South Korea and the Military Might of it

A demo of SK military might
South Korean military drill

Military Might of South Korea may grow from Self Sufficiency.

Believe it or not, I stumbled upon this piece by an active duty US troop about South Korea. Oddly, to me anyway, this troop’s name is Christopher Lee which I know as the name of one of my favorite actors. But that’s not why this piece here at PDN exists. This piece exists to give an honest and simple run down about the military might of South Korea. What you have over there is the South Korean president, Moon Jae-In, making self-reliance a mandate. Frankly, Moon is looking to make South Korea independent of American foreign aid.

To me this sounds like Moon is doing right by his people, not because I believe foreign aid is based on a fantasy of bribing foreigners to love America. However, don’t get me wrong I do legit believe that about all foreign aid. Actually, the reason I applaud Moon for this is because America and South Korea have honest friendship with each other. And so far as I am concerned, true friends will defend each other with no bribery whatsoever in the mix.

Non-money factors of SK Military Might.

Let’s talk other factors besides military budget, because there is a lot to unpack in assessing a nation’s military might. Basically it is found that South Korea is the 7th most peopled military at 627,500 troops. With the full data here, we can gleam into what South Korea has on a military might level.

Frankly, they have almost 1500 aircraft and a sum of 5300 heavy vehicles, and close to 7600 artillery engines and 166 total naval crafts.

Not to mention, there is something I call terrain familiarity. Basically the South Koreans naturally know the Korean peninsula than any American can. I must admit this as an American myself! Because remember, Sun Tzu made military might more often stem from brains than from brute force, “utilize brains over brute force” it’s alleged he said. Speaking of which, the South Koreans are likely to also know Sun Tzu literature better than we do.

What this Self-sufficiency agenda means for liberty

In closing, I will say this about Moon’s agenda’s impact on the growth of individual liberty. I think it will be an impact that causes government to shrink and liberty to grow. However, the admirability of Moon pushing self-reliance does not, cannot and will not justify America not jumping to South Korea’s defense as needed. Instead, the truth is that true friends who truly love each other will eagerly defend each other like family.

For example, what if North Korea threatens terror on South Korea like Elan Journo brilliantly points out they always do? That means that if South Korea is going to go tear down the threat, then we act like a brother to SK by going with them. Frankly, it’s as simple as that.

Advertisements

US Foreign Policy 45: Mattis Doctrine or McMaster Doctrine?

Mattis and McMaster: Which one's in charge of FP?
“I’m gonna leave foreign policy to you guys, the Generals!”

It’s up to the Generals to craft a foreign policy doctrine?

Apparently, Donald Trump is poised to leave foreign policy crafting to America’s generals. Basically, this means there are plenty of questions to be thrown around. However, most of them if not all of them relate to principles, I think. Frankly, what we need is a doctrine, meaning a range of rules to play by, geopolitically. So basically, a geopolitical agenda is what a foreign policy range of rules so happens to be. Firstly, though, let us look at potential names for the foreign policy agenda of the 45th presidency.

General Mattis or General McMaster?

Frankly, there are two generals whose names are being floated around. Also, it’s easy to assume that their names will be the 45th POTUS’s agenda’s name. However, what’s obvious in flaws with my assumption here is only one can have US foreign policy names for him. As far as I am concerned, what matters to me are the principles, not which of these two is in charge. To be fair, I do recognize that it’s very important for a general to be the author of a doctrine. As someone who knows enough about General Mattis to say I respect him heavily, I’d say a “Mattis Doctrine” is in order. However, I am not sure how him and McMaster are going to jointly craft a doctrine that Trump won’t accuse either of them of ‘undermining my laws‘ over.

My Proposal for a “Mattis-McMaster Doctrine

Okay, so I thought about a set of principles that take mainly historic and military science factoids in mind. Generals Mattis and McMaster, I highly doubt either of you are reading this, but if you are, then please consider these for a foreign policy doctrine.

