Judge Vaughn Walker

The arguments that some right-libertarians have thrown into the ideological and political mix have been dubious. For instance, right-libertarian (and yet anti-IP attorney) Stephan Kinsella, who, in a misguided manner, penned a piece on his Libertarian Standard blog condemning Walker’s legal decision and brushing off any notion that the law violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Kinsella notes:

Gay rights advocates filed lawsuits to have the constitutional amendment declared unconstitutional. I predicted they would lose. First, they could not prevail on state constitutional grounds since Prop. 8 actually amended the California Constitution. You can’t argue a provision of the constitution is unconstitutional. So the question is whether this provision of the California Constitution violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (see my The Libertarian Case Against the Fourteenth Amendment). In my view, it clearly does not; any argument that such a law violates equal protection is ludicrous–there is no way the equal protection clause at the time of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) was understood to be so broad as to prohibit state laws that treated same-sex unions differently than traditional, heterosexual ones. As for due process–this was a validly enacted constitutional amendment, following regular legal procedures. So it was not a violation of due process (as for the doctrine of “substantive due process“–well this is a ridiculous, obviously dishonest, invented concept; process is, um, procedural).

(The notion that Kinsella [and others who share his point of view] has unveiled here is simply preposterous, but that will be explored later in this post. For now readers can simply make up their minds as to the “validity” of Kinsella’s bogus claims on this issue.)

Even Lew Rockwell, the founder and former president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and creator (and blogger) of LewRockwell.com, formerly objected to Walker’s ruling. In his blog post “Gay Marriage and Immigration” (how quaint that he married those two issues together!), dated August 5, 2010 at 10:24 AM, he writes in part:

[T]he Massachusetts. federal judge who ruled that marriage is none of the federal government’s business, and therefore Massachusetts may enact it, despite the defense of marriage act, had a strong case. He is ignored, however, while the crazed California judge is heralded.

And then, in the same post, he also writes:

[W]hile I can’t stand the foreign-government loving, war-mongering fundamentalist right, I do think they have one point. The heterophobes want to outlaw Church discrimination, that is, freedom. For many activists, government gay marriage is only one step towards even more totalitarian anti-discrimination laws.

“Crazed California judge”? “Heterophobes wanting to outlaw Church discrimination”? Who is he kidding? If anything, Rockwell has always been a homophobe against gays, especially on the issue of gay marriage. For him to use this language to condemn the actions of an openly-gay federal magistrate (even if he’s not a libertarian) is entirely uncalled for and unfair.

Overall, here are four principle arguments made by some in the liberty camp against the state’s attempt to recognize and embrace state-approved same-sex “gay” marriage*:

1. The State has no business in the marriage realm, so any approval of the ruling equates an acceptance of the State’s role in it as well as granting and codifying such a marriage. That even includes the State.
2. There are more pressing and more paramount things to be concerned about.
3. Marriage is merely a means for procreation and nothing else.
4. Federal courts (especially the U.S. district ones) have no legal jurisdiction over such matters at the state level.

Here are my swift replies:

1. No one, not even Yours Truly, says that the State must be involved in private affairs such as the institution of marriage. Of course it neither has any legitimate role in marriage nor it should have anything to do with it whatsoever. No one except for statist progressives and conservatives has suggested otherwise. The problem is that it is involved in the institution now; therefore, it’s in the State’s best interest not to invidiously deny a certain group of people of their freedom to marry while granting other groups special rights and privileges at the discriminated group’s expense. Will statist conservatives (including the religious ilk) and vulgar libertarians (mainly the right-libertarian ilk) use the power of the State to say that gays must be barred from eating in the same restaurants, going to the same schools, or driving on the same roads as straights do? Should the State be used to discriminate gays by prohibiting them from entering State-subsidized and State-controlled public buildings such as courtrooms, government schools, hospitals, and municipal buildings? (Let’s include legislative chambers such as state legislatures, state capitals, and, not to mention, the U.S. Congress and the Senate.)
2. How can there be “more pressing and more paramount things to be concerned about”? When gays are prevented from having the legal and normal (and not to mention mutual) benefits of marriage (including hospital visitation, custody of children, medical-making decisions involving incapacitated partners, next of kin business, etc.), there are no “more pressing and more paramount things to be concerned about”. Human liberty is at stake here. Liberty isn’t some abstraction; it’s about choosing to live your own life the way you want to live as long as you are not aggressing against your neighbor. Everyone’s liberty must be protected at all costs or we become modern-day slaves to the State (although that has vastly and mostly happened today). It’s very simple for libertarians to look the other way and pretend that this isn’t a big deal. (After all, Jim Crow wasn’t a pressing matter to the State-supported and State-backed white bigots in the South in the 1960s.) Besides, the ruling has been made, and we must learn to live with it. How is praising this recent decision a troubling distraction from what is more significant? As human beings we are more capable of multitasking than we realize.
3. This Neanderthalic view that marriage was constructed only for the purpose of procreation and nothing more than that is simply ludicrous. Marriage has never been exclusively institutionalized for that purpose. If that were entirely true, infertile couples, couples who choose to be childless, and even those who are elderly would have been forbidden to join in matrimony. Moreover, couples who are in wedlock choose to enter in such a partnership predicated on other values at the heart of their decisions: economic security, love and emotional fulfillment, and much more. The Freeman‘s very won Contributing Editor Stephen Horwitz opined on the evolution of the family which provides excellent insight on this subject.Additionally, a related objection to this ruling is that heterosexual intercourse is the pillar of marital consummation. My argument to this: so what? Big deal! Institutions from time immemorial evolve. That’s nothing new in the grand scheme of things. Even if consummation were pertinent in some manner, that simply changes nothing, considering the reasonable principle of mutatis mutandis still exists and will remain available indefinitely. This objection, whether it’s levied on religious and secular grounds (even if it’s predicated on some alleged moral and ethical standpoint), is flatly absurd in every immeasurable way.
4. This business that federal courts have no business interceding in statist matters propped up by the states and their localities that lead to the curtailing of other individuals’ human freedom is nonsensical all the way around. We as individuals are dealing with crucial matters relating to liberty that must be applied to individuals consistently, especially when the State denies that consistency to other peace-loving people from all walks of life. This point even applies to Kinsella’s and Rockwell’s arguments as well: despite the Founders’ good intentions involving the political apparatus of federalism (which is a loose confederation of nation-like states that reserve the powers to those individuals and not the “states” because they are merely abstractions), state rights do not exist. Kinsella, Rockwell, and their Misean right-libertarian ilk get frequently annoyed when the State and its foot soldiers ignore other people’s already-owned First Amendment, Second Amendment, and Fourth Amendment-protected rights. So how can they ignore the existence of the people’s Fourteenth Amendment protections, which state in part in the following?:
   

   No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [Emphasis added.]

   Whether Kinsella, Rockwell, their ilk, and statist conservatives like it or not, that amendment exists. What are they going to do about it? Call for a repeal of that amendment? And, if so, would that entail a mass movement of right-libertarians and statist conservatives coalescing to push the states to ratify a new constitutional amendment that would nullify that amendment in its entirety? I see no valid argument against the federal court’s jurisdiction in this matter as far as I’m concerned.

Besides, would Rockwell, Kinsella, and their allies who have objections to the ruling make the same argument against interracial marriage? There was a time when interracial marriage was illegal in the South (at the height of the Jim Crow era) and in many other states as well. The Supreme Court refused to intervene in such affairs until 1967 when it ruled on a 9-0 vote in its landmark federal case Loving v. Virginia that such discrimination was illegal and in stark opposition to the Due Process and Equal Protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment as well. Kinsella objects to the Substantive Due Process claims that the amendment covers, which is ludicrous.

Critics may have been opposed to the ideas underlying that principle, but there have been critics of all sorts opposing this idea for years. Just because they criticized substantive due process doesn’t mean that their arguments are in the right or just; in fact, they are substantially subjective without any legal basis whatsoever. The points made by Rockwell, Kinsella, and others who have raised similar arguments are nonsensical and excrement. They are simply naive and foolish to believe in and favor that discriminatory crud.

Moreover, it does not help that Rockwell’s homophobia as the basis for his arguments against equal protection under the law (considering the law mandates that the State must be evenhanded in its application of such decisions) has become the face of the libertarian movement. Do some of those libertarians really want to alienate people more than they already have by taking that shameful position? Where’s the fairness in that type of paradigm altogether?

As long as the State has its dirty hands in the institution of marriage, the system, like or not, needs to be even-handed. While the goal of eliminating the State’s hand in marriage must be pursued, in the interim the State has no business discriminating considering all governments are created by their own laws that are the heart and soul of their own constitutions.

[*Note: I've taken the four points from Sheldon Richman's arguments in his blog post which is actually similar to my views on the matter and reworded his statements according to how I see them. A well-deserved hat tip to him for this.]

[Cross-posted on the Free Dissent and the Let Liberty Ring blogs.]

Wurzelbacher, trying to appeal to the Tea Baggers’ populist senses, flies into a nonsensical rant about homosexuality and abortion. According to Free Talk Live executive producer and co-owner and partner of CAI Credit Adjustments, Inc. (formerly Sakal/CAI) Jason Osborne, Wurzelbacher brings up the subject of illegal immigration. What does he propose the “people” should do about illegal immigration?

According to both Irish Central and the Times Reporter news sites, he exclaimed:

“Illegal immigration?” he said. “Put a fence up and start shooting [them].”

Sadly and disturbingly enough, the entire crowd stood up and gave him a standing ovation. How disgusting and twisted indeed!

Even more, The Times Reporter site, in reference to Wurzelbacher, also stated:

He drew an ovation with a talk emphasizing patriotism, taking responsibility and getting involved. “We need to get behind real Americans,” he said, warning the crowd not to let “a bunch of liberal pansies” take away their rights.

I suppose Wurzelbacher was truly referring to “conservative rights”?

This is a reason why the Liberty movement as a whole needs to divorce itself and disassociate itself from the Tea Party movement as much as possible and as soon as possible. Racism, intolerance, and bigotry must be rejected and condemned across the board. But, more importantly, violence against independent migrants must be denounced at all costs.

This is sheer positive proof that the Tea Baggers, including their conservative ilk, are nothing short of racists and fascism across the board. Any conservative, right-libertarian, or Tea Bagger who condones the putrid vitriol and rhetoric coming from Wurzelbacher and the applause and praise from the right-wing crowd deserves to have his or her feet held to the fire, just for simply embracing and advocating that level of trash talk and violence.

Color me both blatantly sickened and confounded.

[H/T to Jason Osborne for mentioning this on last night's Free Talk Live and my show Liberty Cap Talk Live.]

According to the website:

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.

The website further reveals:

The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.

After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own “Rules of Engagement”.

Consequently, WikiLeaks has released the classified Rules of Engagement for 2006, 2007 and 2008, revealing these rules before, during, and after the killings.

WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.

WikiLeaks obtained this video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers. WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.

WikiLeaks wants to ensure that all the leaked information it receives gets the attention it deserves. In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work.

Here’s the 17-minute and 47-second clip in its entirety. I advise parents and everyone who are about to watch this may not suitable for your children, as it does contain graphic, obscene violence:

If Americans are shocked by this when they see this, my question to them will be, “Why?” What the U.S. federal government has done to the people of Iraq and the rest of the Middle East does not surprise me, but that does not mean it does not disgust me further.

Color me both unsurprised and sickened at the same time.

That is quite a hilarious contention, come to think of it. When Medicare was passed and enacted into law, opponents of the program at the time predicted that it result in the state’s greater control of the medical system than ever.

Here’s a couple of fair questions to people: does anyone now believe that Medicare was such a good idea to create? And while we’re at it, does anyone now think that was a horrible prediction at all?

Medicare, as it stands, has an unfunded liability — that is, empty promises — of $37 trillion over the next 75 years, the insolvency of the program notwithstanding. To give the devil his due, Obama at least admits that Medicare is a major reason for the federal deficit, which creates the massive national debt. To rectify the problem (namely the out-of-control budget), coverage for a handful of services are being denied. Doctors are now routinely being prompted to stop accepting new Medicare patients, thanks to the insane bureaucratic burden imposed upon them.

