like a contradiction of what I've already said... so bare with me, this is nuanced.

The USA should not be out in the world nation building, and forcing everyone else to live like we do... but let's evaluate this further in light of the NAP.

Imagine you are on a playground.
The school bully just walked up to steal someone else's lunch. You let the person handle it themselves, they cower and give it over. Should let that continue? 
The NAP says that you don't harm me, and I don't harm you. That bully harmed that other kid. 
I don't think it's black and white. I see two valid responses.
1. Leave it alone for now. Maybe with some background information (*read intelligence briefing) you learn that the kid would be best served by learning to stand up for himself. In that instance the most loving and moral action would be to leave it alone, and let him learn to stand up. 
2. Act to defend. Maybe you learn with some background (*read intelligence briefing) that the kid is incapable of defending himself (mental or physical handicap). In that case, you have a moral obligation to enforce the NAP against that bully. 

Most people seem to think it's either do nothing, or jump into an all out war and occupy another country for 20 years.

But what if (just like Libertarian's are the third party) there was a third international choice?

Introducing: The Broken Windows Foreign Policy

In Prager U's course "How to fix the World, NYPD style", Bret Stephens sheds an interesting nuance on this debate through the Broken Window theory. He asked how the US can enforce basic rules of Decency, Deter Enemies, and Reassure Friends (sounds like the NAP to me).

Political scientists at Harvard noted that:
One repaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing.

By taking swift strategic actions against the worst offenders of the NAP, we can deter others from violating it.

The emphasis should be on Short, Mission Specific, Police Actions that target single offenses, and not long term offenders. The emphasis should not be on open-ended occupations with a goal of nation building.

Someone violates a weaker party that cannot defend itself, in violation of the NAP, the USA will act swiftly to defend. Take out a tower, or city if need be, and step back. Then warn the perpetrator that further violations of the NAP will be met with equal reactions in the future.

The USA would need to back this policy up with actual actions. Trigger must be pulled. But when the world sees we're serious, the majority of would-be violators would loose their nerve.

This isn't to say we jump into every conflict. As I said, most of the time the kid just needs to learn to stand up to the bully himself. But when the defenseless are violated by bully's, it's time to act. The USA should not make a single comment, tweet, or issue a single press release condemning an action of another state; unless it's willing to back it up with decisive action, then leave and wait and watch.

That works in a room, organization, city, nation, and on the international stage.

*Gary Johnson has already proven that he's more devoted to rational answers than staunch ideologies. I'm voting for Gary Johnson; Libertarian Presidential Candidate for 2016, #youin ?

Darrell G. Wolfe

Story Teller | INFJ | Futuristic | Intellection | Learner | Ideation | Achiever | Command | Input | Focus | Multipotentialite


Interesting side note: Dave Rubin explains why voting for Gary Johnson (even if he doesn't win) is the right thing to do.


How to Fix the World, NYPD-Style is woth watching too:

Read more ...

Saturday, September 3, 2016

I am a Conservative-Liberal | Republicans and Democrats are actually the same party, here's why I'm a #ChristianLibertarian

This may come as a surprise to some... but there have not always been just these two political parties... and it may be time for a new third party to rise.

The Majority View of American Politics

In the USA, there are currently two major political parties; Republicans and Democrats. These are not required by law, they are just the result of people's voting habits over time. Any third party could rise to power (as has happened a few times in US History) when people decide the existing parties are not cutting it anymore.

When most people view politics in the United States of America (USA)(American Politics), they see two extremes labeled Left and Right. The person who is neither firmly Left "Liberal" or Right "Conservative" is usually called a Moderate.

"Moderates" or "Independents" are the majority of the US, have views that differ from both parties, but have little say in the primary season. So they are stuck voting for "the lesser of two evils".

*You may or may not know, that there have been several major political parties since our founding over 200 years ago. 

The Majority View of Libertarian Politics

Recently, there has been a lot of talk about a third party: "The Libertarian Party". The word Libertarian invokes the name Ron Paul for most Americans. They are known and advertise themselves as "Social Liberal and Fiscally Conservative".

This leads people to believe that the Libertarian is the Moderate Choice, but most don't vote for them because they don't want whichever Evil they fear elected. So rather than vote for someone closer to their values, they vote against the Majority Party person they like the least.

What if I told you that Democrats and Republicans are the same Party?

They both (in practice) create big government and try to control your life. Big Government, in any form, is Big Government. Whether they are trying to control your money, your rights, or your bedroom, they are still trying to control you.