  1. Freedom of Trade: America’s trade policy ought to not be a matter of trade deals. Really, what I’m talking about here is ending trade barriers, cutting tariffs every year, and revoking corporatist and protectionist laws. All unilaterally, too. We ought to be opening every trade route on Earth, even if it means some US troops have to be abroad to keep trade routes open.
  2. Liberty vs Tyranny: America’s taste in friends needs to come down to just one question. Is it moral or immoral for any regime on Earth to rule its people as sacrificial animals? That way, We The People can decide based on that question which foreign societies are our friends and which ones are not.
  3. Defense of People: America’s military policy should echo the moral question above just like its taste in friends does. However, I only mean this in Right of Self-Defense context. Meaning a context where there is not a duty but rather a right to topple any tyrannical regime as long as it’s changed to a free market regime with no monopolies. Also, this is a context where the only real duty involved is to defend people against terrorism or genocide.

Closing Thoughts

I don’t expect this proposal to be taken into count, nor do I think I should expect it to. However, it is slightly possible that Mattis and/or McMaster may listen to me and to fellow Pro-Defense libertarians. Ones who happen to offer a different doctrine than what’s above and disagree with me in part on the Defense on in particular. But who knows? I’ve made it very clear to all that I don’t.

Private Markets: America Should Stick to Paris Deal

Alex Molinaroli
Alex Molinaroli walking down a hallway of his company’s headquarter.

Donald Trump gets opposition from private markets to his quitting of the Paris Deal

Okay, so first I tried to close this site for being a money burden on me. But then when I was not able to I found this story. Frankly, I have been hearing plenty of jibber jabber about the Paris Deal. Apparently, Donald Trump took America out of this climate deal without the consent of any of the free societies America needs as friends. However, I am not here to glorify or vilify Trump for this action. Instead, I am here to analyze this action from my own perspective, with only one intention. Bringing clarity to this news about American talks with France.

Before we begin…

…I owe anyone who actually reads this magazine an answer of why I wanted to close this site down. Frankly, I am sparingly patient about anything that is not related to my grocery store job. Therefore, I looked at the monthly billing I get for this site and looked at how I’ve never made even a penny off it. I almost closed this magazine down because I felt that no-one was ever reading it! Thus I make a plea to you, please share this article every time Paris Deal comes up for any reason! Especially if this is your first time reading a Pro-Defense News article! This magazine is heavily in its infancy at 4 months old and has a heavy bent towards journalistic integrity!

Okay, back to the actual topic.

So, I will come clean about my awareness of the situation and of my ideological perspective. But let’s start with my situational awareness. I have seen friends of mine speaking harshly about this Paris deal cancelation. However, this reminded me why CNBC is my most trusted news source, because of their reporting. They are basically to sensible libertarians like me as NPR is to actual liberals like on the Center-left. But other than ideological difference, CNBC has a streak of journalistic integrity. One that makes it the only news channel who ever gives NPR any run for its money.

Thus, I went to CNBC and read the story to try to get a basic knowing of the Paris Deal. And frankly it is a climate deal about agreeing to make private markets want to focus on clean energy. However, we live in the Digital Age wherein every mindful consumer including me wants to make the private market move away from fossil fuel and into renewable energies!

What does this say about Trump pulling America from the Paris Deal?

Well, from what I read today, he wants us to fixate on fossil fuel. Frankly, to see private market CEOs objecting to fossil fuel is a breath of fresh air. Not because of any stereotypes or hysteria touted about markets by the far left. Instead, it’s a breath of fresh air because it serves as evidence that business leaders and their worker-bases share incentive to constantly cater to customer desires in a better way every day. So, after reading this CNBC article about private markets wanting America to stay in the Paris renewable energy deal, I can now take a stance. I oppose Trump’s cancelation of American loyalty to the renewable energy deal of Paris. If private market CEOs, consumers and workers can mostly if not entirely agree to oppose this cancellation, so can I!

Sanctions on Iran Have Not Stopped Islamic Statism, Never Will

How you know Sanctions do not help.
Iranian mother & son walk by evidence that sanctions never do work and never will work.

