By Matthew Hayward  A small group of Patriots stand ready to sacrifice their lives to defend personal and collective freedoms. Yet, in stark contrast to our times, the overwhelming majority recoil at the mere thought of experiencing the slightest inconvenience to protect their own liberties, let alone step up for those of others. This is the heartbreaking tragedy, the raw truth that must be fiercely acknowledged and courageously confronted as we question the nature of our current reality. The canvas of our status quo is inked with the indifference of those who refuse to stir from their comfort to safeguard their most valued rights or rally for their fellow citizens' rights. This declaration of our times is a loud bell tolling for awareness and action. To echo the words of the trailblazing libertarian Claire Wolfe, "America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." A reflection that we stand at a critical p...

By Matthew Hayward Gradualism, also known as incrementalism, is an approach in politics where policies or changes are implemented gradually, leading to significant transformations over time. Although this approach has merits in some contexts, it can pose a danger to a Republic when it undermines the constitutional amendment process. Drawing on the wisdom of George Washington and considering specific examples, this blog will emphasize the importance of adhering to the Constitution and its amendment process while examining the consequences of gradualism in politics. Gradualism and the Constitution The Constitution serves as the foundational document of the United States, providing a blueprint for governance and safeguarding citizens' rights. Gradualism, however, can threaten the Constitution's relevance, as it allows politicians to bypass its provisions to achieve their objectives. Through gradual policy changes, politicians can circumvent the constitutional amendment process and...

By Matthew Hayward Buddhists are committed to the principles of non-violence, compassion, and non-harm. Every living being has inherent worth and dignity, and our actions should be guided by a deep sense of empathy and responsibility for the well-being of all. For these reasons, it is antithetical to support any political organization or philosophy that relies on force or the threat of force to achieve its goals. This includes, but is not limited to, governments and political systems founded on the principles of coercion, domination, or control. The use of force is inherently violent and coercive, running counter to the core principles of Buddhism. Buddhism teaches that our actions should be guided by a deep sense of ethical responsibility and a commitment to non-harm. It encourages us to cultivate compassion, wisdom, and understanding and to seek peaceful solutions to conflicts whenever possible. Moreover, using force by governments and political organizations often leads to the viola...

If Republicans want to succeed in Washington, they need to start winning. If the Republican party wants to win, they're going to have to start raising money. How do you raise money to win without winning first? You have to have a plan, a plan that is thorough and convincing. The Republican party needs to pick small races around Washington over the next several years and win at least 90% of the races they choose. The path to building a robust political machine and someday possibly a red state is through targeting school boards, library districts, city councils, fire commissioners, county commissioner seats, Etc. The most important thing is to win; races must be chosen based on their winnability. If there were a massive organized effort by professional skilled political consultants, there would be interest from Republicans to donate. I would happily participate actively and financially in a plan like this. In fact, I would go out and continuously fundraise for something like this. I ...

While listening to Chris Hedges, author of Death of the Liberal Class, I could not help but agree that education in America is "vocational training for drones." As I read through the comment section, I came across a person talking about the innateness of human greed: The comments were from user: @bapyou and read as follows: ““"human beings are naturally selfish" There is no evidence that this is the case. Our capitalist economy teaches selfishness as a virtue -- the main component of the 3rd rate philosopher Ayn Rand, a woman whom every conservative nutcase on the planet worships as a goddess. In fact, there is far more evidence that the opposite is true. Human beings are not naturally selfish: capitalists wish we were, & so spend ungodly amounts of money convincing us that it is the case.” I agree that human beings are not entirely innately selfish. Once we have attained what we need to survive, the rest is dependent on our environment and intellectual and...

