Splitting the vote: another myth.

I'm so sick and tired of hearing how voting for a Libertarian only takes votes away from Republicans. What tripe! I'm here to proclaim loud and proud that the Libertarian party is not populated entirely by disillusioned Republicans.

What hubris to just assume that Libertarians are nothing more than an angry fringe faction of the Republican Party.

Libertarians are from all walks of life, and we have one solid core that no other party, large or small, can claim. We hold the principles of freedom as the highest values for a political party.

Democrats have embraced socialism. This is incompatible with the principles of freedom.

Republicans won't stand up for individual rights. This is incompatible with the principles of freedom.

There are millions of people who see this dichotomy and have decided to make the choice to do something different. Many of them toss their hands in the air, falsely believing that there is no way to break the stranglehold of the two parties, and register as an independent.

Others register with the Libertarians. Don't think for a moment they all came from the Republican party; as if the Libertarian party was some sort of refugee camp for beaten down Republicans.

Perhaps it is wishful thinking? Perhaps those who spew such drivel believe that if they say it enough it must be true, and thus by saying it they can adopt the Libertarians into the GOP orbit by default.

I'm here to tell you, DNC, that your voters are far more disillusioned than the GOP of late. The GOP has suddenly grown a backbone. Being the underdog is what they know best, and they are suddenly good at it again. But the Democrats around the nation are now looking at the ruin their elected officials are trying to foist on the nation and they are asking themselves not only "what have I done?" but "what the hell do I do now?"

AND THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY IS HERE TO HELP!

We are the party that millions of democrats are looking for, and we're getting our message out.

We're coming for your disillusioned voters who yearn to be free. Discount us at your own peril.

Nanny State Belts Citizens

Today the forces of the nanny state took another step in Florida.

Yes, the new "seat belt" law is now in effect. It is now legal for the cops in Florida to pull you over and issue tickets for no other reason than because you are not wearing your seat belt, and I say, what the hell is wrong with these people?

No, not the idiots who don't wear seat belts, and not even the idiot cops who might enforce this law, but the idiot law makers who passed such a stupid law.

If I'm not wearing my seat belt and the worst happens, who is injured? I am, and no one else. So why then does the government think it has the right to tell me not to do admittedly stupid things that hurt no one else?

It thinks it has this right because it has been sold a lie. The lie is that the government exists to protect the people from all threats. The truth is that the government exists to protect people from external threats only. Things we choose to do to or with ourselves are our business.

Now, follow the money. Who benefits from this stupid situation? Two groups. First, the authorities that will be collecting the money from these fines stand to benefit directly. Second, the insurance companies that should now see a drop in the avoidable injury claims as more people are coerced into wearing seat belts. Who is missing from this group? The riders! The riders are not going to benefit from this usurpation of their natural right to choose.

This is because the riders no longer have a choice in the matter and so any gains in safety they might enjoy are negated by the coercive methods used to procure them. Without choice the benefits accrue to others, in this case the state and insurance companies.

So the next time you wear your seat belt, see it for what it really is, a device of your own personal subordination to the government and the insurance companies who bought them.

Republicans to Ban Tobacco!

"Sen. Tom Coburn, who is also a medical doctor, is calling for an outright ban on the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products."

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/coburn_tobacco_ban/2009/06/05/221915.html

Leave it to the Republicans to advance the nanny state while pretending to be the champions of individual freedom!

How long is it going to be until the government is told that it does not have the right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies?! The answer is, however long it takes us to tell them.

Tell your government, right now, that you're sick of the nanny state. The government does not know what is best for your, and even if it does, it does not have the right to enforce its ideals on your life. If you want to smoke, then here in the land of the free and the home of the brave why the hell are you not allowed to?

Who is this feel good senator to tell the whole of America that they cannot smoke tobacco?

What's next? Drinking alcohol?

OH MY GOD.

Have we not had enough of prohibition already?

If you outlaw cigarettes, only outlaws will have cigarettes. I'm tired of the these elected fools helping prop up organized crime. What is this, some sort of organized crime stimulus package? Wouldn't surprise me if the man gets kickbacks from Colombian tobacco lords (or at least, he will be getting them)

STOP THE MADNESS NOW.

What's wrong with this picture?

And now, a dramatic reading from the Constitution, Article I:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

Drugs and Freedom

Looks like our overlords in the DNC are showing once again how anti freedom they are, and how conflicted in their philosophy.

It's ok to remove an "nonviable tissue mass" (otherwise known as a developing baby) from a woman's body (called choice), but that same woman cannot smoke a joint!

What is wrong with this picture?

I'll tell you, hypocrisy.

The Democrats (and the Republicans too most of the time) want to control you, and damn the consequences. Never mind that the war on drugs is a complete failure. Ask any DEA agent and he will tell you that the availability of drugs has not gone down despite the billions of dollars spent on it.

That means the DEA is an employment program! Which is bad enough, but if we're going to hire people why not have them do something useful like build roads or damns or paint houses or something, ANYTHING, other than run around pretending to be either 007 or urban combat teams terrorizing the hell out of people are hurting no one.

Whoa, wait a moment! Did I say drug users are hurting no one? Good point, alcohol users are hurting people and so we should outlaw that too. Yes, some people will abuse drugs and hurt others, but most of the time they only hurt themselves. We have proved that interdiction is a failure, and so now the only thing left is to clean up the mess since we can't prevent it. It's against the law to abuse someone else, so let that stand and lets get on with life.

FREEDOM means the ability to chose to do something or not. The DNC does not trust you to make the right choice, so it is going to make it for you.

Now, help me tear down the nanny state!

Credit where Credit is Due

Freedom lovers,

Governor Charlie Crist vetoed the raid on the concealed carry weapons (CCW) fund.

He did it to shore up his image as a conservative.

He did the right thing.

Thank you governor.

