Republicans Are Not The Party of Small Government

Republicans have claimed for decades that they are the party of a small, fiscally responsible government but in the state of Florida, that doesn't always seem to be the case. Its one thing to say you advocate for a smaller government, but to say that they are "the party of small government", that's quite a long shot.

Florida state governor, Ron DeSantis, has had a commendable time so far as Governor of Florida. Lots of things were unexpected, such as his push for medical marijuana, but my main concern about Ron DeSantis and the Republican Party of Florida is their support for the expansion of federal authority, particularly with handling immigration. Republicans here have, essentially, permitted local police forces to act as federal immigration agents in apprehending illegal immigrants. To me that is a sign of the encroachment of one of the biggest governments of all, the United States federal government. Yet, the excuse they make is that securing our borders and deporting illegal immigrants is a matter of national security; I argue that its just a waste of money. Instead of making it easier for immigrants to enter this beautiful and prosperous country, and making the process cheaper and less strenuous on our resources, they would rather push federal responsibilities onto local police forces, wasting our tax dollars as the police patrol the streets for illegals, instead of solving the astounding unsolved murder rates in Florida.

Immigration is one of my biggest concerns and its one of those subjects that can make or break a candidate for me, but another example of where the Republican Party of Florida falters is that they increased the age to own a rifle from 18 to 21. Granted, I am older than 21 years old, so why would I have a problem with this? It's a matter of principle. If an 18 year old is able to serve in the US military, then I believe, they too should be able to own a rifle at that age as well. The fact that Republicans here "love and support the military" so much and yet are willing to restrict them as civilians just baffles me. Why should any military servicemen serve this country, when Florida politicians want to limit their rights? The same argument goes for Chicago, Illinois, and the entire state of California. Why should they serve? I find it odd that Republicans here are willing to give up some of their rights under the Trump administration, but absolutely attacked Barack Obama for simply suggesting the same things.

Speaking about the military, which is a huge example of 'big government'. The US military in-of-itself is a perfect example of where republicans lie to themselves about being the party of small government. Till this day, republicans, not just in the state of Florida, but across the country advocate for an even stronger military, and have been quite hawkish about going to war in the Middle East and starting a larger conflict in South America (Venezuela's conflict is an example of this). Government sponsored wars are not a sign of a small government, not in the slightest, it is in fact the complete opposite. You cannot be the party of small government as you promote nation building and martial law in other countries, its just impossible unless you believe your constituents are ignorant and are going to believe you, and well sadly, they do.

Republicans like to wrap their rhetoric in a red, white and blue paper wrap, with a small american flag attached to it. Yet when you pay attention to their rhetoric about being pro-small government and fiscally responsible, just look at the destruction that was left after the wars... if that doesn't convince you, then look at our federal budget and balance sheet. If republicans were the party of small government, Florida, specifically, wouldn't be in so much debt. I admit, there are some republicans across the country who do advocate for a smaller government, like Justin Amash, and Rand Paul, yet the majority of the Republican party can't carry that label of being fiscally responsible and advocates of smaller governments.

Florida Legislature Approves Arming Teachers With Guns

The Florida legislature has passed a bill earlier today that would permit teachers to arm themselves in the classroom. Supporters of the bill praised it for giving schools the option to better secure their students under intense situations, while opponents see a concern of abuse.



This bill is an expansion of a separate "Guardian" bill that was launched after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Highschool shooting. The guardian program is voluntary for all districts in Florida, and education staff (teachers) must take a required 144-hour training course, which includes psychiatric evaluations and drug screenings.

The expansion to arm teachers was voted upon by 65 votes for the legislation, and 47 against. The Senate also approved the bill with a vote of 22 to 17. The Florida house & senate currently has a Republican majority. Florida Governor, Ron DeSantis, is expected to sign the bill into law. President of the United States, Donald Trump, has also supported arming teachers. Republican Jennifer Sullivan suggested that it was one of the best ways to protect students from future shooters.

Most Democrats have voted against the bill. The opposition of the bill included the teachers union and some members of the school board. Some districts have also denied the expansion, preventing local teachers from arming themselves.

Cops Kill Rapper Who Was Unconscious In His Vehicle

Bodycam footage has brought more questions for the public during a case where a California rapper by the name of Willie "Willie Bo" Mccoy, 21, was killed by police while he was sleeping in his vehicle that was parked on February 9th, 2019. He was found with a gun and his vehicle was on.

Before the officers opened fire, eyewitnesses said Mccoy was in his vehicle parked at a local Taco Bell parking lot in Vallejo, California around 10pm. A Taco Bell employee called in about a man dozing off in his vehicle at approximately 10:36 pm. Willie Mccoy was in a Silver coloured Mercedes. The police were called and they realized at the scene that Willie Mccoy also had a weapon within his vehicle on his lap, which the police decided to proceed with cautionary measures by calling for backup as the man was unconscious in his vehicle.