The Libertarian Party operates on a simple idea called the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).
The NAP says: You don't cause me harm (either to my body or property) and I won't cause you harm (either to your body or property). Beyond that, we are free to do/be whatever we decide to do/be. 
This is the principal reason The United States of America (USA) was founded. The people were rejecting a government that tried to control them and tell them what they could or could not do, be, worship, etc.

Imagine a world in which a Christian will side with a Gay Married Couple and vote for the same party.

For Christians, Liberty is an even bigger issue. If God didn't want people to have Free Will, he would not have put an option in the garden. God gave all humans a choice to have a relationship with him, or not.

  • You should have the right to discuss ideas, debate positions, and argue differences in the open. You should have the right to win friends, and influence people as you are able.
  • You have no right to try to force a relationship with God on someone else or force them to choose your way. Likewise, you have no right to force someone to participate in something they don't agree with. You have no right to use the Government to do it.

The fact that Christians sided with so-called Conservative-Republicans to force their way onto the rest of society, has been the chief contributor to creating a bigger government with the ability to control people.

After years of being controlled, the "other" has taken that control and turned it on you. Now the baker can't refuse to do a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Institutions all over the country are being "forced" by the government to take actions contrary to their personal beliefs. Why? Did "the other" cause this? No. The Church caused this, and the "other" took advantage of it for their purposes.

The only proper political position for a Christian is one that allows people the freedom to do/be what they wish, and associate with who they wish. This is the freedom that God gave you. You chose Him, you can't make someone else chose Him.

This freedom allows Gays to marry and Christians to congregate in churches. You can't have one freedom without the other. Take theirs away, and they'll come back and take yours...
oh wait... that's already started.

You may be a Liberal-Conservative, you just don't know it yet.

Fascism (Donald Trump) is commonly mistakenly put out as a "far right" ideology, as though it were opposite of Socialism /Marxism (Hillary Clinton). But that is a false dichotomy, the truth is they are both far to the same side.

The "Liberal" Left

  • Socialism /Marxism (Hillary Clinton) advocates for The Collective, "It takes a village to raise a child". 
  • Socialism believes that society must regard the whole, not the individual. Each person should contribute according to his ability, and each person should receive according to his need. 
  • How do we prevent a person from taking more than they need, or force a person to work to their ability? By taking away free will and free markets, and putting them into The State's control. Only without any private ownership, can society be saved from selfishness... and it's The States' job to enforce that benefit on everyone. 
  • Who is The State? Powerful elites that know how to run your life better than you.
  • Result: Government Controls You

The Conservative? Right?

  • Fascism (Donald Trump) advocates for a strong totalitarian government, people live and die for The State. They promote National identity over individual identity. 
  • The Fascist does not want individuals to control, nor the people, but only The State. It fears The People, both individually and collectively. It is against Capitalism (because it favors the individual) and Socialism (because it gives the people too much). 
  • Only The State can make decisions that are good for The State. People earn profit so long as they are productive, but The State becomes manager and leader of all business and industry. 
  • For the Fascist, the individual is bad, the Nation comes first. "Build a wall" it cries. "Make The State Great Again" it cries. 
  • Freedom, Liberty, Self-Ownership are rejected in place of Duty, Discipline, Law, Order, Loyalty to The State. 
  • Fascist economic ideology supports the profit motivation but says that businesses must focus on the interest of The State as superior to private profit.
  • Result: Government Controls You

The Conservative-Liberal Libertarian View

  • Classical Liberals (Libertarians) advocate for the Individual above the collective and state. 
  • The individual is free to seek the highest paying work, companies are free to pay whatever they need to pay in order to get the best workers (be that high or low). 
  • Free Markets put bad businesses out of business, and ensure only products that people want are made, and sold at prices they people will pay. 
  • The Classical Liberal is for small government. Government should protect the people from harming other people (body or property), protect the people from invaders (foreign and domestic), provide a few very basic services to society (roads, fairness standards between parties, laws to serve the prior mentioned purposes).
  • The State may institute minimum taxes to pay for only these functions, and stay out of the way for the rest of the time.
  • Result: You Control You - Unless you try to hurt me.