Everyone else should thank him too:

Phone number: (850) 488-4441 or (850) 488-7146
Fax number: (850) 487-0801

Send your email to the Governor at this address:

Charlie.Crist@MyFlorida.com

IN THE SUBJECT LINE PUT: THANK YOU for your VETO of the CW Trust Fund Sweep

Arlen Specter - Rino to Dino

Today Pennsylvania's "Republican" U. S. Senator Arlen Specter became Pennsylvania's "Democrat" U. S. Senator, and nothing changed.

The Senator claimed it was for philosophical reasons, and the Republicans were dismayed to their core, but why should they be? It was for philosophical reasons. The reason being, he has a better chance (in his mind) of maintaining his position in the Senate as part of the current ruling class.

All other talk is pure rubbish, because there is no significant philosophical difference between the GOP and the DNC. Oh the GOP claims it, but lets check the record:

* Massive government spending: Check
* Assaults on every liberty we have: Check

Oh sure, Bush thwarted federal spending on some fetal stem cell research, and the DNC wants to close Guantanamo Bay, but otherwise their are no differences.

Where then, I ask, does this leave the voters of Pennsylvania? Are they going to now find a "real" Republican to put up against Specter in 2010? And would it matter even if they did? A "real" Republican would just be another lip service RINO that would ride the crest until winds of politics blew a different direction.

This is all because the Republican and the Democrats are not rooted in any sort of principles. Their only concern is the acquisition of power, and once acquired, the maintenance of it. what they do with this power is use it for more of the same. They care nothing for the people the pretend to represent and serve.

Now, lest anyone point their finger at me and scream "Hypocrite!" let me explain that I know a thing or two about changing parties. I was a life long Republican, until November 5th, 2008. I have already well documented my reasons for leaving the Republican party, but unlike Specter I did not just jump to a party that better suited my re-election prospects. I moved to a party that walks its talk. Specter did not move to a philosophy that better suited his personal beliefs, he simply switched mascots

The people of Pennsylvania now have one more very visible reason to see the dysfunction that is in their elected officials. Many of them voted "for change", and now they have a golden opportunity to see that the only change they have received is more of the same under a different mascot.

One can only hope that the voters of Pennsylvania, now twice betrayed, once by President Obama being more of the same, and now by Specter being more of the same, will stand up and demand real change. Change that puts liberty first. Change that demands freemarket answers to economic problems. Change that removes government from our personal lives.

Pennsylvania, now is the time to demand the Libertarian party.

Obama, the Special Olympics and Perspective

I've seen the video. Obama said his bowling is something like watching a Special Olympics athlete.

Then the world went nuts about that comment.

We have the DOW in a tailspin, government spending at an all time high, the Federal Reserve going nuts, all threatening to drive inflation into the stratosphere, and we're worried about a something this stupid?

And to make it worse, the "offended" group hasn't cried fowl.

The only people "defending" the "offended" group are the hard left liberals with nothing better to do. They are the economic equivalent of those who moved deck chairs about on the Titanic. They can't imagine doing anything constructive.

Let the testing begin!

Well,

Now that the world believes Barak Obama is the President, the testing of his mettle has begun in earnest.

The North Koreans are going to test their longer range missile.
The Iranians are full speed ahead in their nuclear program.
The Russians laughed in his face at his (ridiculous) offer to pull back the missile defense system deployed in Eastern Europe.

AND NOW

The Chinese think they can harass our navy ships.

The worlds now holds its breath to see if Obama will be like his democratic predecessors, Clinton and Carter, both totally unprepared to deal with international bullies, or if he will man up like Reagan and Bush, and the man he pretends to be, Lincoln.

We should hold our breath too!

Should the Obama Administration show the characteristic Democratic weakness then we could be in for a very bad four years. Couple that with the economic disaster the Democrats are heaping upon us and it might be the saddest chapter in this great nations history yet.

And we're not off to a good start either.

The Obama administration has thus far managed to offend our most stalwart ally, the United Kingdom, and has shown its proclivity to appeasement by trying to buy off the Palestinians in the Gaza strip rather than letting Israel really clean house.

It makes me sad to think that the only thing that will keep this country "safe" is nuclear weapons. But once again our technology may be the only thing that can offset the otherwise fatal policies of liberal leaders. Let us hope the fools in Washington don't manage to disassemble them all before a leader that is willing to actually defend our interest is installed.

The Liberal Knife at our Throats

A few days ago I happened to be listening to Rush Limbaugh, and he made an offhand comment about an author named Saul Alinksy. I'd never heard of the man. I did a little research and found his book "Rules for Radicals" and thought, what the hell? I ordered it from Amazon.com. It arrived. I began reading.

The first chapter of the book holds this paragraph [emphasis his]:

I believe that man is about to learn that the most practical life is the most moral life and that the moral life is the only road to survival. He is beginning to learn the he will either share part of his material wealth or lose all of it; that he will respect and learn to live with other political ideologies if he wants civilization to go on. This is the kind of argument that man's actual experience equips him to understand and accept. This is the low road to morality. There is no other.

His road to morality is nothing more than extortion. Those who own material wealth must give to those who do not, or else.

Indeed he is right that this the low road, for it leads through hell and can get no lower.

But, thankfully, he is wrong in his last sentence. There is another way. Indeed, he has deluded himself into a accepting something that cannot be. He asserts that the experience of men will lead them to this conclusion, but he ignores that the experience of men is essentially self-centric. People can not be expected to "share" (under threat of harm) forever. Eventually they will devise a mechanism for their deliverance.

The avoidance of the low road is to devise the deliverance beforehand. Lucky for us, we know the way. The road to freedom and prosperity for as many as possible begins by resisting the extortion and defiance of the threat.

The road to freedom and prosperity for as many as possible will be paved on the backs of those few who will organize the resistance and push those who would menace us into "sharing" back.

It is no wonder that the so called radicals of the 1970s failed so miserably! If this is the height of their intellectual achievement then they would have been much better off staying home. It is sheer sophistry to think we could extort morality out of men at large for those doing the extortion would be amoral.

