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!


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?

Judge Andrew Napolitano FIRED for Enforcing the Bill of Rights!

This judge has been wrongly fired.
Calling out government on Bill of Rights breaking… and Fired

Sadly, the LP’s best known judicial worker has been fired his media job!

However, should anyone really be surprised that Fox News kicked out the only judge and journalist vocalizing the LP nationally? Evidently, he was kicked out for suspecting Obama of wiretapping! Specifically, Judge Napolitano suspects Barack Obama used a foreign intel agency to spy on Donald Trump. Personally, I see the Donald as ignorant. No ideology, no values, no principles. Although, what Obama is suspected of is actually breaking the 4th amendment to the Bill of Rights! But I am not going to sit here and act like the theory is total fact or total lie.

“You cannot know anything, only suspect”

Yes, I did just quote a video game character! Why is this quote from Assassin’s Creed 1 character Malik Al-Sayf in this article? Because I will call the Judge out on one thing. He’s accusing the 44th president of having spied on the now 45th as though the Judge knows. Basically, this is me exerting the principle of Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Perhaps if the Judge wants to validate his claims, he should sign a warrant for Chicago police to search Obama’s records. This way, the Chicago police can prove the judge either right or wrong.

Here’s a Broad reflection on news sources

Basically, I am someone you can expect to see all of TV news as authoritarian. Including Fox News for reasons made obvious in this piece. Actually, almost all. Because there are two exceptions I am aware of, Fox Business and CNBC. All other NBC channels and all other Fox channels are despotic news ‘sources’. But then there is CNN and PBS who are frequently despotic in their biases.

So basically CNN, MSNBC, PBS, ABC, Fox News, InfoWars, BreitBart, TheYoungTurks, these are all split between Fascism vs Marxism. But the bias to libertarians and actual liberals (aka classical liberals), because every news source has one kind of bias or another. Pro-Defense News, what you’re reading now, has neolibertarian bias to it but still tries to focus on being objective. Which for example is why I condemn Fox News for firing Judge Andy Nap while still advising him to presume Obama innocent until proven guilty, on behalf of the 5th amendment. Basically you will not find the kind of news that leans to liberty in those listed above.

Which news has a mix of objectivity and liberty bias?

In essence, you won’t find reports mixing objectivity with a bias to liberty unless you read Pro-Defense News right here. However, there’s other sources of this kind of reporting. You can also watch Fox Business and/or CNBC for this mix, or you have to go to The Libertarian Republic and/or Liberty Viral (who I linked to over the topic). Plus, there is also the Freedom Report on Podbean, or my every-Sunday podcast, In Defense Of Liberty on Minds.

Jeff Sessions is a Tyranny Sympathizer, Not an Attorney General

Jeff Sessions
Jeff Sessions pledging to rescue himself from investigation

Tyranny respecter Jeff Sessions has been made our Attorney General!

Someone named Jeff Sessions has been under fire for ties to Russia. Basically, he is someone who has been friendly to tyrants of Russia. However, he is not being dealt any kind of justice for this. Instead he is being allowed to make rulings about the US Constitution. Plus, he is being allowed to rule about the US Bill of Rights. So what exactly does this say about my voting peers? What does this say about Mr. Sessions? Lastly what does this say about America’s humanity as a free society? Frankly we are going to explore all of these in this analysis.

Quick Disclaimers before I answer the questions!

I’m a dorky atheist who espouses views that can be most accurately labeled ‘Libertarian‘. Basically this means I am an Independent voter who’s sole political concern is Liberty. Specifically by ‘liberty’ I mean the following.

