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.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, March 12, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
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
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
Friday, March 5, 2010
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)