What I Learned About the Democrats Sit-In

So with currently no action on barring people who are the authoritarian no-fly list from buying guns. Democrats including prominent civil rights figure Jon Lewis have staged a sit-in on the House floor. I personally don't see this sit-in accomplishing anything than getting attention in the media and creating funny internet memes. On one hand a government doing something outside of passing more statist legislation that will continue to erode our rights to me is a good thing. Politicians should sit around and do nothing more often.

The reason for this sit-in should also put to bed the notion that the left is for civil liberties. With some rare exceptions such as Glenn Greenwald who has been consistently against the national security state since 9/11 majority of the left has made it's peace with the national security and warfare states. Alternatively you could say that they were just anti-Bush, anti-conservative (not that I don't disagree with that sentiment) and just were anti-police state out of spite rather than actual interest in defending civil liberties. However it's not just the sit-in that points this out, it's been the entire Obama error, the anti-war left fire more or less died (again some very small exceptions) and the left learned to love the police state. Sure they do a dog and pony show for issues such as police brutality but in reality it's just all bark and no bite. There have maybe a time when the left actually defended civil liberties but that time has lone passed.

Don't get me wrong, this doesn't mean I all of a sudden I trust conservatives with civil liberties. No way in hell this current episode in political theater changes that. I've said for years that conservatism (and all three flavors; paleoconservatism, neoconservatism and neoreactionary) and liberalism are just two different flavors of socialism. I still hate conservatives but one can't help but see that the left's latest stunt makes conservatives appear in a better light on the surface. Sadly there are still libertarians of several stripes out there who think that movement can work with conservatives but that's another argument for another day.

In conclusion with very few expections such as Rand Paul, Justin Amash along with Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich (when Feingold and Kucinich were in office) liberalism and conservatism has no interest in protecting our liberties. It's foolish to think otherwise. They'll do their respective songs and dances to show that they are somehow different from their "opposition" but in reality they don't want to roll back the state just be in control of it.

  

Conservative Hypocrisy and Why Liberals Should Dump Gun Control

A few days ago Vice did an article on the Huey P. Newton Gun club and their patrolling of black Dallas neighborhoods. Based on the article the group acts in way what libertarians have been envisioning in a world without government provided law enforcement. A band of people uniting under a guise of protecting their community, openly carrying their firearms which is their right and educating others about gun rights.

One would think that those who are for the right to self defense would actually be in support of what the club is doing right?

Wrong.

Being that the club is liberal it has obviously ruffled some conservative feathers like those at Conservative Tribune describing them as a band of thugs.

Now for the record as a libertarian anarcho-capitalist, I'm pretty open about my hatred for liberals and conservatives (that includes the branches of neoconservatism and paleoconservatism). However that hatred doesn't blind me to the fact that they don't deserve to have the same rights as me, they do. Despite that they want to take my rights away via the guns of the state in one way or another. Also I will note that while I'm a gun owner I do not belong to any groups. Reasons being that; 1. I don't want to associate with conservatives as I hate them and 2. That majority of gun groups don't see (or choose to ignore) that foreign policy affects domestic policy which includes gun ownership. It should be also noted that the NRA technically has a branch in New York state but it's called the New York Rifle and Pistol Association.

Some of the quotes from the statist writer that stick out to me:

"Given its frontier reputation, Texas is surprisingly one of the few states that doesn’t allow concealed carry. However, it does allow the open carry of firearms, which the group uses to an alarming effect."

"Of course, said flag represents the Constitution that allows them to demonstrate with weapons to intimidate people, but shh."

"It’s good to see that while the gun rights of average Americans are under assault from the Obama administration, these guys don’t even get the slightest bit of attention."


"Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter to stand up to the Huey P. Newton Gun Club’s intimidation."

