I've defended Barr's libertarian credentials in the past but this cannot be defended. Karl Dickey of the Examiner reports that Barr is listed as an official endorsement of the Newt Gingrich campaign. Newt Gingrich another aging conservative attempting to remain relevant and going for would might be his last political ambition. How can any principled libertarian support Newt Gingrich or any conservative (other than Jack Hunter) is beyond me and makes no sense what so ever. There is nothing on Gingrich's record that supports libertarian ideals.
When Barr announced his candidacy for the Libertarian nomination for President in 2008 I was very skeptical and rightfully so. Eventually through the campaign the man grew on me and I believed him to be actually genuine (even for someone who is as cynical as me) to the point that I did some volunteer work for the campaign. Even when he made the "hail marry" attempt at offering the vice president slot to Ron Paul I stuck by the guy the rest of the way. It seems that Barr is another example of "you can't teach a old dog new tricks" or in the political context; "you can't get a conservative to embrace libertarian ideals". He joins Wayne Allen Root and Eric Dondero type libertarians who are nothing but statist conservatives in libertarian clothing.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Sunday, October 23, 2011
If we needed another reason to end the War in Afghanistan......
President Karzai states that he would back Pakistan if Obama decides to launch another hope and change killing spree in Pakistan. I do expect any of the warfare statists to actually realize that this war needs to end? Hell No! What I expect is the calls or suggestions that the Karzai administration needs to be changed. Don't be surprised if something "happens" to Karzai in the near distant future.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Liberals for Ron Paul aka Blue Republicans?
Now this was an interesting read from Anthony Anderson who writes for the liberal Huffington Post. It seems that liberals are realizing that Paul is the only choice in this election if one truly supports civil liberties, nonintervention and keeping the state out of your personal affairs. I do hope that this will be a growing trend among the left who stop buying into Obama's bullshit. This article by Robin Koerner is calling on liberals to become Blue Republicans in order to vote for Ron Paul. Below is the article by Anderson
__________________________________________________________________________
I truly believe that I speak for so many young progressives that would be proponents for peace, clean food and water, and a government that actually helps and cares for its citizens.
After 8 years of GWB and the lies about WMDs, 9-11, Monsanto, Iraq...etc...anyone coming from the other party looked like a better choice. I was somehow still under the illusion that the Democratic Party would work for the people and not corporate/banking/defense industry interests.
I cried when Obama won. I really thought it was a new dawn for the US and the world as a whole. I was so ashamed of the Bush administration... all the violence and greed just made me ashamed to be from the US. Somehow though I still thought that there was a difference between the two parties.
I have to thank Mr. Obama for waking me up to this truth. When he showed support for Monsanto and big agribusiness, the continued (and escalated) warmongering, and even the continued selling-out of the American taxpayer to the Federal Reserve, the lightbulb went off in my head -- they are all simply employees.
On the other hand, Dr. Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate that is talking about the big pink elephant in the room. The money wasted on war, the fact that our nation has been sold to international banks, and that the federal government is becoming a monster overtaking state autonomy.
I never would have thought that the day would come where I would actually consider voting for someone else than a democrat. I want the world to be clean and healthy paradise planet for the next generations and for those that are living here now. I want the freedom to be able to buy clean food and drink unfluoridated water. I feel that its not asking too much, but the current administration continues to take away these rights.
Ron Paul seems to be the only option, and the furthered bashing of him by the mainstream media shows that they see him as a threat. I seriously hope that his time will come in 2012.
Peace and Prosperity to the US and EVERY person on the planet! Here is to sanity in 2012.
__________________________________________________________________________
I truly believe that I speak for so many young progressives that would be proponents for peace, clean food and water, and a government that actually helps and cares for its citizens.
After 8 years of GWB and the lies about WMDs, 9-11, Monsanto, Iraq...etc...anyone coming from the other party looked like a better choice. I was somehow still under the illusion that the Democratic Party would work for the people and not corporate/banking/defense industry interests.
I cried when Obama won. I really thought it was a new dawn for the US and the world as a whole. I was so ashamed of the Bush administration... all the violence and greed just made me ashamed to be from the US. Somehow though I still thought that there was a difference between the two parties.