This is ultimately why I am optimistic, not merely hopeful, but confidently optimistic that we are on the verge of a great awakening in the United States. The people know right from wrong. They know that "sharing" under duress is wrong, and they will not tolerate it for long. Even the benefactors of such ill gotten gains will be unhappy as their appetites will grow beyond the governments ability to feed. Then the real clash will happen, and those who have spent their lives learning how to produce, manufacture, serve and work will sweep aside those who can hardly be bothered to even learn to read.

Most Americans, young, old, rich, poor, northern or southern, want nothing more than to be left alone to live their lives in relative peace. The government will be unable to accommodate this, and true anger the likes of which has not been seen in decades, will emerge.

No manufactured crisis or government orchestrated market collapse will be strong enough to hold back the will of the people who still yearn to be free. They will easily identify the chains that hold them (I'll make sure of it) and they will cast them off, and with those chains they will bind the serpent that is Socialism and once again cast it into the abyss from which it crept.

These things are unavoidable. The socialists know it, which is why they try so hard to rush all their programs. They hope that by stampeding things into place they will either be proved right, which the laws of economics will not allow, or they will so entrench themselves that they cannot be removed, with the law of numbers will not allow.

The harder they push, the stronger the backlash will be.

How could anyone not be optimistic in times like these? The future of conservative thought is brighter than ever for it will be showing us the way out of the darkness that the socialists are bringing.

A Little Rebellion Now and Then - A Conservative's Perspective

There’s an old saying that seems to hold more truth in it the more time that passes. Don’t ask where it came from, probably a humorist of the caliber of Will Rogers or P.J. O’Rourke, but definitely not Jon Stewart, because it’s actually witty and a bit insightful. At any rate, it says that “Politicians, much like diapers, need to be changed often and for the same reasons.”

Looking around, it’s not that hard to see why somebody would say that. Once upon a time a person lived two different lives. The first would be life before politics, a life dedicated to whatever career or profession they had set their sights on. Often times they would be successful, rising above the others in the same field, other times they would be Harry Truman, but regardless they would have life experience under their belt, knowledge of something besides the Capital Beltway. They ‘d have wealth of successes and failures to claim as their own that would perhaps give them a wisdom and a degree of foresight that would help them in the tasks that were there in front of them.

Then they would have their political lives.

The truth is that the Founders, they perhaps never saw a profession rising out of politics. The Constitution, it would carefully crafted for that exact reason. Two years in Congress, six in the Senate, four in the Presidency, perhaps someone would return for another term or perhaps they would seek a higher office, but the entire framework would be devised that no one man might find himself elevated above others, spending their life in public office to the exclusion. Having seen and felt the effects of those who ruled believing they had a divine right to sit in the seat of the mighty, they wanted to spare the people from the inevitable corruption that it would seem to breed.

There, even by the first President precedent would be set for generations to come. Without a doubt George Washington could have found himself as the President of the Republic for the remainder of his years, and yet it would be a temptation that he would not yield to. Even as France began brief republican experience across the ocean, it had to be seen as truly remarkable, that which Washington did in that singular act of refusing to serve a third and possible a fourth term, fading off into the sunset. Lesser men would find the same too difficult to refuse.

In the over 150 years before the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was passed, limiting a president to two terms in office, only one man Franklin Delano Roosevelt, would break that tradition handed down since Washington.

Looking around, it’s obvious that the Founders, they were on to something there…

Let’s face it, we have, in recent years, come to see the rise of perhaps some of the most corrupt and immoral leaders to rise from the ranks of this Republic to assume the roles of leader, leaving many to wonder where the system has gone wrong.

In recent years we have watched as one Governor would resign amidst a sex scandal with high priced prostitutes, another arrested while trying to sell a Senate Seat and impeached for a host of other crimes, now standing trial in Illinois, yet another still finds himself under investigation for a host of pay to play scandals in his own state, a mayor sentenced to time in prison for obstruction of justice, two men elevated to Cabinet posts despite a history of tax evasion, only one who would withdraw his name, congressmen hiding FBI money in their freezers, another congressman now tied to a lobby firm raided by the FBI, this on top of his other questionable dealings, and a host of other scandals and dirty deals that have either gone unnoticed or forgotten about because they just cease to shock us anymore. The list, it just seems to go on and on and on with no signs of letting up any time in the near future. There are good and decent legislators in Washington and around the nation, those who view their service for the sacred trust that it is, and yet they are largely forgotten, as the host of others seem to take this perpetual perp walk to the podium to give their election or re-election speeches or to say, whoops I messed up or it really wasn’t me, I didn’t do anything wrong.

There we are left to wonder, are there any more Mr. Smith’s left in Washington?

Yet as frustrating as it may be, or as difficult as it may seem the responsibility is squarely placed on our shoulders as the electors. As much as the founders perhaps tried to protect the people from the abuses that we have now seemed to grow accustomed to amidst our current political climate with the rise of the career politicians, it won’t do it all of the time. There, these politicians, these so called leaders, they flourish and remain in positions of power and esteem because we allow them to remain there, despite having the instruments at our disposal to remove them from the place of honor that they now find themselves in.

There it must be the role of the enlightened citizen to hold their leader to account and to refuse to allow for them to degrade and sully the office that they hold, it is the role of the enlightened citizen to show the courage and the fortitude to struggle to remove them from their office when they have been so inclined to denigrate it for personal gain or wealth, seeking to do their business, with little regard for the people’s business.

There, perhaps it’s been now over 200 years since that revolution that would give birth to this Republic, yet, as children of it, it our role to be ever determined, ever vigilant to make that stand against abuses of power, as did our forbearers.

After all, a little rebellion, even if solely political in nature, is a healthy venture.

But then just a few thoughts I suppose…

Bailouts, Stimulus and Freedom

For the last weeks we have heard nothing but the specifics of one form of massive government spending or another. Be it a bailout or a stimulus package they both have two common elements that threaten your freedoms.