Sanctions on Iran imposed, on a No New Learning basis.

Okay, so what exactly do I mean a no new learning basis? And what is going on with Iran and sanctions anyway? Basically, America is, once again, sanctioning Iran over the Iranian military build-up. However, We The People have tried this method of dealing with Iran before and they clearly do not work and never have worked. Nor will this policy ever work. Additionally, I ought to go into detail about what kind of nation Iran is toward us. Frankly, Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism who happens to be the third biggest exporter of Jihadi terror. Only Pakistan and, far more so, Saudi Arabia; stand above Iran in sponsoring our enemies, the Islamic Statist movement. However, not everyone reading this is going to know what that is. Let me explain.

What is the Islamic Statist movement?

Basically, Islamic Statists, or as they are more often called Islamic Totalitarians, are an overtly political sect of muslims who actively preach and fight for global tyranny. As in a tyrannical monarchy who thrives on central planning of all things by the state from the faith called Islam, across the entire world. Basically this means that Islamic Statism is a dire threat to our individual rights to life, liberty, and the earning of prosperity. In fact, it is the biggest threat at present to these individual rights for everyone. Muslims, christians, gays, such atheists as me, and so many more; are all in immortal danger. For as long as this brand of Statism lives.

Now we can talk about the sanctions and Iran

So, what is Iran’s role in all this? Ah, yes, they are the number three regime in state sponsorship of Islamic Statist acts of terror. Basically, our history of imposing sanctions on Iran proves what Yaron Brook said here in 2013. He accepts that we keep doing the same dumb things (sanctions) over and over again and don’t learn anything. Einstein had a word for this, he’d have called this insanity.

Instead, I think the proper defense policy with regard to Iran is frankly the overnight annihilation of their political and military establishment. Not just the elements legally classed as Legit Military Targets, either. But any and all Iranian politicians and theocrats who are currently in charge of Iran, too. And the same defense policy is proper regarding any and all Islamic States (dark green on this map) too. After these regimes are destroyed, I think we need to bring most surviving victors home and leave a few thousand behind. Frankly the few thousand staying behind is about guarding the free market’s ability to install capitalism in these foreign lands.

No, this solution is not world policing nor nation building

What even is world policing? Because when I think of it I think of paternalism to foreigners. As for nation building, that’s not a proper alternative to sanctions regarding these Islamic Statists regimes either. See, actual neocons are often asserting we need to keep all surviving victors over there so these US troops can act like architects of democratic government. Frankly the reality is we need not to topple tyrannies to spread democracy. But rather we need, I say, to stamp out actual threats to spread free enterprise.

So, according to me, we will not defeat Iran with sanctions. According to me, the day we militarily destroy Iran’s regime and replace it with free market capitalism is the day we have solved the problem of Iran’s major imminent threat to us. But until then, I say we have not resolved it.

Kim Jong Un is The New Hideki Tojo, Islamic Statism is the new Nazism

Is this guy the new General Tojo?
Kim Jong Un facial photo
Here is General Tojo.

With World War Three being predicted so incessantly, is Kim Jong Un the new General Tojo?

What exactly are people guessing? Some people like in poison magazines I saw at my normal job recently are explaining Trump’s plans in ornate detail. Basically, this is nationally suicidal because of something that is just common sense. Frankly, you have to have a secret plan! No commander allows his or her plan to be well known before a battle or a war begins!

While other people are being smart with what speculation they throw around. For example, there is this journalist who did this article which I am replying to here! Basically his article is asking whether or not Kim Jong Un is the new Adolf Hitler, and I think there is great wit to it. However, I think a more historical comparison is to call Kim Jong Un the new General Hideki Tojo. And as for Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany, I think that today’s Islamic States, marked in the map in dark green, are the new Nazi Germany. Please let me explain why I think what I think.

How is Kim Jong Un more comparable to Hideki Tojo?

Firstly, let me make one thing perfectly clear. The comparisons I am about to make have nothing to with geography or race, all of them are all about level of threat to American civilians. And also about how eager or reluctant each enemy is to fake being a friend of American civilians.