So if you look at my personal views, you could say that I'm a conservative by most common definitions. I believe:

  • Smoking, Drinking, and any form of drug is bad for your helth; therefore, I abstain from those behaviors.
  • I believe in One Man - One Woman - For Life as the ultimate goal of a happy society, and that any alteration from that pattern is unhealthy. 
    • I'm not against divorce and remarriage entirely, I've been divorced and remarried, but I'm saying it's not the best and first plan. It should not be taken lightly.
  • I don't believe that Gay Marriage is marriage at all, biblically. God is created man and woman to be different. The pairing of the two creates a oneness (a brining together of two each missing something) that does not exist between two same sex individuals, regardless of your desires.
    • But my Gay friends are welcome to establish whatever benefits legally and societally they want, and call it what they want. It is a free society.
  • I believe that a school without a bible is no school at all. Therefore, I take my freedom in this country to homeschool or use private school or choose some other option.
    • The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight. Proverbs 9:10
  • Etc, Etc...

So I guess I'm Conservative (personally) and a Classical Liberal (politically)... 

Confession: "My name is Darrell, and I am a Conservative-Liberal"

In 2016 I'm voting for Gary Johnson, Libertarian for President. Are #YouIn?

Darrell G. Wolfe

Story Teller | INFJ | Futuristic | Intellection | Learner | Ideation | Achiever | Command | Input | Focus | Multipotentialite

***Note on Abortion:: It's true, Gary Johnson is "Pro-Choice". Here's why that doesn't worry me for now.

  • Gary Johnson doesn't want to expand or contract existing laws. He's not for 9-month abortions, he simply supports the existing "viability" clause. He's also open to science showing "viability" earlier than the current 
  • Not all Libertarians are Pro-Choice. In fact, the party is sharply divided down the middle. I'll take a small government candidate that won't push the Abortion needle either way, over a large government candidate that "says" he's pro-life, but has demonstrated an impressive ability to lie for votes.
  • Libertarian's primary view is the NAP. Anyone holding the NAP legitimately has to eventually defend the infant's rights not be violated. 
  • I'll take this party long term.The more popular Gary Johsnon makes this party, the more likely other voices (like Austen Petersen)(A runner-up Libertarian Presidential Candidate) will be heard too.

Austin Petersen in studio on the Glenn Beck Show

Read more ...

Monday, August 29, 2016

I left the #GOP forever and it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

Election2016 Clarification:

I heard another talk radio guy (Grant Stinchfield) jump on the Trump Train this morning... another person claiming to be a conservative who is so blinded by his hate for Hillary Clinton, he cannot see that the devil he chose is worse than the one he rejects.

Hillary and Obama combined couldn't harm this country as bad as Trump could. That's what worries me most about this coming election. But here's the thing Grant doesn't get. He thinks I'm voting for Gary Johnson because of Trump.

I left the #GOP forever and it has nothing to do with Donald Trump. 

He is a symptom, not the cause.

In actuality, I'm voting for Gary Johnson because of every single candidate that ran this year, except for Ted Cruz. Anyone that was nominated, other than Cruz, would have resulted in my leaving the GOP this year. I didn't leave Donald Trump, I left the GOP.

The way the GOP Leadership has consistently run from Constitutionalist values for decades upon decades is what pushed me out. The way the GOP Leadership, not Donald Trump, treated Ted Cruz demonstrated once and for all, that the GOP is not now, nor will they ever be a small government party. Even the great Ronald Reagan himself was not as small government as he needed to be. 

The last good president this country had was Calvin Coolidge.

For that reason, I left the GOP. 

I want a small government candidate and ONLY a small government candidate. Nothing less will do. No Compromise. Ever again.

Hillary Clinton is a Marxist Tyrant, and would ruin this country. 

Donald Trump is a Fascist Tyrant, and would ruin this country. 

Pick your poison, they are equally awful. If I had to choose, I'd pick Hillary.

Why you ask? At least she's proven to be an inept loser. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has proven to be an effective negotiator. And that worries me far more than Hillary. He's the same as her, just a different letter next to his name. He would be more effective... in the wrong direction.

I will vote #Libertarian, unless and until a better party arises.

President, Senate, House, Governor, Mayor, City Council... all Libertarian votes from me.

I will vote for Gary Johnson. There is little chance he will win, but I think there is a tiny outside chance. Nevertheless, I will only vote for small government people here forward. Never again, the lesser of two evils. I'm not playing their (R's and D's) game anymore. They are the same party in my book. "Statists"

Not just this election, but in all elections. 