First, they will seriously erode the value of your dollar. Don't think that freedom and economics are not linked. Many people seem to believe there is no link, but then why was the revolutionary battle cry "No taxation without representation" so iconic? It shows the clear link, indeed, the inseparability of economic freedom and civil freedom.

Second, they both put the governments hands on massive amounts of what is rightly the private sector. We have already seen the governments sticky fingers on things. Do you think the government can make an economic argument for meddling in the compensation packages of the executives of the big banks? They don't even try. They make a social argument along the lines of "it's not proper". Who the hell is the government, specifically the President, to say what is proper compensation and what is not? And what criteria is he really using?

In both cases the problem is the concentration of power. In both cases power is being transferred from the private sector to the government. It's the age old equation of tyranny. More power in fewer hands.

Think I'm making this up? We have a historical precedence to study and consider. The public education system. The very moment a school begins to accept federal funds, for any program what so ever, the entire curriculum of the school falls under the heavy hand of the federal government.

An entire industry was corrupted by two things, free flowing federal dollars, and strings on those dollars. And what has been the result? Have American schools, which, by the way neither needed bailout nor stimulus at the time, advanced even farther ahead of the pack? Or have schools around the world made serious progress? You know the answer. The rest of the world is catching up, and government is directly to blame for slowing us down.

Another result has been the tyranny that is the National Education Association. The NEA has crushed all opposition to anything that might upset its applecart. Vouchers, crushed. School choice, crushed. Merit pay, crushed. In short, it has done everything it can to insolate itself against competition, which is the free market, which is freedom itself. The NEA is the government master of your childrens education, and by proxy, your children, and to a large extent you.

You still have the option to pay twice and send your child to a private school I suppose. Chalk one up for freedom, for the rich. The poor are stuck.

And the exact same thing is now happening to huge sectors of the American free enterprise system. The banks are now directly run by the government. They are effectively multiple branches of the same entity. The rules that apply in one will apply in all. This is the concentration of power at work.

Why is that dangerous?

Because there are no one-size fits all solutions to problems as diverse as economics on a global scale. Diversity has always been a safety net for the consumer. If one company fails, another is there or will be there shortly. Diversity and innovation come only from competition.

History proves I'm right too. We have far more companies doing innovation today than ever before. Those who point to the old saw of Wal-Mart putting mom and pop out of business never stop to ask what those displaced mom and pop are now doing. They had to innovate. They created new companies and new jobs. They didn't get hired on at minimum wage. Oh sure, a few proved to be unable to adapt, but the vast majority found new services to perform. And we are all better off for it. We have both now, Wal-Mart and the new stuff.

Capitalism does not concentrate power, it diversifies power.

Socialism concentrates power.

Concentrated power is tyranny.

Capitalism is freedom.

Your government is trying to buy you. Will you be bought?

Washington State Goes for Broke with DNA

I was, once again, surprised and disgusted by the ever reaching hand of government.

Some legislators in Washington State seems to want to just forget those pesky civil rights like protection from unreasonable search and seizure, so long as it solves crimes.

As long as we're going to just take DNA from everyone we arrest, lets also just arrest everyone so we'll have a nice database of it to begin with. In fact, lets also do it to newborns.

Once again we are faced with the old dilemma that just because you can do something does not mean you should. We could also attach tracking devices to everyone. The proponents say it will "solve crimes, protect people and save lives". Lets just grant that they are right. That still does not make it something we should do.

This brings up a critical point. For the last few decades those of us who value civil rights have been on the retreat. We're defending our positions, not advancing the cause of freedom. It's time to take the initiative and push back the ever reaching hand of the government. Make them understand that, if they encroach on our rights, they are out of a job.

It has gotten especially bad in the last few as people seem to think that by dropping a "few unimportant" civil liberties they will increase their personal safety. Let me clue you in on something. These measures are not about your safety, but about the establishments safety. All of these things are designed to make the establishment look busy, but do little to effectively address the issues they claim to address. They have the side effect of taking away your otherwise harmless liberties, in this case, your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

Wake up.
Get informed.
(which will make you angry)
Then get involved.
And do it now.

A Cautionary Tale: The Need for the Libertarian Party - A Conservatives Perspective

There’s an adage, an old wisdom that is as old as the Republic itself and that must be remembered if freedom and liberty is to be valued; it simply tells to us that where people fear the government there shall always be tyranny, but where government fears the people there will be democracy.

A constitutional Republic unlike anything the world had ever seen before, even from the time of the ancients, the fundamental basis would find itself rooted in the best principles of the democratic ideal. Keenly aware that though the hearts of men might be filled with the best of intentions, the founders also knew their deeds could be done with the worst of malice. In that they would derive the foundations of their vision of government on the inalienable, indivisible, incorruptible rights of the people, the justly derived liberties found within the actual equality of all humanity, both as individuals and as a collective society bound together.

For over 200 years, this has been America, that “Republic, if we can keep it”, in the immortal words of Benjamin Franklin, and it has always found itself within the tenants of that revolutionary wisdom handed down from one generation to the next.

And there… well there, as the people’s Representatives within government, the same basic truth has to find itself as a cautionary warning to the Political Parties that compromise the American landscape.

This isn’t to say that these Parties, they somehow constitute a inherent American foundation or a constitutional requirement within the nation. Rather, tying together, binding together elected and appointed officials within government, they have become what must be a body that is of the people, for the people and by the people, and there within they, as the government, must be fearful of the people.

The truth is that a long time ago, with the passage of time and history, as the nation has grown older, we have lost a significant portion of our revolutionary spirit. When outrages occur, when it is felt that the government isn’t representing us, we have lost that part of our national experience that tells us to take to the streets demanding something more of it. Perhaps with the technological revolution and the onset of the communications age a portion of that has been reclaimed by some as they take the time to mobilize or to voice their unhappiness with the system, but even there it has become largely institutionalized.

In that there comes a realization… that within the scope and the framework of this current political climate and this current chapter of political history, there is an absolute necessity for credible third parties that are willing to take up the banner of a fight, even if it is an uphill battle the entire way, all for the task of ensuring a voice for the people.

