Whats the difference between Libertarians and the Tea Party?

This video seems pretty accurate on the differences

Sad News

It was reported yesterday that on Saturday November 20th, David Nolan the founder of the United States Libertarian Party has died. It has been reported that Nolan had a stroke while driving which may have contributed to his death. Nolan founded the political test the Nolan chart and the blog by the same name. Nolan was a long time crusader for liberty and huge critic of the two-party oligarchy. He will be missed.

RIP David Nolan November 23, 1943 – November 20, 201

Work and Facebook

This story once again brings up the question in how much of a reach an employer can legally have on their employees personal lives. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) argues that the employee's free speech rights were violated.


People forget that the First Amendment prevents the government from censoring it's citizens, private companies and individuals are not barred from controlling speech. In my research American Medical Response of Connecticut Inc is a private company, not a government agency so the employee has no leg to stand on. My current job has a similar policy regarding all social media that comments regarding my company can get me fired. I personally don't like the policy but it is what it is and I stand by the creed that if you don't like the policy then go and find another job. If you sign the employment contract than your bound by the policies the company puts in place. So before you go off on your boss or a co-worker who pissed you off on your twitter, myspace or facebook, check the policy first.

Libertarians Once Again Getting Screwed?

Libertarians are a naturally skeptical bunch when it comes to politics and political trends. Much of our current skepticism is that will people finally reject statism and elect pro-liberty candidates? Well the sentiment among Libertarian bloggers is that no they haven't and the mentality of "...anyone but the Democrats" is still the dominate thought. Laurence Vance of LewRockwell.com points out here and here that the Republican Pledge to America is nothing but junk and that's just the part on health care. Doug Mataconis over at Below the Beltway shares the same cynicism of Tea Party Candidates Christine O’Donnell and Carl Paladino.

Some say that such cynicism is unwarranted and takes away from the goal of fighting statism. I say it's healthy to see that is just molding into kicking out hard blue statism to putting soft red statism in it's place. You would think this kind of skepticism would actually resonate with Conservatives, apparently it did but not in the correct way. Melissa Clouthier at Liberty Pundits apparently does not like it when us Libertarians refuse to buy what Conservatives sell.

This had to be my favorite quote in the piece;

And then, the libertarians whine about why they never get A Real Seat at the Republican table. Uh, maybe if you guys actually acted like you were on the team instead of pretending to be some sort of blind line judge, you’d be taken more seriously.

Lets take alook at whats currently at the Republican Table shall we;

1. Religious/Social Conservatives
2. Neoconservatives
3. Paleoconservatives

All three of these groups have no interest in personal liberty, preferring to use government thugs to enforce morality of course in the name of the collective. Granted collective is a bad word so they use; "for the children, promoting values" among others. The first two favor a bankrupting foreign policy that does nothing for the security of the nation, which in fact does the complete opposite. The sick joke of it all is that they claim to be pro-life in the same sentence. This could be contributed to the notion that in their eyes some animals are apparently more equal than other animals as we have seen during the New York City Muslim Community Center episode. The Republican table seems to still be filled with nothing but statist Conservatives and Clouthier wonders why Libertarians are cynical about the current election and the future that it entails.

Clouthier's article also brings up the question; Why should Libertarians continue to waste their time in trying to work with Conservatives?

The Libertarian-Conservative Alliance or Conflict (depending on how you look at it) seem to remind me of an episode between a man in his 40s and a man in his late 20s. Both work together but the man in his 40s clearly see himself as the leader and the man in his late 20s just puts up with it for the sake of getting the project done. Everything is going smoothly until the late 20s man points out that something is wrong and just doesn't set right. The man in his 40s just simply dismisses the concerns as being naive and says that it's his way or the highway. This is the way the Tea Party (originally the Ron Paul Revolution) seems to be turning into. The Psychology Survey site MyType has a huge blog post on this very notion.

The way things are trending, it seems that a new movement may be needed, but who knows my cynicism may be proven wrong but I doubt it.

The Ever Opinionated Jesse Ventura

I've always been a fan of Ventura, never afraid to speak his mind. A true anti-statist.

BlackBerry and Big Brother?

For most of us look for when the state makes it's latest power grabs to violate our rights but sometimes we tend to miss when companies attempt to get in good with the state. Yahoo News reports on Research in Motion (the company who actually makes the widely used smart phone) CEO Jim Balsillie on suggesting a national registry that governments can access messages that are sent and received on BlackBerries.

This paragraph seems to highlight the main motive behind this suggestion;

The controversy drew wide public attention last month when the United Arab Emirates announced plans to block BlackBerry e-mail, messaging and Web browsing services. Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Indonesia and India are considering or planning similar steps.

I can understand why Balsillie would suggest such a move, he wants to get a piece of the cellular market in those countries. However, kissing up to Big Brother always ends up badly in the long run. Luckily for us BlackBerry isn't the only smartphone company in town, Windows Mobile, IPhone and Android phones tend to be in the same price ranges as BlackBerry. Fighting companies that kiss up to the state should be fought with out wallets, not with more statism.

Ron Paul: Republicans Avoid All Talk of Cutting

Ron Paul says what most of us Libertarians have been thinking for awhile. He also doesn't rule out running in 2012.

Book Roasting

So various players in the political lexicon have condemned what this Church in Florida is doing. Which is burning Koran's on 9/11. Personally I have bigger things to do; like being productive and working than join a Christian Right circle jerk. Those who condemn them in reality give them what they want; attention. Assholes thrive on attention and controversy, the best way to beat an asshole is to ignore them.

The New York Island

Another video in which Libertarian and Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Warren Redlich hits primary opponents Rick Lazio and Carl Paladino for their double standards.

Text of HR 5741: Universal National Service Act

Also know as the military draft. The Neocons and Leftists are prepping for war with Iran but in order to fight a war is you need bodies and troops. Make no mistake however it will be us liberty lovers who will be sent to die. The chickenhawks will find ways to avoid service for themselves and their brats.

Credit goes to Govtrack.us



HR 5741 IH

111th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 5741

To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 15, 2010

Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the ‘Universal National Service Act’.

(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--NATIONAL SERVICE

Sec. 101. Definitions.

Sec. 102. National service obligation.

Sec. 103. Induction to perform national service.

Sec. 104. Two-year period of national service.

Sec. 105. Implementation by the President.

Sec. 106. Examination and classification of persons.

Sec. 107. Deferments and postponements.

Sec. 108. Induction exemptions.

Sec. 109. Conscientious objection.

Sec. 110. Discharge following national service.

TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT

Sec. 201. Registration of females.

Sec. 202. Registration and induction authority.

TITLE I--NATIONAL SERVICE

SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:

(1) The term ‘contingency operation’ has the meaning given that term in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code.

(2) The term ‘military service’ means service performed as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services.

(3) The term ‘national service’ means military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.

(4) The term ‘Secretary concerned’ means the Secretary of Defense with respect to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard, the Secretary of Commerce, with respect to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, with respect to the Public Health Service.

(5) The term ‘United States’, when used in a geographical sense, means the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

(6) The term ‘uniformed services’ means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.

SEC. 102. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.

(a) Obligation for Service- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title unless exempted under the provisions of this title.

(b) Forms of National Service- The national service obligation under this title shall be performed either--

(1) as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; or

(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.

(c) Age Limits- A person may be inducted under this title only if the person has attained the age of 18 and has not attained the age of 42.

SEC. 103. INDUCTION TO PERFORM NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) Induction Requirements- The President shall provide for the induction of persons described in section 102(a) to perform their national service obligation.

(b) Limitation on Induction for Military Service- Persons described in section 102(a) may be inducted to perform military service only if--

(1) a declaration of war is in effect;

(2) the President declares a national emergency, which the President determines necessitates the induction of persons to perform military service, and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration and the need to induct persons for military service; or

(3) members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps are engaged in a contingency operation pursuant to a congressional authorization for the use of military force.