If the website wasn't named Conservative Tribune you almost think that this would be coming out of a anti-gun liberal. It seems that this statist and others who share his "concern" want the guns and boots of the state to keep a special eye on the gun club if not outright stop their right to assemble peacefully. However this wouldn't be the first time that conservatives had demonstrated a double standard for non-conservative gun owners and it won't be the last. It also shows that liberals really need to kick the gun control habit because it helps no one. While the gun club most likely supports liberal economic policies they at least recognize that the police are not your friend, despite all the programming that we are put through in public school and the individual is responsible for their own self defense. However I highly doubt liberals will dump gun control anytime soon.

Conservative Sacred Cows

Fighting for real liberty is an ever daunting task. One such tasks is taking on sacred cows of various political movements. Besides the bullshit that is organized religion one of the biggest sacred cows of the conservative movement is the military. Thomas DiLorenzo of LewRockwell.com praises Ken Blackstone's comments in regards to the national anthem being played at various sporting events on ESPN.

Clicking on the YouTube link and you see the predicable and same old comments from conservative military jock sniffers. However it does get better as Mr. DiLorenzo did post one of the responses he got from a conservative statist (is that redundant?):

“Screw you.  Thank GOD you’re in the ignorant minority.  There will always be the ANTHEM at sporting events, ESPN’s 2 foolish so-called sport analysts will pay for their stupid comments.”

If your interested in sending this statist hate mail, his email was posted on the blog post as well. It's amusing when you see reactions from conservatives. Why? Conservatives correctly reject political correctness but whenever someone has a different view in regards to things that they worship they break down and act emotionally to those criticisms. Such as Mr. Amick's letter or rant towards Mr. DiLorenzo. In other words they behave like liberals. Such reactions to criticisms level against the military (along with criticisms against the police for that matter) separate the real liberty lovers from those who only praise liberty in order to control the boots of the state themselves to use for their own statist means.

I also recommend this older article from Laurence Vance when another conservative attacked him for daring challenging the conservative sacred cow.

Matt Drudge the Libertarian?

Activist Post reports on a couple of tweets Drudge Report's own Matt Drudge made on September 3rd.

Tweet #1:

"Why would anyone vote Republican? Please give reason. Raised taxes; marching us off to war again; approved more NSA snooping. WHO ARE THEY?!" 

Tweet #2

"It's now Authoritarian vs Libertarian. Since Democrats vs. Republicans has been obliterated, no real difference between parties..."


One thing Drudge gets right is that the battle for liberty is authoritarian vs libertarian. Republican vs Democrat has been a joke since the days of Bush senior. At least back then it was just which party wants take which rights away from you. However if he really wanted to make an actually believable statement he would replace Republican vs Democrat with Conservative vs Liberal. Republicans and Democrats aren't political ideologies, they're parties that are used as vehicles to advance political ideologies. If he was actually interested in liberty he would reject conservatism by announcing that it's no better than liberalism in addition to quoting my favorite Lew Rockwell quote.

Point being, Drudge and other conservatives like him to claim to "seeing the light" and actually want to support liberty as opposed the false liberty that they've been trumpeting for years on end have to do alot more than a couple of tweets stating what libertarians have been saying for years.

No Scottie Hughes, Libertarians are not Conservatives

Perhaps I'm wasting my time but Garry Reed of Examiner reports on how conservative Scottie Hughes joins the long list of conservatives who have no actual idea on what libertarianism is. Lets go through the points that she considers what libertarians to be;

Until Libertarians have a serious candidate running on more than just legalization of marijuana, both Republicans and Democrats have an equal chance at recruiting this growing bloc of voters, especially among the younger voters who have recently turned to the Libertarian viewpoint as a result of their mistrust of Government. 

What exactly does Hughes consider a serious candidate? I think if a candidate and their staff (especially third party candidates) spend the time and resources to collect signatures and run a campaign would be considered a serious candidate. Not to mention also fighting challenges to ballot access that come from the liberal and conservative candidates.