According to one police report, the vehicle was locked and the vehicle was in drive. The driver, and the only occupant of the vehicle, "suddenly began to move", presumably as he realized that random men are flashing lights in his face and attempting to enter his vehicle. The calls to remain still were drowned out by shots from their pistols. The officers did request immediate medical assistance, but the driver was pronounced dead at the scene. No bullets were shot by the man in the vehicle.

Investigators concluded roughly 20 bullets were shot at the musician, there were more than 5 officers at the scene. They fired from the "blind spot" of the driver, the driver door, the front left bumper, and the right front bumper (behind another vehicle).

The police officers involved in the shooting received no punishment.

The community at large is puzzled as to why such a nonviolent action such as this led this young man to his death. People suggest that the shooting is not justified since the officers did not actively attempt to wake the man and calm him down before discharging their weapons, which was within a manner of seconds.

Eyewitness Disputes and Bodycam Footage

According to bodycam footage and witness footage the man is seen simply scratching his arm, visible to the body cam, as he slept. After that, verbal commands were made and Mccoy was immediately startled and began moving in his vehicle. Police alleged that he was reaching for his pistol and thus the officers began opening fire. There was no considerable effort to wake up Mccoy.

"The police didn't even try to find a peaceful solution," said Mark Mccoy, Willie Mccoy's older brother, "... You are not judges, not jurors, and not executioners. We will never overcome this..."

Several local musicians are also mourning this death.

Supreme Court Limits Civil Asset Forfeiture

In a major blow to the Trump administration, the United States Supreme Court recently ruled that Civil Asset Forfeiture will be limited in all 50 states due to excessively high fees and abuses from police and officials.

...related news...

Trump Is Getting Sued By The ACLU!

Civil asset forfeiture can be seen as a breach of the 8th amendment within the United States Constitution. It permits the authorities to take private belongings if the authorities simply believe that object or money was obtained from illicit practices, without a hearing or due process. Objects include cars, jewelry, electronics, and property (like offices, houses, shops, warehouses, etc). Supporters of it believe that this will help slow down drug trafficking and can be used to generate revenue from drug offenders. Opponents believe it is morally wrong and likely to be abused for political gain, or personal, while it also being blatantly unconstitutional.

All 9 court justices ruled in favor of the expansion of the excessive fine ban, with Ruth Bader Ginsburg being the judge who wrote the motion. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed to the position by former President Bil Clinton, and she assumed office August 10th, 1993. The ruling will apply the federal excessive fine ban to all states in the US, even if it does face opposition in states like Indiana.

Donald Trump is in favor of civil asset forfeiture, and eminent domain, and planned to use it to enforce his border policy by using the money taken from Americans and criminals to build his national border wall. He is currently facing extreme opposition from both the left and the right.

Abuses of Civil Asset Forfeiture

In Detroit, police seized more than 40 cars from "Funk Night" at the Contemporary Art Institute of Detroit. The police came because The CAID did not have a liquor license to serve alcohol. They claimed that if you drove your vehicle to go to the event then you were complicit in the crime that CAID committed and must have your property seized for associating yourself with a university without a liquor license. Attendees had to pay $900 just to get their cars back, and even one car was seized from over a mile away from the location associated with the party. A federal court judge ruled the seizure unconstitutional.

Former Supreme Court Judge: Repeal The Second Amendment

Former Supreme Court judge, John Paul Stevens, has called for the United States to repeal the 2nd Amendment from the US Federal Constitution, which protects an individuals right to have guns.

Gun Rights Are Necessary For A Free Society... Read More...

John Paul Stevens wrote an opinion article for, none other than the most trustworthy news source, the NY Times, where he expanded on his thoughts on expanding gun control. Stevens suggested that the demonstrations from the March For Our Rights rallies demand our respect. He stated that, "[the demonstrations] reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.". Though, even with the support to minimize the risk of mass killings, these protesters inadvertently are supporting legislation which will lead to the death of more innocent people, even outside of mass shootings scenarios.

Read a similar article: Hillary Clinton Wants To Abolish The Electoral College

He suggested there is a lot of support to prohibit the sale of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18-21, and establishing a more comprehensive background check system for all purchases of fire arms, which is debatable. Not all the protesters support all of these policy changes, some have called for a total ban of all guns. Stevens believes that repealing the Second Amendment would drastically lessen school shootings and mass murders, which is intellectually dishonest, as criminals will commit crimes regardless of the law. Stevens said that the "[2nd amendment] is a concern [that] is a relic of the 18th century", essentially stating that the 2nd amendment is irrelevant to today's society.