This is a long battle plan change of voting. I'm not just concerned about 2016; rather, I'm concerned about being one pebble in the pond of change toward a new party for the USA.

Hopefully, through many smaller wins, over many elections, we can start to turn the tide to a smaller government for the USA... one election at a time, for the rest of my life. There will be no big wins, but a steady fight to less government.

Win or Lose, voting @GaryJohnson and an all #Libertarian ticket... #YouIn?

Darrell Wolfe
Read more ...

Saturday, June 18, 2016

The ONLY answer to #MassShootings is armed victims. Not more #GunLaws; More Armed Citizens!

Mass Shootings & Terrorist Attacks are increasingly common... but what is the answer?

Wiki:: On June 12, 2016, a mass shooting terrorist attack and hate crime occurred inside Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, United States. Fifty people died, including the gunman, who was killed by Orlando police after a three-hour standoff. An additional 53 people were injured.

In the past decades these types of mass attacks are on the rise. Not just from Islamic Terrorists, but from disaffected students, and discouraged employees "Going Postal".

Amy Truter | Gun Control

More Gun Control?

People wanting to cause damage and dangerous situations need not use guns. On February 18, 2010, Andrew Joseph Stack III deliberately crashed his single-engine Piper Dakota light aircraft into and IRS building in Austin Texas. On April 19, 1995. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols set off a bomb and destroyed one-third of a Federal office building.

In these instances an armed citizen would not have been able to prevent the attack, because they would not have known about the attack to stop it.

Still... guns are the most common form of mass attack. They are the easiest to wield (no learning bomb techniques, just point and shoot). 

So would stricter gun laws help?

California has some of the (if not the) toughest Gun Laws in the US, and yet the San Bernardino shooters brought legally obtained weapons to their mass shooting. 

Imagine, for a moment, that you are a deranged psychopath; and you are determined to kill lots of people. 

Where would you go? 

To a biker bar full of armed Hell's Angels biker gang members? 


You'd go to a place where your victims cannot shoot back. These are called "Gun Free Zones", such as schools, federal offices, and private businesses with no-gun rules, etc. 

  • "Gun Free Zone" actually means "Victim is Defenseless Zone"
The safest place to be is a place where multiple people around you are carrying weapons, and you don't know which ones.

Government vs We The People

Common Sense says that we should not put dangerous things into the hands of people who cannot wield it responsibly. 

We should not allow an 11 year old to buy alcohol, he/she is not ready for it yet. 

Likewise, we may need to admit that some type of process could be helpful in determining who should be able to own a weapon. Should an 11 year old be able to buy one without a parent's involvement? I think not.

Aside from a few common sense things, like age restrictions, do we need more? What's the purpose of gun ownership anyway?

Freedom FROM the government, is the most important part of our Constitutional rights. 

The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, sports, or collectors activities. The Right to Bear Arms was established to keep the Government from forcing you out of your home and murdering you. As often happened just prior the founding the USA.... and still happens in some other countries today (Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc...),

This is the PRIMARY reason for the 2nd Amendment:
The people of the United States of America should be armed and ready to defend themselves from the Military of the United States of America. 
That means any and all weapons used by the Military should be allowed in the hands of the people. Tanks, Automatic Weapons, Rocket Launchers, all of it. 

Would you want a gun if you were a Jew in 1940's Germany?

Politifact (here) demonstrates that Nazi Germany actually loosened gun laws for ordinary citizens, but seized weapons from Jews, Political Enemies, and "Unreliable Persons". 

They conclude that German Citizens could have stopped the Nazi's (as most were armed) but they chose not to because the Nazi's enjoyed great support. 

But Politifact draws the wrong conclusion. 

It was the very fact that ANY citizen was disarmed that allowed the Holocaust to happen. If Jews and Enemies of the States were not disarmed, the Nazi's would have had a harder time. The very fact that anyone was disarmed is always problem when it comes to preventing Tyranny.

Armed Citizens Prevent and Stop Attacks

Shockingly, the Washington Post actually put out a decent article (for once), citing several examples of citizens stopping mass shootings by being armed with concealed weapons (here).

When it comes to Mass Shootings... there is only ONE answer to stopping them. 

The victims must shoot back. 

  1. Prevention: The shooter is likely to pick a different target, or not go at all, if he knows the victims will shoot back.
  2. Stopping the Attack: A determined shooter will go anyway. The amount of damage he causes will be determined by how quickly he is stopped. Only if multiple people in the room are armed and shoot back, will it stop quickly. You do not have time to wait for "police", he must be stopped in seconds not minutes.