  1. The freedom to do as one pleases without breaking the rule of law
  2. Freedom from tyrannical rule
  3. Intake of a legion of moral freedoms & economic freedoms
  4. The freedom of choice in off duty lifestyle

I am a small-L libertarian in terms of how I am registered to vote. However, this does not stop me from paying monthly dues to be a capital-L on the Connecticut state level. The only reasons I am a libertarian Independent (small ell & big aye) are all foreign policy reasons. I reject the myth that being a libertarian demands one to be militarily a pacifist. But most of us are for reasons that confuse me deeply. I think that if some tyranny is up to genocide or slavery then it deserves to die. Of what I guess I’d call ‘free market rollback‘, the act of forcibly replacing a tyrannical regime with a free market economy. But mostly I’m about one sided cuts of foreign economies’ regs to zero (Unilateral Free Trade).

What does Jeff Sessions’s behavior say about my voting peers?

Yes, I am done disclaiming. Now we can move on to getting questions answered. Well, frankly, Jeff Sessions’s behavior says about my fellow voters that they would rather vote on feelings than on facts. How do I know this? Because most Americans, from what I observed, were far too obsessed on directly imitating Hunger Games to care about Rule of Law. Or at least this is how most of my fellow voters come of to me. I was very briefly registered to vote as Republican in attempt to get the GOP populists and elitists to scrap their trivial problems with each other.

Basically I wanted to unite Republicans of both mindsets, and Democrats of both mindsets, against the Islamic Statist threat to Humanity. Sadly, my fellow US voters would rather fight among themselves like Mordor Uruk-hai from Return of the King than ask “What will happen if we do this?“. And now we have this Anti-Constitution, Tyranny respecter in charge of interpreting the Bill of Rights. And the US electorate’s populism vs elitism obsession is to blame.

What does this say about Jeff Sessions?

Frankly this says he is severely opposed to the James Madison writing of the Bill of Rights. However this also says he is eager to forfeit American independence, making him a tad Anti-Jefferson as well.

What does this say about US Humanity?

Nothing positive, I will say that much. Unless one speaks of how Americans behave outside of voting time. Because then nearly all Americans are good people. However, there are those who choose not to be even with no election going on in the moment.

Who would I have liked for Attorney General?

Basically, someone like Thomas Massie. A wise human being who adores all 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights equally, just like I do. Fiscally he’s a fellow backer of mammoth levels of economic liberty. Best of all to me, on foreign policy, he is a fellow Anti-pacifist. Making himself someone well worth the praise and support of Pro-Defense News anchors like me. Nothing else for me to say on this Jeff Sessions issue.

Zoltan Istvan and the Factions of the Libertarian Party

Zoltan Istvan
Zoltan Istvan is running for state governor in California

Zoltan Istvan is running for state governor in the Libertarian Party

Two people I know of are running for state governor roles under the Libertarian Party ticket. In California, Zoltan Istvan is that candidate, while in my state Mark Stewart is that guy. Basically, I have already endorsed Mark directly via the comment box on his campaign site’s contact page. As for the other guy in California, I am going to wait until he states his policies before endorsing him. However, know that the big highlight with him is his emphasis on futurism and relying almost fully on science and on secular morality to advance Individual Liberty. Also, allow me to take time to elaborate since it appears, at least this year, about the Factions of the Libertarian Party. But, it is worth noting the following.

  1. No-one considers any form of socialism a form of libertarianism
  2. Which is why I am replacing the 6th one down with ‘Libertarian Trans-humanism’
  3. Zoltan himself is of the Libertarian Trans-humanist faction, there’s that too.

Factions of the Libertarian Party

Basically all of these factions agree to support free markets, civil liberties, and an authority so tiny that all it ever does is defend humans from fraud, force & theft. However, A} we also all agree the only other stuff authority should do is defend pets and other property from these three behaviors, too. And B} there are some major differences between the 10 different factions.


Okay, here is the faction that everyone seems to think is the only faction of the LP. Actually, this is one of the smaller factions of the Libertarian Party, okay? What these guys believe is that authority should not be exerted by any kind of government. Instead Anarcho-Capitalists want authority to be exerted entirely by the free market, including desire for civil justice and national security to go by the rules of supply and demand.