In 2008, John Paul Stevens opposed the ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller, and stated that "[this ruling] has provided the NRA with a propaganda weapon of immense power". He wishes to weaken the NRA by repealing the second amendment as he truly believes schoolchildren's lives would be safer with guns heavily regulated, even though schools have already banned guns from their property. I don't understand how he can believe repealing the second amendment would make us all safer?


*****
Come follow me directly on Twitter
  Follow @LuchianorReal

YouTube Banning Gun Videos?

YouTube is now banning gun demonstration videos, and videos that promote the sale or purchase of firearm accessories.

After the major recent anti-gun hysteria and the tragic shootings, companies all over the US are polarized between supporting gun rights, and those advocating for sensible gun legislation. Google has made it clear where they stand on the gun debate. They don't want people to be informed about weapon accessories on their own website, and they do not want to be associated with any purchases of firearms or firearm accessories.

Updated YouTube Gun Policy

As a corporation they are free to do as they wish. This has angered and upset many pro-gun rights groups and many have already turned to alternatives and others are creating their own direct YouTube competitor. Real.video is one that has sprung from this ban by YouTube, it's a website that is still being developed, but people are unsure if it can even compete with YouTube's large market-share. Google had also recently banned cryptocurrency ads from their AdWords program. There are also others which emphasize the use of cryptocurrencies such as Viuly (its a relatively new cryptocurrency based video hosting site, proceed at your own risk).

Lately, Google has taken a more political tone. After being against SOPA, and several other intrusive bills within the US Congress, Google has been getting more involved with politics. Facebook, Twitter and Google are accused of mistreating american conservatives, and privacy advocates which has caused many community driven alternatives to expand. Google is becoming very protective of it's image and banning gun videos isn't going to make Google any friends and neither within the cryptocurrency space.

Personally, even though I am a strong advocate of gun rights, I personally wont make any moves against Google. Google is a reliable company, and even though their gun rights position and "free speech" position concerns me but honestly there aren't any very good competitors other than the main companies (Facebook, Twitter, Google), however I most certainly support an alternative to all these companies, so long as compensation is an option.

Gun Rights Are Necessary For A Free Society

As each year passes us by, we are struck by another tragedy that gets greatly politicized. Whether it be school shootings, mass shootings, etc., These events rile up the public and polarizes them. We have pro-2nd amendment groups fearing that their guns will be banned and we have pro-"sensible" gun regulation (along with fringe, Anti-gun) groups demanding that their rights be limited. It's a constant cycle that has become predictable even though in some cases these events are not predictable at all.

These events, are used and abused for political gain and public hysteria is absolutely loved by the media. It's tragic that these things happen, it absolutely is, but I am dumbfounded that people are willing to limit their freedoms and fear monger each other into believing that the police should only have these weapons, or that the government should limit gun rights. Yet, it was just a few months ago that people were protesting about police brutality and government cover-ups and corruption, so they are very inconsistent with their positions, as it seems.

Just for your information, I do not support the 2nd amendment. I personally believe that The Constitutional amendment should not be the end all be all. I support gun rights through and through and I don't believe our rights should be limited in those regards. The Constitution is but a document, a document that is manipulated and cherry picked, and quite frankly, hasn't limited the government as it was intended.

Gun rights, in my opinion, are absolutely essential for the freedoms we look forward to in a free society. Not only do guns help protect our own lives on the street or protect the lives of others, it also prevents the government from over stepping their boundaries. History has shown to us that government isn't always the best, and is not at all honest. History also shows that when gun confiscation comes, then violent crime rises, or worse, government genocides or outright government massacres. In order to be free one must be able to defend themselves from those wishing to abuse them or their rights. If they choose not to then it is their choice, but in a dangerous circumstance, they likely wish that they had some form of protection. Police may help, but only after the carnage has begun.

Now, I must say that the mentally ill should not own weapons, but who am I or the government to determine that they indeed are mentally ill? What if the government has decided one day that being anti-government is a mental disorder? Would it be justified to limit my gun rights?

I think with the issue of the mentally ill and weapons, it gets really convoluted. How can we know for certain they are suitable to own a weapon? Obviously, I'm speaking about the mentally ill in general, which could mean various amounts of diseases/disorders. I personally believe that the gun seller should determine who should buy the gun, not the government. Everyone should be free to buy a gun but it shouldn't be forced upon responsible gun sellers.

Should gun sellers also sell grenades? Or maybe even tanks and RPG's? Absolutely, if they so choose. As technology improves, it becomes easier to expose unjust violence, and as such, it becomes easier to hold people accountable for their actions. If the second amendment was meant for us to defend ourselves from the government (which it was) then why has the government limited our rights? For control. If we are disarmed, if we are weaker, then we become easier to control, we become easier to become victims of oppressors whether it be a street thug or a raging dictator.

