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.

Tell me if you heard this one before.....

Mike Flynn of Breitbart has written up a piece stating the obvious in regards to Republican election failures. Nothing really new, just rehashing the same bullshit conservative excuses; "abandoning lesser government, etc".

He notes a few races that had Libertarian Party candidates and compares them to the Democratic victory margin. Surprisingly enough he doesn't use spoiler or the standard conservative charge directed at LP candidates of being "liberals in disguise". Then he goes into the all too familiar bullshit that conservatives and libertarians share the same values. Give me a break, as I have said in the past, conservatives are only against statism when they're not in charge of it. Most libertarians that I know of are well aware of this con game that has been going on for years.

Post 2012 Election Thoughts: Conservatives have no one to blame but themselves

To start off, yes I'm a cynic and I'm not ashamed of that despite what Lindsey Graham says. Another rigged contest (or what some of you like to call an election) has come and gone. The results are as predicted; statism had won but then again statism has been winning since FDR all that really has happened is that a different wing of statism takes the reigns of power in Washington D.C. This time liberal statism gets another four years instead of conservative statism getting their shot. Those who think that elections of one power hungry government stooge or another power hungry government stooge actually changes things are shocked at the results. To fair people would've been shocked regardless of who won.

 It's funny right after Obama got elected, conservatives called for a movement to oppose Obama's statism. Which in reality was a continuation of the statism that they approved of when the previous government stooge was in power but lets forget about silly facts like that. Little did they know (or chose to ignore) that the movement existed it was the Ron Paul movement, which gave birth to the real T.E.A. Party. Paul was an actual difference to the polices of Obama; free markets, free trade, nonintervention and actually shrinking the police state. One of my favorite Ron Paul bumper stickers that I saw read "Ron Paul cured my apathy". Many libertarians and Paul supporters are quite open of their view that the system is a sham.

Some of us thought that there was hope that there was going to be actual change for once. An actual man who walks the walk about liberty with the record that shows it. The treatment of Paul and libertarian supporters by conservatives and the Republican establishment showed that they weren't interested in liberty just statism with their brand sticker on it. So what did they do? They nominated a white version of Barack Obama; a warmongering, crony capitalist, statist with a disdain for civil liberties thrown in for good measure. Many libertarians and Paul supporters said throughout the campaign on what they would do if Paul was not the nominee. Some were going to support Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, some weren't even going to vote but all agreed that there was no chance in hell that Mitt Romney was going to get one ounce of support from them.

Apparently this act of not bowing down to conservatives upset some of them. With the amount of road blocks third parties have to get on the ballot, conservatives decided to thrown in some more. The Pennsylvania Republican Party tried so hard  to keep Gary Johnson off the ballot. When that didn't work, they tried making pathetic cases on why libertarians should vote for the grandfather of Obamacare. Of course then there was the "A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama" bullshit that was peddled around from various conservatives. Despite all of that libertarians refused to be intimated by punk conservative fear mongering and stuck to their principals. By either voted for Johnson or just stayed home and refused to participate in a rigged contest.

Of course with Obama coming out the victor the blame game started.

Theocons, Religious Rightists or whatever they call themselves these days will blame the gay rights movement or cry about God being kicked out of public schools. Of course not one word railing about getting the government of education in the first place. So then schools can decide what religious bullshit if any at all they teach to their students. Paleoconservatives and Buchanites will join their theocon brothers and sisters with the same complains but then also add immigration to the mix. In addition of throwing some racial nationalism into the mix as well. You know when they say that they support a color blind society but then go full retard when some report comes out that white people will be the minority twenty years down the road. It's kinda hard for neoconservatives to be completely bummed out. Obama is still gun-ho with the whole sham that is the war on terror. He's still drone attacking Muslim countries and it's only a matter of time before he enters Syria and then into Iran. The only complaint that neoconservatives would actual have with Obama is that he doesn't kiss Israel's ass enough which in reality is splitting hairs.

Conservatives who want to blame libertarians for Obama's victory go right ahead but in reality you should be looking right in the mirror. Conservatives where the ones who put a statist on a pedestal and then tried to shove him down libertarian throats NOT the other way around. Will they learn that libertarians (who still vote) won't cast their ballot for those who violate their principals? I strongly doubt it, I see an instant cure for baldness before that will happen.

Another take down of a "Firebrand" Conservative by a Libertarian

When I first saw this I had to listen to it myself. Robert Wenzel of Economic Policy Journal apparently was able to get her to come onto his show. I thought "There is no way in hell Coulter would come onto a show that is libertarian and isn't all about bashing liberals." Turns out that I was right, Wenzel states in his video the excuses Coulter gives for not showing up. In the video he also crushes the talking points in Coulter's latest book.

People like Coulter and other conservative big mouths are good at one thing; bashing liberals. Yea thats fun for conservatives who are too blind to see or refuse to acknowledge that there isn't much of a difference between them and the typical liberal. There is a reason why conservatives like "libertarians" such as Eric Dondero, Neal Boortz, Wayne Allyn Root, among others and openly hate actual libertarians such as Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo and Ron Paul. Real libertarians don't buy into the bullshit conservatives like to squawk when it comes to liberty and call them out on it. Which of course leads to the standard conservative insults such as; Your anti-American, You're a liberal, etc. etc' etc." When you start hearing that, you know you have gotten under the skin of a conservative. 

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

Do Republicans fear electoral competition?

Below is a picture of a sent email by Independence Hall Tea Party PAC which is based out of Philadelphia, PA in regards to challenging the ballot access candidates of Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party. 

The next picture is an email from Louis R. Jasikoff to Don Adams who appears to be on the board of delegates for IH Tea Party PAC. The Wilkes-Barre Independent Gazette also has published Mr. Jasikoff's letter to Adams on their website.

At the time of this writing Jasikoff has yet to receive a response from Adams regarding the charges that supporters of Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode in are line with the views of President Obama and Vice President Biden. One of the reasons why people like Johnson and Goode run for office is because many people do not see a legitimate difference between the Romney/Ryan ticket and the Obama/Biden ticket. While Johnson and Goode have very obvious differences between each other, one cannot deny the fact that they both alternative from the two mainstream party candidates.

Such lawfare tactics that Adams is employing his supporters to engage in should serve as another reminder to libertarians that working with conservatives is a pointless exercise. The treatment of Ron Paul and Paul supporters in the various Republican caucuses should've been an eye opener. However if one needs more proof Bob Wenzel of Economic Policy Journal has pointed out several times that the pick of Paul Ryan as Romney's running mate was nothing but a smoke screen in a very poor attempt to woo Ron Paul supporters. Obviously this isn't the first time libertarians have felt the conservative knife in the back, this is just another file for the cabinet.

Bob Barr goes the way of Wayne Root

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. 

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.

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.

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.

Whats the difference between Libertarians and the Tea Party?

This video seems pretty accurate on the differences

Libertarians Once Again Getting Screwed?

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

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

This had to be my favorite quote in the piece;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christian Right concerned by Libertarian influence

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

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

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

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

Conservative Smears

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

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

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

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

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


American Spectator article

renewamerica article