Without a doubt many out there who are a member of the Big Two Political Parties have felt as if their Party has left them. It has been a reality since the beginning of party politics in the United States. The Republicans would abandon their Whig and Free Soil roots in order to form this new Northern Abolitionist Party. Al Smith, the former Democratic Governor of New York and two time Presidential Candidate for his Party would walk away from it in 1936, outraged at the direction it had gone in, and would form his own movement to battle his one time colleague and successor as Governor and Party nominee, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt, the machine busting Governor turned Vice President then President, would find himself disgusted by the direction his onetime Vice President, William Taft, had taken the Republicans in after he exited the political scene. Once more returning to the stage he would form his own party. Though failing to win the election, he would take enough votes from Taft to withhold his re-election from him.

And round and round, so it has gone as one generation passed to another, and political re-alignment changed the landscape of the nation.

There, we are taught a valuable lesson and one that cannot simple be ignored, Political Parties in America must fear their members or pay the price for it. Then, as the old saying goes, a little revolution now and then is a healthy thing.

That is what makes a Party like the Libertarian Party vital. Though young and new, still within the pangs of its own adolescence, it serves as a potential warning to those who understand their history that there is a third way there. Though aimed at created for itself political success based on its platform and policies, the truth is that it serves as a watchdog against the larger party that might forget its base or forget its roots and seek a path that runs contrary to it in the arrogance of its leadership. What they offer is a home to those who feel not as if they were abandoning their party, but those who have come to believe their party has left them.

Though they are yet to break the three percent margin on the national political scene in a presidential race, they do remain a cautionary tale. Considering the fact that they had not, during the last election, ran a traditional neo-libertarian, as they had in the previous elections, but rather a conservative who had not long ago sat with Republicans in the same party, and the success they had in forcing a runoff ballot in Georgia when victory should have easily been assured to Senator Saxby Chambliss, it reminds the Republican Party and the elected officials that bear that R behind their name that they are taking aim directly at them. They have candidates that will appeal to conservatives and they will find a home their if the party forgets their base.

There, though they may not win, those Republican leaders should perhaps learn a lesson caused north of the border. In Canada, 12 years of continuous Liberal rule was assured because of the simple fact that the Conservatives had split, some feeling abandoned by their traditional alignment and forming a third party, handing election after election to their opponents.

But then just a few thoughts I suppose…

Wyatt McIntyre is a conservative political vlogger, blogger, commentator and co-host of Patriot Action Live. His writing and thoughts on a variety of topics, from history to politics can be found at www.wyattmcintyre.com

Michael Phelps, Pot, and You

Seems our most recent golden boy, Michael Phelps, is possibly acquainted with cannabis, and so what?

The whole media hype about the man doing what he wants to do is a bit insane and should alarm all of you that it's even considered a crime. Sure, he showed poor judgment in doing pot, and sure, it was stupid to put oneself in risk of legal problems, but otherwise it's harmless and you should all be asking yourself "who is the victim?"

If there is no victim, then where is there a crime?

The man knows the risks, and wanted the hit. Who are you to say he can't have it? Don't think for a moment you, personally, are not at fault. You are. You, kind reader, are the very reason Michael Phelps was put into any sort of jeopardy for smoking weed. You, because you allow this farcical war on drugs to continue in your name.

No Victim, no crime.

Except in a few oddball cases, like drugs.

Wake up America. The best and brightest that you have to offer wants to get stoned every now and then, and but for a minority of chicken little's that decry the evils of drugs they can't do it. Let the man do what he want's.

I thought you were pro choice? Get your laws off my body, and that sort of thing. How nuts is it that this country allows a woman to murder her child, but not a man to kill his brain cells?

The government uses drugs to hold you down. Don't go along. Vote the bastards out.

Days Later and We're Still Hated!

This headlines really say it all:

"Iran says Obama's offer to talk shows US failure... 'Western ideology has become passive'..."

Seems that all the prognostication of Obama making the world love us was a bit overblown. Obama may have managed to give the western critics a moment of pause, but not because they suddenly love us, only because they need a new thing to bitch about.

It's way past time for America to wise up, grow a backbone, and own up to its place in the world, at the top. Someone has to be at the top, and the whole world should get on its knees and thank God it is the US. The US has shown so much restraint in the use of its power that it is unprecedented in all of history. We just tend to get more by bashing fewer heads.

That all said, some people in the world still don't like us. It would not matter who was president. They don't like us.

The Libertarians say, this is a fine state of affairs and that we should only concern ourselves where our direct national interests lie. If we were at all smart about this we would be running head long to break the dependence we have on foreign oil. This would allow us to keep our troops at home, and let the rest of the world take care of itself.

You want a stimulus package? Spend 700 billion dollars increasing our abilities to produce energy here in the USA. Drill oil. Mine coal. Build nuclear power plants. Erect wind and solar farms. Put those millions of reserved acres of land back into corn production. Find new sources of energy. That would do something worth while.

But no matter what we do or who is president, people are going to hate us. Let them. And keep our American boots ready to apply to their necks if they should even think of attacking us.

A moment of clarity

My ex-party, the Republican party, did something right. When anyone does something right you need to positively reinforce them so they might do it again.

Good job for resisting the "stimulus package".

EXCELLENT JOB. Not one of you, not a single one, crossed the line and followed the Democrats into the abyss of that bad legislation. It's not often that any party shows complete unity.

Were I still a Republican, I would have been proud.

I hope your men in the Senate can follow your example.

Git'mo Respect - A Conservative's Perspective

Well it wasn’t the shock to end all shocks….

Perhaps the most repeated promises of his Presidential Campaign, the newly sworn in Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama, would move quick to make good on it. The doors of the Guantanamo Bay prison would be closing, shutting for good, the first major policy break from the Administration of George W. Bush put into play.

It was a move that, by the best of arguments, was aimed at restoring American moral authority, both at home and abroad. After all, questionable interrogation techniques had been used there, one that, by the accusations of some, violated the base human rights of the enemy combatants being detained at the facility. If the United States is to be regain its moral authority to be seen as a world leader, then it can’t be seen as torturing its prisoners.