Basically, Kim Jong Un is very gleeful to speak and act genocidally not just to Americans but also to South Koreans and 21st century Japanese, too. General Hideki Tojo during 1940’s Japan was reveling in genocidal behavior all over his region. And as for America, Tojo acted in 1941 on what he knew was a latent threat of America bashing him over his Nanking genocide. Nowadays, Kim Jong Un is incessantly and openly threatening genocide against America, South Korea and present day Japan.

How is Nazi Germany more comparable to present day Islamic States?

In essence, there are some aspects of Islamic Statism that are comparable to Nazi Germany. Take Iran, for example! The Iran deal was the symbol of Barack Obama being the Neville Chamberlin of American history. Here is Elan Journo speaking truth to human nature in this regard, and I believe him as he’s one of the best influencers that American libertarians can find. However, he does not identify with American libertarians, which I am totally okay with.

Other Islamic States, like Saudi Arabia, are more comparable to Soviet Russia. From Saudi Arabia faking friendship with us, to the very same kingdom sponsoring our most impassioned enemies. So basically, to be honest, I see Iran and Saudi Arabia as the new Hitler and the new Soviet Union respectively.

Can World War Three be avoided?

Well, if we go about regular society’s logic of World War 3 being a global case of total warfare, then I’d say it depends. If we forfeit our proxy war against Russia and move on to the 21st century by crushing the Islamic States, then my answer is yes. However, if we don’t change gears like this, then my answer is no.

Taxation, Healthcare, and the Donald

Paul Ryan & Donald Trump way doesn't count as reform!
I saw this lovely cartoon on Instagram a few times!

Donald Trump says he’s in no rush to reform healthcare or taxes? Why?

Frankly, President Donald Trump has decided that health and tax reform are less important than executive orders. Basically, he is flip flopping on whether it matters at all to fix the broken tax and health status quo America. However, before I go into the the need for major reforms, Let’s dig into the platform he ran on.

Clearly, Donald Trump ran on a tax code that brings the number of different rates down to four. Specifically, the rates were pledged to be 0% for those making between nothing and $25k annually. Next, for people making $25k and $50k annually he promised 12%. Then, for people making between $50k and $150k he promised 25%. Lastly, for anyone making more than $150k annually he wanted to tax income 33%. Also, he ran on the idea that Obama Care is a joke of a health care law. As for me, I took time on Wikipedia to read Obama Care and a lot of aspects of it do make it a joke. But how are Donald Trump and Paul Ryan and the GOP establishment any different?

Here’s why I am open to any tax reform proposal that cuts taxes.

In essence, I am open-minded and reasonable to any kind of tax reform at this point in American current events. Specifically, I am open to any tax reform that cuts taxes down to only applying to one kind of human activity. Frankly this is because we tax way too many different activities right now. We tax dying via estate tax, we tax working to earn via income tax, we tax buying items and services via sales tax, we tax interstate and global imports via import tax. And that’s only a minority of the different kinds of taxes in America! Please, allow me to give examples.

Rand Paul wanted to put up a flat tax of 15% for all incomes and have it not apply to payrolls. And he wanted to raise the Standard Deduction from $6,300 to $15,000. Gary Johnson wanted to replace all federal taxes and the IRS with a federal sales tax, and in an interview he suggested Googling ‘FairTax’ for some idea of what he means by this. Austin Petersen ran on the idea of a flat tax of 15% in place of our entire current tax code. However, Austin was never really clear whether this would be on income or on sales or on trade. But on the other hand he does oppose taxing income and taxing trade, out of these three.

Lastly, I think we ought to get rid of both the IRS and our entire current tax code federally and only tax foreign imports by half%.

Rationalizing my Tax Reform idea

Firstly, we as a nation import about $2.2 trillion annually as Earth’s leader in terms of one nation importing independently. Refusing to tax anything but imports, and even then only by about half%, would cut taxes enormously. At a resulting revenue of $1.1 trillion instead of $4 trillion, this’d cut taxes from 22% of our $18 trillion nominal GDP down to 6% of nominal GDP. Grant you, we should purely deregulate trade, while adopting a policy of broken windows enforcement of the golden rule.