(c) Limitation on Number of Persons Inducted for Military Service- When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall determine the number of persons described in section 102(a) whose national service obligation is to be satisfied through military service based on--

(1) the authorized end strengths of the uniformed services;

(2) the feasibility of the uniformed services to recruit sufficient volunteers to achieve such end-strength levels; and

(3) provide a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service.

(d) Selection for Induction-

(1) RANDOM SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE- When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall utilize a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service.

(2) CIVILIAN SERVICE- Persons described in section 102(a) who do not volunteer to perform military service or are not inducted for military service shall perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity pursuant to section 102(b)(2).

(e) Voluntary Service- A person subject to induction under this title may--

(1) volunteer to perform national service in lieu of being inducted; or

(2) request permission to be inducted at a time other than the time at which the person is otherwise called for induction.

SEC. 104. TWO-YEAR PERIOD OF NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) General Rule- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this title shall be two years.

(b) Grounds for Extension- At the discretion of the President, the period of military service for a member of the uniformed services under this title may be extended--

(1) with the consent of the member, for the purpose of furnishing hospitalization, medical, or surgical care for injury or illness incurred in line of duty; or

(2) for the purpose of requiring the member to compensate for any time lost to training for any cause.

(c) Early Termination- The period of national service for a person under this title shall be terminated before the end of such period under the following circumstances:

(1) The voluntary enlistment and active service of the person in an active or reserve component of the uniformed services for a period of at least two years, in which case the period of basic military training and education actually served by the person shall be counted toward the term of enlistment.

(2) The admission and service of the person as a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, or the United States Merchant Marine Academy.

(3) The enrollment and service of the person in an officer candidate program, if the person has signed an agreement to accept a Reserve commission in the appropriate service with an obligation to serve on active duty if such a commission is offered upon completion of the program.

(4) Such other grounds as the President may establish.

SEC. 105. IMPLEMENTATION BY THE PRESIDENT.

(a) In General- The President shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this title.

(b) Matter To Be Covered by Regulations- Such regulations shall include specification of the following:

(1) The types of civilian service that may be performed in order for a person to satisfy the person’s national service obligation under this title.

(2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian service and of penalties for failure to perform civilian service satisfactorily.

(3) The manner in which persons shall be selected for induction under this title, including the manner in which those selected will be notified of such selection.

(4) All other administrative matters in connection with the induction of persons under this title and the registration, examination, and classification of such persons.

(5) A means to determine questions or claims with respect to inclusion for, or exemption or deferment from induction under this title, including questions of conscientious objection.

(6) Standards for compensation and benefits for persons performing their national service obligation under this title through civilian service.

(7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to carry out this title.

(c) Use of Prior Act- To the extent determined appropriate by the President, the President may use for purposes of this title the procedures provided in the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), including procedures for registration, selection, and induction.

SEC. 106. EXAMINATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF PERSONS.

(a) Examination- Every person subject to induction under this title shall, before induction, be physically and mentally examined and shall be classified as to fitness to perform national service.

(b) Different Classification Standards- The President may apply different classification standards for fitness for military service and fitness for civilian service.

SEC. 107. DEFERMENTS AND POSTPONEMENTS.

(a) High School Students- A person who is pursuing a standard course of study, on a full-time basis, in a secondary school or similar institution of learning shall be entitled to have induction under this title postponed until the person--

(1) obtains a high school diploma;

(2) ceases to pursue satisfactorily such course of study; or

(3) attains the age of 20.

(b) Hardship and Disability- Deferments from national service under this title may be made for--

(1) extreme hardship; or

(2) physical or mental disability.

(c) Training Capacity- The President may postpone or suspend the induction of persons for military service under this title as necessary to limit the number of persons receiving basic military training and education to the maximum number that can be adequately trained.

(d) Termination- No deferment or postponement of induction under this title shall continue after the cause of such deferment or postponement ceases.

SEC. 108. INDUCTION EXEMPTIONS.

(a) Qualifications- No person may be inducted for military service under this title unless the person is acceptable to the Secretary concerned for training and meets the same health and physical qualifications applicable under section 505 of title 10, United States Code, to persons seeking original enlistment in a regular component of the Armed Forces.

(b) Other Military Service- No person shall be liable for induction under this title who--

(1) is serving, or has served honorably for at least six months, in any component of the uniformed services on active duty; or

(2) is or becomes a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, the United States Merchant Marine Academy, a midshipman of a Navy accredited State maritime academy, a member of the Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, or the naval aviation college program, so long as that person satisfactorily continues in and completes at least two years training therein.

SEC. 109. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION.

(a) Claims as Conscientious Objector- Nothing in this title shall be construed to require a person to be subject to combatant training and service in the uniformed services, if that person, by reason of sincerely held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.

(b) Alternative Noncombatant or Civilian Service- A person who claims exemption from combatant training and service under subsection (a) and whose claim is sustained by the local board shall--

(1) be assigned to noncombatant service (as defined by the President), if the person is inducted into the uniformed services; or

(2) be ordered by the local board, if found to be conscientiously opposed to participation in such noncombatant service, to perform national civilian service for the period specified in section 104(a) and subject to such regulations as the President may prescribe.

SEC. 110. DISCHARGE FOLLOWING NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) Discharge- Upon completion or termination of the obligation to perform national service under this title, a person shall be discharged from the uniformed services or from civilian service, as the case may be, and shall not be subject to any further service under this title.

(b) Coordination With Other Authorities- Nothing in this section shall limit or prohibit the call to active service in the uniformed services of any person who is a member of a regular or reserve component of the uniformed services.

TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT

SEC. 201. REGISTRATION OF FEMALES.

(a) Registration Required- Section 3(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is amended--

(1) by striking ‘male’ both places it appears;

(2) by inserting ‘or herself’ after ‘himself’; and

(3) by striking ‘he’ and inserting ‘the person’.

(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 16(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 466(a)) is amended by striking ‘men’ and inserting ‘persons’.

SEC. 202. REGISTRATION AND INDUCTION AUTHORITY.

(a) Registration- Section 4 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 454) is amended by inserting after subsection (g) the following new subsection:

‘(h) This section does not apply with respect to the induction of persons into the Armed Forces pursuant to the Universal National Service Act.’.

(b) Induction- Section 17(c) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 467(c)) is amended by striking ‘now or hereafter’ and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting ‘inducted pursuant to the Universal National Service Act.’.

A letter from Libertarian Candidate Chris Cantwell

This letter from Chris Cantwell who is running for New York's 1st Congressional District. I thought it bears repeating

Dear Neocons, Leftists, and other statists,

I write to you today about the word Liberty, and your misuse of it. We
Libertarians have been plagued for decades by your hijacking of our
words and ideas. It seems that the lower left and lower right portions
of the political spectrum which take turns ruling over the people of
this country, accidentally find themselves speaking of Liberty
whenever out of power, only to thrust further controls upon us once in
power. I am writing this letter to demand that you cease and desist.

Once upon a time, Liberalism was about about freedom and smaller
government. Many Libertarians actually call themselves "Classical
Liberals" still today. But at some point Liberal came to mean being
Liberal with other peoples money, which is as far from Liberty as one
can get. Seeing as to how rights derive from property, you can hardly
liberate someone by depriving them of property. And seeing as to how
one can only be as free as one is self reliant, it is equally absurd
to think that one can be liberated by receiving money from the
government. We've given up on Liberalism, you leftists can keep the
word now, you have tarnished its meaning to the point that it is no
longer useful to us.

So then Conservatism was coined as the word for smaller government and
more Liberty, and boy oh boy wasn't that great. But then the rabid
right wing Christian social tyrants, and warmongering statists, needed
a place to go to build their power base, and so the meaning of the
word conservative became diminished to what we who love Liberty now
call Neocon. You can keep Conservatism for yourselves, it has now
become a dirty thing which we want no part of, with one caveat. We
would request that Neocons who call themselves "Constitutional
Conservatives" but support war, unreasonable search and seizure, gun
control, social security, and other unconstitutional things, drop the
Constitutional part until they actually support constitutional
government.