I have to thank Mr. Obama for waking me up to this truth. When he showed support for Monsanto and big agribusiness, the continued (and escalated) warmongering, and even the continued selling-out of the American taxpayer to the Federal Reserve, the lightbulb went off in my head -- they are all simply employees.
On the other hand, Dr. Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate that is talking about the big pink elephant in the room. The money wasted on war, the fact that our nation has been sold to international banks, and that the federal government is becoming a monster overtaking state autonomy.
I never would have thought that the day would come where I would actually consider voting for someone else than a democrat. I want the world to be clean and healthy paradise planet for the next generations and for those that are living here now. I want the freedom to be able to buy clean food and drink unfluoridated water. I feel that its not asking too much, but the current administration continues to take away these rights.
Ron Paul seems to be the only option, and the furthered bashing of him by the mainstream media shows that they see him as a threat. I seriously hope that his time will come in 2012.
Peace and Prosperity to the US and EVERY person on the planet! Here is to sanity in 2012.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Reason Magazine selling out?
This isn't the first time someone from Reason has insulted Ron Paul in order to appeal to others. They have in the past have attempted to court Paleoconservatives (who openly hate Libertarians more than their Neoconservative brothers do) on regards to immigration. In the past I never got the fight between the Reason crowd and the Lew Rockwell.com crowd but it's begining to make alot more sense now.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Is Michelle Bachmann the only serious Neocon threat to Ron Paul?
With her taking the Ames straw poll and Dr. Paul coming in second the question has to be asked. It's probably too early but she is the prime neocon taking the majority of the left's attacks, especially with Palin seemingly fading away as Ms. Neocon but only time will tell with her. It was also nice to see that the poll has already sunk one neocon by the name of Tim Pawlenty, granted he wasn't much of a threat to Paul anyway. Oh and if you want to laugh here is some nice neocon worship artwork of Bachmann from the National Review. I would put that on par with the Obama Hope signs that popped up during his campaign and alongside those who consider Pat Buchanan a beacon of liberty.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
NJ Governor Chris Christie stands up to Neocon fear mongering
Neocons never met a Muslim they didn't like and were looking to make New Jersey the latest battleground against Muslims in public service positions. Christie tells neocons how he really feels about it.
No doubt he will be on their "politically correct traitors" list for making this statement, even though he has been universal praised by conservatives and some libertarians on his work on fiscal issues.
No doubt he will be on their "politically correct traitors" list for making this statement, even though he has been universal praised by conservatives and some libertarians on his work on fiscal issues.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Ron Paul won't run for reelection
As most fans and supporters of Dr. Paul have heard by now, the good doctor has decided to end his time as a U.S. Representative. To be completely honest, I'm not sure how I feel about this move. I fully understand why Dr. Paul doesn't want to be in the cesspool that is Washington D.C. Being the one man who actually believes in actual liberty and proves it with his actions is certainly not an easy task. With this announcement neocon, paleocon, theocon and leftist statists must be licking their chops at the chance of getting to put one of their minions in Dr. Paul's seat.
Perhaps this is a message to all of us in Dr. Paul's corner that the movement needs to make a big leap, in addition to helping Dr. Paul win the Republican nomination and then the election get actual liberty lovers elected. Whether that be libertarians in the Republican Party or Libertarian Party members. Everything becomes clearer with time as they say.
Perhaps this is a message to all of us in Dr. Paul's corner that the movement needs to make a big leap, in addition to helping Dr. Paul win the Republican nomination and then the election get actual liberty lovers elected. Whether that be libertarians in the Republican Party or Libertarian Party members. Everything becomes clearer with time as they say.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Abortions and Insurance
As someone who is actually pro-life unlike those who pretend to value human life, I find abortion disgusting and repugnant. This article with Kansas set to sign into law that prohibits insurance companies to cover abortions, bothers me abit. Now with my limited understanding of the health insurance industry, abortion has always been considered under there eyes "cosmetic" type surgery which most insurance companies don't cover at all. Usually if some one wants laser eye surgery or liposuction they have to pay for said operations themselves, unless such surgeries are viewed as the only option by a doctor.