All in all, the government medical program has stimulated supply and demand of services, thus propping up prices for everyone across the board by subsidizing medical care for the retirees. Costlier medical care results in costlier medical insurance. Medical insurance companies are soon priced out of the market, thus becoming wiped out of existence after the price of insurance skyrockets. That certainly adds to the number of people who are uninsured. (Although this is not the only factor of inflation, it remains a relatively large one.)

With prices rising higher and the number of uninsured growing larger (all because of the government product known as Medicare), there is no question that all this has energized the government’s attempt to increase its power over the medical system.

Now, in the present day, the predictions made about Medicare have come true, not to mention legitimate. It has opened the door for more state intervention in our medical-care choices — meaning us.

The question that needs to be asked is this: is what we’ve warned about ObamaCare making us alarmists or talking about reality?

Here’s a YouTube clip of Maher making his speech on the March 26, 2010 episode of his show:

Here’s a transcript of what Maher said:

Finally, New Rule: You can’t use the statement ‘There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year!’ as a threat if there was no cooperation in the first part of the year.

Here’s a word President Obama should take out of his Teleprompter: Bipartisanship. People only care about that in theory, not in practice. The best thing that happened this year is when Obama finally realized that and said: ‘Kiss my black ass, we’re going it alone George W. Bush style.’ [applause]

Now, two months ago, conservative Fred Barnes wrote, ‘The health care bill is dead with not the slightest prospect of resurrection.’ Well, if it’s dead, you just got your ass kicked by a zombie named Nancy Pelosi. Seriously, the last time a Democrat showed balls like that John Edwards’ girlfriend was filming it.

And yet, even before the Democrats got to take a single victory lap, they were being warned not to get drunk with power. I disagree. All you Democrats do a shot and then do another. Get drunk on this feeling of not backing down and doing what you came to Washington to do. [applause]

Do not listen to the people who are now saying that nothing else big should be attempted for a while because health care was so rough. Wrong. Because I learned something watching the lying bullies of the right lose this one. When they’re losing, they squeal like a pig. They kept saying things like, the bill was being ‘shoved down our throats.’ Or the Democrats were ‘ramming it through.’ The bill was so big they ‘couldn’t take it all at once.’ [laughter]

And you know what? I realized listening to this rhetoric that it reminded me of something. It reminded me of Tiger Woods’ text messages to his mistress that were made public last week, where he said, and I quote: ‘I want to treat you rough, throw you around, spank and slap you and make you sore. I want to hold you down and choke you while I fuck that ass that I own. Then I’m going to tell you to shut the fuck up while I slap your face and pull your hair for making noise.’ Unquote. [laughter]

And this, I believe, perfectly represents the attitude the Democrats should now have in their dealings with the Republican Party. [applause]

Yes, it does. That’s what they should be saying to the Republicans: ‘Shut the fuck up while I slap your face for making noise! Now pass the cap-and-trade law, you stupid bitch, and repeat after me, “global warming is real.”‘ [applause]

The Democrats need to push the rest of their agenda while their boot is on the neck of the greedy, poisonous old reptile. Who cares if cap-and-trade bill isn’t popular, neither was health care. Your poll numbers may have descended a bit, but so did your testicles.

So don’t stop. We need to regulate the banks, we need to overhaul immigration, we need to end corporate welfare including at the Pentagon, we need to bring troops home from everywhere, we need to end the drug war, and we need to put terrorists and other human rights violators on trial in civilian courts — starting with Dick Cheney. [applause]

Democrats, in conclusion, Democrats in America were put on earth to do one thing: Drag the ignorant hillbilly half of this country into the next century, which in their case is the 19th. And by passing health care, the Democrats saved their brand.

A few months ago, Sarah Palin mockingly asked them: ‘How’s that “hopey-changey” thing working for you?’ Great, actually, thanks for asking. And how’s that whole ‘Hooked on Phonics’ thing working out for you? [laughter]

This is a perfect epitome of the moral and economic bankruptcy and ignorance of Bill Maher and his cronies. He’s morally and economic bankrupt because he doesn’t care that the state is getting bigger, that it’s exacting force on innocent individuals to fatten the pockets of Big Insurance, and it’s confiscating the fruits of labor from those who earned and giving it to those who didn’t, simply because it’s the “good” of society. He’s ignorant, because he refuses to fathom what the evils of the law are doing to those uninsured people whom he purportedly cares about (and who neither want nor have asked for the new government-provided insurance and expanded health care entitlement system in the first place).

He’s also being disingenuous by framing the paradigm as though this is a “Democrat-versus-Republican” war, when frankly it’s a “Democrat-and-Big-State-versus-Freedom-and-Non-Coercion” war in every step of the way. This argument of his is a perfect indication of cognitive dissonance, which is a psychological term referring to a set of simultaneously conflicting ideas coupled with a feeling of great discomfort between two or more groups of people. It’s cognitive dissonance, because he, on one hand, believes that everyone should have health care and insurance, but health insurance is evil, so the state is justified into wiping the insurance industry (which lobbied for the passage and enactment of the law).

Hypocrisy, idiocy, and fallacies know no bounds when it comes to a cretin like Bill Maher. The sad truth is that he’ll never understand that.

Knowing how ridiculous Block’s argument is getting, there’s nothing else to be said.

He leaks this out to Stewart at 2:40.

Here’s an excerpt of his scathing yet honest answers regarding the hidden agenda of the new law:

The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.

How nice of him, Obama, and the statist Democrats in power! In their eyes, we’re all just a bunch of Pinocchios with strings attached to our arms and legs like hand-made puppets.

How quaint.

It’s political, because the bill, which was supposed to be brought to the Senate for reconciliation before Obama signed it, ended up being bypassed to Obama’s desk for his signature, without the “fixes” (which are actually amendments) being applied to the document. After all, the Voice of America news site reported on March 22 just before the bill reached the Oval Office: “[T]he Senate must still sign-off on a series of changes approved by the House.” (After Obama signed the bill into law, the Senate had just passed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.)

The law’s conservative critics argue that it’s both unconstitutional and illegal, because there’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the U.S. federal government must coerce uninsured individuals into purchasing health-care insurance. I’m not much of a fan of the current document as established by our Founding Fathers, but the conservatives’ argument is entirely flimsy. While it may be true that any constitutional scholar or historian worth his or her salt will say that this medical-care “reform” does not fall within the constitutional purview of the federal government, the Constitution is pretty cryptic in this area. So what if it is unconstitutional? Conservatives are wrongheaded to make this point. They should be arguing that the bill is wrong and unethical, because it initiates force against those who choose not to pay for other people’s medical care, whether they are insured or not, and subsidizes those who would otherwise not need the insurance for a variety of reasons. Congressional Democrats, such as John Conyers of Michigan, say that the “general welfare” clause (found in the Preamble and Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution) grants the federal government the power to establish dominion of the U.S. medical-care system. But what were the conservatives expecting? That Obama would just not sign the bill into law? Democrats have historically been hostile to human liberty across the board. Republicans are the same. Face it; if George W. Bush had proposed a similar law and lobbied hard to pass it, would the GOP and its cronies have argued against it then? Of course not! They would be all for it, because they would have been getting the credit for it, and they would financially and politically benefit from it like former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney did when he imposed RomneyCare in his state.

Finally, it’s immoral and anti-liberty, because it is an assault on individual liberty while both protecting and expanding the parasitic medical welfare state (including the entitlement programs of Medicaid [which is universal medical care for the uninsured poor and needy] and Medicare [which is universal care for mostly wealthy retirees and the elderly collecting Social Security). (Medicare recipients will not be pleased to learn that this new law, which begins to take effect in its entirety by 2018, will undercut, undermine, or eliminate their coverage or see a significant rise in their premiums.) Individuals, who are already not allowed and had never been allowed to make that many decisions on their medical-care options, will find that their insurance premium costs will rise, the quality of health care to plummet, and the pool of available doctors shrinking at a much substantially higher rate than ever. The new law, which for months had been widely touted as a "reform" of the system, will not allow wiggle room for doctors to make medical decisions on their patients' health and patients to make medical choices on their health and what insurance plans work best for them. ObamaCare does not and will not address the state's intervention in the medical-care market, research, and the system in its entirety. It does not even allow patients to shop for insurance plans from insurers across state lines.

The medical care system certainly requires reforms -- true radical reforms. ObamaCare, on the other hand, is just too expensive, and powerful medical and insurance interests are prospering and will prosper even more at the expense of all of us. The status quo will merely profit from it, which hardly leaves any legitimate reason for any sane and rational individual to admire it. With that in mind, we have no sound reason to tolerate it.

The idea that a highly-bureaucratized, highly-socialized state-propped medical-care model such as ObamaCare costing only $940 billion is nothing more than a piece of fiction. Medicare, which was launched in 1966, actually cost $3 billion. Congress projected the costs of the program at about $12 billion by 1990 (an alleged conservative estimate). By the time that year came, the actual cost was $107 billion (if inflation is included in the costs). In 2003, the CATO Institute issued a report indicating that the program was going to be price-tagged at a projected $244 billion. Moreover, the Medicare system is rife with massive fraud and abuse. Fewer than 5 percent of the medical claims filed with the agency are audited. Cost overruns, rising deficits, lower payments to physicians and hospitals coupled with payment delays, medical services and procedures rationed by doctors, hospitals, and the state coupled with treatment delays, payroll taxes paid by employers and levied on employees, and HMO-style "assembly line" medicine have plagued Medicare for the longest time.

Thanks to the imposition of the Medicare Drug Prescription Benefit Act of 2003 (a Bush-era edict that was price-tagged at $400 billion) and a month after then-President Bush issued that decree, Medicare Plan D's price-tag went up to $534 billion. According to the 2009 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, the projected costs from 2009 to 2018 are $727.3 billion. But the economic reality is that the costs for that program are going to be higher -- much higher -- than deemed. Even James Bovard, a policy analyst for the Future of Freedom Foundation and author of The Bush Betrayal, noted in 2005 that the Medicare trustees would cost up to $7 trillion over the next 75 years (assuming the federal government and all of its various programs, including Medicare and its prescription drug program, still exist).

Obama, his progressive supporters who are behind the new model, and his medical and insurance cronies are misguided to believe that the new doomed medical-care system will be accepted by the American people, including their opponents and critics. But they are gravely mistaken. Critics of the law, for months before Congress passed it, have pointed out the obvious problems that the new system will create. Even more than 60 percent of the American people, according to many online polls, were overwhelmingly opposed (and still are) to the bill. This "reform" is nothing more of a repackaging of the current system, with the exception that it coerces more coverage and more people into the system.

Focus on the fact that the majority of the attention of nearly all the "reformers" centered on the health-insurance industry. The common denominator in the entire medical-care "debate" had been, still is, and will continue to be that health-insurance firms have been under-regulated. For months, what became a discussion on "health-insurance reform" soon morphed into "health insurance regulation." Of course, health insurers have been massively and obscenely over-regulated, but the "reformers" don't want to ruin the fun of their crusade against the companies because of that fact. The bulk of the "over-regulation" is imposed by the biggest insurance players such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Blue Care Network, and Aetna against the smallest insurers. More insurance firms will go under ObamaCare, which was the plan all along. The claim that Obama & Co. touted (saying that patients will get to keep their current insurance plans) is just bogus. Expect to see more insurance firms going under because of the massive mandates.

Another problem is that the Congressional Budget Office says that the new law will reduce the deficit in ten years. Anyone with a modicum of comprehension of economics knows that the CBO's report is nonsense. Lawmakers have been relaying dubious information to the agency with cooked figures on the issue. Conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, in his latest op-ed titled "An Off-Budget Office?," debunked this lunacy by noting with respect to the San Francisco Chronicle's article on the matter entitled "Costly Bill Seen as Saving Money":

It's not hard to understand at all. It is a lie.

What makes this particular lie pass muster with many people, who might otherwise use their common sense, is that the Congressional Budget Office vouched for the consistency of the budget numbers that say you can add millions of people to a government-run system and yet save money.