With the emergence of the "Tea Party Movement" once again, you
statists have stolen from us. This idea began with the Ron Paul
campaign, and was continued in 2008 by the Libertarian Party while
George Bush was still in office. But you have now begun to call it
your own, claiming that it began in 2009 in Setauket, NY. You have
claimed it to represent war, torture, unreasonable search & seizure,
denial of jury trials, defense of medicare, defense of social
security, the patriot act, and so horrid many acts of statist
aggression that we can barely bring ourselves to speak with you. Once
again, we're going to let you keep it, you've rendered it meaningless
by merging with the Republican party establishment, and supporting
rampant out of control statism and big government, we have no more use
for it.

But the worst part is, you called it Liberty. You called yourselves
Libertarians. This we will not tolerate, this time we're keeping our
word.

Libertarians REJECT all invasions of privacy, like the Arizona SB1070
"Show me your papers" act, Red light cameras, highway checkpoints, the
Patriot Act, and all your other statist violations of our
constitutionally protected liberties.

Libertarians REJECT your assertions that it is the role of government
to intervene in peoples sexual and romantic relationships, or to
infringe on their right to contract in marriage.

Libertarians REJECT your protection of unconstitutional socialist
programs like Social Security, and Medicare, as taking from the young
to give to the old is every bit as wrong as taking from the rich to
give to the poor.

Libertarians REJECT racial profiling just as much as affirmative
action, because they are the same thing.

Libertarians REJECT your efforts to suppress religious establishments,
especially to violate property rights through the abuse of eminent
domain to do so.

Libertarians REJECT your assertions that America is a Christian
nation, knowing instead that in reality, America is a geographic
location wherein more than 300,000,000 sovereign individuals have
their own thoughts and beliefs, and a secular government exists to
protect the rights of those sovereign individuals.

Libertarians REJECT your efforts to destroy our criminal justice
system by denying the right of trial by jury.

Libertarians REJECT your unjust, unconstitutional, unnecessary, wars
of choice and aggression. There was never any just cause to invade
Iraq, and you have murdered over a million people there in our name,
shaming our entire country for generations to come. There may be
disagreements on whether we should have invaded Afghanistan after
9/11, but what is certain is that there is NO JUSTIFICATION for our
continued aggressions there. Liberty is fully incompatible with wars
of this nature, as all initiation of force is fully repugnant to all
things good and just.

For these reasons and others we demand that anyone who supports these
acts of statist aggression cease and desist to use the words Liberty
or Libertarian in describing themselves or their cause, and also
demand that they admit openly that they do not support our
Constitution, seeking instead to destroy it. We are sick of changing
our name to disassociate ourselves from your statism, racism,
disregard for rights of property, and disregard for our Constitution.

We would provide to you however, some suggestions for what to call
yourselves next, so that there will be no confusion and you might keep
your name for decades to come. Racism, Statism, Totalitarianism,
Stalinism, Socialism, Communism, Warmongering, or any combination of
those would do, but perhaps if you want to make it sound nice, just
call it Democracy.

Personally, we'll be working on restoring the republic.

In Liberty,
Chris Cantwell


If you wish to know more about Cantwell and his candidacy here is his website

www.voteforcantwell.com

Good Quote

A quote that I saw on the comment section of a Reason Magazine article

"You can't spell Liberal without LIE and you can't spell Conservative without CON.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: One of the few true believers in Liberty

Napolitano on the wikileaks "controversy". I couldn't agree more.

Another Request

One of my favorite online magazines is the American Conservative. Which publishes works from great writers for Liberty such as Tom Woods, Ron Paul and Jack Hunter to name a few. The American Conservative speaks for true liberty unlike the statist Neocon noise chamber that this the National Review. To a certain extent they tend to be a much better pro-liberty magazine than Reason. The magazine seems to be in a bit of a financial bind so I just kindly ask those who read to consider donating to their cause.

https://www.amconmag.com/donate.html

Capitalism Works!

Cuba is starting to understand granted very slowly that for-profit markets are what keep people employed and happy. Today Raul Castro decided that his government is going to start issuing licenses in order to start private businesses to help the nations staggering economy.


The government "agreed to broaden the exercise of self employment and its use as another alternative for the employment of those excess workers," Castro said during a biannual session of the National Assembly.

He went on to say that the government would eliminate "numerous" prohibitions to the granting of licenses for private businesses and to the sales of some products, as well as "make the contracting of a work force more flexible."



No doubt that interventionists will use this to show that the embargo is working (no matter the cost to innocent Cubans) when in reality the embargo is a Cold War relic. Fidel uses the embargo as a propaganda tool to keep Cubans in line and nothing more. Capitalism would've taken root years ago if not for the embargo being placed on that country. Nevertheless this is good news for the Cuban people.

Another Neoconservative in Libertarian Clothing

The debate on how close former 2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential Candidate Wayne Allyn Root has gotten to Neoconservatives has been on and off. Some say that he is compromising Libertarian principals by suggesting alliances with those who were are enemies in the Bush Administration others say that in order to get our principals into the mainstream we have to work with them whether we like it or not. If there was another reason why NOT to work with statist conservatives and neoconservatives, Root just gave us another one with his opinion on the New York City Mosque issue;


Does "religious freedom" mean hate groups should build statues to Hitler in front of Jewish temples in America? Should Americans raise money to build Jewish temples and Christian churches at Mecca? Should Japan build a statue to the bravery of their pilots at Pearl Harbor? Should the U.S. build a statue to the bravery of our pilots at the site of Hiroshima? Aren’t those examples all about “freedom of expression,”
"religious freedom" and property rights? Perhaps, but is it too much to ask for a little consideration and respect toward others?


This proposed building of a mosque on hallowed ground is an ATROSITY towards America. To build a celebration of Islam within steps of 9/11 does nothing to increase religious freedom...it inspires hatred, divides our cultures, and increases the odds of violence and hate crimes. Common sense suggests this mosque, being built in this specific location, is NOT being built as a sign of friendship between Muslims and Americans...but rather as a sign of the lack of respect...a belief in
our weakness...and an attempt to embarrass and belittle us. The financial district of Manhattan is not a residential area with a large number of Muslim residents for the mosque to serve. Therefore common sense suggests that the only possible reason to build it there (rather than in Brooklyn or Queens where there are large Muslim populations) is to show Muslim contempt for Americans by building a monument to Islam in the shadow of the site of their greatest triumph over America.


Notice how he takes the same route as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich which is emotion with no facts. Which is a tactic of the left, facts be dammed lets just get people riled up. Interesting enough is a favored tactic of radical liberal Saul Alinsky.

Kissing up the Neoconservatives and their ilk was never a good idea in my opinion and Root's disregard for the First Amendment is sickening. Part of being a Libertarian is that you don't compromise on liberty and Root is doing just that in order to get his pat on the head from the statist right and other fake Libertarians like Neal Boortz. It's another reason I'm glad he was never elected Libertarian Party Chair. The other question remains will he actively oppose Warren Redlich who is the Libertarian candidate for New York Governor, who has supported the construction of the Mosque.

Britain Gets It!

After years of failure and meritocracy, the British have decided to let the free market try itself out in the Health Care Industry. This deals a huge blow to the left which frequently sites Europe as a model the US should follow. It's sad how Socialist Europe is starting to get it before the oligarchs in Washington do.

NY Gubernatorial Candidate Comes Out in Support of Liberty

It looks like the Ground Zero Mosque controversy may be used as a hot button issue in order to determine who sits in the Governor's mansion in Albany. Three candidates have thrown their opinions; Democratic Candidate Andrew Cuomo came out in support of it citing religious freedom (although in reality he is just doing the opposite of what his opponent says), Republican Candidate Carl Paladino who is also attempting to create a Tea Party line has come out saying that he will use Eminent Domain aka the Jackboot of the State in order to prevent construction. Libertarian/Republican Candidate Warren Redlich has condemned Paladino for blatantly disrespecting private property rights and the First Amendment.