Imagine if North Koreans were able to buy guns, the Un dynasty would not have the amount of dystopian authoritarian control that they currently hold. They would be free from such an oppressive regime, similar to us here in the US but sadly some Americans want us to be easily controlled. Gun rights are essential to a free society and Americas history has shown how great gun rights are for ending dictatorial control, but why are we slowly becoming more of a dictatorship, especially overseas?

It's a no brainer... I understand this is controversial but freedom should be praised, not rejected. If we lose our guns, we lose our capability to fight back and speak out against injustices committed by our government. Gun rights weren't meant for hunting, they were meant to protect ourselves. For a minority of gun users who commit atrocities, why are all gun owners villifies and threatened to give up their rights? That doesn't seem right to me.

Opinion On The Black Lives Matter Movement

We've seen the reports, another minority dead in the streets killed by none other than the same people that are supposedly here to protect us (which legally is not the case anyways). People are angry, while some officers have been killed, yet people are most angry in cities that are already stricken with poverty, and violence. This is what many of these citizens have to go through, maybe not at the hands of an officer but within friends, family even, and acquaintances; As they are stuck in a cycle of poverty, due to unnecessary regulations that restrict people from protecting themselves and/or their property, people resort to survivalist tactics, especially in locations where you cannot necessarily trust one another.

The movement has grown out of this exact reasoning, sure we can blame the cops for their atrocities (which we should), but the cops are just a catalyst to the laws they enforce. Sure a cop doesn't need to act violently in a super majority of cases, but in reality most initial confrontations and the act of receiving a ticket itself is an unjustified violent act of extortion and thievery. A coercive act to have us sign a contract which criminalizes us, and if we refuse to sign said contract, physical violent acts will be graciously given to us by the law enforcement officer(s) and imprisonment. Which then we'll likely be coerced, extorted, maybe even officially kidnapped by the end of a trial... I'm talking in reference to being arrested for nonviolent acts, and victimless crimes.

We have to ask the question are these laws justified? Are the final deadly results of a mild traffic violation justified? I think the Black Lives Matter movement brings up a valid question. Although primarily the name Black Lives Matter would think to refer only to black lives. Of course, this is a common misconception. Black Lives Matter is a grassroots movement done by the black communities (likely coming from residual feelings from the civil rights movement), which has support from many other movements.

Just as the Oath Keepers movement, people think it's just a group of all white, typical gun toting, racist rednecks when in reality these are people fighting for the Constitution with members of multiple races, and I myself tip my hat to them as a Latino.

My Opinion On The Black Lives Matter Movement

Truth be told, my opinion on the Black Lives Matter movement as a whole is very mixed. Although, I personally support the general cause in stopping police brutality, however I realize it isn't just police brutality. It is the laws that are in place which creates these confrontations between officers and people. Where now, apparently, officers feel a need to be armed just like military servicemen and politicians attempt to disarm the public (not just white people).

There are mixed feelings in the group, there are convoluted interests ranging from people looking to disarm the public and looking to arm the public. Peace vs violent interactions. Personally, I think violent interactions are quite effective but it is all about timing and support. Peace overall is a good sign, but many protesters in the Black Lives Matter movement fail to allow this peaceful protest, in that, they allow themselves to be pushed around by not only provocateurs , looters, thugs, but also by the police, and politicians. They don't stand their ground, they don't arm themselves and state they have a valid voice where the opposition is armed to the teeth and have resources to grow their armoury far more quickly than ours.

This in reality is a power struggle between the public and the government, and not many Black Lives Matter members notice this. Some think its just isolated to them, and do some very embarrassing things just to get attention.

Of course, I will not shame the entire movement for these tools, but overall, I think the Black Lives Matter movement needs to evolve, they need to arm themselves and stop looters, while they stop this government. If the police are armed then naturally we should defend our voices as well, not keep this double standard alive.

I like the message, there are some ridiculous people in the group which turns me off about it, like any other. They just need to gather around and really talk about what it means to "peacefully" protest, and how to gain the attention of dissenters to stay on track in the cause. They need to find out how to make a very clear message and ensure the government fears this message, so they truly can make a change for the better, while respecting the right for them to say this message without violence.

The negatives of the movement come from political advocacy, minus the issues with gun control, many protesters have called for more welfare while asking for 'protection' from corporations. The cycle of more regulation, and controls... Personally, it astonishes me that after many scandals and unintended consequences of "good intentions" many in the Black Lives Community support furthering the involvement of the government in other peoples lives. Expanding the failed drug war, gun control, driving away businesses with economically vain policies, it seems to me more of a cycle of insanity.

Every individual in the Black Lives Matter movement has their own opinion, I don't mean to generalize but simple perception entices the masses while funding the media.

If you liked my thoughts on this be sure to find me on YouTube!