The Congressional Budget Office does honest work. But it can only use the numbers that Congress supplies-- and Congress does dishonest work. It is not the CBO's job to give their opinion as to whether any of the marvelous things that Congress says it will do in the future are either likely or possible.

Sowell even further notes:

[N]one of this money is in the official federal budget that the Congressional Budget Office sees. There are many other financial liabilities of the government that are ‘off-budget,’ which means that they do not show up in the official numbers.

Even research analysts find the CBO’s findings apocryphal. As Marc Goldwein, the policy director of the the Washington budget watchdog group Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, points out:

CBO is the most trusted analysis out there, but everything they say, you should take with a humongous grain of salt.

Is health insurance the most lucrative and most profitable commodity in the industry? Not quite. Such insurance on average generates a profit margin that amounts to about 3-4 cents on the dollar. These firms do welcome a guaranteed clientele, even if it’s foisted upon the public, because it ensures their profitability. Although Obama & Co. will appear as an populist opponent to the industry, he’s actually its best ally. Why? Because Big Insurance will accept the onerous new regulations to decimate its much smaller competitors, leaving insurance consumers with fewer insurance options to purchase. Considering they are not incentivized to innovate and compete thanks to their politically-connected, politically-protected mandates, young healthy people will find that the individual mandates are compulsory and that they must purchase highly expensive products and services from these protected government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), thanks to the state. It’s intriguing that the progressive critics of the insurance enterprises, who routinely bash their practices and support Obama’s “reform,” neglect to mention that the new model coerces everyone to transact with these entities.

The only objection that these GSEs have with the plan is that the penalties for not complying with or refusing to comply with the individual and employer mandates are not high enough. Most young people will likely choose to pay the penalties out of their pockets rather than purchase the insurance because of the cheap savings for them. Hence, a problem arises out of that mess: if and when the uninsured become sick and then apply for coverage, they can’t and won’t be denied because the new law prohibits it. Expect to see future changes (in the form of stricter penalties) in the federal law to avert more gaming of the system in the not-too-distant future. Thus, this is another victory for the already-protected insurance establishment.

Finally, the critics of the old government-created public-private hybrid of the medical-care system have been spewing ad nauseum for months that the system was the result of the free market, and that it has failed the American people. But that is a baldfaced lie. A free market medical-care system hasn’t existed, nor has it ever existed over the last 100 years. The “reformers” continue to miss this paramount point every single time: what exists now, and will continue to exist, is the current system has been the result of an uncompetitive medical and insurance cartel system that has been codified by the state and thrives and exists entirely and purely, thanks to state privilege. This privilege has come into existence because of its extension of state governments through state-approved and state-sanctioned monopolistic licensing. Congress, if it wanted to, could end this nightmare by repealing the prohibition on interstate insurance sales and the horrendous tax favoritism for employer-provided medical insurance coverage. But don’t let those points enter the mind of the vile, greedy, and pernicious Democrats, who stand to financially profit from the system at the expense of the poor (whom the ruling party claims to care about).

And to make matters worse, before the bill passed in both chambers of the House and were signed into law, many physicians across the country threatened to bolt from the system and give up their practices. Many of them have exited from the profession because of the low reimbursements and payments from Medicare and to avoid legal malpractice liability. Expect to see a much larger mass exodus from the system in the months and years to come.

The only good news coming out of this mess is that most Americans (if not, many) are seeing for the first time the fraudulent “reform” this law really is. It only secures and protects the government-created cartels, punishes the well-off, and merely postures as a friend of the uninsured who are largely impoverished.

At the end of the day, the true prescription for medical-care reform is a freed market. Two illusions need to be shattered. First, the idea that this is a matter between the status quo and this “reform” is preposterous. The “reform” IS the status quo in drag. Second, for generations, the state has bedded the medical profession and the insurance industry to ram down our throats the evil system we have today. A freed market is the only way out of this mess.

It’s now expected that Herr Obama will sign it on his desk this upcoming Tuesday. But how can he sign a bill into law if the Senate hasn’t applied the “fixes” that the Democrats made to the House-passed version of the bill hours ago? Because those “fixes” aren’t REAL fixes. Those are just last-minute amendments to the bill AFTER it was passed, and they are heading to the Senate. The bill has already cleared the halls of Congress. According to the Voice of America news website, “[T]he Senate must still sign-off on a series of changes approved by the House.”

Obviously, so many backroom dealings had occurred on the House floor. The key provisions of the legislation that the medical lobbyists and Big Insurance (like Blue Cross Blue Shield) are backing include:

1. Coercing individuals to buy insurance or be faced with a penalty of 2.5 percent of income. That penalty would come to an annual amount of $695 if individuals refuse to accept that coverage.
2. Coercing employers to offer insurance to their workers or face a penalty of $2,000 per worker. Specifically, employers will be coerced to cover 65% of family premiums or fork over a penalty based on payroll. Small businesses with less than $500,000 on payroll will be exempt and payrolls up to $750,000 will have a reduced contribution.
3. Banning private insurance firms (that don’t have the political clout like Big Insurance does) that want new business from denying coverage to policyholders having preexisting medical conditions.
4. Coercing above-mentioned firms to accept new government regulations and mandates.
5. Coercing parents to keep their children on their medical plans until they reach the age of 26.

The most laughable aspect of this “debate” on the House floor is that Democratic Congresscritter Bart Stupak from my home state of Michigan, who was originally against the bill because of a provision in the bill that would allow taxpayer financing of abortions, flip flopped on it because of a meaningless deal that Obama cut with him by saying that he would issue an executive order to prohibit the funding. Stupak wasn’t against the bill because it would solidify the state’s entrenchment in the medical care system; he was against it because of his pro-life views. If that provision had not been written in the bill in the first place, does anyone really think he would have voted against it? Not in a New York minute!

(Interestingly and hilariously enough, the congressman was branded a “baby killer” by a Republican colleague in the House, although he has an idea of who said it.)

Once the bill is signed into law and goes into effect, one can be certain that millions of Americans will not obey the law. This is what happens when the state furthers itself into the medical care system much more than it has in decades. Any chance of restoring a true free market medical care system went up in smoke the second the bill passed.

It’s time for all Liberty activists to start practicing civil disobedience and educate the masses in a clear, concise, and innovative way. No more the state! More freedom than ever!

Curiously, Block writes in his piece in part:

If U.S. Presidents such as George Bush (41st or 43rd), Dwight D. Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan are widely considered capitalist supporters, and they are, then I, along with Libertarians Against Capitalism, want no part of this moniker. (Ronald Reagan magnificently utilized free market rhetoric; but budgets and regulations increased when he was governor of California and President of the U.S.) And the same goes for the likes of Vice Presidents Spiro Agnew, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle and Nelson Rockefeller, along with talk show hosts Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly. I will not say that there is a 180 divergence between what they mean by ‘capitalism’ and how I use this word, but the differences are very stark. This includes other politicians of the following ilk: John Boehner, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Tim Pawlenty, Michael Steele, and Fred Thompson. Their ‘capitalism’ and mine are very, very different.

Intriguingly enough, Block fails to distinguish his so-called term free-market capitalism (in its purported context) from the commonly-used term state capitalism at the end of his paragraph. But then again why ruin the fun when you can attempt to make a good although unconvincing case against the critics of the term capitalism because of its purported pro-freedom/anti-state roots when actually its true anti-liberty/pro-state baggage predates the 20th century and further extends to France’s National French Assembly after the French Revolution of 1789, which was populated by the original leftists (laissez-faire advocates) on the Left (where Frederick Bastiat and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon sat) and the fascistic and mercantilistic aristocrats on the Right? Not only that, what about this term and its concepts’ deep-seated ties to corrupted, seedy, and shady interventionistic state influence? Apparently, he refuses to acknowledge all and any of those historically factual points.

Then, after listing the names of many conservatives in the above paragraph, Block further writes:

Nor can we afford to ignore a large group of neoconservatives, who are also linked with ‘capitalism’ in the public mind, for example: Elliott Abrams, John R. Bolton, Dick Cheney, Douglas Feith, Carl Gershman, Christopher Hitchens, David Horowitz, Robert Kagan, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, Norman Podhoretz, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Stephen Schwartz, Leo Strauss, Ben Wattenberg, Paul Wolfowitz and James Woolsey. Irving Kristol, the father of neo-conservatism, wrote a book called ‘Two cheers for capitalism.’ As for me, I want no part of this sort of ‘capitalism.’ It is three cheers for me, all the way.

Additionally, he writes:

And the same goes for conservatives such as Roger Ailes, David Brooks, William F. Buckley, John Derbyshire, David Frum, Robert Gates, Jim Geraghty, Jonah Goldberg, Lawrence Kudlow, Rich Lowry, Jay Nordlinger, Ramesh Ponnuru, Karl Rove, Mark Stein, John Yoo and Byron York. If they support capitalism, and they are widely seen to do so, then I, too, along with called Libertarians Against Capitalism, oppose it. For the “capitalism” of these people includes as a central tenet war, militarism and imperialism. They may call it ‘American Greatness,’ but what it amounts to is the U.S. tossing its military weight all around the world, in a totally unjustified manner.

Also, there are foreign dictators who have been, willy nilly, linked with capitalism, and I wouldn’t want to be linked, politically, with them either. For example, Pinochet, Franco, and even, help us please, Hitler.

And, finally, he says:

Reading the above, one might infer that I am as good a candidate as any other libertarian to join Libertarians Against Capitalism.

Ah, but, according to Block, “Not so, not so.” Why is that the case, you ask?

As convoluted as his logic is, here’s the following kicker coming from him:

My main reason is not etymological but rather linguistic. I readily admit that ‘capitalism’ has a bad press, and its historical use is none too salutary either. But, the enemies of libertarianism are always trying to take words away from us.

The “enemies of libertarianism” are “always trying to take words away from us”?

As much I love Walter personally (and I don’t mean to get my digs in him as well), it’s not that the “enemies of libertarianism” have been co-opting our terms for years. They have taken back the term libertarian, considering we took it from them. We did so as a response to the state socialists in the progressive camp having taken the word liberal from us! Look at “libertarians” like Neal Boortz, Mancow Muller, Wayne Allyn, and Bob Barr (who, although successfully had secured the Libertarian Party nomination in 2008, failed to win the presidential election). They have been acting as though they have been in favor of Liberty, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. And they even employ terms such as capitalism and libertarian that are in their vocabularies.

Furthermore, Block says:

They have already long ago stolen ‘liberal.’ We must now call ourselves ‘classical liberals’ if we want to use that appellation at all. Some have recently had the audacity to try to take away the word ‘libertarian.’ I refer, here, to Noam Chomsky, who has the temerity to characterize himself as a libertarian.

(Of course, his “attempted theft” charge against Chomsky doesn’t holds any water whatsoever, considering that Chomsky has been using that term to describe his brand of state socialism [statism] for decades. Block’s “evidence” against him is indicated here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Thus, Block’s case is very weak and implausible and appears to be on shaky grounds.)

It’s pleasant to know that Walter tries to differentiate himself from the capitalists he noted in the above paragraph. My question to him would be: why would you even want to associate yourself with a word that has historically been employed by state socialists (statists) such as progressive Bill Maher (who called himself a “capitalist” on his Real Time show last night) and conservative economist Ben Stein across the political spectrum? Right-libertarians like Block, Stephan Kinsella, and Brad Edmonds continue to embrace the term willingly and without question, despite their inherent incongruities and flawed, convoluted logic. John Stossel of Fox Business even qualifies as an example of this, especially when one considers his vulgar libertarian framing of the libertarian philosophy on his show Stossel and his libertarian and capitalist guests whom he often interviews in front of his live studio audience.

Free market capitalists apologizing for vulgar libertarianism and shilling for the conservative and corporatist shills by protecting the term capitalism, even with the best of intentions and in a vociferous manner, merely create the perceived impression that all voluntaryists and many other advocates of Liberty are in bed with the establishment. These moves land free-market radicals in trouble across the board, regardless of what many right-libertarians claim. These stooges set themselves up for disdain and alignment with the Republicans and their Wall Street-worshipping statist cronies. Should we, including Americans in general, be surprised with this type of behavior that has been an endemic (although embarrassing) part of our society, our culture, and the parasitic political establishment?