At home his base could almost be heard sigh a collective sigh of relieve when that first stay would be issued. Abroad, the move would find itself well received as well by world leaders such as the Chancellor of Germany who would give it her approval, saying that this… well this would go a long way in restoring America’s reputation abroad. Just don't expect a lot of help from her in dealing with the situation created by shutting the prison.

The end of Bush… the end of Gitmo… what more could people ask for? Well besides perhaps the answer to the question of what is going to happen to these prisoners.

That isn’t a tough one to figure out.

Let’s take a brief trip through time. With all things being considered equal it’s perhaps not the favorite practice of some out there, those who wish to either forget the past eight years as if they never happened, believing, as Director Spike Lee once claimed, that there are two periods of American History, Before Obama and After Obama, or because they wish to look back fondly on the eight years of President Bill Clinton as the good ole days in American politics, when the only enemy the nation had were apparently the White House Interns and the President had that issue well in hand.

Perhaps one of the least advertised aspects of the Clinton foreign policy was a practice his administration engaged in called Rendition. Quite simply, without putting too much on the details, it’s the act of shipping off your prisoners and your terror suspects, which were more than a few in number, off to other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, where obviously human rights are a foremost concern, so that they can “interrogate” your prisoners for you. Apparently Don’t ask, Don’t tell was more than just a military policy, it was the order of the day.

Now, let’s fast forward a few years, who is that are in the White House advising the new President on foreign policy and legal matters? Well for all those folks who sat back and longingly waxed nostalgic for the return of the Clinton Administration, it was a welcome showing of the usual suspects. Hillary Clinton in the State Department, after all the bullets she dodged from sniper fire one has to know she will be tough on terrorists, and Eric Holder, President Clinton’s Deputy Attorney General, as the soon to be confirmed head of the Justice Department. And they are not alone, the appointment process has seem to be a veritable Who’s Who of the old White House.

But don’t worry, these questionable interrogation techniques are going to stop here at home, the dark days of Gitmo are gone, American’s can sigh a sweet, long awaited sigh of relief and they will be so loved abroad that drifter teenagers can stop sewing Canadian flags to their backpacks when they go to foreign countries. Life is good.

The dirty little secret, well, just wait and see, it won’t be long until once more start shipping these prisoners out, putting them on the quickest plane to these places that will once more do our dirty work. But so long as our hands our clean we have little left to worry about. What we don’t know, it can’t hurt our reputation with the other countries of the world, right? After all, we’ll still have our moral authority in the world to lead.

The simple reality of the matter is that, whether the American people like it or not, is that Gitmo was one of those necessary evils in a time of war. Perhaps it made us queasy to the stomach to think about, perhaps it offended our collective consciences, and yet it served as a valuable tool to combat terrorism. It could have been that, at times, the methods employed crossed a line and could be considered extreme, but then when one thinks about what this country was up against then there has to come the realization that there is a necessity to take action, even if it leaves us uneasy. That is why they are called tough choices and we elect people to make them for us.

It is yet to be seen what the Obama Administration will do with enemy combatants, but if history is any example, it’s been pre-determined by his high level appointments to these positions. There, policies such as Rendition are not an act of leadership but a void of it, believing somehow that you can hold a degree of integrity while still embracing questionable means of interrogation, so long as it’s not publicly or done by your administration.

Otherwise what else are you going to do with these terrorists? Last thing any responsible President is going to want is to bring them to American shores, and give them a home here, even if it’s in a prison.

But then just a few thoughts I suppose…

Online Blogger and commentator Wyatt McIntyre is a guest contributor to Manatee Libertarian, his regular Podcasts, Blogs and V-Logs can be viewed at www.wyattmcintyre.com.

Racism and the First Lady

Michelle, welcome to the frank discussion about race that your husband predicted.

You're now going to be sharing ground zero with him for the next four years where every decision you make will be scrutinized. And you didn't even get a pass on your very first day!

Yes, it turns out the racists are already snipping at you. The racist organization known as The Black Artists Association is tossing mud because you choose the apparel you thought was best, apparently with no regard for the skin color of the designer of the apparel. CONGRATULATIONS AND APPLAUSE FOR THE FIRST LADY!

But for the openly racist Amnau Eele I have nothing but disdain and scorn. Such race mindedness is exactly the sort of thing that holds minorities out of the mainstream. Amnua, I can only hope this was a lapse in judgement and that otherwise you are willing to judge an artist by the content of his work and not his skin, but considering the group you founded, I can only expect that you are a dedicated racist. Your kind is nothing more than the cerebral soul mates of the KKK.

The thinking you are exhibiting will never lead you to the land of equality you seek for you're not allowing others to think for themselves. You would oppress the first lady with your racist ways. I'm glad Michelle Obama has a much broader mind than you. In this instance she set a very fine example for her daughters and the world.

If this is the sort of thinking we can expect from the Black Artists Association then it may be a very long four years indeed for you as it seems clear that Michelle Obama has the potential to rise above your kind and show the world in no uncertain terms that she is an American first, woman second and black person third and in so doing will elevate the all of America and, thankfully, show your last century thinking to be exactly what it is, out of time.

Inauguration Day

Today is one of the greatest days in the history of the world, and it has nothing to do with Obama.

There is a veritable avalanche of media hype about the inauguration of President Obama, and some of it makes good sense. After all, he is the first bi-racial President.

Today is important for something far greater than the man. Today the world will witness, once again, the peaceful transfer of power in the greatest nation on the face of the earth. These men are political opponents, and yet President George W. Bush will stand right next to Mr. Obama as he takes the oath of office.

Not many countries can say that about themselves, and we were the first and we can still say it. If you ever needed a reason to be proud of your country, Mrs. Obama, this legacy is it.

Kings progress.

Today we celebrate the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. III, a great man who had a great impact on this nation.

And what did he do?