However, deregulation is exactly the topic here. But also, by this logic we would need to cut spending down to a maximum of about $880 billion. And limit spending arenas to Military defense, Protection, General Government and social Welfare (not corporate welfare). Basically out of these four, I’d cut the welfare arena 43%, or whatever percentage is necessary to abolishing corporate welfare.

Moving on to the healthcare part…

As far as the healthcare reform as a topic goes, I’d like to cut healthcare spending the best way I know how. Plagiarizing Chile’s healthcare system, as to replace Obama Care. Looking at this table, if Donald Trump would ask Congress for legislation replacing Obama Care with copy/paste Chilean healthcare policy, he would not just be honoring the Constitution. Frankly honoring Constitutional guide to law reforms would only be the start of the Good done there. He’d also be working with Congress to make conditions for average American lifespan to grow from 78 to 82.

Unless you have Asperger’s Syndrome like I have, then reportedly that’d be a jump from 68 to 72. Also, healthcare spending would be cut from $9500 per capita to $1100 per capita, an 88% cut! Meaning we’d bring healthcare spending down from $1.2 trillion to $144 billion, basically. Oh, and there is something about jumping our healthcare quality dramatically, too. Right….

Syria Airstrikes, Flip Flops, the Constitution and Capitalistic Rollback

James Madison and his creation the US Constitution
James Madison, 4th POTUS and US Constitution author; “What are you doing, 45th POTUS!?”

James Madison must be wondering if Trump ever learned the Constitution

Syria and the Donald. What’s weirder, readers of mine. My opening three words, or Trump’s act against Syria without regard for the constitution? Basically, many if not most of Trump’s fans are divided on the legitimacy of Trump’s action. However, it is most worth noting that just in 2013 he was demanding Obama to only act against Syria with permission by Congress. Plus, I am going to break down the fine details of what’s eating the Syrian people. I’m also breaking down three cases.

One for caring about principles in place of feelings and in place of party affiliations. Next case’s going to be for a Textualist approach to the Constitution. However, you need not worry for I’ll show you what the word means right here. Basically def 1 out of the two given there. Lastly, I am going to make the case for replacing tyrannies with free-market economies with exactly Zero monopolies each.

What’s Eating the Syrian People?

Basically, the Syrian Civil War erupted in 2011 as part of the Arab Spring. Gradually it became a four sided conflict. The ISIS team sponsored mostly by Saudi Arabia [1], the Kurdish & American team [2], the Turkish-backed Syrian revolt [3], and the Syrian regime team [4]. However, there was also a six-year history, so far, of Team 3 of those I mentioned being taken over by Team 1. Iranian-born Cartoonist turned citizen of France, Mana Neyestani, summed up the revolt’s fate in this political cartoon.

Principles Matter. Feelings do not, Partisans do not.

So what is the necessity of principles? Basically principles, aka core values, are the bricks that build the house that is a philosophy. Partisans are just political parties vying for electoral controls. However, I don’t think I need to tell you what feelings are, I will explain what’s wrong with identity politics instead. Identity politics is the poison of tossing around labels in order to preserve feelings. Issue politics, on the other hand, is about citing science, history, and/or just plain old English definitions of words to argue for and against certain laws. Basically; labels, partisans, and feelings are birthplaces for hypocrisy in the topic of politics.

However, principles are about thinking critically about everything, and then brewing a worldview with the principles as the ingredients.

Why is the Constitution Relevant to this topic?

Legions of people I witness, mostly on social media sites, act like the American Constitution is irrelevant. Which is partly why I cycled to my local 7-eleven one time (the Cheshire, CT store) and bought a lifelike copy of the Constitution. In short, the power to wage war belongs to the Congress and not to the Executive branch. Basically Trump is not acting within his authority by launching missiles against Syria. Which is why it is important for us to be textual literalists regarding the Constitution.