As for the word libertarian, Sheldon Richman posits:

Libertarian was used by left-wing Spanish anarchists during the 1930s civil war; they were no friends of private property and free trade. Going back further, the word was used by anarcho-socialists after the fall of the Paris Commune in 1871 because the word anarchist could land them in a heap of trouble. I doubt Block would regard those libertarians as comrades. The French word Libertaire appears to be the origin of our word libertarian, and it seems to have had nothing to do with what Block wants to call capitalism. Quite the opposite.

Sheldon is correct. The word capitalism has always had a twisted, dark, and vile history with the Liberty movement, thanks to and despite the efforts of Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand. Block’s attempt to save the term is an exercise in futility, because the word has really never been ours to begin with. Trying to resuscitate it, putting new life into it, and cleanse it from its sins are nothing but ideological and historical revisionism. No amount of spinmeistering from the hacks in our movement will change that talking point.

Block finally concludes his piece by writing:

So, I beseech Sheldon Richman and the other members of Libertarians Against Capitalism to disband their group, and, instead, work with the rest of us to save as many words as we can for our own use.

I doubt Sheldon has any interest in saving the word simply by disbanding his group. No left-libertarian/agorist/voluntaryist worth his salt believes that such an endeavor is, as Sheldon correctly noted at the end of his blog post, “worth the candle.” Capitalism, like the word libertarian, is not an ally – but rather an enemy – of laissez-faire. They do not truly go together like popcorn and butter. Laissez-faire capitalism is an artificial construct, not to mention a clever redundancy. Not only that, it is an oxymoron. One who calls onself a laissez-faire capitalist is akin to one calling oneself a Christian Satanist. One cannot be a Christian and a Satanist simultaneously. Either one is a Christian or a Satanist; there is no such thing as “between one and other other” or “both.” Besides, there are plenty of terms that advocates of Liberty can use such as market anarchist, voluntaryist, laissez-faire, and free market. Besides, capitalism is a word that free-market radicals have now rejected.

It would be wise of our pro-Liberty allies to wash themselves of the label and stay away from it permanently. After all, it can’t be saved.

Besides, we have no need and use of that poisonous word we call capitalism. But we do have a need of the Libertarians Against Capitalism group on Facebook. Let’s educate the masses about the true vile nature of capitalism as it stands today.

The recent fallout over the excommunication of freedom activist, devout Ron Paul supporter, and YouTube‘s PuZzLeD reality TV show star Brooke Kelley from the Ladies of Liberty Alliance (LOLA), which is an alleged pro-Liberty organization that has billed and sold itself as an advocate for women (who are already) in the libertarian movement and bringing the said gender into both the movement and the group, has already generated a lot of controversy — not to mention a paramount amount of noise — on and out of Facebook and among many activists and members in their respective cliques — and circles — in an already-fractured political wing of the movement. The group, which was founded in 2009 by relative political newcomer Allison Gibbs (who is a 27-year-old former government scientist and AIDS researcher employed by the U.S. Department of Defense [which lasted for 8 years] and is the current Outreach Director for the Campaign for Liberty), has been a long-time talked-about staple in the Ron Paul wing of the political movement, garnering support from a number of pro-Liberty activists because of its goal to boost the female numbers of activists who, in the past, have been inadequate in the eyes of many of the movement’s finest men and women longing for new blood. If anything, these individuals’ desire to keep the grass-roots networking and projects on the Liberty train on the move by pushing for more inclusion of liberty-loving women in the ranks. What they didn’t count on was that it was going to crumble before it could achieve anything to begin with, especially from a pro-freedom standpoint.

The ruckus erupted when Kelley, the darling of the Ron Paul movement (who recently spoke out in defense of Paul over his call to support Lamar Smith), went public with LOLA’s decision to kick her out on Facebook because of the group’s claim that she “frightened” Ron Paul with a question as to how important the “truth” regarding 9/11 was to the people (in reference to the 9/11 Truthers’ desire to know why Paul hasn’t been asking why the government has been withholding information about what transpired on that day). That angered the powers-that-be at C4L at the recent CPAC event over her questions, even though she even heckled Glenn Beck for “stealing the Tea Party movement” and John Ashcroft for pushing to make “raves illegal” and his casual contempt for the Constitution, and attempted to confront conservative hit woman Ann Coulter with a question as well (her security stopped Kelley before she could even ask such a question). Kelley (and many others on Facebook) points out in her latest PuZzLeD video that a C4L employee met with her and told her that there was a group planning to “heckle” Glenn Beck. The problem was that, just prior to Beck’s speech, word was coming down the pike (from Ron Paul himself) that anyone who is discovered to have heckled him would be denounced by the group. That didn’t stop Kelley from doing just that.

Just after she did it, she was subsequently kicked out of C4L. (The details as to how and what the procedures were for kicking her out are rather unclear at this point, but more information will be available.) LOLA Core, which consists of Allison Gibbs and only several members of the the entire LOLA Board (including long-time freedom activist and Antiwar.com employee Angela Keaton), had a meeting and voted on whether to dismiss Kelley from the group. The vote was largely unanimous: Brooke was to be shown the door.*

Brooke came public with the following on Friday, 10:57 AM:

Brooke Kelley So let me get this straight. Im kicked out of Campaign for Liberty, for asking Glenn Beck a question, and kicked out of LOLA for asking Ron Paul a question. Reminds me of getting cuffed at the border for asking that cop a question. Hmmm. I still love you, but seriously–let’s not just Talk about freedom–let’s LIVE Fre…e!! Let’s RISE ABOVE our enemies and UNIFY–not exclude truth-telling, liberty loving ACTIVISTs.”

Immediately, pro-freedom activists across the aisle jumped on the bandwagon, trying to find out what happened. Here are some of the comments that were made:

Chris Tolliver Ⓐ
What the hell happened!!??
Fri at 10:59am

Brooke Kelley
I asked Glenn Beck a question, after Ron Paul explicitly said if anyone heckles Beck, they are no longer in the C4L community. So I asked Ron Paul a question too, and apparently that was offensive to LOLA, and they voted me off the island.

Don’t Live free. Come pay for Liberty! …B.
Fri at 11:02am

Lille Ørn
Stay strong freedomfighter! Listen to this program , lots of stuff going on http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Jack-Blood-32k-022410.mp3
Fri at 11:03am

Chris Tolliver Ⓐ
Wow. This is why I stay away from any organization that supports politicians.
Fri at 11:04am

Debra Dedmon
they friggin kicked you out ?? r u effin kidding me / Um that just makes me justa little more suspicious of them all, and i was already suspicious of C4L, but why the hell shouldthey care u asked Neocon Beck a question , crazy!! but LOLA , that is surprising. doyou mean they kicked u out of an event or out f the group?? i distrust anyone who takes unkindly to the power of questions
Fri at 11:04am

Aj Arias
Unity!
Fri at 11:05am

Lille Ørn
TRUTH will allways win. No matter what!
Fri at 11:06am

Jay Doobie
Wait, they kicked you out for asking questions? I think I’m no longer going to support LOLA or CfL.
Fri at 11:07am

Diana Isabel Miranda
What were the questions anyways?
Fri at 11:07am

Aaron Proctor
What did you ask? Sounds like it’s weird you’d be randomly kicked out.
Fri at 11:09am

Jennapher Frankie Lawson
It’s horrifyingly common to use “unify” and be ostracized. :-s
Fri at 11:11am

Joanna Reed
Brooke, I’ve known Ron Paul personally since college (over 12 yrs now) and he is a gentleman. There has to be more to this story than you’re presenting. Ron Paul is, and always will be, someone I support. Do you think there’s a common denominator here? You’ll catch more flies with honey.
Fri at 11:13am

Greg Jent
I would really like to know the details and to see the Ron Paul comment on not being allowed to ask Beck questions. I’m so confused
Fri at 11:13am

Danzilla Green
Not to be a dick but it’s with in an organization’s right to boot you…

That being said, screw CFL, they’re all minarchist knuckle heads anyways.
Fri at 11:14am

Alexander Benjamin Ramiresonty
*echoes request for details*
Fri at 11:17am

Matt D. Harris
Who kicked you out of LOLA? What questions did you ask Beck and Paul specifically? What were the answers?
Fri at 11:20am

Matt D. Harris
By the way, anyone with the balls to get kicked out of (so-called) liberty orgs is hot by my standards.
Fri at 11:21am

Joe Ringling
Do you think your sudden exclusion stems from your past criticism of Debra Medina?
Fri at 11:23am

Michael Caulfield
again, what question did you ask that idiot Beck?
Fri at 11:23am

Carolyn Taratuta
What’s that all about… Makes one wonder.
Fri at 11:27am

Chris Cooley
wow , totally disassociating myself with those two groups ..
Fri at 11:33am

Reagen Dandridge Desilets
the constitution allows for questions to be asked. any ‘liberty’ group that boots someone for that raises eyebrows. i’m glad i’ve backed off lola and c4l. i love my freedom but do not dedicate myself to any one group or politician. i’ve always said if ron paul is the man i hope he is, he would welcome our vigilance!!!
Fri at 11:33am

Bobbie Dee Anderson
<> Thanks Brooke.
Fri at 11:39am

Danielle Kays
I was thinking the same thing, Joe.
Fri at 11:44am

Reagen Dandridge Desilets
details would be nice for curiosity’s sake alone. again, the constitution allows for us to talk, even when we disagree… anyone that claims to protect the constitution but also censors is breaking the thin ice they r walking on.
Fri at 11:45am

Amber Danelle, co-host of Truth A to Z on BoldVoices.tv, responded to Brooke with the following:

Amber Danelle
You are totally misrepresenting what happened in the above statement. No one kicked you out of anything for ASKING QUESTIONS. Nothing is wrong with asking questions.

Brooke…. You are a serious trip, and I was totally thrown off last night after hearing from you what had happened.
Thought the drama was OVER.
… See More
:-/

And Joe: It is definitely NOT over anything having to do with Medina. And this isn’t “sudden”, either.

Brooke: You talk a lot about unifying and unity and rising above the enemy… but here you are talking SHITE about other freedom activists. Seriously… I hadn’t seen you do this for a while (and, honestly, I hadn’t been paying attention to your page) and I thought it was done with. If something bothers you you spread rumors and discontent about LOLA & C4L…. this is totally going against people working together. And nothing is wrong with whistle-blowing a group or person… but you are doing so without cause, woman. Nobody really know what happened this past weekend. And this whole silly situation could have been way more relaxed if you didn’t like to blow things out of proportion.

I had hoped I could work with you in the future.
I had hoped to get to know a good side of you, as I think you are a beautiful person. ♥ Truly.
After meeting you last year I’d only really experienced drama and outbursts (and I’m not saying you were always loud or uber-obnoxious) from you… silly things that I had no idea about, you saying that LOLA is talking poo about you WHEN THAT ISN’T TRUE!!
We don’t sit around talking about you, Brooke.
We don’t care… we just want to get shit DONE.
Seriously!

And now, here you are again, telling people that LOLA is bad in some way… and people are FOLLOWING YOU and believing what you say!!
We work hard within our group to get stuff done and to enjoy each other as good freedom friends and confidantes! It is so WONDERFUL to be a part of LOLA… but you are sharing way-off information with people and telling people we are nutters. Wow. I have never MET anyone like you, girl. I believed that we could start to work together again. But, I guess that can’t be.

Normally I would have sent this to you in a message. Unlike you, I tend to not want to air my grievances in public (unless it’s some politician JACKING with my life, etc.) because sometimes one can be overly-passionate or mis-informed about a situation. And those who are listening to your aired grievances only know YOUR SIDE of the story and, therefore, cannot make a smart judgement of the situation.
But, today, I’m going to post this on your status because I want everyone to know that YOU are causing this disruption, this silly-ness.

I won’t be surprised if you delete my comment. At least you, and the good people above, will have read something from the “other side”.

Honestly, who cares about all this dang drama anyways!? I just wanna bring freedom back to the people of this country!! I thought I was out of high school.
Okay, I’m done on this subject.