This part threw me for a loop
Supporters of the bill said it looks after the interests of employers opposed to having abortions covered by insurance they subsidize. Opponents such as Nash said abortion is an important medical procedure that should be covered like anything else.
This is just another case of government paternalism. I would think Kansas business owners have the ability to decide for themselves to not deal with a particular insurance agent if said agent supplies coverage for abortions. If one can successfully run a business, I would think that such a decision would be as simple as flipping a coin. As it stands, abortion is legal in Kansas so this could go to court under the fact that the government is prohibiting private insures to cover a procedure that is current a legal procedure.
Abortion should only be legal in cases of rape and related crimes (even though I'm very reluctant to even support that) and not tax payer funded. The pro-life fight should be fought at the state level via the 10th Amendment (defunding planned parenthood, cutting tax payer fiance, and ultimately banning it at the state level) but strong arming the private sector like this is certainly not a way to go about it.
This part threw me for a loop
Supporters of the bill said it looks after the interests of employers opposed to having abortions covered by insurance they subsidize. Opponents such as Nash said abortion is an important medical procedure that should be covered like anything else.
This is just another case of government paternalism. I would think Kansas business owners have the ability to decide for themselves to not deal with a particular insurance agent if said agent supplies coverage for abortions. If one can successfully run a business, I would think that such a decision would be as simple as flipping a coin. As it stands, abortion is legal in Kansas so this could go to court under the fact that the government is prohibiting private insures to cover a procedure that is current a legal procedure.
Abortion should only be legal in cases of rape and related crimes (even though I'm very reluctant to even support that) and not tax payer funded. The pro-life fight should be fought at the state level via the 10th Amendment (defunding planned parenthood, cutting tax payer fiance, and ultimately banning it at the state level) but strong arming the private sector like this is certainly not a way to go about it.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Government, Baseball and Steroids
With the Barry Bonds trial over and done with, the questhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifion has to be asked; Why should the government be involved in Major League Baseball's internal affairs?
Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of steroids, HGH and other performance enhancing drugs in baseball or any of the major leagues for that matter. What upsets me is that government is sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. Some may say that with the drug war (which is nothing but a waste of tax payer money) still being waged that this gives the government a loophole to get it's foot in the door. The government's involvement with the Mitchell Report and the various testimonies in front of congress were nothing different than MLB doing the same things themselves by setting up independent panels. Bonds' trial resolved nothing but just to give a feel good feeling to people who hate Barry Bonds. I don't like Bonds myself but he shouldn't have gone to trial. It was just a waste of tax payer money.
Their is a reason that MLB is ranked third among the four major sports leagues. If MBL is actually serious about cleaning up it's image they have to get extremely tough on cheaters. They can't continue to deliver slaps on the wrist for players who test positive, they need to hand out tough suspensions and punishments and stick by it. A big star player should face the same tough punishment as a backup player it should be no different. One positive trend that I see personally is that writers are taking stands against the juicers and refusing to vote them into the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY. However this can be taken in two different ways;
1. Writers actually making a stand
2. Writers just looking to make names for themselves
With number one, others in the sports media regard this is as the so-called "old guard" refusing to change. I fully support excluding juicers from Cooperstown, Cooperstown is reserved for the Best of the Best not those who cheat. It's a slap in the face to the legends who got their on their own merit.
Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of steroids, HGH and other performance enhancing drugs in baseball or any of the major leagues for that matter. What upsets me is that government is sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. Some may say that with the drug war (which is nothing but a waste of tax payer money) still being waged that this gives the government a loophole to get it's foot in the door. The government's involvement with the Mitchell Report and the various testimonies in front of congress were nothing different than MLB doing the same things themselves by setting up independent panels. Bonds' trial resolved nothing but just to give a feel good feeling to people who hate Barry Bonds. I don't like Bonds myself but he shouldn't have gone to trial. It was just a waste of tax payer money.