New York City along with the rest of the state has a long history of Eminent Domain abuse. Paladino seems to hope that the people of New York City and the state for that matter forget that in the name of conservative knee-jerk reactions. Private property is one of the corner stones that makes the United States great and Paladino wants to step on that in order to show that he is "tough on terror"and appease busy body conservatives. People may not like the idea of a Mosque up but until someone comes up with ironclad proof that the land for the Mosque was obtained illegally all they can do is complain. It also shows how neoconservatives and their allies can be as political correct as the liberals that they rail against. Redlich deserves praise for being the bigger man and the Constitutionalist in this fight.

Neoconservative Infighting

Well it's been a long while since Ann Coulter made any buzz so she decides to join the fray after Micheal Steele's Biden-esque gaff on Afghanistan. Here is a tidbit on her World Net Daily column:

But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest. What if Obama decides to invade England because he’s still ticked off about that Churchill bust? Can Michael Steele and I object to that? Or would that demoralize the troops? Our troops are the most magnificent in the world, but they’re not the ones setting military policy. The president is – and he’s basing his war strategy on the chants of Moveon.org cretins. Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama’s war – and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn’t liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?) I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too. Of course, if Kristol is writing the rules for being a Republican, we’re all going to have to get on board for amnesty and a “National Greatness Project,” too – other Kristol ideas for the Republican Party. Also, John McCain. Kristol was an early backer of McCain for president – and look how great that turned out! Inasmuch as demanding resignations is another new Republican position, here’s mine: Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney must resign immediately.


One might think that Coulter is turning the corner and may start embracing Ron Paul's ideas but in reality she is trying to find something to remain relevant. Liz Cheney and Sarah Palin have stolen her spotlight as it seems. Like how during the Bush years Pat Buchanan was widely irrelevant until illegal/legal immigration came up as a front issue which has been his issue since his presidential campaigns during the 90s. AntiWar.com sums the noninterventionist reaction to her quite nicely


Cockerill asks if Coulter’s outcry “is progress or mere partisanship? Time will tell.” My gut is this is Ann lashing out at the enemy in her own Long War against the conservative elite at the Weekly Standard and National Review. It is Ann making sure that Obama completely owns the disaster in Afghanistan by rewriting current and past history on a fourth grade reading level. It is Ann making sure we don’t forget she is still around and is one tough broad.

But it is not a step forward, but a shuffle in place, her stilettos still kicking out at the usual “cretins” in her universe, a place where Bush is Popeye and Obama is Olive Oyl, and where Coulter spits, “no grass grows, ever.”

Granted I don't see any toughness in Coulter (or for that matter Malkin, Ingram, and other neoconservative women) who's entire shtick is to complain about the complainers. Same would go for the major women in liberal circles Rhodes, Maddow, Miller, etc. Get back to me when the warmongers fight in the wars they advocate instead of just screaming their heads off with the right talking points when they're out of power.

A Libertarian Republican in 2012?

Today Dr. Paul in the Daily Caller said that he believes that the Republicans will be more open to a Libertarian candidate taking on Obama.

This year, libertarian-Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate — like Paul’s son Rand Paul in Kentucky and Sharron Angle in Nevada — have won Republican primaries with the help of the Tea Party support. Noting the “big libertarian influence in the Tea Party movement,” Paul says libertarian beliefs are making their way into the lexicon of traditional Republicans.

“I think even the issue of the Federal Reserve — that issue is almost mainstream,” he said. “And I think things have shifted because of the financial crisis as well as the bogging down of our foreign policy. So the American people are looking for some different answers.”

It should be noted that while everyone is talking the fiscal talk there is a slim few who actually back it up. Also Rand Paul seems to favor a interventionist foreign policy a complete 180 from his father's position. Granted majority of the Tea Party movement seems to either be interested in keeping the insane status quo or not mention foreign policy at all.

Dr. Paul also mentions that former New Mexican Governor Gary Johnson is one he could support. Personally I've been following Johnson for awhile and he fits Dr. Paul's mold quite nicely. He seems to be the only one at this point in the current sea of Neocon hopefuls.

Do I wish for a true Libertarian (in which one who practices what he preaches, not who panders just to get votes) in the White House? Oh absolutely but lets focus on 2010 first and make sure we don't go bankrupt before 2012.

A Simple Request

One of my favorite sites for third party news is the blog Independent Political Report. They cover all third party politics and happenings from all over the spectrum so the site is technically non-partisan although it's main blogger is a Libertarian out of NYC. Currently they are engaging in a donation drive to maintain and improve the site. If you support the LP or third party politics in general I urge you to donate.

For more details click here

Two Warren Redlich Videos

A video bringing up Carl Paladino's statist streak



..and a video of Redlich talking to a Columbia-Greene Community College class

Warren Redlich on Hardfire

Libertarian Candidate for New York Governor does an interview on the political show Hardfire. Hosted by Mark Axinn

Attention New York State Citizens

Looks like Albany is doing something productive for a change. Currently their is a bill in the state Senate that will make it easier for third parties to get on the ballot. The law currently states that a party must get 50,000 votes in a Gubernatorial election in order to stay on the ballot for four years. Please call and or write your Senators to support this bill. This is a good change to bring more electoral competition to our state and to chip away at the Republicrat and Democan oligarchy.
Thanks to Ballot Access News for the info.

Finally Warren Redlich gets recognized

After being omitted from several stories my local paper the Times Herald Record has finally acknowledge that Redlich is in the Governor's race. They even noted that he is also seeking the Republican nomination!

Current State of New York's Gubernatorial Race

With Governor David Patterson bowing out of his reelection bid, the people of New York will be guaranteed a new Governor come this November. The following is a list of current candidates under the various political parties in the state of New York.

Democratic Party

Current Attorney General Andrew Cuomo

Andrew Cuomo represents what is wrong with New York state politics. He is apart of the many political families who control the state either directly or indirectly. Cuomo's role as HUD secretary under former President Bill Clinton was one of the contributors to the housing crisis.

Andi Weiss Bartczak

Bartczak a chemist by trade and liberal activist had stated her reasoning for running is to bring actual change to Albany. In her view the New York Democratic Party has become nothing but an oligarchy and grassroots organization is subjected to party bosses. She views Cuomo as apart of that oligarchy.

Republican Party

Former Congressman Rick Lazio

Lazio had run for Senate against Hillary Clinton back in 2000. Lazio is currently trying to paint himself as the one who will bring sanity and limited government back to Albany. However his record on gun rights as a congressman, paints a different picture.

Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy

Originally a Blue Dog Democrat who switched to the Republican Party in order to run. Levy's cries that the Democrats have forgotten Conservative Democrats like him and the Republicans are where to be. His record on gun rights is only a few steps above Lazio.

Carl Paladino

A developer out of the Buffalo area, claiming that he is the Tea Party candidate. His campaign donations in recent elections paint a different picture. He has stated that if he doesn't get the Republican nomination he will run on the Tea Party line.

Guilderland Town Board Member Warren Redlich

Redlich who is also the nominee of the Libertarian Party will be seeking the Republican nomination via New York's electoral fusion system. Redlich claims that he is the true Tea Party candidate and doesn't have the statist baggage that Paladino, Levy and Lazio have.

Conservative Party

The Conservative Party of New York claims to be the true conservative alternative to when the Republicans nominate someone who is deemed too liberal in their eyes. The latest noise they made was back last November during the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district. It's party chairman Micheal Long has personally endorsed Rick Lazio. Long has the final say in regards to endorsements, however there are forces within the party that wish to endorse either Levy or Paladino. Redlich has stated that he has no interest in seeking their endorsement citing that the party doesn't actually believe in small government.


Green Party

The Greens bill themselves as the true liberal party when the Democrats nominate someone they believe to be “too in bed with corporations”. Howie Hawkins who co-founded the national party was nominated at their convention on May 15, 2010.

Constitution Party

This would be the first time the Paleoconservative Constitution Party fields a candidate for a New York state office. Birther and Consiparcy theorist Jan Johnson is the nominee. With New York not being a haven for statist social conservatism, ballot access is most likely to be unsuccessful.

