Mediaboss Marketing

This is satire.

With the Democrats, The Office for Government Ethics, and various non-profit groups all scrambling to delay Trump from picking his cabinet, you may be wondering what all the panic is about. Who could possibly be nominated to create this much fuss?

Well, below weve compiled a totally real list of some of Trumps most controversial cabinet selections:

Rex Tillerson State Department

After spending a few days making Mitt Romney beg for this position, Trump finally decided to give the State Department to outgoing ExxonMobil chairman Rex Tillerson. Tillerson once received the Order of Friendship from Vladimir Putin, which, in terms of accolades to be proud of, is right up there with The Kim Jong Un Award for Being a Good Bloke.

Ben Carson Department of Housing and Urban Development

A retired neurosurgeon, Dr Carson has been put in the most logical department for a skilled medical professional: housing. Duh. When hes not doing brain surgery, Carson passes the time boasting that he once tried to stab someone and coming up with bizarre uses for the pyramids.

Pepe the Frog Department of Trolling:

Although he used to be largely apolitical, Pepe became a vocal supporter of Donald Trump in the lead-up to the election. Pepe will be the first frog confirmed (though not the first frog to be nominated) to a cabinet position, and the first meme to serve in a senior government position since Joe Biden.

James Mattis Defense Department

A retired marine corps general whose vocal opposition to Iran caused friction between him and Obama. Thats right, this guy was deemed too antagonistic by the administration that dropped bombs on 7 different countries.

Pladimir Vutin Department of Russia Knows Best

A surprise pick, the previously unheard of Mr Vutin has since garnered national attention for his Pro-Kremlin foreign policy and for how much he looks like Vladimir Putin in a trench coat and moustache. Pladimir has spent most of his time since his appointment wandering around Washington asking people their email addresses.

Steven Mnuchin Treasury Secretary

This former Goldman Sachs partner (#draintheswamp!!) is famous for jumping on failing businesses and making big money from government bailouts. He also looks a bit like the lovechild of Chevy Chase and Rick Santorum. Plus, he was a producer for The Legend of Tarzan, which sucked.

Mr Burns Chief Hounds Releaser

A nuclear energy magnate and inventor of the Spruce Moose, C. Montgomery Burns is a US WWII veteran who may also have made shells for the Nazis. Its rumoured hell lean on Trump to cover America with a giant plastic dome to block out the sun.

Thomas Bossert Homeland Security Advisor

Famously hawkish, Bossert is STILL convinced the war in Iraq was a good idea. Plus, he wants to get more involved in Syria. Are we sure this isnt just Hillary Clinton in a mask?

Hillary Clinton in a Mask Any Job She Can Grab

Come on, you know shed try it.

Rick Perry Department of Energy

Remember in 2012 when the bumbling Texas governor forgot that the Department of Energy existed in the middle of a presidential debate? God, that was funny. Anyway, hes head of it now.

The Ghosts of Trumps Businesses Past Department of Spooky

Okay, so these werent exactly nominated but the ghosts of Trump Steaks, Trump Vodka, Trump Magazine, Trump: The Game, Trump University, the USFL, Trump Airlines, Trump Mortgage, and The Tour de Trump constantly follow The Donald around.

Mike Pompeo CIA Director

A three-time Congressman from Kansas, Pompeo has called Edward Snowdon a traitor and CIA members caught torturing people heroes. Most libertarians would probably flip those two around.

A Literal Swamp Monster Department of Swamp-Draining

Swamp Monster swears hes committed to draining the swamp. Honestly. Pinkie promise.

* Luke Terry is a freelance journalist who has written about libertarianism for Spiked, LibertarianHome, and others. He freelances comedy content and regularly performs stand-up on the London circuit. Follow him on Twitter at @Vitrioholic

Like Loading...

The rest is here:
Trump's Full List of Cabinet Picks - Being Libertarian (satire) (blog)

Al Jazeera is reporting that the Palestinian Authoritys dominant political party Fatah and Hamas have agreed to form a new unity government.