Their is a reason that MLB is ranked third among the four major sports leagues. If MBL is actually serious about cleaning up it's image they have to get extremely tough on cheaters. They can't continue to deliver slaps on the wrist for players who test positive, they need to hand out tough suspensions and punishments and stick by it. A big star player should face the same tough punishment as a backup player it should be no different. One positive trend that I see personally is that writers are taking stands against the juicers and refusing to vote them into the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY. However this can be taken in two different ways;
1. Writers actually making a stand
2. Writers just looking to make names for themselves
With number one, others in the sports media regard this is as the so-called "old guard" refusing to change. I fully support excluding juicers from Cooperstown, Cooperstown is reserved for the Best of the Best not those who cheat. It's a slap in the face to the legends who got their on their own merit.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Libertarians for Trump?
I don't know if anyone who considers themselves a libertarian would consider Donald Trump for president but I discovered this video from Politico regarding his statement that he can get OPEC to http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.giflower oil prices.
His statement that we have so much power should be a clear indicator that he seems to have no problem with using the military to "lower" prices. This comes only years later when he publicly said that the Iraq War was a complete mistake and may have gotten libertarian support at the time.
If that wasn't enough, back in 2000 he stated that he supports abortion while at the same time supports the partial abortion ban. I personally see no difference, a child is still getting murdered all that is different between the two is the time frame.
Third Outside the Beltway reports that Trump is a supporter of Canadian style Health Care.
So he supports murder both domestically and abroad, and supports government health care. So whats appealing about this guy again?
His statement that we have so much power should be a clear indicator that he seems to have no problem with using the military to "lower" prices. This comes only years later when he publicly said that the Iraq War was a complete mistake and may have gotten libertarian support at the time.
If that wasn't enough, back in 2000 he stated that he supports abortion while at the same time supports the partial abortion ban. I personally see no difference, a child is still getting murdered all that is different between the two is the time frame.
Third Outside the Beltway reports that Trump is a supporter of Canadian style Health Care.
So he supports murder both domestically and abroad, and supports government health care. So whats appealing about this guy again?
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Is it Time to Question the Libertarian Party?
This letter from Karen Kwiatkowski who writes for Libertarian websites like LewRockwell.com. She questions the LP's commitment to Libertarian principals.
Open Letter to Mark Hinkle, Libertarian Party National Chair
Dear Mark,
Your email to me on March 30, 2011 expressed concern that in a speech I gave a few days ago, I criticized the Libertarian Party for becoming associated with pro-war rhetoric, and not sticking to libertarian principles. You asked, “…why level a critique against the Libertarian Party for the pro-war support of a minority within the Party?” and wanted me to name names.
Because the LP has taken a very public stand that it is a party founded and based on principle, not popularity, it makes itself vulnerable to criticism for appearing unprincipled. The 2008 LP presidential nomination of well-known conservative Bob Barr, and the promotion to Chair of the LP National Congressional Committee of the rabidly pro-war Wayne Allyn Root caused people of all political stripes to look at the LP and wonder whether the principle of the party was peaceful libertarianism, or just political experimentation and number-crunching.
These less principled Libertarian figures may have represented the minority view of the party, but their names are strongly associated with the LP, hence my criticism. In fact, even before the Barr and Root elevations within the party, in 2005, the LP published an “Iraq Exit Strategy” which called for troops leaving gradually, not coming home but instead being redistributed throughout the Middle East, and pouring in direct aid to Iraq’s nascent state-building efforts. This proposal was not at all libertarian. Shockingly, it was as interventionist and imperial as anything put forth by either a Left-Progressive or Right-Conservative think tank.
Wayne Root, in particular, is allowed by the LP to speak for the party, and honest libertarians throughout the American population and within the LP are turned off. You suggest that my criticism of these anti-liberty, pro-state LP voices are the same as criticizing the GOP for being pro-life because some minority members of the GOP are pro-life. But when the GOP fields candidates and spokespersons, particularly at the national level, they toe the party line, and they don’t suggest that there is “room” at the philosophical table. Our own LP table is already small. Embracing statists and nationalists quietly within the party is one thing; making them front and center as a leading voice of recruitment and policy means that these types of unprincipled non-libertarian perspectives become the LP in the minds of everyone.
Why haven’t we, as a party, asked Wayne to simply join one of the war parties?