Hope you have a great day… ♥
Love & Light & Liberty to you, Brooke.
Fri at 11:46am

Matt D. Harris, a Libertarian Party member, responded to Amber by saying:

Matt D. Harris
Amber, I didn’t see Brooke claim that LOLA were nutters, just that she got kicked out of the group for asking Ron Paul a question. I’m reserving judgment until I hear what the question is. Obviously asking him something political but a bit pushy is one thing (and OK, imho) whereas something like “when did you stop beating your wife?” might be a little less appropriate.
Fri at 11:56am

Amber responded with this remark:

Amber Danelle
Hey Matt: Brooke didn’t technically say that LOLA was a group of “nutters” (those are my own words)… but she says we kicked her out and alludes to the idea that it was because she asked questions of figureheads. Whatever she is saying: it’s got some people thinking that they don’t want to associate with us.

Again, nothing is wrong with asking questions. That is one of the most important things we can do as good citizens, obviously. And I never heard any of Brooke’s questions this weekend. In fact, I had no idea about any of this until last night when some silly stuff went down (thanks for that, Brooke).

I only heard her say one thing @ CPAC, and it was a badass moment when she called out Ashcroft (he was all discombobulated after she barked out something at him – HILARIOUS!) ~ When I found out it was her I was excited and wanted to congratulate her on a job well done. But my tipsyness at after-parties prevented me from remembering it…. See More

As far as what she asked Glenn & Dr. Paul – I have no idea what she asked. Again, it wasn’t about what she asked.

♥

Glenn Beck for Vice Prez?? UGH.
HAHHAAAAAAAA!!! (sorry, Todd)
Fri at 12:15pm

Matt Harris asks her:

Matt D. Harris
Amber, so how does someone get kicked out of LOLA? I know some people involved but I’m not familiar with the organization’s inner workings. Was Brooke in a board or committee position or something?
Fri at 12:24pm

Amber Danelle responds with the following (yet nonsensical quip):

Amber Danelle
Matt: I had no idea about the kicking out and what was done to get kicked out. As far as the technical process, I’m not sure either. We LOLAs don’t like to let drama cloud our projects or discussion… so we don’t make it a priority to talk about this type of stuff when we’re trying to do work (at least I never hear about it – until the end). It’s super freakin’ cool to work with women who aren’t all about yakkin’ about drama-crap all day. THANK GOD! Women can be weird, as we all know.

It’s also not kosher for me to talk about specifics, because I would prefer to squelch the drama. I barely know specifics anyway. But what I heard from Brooke last night is enough for me to form at least a minor opinion. And whatever I’ve typed here is from ME to HER …. and not from LOLA to HER. … See More

LOLA is freakin’ awesome, in fact!!! These chicas seriously inspire me to keep on with what I’m doing! It’s like having a family. I love working with cool women in situations like this.
Some people work better on their own… and that is cool, too. Nothing is wrong with distrusting orgs or wanting to not work with them. But, for me, I love this group!! ♥
Fri at 12:39pm

Basically, the claim that LOLA has been positing is that Brooke Kelley “stole” freedom activist Tennyson McCalla’s cell phone (committing theft), “trashed” his hotel room (hence, destroying private property), and trying to get into LOLA’s suite at the hotel when they didn’t want her in there (trespassing onto private property). Interestingly enough, Tennyson McCalla, who contacted Angela Keaton and told her that Brooke didn’t steal his phone, did note that Brooke was “irresponsible” for leaving her “dogs in the hotel room.” That is definitely a far cry from theft, not to mention destroying and trespassing onto private property in its entirety.

I did not know about this incident until Mariana Evica, with whom I am good friends, told me about it on the phone on Friday morning, which led me to contacting Angela Keaton and Brooke Kelley to gather more information on the incident (so I could blog about it).

McCalla told Amber Danelle and the others this:

Brooke and Chris *did not* steal my phone. As best as I can determine they were trying to return it to me after they thought that I had left it behind and went off to CPAC. But they did leave the dog in the hotel room that I had invited them to stay in.

The news now is that LOLA is going to shut down. That troubles me.
Fri at 2:33pm

Then Kelley’s next status says the following:

Brooke Kelley dear LOLA: thanx for the good times. you’ll always hava special place in my heart. i love you dearly, but i’m off like a prom dress.
Thu at 4:54pm · Comment · Like

Other comments on the thread appear as the following:

Steve Bell
damnit now i got that image in my head thanks lol
Thu at 5:01pm

Ian Freeman
What happened?
Thu at 5:12pm

Brooke Kelley
The top officials of Campaign for Liberty put out a message right before Glenn Beck’s speech at CPAC (a neocon convention) saying that Ron Paul would denounce and disown any person affiliated with C4L, if they heckle or “harass” Beck at all.

Well, turns out I don’t listen very well. There was gonna be a whole big group of us, but everyone backed out, last minute. I called him out at the end of his speech, and not only did C4L turn their backs on me, LOLA dropped me like yesterday’s news. …B.
Thu at 5:40pm

Ian Freeman
Welcome to politics. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Perhaps you should consider giving up on restoring the republic and join us up in NH as we get the hell out of the republic?
Thu at 5:50pm

James Freelander
That’s awful. For what it’s worth, I’m proud of you and I’ll back you up. LOLA, I’m disappointed =(
Thu at 5:53pm

Steve Bell
beck need to be heckled as much as possible he a shill and the perfect example of a Benedict arnold if anyone dosen’t know who he is ill post link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Arnold

Thu at 5:54pm

Ian Freeman
Did you ever post video of the heckling?
Thu at 5:57pm

Brooke Kelley
no shit, eh. there is no restoring the republic, and i’ve been workin on independent projects lately-like PuZzLeD (Reality Show about Liberty Kids Fighting for Freedom) and Operation Defuse. At what point is C4L gonna stop sittin around talkin about freedom, and actually start being free, and letting others around them BE Free!?
Thu at 5:58pm

Ian Freeman
When they stop believing in politics? Which as a political organization, isn’t very likely. Especially since it pays their bills.
Thu at 6:00pm

Brooke Kelley
Come Pay for Liberty!!

But Ian, GET THIS-the LOLA girls were planning to get the whole group together, to heckle Beck too, and “bring down the neocons”. But when C4L nationals said no, their plan shifted quite dramatically.
Thu at 6:03pm

Ian Freeman
Does LOLA get money from C4L?
Thu at 6:11pm

Brooke Kelley
no. C4L makes LOLA pay them (for booths and stuff) but allison and the board wants LOLA girls to PAY them to have chapters. report to the top and stuff. it’s too bad too, cuz LOLA has the potential to be so much better than the average sorority. …B.
Thu at 6:14pm

Catherine Cointelpro Bleish
Yeah girl. Let’s go be activists and let the socialites be socialites proud to still be an austin lola, disenfranchized as I may be from national lol ♥
Thu at 6:17pm

Ian Freeman
lol @ the sorority comment
Thu at 6:19pm

Dan Tucker
Hmmm, I was there and I remember being told to stop heckling everyone… but you must have got the word pretty late. It started with the panel of students and it seemed many of the YAF students were in training for Fox News comentators… with a Rhupert Murdock Mushroom Cloud Foreign Policy. I think they are all “Twelvers”.
Thu at 6:37pm

Scott Geyer Ⓥ
FYI Liberty on the Rocks doesnt make people pay to set up chapters.

Ian, I do see a voluntaryist in the making in Brooke. I told her Keene’s where she needs to go to find the serious activism.
Thu at 6:48pm

Ian Freeman
Brooke already made a splash here once:

Thu at 7:00pm

Ian Freeman
:30 and :60 versions:

Thu at 7:01pm

Scott Geyer Ⓥ
Yeah, I have a habit of telling her things she already knows. Like the message I sent her about the left right paradigm, divide and conquer ideologue.

Oh and thanks for doing that show on it.
Thu at 7:19pm

Scott Geyer Ⓥ
Oh I remember watching that. I didnt realize it was Brooke. That was awesome. She also did a video with Anarcho-Jesse about gardening.
Thu at 7:22pm

Mariana Evica
Ohhhh Brooke, you rock. I support you 100%.
Thu at 7:27pm

Tracy Ward Ⓥ
The more I hear, the less I agree. Sounds less like liberty and more like democracy. Not good.
Thu at 7:27pm

Angela Aronoff
LOLA has chapters all over the country that dont pay to LOLA National. They don’t really have much to do with C4L other than being at the same conferences.

I think the way LOLA intended to call out neo cons was with the anti-war panel (great event btw).

Surely they wouldn’t drop you just for calling out Glenbeck?
Thu at 7:29pm

Ryan Hopkins
We cannot enter into alliances until we are acquainted with the designs of our neighbors.
- Sun Tzu
Thu at 7:34pm

Brooke Kelley
Angela Keaton writes: “You scared the bejeebus out of an old guy (Ron Paul for frig’s sake is someone’s grampa-what the hell is wrong with you?)”
Thu at 7:39pm

Ryan Hopkins
Watch them label you as an extremist in the media now…such bullshit.
Thu at 7:50pm

Brooke Kelley
And no, Angela, there was talk in the Atlanta meeting, of LOLAs agreeing to group heckle Glenn Beck.

Me and Catherine Bleish were very vocal AGAINST paying “to use the name” (you know, the one we ALL helped to create) and then the subject of payment was dropped. I have a feeling it’ll come back up again, but if enuf people become unhappy with it, they may drop it just in realization of how it makes them look bad. …B.
Thu at 7:53pm

Brooke Kelley
I am an extremist, Ryan. I love Liberty, and I’ll DO ANYTHING–shy of violence–I will Stop at NOTHING to accomplish that goal. That’s pretty extreme in this society.

LIVE FREE or Get Kicked Outa Ron Paul Circle tryin!! …B.
Thu at 7:57pm

Jim Davidson
Brooke, I was waiting to buy a case of LOLA calendars. So now I’ll be buying from you an Catherine, looks like. I’ve been seeing a lot wrong from an activist standpoint with C4L – hierarchy, decisions made from on high, activists, including activist candidates being kicked in the teeth. Wrote a long note about it, which TLE published. I’m with you for freedom, Brooke. And to hell with the stupid old men.
Thu at 8:13pm

Jim Davidson

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle557-20100214-03.html

Thu at 8:14pm

Brooke Kelley
buy LOLA calendars from catherine bleish or tracy ward. i have a few that someone gave to me, but i don’t sell them. …B.
Thu at 8:21pm

Jim Davidson
Reminds me of that David Bowie song lyric, “These children that you spit on as they try to change their world, are immune to your consultations, they’re well aware what they’re goin’ thru”
Thu at 8:28pm

Brooke Kelley
LOVE that song you posted regarding this, Jim! THANK YOU!! So sweet. …B.
Thu at 8:40pm

Jim Davidson
Doin’ my part. You are important. The hierarchy and the leaders from on high can be real jerks. Freedom isn’t obtained by kicking our friends under the bus.
Thu at 8:44pm

Adam Tilsley
Sorry for what happened to you. Always remember..when one door closes, another one opens. Continue to fight the good fight!
Thu at 8:44pm

Brooke Kelley
no worries, adam. no worries. had they come to me before and said that not only will ron paul denounce me–but LOLA too–if i dare stand up and actually LIVE FREE–i still woulda done it.

i went there with a job to do, and i did it.

it’s too bad a chunk of the movement turned their backs on me for holding the media accountable for their disgusting actions. i’m not sad tho. i’m motivated. now more than EVER. catherine has been going thru a very similar situation with them too. … See More

just wait and see how we bounce back. Liberty Kids don’t stop–and they are not stoppable. ….B.
Thu at 8:55pm

Buddy Guthrie
Yeah it really is a shame the game of politics gets played, the game of politics makes us all forget what we are all about, to an extent you have to do that to get to the winners circle, and I do get that, but if you sell your soul to win, even if you do win, do you ever win anything?
Thu at 9:03pm

Jim Davidson
The corruption and brutality which result from excessive politics are not going to be resolved by the application of more politics.
Thu at 9:05pm

Molli Skye
Brooke, you will definitely be missed.
But all the power to you, woman!