Here's my new Smoky the Bear slogan:
"Only YOU can stop a mass shooting... are you armed and ready?"

  • Thoughts? Agree? Disagree? Comment .

Read more ...

How much does the President, Senate, & House (Congress) make per year?

How much does the President of the United States of America, Senate, & House of Representatives make per year? That's an interesting question, with a few answers that surprised me.

The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue; Washington DC - John Haslam

After researching the facts (as opposed to misconceptions spread through chain emails), I find myself torn on the topic of pay and compensation for public office. So here is my personal evaluation and suggestion.

In the business world, I know that I need to pay well to attract the best candidates. If I pay $11 an hour, I'm not going to attract a crowd of people with Masters Degrees or 20 years of experience or specialized skills. I will get what I pay for.

But public office is not the business world... it's very different. The fact that so many people treat public office as a job/career IS THE PROBLEM with Washington DC (and lower offices). Public office should never be a career. The intention of our founders (running from Tyrants and Dictators) was for ordinary citizens to temporarily leave their careers and serve for a time, then go back to their homes and careers.

Term Limits vs Career Politicians

WE THE PEOPLE, not the elected officials, should be making decisions about their pay and compensation. We should put any of these decisions to a public vote, every time, and not let them decide for themselves.

First and foremost, every decision we make as a society about our public officials should be to encourage good people to come, serve, then leave. 

We should strongly discourage career politicians. This is why, regardless of any other choices we make as a society, we should put term limits on our public officials.

Not just limits on the term for a single office, but also a term limits for the combination of publicly held offices.

Having said that, let's look at the pay/compensation factors in more detail. Let's look at three areas.

  • Annual Pay
  • Housing
  • Medical and Retirement

Annual Pay:

  • The President of the United States (POTUS) of America makes $400,00 per year. Plus, he (or she) receives an extra expense allowance of $50,000 a year.... Plus free housing and transportation during their term. 
  • Members of The House of Representatives & The Senate make $174,000 per year (with the exception of a few key positions, such as Speaker of the Hours, etc.). Interestingly, the system is set up to automatically give them an annual cost of living increase, which they have rejected frequently (due to bad press).

The "Leader of the Free World" is an important position. However, as with any public office, the ONLY motivation for seeking that office should be a desire to serve (not a desire for money or power). $400,00 annually + $50,000 for expenses is FAR too high considering the POTUS gets free housing and transportation during his/her term. 

  • The POTUS should be demoted to a maximum (expenses included) of $200,000.

Given the fact that many CEO's make far more than $174,000 (and I know from experience that $50,000 doesn't go very far, this does not seem like a totally unreasonable figure for Congress. 

  • I would still demote them to a maximum of $100,000. 

If they can't live on that, they need to shut up, get on the Dave Ramsey plan, or go home to a real job.

Automatic Pay Raises: Cancel that. 

  • Every ten years WE THE PEOPLE should have one national vote on a possible cost of living increase (no more than 10%). NOTHING should be automatic when it comes to government budgets.


  • While the POTUS gets free housing, the House and Senate must pay out of their own pocket for housing both in their home state and in Washington DC; which can be very costly. More than a few sleep in their offices; many also share rentals. 

I honestly don't want my elected leaders making decisions while sleeping in their offices. 

That opens the door to bribes, and the feeling like they need to make desperate decisions. I can relate to expensive living. I left California in 2009, and moved to Texas. I paid $1,100.00 in CA for a roach infested 600 sq ft "low income" apartment, and in TX I found a 4 bedroom new home for $950.00.

Washington DC is the most expensive place in the US (or close to it). 

But we can solve this easily:
  • The Federal Government would build a single town home complex, to be owned by and maintained by the Federal Government. Much like a parsonage, or the White House. 
  • Each Town Home would be 1,200 square feet, with two bedrooms (for family if they are coming with the elected official). 
  • If (and only if) that representative has a family of more than four immediate family members, they would be allotted one of the few larger condo's with 3-4 bedrooms. 
  • Each condo would also have a home office.
  • They would be allotted ONE office (of no more than 200 sq ft) outside the home.
Problem solved.


  • At the end of their terms, presidents are still on government payroll, which includes an annual pension of about $200,000, healthcare, paid official travel, and an office.

  • Congress can be eligible for pensions after five years of service (with many rules). But the pensions wouldn’t be equal to their full salaries. Congress participates in the same medical benefits plan that any other government employee participates in.