I have a suggestion for the LP HQ strategists. The focus on vote-getting at the national level has led the LP into precisely the situation that you are noting today (a criticism of the party within liberty circles). I would love to see the party concentrate on supporting local elections of libertarians (which it does nicely), and in DC, to serve primarily as a rating and clearance site for Congressmen and Senators. Take your issues (http://www.lp.org/issues) and create a liberty friendliness rating on each issue for each congressman, much like the John Birch Society does on conservatism. (See http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=2151 ) or as the Heritage Foundation does for economic freedom in countries around the world. This type of approach would make our positions politically applicable and measurable, and a “Liberty “rating will be something many Congressmen will welcome and seek (or angrily react to). It would also allow many of us in the field to jump on it, further making the LP relevant. This way we remain a “party of principle,” with the added benefit of being a party that is listened to, and donated to, because it is loud, proud, and principled.
I also think, that beyond the fleas the LP gets from lying down with characters like Root, and promoting him, we should be careful about our other bedfellows in DC. The Cato Institute does fine work, but it is not as effective in gaining Libertarian friendly legislation and votes as is Jim Babka’s interactive and aggressive DownsizeDC, and nothing Cato has produced on constitutional foreign or domestic policy comes even close to what is done daily over at the Bumper Hornberger’s Future of Freedom Foundation in Reston, VA.
Mark, my fundamental sense of betrayal and anger at the LP for its 2008 shenanigans and for its lack of creativity in the fight for freedom at home is far deeper than anyone would imagine from my limited criticism of the party, mentioned briefly in a long talk. May I take your note as an opening for real change within the LP Central Committee and a real commitment to win the battle for hearts and minds across the country?
Sincerely,
Karen Kwiatkowski
ksusiek@shentel.net
Her criticism is warranted, the Libertarian Party cannot bill itself as the only liberty alternative to Republicans and Democrats with warmonger Wayne Allyn Root as it's main spokesman. The party is supposed to be the party of principals, not the party of lies and death, we already have two of those. Granted Libertarian candidates still have much more credibility than conservatives and liberals but they can't go down to their level in order to beat them.
Open Letter to Mark Hinkle, Libertarian Party National Chair
Dear Mark,
Your email to me on March 30, 2011 expressed concern that in a speech I gave a few days ago, I criticized the Libertarian Party for becoming associated with pro-war rhetoric, and not sticking to libertarian principles. You asked, “…why level a critique against the Libertarian Party for the pro-war support of a minority within the Party?” and wanted me to name names.
Because the LP has taken a very public stand that it is a party founded and based on principle, not popularity, it makes itself vulnerable to criticism for appearing unprincipled. The 2008 LP presidential nomination of well-known conservative Bob Barr, and the promotion to Chair of the LP National Congressional Committee of the rabidly pro-war Wayne Allyn Root caused people of all political stripes to look at the LP and wonder whether the principle of the party was peaceful libertarianism, or just political experimentation and number-crunching.
These less principled Libertarian figures may have represented the minority view of the party, but their names are strongly associated with the LP, hence my criticism. In fact, even before the Barr and Root elevations within the party, in 2005, the LP published an “Iraq Exit Strategy” which called for troops leaving gradually, not coming home but instead being redistributed throughout the Middle East, and pouring in direct aid to Iraq’s nascent state-building efforts. This proposal was not at all libertarian. Shockingly, it was as interventionist and imperial as anything put forth by either a Left-Progressive or Right-Conservative think tank.
Wayne Root, in particular, is allowed by the LP to speak for the party, and honest libertarians throughout the American population and within the LP are turned off. You suggest that my criticism of these anti-liberty, pro-state LP voices are the same as criticizing the GOP for being pro-life because some minority members of the GOP are pro-life. But when the GOP fields candidates and spokespersons, particularly at the national level, they toe the party line, and they don’t suggest that there is “room” at the philosophical table. Our own LP table is already small. Embracing statists and nationalists quietly within the party is one thing; making them front and center as a leading voice of recruitment and policy means that these types of unprincipled non-libertarian perspectives become the LP in the minds of everyone.
Why haven’t we, as a party, asked Wayne to simply join one of the war parties?