The agreement was reached Tuesday evening after three days of talks in the Russian capital of Moscow, and will include the Islamic Jihad group, which had been previously precluded from negotiations.

The deal signals an end to a decade of hostilities between Fatah and Hamas, which began when Hamas won elections in Gaza in 2006, and followed up their political win with a military conflict in which they removed Fatah officials from power.

From Al Jazeeras report:

Last year the Palestinian government postponed the first municipal polls in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip in 10 years after the high court ruled they should be held only in the Fatah-run West Bank.

The last time the Palestinians staged elections in which both Hamas and Fatah took part was in 2006.

The Palestinian representatives also met on Monday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and asked him to dissuade incoming US President Donald Trump from carrying out a campaign pledge to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Peace discussions in the Middle East have typically been shepherded by the United States, but this germinating peace accord symbolizes a further expansion of Vladimir Putins Russia into Middle Eastern geo-politics. The Obama Administration has had very few foreign policy successes in the Middle East, mishandling its involvement in the Syrian Civil War as well as a cooling of relations with Israel. Adding to uncertainty in the region is the impending inauguration of President-Elect Donald Trump.

This peace deal between Fatah and Hamas should help the Palestinian people seek their own destiny, facilitate their natural rights to movement and free association, which would benefit their economy, and be on a more united and solid footing when seeking peace with Israel.

This post was written by Dillon Eliassen.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Dillon Eliassen is the Managing Editor of Being Libertarian. Dillon works in the sales department of a privately owned small company. He holds a BA in Journalism & Creative Writing from Lyndon State College, and needs only to complete his thesis for his Masters of English from Montclair State University (something which his accomplished and beautiful wife, Alice, is continually pestering him about). He is the author of The Apathetic, available at Amazon.com. He is a self-described Thoreauvian Minarchist.

Like Loading...

View post:
Russia Brokers Peace Deal Between Fatah & Hamas - Being Libertarian (satire) (blog)

The Libertarian Futurist Society has announced its finalists for this year's Hall of Fame award. This is one of two prizes the group gives out annually: The Prometheus Award honors the best libertarian-themed novel of the past year, while the Hall of Fame Award goes to libertarian fiction that first appeared at least half a decade ago. The focus is on science fictionhence that word "Futurist"but non-sf works are occasionally added to the mix. (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and The Fountainhead have both been nominated for the Hall of Fame in the past, and in 2000 that prize went to Hans Christian Anderson's "The Emperor's New Clothes.")

This year's nominees are unusual in that they're all short stories rather than novels. From the press release:

"Conquest by Default," by Vernor Vinge (first published 1968 in Analog) is his first exploration of the idea of anarchism, in which a stateless alien society visits an Earth recovering from nuclear war. The story combines a novel approach to the problem of avoiding the decay of anarchy into government with an evocation of the tragic impact of cultural change.

"Coventry," by Robert A. Heinlein (first published 1940 in Astounding Science Fiction) envisions the Covenant, a social compact under which breaking the law, as such, cannot be punished unless actual harm to someone has been demonstrated. The story contrasts that society with a lawless "anarchy" into which those who break the covenant are sent.

"Harrison Bergeron," by Kurt Vonnegut (first published [1961] in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction), satirizes the idea of radical egalitarianism with a portrayal of a society where all talented people are compulsorily brought down to averageuntil one gifted youth rebels against the system.

"Starfog," by Poul Anderson (first published 1967 in Analog) envisions a widespread interstellar society millennia after the fall of a Galactic Empire, unified by the Commonality, a mutual aid organization. The story explores methods of carrying out large-scale projects through voluntary cooperation and market incentives under conditions where central control is unworkable.

"With Folded Hands..." by Jack Williamson (first published 1947 in Astounding Science Fiction), uses science fiction to satirize the modern "nanny state" and explore an ethical theme: the peril of unrestricted authority, even (or especially) when it is used totally altruistically to take care of those subjected to it.