I am not going to go into the Bill of Rights as that’s not the relevant part of the Constitution to American actions on Syria. Instead, I am going to speak of the List of Enumerated Powers. This lists the powers of federal government, to be exercised only by the Legislative. On Syria and on any foreign policy issue, Congress is who is to debate how to defend individuals against violence. Specifically, clause 10 says only Congress can take ‘Law of Nations’ (laws of UN that UN has no respect for) into American hands. Clause 11 says only Congress can launch wars or issue death marques against enemy entities. However, people will throw the Executive Powers Act at me.

And my reply is to say that’s only for retaliations against tyrannies who are directly threatening the American People, whether latently or imminently.

What’s Capitalistic Regime Change & Why’s it Good?

Before I answer this last question, I will define capitalism here. Basically it is an economic doctrine of individual ownership of items and talents for sale. Sale on a supply and demand basis.

Now that this is out of the way, let’s talk about Capitalist Peace Thesis, to ease the mind into knowing what Capitalistic Regime Change is about. And I will make a map-based case for CPT, too. Basically I must compare the Fraser map of economic freedom and Transparency International map of regime corruption. For the most part, there is a strong correlation from economic freedom to government integrity. Basically we can prove Capitalist Peace Thesis to be neither purely true nor purely false, but mostly true, by the maps.

Also, the act of rollback is the act of radically reshaping a nation’s political climate. However, this is not an endorsement of unprovoked wars of capitalistic rollback. If anything, I say America should deal with tyrannies who pose no threat to us by unilaterally lowering their economic regulatory and taxation burdens to utterly nothing. Economic action, not military action.

Militarily, we should only do capitalistic regime change to the specific tyrannies that do terrorism or genocide to individuals. Or who threaten to do either to individuals. Otherwise, I say stick to economic means and away from military means.

Border Wall Builders to Replace Wall with Walrus

Walrus & Trump
We need to build a Wall Russ and it happening now! From here.

Building a Walrus may or may not cost an artist his wall painting.

Okay, so I hear that Border Patrol will replace the border wall. However, the patrol is not going to let the painters keep their art like the external link says. Instead our builders, I guess, want to replace all border walling & fencing with… a Walrus? Why? I mean, legit, there was someone who painted stuff on the wall, I guess. Does this mean that duly respectable painter may need to learn tattoos? And how to give tattoos to Walruses safely for both this kid and the living animal that Trump wants to ‘build’?

The Donald’s plan for building a Walrus

Apparently, Trump has no clear plan, when I teleported to the White House and asked him in person he was as vague as can be. All he said was “Building the Walrus will require more tons of Strenergy than the global economy can afford at the moment.” Basically, once I teleported back to my semi-forested home in Cheshire, CT; I looked up the word ‘strenergy‘ in the dictionary. However, it is clear the dictionary wants to lie and misgender reality by telling me it’s not a word!

Seeing as the global economy has a total GDP of $75 trillion, I have no clue what he means by what he said. However, I can make a scientific guess as to what he might mean. Perhaps he means spending $100 trillion on building one Walrus.

How would a Walrus benefit national security?

Well, at only 12 feet long, I don’t think a Walrus would be able to guard 2000 miles of border. However, what if Zoltan Istvan is willing to teach anyone, Trump or whoever, how to build jetpacks for Walruses? Maybe, then the Walrus would be able to fly everywhere and maybe even learn to recognize the smells of political movements. That way, perhaps the Walrus would be able to use its carnivore diet to eat any Salafi troops that try to infiltrate America!

How Israel Should Address Its Fears for Tourists…

Female soldier of Israel
Israeli military woman. Let her and her co-workers Defend her Free Society!

Israel has pulled a coward in how to ‘defend’ its people and tourists.

Sadly, the closest nation in the Middle East to a Liberty land is passing off appeasement as defense. Basically, Israel reacted to ISIS plans against Israeli beaches by ordering tourists to exit the beaches. However, that land needs to know that this is not self-defense, this is simply cowardice. Perhaps I need to remind the good people of that land what it means to nationally self defend. But before I do, I need to throw some quick disclaimers here.