Saying that libertarians only care about marijuana legalization is pretty damm dishonest if not out right stupid. Was Hughes not paying any attention to Ron Paul's 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns? Other than talking about the statist drug war Ron Paul went into depth about foreign policy, monetary policy, trade, the national security state, the patriot act, personal liberty among others. The top libertarians websites such as LewRockwell.com, EconomicpolicyJournal.com and Antiwar.com along with libertarian figures like Judge Andrew Napolitano, Justin Raimondo, Radley Balko and Karen DeCoster advocate issues other than the legalization of marijuana.

For years, GOP grandees have taken it for granted that Libertarians would be with them come Election Day. After all, aren't Libertarians essentially free-market, freedom-loving conservatives who just don't want to be formally affiliated with Republicans?

Well she does get right that the Republican party has taken advantage of libertarian voters during the times that conservatives have power but to say that libertarians are just conservatives who don't want to be associated with the Republican party is just a lie. I can only speak for myself but I rather be lynched by David Duke himself than be associated with conservatives and conservatism.

To quote Lew Rockwell;

"What does conservatism today stand for? It stands for war. It stands for power. It stands for spying, jailing without trial, torture, counterfeiting without limit, and lying from morning to night. There comes a time in the life of every believer in freedom when he must declare, without any hesitation, to have no attachment to the idea of conservatism."

Conservatives want to fool independents and middle of the road voters that they're the ones who will stop the movement of statism. Sure conservatives are against statist programs such as Obamacare and gun control but even on those issues they're just as hypocritical as any run of the mill liberal. Remember conservatives weren't and still aren't against statist programs like domestic spying, the Patriot Act, the national security state and happily cheer on the military-industrial complex when their guys were in power. Yes some will point to paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan and Chuck Baldwin as being against those things from day one but when reading about paleoconservatism one realizes that the paleoconservatives just want to enforce their own statist ideas onto people. For all the bluster conservatives go on about supporting liberty, their record shows that they do the complete opposite. Compare Ron Paul's congressional record to any of the so-called "real conservatives" that have served in the house alongside with him and Dr. Paul's record still wins out. Another stand out between libertarians and conservatives is the non-aggression principal. How many conservatives actually advocate let alone support the non-aggression principal? The answer is not too many if not zero.


By definition, a Libertarian is a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action. Libertarians believe in personal responsibility while preserving personal freedom. They oppose the Government interfering with any of their business, family, or personal decisions.

It all sounds like Republican boilerplate until you get to two issues that will cause Libertarians to defect to Democrats in droves, if they haven't already.

If conservatives were actually interested in keeping the state out of business, family and personal issues they would've resolved them during the three separate times they have gotten in power. The Reagan Revolution, the Republican Revolution in the 1990s and the Bush era. If conservatives were actually interested in true liberty;  the welfare state (social security, medicare, medicaid, SCHIP, etc), public schools, minimum wage, the militarization of domestic police forces and various gun control laws among other things wouldn't be here. The truth of the matter is they don't and only use it as campaign talking points.

To say that libertarians would all of a sudden flock to liberals is outright stupid and intellectually dishonest. There are as many problems with liberalism and there is with conservatism.



As the Democrats watch the Tea Party and other Conservative groups continue to grow in momentum towards 2014, they know they must appeal to Libertarians. And it is their libertine social views that could be an opening for voter recruitment. Watch as the Democrats start running more emotional campaign commercials focused on issues like equal marriage rights for all, how pot can relieve painful health symptoms, and an oppressive national security apparatus. The Republicans; however, might also tweak their message by focusing on the outrageous spending and new limits and restrictions which this Administration has implemented in volume on small businesses and individual freedoms.

Today's Libertarians are not very organized; however, with over 1 million voting for the official Libertarian Party's nominee in the last Presidential election, these voters will be even more valuable in a non-Presidential election. Let's just hope the majority of Libertarians are more influenced by the words of Reagan and Goldwater then Cheech and Chong.

