Clarity from Chaos

By: Dave Campbell

Adelson Sweepstakes

By

“I want to like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) 92% (R-Florida). In fact, I want to love him. I want to support him for president.

I thought his debate performance was magnificent. He was clear, concise and consistent. It’s clear Rubio has a Reaganesque speaking and communications skills lacking in the DNA of most GOP candidates.

But I cannot.

While Rubio might have Reagan’s communication skills, he lacks Reagan’s core principled beliefs, particularly when it comes to federalism.

Rubio ran and was elected as an outsider. Yet within moments of arriving in the U.S. Senate he decided to hold hands and get into bed with liberal Democrat Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on immigration. That bothers me. No doubt. But what bothers me more is Rubio’s willingness to abandon principles to help big money donors and contributors even when they trample of core constitutional principles.

First, it is clear that Rubio has decided to play footsie with billionaire establishment donor Sheldon Adelson in order to win the “Adelson primary.” The winner of the “Adelson primary” can be the beneficiary of millions of dollars in political spending.

Adleson cares about three issues — Israel; a prohibition on Internet gaming and re-establishment federal power and regulation on marijuana policy. In two of the cases — Internet gambling and pot regulation — Adelson’s position runs counter to that of a limited federal government.

Gambling has always been regulated by the states. Each state has a different law and a different way of dealing with the issue. Hawaii and Utah have no legal gambling while other states allow everything from lotteries to riverboat gambling. Whether you support gambling or not, this is the proper way to regulate it — is in 50 state legislatures and not in Washington.

In comes Mr. Adelson. Adleson stood by and watched New Jersey and two other states legalize online gambling for their residents. Instead of pressing his case in Trenton and other state capitals, he turned to his friends in Washington to overturn these state laws. Mr. Rubio and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) 44% (R-SC) were willing to lend a helping hand, introducing legislation drafted by Mr. Adleson’s personal lobbyist.

During a recent radio interview, Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Michelle Minton noted that legislation proposed by Rubio and Graham would redefine intrastate commerce conducted by two parties on the Internet both within a state as interstate commerce to be regulated by the federal government. This radical expansion of federal power will limit Adelson’s competition — state regulated online gaming.

Then Rubio also declared war on Colorado and other states that have legalized marijuana. Rubio, in concert with the Adelson’s position, is the only GOP candidate willing to have the federal government enforce a war on pot, even against states that exercised their right to legalize the plant. So much for a limited federal government and granting power to the states.

It’s not just Adelson issues that Rubio is willing to sell his soul. At a recent gathering of libertarians, Rubio defended his stalwart support of the sugar subsidy by saying he would only oppose the subsidy when other countries abandoned their subsidy programs. Of course, the beneficiary of the sugar subsidy is the Fanjul Brothers, the most powerful sugar tycoons in the world. It’s no surprise the Fanjul family are political contributors to Mr. Rubio.

Rather than being a principled conservative, Rubio is more of a Simon Cameron conservative.  Cameron is, of course, Lincoln’s Secretary of War who said, ” An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.”  http://www.redstate.com/diary/dukefergus

Michelle Minton, is the Director of “Sindustry Studies” at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, where she promotes Liberty by defending the likes of gamblers, smokers, drinkers, junk food eaters, & insurance agents (basically one and the same).

Bio-diesel Boondoggle of 2016

By

If something’s desirable it ought not to be necessary to force people to buy it.

Chipotle, for instance, doesn’t need to spend millions in de-facto bribes (“campaign contributions”) to wheedle Congress into passing burrito subsidies. Nor are you forced to eat at Chipotle if burritos and bowls are not your thing.

Why doesn’t the same apply to “renewable” fuels, specifically – ethanol and biodiesel? If they are viable alternatives to gasoline – if they are better than conventional fuels – why must people be forced to subsidize them?

Required to buy them?

It’s a question that ought to be asked more often – which might result in crony capitalist hog-troughs (this time dressed in “green” livery) shoving their hands in our pockets less often.

But that’s probably just why it’s not asked.

Neither ethanol nor biodiesel can make it on the merits. Hence the need for government muscle.

You probably know all about the oceans of money ($6 billion annually; see here) diverted from taxpayers to a handful of massive agribusiness cartels – not mom and pop family farms – to “encourage” the production of ethanol (corn alcohol) which is then mixed in with the supply of what used to be gasoline – but which is now 10 percent ethanol (E10).

The agribusiness cartels get rich. American drivers get adulterated fuel that has less energy content per gallon, is corrosive to the fuel systems of older cars and power equipment such as lawn mowers – and causes newer cars to be less fuel-efficient than they’d be if they were fed pure gasoline. The diversion of cropland to the production of ethanol feed stock has also made food more expensive.

Corn that ordinarily might have fed cattle – which would then feed us – instead goes to feed the ethanol stills.

Beef costs more – and costs more to ship.

Libertarian View of the Cuban Discussion

By

Stephen Aaron Grey is passionate about liberty. Having traveled the globe as an internationally acclaimed DJ (under the stage name ‘Freaky Flow’), he has come to recognize that freedom works, and control does not. A tribute to a George Orwell classic, and simultaneously a nod to those who pursue liberty across the globe, Grey’s Ant Farm expresses these ideas in a creative narrative that anyone can easily understand. With an academic history focused on world religions, to boot, Grey possesses an added cultural sensitivity, which contributes to the universal impact of the philosophies that he holds so dear. It’s no wonder that many are already calling Ant Farm a new classic.