LOLA has not been turning out at all as I’d anticipated. The idea of a central organization trying to “control” everything goes against the very grain of most of us in this movement. If there’s corruption in a small organization, then how can we expect people in much larger and higher institutions to not be corrupt? That makes us no better than those we are fighting.
… See More
Hopefully the chapters continue to work out.
Thu at 11:27pm

Jim Davidson
In my experience, women who want to make something of a modelling career are better off working with professionals. My friend Cyan Banister has started Zivity.com with excellent results.
Thu at 11:29pm

John Delano
We need more people to get out and get attention. Too many of us (like me) are too shy about starting things like this. Brooke seems to push things a bit, but those people tend to make things happen.

When you get PuZzLeD up and going with it’s new site, you should get some ads for it on some of the podcasts where thre would be friendly listeners.
Fri at 1:36am

John Delano

http://www.facebook.com/antiwarradio?v=feed&story_fbid=327169319068

Fri at 1:38am

Jim Davidson
That’s hilarious, John. I was just having a conversation with Scott Horton on that very FB page about Brooke Kelley and Stephen Schoppe being thrown under the bus by C4L. Horton was vicious and hateful, so I removed him as a friend. He just lost a major contributor to Antiwar. I wrote him a message inquiring what he was doing with C4L as the “Featured Cause” on his FB page, and he called me a douche. Seriously angry guy that Scott Horton.
Fri at 1:45am

John Delano
Re:Scott
can somebody follow as Many wars as closely as he does without becoming an angry person?

Listen to some of his first shows to see how angry he has become. Somebody needs to do what Scott does.
Fri at 3:22am

Jim Davidson
Now that Brooke has her prom dress off, maybe we can get her to do some of that stuff. -smile- I’d rather support Brooke’s activism and enthusiasm, which has a sincerity in which I believe. Scott, in addition to acting like a dick toward me (and no condom on his head) seems hypocritical.
Fri at 3:30am

Brooke Kelley
Scott has every right to be mad. But name calling and slander? If he can’t handle his job, he needs to maybe check into janitorial work or something. …B.
Fri at 10:36am

Brooke Kelley
So okay. I talked to Angela Keaton last nite who further bitched me out, but informed me that the MAIN reason why I was kicked out of LOLA was not because of the Glenn Beck thing so much as me asking Ron Paul if he thinks it’s important that people know the truth about 9-11. Apparently that’s offensive to LOLA to poke around askin valid questions.

I know RP’s stance on 9-11. He wants to pretend like it never happened. That’s his deal. I’m not tryin to bust him out. I sincerely wanted to know if he was expecting his people to hush about it, because that’s EXACTLY the kind of affect his silence is having on this movement!!

His answer–and Angela’s exact words to me .. in a vid to follow .. PuZzLeD ep. 4 COMING SOON!!… See More

So I was confused. C4L kicked me out, because I asked Glenn Beck a question, and LOLA kicked me out, because I asked Ron Paul a question. Sorry for the confusion, y’all! Hope that clears it all up. ….B.
Fri at 10:44am

-Rita Quinn
Brooke, I know you’re not too happy with me because I’ve defended LOLA in the past. I want you to know that I am done doing that… like Cat, I’m not happy with the way things are being run at the national level of LOLA and have tried to appeal to the “board” repeatedly to deaf ears. I feel that until Allison no longer has ties to C4L she can NOT … See Morebe the ED LOLA needs because she is controlled by C4L since they, not LOLA, pay her salary. I’ve always been upset at their lack of transparency and strategic plans and have watched for months as most “official” LOLA activity has centered around how to make money, without any real plans or vision of what to do with it to forward the cause of liberty. As for this decision to “vote” you out, I can tell you that there was never a public vote among the LOLAs (I certainly wasn’t asked to vote and I’ve talked to others who weren’t either) so I can only assume that you were lied to if you were told you were “voted” out. It’s more likely that it was actually just discussed among the 4 board members, who I personally feel sadly lean toward tyrannically tactics when faced with difficult situations and people they don’t like (such as how this situation with you played out). Making this public statement will probably get me, now, kicked out of LOLA but I’ve been a thorn in their side the last few months too. I’ve just done it more privately and have tried to really give them time to change course. I don’t know the specifics around your particular situation, but the bottom line for me is that you have the RIGHT to free speech and if the reason given for you being kicked out was for using it, then LOLA is a travesty to freedom and that makes me both angry and sad, because as you know, I’ve been one of it’s biggest cheerleaders since day one. Even to the point of hurting you. I’m really sorry for everything and will continue to support you in your own activities. LOLA Austin will continue to do the work we’re doing… and if you’re ever in the ‘hood’ you’re welcome to join us.
Fri at 11:30am

But the problem is far from over. Amber Danelle and I got into a tiff over the matter yesterday. Our responses to each other (including Jim Davidson’s) pretty much say it all:

Amber Danelle
Wow.
Todd & Brooke…. you two have a lot of angry people as friends/fans… they have no real idea what my real position on this is. Yet they are balls out angry about it.
Yesterday at 10:27am ·

Todd Andrew Barnett Ⓥ
If they’re angry about this entire incident involving Brooke, good. I hope they are angry about it. I am not a happy camper about it too.

If they’re angry that I brought this matter to the public and talked about the lack of transparency that goes on in LOLA and the refusal of the organization to take responsibility for its own fuck-ups, then they… See More’re barking up the wrong tree. They should be pissed at LOLA for how it handled this mess, not cast aspersions or attack people in the movement who refuse to bow down to and kowtow to their demands.

If they’re angry that LOLA has been pulling this crap, good. I hope they are angry about it. And I hope they’re angry enough to demand that LOLA wises up and change for the better.
Yesterday at 11:12am ·

Jim Davidson
If we have no idea what evil, vicious, tyrannical positions you are taking in “this” it is because you, Amber, are not open and transparent about your positions. It is all some game to you to get listeners to your stupid online “radio” show. Screw you and your “friend” request. You aren’t my friend, and you know it. You aren’t for transparency … See Moreand openness in government, you are for secret trials and water boarding, as your own actions clearly illustrate. If you were dying in a fire, I wouldn’t piss on you.
Yesterday at 7:19pm ·

Todd Andrew Barnett Ⓥ
Ouch! That hoits, Jim! Heh
Yesterday at 7:22pm ·

Amber Danelle
Jim: It’s all good. If you want to listen to how Zaira & I feel about this incident tomorrow, then please tune in. Some other LOLAs may be calling in to let their position be known, as well. If you don’t wanna hear it, I’m not too concerned. I just don’t feel that it’s necessary to disrupt people’s lives with constant negative FB posts. Evil, vicious, tyrannical positions?

Were you loved as a child?

Todd: How is LOLA refusing to take responsibility for it’s feck-ups? Are you saying that because the board may want to move past the drama by NOT AIRING DIRTY LAUNDRY… because maybe they feel it is ineffective to speak ill of a former member of LOLA… YOU feel dissatisfied with that? Who runs this organization?? Not you. Not Jim…. See More

Again… if either of you, or any other person who has, like me, wasted time debating-reading-typing-THINKING about this boloney, wants to hear our “side” because you think that you are entitled to it… then tune in to the show tomorrow night. Zaira & I will discuss our side one time and one time only. After that, we move on.
LOLA is NOT a government. And you really have no right to demand transparency from us.
Soon the core group will be told what happened.
Transparency in our group of core ladies (which is NOT small) is important to us.
It’s not important for us to share drama or unfavorable information about others.
Yesterday at 8:18pm ·

Todd Andrew Barnett Ⓥ
If lack of communication, Allison unwilling to come forward and offer an explanation for the crap that’s been transpiring in the group, making baseless accusations against a former member sans evidence and documentation, and resorting to high school drama tactics and antics to shut up many in the movement who have concerns about what’s been going … See Moreon in LOLA for months “taking responsibility for its fuck-ups,” then it has an uncanny way of showing it.

Your response amounts to deliberate intellectual dishonesty. In other words, you’re purposely full of shit.

I’ll comment further shortly, but I am in the middle of a phone call.
Yesterday at 9:30pm ·

What’s very disappointing about this is that Amber and her co-host Zaira of Truth A to Z kept posting the following notice under various threads (including mine):

Amber Danelle
Fellow humans,

We at “Truth A to Z” appreciate freedom of speech and are therefore exercising it to say we wholeheartedly agree with the statements made by Kim Johnson and Amber Danelle. We stand firmly behind the principles of liberty and demand that others stop to think about current events in light of truth. Our show format derives from our understanding that truth is in fact varied and that people hold different truths. However, we believe freedom is our one common bond. We all know that situations arise, precisely because people see the truth differently. In those cases, we should still judge people based on their actions.

Sunday, at 7 p.m. Pacific time on Boldvoices.tv Channel 40, we will be discussing the said matter on our show as we engage in our liberty activism. We should always keep in mind the non-aggression principle (avoiding a needlessly confrontational approach) and that we stand behind the idea that activists should be professional and civilized, unless it becomes necessary to be aggressive towards an enemy, as in military or police. We feel strongly that there’s a nefarious desire out there, by those who keep us bound, to thrive on our infighting. We want to extend to all of you a warm invitation to hear our truths about the difference between what’s effective and what’s wasting our time…. See More

If you’re interested, tune in this Sunday at 7 p.m. Pacific time at www.boldvoices.tv Channel 40.

Our success means freedom,

Amber D and Zaira D
TruthAtoZ.net

FB invite: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=363477811292&index=1
Fri at 11:54pm

Incidentally, Kimberly Johnson, who is now the Interim Vice Chair (why Angela Keaton is no longer a Vice Chair is a mystery at this time), posted this letter as a Facebook note:

Dear Activists and Allies:

The Board of Directors of the Ladies of Liberty Alliance upheld the decision of the interim chairwoman to remove Brooke Kelley from the LOLA roster due to trespass, theft and physical destruction of private property at a political event. Such actions are in violation of the non aggression principle which binds all libertarians in a spirit of non-violence including aversion to force and fraud.

No further comment will be made.

In Liberty,

Kimberly Johnson
Interim Vice Chair
Ladies of Liberty Alliance

(The comments on this thread can be read at the link above, provided that one has a Facebook account.)

Interestingly enough, a Facebooker by the name of Corey Cizzle Moore wrote in defense of LOLA and blasted both Brooke and her defenders in a Facebook note that was tagged to a number of Facebookers (he claims to be a neutral, but that’s bogus to begin with if one reads the comments in this note):

Upon following the outcome of the events of this past week, I have to say that this bickering between friends and allies is absolutely discouraging and wrong. Brooke, I understand that you are upset that the reasons you were asked to leave LOLA may have not been based on 100% truth, but going around and trying to drive division within this important liberty organization appears to be more of a personal vendetta rather than trying to hold them accountable for a mistake.

I have watched you trash the entire organization for the past few days, while LOLA has released one press release on the issue. If you could have resolved this issue in private rather than airing dirty laundry everywhere, we would all be better off. Sometimes we must stand up as men and women of liberty, admit that some of the blame falls upon oneself, and move on. Don’t get me wrong Brooke; I think you do great work and I have been watching a lot of what you do. But the reaction you took regarding the incident seriously made me question whether or not you care more about liberty or your own ego.

To my fellow activists that have taken sides in this issue: I understand standing up for your friends when they are being attacked. However I have seen multiple people not only side with Brooke (which is not wrong), but trash LOLA without even considering that you were collectively trashing a lot of activists that have been in the struggle for a long time. If I were to make a mistake, or even been accused of making a mistake, I would hope that my friends would stick up for me. That does not give you carte blanche to attack and slander simply because you disagree with a decision that was collectively made within an organization! I commend anyone that reacted appropriately, asked questions, and came to a factual conclusion before jumping on a side; you are a true free thinking individual.

Brooke, please consider the words I have written above for the sake of peace, love and liberty.

Corey Moore
Activist
Host of “Voice of Radical Dissent”
Co-founder of Kent State Libertarians

Here’s my take on this entire matter: it’s nothing but pure high school drama that is highly unneeded and unnecessary in the libertarian movement. But, more importantly, what LOLA has done to Brooke was wrong. If she were guilty of anything, then where’s the evidence and documentation that proves that she’s guilty as sin for committing the charges as given?