I have a suggestion for the LP HQ strategists. The focus on vote-getting at the national level has led the LP into precisely the situation that you are noting today (a criticism of the party within liberty circles). I would love to see the party concentrate on supporting local elections of libertarians (which it does nicely), and in DC, to serve primarily as a rating and clearance site for Congressmen and Senators. Take your issues (http://www.lp.org/issues) and create a liberty friendliness rating on each issue for each congressman, much like the John Birch Society does on conservatism. (See http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=2151 ) or as the Heritage Foundation does for economic freedom in countries around the world. This type of approach would make our positions politically applicable and measurable, and a “Liberty “rating will be something many Congressmen will welcome and seek (or angrily react to). It would also allow many of us in the field to jump on it, further making the LP relevant. This way we remain a “party of principle,” with the added benefit of being a party that is listened to, and donated to, because it is loud, proud, and principled.
I also think, that beyond the fleas the LP gets from lying down with characters like Root, and promoting him, we should be careful about our other bedfellows in DC. The Cato Institute does fine work, but it is not as effective in gaining Libertarian friendly legislation and votes as is Jim Babka’s interactive and aggressive DownsizeDC, and nothing Cato has produced on constitutional foreign or domestic policy comes even close to what is done daily over at the Bumper Hornberger’s Future of Freedom Foundation in Reston, VA.
Mark, my fundamental sense of betrayal and anger at the LP for its 2008 shenanigans and for its lack of creativity in the fight for freedom at home is far deeper than anyone would imagine from my limited criticism of the party, mentioned briefly in a long talk. May I take your note as an opening for real change within the LP Central Committee and a real commitment to win the battle for hearts and minds across the country?
Sincerely,
Karen Kwiatkowski
ksusiek@shentel.net
Her criticism is warranted, the Libertarian Party cannot bill itself as the only liberty alternative to Republicans and Democrats with warmonger Wayne Allyn Root as it's main spokesman. The party is supposed to be the party of principals, not the party of lies and death, we already have two of those. Granted Libertarian candidates still have much more credibility than conservatives and liberals but they can't go down to their level in order to beat them.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Conservative Tears.....They're So Delicious
If there wasn't enough proof that conservatives hate libertarians and just use us for votes we just got one more piece of proof. Here Kevin McCullough blasts Ron Paul's CPAC straw poll victory saying that libertarians are being disrespectful. First of all, last time I checked, respect is earned and conservatives haven't done a damm thing to earn it.
Gary Johnson was only added to the lineup at the last minute, his presence stoking the flame of immoral libertarianism that actually advocated for legalized pot and the redefinition of marriage to include homosexual unions.
I'm always amused at the huge hypocrisy of social and religious conservatives. They always claim that they are for getting government off the backs of the people when at the same time they alongside the left support government thuggery to eliminate something they don't like. What right does McCullough and his followers have to tell what adults can and cannot put into their own bodies? Sounds like the nanny state but it's ok in the minds of conservatives because their story book says it's ok. I have no problem with gay marriage for the fact it doesn't affect my rights as a person in any shape or forum. However I also support the position of getting the government out of marriage which would include getting rid of all the benefits the state gives to married couples. You would think that position would be well receptive to conservatives but in my personal research and conversations with conservatives they don't like that idea either. Apparently thats even more leftist than supporting gay marriage according to some that I have personally talked to.
And it is the libertarian in attendance that eschewed, booed, cajoled and screamed "war criminal" to Vice President Dick Cheney, a man who served his country with commitment and still attempts to help the world understand the threat of the radical Islamic element devising plans to eliminate us and our allies.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney served? Really when? It's pretty much common knowledge at this point that Cheney like Limbaugh, Clinton, Tancredo, and O'Reily avoided going to Vietnam. Of course the strongest foam at the mouth voices for war are always those who avoided the service themselves.
Libertarians and Conservatives are as different as Libertarians and Liberals. The truth is libertarians are the worst form of political affiliation in the nation. Combining the desire of economic greed, with the amoral desire to promote any behavior regardless of its cost to our culture is a stark departure from the intent of the Founding Fathers.
Yes, like every other Joe who likes money. Greed is good, greed is a motivator for some people. I work in retail management, I'm paid based on my personal and store performance. I don't sell, I don't make money. If we were still in the Cold War, McCullough would've been blasted as a Communist. Granted there are some conservatives that still live in the Cold War mentality.