The press release also mentions some nominees that didn't make this year's cut of finalists, including Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale and Philip K. Dick's "The Exit Door Leads In," among others. (They really should give the Dick story the prize sometime. It may be the most anti-authoritarian thing he ever wrote, and it has new resonance in the age of Snowden. Read it here.) Another also-ran is William Golding's Lord of the Flies, which I remember as being rather anti-libertarian, but I read it around 1981 so I might not argue if you tell me I'm wrong down in the comments.

For a list of past winners, go here.

See the original post:
Vonnegut, Heinlein, Kipling, and Others Battle It Out for a Libertarian Award - Reason (blog)

By Ian Tartt

This is intended to be a fun What If? article.Without further ado, lets dive rightinto some alternate history.

Everyone knows how well the Libertarian Party presidential candidate did in the 2016 election, but few remember the events leading up to election night. It all started on September 23rd, 2015, when entrepreneur and blogger Austin Petersen officially announced his candidacy for president. Many were surprised at this announcement due to Petersens record of online shenanigans, but those who had followed him for years noted that he had matured over time. Over the next several months, he personally reached out to hundreds of people and won over their support. They, in turn, pointed him out to their friends and family members and helped build up a large grassroots support network.

This support network made Petersen a well-known candidate throughout the LP and, along with his appearances in various media leading up to the national convention, caused many to speculate that he would likely be the LP presidential candidate. Most, though, believed that former New Mexico governor and 2012 LP presidential candidate Gary Johnson would get the nomination. But, as Johnson got more media attention and people saw how he often looked awkward or rambled while trying to explain his ideas, his popularity began to wane.

Johnsons situation didnt improve at all at the national convention, despite his name recognition and an impressive, professional-looking both. His weak performance in the LP presidential debate, lack of delegate support, and especially his support of Bill Weld for the vice presidential nomination resulted in Petersen narrowly winning the presidential nomination. In his concession speech, Johnson graciously conceded to Petersen, presenting him with a pair of running shoes as a show of support. In addition, Johnson gave a short speech in which he asked the delegates to choose Weld to be Petersens running mate. His request fell on deaf ears, however; later that day, Larry Sharpe, longtime activist and LP member, easily beat out Weld for the VP spot.

After taking a brief post-convention rest to recover, Petersen and Sharpe jumped right into campaigning. Petersens years spent working on television and creating his own media, along with his and Sharpes communication skills, helped the two in getting their message out to the world. Those who had endorsed Petersen for the nomination continued their support, while Sharpes smooth style and likeability helped cut through ideological differences among libertarians and helped unite the LP behind the ticket. The two ran a solid campaign under the slogan Taking Over The Government to Leave Everyone Alone.

During a CNN Libertarian Town Hall, a woman whose son died of a heroin overdose challenged them on their views about ending the War on Drugs. Sharpe sympathized with the woman for her loss and explained how drug addicts are able to get effective treatment in countries where drugs are decriminalized, which hed like to see happen here so people wouldnt die or spend their life behind bars. His comments earned him a round of applause and presented a consistent libertarian message to tens of thousands of people, as did the rest of the town hall. Petersen received some pushback for his support of allowing businesses to refuse service, but won some over by tying it into the greater concept of property rights, explaining how the free market punishes discrimination, and asking if a Jewish baker should be forced to bake a Nazi cake. Both during and after the town hall, social media was buzzing with positive reactions to the candidates and excitement for the election.

Due to their sizeable following and ability to clearly articulate the ideas of liberty to the average person, Petersen and Sharpe were often asked if they would have a spoiler effect on the election. In response, they pointed out exit polls which revealed that most third-party voters split about equally among Democrats and Republicans, and a small percentage would have abstained from voting entirely if the third-party candidate they supported had not run. They also commented on how strange it is that third-party candidates get the blame when unlikeable major-party candidates do poorly. This helped ease concerns among those leaning toward supporting the ticket and caused many to jump onboard.

As the presidential debates drew near, a massive wave of support for including Petersen and Sharpe arose. Many who participated in polls enthusiastically named the LP ticket as their preferred choice, and supporters all over social media added Let Austin Debate to their pictures. Unfortunately, the two didnt get enough support in the polls to be included. However, not missing an opportunity to get their views out to millions of people, Petersen livestreamed his responses to the questions Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton got during the presidential debates, and Sharpe did the same for questions asked of Mike Pence and Tim Kaine during the vice presidential debate. As a result, the ticket gained even more attention and support after the debates.