Cultural Libertarians

Center-left, permissive society types who happen to also endorse laissez-faire economics. But again, civil liberty and mutual respect between all lifestyles are the number one concern for these types. However, there is a concentration on Facts over feelings within this faction that gives me plenty of respect for them. Henceforth, the YouTubers I look up to that I’d most eagerly invite to join this faction are as follows. June Lapine (Shoe0nHead), Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad, even though he’d have to gain US citizenship first), and Dave Rubin (The Rubin Report). Mark Stewart and his fellow ‘Freedom Democrats’ are of this faction.

Classical Liberals

Here’s the faction every single founding father of America would have joined if they were here today! Basically these are the guys who are into asserting that all humans are equally entitled to economic freedom and civil liberties. They also say that authority needs to be an indirect democracy. One who only ever acts to defend economic freedom and civil liberties.

Fiscal Libertarians

People who’s number one priority is the economy. Specifically, building a free market economy with no monopolies, no corporatism, and no protectionism. Also, this is the faction with the most concentration on replacing regulation with the golden rule all by itself. Plus these are people who are much more concerned about Making Taxation Theft Again then about anything related to Planned Parenthood, for example. Mike Lee and his fellow ‘Liberty Republicans’ are very likely to flee to this specific faction of the LP. All because of Donald Trump’s executive overreach.


However, Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense, is the Founding Father who’d be into this faction. These guys are fiscal libertarians who want to replace taxation with emphasis on land rental. That’s because this is the faction who believes land ownership is exempt from property rights.

Libertarian Trans-Humanists

Zoltan Istvan’s faction is this one! Looking at the beliefs Zoltan Istvan clarifies having on The Rubin Report, is how you figure out what this faction’s agenda is. Furthermore, this is the most likely faction to emphasize science, reason, and non-Jesus-Centric thinking. Basically this is the Digital Age and Digital Economy faction of the Libertarian Party.


Oooh, you see this lads! This is the faction of Austin Petersen, the guy who should be our president right now, says reality. Okay, but what is a minarchist? In short, a minarchist is someone who’s top concern is keeping authority a vastly tiny government that abides by a constitution. Which is why one can call these guys, especially Austin who self-professes as one, the Libertarian Constitutionalists.


Okay, guys this is my faction! This is also the main faction of Pro-Defense News which you are reading right now! We the neolibertarians are a post-9/11 factional offspring of Libertarian Trans-humanism who’s number one concerns are foreign policy and national defense. Specifically, we are the faction that assimilates the Bush Doctrine to serve the principle of only warring within the Right of Self-Defense. Meaning we take Unilateralism to be about unilaterally lowering foreign economies’ tax and regulatory burdens to puritanical zero. Plus we adapt the ‘End States Who Sponsor Terrorism’ thing into one that focuses on Islamic Totalitarian acts of terrorism. So far as the Preemptive strikes thing goes, many of us (myself included) expand that to include ‘Preventative’. Meaning to stamp out latent threats before they’re imminent.

And then there’s Regime Change. We as a faction of the LP do not in any sense support unprovoked acts of Democracy Promotion or Nation Building. We as a faction of the LP we’d rather bring a large majority of US troops home from their victory while leaving a few thousand behind to oversee the rise of Free Markets and Free Trade in what used to be enemy land.

Mainly, neolibertarians like me are the Nothing Less Than Victory types when it comes to how we want the US military to go about ending an actual threat.


I gotta admit I have a legion of respects for this faction of the LP. Matter a fact, these are the guys who got me changing the perspective I oppose Anti-War activism from. And changing for the betterment of the LP, at that! However, because I respect Objectivists so much, I must be honest that they are far more of their own movement. Basically there are few Objectivists I am aware of by name within the LP. Who they are is the people who take the platform of Ayn Rand Institute and import it into its own faction of the LP.