As for promoting amoral behavior, there is a difference between legalizing something and actually doing the act. If the drug war was ended tomorrow and all drug prohibition laws were destroyed your not going to see bodies of drug users litter the streets the next day. This is classic doom and gloom speak. If said behaviors don't violate the rights of the said people involved than it's no one's business but the said people involved. Perhaps McCullough and his followers should take the old saying of Mind your own business at heart but social and religious conservatism is all about being a busybody.
Granted this still doesn't translate into Dr. Paul making a run at President, it is still just a straw poll. However it does mean that Paul's idea's are only growing bigger for the true liberty movement.
Gary Johnson was only added to the lineup at the last minute, his presence stoking the flame of immoral libertarianism that actually advocated for legalized pot and the redefinition of marriage to include homosexual unions.
I'm always amused at the huge hypocrisy of social and religious conservatives. They always claim that they are for getting government off the backs of the people when at the same time they alongside the left support government thuggery to eliminate something they don't like. What right does McCullough and his followers have to tell what adults can and cannot put into their own bodies? Sounds like the nanny state but it's ok in the minds of conservatives because their story book says it's ok. I have no problem with gay marriage for the fact it doesn't affect my rights as a person in any shape or forum. However I also support the position of getting the government out of marriage which would include getting rid of all the benefits the state gives to married couples. You would think that position would be well receptive to conservatives but in my personal research and conversations with conservatives they don't like that idea either. Apparently thats even more leftist than supporting gay marriage according to some that I have personally talked to.
And it is the libertarian in attendance that eschewed, booed, cajoled and screamed "war criminal" to Vice President Dick Cheney, a man who served his country with commitment and still attempts to help the world understand the threat of the radical Islamic element devising plans to eliminate us and our allies.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney served? Really when? It's pretty much common knowledge at this point that Cheney like Limbaugh, Clinton, Tancredo, and O'Reily avoided going to Vietnam. Of course the strongest foam at the mouth voices for war are always those who avoided the service themselves.
Libertarians and Conservatives are as different as Libertarians and Liberals. The truth is libertarians are the worst form of political affiliation in the nation. Combining the desire of economic greed, with the amoral desire to promote any behavior regardless of its cost to our culture is a stark departure from the intent of the Founding Fathers.
Yes, like every other Joe who likes money. Greed is good, greed is a motivator for some people. I work in retail management, I'm paid based on my personal and store performance. I don't sell, I don't make money. If we were still in the Cold War, McCullough would've been blasted as a Communist. Granted there are some conservatives that still live in the Cold War mentality.
As for promoting amoral behavior, there is a difference between legalizing something and actually doing the act. If the drug war was ended tomorrow and all drug prohibition laws were destroyed your not going to see bodies of drug users litter the streets the next day. This is classic doom and gloom speak. If said behaviors don't violate the rights of the said people involved than it's no one's business but the said people involved. Perhaps McCullough and his followers should take the old saying of Mind your own business at heart but social and religious conservatism is all about being a busybody.
Granted this still doesn't translate into Dr. Paul making a run at President, it is still just a straw poll. However it does mean that Paul's idea's are only growing bigger for the true liberty movement.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Libertarians are Right Wing?
One of the advantages or disadvantages (depending on how you look at it) to being a libertarian is that liberals and conservatives accuse of us of being the other.
Daily Dish blogger Andrew Sullivan had nominated Lew Rockwell of all people for the Michelle Malkin award. Now what in anyone's political mind who actually pays attention and not just repeats sound bites would think Lew Rockwell and Michelle Malkin are the same stripe? Is it just the repeated myth that Libertarians and Conservatives are the same or is it Sullivan's plain ignorance (either on purpose or not) of both ideologies? If Sullivan and those who share his view on this subject would do some simple research, they would come to the quick realization that libertarians and conservatives are completely different.