The only way conservatives are going to appeal to libertarian voters is to reject conservatism. (see the Lew Rockwell quote) To claim that libertarians will be swayed by emotional campaigns by liberals is laughable and outright pathetic. Other than bluster there is nothing that conservatism offers that actually proves to the libertarian voter (the ones who still think that voting may work) that this time it will be different. As much as I hate Pat Buchanan, he was right, fusionism (the merging of libertarianism into the conservative movement) doesn't work and never well. For most libertarians

As for the invoking the conservative demi-god Ronald Reagan, the late Austrian economist Murray Rothbard exposed what "the gipper" really was; a statist.

Conservatives and Foot Baths

The funniest thing about the conservative outrage is their cries of "sharia law" engulfing the U.S. It's really a boy who cried wolf act for the conservative movement.

Conservative Michael Haltman of The Political Commentator who I found through Freedoms Phoenix afternoon email.  (What? You think I would waste my time in actually looking for conservative blogs?) Seems to be angry or at the very least annoyed that airports in New York City and San Francisco are installing foot baths for Muslim cab drivers and why aren't Christians accommodated for their religion at airports. He also puts up a video of a rant from some guy in Brooklyn who doesn't address the point (not that I though the said ranter was going to anyway).

Conservatives point to actions such as these as "proof" (along with state court houses removing the 10 Commandments) that sharia is slowly creeping into U.S. society and that "it must be stopped!" The problem conservatives fail to see or choose to ignore is public property. Garry Reed of Examiner.com explained this in regards to the idiotic "War on Christmas". If these airports were actual private and not under the crony capitalist relationship they are currently "issues" like these wouldn't matter. Since then conservatives could then spend their money at airports that have crosses, bibles, banners that say: Support Israel and such. However despite the many times conservatives have had power to clear that they have no problem with public property as long as they're the ones in charge of it.
 

The Republican Party wants your help to learn from it's mistakes

So the Republican Party once again trotting out the predicable line that happens when they lose an election; they're ready to learn from their mistakes. According to this piece they're taking suggestions on how to rebuild the Republican Conservative brand and they have their own website set up for people to leave suggestions. Of course most libertarians know that this is just a dog and pony show that liberals and conservatives run when they lose.

However if someone from the RNC task force stumbles upon my soap box here are my suggestions to get voters to vote for them;

1. Reject statism in all it's forms which includes both Neoconservatism and Paleoconservatism

2. End all foreign alliances and entanglements which would include but not limited to the United Nations, NATO, OAS, etc

2a. Close all US military bases that are on foreign soil and bring all military personnel from said bases back to the US

3. End all foreign aid immediately, no weening period just cut the cord and be done with it

4. End the drug war. History shows that alcohol prohibition failed miserably, the drug war is no different. You can't say that gun control doesn't work while at the same time openly supporting the drug war since they both rely on the same "principals"

5. Repeal, SOPA, the Patriot Act and other arms of the national security state

6. End the federal minimum wage

7. End immunity laws for those in law enforcement who are caught abusing civil liberties of citizens

8. Support the real free market by ending government subsidies, federal licensing mandates, etc

9. End not just cut all taxes across the board

10.  End the TSA, DHS, remove government security from transporation hubs and allow the owners of the various airlines to provide their own security

11. End eminent domain. This is nothing but legalized theft and has to stop. If a property owner doesn't want to sell his land than the state has no legal authority to take it

There are plenty more suggestions that the RNC task force can actually use but I figure these 11 would be a nice start. Not that they would actually use them mind you

Random Observations

When I do errands around my area I always see interesting bumper stickers. Today I saw this one;

Why I vote for Conservatives
The 10 Commandments

First of all I openly believe that organized religion is bullshit and a scam. At the very least Scientology is just a few hairs "honest" about their scam. For the record I'm technically a Catholic.

I usually get chuckles when I see conservative bumper stickers that invoke religion to promote their views. I didn't realize Jesus would approve of money stolen at government gun point to give to foreign nations, illegal government wiretaps, jailing without trial, military adventurism, torture and counterfeiting to name a few. But hey thats better than what liberals stand for right? Which in reality is the same thing.