By Matthew Hayward Do you think Senator Rand Paul honestly believes these things or is he just saying them like BO did when he was a Senator? I really liked many of the things BO said when he was a Senator; in fact, his doing the opposite of much of what he ran is a big part of why I am so furious with him and his administration. If Rand Paul is sincere in protecting citizens' rights and his foreign policy of strengthening America first, who would oppose him as president? (Okay, I know the nonconservative, globalist, war hawks will not like him, and there will be some one-issue voters on the left that will not support him, but who would really oppose a candidate that is running on all of the positive things the last two presidents were initially elected for, and BOTH did the exact opposite. On the president unilaterally authorize a military attack "that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

By Matthew Hayward Now here is some political analytical truth. Two factions of the Republican Party, the ‘Christian conservatives’ and the Libertarians, have been working together in different capacities around the nation to restore integrity, first the GOP and second the Constitution. To one degree or another, the Tea Party is essentially made up of these two factions;. However, there are stark differences; we all agree that the party has moved so far to the left that it no longer represents people who believe in less government. So where do the Libertarian wing and the ‘Christian conservatives’ part ways? Libertarian-leaning Republicans have some things in common with the mainstream or moderate Republicans. Where moderates and ‘Christian conservatives often differ the most on social issues, the Libertarian wing falls closer to the ‘moderates.’   In fact, it could be argued that the   Libertarian wing is the real moderate wing of the Party,   and everyone agrees tha...

Did the Tea Party really shut down the government? With the last federal shutdown behind us and the possibility of another one looming in the months to come, there is a lot of misunderstanding and blame-shifting going on. I hope to clear up the smoke and mirrors both parties, and the media throw up. Please understand there is a big difference between political theory and political reality (most of the time). I’m going to save us all time and myself some embarrassment by leaving out, for the most part, political reality. I’m not going to get into political reality because it is rarely taught in college or high school, and most people who are involved with politics or follow it closely are truly clueless about how things work. Let’s not pretend we are an informed public; instead, let’s ensure we all are on the same page with how things are supposed to work. In theory, how our government was designed to function “of the people, by the people, and for the people” is much b...

Here is a recap of the president’s speech for those who missed it. The government is open thanks to Democrats and Republicans that realized we were right. None of this was necessary; Republicans should have simply given me my way from the beginning, and their refusal to submit to my will led to the closure. (What was not said: While it is true that the Democrats could have gone along with Republicans and the government would never have shut down.) As long as the American people continue to dig their graves, the government will haphazardly support the walls. The government will bring food and keep the rain out of your holes. But if you ever stop digging to question the wisdom of those who profit from your labor, if you ever try and climb your way out, the walls will fall in on you, and darkness will swallow you. Together we have a bright future; as long as you keep digging, we will keep printing. The premise of the president’s speech is derived from logical fallacies. The claim tha...

By Matthew Hayward Agreeing with the following video during the Bush administration would have made me a left-wing nut job. Now I am just an American that believes in the rule of law.  This Fourth of July, I celebrate being an American who believes freedom is based on government limits. Liberal or Conservative, I don't care what you call me; I just want to live in a society and country where I can have faith in my elected officials and have a functional process to remove them when they have lost the people's trust. Sadly this is not that Country.  America is so far from being a true Democratic Republic that it is disgusting. We live in the illusion of a free society where markets are manipulated, interest rates set, and competition legislated away. We live in a time where if given a choice, more than 50% of adults in the US would vote to throw out all elected officials if given the option to do so.   Unforchantly not everyone is allowed to vote, and those who...

Who would put a political bumper sticker on their car that did not have knowledge about the candidate or issue represented? Who is motivated and willing enough to put a candidate’s bumper sticker on their car while at the same time being ignorant about what the candidate has done or has not done? I do not mean to use the word “ignorant” in a derogatory sense, but as it is defined: “lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact.” I’ve seen more and more Obama 2012 bumper stickers on cars lately. Every time I see one, I can’t help but think, WHY why would you put that sticker on your car? Though I did not vote for or support Obama in 2008, I do not blame people who did; I get it. (I voted 3rd party) I fail to understand how anyone who supported Obama in 2008 could support him in 2012. Looking at policy actions and taking into account political theater, it would logically follow that 2004 Bush supporters would be Obama’s 2012 base. The logic and reasoning beh...