After what felt like an eternity, the big day finally arrived. Voters finished selecting their candidates of choice, polling places closed down, and millions of people tuned in to watch the fireworks. No matter the outcome, this would surely be a record-breaking year for the LP. Sure enough, it was. The disdain for the major-party candidates, the growing disdain for government expansion, the solid team of Petersen and Sharpe and the united LP behind them, and the influence of social media all came together in a way never before seen in modern politics. Once the dust settled, the final numbers blew everyone away: 7,010,351 votes, approximately 5.12% of the popular vote, and two electoral votes from faithless electors.

Although they didnt win the presidency, Petersen and Sharpe shattered every previous LP record and accomplished some significant milestones. For one, they were the first LP presidential ticket to get an electoral vote since John Hospers and Theodora Nathan (the first LP presidential ticket) in 1972. Next, they topped 5% of the popular vote, which meant the LP officially qualified for minor party status and gained the option to accept federal matching funds if it so chooses (whether or not it should is up for debate). And perhaps most significantly, they presented a clear, consistent message of liberty to more Americans than any LP presidential ticket in history. In doing so, not only did they likely draw in many new converts to libertarianism, but they also set up the next LP ticket to go even farther.

Because of their efforts, Petersen and Sharpe are now respected throughout the LP. Petersen has returned to managing his many websites and business ventures, and Sharpe is being discussed as a potential future presidential candidate or a candidate for New York governor in the meantime. And though infighting is a recurring problem in the liberty movement, libertarians were able to mostly set aside their differences and support the ticket, meaning the LP is in better shape than its been in a long time. In a year with so much hostility and division, its nice to know that so many people, both in and out of the LP, were able to come together in support of liberty.

2016 electionalternate historyaustin petersenLarry SharpePartyWhat If?

Follow this link:
The 2016 Libertarian Party Ticket In an Alternate Universe - The Libertarian Republic

President-elect Donald Trump is taking his time choosing a nominee for secretary of the US Department of Agricultureit's the last open Cabinet post. But the USDA isn't the only federal agency that lacks a proposed incoming leader just a week ahead of Inauguration Day. And while candidates for the USDA post have streamed thorough Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago to plead their case, the Trump team has revealed little about whom it's considering to head the Food and Drug Administration.

O'Neill declared that the FDA should stop requiring drug makers to prove their products actually work"Let's prove efficacy after they've been legalized," he said.

Until Thursday. Stat News reports that two Silicon Valley titans, Jim O'Neill and Balaji Srinivasan, met with Trump on January 12 to "discuss running the agency." Neither are medical doctors or scientiststhe typical backgrounds for most previous FDA commissioners. Rather, they're tech guru-investors who espouse virulently libertarian views, including disdain for the FDA's role in regulating the pharmaceutical industry.

O'Neill is a managing director of Mithril Capital, an investment firm founded by Peter Thiel, himself a hyperlibertarian investor and an early supporter of Trump's candidacy. In a 2014 speech before a biotechnology group, O'Neill declared that the FDA should stop requiring drug makers to prove their products actually work"Let's prove efficacy after they've been legalized," he said.

Srinivasan, co-founder of the bitcoin startup 21.co and a partner at the venture capital firm at Andreessen Horowitz, has opined that information technology makes the FDA role in drug regulation obsolete:

Srinivasan, too, is associated with Thiel, who is an investor in Srinivasan's bitcoin firm.

NeitherSrinivasan nor O'Neill has said much publicly about the FDA's other policy portfolio: overseeing food safety, including recently enacted rules designed to push the meat industry to rely less on antibiotics necessary for human medicine.

Trump himself has been opaque on the question of food safety regulationsthough back in September, his campaign website did post, and quickly remove, a "fact sheet" denouncing the "FDA food police."

View post:
Brace Yourselves for the Libertarian Tech Bro Takeover of the FDA - Mother Jones