Are Conservatives Starting To Become Scared?

It's getting to be that time again; another presidential election in which the two main choices don't show a dime's worth of difference between each other. Like clockwork, conservatives are trying to get libertarians on their side to support their statist. In enter Kurt Schlichter of Breitbart who makes a pathetic plea for libertarians to support the constitution.

Adam Kokesh of Adam vs. The Man delivers a nice rebuttal of it

Why such anger towards Lou Dobbs?

Fellow Libertarians might be wondering why I would be defending Lou Dobbs on anything. Since his economic protectionist views run very counter to our own. Among the mainstream media Dobbs is one of the few guys that makes any kind of sense on most issues.


That's why I was kind of surprised among all the hate Dobbs got from liberals when he continued the "birther" saga. For the record I believe Obama is a natural born United States citizen. The funniest parts about the attacks on Dobbs is that he was this right wing extremist. One of the first things he points out is that he believes that Obama is a natural born citizen! Would a right wing extremist support gay marriage, separation of church and state, the minimum wage, and abortion? My guess would be no. Even with stances on those issues most conservatives don't call him a liberal, they typically refer to him as a independent or a populist. The only time I have seen conservatives actually a line themselves with Dobbs is with illegal immigration.

Has this onslaught on Dobbs changed his views on the issues I've stated? Probably not since Dobbs is more rational that most in the media, especially when you compare him to Keith Olbermann. If Dobbs ever let liberals off easy in the past you can bet that he certainly won't now.

Social Collectivism is still alive and well

As everyone knows Sonia Sotomayor is now a Supreme Court Justice. Right on cue liberals cheered while conservatives and libertarians jeered. This was of course expected with a Democratic majority in congress and as far as the ideological makeup goes there wasn't much change. With the single exception being that Sotomayor sides with the police more than Souter ever did.

Liberal groups and supporters cheered because they feel that they have a lock on the Hispanic vote. Buchanan-type conservatives try to revamp the case for use of the Southern Strategy and other right-populist themes in order to take back Washington. In both cases, both are wrong. For awhile both conservatives and liberals have forgotten the words of Dr. Martin Luther King:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

When did character translate to group? Last time I checked people where individuals not groups, what my neighbor does to his body does not affect me. Why is it assumed by liberals that putting Sotomayor on the top court will automatically translate to votes? Why do a small group of conservatives think that Sotomayor's personal views are the views of every Hispanic in the country? It's not just the Sotomayor appointment it's also illegal immigration and affirmative action among other issues. The illegal immigration debate has brought out alot of racial and social collectivist thought out and it's pathetic. Sometimes one can't tell if it's debate or just ridiculous name calling and race baiting. It seems that the individual is lost on the partisans and for them it's easier to group people together and scream at their opponent.

In my opinion collectivism is a taught and natural behavior at the same time. Sometimes people naturally won't associate with others that are not like them. Look at High School for a nice example of that. In the taught aspect, those who teach collectivism may use crime statistics, voting data, religion, race and other trait that a person belongs to (typically through no fault of his or her own) in order to paint said group a certain way. Can social collectivism be overcome? Yes it can. Will it happen anytime soon? Probably not.

Libertarians must take a stand on illegal immigration

While I didn't seem to think that the illegal immigration debate wouldn't come up till after Sotomayor was nominated or not it seems that Obama is intent in doing some serious multitasking. Libertarians for the most part are divided on this issue but this division will come back to bite us if we don't put up a common front.

As most of us know the illegal immigration debate is divided into the following groups:

1. Grant amnesty, keep immigration flowing

2. No amnesty, restrict immigration 2a. no immigrants period 2b. no immigration from non-white countries

3. No amnesty, keep immigration flowing but eliminate the red tape

Conservatives who fall in the second category are attempting to paint Libertarians as apart of the open borders left. I saw a video from the Cato Institute that had Jim Harper discussing on how our immigration policy should be structured and the Fox News anchor tried to pin him in the same league is Nancy Pelosi. Interesting enough Sarah Palin said before the election that she didn't believe in mass deportation of illegal immigrants but that barely made a peep among conservative voices.