Did he free the slaves? no, not literally, but in a sense yes. When Dr. King began his civil rights efforts the average black man or woman was in the bondage of second class citizenship. It might seem like centuries ago, especially to those of us such as myself who are too young to have lived through it, but in terms of history it is still fresh. There are plenty of people alive today who marched with King and who can relate their personal experiences.

Was he out to make it so that Rosa Parks could sit in the front of a bus? No.
Was he out to make it so that white-only restaurants had to serve black people too? No.
Was he out to see schools opened to people of color? No.

Those were symptoms of a bigger problem he was hoping to address. The problem was racism itself. Not personal racism so much, although I'm sure he stood against that as well, but the systemic racism that cast one group of people into a second class citizenship.

What, then, was his goal? How would we know if he succeeded?

He told us plainly in his famous "I have a dream" speech. He dreamed of a time when people of all colors would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

I propose that, in a great measure, his dream has failed as much as it has succeeded.

That has to come as a shock to many of you, for anyone can see that, at least by the very minimal measurements I have just put forth his movement was a raging success. The system is free of such things as white-only restaurants, bus seating by color and school segregation. How then can I make such a bold statement?

I make the statement because his dream was bigger than just racism, but involuntary servitude of any kind was repugnant to him. And yet today there is just such a system being placed around the necks of Americans of all color.

My mind is drawn to the racist concept of affirmative action. The very bedrock of the idea is that, all other things held equally, in any give industry or profession the mixture of people in all levels of an organization should be roughly equivalent to the racial distribution of the people who make up that organization. It's a nice sounding theory. I even agree with it, in theory.

But what does that theory say about the American black voter? If it were true then there should be, roughly, 50% of the black voters in the GOP and 50% in the DNC. But that's not what we see. One is forced to ask why?

The reason is because the movement was derailed. It lost its dream when it lost Dr. King. He never dreamed of government housing projects and affirmative action and free schools and high taxes and motrgage company bail outs and all the other things that have inserted themselves into the mindset of the civil rights movement. This is because none of those things are civil rights.

None of those things are rights because they are all services that must be supplied by someone. That someone is the tax payer. The taxpayer does not derive any benefit from those services and is therefore in involuntary servitude.

We all lost when King died. King would never have stood for the welfare state as we see it today. King would have recognized that such a redstributionist policy is nothing more than theft with grandious verbage to mask the injustice.

All King wanted was a fair shot at the American dream. He wanted a better life for his children. He didn't want a goverment nanny state, as those who have hijacked his movement have corrupted it with the introduction of these false civil rights.

But where does this leave us, the Libertarian party? It leaves us with a golden opportunity to revive some of the dream.

The Obama administration will fail to deliver on even a small portion of its promises, and those it does deliver on will cost the US economy such that all will suffer. The fact that a bi-racial man will soon occupy the whitehouse will allow many of the minority voters to put down their blind party aliengence and reliaze that, no matter what the color, the content of a liberals character leads to bondage of people of all color.

This will leave them wondering where they might turn? They will see that the GOP offers no solutions for they are simply the other half ot he DNC.

We can offer them a true alternative.

The Libertarian party offers respect of the individual.
The Libertarian party offers protection of private property.
The Libertarian party offers freedom of life style choices.
The Libertarian party defends the right to defend yourself.
The Libertarian party offers the one neither old party will, freedom.

All we have to do is get the message out.

No More World Police

I was speaking with a colleague when the question was put to me "Would the Libertarians have supported America's entry into World War II?"

This is not a simple question, and it behooves us to remember we are looking at this from decades after the event, but I think we can still draw some important conclusions.

When the Libertarians say that the US should not be the world police, we mean this specifically in that we should not be sticking our nose into conflicts where we have no direct interest, such as was the case in Mogadishu.

There are three compelling cases that the Libertarians would support military action.

The first one is easy, self defense. Few will deny the right to protect yourself, and the Libertarians are absolute on this point. Everyone has the right to defend himself. This extends to preemptive actions as well. One does not have to wait to be attacked to defend oneself.

The second is a clear economic interest. This is really an extension of the first, only in terms of property and not life. The USA cannot stand by idle while its supply of oil or other needed commodities are threatened. Libertarians absolutely support the right to protect property.

The third case is a bit trickier, and has lead us into some sticky situations where we do not belong. The third case is that of genocide. The systematic extermination of a class of people, for any reason, is an attack on humanity at large, and as members of humanity we have the moral obligation to act if we can.

With these as the ground rules, what conclusions can we draw?

Would the Libertarians support America's entry into world war II? Absolutely, on all three counts. Americans were being killed on ships being torpedoed, our economic interests were in serious jeopardy, and of course, Pearl Harbor removed all doubt about the intent of the combatants. The presence of holocaust was largely unknown, and it is only with hindsight that we can say the Libertarians would support war on that criteria as well.

Would the Libertarians support the attack on Afghanistan? Absolutely. We are defending ourselves from a clear, present and proven danger.

Would the Libertarians support the attack on Iraq the first time? Yes, the threat of Iraqi expansion into the Saudi oil fields was compelling.

Would the Libertarians support the attack on Iraq the second time? Yes, but not for the reasons the Bush administration put forth. I find it preposterous to think that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the US mainland, and it was well contained against expansion into the Saudi oil fields. However, it should be acknowledged by all that we set Saddam Hussein up and used him in our proxy war against Iran. Therefore we are partially responsible for his actions, and he proved to be a genocidal bastard. It rightly falls to us clean our own proxy house.

Would the Libertarians support any military action in the pirate situation off of Somolia? Of course. American interests are being threatened.

Would the Libertarians support any military action in Gaza? No. We have no interested there.

Would the Libertarians support preemptive attacks on Iran? If a clear and present danger presents itself, of course.

Would the Libertarians support military action in Darfur? Only if genocide can be shown, which I believe is the case.

What wars would the Libertarians not support? The invasions of Panama and Grenada to name a few.