Independence Party

Not to be confused with Constitution splinter party American Independent Party. The Independence Party of New York resembles a state version of the now defunct Reform Party. The Party has a Neolibertarian/Populist bent, which either runs their own candidate or endorses either the Democratic or Republican nominee. Currently no noise has been made in regards to who they will put on the ballot.

Personal Freedom Party

Kristen Davis

The madam that ran the escort service that Former Governor Elliot Spitzer used. Davis was also running for the Libertarian nominee but did not show up to the convention so she was not on the ballot. Her association with Republican political operative Roger Stone as campaign manager who is also responsible for elections of Former Presidents Richard Nixon and George W. Bush made party members very uneasy. Fears that Stone was only helping out Davis in order to make the LP less relevant seem to come ahead when it was discovered that Stone wanted to make a deal with Redlich in order to get Paladino the Republican nomination.

Video Game Review: Blur (Xbox 360)

Over the years, I had become disinterested in racing games because of the repetitiveness of them. The exceptions would be the Burnout Series, Mario Kart and Twisted Metal if you would count it as a racer. Mainly for reasons that you can cause chaos in the race that can affect the outcome.

So when I got an invitation to the beta, I looked up the game, liked what I read and gave it a try. I was certainly impressed with the beta so I hoped that the full game would be just as good which it was. The amount of chaos that is created with the various weapons is paramount, positions change in this game very rapidly so not one player can dominate the match. Their is also a mod shop that players can equip a three mod set to their vehicles before a multiplayer race starts. The mods typically alter handling/weight, weapon damage/resistance and how the track environment affects your vehicles. As you progress in multiplayer you gain access to vehicles, game modes, and mods. The progression system is well thought out, it's not just about winning it's also how you perform in the race. If you are constantly attack and defending yourself from other players your awarded Fans (Blur's version of XP). Simply put; the more fans you gain, the faster you move up in level. Fortunately the progression in single player and multiplayer are not linked. This is good for players that have no interest in single player campaigns and just want to plunge right into the multiplayer mayhem.

Overall Blur is a good solid change to an otherwise static game genre.

Alan Grayson introduces the War is Making You Poor Act

One of the few things I like about Alan Grayson is he is against the Warfare State. The liberal news site Truth Dig reports on general idea of his bill.

The War Is Making You Poor Act is elegant in its simplicity. Instead of financing these longstanding conflicts outside of the regular budgeting process, where they’re not factored into deficit projections, Grayson’s bill would make the DoD work within its means, and the money would instead be used for an across-the-board tax cut that would make the first $35,000 each American earns tax-free.

From the looks of things, it sounds like a good bill but will the warmongers in congress support it? Who knows.

Andrew Cuomo a man of the people?

Watch this video and make your own call

Warren Redlich Candidate for NY Governor fires first primary shot at Carl Paladino

I wrote back in April on how Paladino is just another opportunist trying to become the top dog in Albany. Well it looks like Warren Redlich is firing the first shot by challenging Paladino on his donations to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, Chuck Schumer's re-election and Elliot Spitzer's Gubernatorial bid.

The Smears Against Rand Paul Begin

So I just got a breaking news update from Politico saying that Rand Paul has no interested in challenging the Civil Rights Act. Let me just state; WTF! Even for someone as cynical as me I have to just say; WTF! This of course stems from smears that Rand Paul is a racist. I try to find items that actually indicated that he is but I can't seem to find any. The so called evidence is that Rand would for vote for the act in the same way Barry Goldwater (my personal political idol) did. Goldwater believed that Government enforced racism is wrong but also support the right of private property. This is exactly what Rand preaches, yea you probably can find some Paleoconservatives who think the entire act should be null and void but those people are far and few in between. If this is the main attack point the Democrats have on Rand, then they will just hand him the election.

Reason Interviews Anthony H. Williams Dem Candidate for Governor

Now this is a guy who should lead a state. School choice is one big step to improve education in this country.

Jim Staudenraus is a Neocon

While doing some research on the Republican challengers to Schumer's reelection bid, I came across Jim Staudenraus. While reading his platform he had a section dedicated to Isreal and these snippets caught my eye;

"And if you stand up to evil, you are yourself an extremist". Israel correctly perceives that the regime in Tehran is serious in their threats to "wipe Israel off the map'. As Israel's ally we cannot ignore the seriousness of the Iranian threat."

Ok that's Israel's problem, not the problem of the American Tax Payer. Last time I checked Israel wasn't a nation with a third rate military. Their military is one of the most powerful in the world and the most powerful in that region.

"The Obama Administration's policy of "engaging" the regime in Iran has utterly failed. Continued sanctions against the Iranian regime are utterly worthless."

So a third war that we just flush our hard earned money into is the answer? How well are those other two doing?

"Sanctions may make the Obama Administration and some in Congress feel better, but sanctions will only provide Iran with additional time to pursue development of
the nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles they seek to use agaist Israel."

Wait...so when did Israel become a US state?

I'm always amused how neocons try to make Israel's problems, our problems. Hell I had conservatives tell me in the election that Obama was going to flush all our money into Africa. Which is wrong, but when you mention of cutting aid to Israel and the rest of the world for that matter, your called a terrorist, Anti-Semite (despite Arabs are also Semites) and the like. Pardon me for being consistent on fiscal policy. It's become high time to dump socialism at all levels and that includes the military socialism that conservatives like Staudenraus support.

Management needs to change

As a Mets fan you learn to deal with the slumps and disappointment but today's game against the Marlins was ridiculous. The schedule isn't much better as we next face the Braves in Atlanta and then return home for the Subway Series against the Yankees. Fred Wilpon needs to wake up and realize that Omar Minaya and Jerry Manuel need to go. Hell bring back Bobby Valentine! We were at least winning and his last year as manager was when we last got to the World Series.

Make Liberty not W.A.R.

As much as I wish it wasn't happening it's happening. Not only is Wayne Allen Root just kissing up to Neoconservatives now it looks like he is now diving deep into conspiracy (think Alex Jones) territory. The Agitator (the personal blog of Libertarian writer Radley Balko has reported that Root will participating on what is being billed by the whack job right "The Trial of the Century". The charges is that Obama was some sort of super secret CIA spy who used his time at Columbia University as a cover to support the Afghan resistance against the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan back in 1979 and yes plenty of birtherism is in this "case" too.

I can't say that I'm not surprised since like I mentioned since Obama's election Root seems hell bent on getting approval from Neoconservatives, Paleoconservatives and others of the Statist Right than opposed to show how they are wrong. This of course just brings a whole host of problems especially since Root is running to become Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee. If Root becomes chair it will become just another arm of the Republicans and the party will be even less relevant. As any Libertarian knows, Conservatives are not interested in our ideas, just our votes. People like Root and Beck aren't Libertarian they are statist conservatives under a different name. I refuse to buy into the argument that they are making Libertarianism more appealing to people. As to who should be the LNC chair, I'm still in decision mode but I sure as hell don't want Root.

Identity Politics yet again....oy!

Ah another identity politics rant by my favorite Paleocon, Pat Buchanan. Raw Story reports on Buchanan shooting off his mouth again because of the identity of Obama's Supreme Court Elena Kagan being Jewish which apparently means there are too many jews on the highest court of the land. The irony of it all is that Paleconservatives are always complaining about identity politics and how it "destroys" America. It's not like there are other things to attack this woman on; she has problems with the First and Second Amendments or perhaps that the woman has no judicial experience. Perhaps that's too difficult for Pat.

Of course Kagan isn't the first person to have her identity focused on in regards to a high political position. If people paid more attention to Obama's positions instead of this stupid crap of him being a Muslim or a secret Kenyan he probably wouldn't have been elected.

Well that didn't last long

AOL News reports that President Obama has halted all new offshore drilling. The funniest part is from Axelrod

"All he has said is that he is not going to continue the moratorium on drilling but ... no additional drilling has been authorized and none will until we find out what happened here and whether there was something unique and preventable here,"

In other words they can indefinitely suspend drilling in the guise of a disaster.