The stereotype that Libertarians don't believe in the rule of law has been used like a billy club by conservatives especially on this issue. We have to get the message out there that we support a third option in the illegal immigration debate. Contrary to what the left and right tell say more people would support the third option than the first or second. It's not like we don't have a voice in the media who supports the third option. Lou Dobbs of CNN is on tape saying that he is very pro-legal immigration but is against amnesty, he is someone we can work with despite being an economic protectionist.

During the height of the swine flu "scare" the national party issued a statement for Obama to close the border with Mexico until the "scare" had passed. I didn't think much of it until I got an email from the local libertarian group that the national party was supporting xenophobia. I had emailed them back supporting national's decision to do that because at the time it was a national security issue, never got a response back by the way. I can understand why some Libertarians would see this move xenophobic since xenophobia and bigotry is very anti-liberty but we also should remember that complaining about bigots only gives them legitimacy. Sadly the left has yet to learn this lesson. Yes there is no denying the fact that racist and/or anti-immigrant groups (neo-nazis, kkk, coalition of conservative citizens, minutemen, etc) have used the illegal immigration debate as a cover to spread their bigotry. There is no denying of this fact but in addition to acknowledging them keeping the issue open only makes their cause stronger. If and when illegal immigration is solved the correct way these groups won't have anything to stand on (for the time being) and will self expose their true colors when they no longer have a banner to hide behind.

The illegal immigration issue is another great chance for us to inject our influence into the Republicans and/or the Democrats. We cannot let the ultra nationalist Paleoconservatives, other anti-legal immigrant groups and the pro-amnesty left win this fight. We must stand for liberty and the rule of law.

Just a reminder: Politics isn't nice

Normally I am a person who sticks to the issues and typically ignores petty fights unless it really somehow connects to an issue. With all the left and right wing whinnying something has to be said.

Politics isn't a nice game and nor will it ever will be. Not to say however that everyone in politics is a complete asshole it's just a game that one must go into with hard nerves. Do people want a decent political process that is just focused on issues? Yes. Will it ever happen? No. The 2008 Presidential election most likely marked the death for nice guy politics, they say nice guys finish last and that nice guy was John McCain. Even his supporters didn't like the fact that he didn't come down on Obama like a hammer.

It's very rarely that I ever agree with Big Government Social Conservatives but they are right in the fact that majority of people need thicker skin. Some may view this as agreeing with bigots, racists and anti-Semites, when in fact that's not it at all. For example I am of Hispanic descent and people like cold warrior Pat Buchanan use Judge Sotomayor as a vehicle (in addition use the illegal immigration debate) to criticize all Hispanics in his typical racial collectivist fashion. For the record his views on race hold about just as much water as Nancy Pelosi's views on taxes. It human nature to defend oneself from personal attacks but in politics you have to keep your eye on the prize and not be distracted by petty insults and attacks. I'm sure most of your parents have taught you or for your parental readers you have taught your kids to be the bigger person and walk away. If I may borrow a line from Teddy Roosevelt "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Political Bullies typically win when you engage them with the same petty insults instead of facts.

Currently now conservatives are up in a fury over Letterman's retarded joke about Palin and her daughter. I'll say right off the bat that this was another thing that when I heard about it I shrugged my shoulders and went on with my life. Letterman has been trumpeted as a liberal shill since the election I personally don't know nor do I care since I don't watch Letterman or much TV at all for that matter. Conservatives say this is the conservative equivalent of the Don Imus episode and the liberal reactions to it which isn't true since Imus's attack was at private citizens while Palin is a politician, a national figure and has made her family somewhat public. Some say that Imus isn't a conservative either but that's another argument for another day. From what I have read Palin seemed to be the bigger woman in this whole ordeal by just ignoring Letterman and leaving at that. I commend Palin for this because I am sure as a Governor she has better and more important things to do. What astounded me is the reaction from conservative pundits everywhere behaved like liberals and called for Letterman's head. I though conservatives had thicker skin but it seems that the incident has dyed down and won't be continuing for weeks on end like other gaffs from various national figures public and private.