Under NO circumstances should any government employee ever be allowed a pension of any kind. Pensions are a hold over from an era long gone.

  • ALL Federal Pensions (from President to Garbageman) should be shut down going-forward. 

  • They would be replaced by a 401K type system, whereby the government would match your contribution of to 15%. 
  • If you contribute nothing, the government contributes nothing.

  • You would choose your own investment house (managed by you, not the government), that way you could house with JP Morgan, Fidelity, TD Ameritrade, or the investment house of your choice.
  • Once you leave you position, you take your 401K with you, but you do not get a single penny more from the government (especially not the POTUS).


  • ALL government/federal medical plans cease, effective immediately.
  • This is simple, go choose a medical plan from the open market and pay for it, the government will pay 75% of the monthly premium (about what most employers pay). 
  • Once you leave office, the government pays nothing.

After you leave office:

  • ANY AND ALL forms of money from the government budget to you cease, 100%, totally, completely, zero. 

Don't worry about "that'll never pass", right now we're dealing with what should be, not what could be. 

  • IF we could do what we wanted, that would be my plan. 
  • Agree? 
  • Disagree? 
  • Tell me why in the comments

Darrell Wolfe


For those interested; Research and Fact Checking:

Business Insider (here) tells us the President of the United States of America (USA) makes $400,00 per year:

The president is paid $400,000 a year, on a monthly basis. Plus, he receives an extra expense allowance of $50,000 a year.... Plus free housing and transportation during their term.
Another bonus: At the end of their terms, presidents are still on government payroll, which includes an annual pension of about $200,000, healthcare, paid official travel, and an office.

About.Com (here) and also (here) says:

During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin considered proposing that elected government officials not be paid for their service. Other Founding Fathers, however, decided otherwise.
Members of Congress are eligible to receive the same annual cost-of-living increase given to other federal employees, if any. The raise takes effect automatically on January 1 of each year unless Congress, through passage of a joint resolution, votes to decline it, as Congress has done since 2009.
Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.
Studies show that most full-time workers actually participate in an employee-sponsored retirement plan. Members of Congress get retirement benefits under the same plans available to other federal employees.

NPR (here) says:

"Politically, he's in a sensitive area," says Smith, who advises corporate and nonprofit clients on designing compensation and benefit packages for executives, "given that there is the perception that members of Congress don't work that hard, and don't do their jobs very well.
"But if you want good people in government, you shouldn't limit yourself to just people who can afford it, because they'll have to find their wealth elsewhere," he says. 
The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 allowed for an annual congressional pay adjustment, but it also gave members the authority to prohibit or revise the adjustment. Since 1992, Congress approved its annual adjustment 13 times, and rejected it 11 times.
Moran's comment no doubt resonated with members of Congress of a certain class — those without the financial means to maintain their district homes and absorb the high rental and housing costs in Washington.
More than a few sleep in their offices; many also share rentals. 
The cost of renting an apartment or home in Washington can be eye-popping for members arriving from just about anywhere but San Francisco or New York City. 
"Housing stipends are not unusual," says Smith. "And that would be not a bad way to politically create more income without making the salary look that high."

Senate.Gov (here) has a report about their own compensation:
Compensation The most recent pay adjustment for Members of Congress was in January 2009.1 Since then, the compensation for most Senators, Representatives, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico has been $174,000. 
The only exceptions include the Speaker of the House (salary of $223,500) and the President pro tempore of the Senate and the majority and minority leaders in the House and Senate (salary of $193,400). 
Article I, Section 6, of the U.S. Constitution authorizes compensation for Members of Congress “ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.” Adjustments are governed by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 and the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. 
Table 1. Members, Officers, and Officials of the House: Selected Salaries
  • Speaker of the House $223,500 per annum
  • Majority and Minority Leaders $193,400 per annum
  • All other Representatives (including Delegates and Resident Commissioner From Puerto Rico) $174,000 per annum 
Table 2. Members, Officers, and Officials of the Senate: Selected Salaries
  • President pro tempore $193,400 per annum39
  • Majority and Minority Leaders $193,400 per annum
  • All other Senators $174,000 per annum 
Health and Life Insurance ProvisionsPrior to the enactment of Section 1312(d)(3)(D) of P.L. 111-148, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Members were eligible to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB). P.L. 111-148 states that the only health plans available to Members of Congress and certain congressional staff are those plans created under the act or offered through an exchange established under the act. Pursuant to the regulations implementing this section, effective January 1, 2014, Members may elect to be covered through the DC Health Link.10

It goes on to describe office space, furniture and other rules. (here) says:

The basic eligibility for collecting a pension is as follows, according to a June report from the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress: 
CRS, June 13: Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at the age of 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. Members are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary. 
That means that members of the House of Representatives — who are up for reelection every two years — would not be able to collect pensions of any amount if they only served one term. U.S. senators, on the other hand, serve six-year terms and would be able to collect pensions after one full term. But the pensions wouldn’t be equal to their full salaries.