Cuomo might have some competition

Today while doing some errands I noticed a woman that had said Bartczak for Governor and a web address on it. I didn't talk to the woman because I was in a hurry but made a mental note of the site. It appears Ms. Bartczak will be challenging Cuomo for the Democratic nomination. Her platform is the typically run of the mill Liberal Populist (anti-drug war, anti-victimless crimes, increase taxes on vices, etc) but compared to the slimy Andrew Cuomo it's not bad but I still plan on voting for Warren Redlich.

Her site is here

Tea Party and the Empire

Bill Maher makes a point that many in the Tea Party movement have no interest in dismantling the Neoconservative Warfare state. Sadly despite he is Libertarian on social issues he supports income retribution which kills his credibility. He isn't the only one however, James Bovard of the Future of Freedom Foundation writes a piece in the Christian Science Monitor sharing the same sentiments. Thanks to Freedoms Phoenix for the video.

Government Wireless

As if I didn’t have any more reasons to hate the welfare system another one just fell in my lap today. Apparently there is a cell phone structure especially designed for people on the various welfare programs (Medicare, Section 8 Housing etc). The program is called Assurance which is handled through Pre-paid carrier Virgin Mobile which uses the Sprint Network for it’s service. The service is paid for through the Universal Service Fund which is apart of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Here is the bad and good part it’s only available in five states (Michigan, North Carolina, New York, Tennessee, and Virginia) therefore limits the abuse (wishful thinking I know), but at the same time everyone pays for it through taxes!

You may wonder why I would be upset over a program that has (relatively speaking) very low impact compared to rest of the abused welfare programs. Well today I had a customer who wanted to buy one of the high end Virgin mobile phones priced at $100. At least that’s what I was able to understand since he spoke ghetto-ese. I asked him if he had service with Virgin Mobile already or was starting new service. He replied that he had this Assurance service which uses Virgin Mobile phones in to which I said “oh so your just replacing a broken phone”. I was told that his phone wasn’t broken he just wanted a better one. At the time I didn’t think much of it until I looked up Assurance and found out it was a tax payer funded cell phone. In addition the guy paid for the phone with a government assistance card and I noticed food stamps in his wallet! Of course however this type of abuse happens with all the welfare programs. I remember one time selling a 32” LCD television to someone who lived in a HUD housing area.

Which angers me the most about this program is that the market has already fixed the problem of getting a ways of communication to low income people. It’s called pre-paid, I could understand the point of this back when the act was passed in 1996 when cell phones were still pretty expensive even for the most basic of service but that’s not the case anymore. At least in New York there are at least five pre-paid carries and all the major contract wireless carriers offer pre-paid service. Hell now a days Sprint’s minimum credit deposit for those that fall into that category is $50 and basic talk service typically falls into that price range. The wheels of the market may be slow but they turn up with better results than any government program can hope to dream of.

Hypothetical Election: Ron Paul and Barack Obama are neck and neck

Today Rasmussen put out a hypothetical election poll which put Dr. Paul against President Obama. Paul only trails behind Obama by a percent. It just goes to show you that Paul is the only choice for 2012. He opposes statism in all its forums, he doesn't pick and choose which is common among statist conservatives like Gringrich, Palin, and Romney. Go Ron Paul.

Change the culture

It's only the first week and fellow Mets fans are already facepalming. Normally I would just be content with the thought of it being the first week but we couldn't even put the Nationals away. The Nationals are one of the worst teams in the league when it comes to championships. They have one title and thats the 1984 National League East title. So when your team can't even beat them you know something is wrong.

Of course that something has been for at least the past two years. The last title the Mets captured was the 2006 NL East title. Some say thats only a three year playoff/championship drought but it doesn't seem like the team wants to improve. ESPN reported during offseason that the Mets were the biggest spender in the National League. Ok fine, what happened to that spending when Matt Holliday was a free agent? We had a chance to get one of the hottest free agents in the NL and apparently Minaya wanted to be a tight wad. Not to take away from Jason Bay, but Holliday would've been a great addition to the team. Which leads me to my next point; You can only blame the players so much. You can have a solid team but it means jack if your management can't run the team effectively.

Jerry Manuel and Omar Minaya were able to save their skin with the fact that the team got destroyed by injuries. As I said, the players can only be blamed for so much. Not only do the Mets need good players but Management needs a change too. As much as I hate the Yankees, they know how to run a team. In the Bronx, management has a one and done policy. You don't win, see you later. Fred Wilpon needs to light a fire through the entire organization, and do it now. It's not just the Mets that can learn from the Yankees, the Rangers, the Nets, and the Knicks as well. All four of these teams continue to keep bad management around and do nothing about it. The Jets learned, by getting a new coach and a new quarterback. Granted this past season the overall record didn't improve but the team got to the AFC title game which we haven't done in since the 98 season.

Carl Paladino: Just another opportunist

Well another wolf in sheep's clothing has been exposed. Tea Party Candidate for New York Governor Carl Paladino isn't the a savior he and his supporters are painting him out to be. Buffalo News had shed some light on his donations in New York elections in recent years;

Paladino has given to such Democratic stalwarts as presidential contenders Hillary Rodham Clinton, Richard Gephardt, John Kerry and Al Gore, a favorite “tea party” whipping boy. Besides $4,600 to Clinton’s presidential campaign, Paladino gave $5,100 to her Senate bankroll, and he gave Sen. Charles E. Schumer $1,000 last June.

When did Clinton, Kerry and Gore become bastions of liberty? Did I miss the memo? All three of these politicians support wealth redistribution, in addition Kerry and Clinton supported the Patriot Act and endless warmongering. I would think that a business owner like Paladino would understand that giving money to economy crushing Democrats is a bad thing. Which only means that Paladino didn't get what he wanted from Clinton, Schumer and former Governor Eliot Spitzer (who he also donated money to). So surprise when political donor doesn't get what he or she wants, they run against the politician that they donated to.

Of course a few questions remain in the light of this latest news;

1. Will the Conservative Party still endorse him?

The Conservative Party of New York bills themselves as the Conservative alternative when the Republicans nominate a candidate that is too Liberal in their eyes. Their most recent nomination was Neocon Doug Hoffman for the special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District in which he lost to 24 hour flip flopper Bill Ownes. In the past they also threw their support for gun grabber Rick Lazio (who is also running for the Republican nomination for Governor) when he was a member of the House. Will the Conservative Party be most interested in winning or principal? Only time will tell.

2. Will the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association support him?

Currently they have yet to put out a public endorsement for any of the current candidates but in an personal email exchange I had with Tom King the organizations President, he was very enthusiastic over Paladino. When I asked him why Paladino over Warren Redlich and Kristen Davis, King cited that while he has known Redlich for years, Paladino is using much of his personal money for his campaign. Of course again this was a personal exchange between me and him so things can change.

So currently if no one else steps up to the plate Warren Redlich and Kristen Davis are the only two who are fully pro-liberty candidates. Redlich is running for both Republican and Libertarian lines, while Davis is also running for the Libertarian line but will run as a Personal Freedom Party if she does not get the nomination for the LP.

Independent Institute debates overseas military bases

The Independent Institute is a great place for nonintervention foreign policy thought. They join CATO in debating the Liberal Center for American Progress and the Neoconservative Center for Security Policy. The topic at hand is what to do with all of our overseas military bases.

In defense of Dick Armey?

Kinda hard for a Libertarian of any stripe to defend Armey who voted for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War among other things but I do think he needs to be defended this time.

An article on Politico shows that Armey is under fire from the Religious Right and anti-immigrant (both illegal and legal) groups. Both groups complain that Armey's group FreedomWorks doesn't promote the statist agenda of the Christian Right and that Immigration (legal and illegal) isn't mentioned.FreedomWorks as an organization mainly focuses on economic issues and not on social issues. Neocon Malkin calls him a "amnesty stooge" when in fact during the big amnesty push in 2007 FreedomWorks sent emails to it's supporters condemning amnesty and encouraging them to contact their congressman to oppose it. If I rightly recalled I got at least one notice to contact my representative from them every other day. Just because one isn't as militant on the issue as Pat Buchanan and Frosty Wooldridge doesn't make them amnesty lovers.