The resident anti-immigration types in the LP. Well, not anti-immigration but rather anti-open-borders. Don’t get me wrong, as a neolibertarian my faction and I favor the Ellis Island border policy that minarchist Austin pushed in 2016! However the paleolibertarians, like Rebel Media leader Lauren Southern would be classed as if she were in the US Libertarian Party, oppose open borders and open immigration. In other words, the paleolibertarian faction confuses this distinction between open immigration vs open borders exactly like the Libertarian National Chairmen do, but with opposite intentions.

Something else I want to mention is these guys are the leading voice for Just War Theory, mostly. Basically, these are the faction who I see as more often naive than not on a foreign policy level.

What any of this means for Zoltan and Mark

Frankly these two have their own factions of the LP. I have some opinions in common with both, and I have things I disagree with one or the other on. Basically what matters in 2018 is making sure Libertarian Partiers of all factions become state governors that year. That’s really it.

Neil Gorsuch: The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown.

Neil Gorsuch
Neil Gorsuch speaking about a constitutional issue

Let’s Analyze Neil Gorsuch, the current Supreme Court Pick.

Recently, there has been commentary on supreme court pick Neil Gorsuch about voluntary euthanasia. However, one must not jump to conclusions simply because he is strongly against allowing it. Perhaps that is one bad trait in a legion of bad traits aside a legion of good traits. Frankly, there is no better time than this particular week to debate and discuss the nominee. Whenever I review something or in this case someone, my order is talk bad traits first, then good traits, then final verdict. I am going to use this page and others to prove his views and I am going to use other pages to justify my opposition to some and support of others. I will add a 1 to his score for positives, a 0 for unknowns and a 0 for negatives.

The Unknown Traits

  1. This nominee’s immigration opinion is not well known outside of his brain. But, what I do know is we need Ellis Island model border control and no other border controls.
  2. We so far know absolutely nothing about his foreign policy and national defense views. Maybe this may not be all that relevant?

The Bad Traits

  1. He does not seem to recognize a line at Viability outside the womb. Instead he appears to aspire to sign his opinion on abortion legality into law.
  2. Gorsuch has not been clear about the moral necessity of Marriage Privatization. Instead he claims to be no fan of ‘litigation’, whatever he means by that.

The Good Traits

  1. He Opposes tax dollar funding of Planned Parenthood. My hope is that by this he means he wants to totally privatize it, but I suspect to be wrong.
  2. Gorsuch desires a textualist application of Amendment 2. Now he needs to pledge to the same for Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 19, 23, 24, and 26.
  3. He favors legalizing medical weed, but only so far as he wants the medical weed issue decided state by state.
  4. Gorsuch is strongly in favor of term limits for Congress, and for all politicians as well. Meaning to me he favors ending corruption and maybe wants to end corporatism.
  5. From what can be seen here, the nominee also opposes economic regulation and social criminalization alike. This is lovely news for libertarians of all 10 kinds!
  6. Gorsuch is also extremely against setting limits to Due Process and to the Presumption of Innocence.
  7. On gay rights and gender equality, Gorsuch seems to support these from within the 14th amendment, i.e. equal treatment under the law.

Final Verdict

I impose, onto nominee Gorsuch, a grade of 64%, which in my way of reviewing means I am generally Mixed about the guy. My grading style is based on the Metacritic grading line.

Attorney General Fired Over a Simple Question?

Her question lead her to opposing exec orders.
Attorney general opposing executive orders

Attorney General fired over a question relevant to the US Constitution.

So Donald Trump has recently fired the Attorney General for asking a question of whether his refugee ban is constitutional. However, this attorney general’s side of the story are not without error. Frankly, it’s because she acted on a question without bothering to search the constitution for an answer. This article first gives the answer to the unanswered. Then I’ll dig into whether or not executive orders can ever be justified. And then I will allow you to think over this news analysis in your own line of thinking.

Constitutionality of Executive Orders.