While there hasn't been a major incident that has gotten liberals riled up as far as I know anyway. Some conservative pundits are accusing the nut jobs who killed Dr. Tiller and the shooter at the Holocaust Museum of being liberals. This hasn't though made much noise on the news networks just among liberal sites. Although one thing that has been going on and off has been those who criticize Obama are racists. Like Conservatives, Liberals must learn to roll with the punches, besides it's better to point and laugh at idiots and let their ownstupidty from both left or right expose themselves than to engage them.

Should Libertarians and Conservatives work together?

It's a thought that has been floating around in Libertarian circles since the election. Hell even it's been discussed at my local party meetings. Some say that for the good of the country we are going to have to swallow our pride, others believe that conservatives deserve to wallow in the mess they created by betraying their so-called principals for power. One my own personal gripe is why should we trust them when all they do is just pay us lip service and if they aren't paying us lip service they will use the fear game of the Democrats being in power.

Peter Schiff gave a speech to a group of Connecticut Libertarians a few days ago saying that the only way to get Libertarian minded people elected is to infiltrate the Republicans. Some say that it's impossible due to the fact that the influence the big government Christian Right and Neoconservatives still have. Then there are the Paleoconservatives who are mostly composed of old Cold Warriors who believe in economic crushing protectionist policies. With these three different types of conservatives who support big government one way or another it's really no wonder why we are skeptical of this idea, despite the amount of respect we have for Peter Schiff.

In all of our differences the one single thing that unites us is taxes for the most part. Things aren't getting better and time is getting short. If we are to take back the country from the right and left wing statist we are going to have to make a choice and hope it's the right choice.

Here is the video of Peter Schiff suggesting the idea

The left needs to leave Miss California alone

To start off I am pro gay marriage because there is no evidence on how it affects my rights what so ever. It wouldn't very Libertarian of me to believe the Government jack boot should be allowed to enforce private morals.

When I heard about Miss California saying that she was against gay marriage I shrugged it off and went about my business. Unfortunately others didn't want to take that lying down and the fashion left began their assault. Well the assault had a side affects; the freepers, the evangelicals and every other right wing group out there picked it up on their radar screens and went to defend her from the "evil" liberals. Since the social and religious right have no actual facts to oppose gay marriage other than religious reasons they use situations like this to further the lie that there is the so called homosexual agenda. The typical lies that are said are that homosexuals are going to molest children, make religion illegal, introduce socialism (despite majority of socialist/communist countries outlawed homosexuality) and other bs. Oh course most people know these attacks are nothing but lies but when they use these attacks along side when someone is criticized for not supporting gay marriage it will sometime resonate in the minds of people that are still in the middle when it comes to the issue.

I can understand that those who support gay marriage must fight it's critics at every turn but this isn't a battle worth fighting. Miss California isn't a politician and she doesn't head a PAC although with this incident the woman might have been turned into a social/religious right crusader but who knows. Attacking her does not help the movement and only plays into the hand of the opposition. One should take a page out of the Conservative play book and ignore insignificant threats. When Specter switched to the Democrats the Conservatives shrugged and went about their business, they also do this when the Hollywood left opens their mouths. They know that attacking a private citizen (as in not a politician) doesn't do much good in the eyes of public opinion. It shows that they are nothing but bullies, and now the left and gay rights groups look like the bully. If Perez Hilton didn't go off on Miss California it wouldn't made much of a big deal. Yea the religious and social conservatives would've brought it up to show that another high profile American is against gay marriage but thats it. All it would've shown is that Miss California has a opinion just like everyone else.