First Disclaimers

Basically, I am adamantly Pro Israel. So much so I want my government to stop telling that nation how it can and cannot defend its population. Likewise, I also cannot see why this opinion about that nation is only a minority thought among my fellow libertarians. According to me, any functioning brain of Individual Liberty frame of mind should be praising and defending Israel as the best behaved society, and least criminal government, in the Middle East.

And as for my fellow Libertarian Partiers reading this, know that I am still a citadel of Libertarian Party material. Basically, by this metaphor I mean the following.

  • I can respect alternative lifestyles and cannot respect the death penalty.
  • Privatizing Marriage and Ending the War on Drugs are ideas I endorse.
  • My intake of the American Bill of Rights is ultra-literal.
  • Free Markets, Free Trade, and Free Banking under Free Enterprise make the best economic recipe ever, says me.
  • Violence to me can only be justified in defense of self and/or others against physical damage.
  • And the examples are Legion.

Last Disclaimers

On behalf of the same principles, the following is also true about me.

  • I merge an adamant refusal to be callous to Israel with an eagerness to call them out on trashy moves like this.
  • My hostility to the idea of negotiating with Arab League states will never go away.
  • Iran’s obsession for slaughtering all of Israeli population makes me want to see Iranian government turned to ash.
  • Pakistan’s belligerence to Israel makes me wish nothing but ill upon Pakistan’s government.

Getting Back On Topic

Okay, so Israel obviously has taken action I condemn them as cowards for. Basically the action they have taken has flaunted a reluctance to exert their Unconditional right as a Free Society to Self-Defend. What do I mean when I call Israel a free society? Let’s break that down, if you will please let me.

Now that this has been clarified, let me break down what I’d rather Israel have done and why.

Israel has a moral right to retaliate against ISIS anyway it wants, no matter how destructive. And that’s because it is a free society and when it comes to nations, only free societies have a right to life. Tyrannies like Saudi Arabia and Iran and others, on the other hand, I put it to you like a question. If a tyrannical individual fails to deserve life and freedom by failing to respect life and freedom than how is it any different for a tyrannical nation?

Austin Petersen for Missouri Senator in 2018!

Austin for MO Senator!
I did this edit of one of his presidential 2016 ads in GIMP.

What Party Austin Petersen runs in is immaterial.

Frankly, just as The Libertarian Republic sums up lovably; Only Principles Matter! However, one must learn who Austin Petersen is. Basically, Mr. Petersen is a Missouri guy who ran for president in 2016. Notably, on the US Libertarian Party bid. He is also the founder and owner of PDN’s inspiration source, The Libertarian Republic. Internally, Austin is a major figure head of the Minarchist faction of the LP. On one hand, PDN is mainly a neolibertarian news channel, of all LP factions. On the other hand, here comes PDN to make the case for him being US Senator for Missouri.

Part One: Petersen’s Mental Positives

Basically myself and many if not most of my fellow LP neolibertarians will never understand something. And that something is why so many of Petersen’s fellow LP minarchists are so adamantly opposed to Austin Petersen himself. This guy, reader, is eager to defend a woman from whatever scum bag creepy stalker weirdo he hears of. He’s also got one of the most easy-going senses of humor I have ever witnessed examples of. Take his answer to Larry Elder’s question to him about immigration for example. Frankly, Petersen’s answer was to joke “We need to build a wall around Donald Trump and make Bernie Sanders pay for it!”. Quite the laughter this answer deserves!

Part Two: Core Values of the Austin

Basically Austin Petersen stands for laissez-faire capitalism, constitutional democracy, and marriage privatization. He is someone who’s learned from Rand Paul the need to defend the entire Bill of Rights, too! Plus, Austin’s got a kind of swagger in that he’s proud he’s built a work ethic. Plus, he’s built a strident abstinence from echo chambers, all of these are wonderful things, aren’t they?