So far as I am concerned, you are free to download a PDF of the Constitution here. Knowing I use a MacBook pro, I actually did ‘Command + F’ and typed ‘executive order’. The results I got looked like this.

answer to question of exec orders
Honest answer to the question of executive orders

What does that even mean? Honestly, it means that executive orders are always crimes as in they’re power abuses. Does this mean Obama and previous presidents have done crimes too, by this reckon? Yes.

There is an easily useful table graph on Forbes about how abusive various Industrial and Digital Age presidents have been. Barack Obama has issued 37 executive orders in 8 years, Bush Jr. issued roughly as many at 36. The biggest constitution abuser in US history was Harry Truman, of all presidents! Truman issued over 113 executive orders in his 8 years.

Can Executive Orders be justified?

Well, allow me to ask you this. If James Madison, author of our constitution, were here today, would he support executive orders? No, he would not.

Instead the only justifiable refugee control policy is, at least on a migration level, is to let Congress make one. Legally, congress is allowed to make one by debating first and then voting Yes or No from their individual points of view. Then they send the idea that gets the most Yes votes to Trump. Next, Trump is supposed to either sign or veto the refugee policy.

The question of ethical and moral migrant policy

Which, if turned to me, my answer would be one with a historic case to make for it. Luckily, this case is well within US history, making it easier to argue for than, say, free banking. Personally, as an atheist, I assure you my Irish Catholic migrant ancestors came here through Ellis Island. And they has to pass the toughest criminal and medical background checks in US history, and when they did they were free to formally apply for citizenship but were not granted amnesty. And they were most thankfully not kept out by a stupidly expensive thing like a wall. In fact, some time ago, I called on a fellow Libertarian Partier (I recently joined my CT state level party) Andrew Napolitano to rule this Ellis Island policy as the only moral, legal, & constitutional border control.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: rule Ellis Island law as only lawful border law!

Judge Andy Nap!
Judge Andrew Napolitano is making a speech about something

New York State judge upholds the need for Ellis Island immigrant law against Exec orders!

American District Court Judge Ann Donnelly has taken action to block Donald Trump’s orders, defending freedom of movement! So the president is not allowed to bar foreigners within our borders from becoming Americans. Also, only Congress can make border laws, and even then only with naturalization as goal. Which is why from 1890’s to 1950’s Ellis Island had the best border law America’s ever had. Back then, newcomers needed a disease check and a security check and then were free to formally apply for citizenship themselves. Plus amnesty was never granted back then and border walls were never built, and neither of these are needed now. So then, should Andrew Napolitano lead our path to recycling Ellis Island border law? However, who is Andrew Napolitano anyway?

For those not knowing who he is…

Please let me explain; Judge Andrew Napolitano is a senior Judicial Analyst for Reason Magazine. But also, he was a former judicial branch ruler on the federal level. Mentally, he is a Libertarian like my good self. However, unlike most libertarians, he tends to be on the Pro-Defense side of US military debates. Plus, this is a judge who makes solid cases, in this topic, for an easy path to citizenship that excludes amnesty.

Okay, this part’s for Judge Nap himself!

Dear Judge Andrew Napolitano;

I wish to show you the historic success of Ellis Island law on immigration. According to this neat video, Ellis Island had 6 decades of safely processing newcomers to America! And it was not just European migrants like my own ethnically Irish fellow Perkins people of the time. Take World War One times for example. Armenians, Greeks, Syrians and even Turks were fleeing from Islamic Statist tyranny and genocide. Specifically, The Ottoman Caliphate’s Sunni Islamic Statism, was incentivizing a genocide.

But there were those failing security tests and those were banned from our nation. Therefore, it is easy to see that Ellis Island policy is not naive about security issues. Actually, I am calling upon you, Judge Napolitano, to use the first chance you get to rule about this Ellis Island border law. Please, use that chance to rule the Ellis Island immigration policy from 1890s to 1950s as the only constitutional immigration policy.

And yes, the above notes on Ellis Island migrant policy is my message to all of America as well.