She may not be a saint, and she may be a “radical,” but we need radicals like her in the movement. I took issue with Brooke for her unwise defense of Ron Paul who called for his supporters to throw in their weight behind Neo-Con Republican congressional candidate Lamar Smith. However, I never had a problem with her in the movement.

I don’t buy into the argument that Brooke has lied to the members of LOLA or has acted against the interests of the movement. If she did, where’s the evidence? And why the need for the histrionics over this tawdry and absurd matter? More than that, what has LOLA done for liberty? How many women has the group brought into the movement? I have not seen such evidence of this kind.

Plus, it does not help that LOLA has been cozy with C4L, considering that Gibbs works for that organization and earns a sweet salary. Considering she is on their payroll, that brings up another point: isn’t collecting a salary and being the ED of a pro-Liberty women’s group a clear-cut conflict of interest? I would assume so, considering LOLA was organized to promote the interests of the libertarian — and not the conservative — movement, yet she is working for an organization that is promoting the interests of the conservative — and not the libertarian — movement at all. And while we’re on that topic, how about the fact that Nena Bartlett, a former LOLA Core member**, has gone on from working as the Development Director at the CATO Institute to working for the Rand Paul for Senate campaign. Oh, and let’s remember that Sarah Palin endorsed Rand Paul, and Paul accepted her endorsement.

Thus, it’s funny that Angela Keaton, whose own employer Antiwar.com has gotten financial support from C4L and is still getting it, accuses Kelley of violating the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) when her employer is doing it by siding with an organization that supports pro-war candidates. It’s also funny that, in a screaming voice in my ear on my phone, she will “destroy” anyone who sides with Kelley and declare that they do not support the NAP simply by making deals with people like David Boaz and Tom Palmer of CATO, the Libertarian National Committee‘s Aaron Starr and Bill Redpath, yet she will not criticize LOLA for having a former board member Barlett for her Neo-Con connections to CATO. THAT is a direct violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. But, then again, try telling her that.

Another ridiculous aspect to LOLA is that its calendars, when they were first launched in the fall of 2009, were priced at $20. Since then, the calendars have been priced at $9.95, which is the price that should have been the entire time. But, according to several sources in the know, Gibbs wanted them at the price of $20, which has led to the calendars becoming a dismal failure sales-wise. Why would anyone honestly pay $20 for a calendar when someone can go to their local pharmacy or grocer and find calendars in stock that sell for under $10?

And, based on the claims posited by Keaton, Gibbs, Dynia, and Danelle, I find the allegations to be quite apocryphal.

Not only that, I believe that these recent tactics are designed to shut up dissenters and opponents of the decisions made by the organization itself. There are now plans for Austin LOLA to rename itself***, and, according to a couple of the group’s activists, the organization is on the verge of shutting down.

As of this writing, Keaton has cut me out of the circle. This is her private message to me, Jim Davidson, and Tennyson McCalla on Facebook regarding this, along with her claim that Jim does not support the NAP:

Jim,

You don’t support the NAP. Sorry, babe, but I have to cut you all out of the loop. I made my statement clear. Have documented evidence.

Please refer all further correspondence to our attorney. Any further contact form any of you is unwelcome.

Peace,
Angela

LOLA might want to change its name to Ladies of Lying Intelligent Tyrants Alliance (LOLITA). It fits the authoritarian mindset of the powers-that-be who run the operation, which appears to be a Mickey Mouse front for the GOP.

As Executive Director John Bush of Texans of Accountable Government pointed out last night on Brooke’s Facebook account:

Be advised. There is a purge of radicals occuring right now in the tea party and freedom movement alike. Stay pure. Do not worry. Consistency is difficult at first, but pays off in the long run. Stay strong. Choose freedom

I don’t think the radicals are being purged from the movement, but they are being silenced for speaking out against the Neo-Cons who have taken over C4L and, as it appears, LOLA, not to mention the entire movement.

Other than that, I agree with John. Pro-Liberty activists, as ideologically pure as they are, must remain vigilante and strong. Stand up to the statists. LOLA and C4L are all about statism and tyranny now and not about liberty.

That must count for something, no matter how insane it seems to the non-purists.

[H/T to Brooke Kelley for the great title she came up for this post last night.]

[Note: I want to point out that I have no qualms with the other good ladies of LOLA, including Rita Quinn, Catherine Bleish, and Molli Skye. These are fine ladies who are radicals (a.k.a. purists) in the movement, and we need more people like them.]

[*Correction: According to one source, there was no meeting by the LOLA Core to boot Kelley, what was widely believed notwithstanding. LOLA decided to boot her from the roster on the spot.]

[**Correction: Nena Bartlett is actually still on the LOLA Core board. I erroneously thought that she was no longer on the board because her picture was not on the group's website. Apologies are given to the readers because of the inaccuracy of this information.]

[***Correction: Austin LOLA is actually reviewing its relationship with LOLA and has yet to decide what it will do. It has not immediately decided to rename itself as a different group. Apologies are given to the readers because of the unverified and unconfirmed veracity of this information.]

Here’s the post in its entirety from Facebook for LLR readers and visitors to see:

Anarfuckismo & Co.

by Diana Culda

This is only one among the multitude of sites I found, who are having about the same agenda. I have no comments, that is no civil comments. So enjoy the reading.

‘

About Anarkismo.net

Who we are and why we do it

Anarkismo.net is the product of international co-operation between anarchist groups and individuals who agree with our editorial statement (see below). It is intended to further communciation, discussion and debate within the global anarchist movement. Our intention is to build this site into a resource that is truly global and multilingual. We intend to work closely with the anarchist movement that exist. All of the editors are either members of anarchist organisations or part of collectives that are seeking to form organisations.

Editoral statement

We identify ourselves as anarchists and with the “platformist”, anarchist-communist or especifista tradition of anarchism. We broadly identify with the theoretical base of this tradition and the organisational practice it argues for, but not necessarily everything else it has done or said, so it is a starting point for our politics and not an end point.

The core ideas of this tradition that we identify with are the need for anarchist political organisations that seek to develop:

• Theoretical Unity
• Tactical Unity
• Collective Action and Discipline
• Federalism

Anarchism will be created by the class struggle between the vast majority of society (the working class) and the tiny minority that currently rule. A successful revolution will require that anarchist ideas become the leading ideas within the working class. This will not happen spontaneously. Our role is to make anarchist ideas the leading ideas or, as it is sometimes expressed, to become a “leadership of ideas”.

A major focus of our activity is our work within the economic organizations of the working class (labour organizations, trade unions, syndicates) where this is a possibility. We therefore reject views that dismiss activity in the unions because as members of the working class it is only natural that we should also be members of these mass organizations. Within them we fight for the democratic structures typical of anarcho-syndicalist unions like the 1930′s CNT. However, the unions no matter how revolutionary cannot replace the need for anarchist political organisation(s).

We also see it as vital to work in struggles that happen outside the unions and the workplace. These include struggles against particular oppressions, imperialism and indeed the struggles of the working class for a decent place and environment in which to live. Our general approach to these, like our approach to the unions, is to involve ourselves with mass movements and within these movements, in order to promote anarchist methods of organisation involving direct democracy and direct action.

We actively oppose all manifestations of prejudice within the workers’ movement and society in general and we work alongside those struggling against racism, sexism, [religious] sectarianism and homophobia as a priority. We see the success of a revolution and the successful elimination of these oppressions after the revolution being determined by the building of such struggles in the pre-revolutionary period. The methods of struggle that we promote are a preparation for the running of society along anarchist and communist lines after the revolution.

We oppose imperialism but put forward anarchism as an alternative goal to nationalism. We defend grassroots anti-imperialist movements while arguing for an anarchist rather than nationalist strategy.

We recognise a need for anarchist organisations who agree with these principles to federate on an international basis. However, we believe the degree of federation possible and the amount of effort put into it must be determined by success at building national or regional organisations capable of making such international work a reality, rather than a matter of slogans.’

http://www.anarkismo.net/about_us

This is pro-Liberty propertarian Jim Davidon’s response to Culda’s:

Critique of Anarkismo

by Jim Davidson

My friend Diana Culda has written this note: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=356962428059

She bases her text on this link: http://anarkismo.net/ follow the ‘about’ link.

Here are my thoughts in response.

Diana, people who spend their time in the anarchist movement often ask me about my unwillingness to use terms like anarchist or even anarcho-capitalist to describe my political philosophy. Some of these people see the history of the term capitalism and its application widely in the culture to identify the marriage of big business with big government and say “well, that’s why I don’t call myself a capitalist.” Now you see from this screed at anarkismo dot net that my use of anarchism to describe my propertarian and libertarian philosophy of individual self government without externally imposed coercion would certainly cause just as much confusion. If saying that I’m a sovereign individual, an agorist, a propertarian, and a self governor is more confusing, then I would invite further discussion.

Voluntary and self-responsible individual sovereignty seems to me to be essential. Free markets for finding market clearing prices without compulsion and intervention are necessarily based on private property. Agorism as a basically Taoist strategy of withdrawal and the appearance of poverty seems to be much more effective than many of the other strategies under consideration.

I am transnational, not international. Beyond borders, not about borders. The anarchist collective from which you quote seems to be focused on recognising and working within existing nation state and provincial boundaries. This seems odd at best, pathetic at least.

What anarkismo dot net is not, apparently, is any attempt to reach out to other forms and flavours of anarchism. On that basis, they can kiss my shiny metal ass. They are interested in an echo chamber where their premises may not be challenged. Okay by me.

Unfortunately, I anticipate the same difficulties faced by anarchists like George Orwell with outfits like POUM during the Spanish civil war against Soviet communist anti-anarchist pogroms. The long sad history of communism as a death machine has been chronicled by Bryan Caplan, among many others. Your graphic is on target.

With regard to unity, I don’t see any reason to stand with people who are getting shot at. My preference is to shoot from the prone position. Even laying down next to some idiot who is standing up drawing fire seems absurd. Unity and collective action seem unwise and there is no way that discipline could possibly enter into a relationship based on distrust and lack of consent. As for federalism, I’ve no idea what that means in this context, but it makes me extremely suspicious.

‘Haven’t we just gotten out of a fucked up relationship with a president?” asks Katt Williams, “Couldn’t we just be single for a while?’

That is how I feel about anarkismo. Nor do I agree with their class theory. If they want, as they say, theoretical unity, I should like them to review Konkin’s agorist class theory, or L. Neil Smith’s libertarian class theory. I have more in common with the entrepreneur who is creating value than I do with the government worker. Yet the entrepreneur is supposedly in the “ruling” class while the government employee is supposedly in the “working” class. I believe the government is parasitical and the workers and entrepreneurs and owners of capital who are outside the government are the productive class. But there is apparently no room for this class theory in the theoretical unity of anarkismo.

Nor is it clear to me that there is any point in requiring ideas. I do not “require that anarchist ideas become the leading ideas.” Indeed, I look around me and I see 57% of the population didn’t vote in the November 2008 election, and roughly that same percentage (a bit more) did not file any sort of personal income tax form in April 2009. Do I really give a flying flip what their ideas are? I’m interested in results. If the ascension of anarchist ideas makes more results available, great. If not, who cares?

However, it is clear that the spontaneous order of the free market, especially the market for ideas, is not acceptable to these goons. They require their ideas to be the leading ones, and they assert it won’t happen spontaneously. We must therefore suppose that they mean to impose their ideas.

Given the hostility toward productive persons, the extensive history of racism, sexism, age discrimination, and use of violence by labour organisations and trade unions, I am extremely skeptical of their plans. It seems very likely, to me, that what we may anticipate from anarkismo is violence, purges, and more violence. It seems to me that by saying “we fight for …democratic structures” that what anarkismo is really saying is that (a) they are primarily violent and (b) their goal is a form of direct democracy, rather than anarchy. What have 309 million rulers to offer me that I’m not already getting from 535 or so?