Read more ...

Friday, June 17, 2016

The Giver (2014) A Libertarian Film | #VoteLibertarian | #LiveFree

I just had the opportunity to watch The Giver (2014), and I was amazed at the Libertarian messages resonating throughout. 

The Intelligentsia of the story world decided that the pain of life (war, hunger, oppression) was too great a cost to pay for the joy of life (love, hope, music, family). So they created a world set apart from the rest of the world.

It was a world with artificially controlled weather,  a chemically induced society with no emotions, emotional ties, or ability to see/hear/appreciate things like music, color, or love. The society are all of the same skin tones, they wear assigned clothing, used assigned language and speech, they live in identical homes with assigned family units.

The population had their collective memories erased, so that they did not even remember the world that was. This was the only life they knew, and they served this life with a fierce (but blind) loyalty.

At certain points I just felt like it was Bernie Sanders (or Stalin or Hitler) and the Progressive left's Utopian Socialist Society speaking. An All Powerful Dictator would decide what was best for these stupid humans (Clinton and Trump). They need only comply. Those who do not comply would be "released", a euphemism for put to death.

It was the loan Giver/Receiver that held the  memories of the world; and, with those memories he held love, joy, peace, pain, war, hate...

Without giving away the entire movie, the single driving force of this film was to remind you that freedom of choice, freedom of religion, freedom of person-hood and individuality; are all paramount to understanding the value and meaning of life.

If you have your choices made for you, you may as well not be living.

Anyone dependent on the government for food, medicine, money, living, house, education, or anything else... is a slave not a free man/woman.

Slavery was not abolished in the United States of America (USA), it was transformed. Now all people, not just minorities, are slaves to the system. The IRS, EPA, FDA, Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, are just a few of the tools they use to keep the unsuspecting public submitted to the system.

When someone speaks up to warn the people of their slavery, they use their tools to silence this opposition (as the IRS did in the 2012 - 2014 election cycles).

It is time to free our selves from the system. Republican and Democrat control of the USA must be dismantled, piece by piece, brick by brick, law by law, executive order by executive order... it must all come down. Liberty must reign once again if our children will have anything to grow up toward.

#VoteLibertarian from here forward.... #LiveFree


Read more ...

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Vote @GovGaryJohnson for President in November 2016

Gary Johnson
#Libertarian For President
#LiveFree | #MakeAmericaSaneAgain

After much thought, review, and internal debate this past 12 months. I have taken a stand. I endorse Gary Johnson, Libertarian, for President of the United States of America. I will be voting Libertarian at every level (President, Senator, Mayor, School Board... etc) in November 2016.

I ask you to support a common sense approach, and to run from the Tyranny of Donald Trump AND Hillary Clinton (and their parties).

When men and women are free from government and corporate interference, they are the happiest and more prosperous people.

You and I may have honest intellectual disagreements on the moral quality of one choice or another, and we can debate and discuss those choices openly and freely in a free society.

However, as long as you are not harming my person or property, and I am not harming your person or property, we should not attempt to control each other through government force. We should each be free to walk away from that discussion without the government dictating which of us is right.

You check out more from him here:
Twitter: @GovGaryJohnson
Facebook: GovGaryJohnson
Instagram: GovGaryJohnson

Darrell Wolfe

Read more ...

About Me

My photo

I give you simple answers to complex questions, to keep you moving, growing, producing, creating, and becoming who you were always created to be.

My name is Darrell G. Wolfe (DG Wolfe if you're reading my fiction). I am a wealth of random information and I make complicated things simple. When people around me don't know the answer to some off-the-wall question, they often say: "Ask Darrell, he'll know!"

Darrell's Personal Mission Statement:
 I help creatives and creators find or fulfill their unique position of opportunity and influence (their Topos).

Popular Posts