Am I calling Armey a Libertarian? No I am certainly not but I rather have him as an ally than statists Malkin and Perkins.

Scratch Steve Levy off the Pro Liberty Column

If you follow Stonezone.com the blog of political dirty trickster Roger Stone, today he wrote about the happenings within the New York Republicans and the Governors race. His comments towards Blue Dog Democrat turn Republican Steve Levy aren't kind describe him as anti-second amendment. Now I wouldn't call Stone a liar but since Stone is currently helping Kristen Davis' campaign for Governor I had to get confirmation. I had emailed the New York State Rifle &
Pistol Association (New York's biggest second amendment organization) to see what Levy's gun record had been. According to Jacob J. Rieper, Vice President of Legislative
& Political Affairs, Levy had received an F when he served in the State Assembly and only improved somewhat as Suffolk County Executive.

Bottom line Levy is another political opportunist taking advantage of the broad anti-statist movement. He was quite crafty about it, meeting with Republican leadership to show the people that he is about state and not party, then changes his affiliation from Democrat to Republican. Levy should be nowhere near Albany, the state has had enough of gun grabbers, regardless of the outcome of the Chicago case currently going on in the Supreme Court. So currently as it stands only three candidates remain on the pro gun side Warren Redlich, Kirsten Davis (which both are fighting for the Libertarian nomination) and Tea Party candidate Carl Paladino.

Christian Right concerned by Libertarian influence

Like Paleoconservatives, the Christian Right has never been a friend to Libertarians with their support for the Patriot Act, government involvement in the bed room, income redistribution to Israel under the guise of "foreign aid" among other things. So I wasn't surprised that in my daily email that I receive from Politico had an article titled "Tea Parties stir evangelicals" . The gist of the piece consists of Christian Right complaining on how many Tea Party organizations aren't making the culture wars (gay marriage, abortion, etc) the forefront of their platform or not mentioning them at all.

There are two theories that I have been able to gather in regards to the low key mentions of the culture wars; 1. People are more concerned about their economic situations and 2. When looking at states where gay marriage is legal (Massachusetts, Iowa to name two) people's lives didn't go through this drastic change and upheaval as opponents of gay marriage would like others to believe. I found this one quote by Tony Perkins who at one time was tinkering with the idea of running for David Vitter's Senate seat;

Groups such as FreedomWorks, said Perkins, bring a libertarian bias that doesn’t represent the “true tea parties.”

Apparently Tony Perkins knows what all Tea Parties stand for, despite the fact that the movement is widely considered a broad movement and also the movement sparked out of Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential Campaign. In regards to the culture war Paul has stated that issues like gay marriage and abortion should be decided by the states as it's outlined in the 10th Amendment. Apparently that doesn't sit well with some evangelicals. The fact of the matter is that Libertarians oppose statism and government cohesion in the names of "morality" and "helping people". That doesn't sit well with big government conservatives like Perkins and his bunch, but I don't expect them to change their ways that's just as much as a pipe dream as Obama's tax pledge. However the fact that the anti-gay speaker at CPAC Ryan Sorba was booed off the stage by the next generation of voters is a sign that statist social conservatism is being rejected which is good for personal liberty.

Conservative Smears

You would think with the current economic, social, and political tensions Conservatives would be just a tad bit more respectful towards us but even that seems to be a pipe dream. With the negative conservative reactions that came from Ron Paul's CPAC victory (or as Lew Rockwell puts it the first Republican primary) it's reasonable to believe that attacks on Libertarians and Libertarian thought are going to increase especially since the youth vote (which is the voting demographic I'm in by the way) has accepted Ron Paul's message. Which unfortunately for them means that the message of military/police socialism and social authoritarianism is being rejected by the future leaders of tomorrow.

Last week I got an two emails from an Examiner.com writer I follow documenting two attacks on Libertarians. The first one was a claim by the conservative magazine The American Spectator that the Southern Poverty Law Center has included Libertarians in a report titled Rage on the Right - The Year in Hate and Extremism. The Examiner article reports that neither Libertarians nor the Libertarian Party is mentioned in the report. I have also read through it and searched for the word Libertarians and the Libertarian Party and came up with nothing. That means only one thing that the Spectator is lying and/or the author of the article Robert S. McCain (no relation to the Arizona Senator) has a problem with the Libertarian movement. Which even in itself is abit confusing since the Spectator publishes writings from Libertarian thinkers Thomas Sowell and P.J. O'Rourke. Pinning it all on McCain wouldn't be too truthful either since (at least according to his wiki) he supported Bob Barr in the 2008 election although this could've just been out of dislike for John McCain. From reading his wiki his fight with the SPLC might have been the chief motivator to write up the lie. If McCain has a problem with the SPLC thats all fine and dandy but I would ask him not to create lies to get others to fight on your side. Thats a trait of collectivists.

The second article is from a site called renewamerica.com which from what I've from various authors on the site seems to be a mix of Paleoconservative, Neoconservative, and Religious Right thought, although Neos and Paleos hate each other. None of these groups have a history of being a friend of Libertarianism, so in turn I'm not shocked by this paleoconservative attack. Granted we share a very, very, very thin ground with paleoconservatives, although in my opinion like regular conservatives, paleos will dump us as soon as they're back in charge.

This attack is directed at Ron Paul personally resorting to the same smears he faced back in his 2008 campaign; kooky, out of touch, blaming America, etc. The article starts by comparing him to the rabid dog in the Steven King novel "Cujo", Cujo was the name of a nice and gentle St. Bernard who got rabbis and went insane. Apparently Paul A. Ibbetson is one of those paleos that can't take legitimate criticism of Reagan when he negatively notes that Dr. Paul was a huge critic on how Reagan used the CIA. The man doesn't seem to keen on personal liberty (shocking I know) with Dr. Paul's position on the drug war, despite Paul himself has stated that he has never done drugs in his life. His negative reaction to the CPAC poll isn't surprising at all since the site seems to be touting Palin as the next Conservative messiah. Little news for you Mr. Ibbetson, you can't win without the youth vote anymore. He says that Paul is the albatross of the Republican Party and hes right, a man who believes in true liberty is an albatross to a statist and military socialist party.

So Paleos, Neos, and regular Conservatives, continue your smears and Liberal-style attacks on Dr. Paul and Libertarians it will only make us stronger.


American Spectator article

renewamerica article

New York's Pro Gun Candidate

Currently among the two major parties the selection of pro liberty candidates is pretty slim. Both Andrew Cuomo and Rick Lazio are well known gun grabbers and at this time I can't find any information on potential Democrat candidate Steve Levy in regards to gun rights. Other candidates with unknown gun rights positions include Kristen Davis who is seeking the Libertarian nomination and Carl Paladino a potential Independent candidate being drafted by a Buffalo based Tea Party group.

Don't fret fellow New Yorkers there is one candidate so far that is committed to the right to bear arms and his name is Warren Redlich. David Codrea a gun rights writer for Examiner.com has put out a simple questionnaire for gun owners to ask politicians who want their support. Redlich was kind enough to provide answers to the questionnaire and it shows that Redlich is committed to the Second Amendment for all New York citizens.

Answers to the questionnaire are here

Warren Redlich's Answers

Bob Barr's Libertarian Colors Shine at CPAC

While many consider Barr's Presidential candidacy a conservative/neoconservative Trojan Horse, he demonstrates at CPAC that he is committed to the rule of law. During a debate titled "Does Security Trump Freedom?", Barr debates the Neocons on torture and civilian trials for terror suspects. Once the subject of waterboarding came up, the booing started but surprising enough the moderator kept it civil. My favorite part in the video is when he asks point blank; "How would you like to be waterboarded? Try that!” The statist right is going to be a tougher nut to crack than the the statist left but if we keep applying the pressure we will break it.