Enemy of the State? Meh,tell me something I don't know

So this past week another memo from our glorious Department of Homeland Security with it's list of potential terrorists, extremists and the like. Once again innocent and non-violent groups are lumped into with neo-nazis, skinheads, anarchists, black panthers and other violent organizations. There really wasn't much difference between this memo and the one that popped up in Missouri last month with the exception of also mentioning clothing styles of extremists oh and now the Puerto Rican Independence movement is now listed. Granted that there is a political party in Puerto Rico that supports that idea but since when do Feds do any actual fact checking. It kinda makes me want a Klan and Black Panther come back just for the clowns that run DHS can see what a real extremist is.

I don't about some of you but I was considered a traitor way before Obama and his boys got into the White House. I was against the neoconservative project of nation and empire building, the blind support for Israel, the millions of tax payer money going to other countries, government legislating morality and faith-based programs. I support the Church State Separation, actual diplomacy with talking instead through the barrel of a gun, you know the type of foreign policy Thomas Jefferson believed in. Of course to the Conservatives in the Bush era said I was a Communist (despite having a Vietnam Vet for a Father and an Uncle, while some of the biggest voices in Conservative media never wore the uniform), terrorist sympathizer, anti-American oh and an illegal alien being Hispanic and all. I heard the usual Support the President and the like and I said no. I can't support someone who is engaging in activities that I firmly believe are wrong. Of course that was then.

Now that the Liberals are in power and I don't have too much love for their polices either so in their eyes I'm the extremist, the threat and whatever else label they can come up with. I personally did not attend the Tea Party in my area because they didn't like the fact that I didn't support Bush and alot of other neoconservative polices. Not to say that all the Tea Parties were neoconservative whinefests just the one by me was. As a rule I always let my opinions known to make sure that the particular protest I go to actually has to do with the subject at hand and not just an anti-liberal, anti-conservative jack off fest. With Conservatives along side us Libertarians being targeted by the Federal Government jack boot some are starting see that they were wrong in the last go around. Others still defend the police harassment of anti-war, and other left wing groups. I sometimes gloat at the fact that what had went around during Bush has came around under Obama but realize that I can gloat in private.

Some may say that I'm not taking this seriously, but I am but I also refuse to go hysterical about it. Honest and proper disagreements are much better in a civilized society than screaming liberal and conservative talking points. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution still exist in this country and if I'm a Communist or a Fascist because I believe in both than so be it. I rather be an enemy of the state than cattle mooing for the pat on the head.

Arlen Specter becomes a Democrat.....ok and?

While much of the Specter love and hate has pretty much come to head, one must wonder what is the big deal? Like most Republicans in the Northeast, he was a Liberal one sometimes referred to as the Rockefeller Republican (named after former NY Governor and former Vice President Nelson Rockefeller) but most of the time referred to as a RINO (Republican in name only). A big government Republican joining the Democrats isn't news, it's just being honest. I'm surprised that he didn't do what New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg did and just become an "Independent". At least if he became an Indy he wouldn't be apart of the Oligarchy in Washington that disguises itself as a two party system. Of course the real reason now is that Specter wants to continue to be trenched in Washington after showing a very poor polling in a potential primary against Pat Toomey. Can't say I blame the guy, since that's what politicians are there for, power and nothing more.

Of course seconds after word got out, Democrats and Liberals welcomed him with open arms. Specter claims that he won't be the automatic 60Th vote but only time well tell if he actually means it. They are trumpeting that the Republicans are on death beds which can be no farther than the truth but being the sport I am I will let them have their fun. It wouldn't be very Libertarian of me if I didn't. Little do they realize that they have got themselves into a corner with Specter joining them and if Al Franken becomes Minnesota's next Senator then guess what they are fully in control. With a filibuster-proof congress that means that they are responsible for the future pains that are on the road ahead. They won't be able to blame it on the Republicans or anyone else for that matter because they and they alone have the keys. They won't be able to create any cute little "Days of No" videos because the opposition will be ineffective in their small minority status. Democratic supporters better be prepared when it starts to crash down on them because it will and it will hit hard.