Conservatives firmly stand for the following;
1. National Security State/Police Socialism (TSA, Patriot Act, Drug War, etc)
2. Military Keynesianism (current foreign policy, bases all over the world, etc)
3. Morality legislation
However in no way this exempts liberals, since they support both of these concepts as well. They just disguise it enough so their supporters can't catch on. In reality liberals and Conservatives stand for the same thing with the only difference is that Conservatives mask it in the collectivist concept of organized religion in order to justify it. Rockwell and company have spoken out and continue to speak out against these actions since day one. Unlike conservatives who only pay lip service to the ideas of privatizing social security, cutting and phasing out entitlements, actually letting, stopping government thuggery, people keep more of their money among others. Libertarian Ron Paul is the only one as usual who practices and acts on what he preaches. So if liberals really wanna criticize us, they should really do some research before lumping us with their red statist kin.
Daily Dish blogger Andrew Sullivan had nominated Lew Rockwell of all people for the Michelle Malkin award. Now what in anyone's political mind who actually pays attention and not just repeats sound bites would think Lew Rockwell and Michelle Malkin are the same stripe? Is it just the repeated myth that Libertarians and Conservatives are the same or is it Sullivan's plain ignorance (either on purpose or not) of both ideologies? If Sullivan and those who share his view on this subject would do some simple research, they would come to the quick realization that libertarians and conservatives are completely different.
Conservatives firmly stand for the following;
1. National Security State/Police Socialism (TSA, Patriot Act, Drug War, etc)
2. Military Keynesianism (current foreign policy, bases all over the world, etc)
3. Morality legislation
However in no way this exempts liberals, since they support both of these concepts as well. They just disguise it enough so their supporters can't catch on. In reality liberals and Conservatives stand for the same thing with the only difference is that Conservatives mask it in the collectivist concept of organized religion in order to justify it. Rockwell and company have spoken out and continue to speak out against these actions since day one. Unlike conservatives who only pay lip service to the ideas of privatizing social security, cutting and phasing out entitlements, actually letting, stopping government thuggery, people keep more of their money among others. Libertarian Ron Paul is the only one as usual who practices and acts on what he preaches. So if liberals really wanna criticize us, they should really do some research before lumping us with their red statist kin.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Politics and Sports
One of my biggest pet peeves is seeing sports and politics mix, whether it's athletes making statements on a hot button issue the rabble rousing over the 2008 Olympics in China or Major League Baseball debating about hosting the All Star game in Arizona due to it's immigration law.
With Martin Luther King day coming up on the 17th, ESPN goes into it's yearly event of talking to prominent black athletes and leaders during the civil rights era. In addition posting various polls on how white and black fans react to certain players and situations. ESPN tries to be non-controversial when discussing issues of race when they present themselves however bringing an asshole like Jesse Jackson is just a completely wrong move. Yes, Jackson was in Dr. King's inner circle but there is a huge difference between the Jackson of that era and the Jackson that we know today. For years Jesse Jackson has used Dr. King's legacy to line his own wallet and his own personal agenda. Dr. King would be turning in his grave if he saw what Jackson alongside Al Sharpton has done over the years. They have no intention of letting character dictate what a person is, it's skin color in their minds and nothing more.
I would be just as equally annoyed if conservative news outlets brought on Pat Buchanan of all people in an MLK discussion. Since just like Sharpton and Jackson, Buchanan and others like him Frosty Wooldridge being an example look for race whenever they can. One pair looks for racism at every corner while the other looks for affirmative action.
With Martin Luther King day coming up on the 17th, ESPN goes into it's yearly event of talking to prominent black athletes and leaders during the civil rights era. In addition posting various polls on how white and black fans react to certain players and situations. ESPN tries to be non-controversial when discussing issues of race when they present themselves however bringing an asshole like Jesse Jackson is just a completely wrong move. Yes, Jackson was in Dr. King's inner circle but there is a huge difference between the Jackson of that era and the Jackson that we know today. For years Jesse Jackson has used Dr. King's legacy to line his own wallet and his own personal agenda. Dr. King would be turning in his grave if he saw what Jackson alongside Al Sharpton has done over the years. They have no intention of letting character dictate what a person is, it's skin color in their minds and nothing more.
I would be just as equally annoyed if conservative news outlets brought on Pat Buchanan of all people in an MLK discussion. Since just like Sharpton and Jackson, Buchanan and others like him Frosty Wooldridge being an example look for race whenever they can. One pair looks for racism at every corner while the other looks for affirmative action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)