No Refund For You!

No, it's not a hidden Seinfeld episode that was just discovered. It's the latest attempt by Albany to screw New Yorkers. Governor Paterson has proposed in lowering the money cap in which tax refunds are paid from. I can understand that Paterson is trying to get the budget under control but denying citizens their own money isn't the way to do it. In fact that is called theft.

Times Herald Record story

Ron Paul confirms our fears?

Today Ron Paul had confirmed what I had been concerned with for awhile; a Neoconservative take over of his movement. I’ve been skeptical of this since Glenn Beck’s so called conversion to Libertarianism but I’m glad I’m not the only one who was seeing this. Although Beck isn’t the only one, there are plenty of Conservative statists who all of a sudden found their liberty roots the day Obama took office.

My suspicion came about when I saw virtually no mention of foreign policy in most of the MSN covered Tea Parties. Paul has said which is supported with hard facts that our disastrous foreign policy combined with our economic polices are the main reasons why our nation is such in bad shape. Some argue that the lack of mention of foreign policy is to co-exist with Conservatives. Co-exist typically means power sharing not taking over and expecting us to sit down and keep quiet. Sure they agree with us in fiscal policy but addressing only half the problem will only result in a lackluster fix. With the exception of Pat Buchanan what MSM conservatives have openly criticized our foreign policy? The only other conservative that comes to mind is George Will and I would put him in the somewhat column. The truth of the matter is that the bulk of MSM and talk radio conservatives still openly support mindless war no matter what the cost. It’s not even being touted as a Liberty movement; I’ve heard it called a Populist Conservative movement. What is Populist Conservativism? Is it Military and Police Socialism?

Sadly it seems that the Neocons are winning; the election of Scott Brown, Palin being trotted as the new Conservative messiah and the three primary challengers to Paul’s reelection. Currently those are the three I can think of at the top of my head. With the midterm elections in November we cannot afford to be silent for the sake of unity. The Socialist Left and the Neocon Right won’t go quietly so we will have to fight them at every turn. November will be the pop quiz for our movement, we cannot afford to fail or we will be back were we started in 2012.

Dr. King would be turning in his grave

On January 18 the country observes Martin Luther King Jr day. MLK, the central figure in the Civil Rights Movement which fought for all to be equal under the US Constitution. Dr. King’s famous “I have a Dream” speech is to be considered one of the best speeches in the 20th century in regards to liberty. Unfortunately for Dr. King he would be turning in his grave if he saw the country he loved in its current state.

Like a moth to a flame the politicization of Dr. King and his legacy is always expected. Liberals like Jesse Jackson (who was once apart of Dr. King’s inner circle) and Al Sharpton have used his legacy to enrich themselves and their allies. While all the while supporting candidates and policies that are counter to what Dr. King fought for. Programs like Affirmative Action were probably necessary in that time period (don’t know since I didn’t live in that era) but in modern times where people like David Duke and Neo-Nazis are regarded as pathetic extremists by most rational thinking people such programs are no longer needed. To the credit of Liberals however it was Liberal Democrats and Liberal Republicans who got the Civil Rights Act passed which as we know was signed by Liberal President Johnson.

Then of course there are Conservatives who try to claim Dr. King’s legacy for themselves. Not all of them of course, Paleoconservatives to this day still attempt to paint Dr. King as a Communist and believe that racism is a Liberal concept that doesn’t really exist. Yes Dr. King was a Republican, but not in the Republican mold of Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. King’s views on war and civil liberties would clearly place him in the camps of Barry Goldwater, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Like Albert Einstein, Dr. King was no Conservative; he was a Libertarian at heart.

Dr. King wouldn’t have supported the war in Iraq and probably would’ve started asking questions about Afghanistan’s current situation. I can picture a facepalm on Dr. King’s face if he saw the whole ordeal in how President Obama was treated with kid gloves by his supporters in the news media and likewise the treatment he got from the opposition in how he was and still compared to Adolf Hitler. He wouldn’t have approved the forced integration either. Has Dr. King’s dream been fully achieved? I would say about 80% but that 20% isn’t up to the Government it’s up to individual people.

Current State of New York's 2010 Picture

2010 is upon us and New York has a chance to clean the slate. The Governor’s Mansion and both Senate seats are up for grabs. Not only do the three seats have challenges from opposing parties but there seems to be trouble in paradise in the New York Democratic Party as well.

Chuck Schumer

Not much noise has been made from any of the opposition parties in regards to taking on New York’s top Democrat but there is a rumbling from within the party. In enter Randy Credico a comedian turn political activist. Credico comparing Schumer and the state party to Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall, the Democratic Party political machine in New York City that ran the show from 1790 to 1960. Credico as far as I know is the only Democrat in New York to call Schumer for what he really is a Neocon in disguise. Credico’s positions range from being Anti-Patriot Act, War on Drugs to Pro-Second Amendment and Fiscal Sanity. Positions like this put him the Blue Dog category, and in my opinion possibly a Ron Paul Democrat. One has to wonder; this guy is a politician? Unofficial rumors circulating among the New York Libertarian Party is that Credico may seek the Libertarian Party and possibly Independence Party lines due to New York’s electoral fusion system.

Kristen Gillibrand

Gillibrand was never a favorite among NY Democratic leadership with her positions on guns, taxes and illegal immigration. The day Governor Paterson appointed her to the Senate the jeers began from liberal leaders contesting that she’s a Republican in disguise. Gillibrand won her election against John Sweeney in the 20^th congressional district due to her Blue Dog views. Not too long after the appointment Carolyn McCarthy became heavily speculated in challenging her but decided ultimately to drop out and support her election instead. My personal guess would because Gillibrand has voted for the debacle that is being touted as a “health care” bill.

Two Democratic challengers have stepped up to the plate though; Populist Dr Scott Noren from Ithaca and Liberal Jonathan Tasini who was one Hillary Clinton’s primary opponents in the 2006 election. A third possible challenge in the name of Harold Ford Jr a Blue Dog Democrat may come into the Democratic bag. Ford’s positions currently put him to the right of Gillibrand. Ford is currently being accused of being a carpetbagger and rightfully so. Republicans at this time do not have any official declared candidates while many speculating that Former Governor George Pataki may give it a go. Currently the Libertarian, Conservative, Green, nor Independence Parties have announced any challenges to Gillibrand.

David Paterson

After taking the reigns when Eliot Spitzer decided to have some happy time and get caught the budget crisis reared its ugly head. It seemed that early on Paterson made a turn to the right in regards to fiscal policy but even the well intentioned Paterson couldn’t overcome the schoolyard fighting that is Albany. As it stands now we were able to stay afloat after Christmas when reports came out that the state would’ve been broke by then. Due to fears from National and Local Democrats that Paterson running for a full term would end up losing the Governor’s Mansion many have urged Paterson not to run including President Obama. In addition when he appointed Gillibrand to the Senate many Democratic feathers were ruffled as well.

Currently the only speculated primary challenge Paterson may face would be Attorney General Andrew Cuomo who is also the son of Former NY Governor Mario Cuomo. On the Republican side Rick Lazio is only one who has officially entered his hat into the ring. His website doesn’t state much on the issues, fellow Libertarians have told me that he is just a male version of Clinton. Eric County Executive Chris Collins is considering a run and is believed to make his decision this month. The Libertarian Party currently has two candidates vying for the nomination Criminal Defense and Personal Injury Attorney Warren Redlich and DVD and Book publisher Sam Sloan. Alison Duncan who ran for Lieutenant Governor in 2006 as a Green recently lashed out at Paterson for being tied to corporate interests and doing nothing he and Eliot Spitzer campaigned for back in the 2006 election. It is unknown if she will try to run for the top spot this time around.

It’s early in the election season so anything can happen I will try to keep everyone posted on who does what in what race. Hopefully 2010 will be year New York can start cleaning up the mess that is Albany.