Time to Get Angry

We see it all the time, a marching liberal mob demanding some concession from the mainstream. And it makes the news. And it has a corrosive effect. And it does not have to be the exclusive tool of the left.

The right can, and should, get angry!

You think you're grumpy now because Obama is about to be president, just wait until he actually is!

Get out your signs.
Get out your bullhorns.
And get out the message.

Socialism is not the answer.
Socialism exists only to keep the socialists in power. It does nothing to solve the problems of the average citizen and only exacerbates those of the poor citizen, at the expense of the rich.
Socialism is the enemy.

Americans still believe in freedom, they just don't fully understand it.
Americans still believe in fair play, they have been sold a fraud.
Americans still believe in conservative values, they just haven't gotten passionate about them.

In the meanwhile, the left has done nothing but erode the foundations of the country, and many of us has sat on our asses and watched it happen.

So get pissed off already!

You're not helpless. You hold the keys to power. You are the majority. Why do you think the TV continues to pump its pablum into your house day in and day out? It's not because of the market forces! The market has proved the liberal message is a loser with the American people. It is because they have to do this to put forth even the illusion of acceptance. People tend to follow other people and people tend to believe what they hear over and over.

Stop acting like you can't win, like it's out fate to slide into a socialist system.

Organize.
Protest.
BE SEEN PROTESTING.

And take the country back, so you can give it to your children.

Spending Our Way to Prosperity

I've been avoiding this topic because it seems so over done, and almost an irresistible fate.

The current economic issues are not and cannot be addressed by any "bail out", "rescue" or "stimulus package", no matter how well intentioned or how well executed. The reason is because these things violate fundamental laws of economics, and everyone knows it.

Why have them then?

One word: Politics.

But it's really worse than politics, it's dirty politics. It's time to call these beasts what they are, payoffs. Who do you think will be receiving all these billions (now trillions) of dollars? You? Your neighbor?

Don't be silly. The first people who will get them are the big time money people on Wall Street, and who will pay for them, the tax payers. While there is a bit of satisfying justice in recognizing that the rich people, who pay most of the taxes, will, in fact, be bailing out themselves, it will not be so simple. The government doesn't have this money just sitting around. It has to raise it, with taxes, or create it, with monetary policy. (Monetary policy is a euphemism for "out of thin air", in case you're not sure.)

But will "the rich" really pay for it?

Actually, yes and no. They will pay for it in the same way that we will all pay for it, via inflation. If it not possible to pump billions upon billions of new dollars into the system and not devalue the currency already in circulation. Economics 101 tells us about supply and demand, and the governments plans call for an increase in the supply that will cause a decrease in price (or in this case value). This is an irrevocable law no less potent than gravity. Good intentions cannot over come it.

The problem is that not enough people in Washington D.C. want to face the hard reality. We've been spending ourselves into oblivion for a very long time, and that you cannot continue to distort the market forever. Just as you can overcome gravity for a while by expending energy, eventually it pulls you back down, so you can overcome the forces of economics, for a while. We're headed back down, and I believe nothing on this earth can stop it.

Inflation is coming at us like a rushing train. Take actions now to survive, and even thrive, in such an environment if you can. The only question is, will the economic train of our destruction take with it "only" our standard of living, or will it stamp out our liberties as well?

Keep track of the names of those who put us on this track. Their parties are the old parties, the parties that have been bought and paid for by special interest groups. The GOP abandoned its conservative core, the DNC never had one. Only the party of principle holds any hope for us now. Cast off the elephant and the jackass, and stand tall with the lady holding the torch.

Why I don't Care

Looks like Al Franken may become a US Senator.
Looks like Roland Burris may not become a US senator.
Looks like lots of interesting things.

But it doesn't look like we Libertarians should give a damn!

None of it involves our party. It is a side show distraction.

The issues, terrorism, government wire taps, drugs, abortion, gay rights, and health care are all real, but the show is a circus put on to distract us from the work we should be doing. Contacting voters and getting registrations.

Let them have their media moments. It does not matter because our game is man to man. Each of us needs to be finding those disenchanted voters and reaching out to them and showing them the better way.

Let the elephant and jackass dance, I'm following the lady with a torch.

Christianity and Libertarian Thought

I have received more than a few comments to the effect that somehow Libertarian thought and Christian beliefs are in conflict. This is, thankfully, both untrue and easy to demonstrate as untrue.

The first thing that must be understood is the limits that Libertarian thought places on itself. Libertarian thought only addresses the interactions of two living, corporeal people. Libertarian thought is a minimalist morality in that it defines only the minimal requirements, and leaves up to the individual the right to take upon themselves higher codes of behavior.

Libertarian morality is the absence of force or fraud in human relationships.

To help you understand better, we Christians must look at the Libertarian philosophy through the lens of the Holy Scriptures. I draw your attention to ten commandments:

1: “You shall have no other gods before Me”
This is between man and God, not addressed by the Libertarian philosophy.

2: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”
Again, this is between creator and creation, not between men.

3: “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.”
Same here

4: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”
More of the same.

5: “Honor your father and your mother.”
The Libertarian philosophy is not in conflict here. One could not be honorable to his parents by wielding either force or fraud being used against his parents.

6: “You shall not murder.”
No conflict here.

7: “You shall not commit adultery.”
Adultery is, ultimately, a lie, and thus fraud. No conflict here.

8: “You shall not steal.”
No conflict here.

9: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”
No conflict here.

10: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”
No conflict here. This addresses what is in your heart, and the Libertarian philosophy does not speak to those issues, only to issues between people, not inside an individual.

Of course, we no longer live in the age of law, but in the age of Grace. Thus our highest arbiter must be the Lord Jesus Christ. Even He gives us no commandment with which the Libertarian philosophy is in conflict. This is precisely because the philosophy stops at actions, physical or spoken, between people.

Libertarians hold that you cannot hit someone else, nor can you lie to them for personal gain. These things are not counter to Christian values, nor could practicing them lead to conflict for the Christian, for Libertarianism demands respect of others, and control of your own behavior.