Were big labour not already married to big government in ways far more corrupt, insidious, and riddled with organised crime than the extensive marriage of big business with big government, I might be of a different view. If there were labour organisations suited to the negligible government world, such as private mutual aid groups, purchasing cooperatives, and the like, I would be happy to work with them. However, compulsory trade unions are just another form of coercion.

I am admittedly skeptical of their call for anarchist political organisations. What is it about the excesses and corruption brought on by excessive political activity that are to be ameliorated by the addition of more politics?

The evidence for the effectiveness of struggles, as opposed to entrepreneurship in particular, for building decent places to live seems minimal. Where people go and take over abandoned property, improve it, and make use of it, they are doing far more good than those who merely struggle and demand the government act, or intercede. Where rent control has been imposed and enforced, the availability of low cost housing has been obliterated.

Nor is there any evidence that I find credible that the highly political scientific establishment’s claims about global warming and environmental degradation are based on truth. The environment is much cleaner than ever. Inventions and innovations are making it possible for far more people to live far more cleanly. I am hostile toward what I suspect is an implicit desire by anarkismo to attack individuals, oppress those who seek to reproduce, and steal from those they think are “polluting” by, e.g., exhaling carbon dioxide.

On the plus side, I actively oppose all manifestations of prejudice in society in general. I think racism, sexism, religious sectarianism, homophobia, xenophobia, and war are specifically conservative ideologies, based on bigotry and authoritarianism. I reject them all.

Anarkismo, however, sees no reason to eliminate them until after the revolution. This suggests to me a willingness to compromise on principle. Nor am I confident that their revolution would be anything but a bloody mess – meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The men who spurred us on, sit in judgement of our wrongs, they decide and the shotgun sings the song.

By recognising a purported need for federation on an international basis, the anarkismo people seem to be conceding the existence of imaginary boundaries and imaginary nation states. This seems bizarre and contrary to anarchist philosophy. Building national or regional organisations seems contrary to the whole point of anarchism. It also seems to be characteristic of the 1930s style of employment model, union organising, and political philosophy with which they appear to be most comfortable. I think there is an obvious 21st Century alternative, which is to organise across borders and beyond the reach of any single jurisdiction. In my past writings I have proposed “jurisdictional arbitrage” as a way of maximising resources by taking advantage of the differing rules that apply in many different jurisdictions.

So, that’s all I have to say on this subject. I think my responses merit a note on my FB page, and shall tip my hat your way when I write. Thanks, Diana.

This is quite an engaging, not to mention interesting, subject for debate and discussion. I will, however, respond to it later tonight or so.

Libertarian National Committee

Comment by: Jet Lacey
Entered on: 2010-01-26 13:51:01

I hope you believe me when I say I’m not trying to be a complete asshole, but this apparent “activism clique” that you, some of the LOLA girls, John Bush, Todd Andrew Barnett, et al. have going on is starting to really irritate me in certain ways. I have met many in the clique, and I really like everyone that I have met. That is not the issue.

But, it seems that there are some within the clique that seem to spend only a small portion of their time doing actual activism, and the rest of the time suckling on each other’s metaphoric teat in order to cross-promote one other. It is the self-branding and self-promotion that I am starting to remember more than the often excellent activism. For instance, I loved your video on MLK’s tactic of getting kids thrown in jail, but if you peruse the recent list of videos on your YouTube channel, there are many more interviews with your “freedom friends” (that’s what my wife Beth calls mine) than on real issues.

The reason I bring this up is not to attack, because I do support the younger generation of activists, but what I don’t think many of the younger generation of activists understand is that activism seems to be a terrible way to earn a living.

Secondly (and more importantly), I’m beyond sick and tired of the attacks on Ron Paul the man emanating from the clique. I say go ahead, hate that he supported Lamar Smith, hate that he believes trying to save the GOP is the right thing to do, hate the C4L (I certainly have no use for them), but it pisses me off to no end that self-described freedom activists are trying to make their names in the activist world at the expense of the one man in D.C. who has stood firm on his convictions in the face of amazing resistance for almost 40 years. It’s detestable, really.

Tarrin, I realize I don’t know you and I’m certainly not trying to attack you personally, but I must say that I find these non-substantive, saccharine-sweet, cross-promoting puff pieces so very boring and beyond non-newsworthy.

Tarrin’s response was of the following:

Comment by: Tarrin Lupo
Entered on: 2010-01-27 09:30:12

Jet thanks for the feed back. I try and do a whole range of stories on a bunch of different stuff. I think it is just coincidental that all these stories hit at the same time. I mean 2 of them happened at C4L so that is timely, and it was just Brook’s turn because were she landing in the Calender. I am interviewing all the calendar girls and trying to catch up to this month. As far as self promoting I think it is odd that you should say this since you just used the Alex Jones vs Tag incident to promote your blog. Of course I self promote, I am also trying to build viewers and make a living as a full time activist (not easy to do btw). I also believe in promoting other activism I like, in fact I liked your last blog so much I posted it all over the place and I don’t even know you. I think it is natural to hang out with people with similar beliefs, but I also know if my message strays from a pure liberty message they will also be the first people to call me out on it. I think it is healthy to keep everyone grounded. I guess it is still a free market sort of, so why not just ignore the stories I do you don’t like?

Lacey’s response goes like this:

Comment by: Jet Lacey
Entered on: 2010-01-27 13:33:36

Tarrin,

Thanks for your reply. I get it, really I do. And, maybe I’ve been a little too direct and maybe it’s none of my business. What I don’t want to do is to “shit in my own nest” (meaning the freedom movement) and I do appreciate all of the new friendships I’ve started as a result of my participation in the movement.

BTW, I don’t have an active personal blog…just Freedom’s Phoenix at this time.

Keep up the great work, Tarrin.

Peace,

Jet

Here is my response to Lacey on the matter:

Comment by: Todd Andrew Barnett
Entered on: 2010-01-27 14:06:32

At the risk of coming off as an AIR (Asshole In Return), I seriously take issue with Jet Lacey’s comments that involved me as well as John Bush, some of the LOLA Girls, and the rest of the so-called activism clique that Lacey alleges to exist. (I’m speaking for John, Catherine Bleish, Tarrin Lupo, Katie Wilhite Brewer, and a number of others in the Liberty movement who are not in the unique position to speak for and defend themselves. Although I normally don’t speak for anyone but myself, I’m making a crucial exception here.)

I resent — make that beyond resent — the comments made by Jet. Not only that, his comments strike me as damn unfair as far as I’m concerned. If what we say irritates him, then his response to the matter irritates me and my “clique” more.

First, let me say that anyone who has read my electronic paper trail online for a number of years know that I have been critical of the state FAR more than the movement itself. I have been critical of the movement and Ron Paul over the years, but my criticisms dwarf in comparisons to my commentary on the rise and expansion of the state. Not only that, my criticisms dwarf in comparison to other activists in the movement who have been FAR more critical of the movement and Ron Paul than I have been. I have praised Paul, the Ron Paulers, and many members of the movement FAR more often than I would like. My blog Let Liberty Ring is replete with praises and lauding of Ron Paul, all activists in the movement (political or not), and groups that have warding off the growth, promotion, and expansion of the state in every immeasurable way. My commentaries have been critical of the Bush and Obama regimes (although I haven’t been as critical of the latter regime on the commentary front as I would like).

My show Liberty Cap Talk Live, which is on Friday nights, have been FAR more critical of the federal Leviathan than anything in the movement. I have criticized both Bush and Obama on NowLive and Blog Talk Radio, probably in more ways than the activists in the movement care to remember. I have been honest and fair, probably much fairer than I would have liked or wanted. However, when certain individuals in the movement have done something wrong in the movement (Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root, for example), I have called them out on it.

Ron Paul, politically speaking, is no exception. Like it or not, believe it or not, accept it or not, embrace it or not, as a politician he’s fair game just the like Congress. He’s part of the ruling class whether you like it or not. He’s a politician who HAS made his peace with statism — limited statism — whether you care to embrace that fact or not. After all, he IS a Republican. Why should he be treated any differently than the rest of that lot? Because a bunch of pro-Liberty activists happen to have and enjoy their lovefest with him? Anarchists like Tom Knapp, Stefan Molyneux, and Wendy McElroy have given shit loads of heat to the man. Why must he be treated so differently?

Keep in mind that he’s a politician who was:

a.) elected to serve his congressional constituents in the 14th district of Texas

b.) elected to work for his constituency’s interests and not the interests of the Liberty movement

and, finally,

c.) elected not to represent the entire Liberty movement but to certain factions of the movement and does not speak for everyone in the movement. He doesn’t speak for me, for my partner-in-crime James Landrith, Jr., and he doesn’t speak for everyone. He only speaks for those who support him all the way. That’s the truth in a nutshell.

Second, we do not hate Ron Paul the man. I’m sure Ron’s a great guy and a wonderful family man, not to mention someone you’d wouldn’t mind having a beer with, eat fish and chips with, go skeet hunting with, and, as some people say “shoot the shit with,” but he’s not above reproach. No one is. Why does he deserve special treatment for any wrongdoings he commits? Because he’s a compromising politician? Because he’s Ron Paul? Talk about a bunch of twisted — not to mention moronic — priorities you’ve got there.

And finally, those who object to us (including you, Jet) having an issue with what Paul has done need to take their heads out of their collectivistic asses and develop a perspective for a change. The attitude we get from your side is that, “You have no right to criticize Paul because a criticism of him is an attack on us.” Balderdash! That’s a bald-faced lie right there. If we wanted to do that, we would have addressed our criticisms directly towards you guys and not Ron Paul. Let’s set that record straight for once, please?

Those who also seem to glorify the politically sinful actions of Paul and shove the uproar over his decision to endorse Lamar Smith under the political rug are also selling out their principles too, in the name of persecuting those for committing what they see as political heresy and blasphemy. Would you guys have been this defensive of Ron if he had chosen to endorse John McCain in lieu of Chuck Baldwin? Would you guys have said then? What would have been your excuses since then? What’s the point of having principles if you’re just going to be as statist as McCain or statist-lite next to McCain? (Does anyone remember the Bob Barr debacle? Anyone?)

How can we oppose the existence as well as the expansion and increase of Big Statism if the Ron Paul movement tries to cozy up to the GOP and end up being the Party’s little bitch (or whore, if you prefer) and then act as though it’s defending freedom when people can see through that? How can your defense of Little Statism be justified when it sullies everything that the Liberty movement is supposed to be and stands for? The only way you can light the fires in the hearts and minds of people is via persuasion, education, and civil disobedience, not via the political realm.

By “compromising” your principles, you end up letting the state shape and define you sooner and faster than you shape and define the state. Thinking that jumping into the bed of the GOP and expecting it to change to be a libertarian organization and somehow freedom will just rain down the political sky via the magic wand of the state are just fairy tales. They never have worked, don’t work, and they never will work now, tomorrow, and in the forseeable future.

That’s my two cents on the issue. I’m getting off my soapbox now…

Yours Truly in Liberty,

Todd Andrew Barnett

Blogger, Let Liberty Ring

http://letlibertyring.blogspot.com

Host, Liberty Cap Talk Live

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/libertycaptalklive

And this is the best of the Liberty movement we have? If that’s the case, no wonder the people in it are in a heap of trouble.

Sometime during the event, an uninvited crasher who happened to be an anti-Semite showed up making a scene and waving a briefcase. Security came up to him, spoke with him, and sent him on his way. Lupo, who was interviewing someone, happened to have a handycam on his person, filming the incident, even though he missed the first few minutes of the entire matter. Lupo thought the security detail handled the matter very well; thus, no problems at that point whatsoever.

Twenty minutes later the crasher returns, which led to Lupo pulling out his handycam again and filming what was happening at that point. The story would have been over, except that, as Tarrin was filming the altercation between the crasher and the security team, two members of the detail came up to him, harassed him, and ordered him to stop filming.

Here’s the video of the incident which shows it in great detail:

The detail sees him filming, so one of the security officers (a bald guy) comes up to Lupo and actually grabs the camera (to the point where he almost confiscates it)and moves it away from the direction where the incident is taking place to where it focuses on him. The bald guy tells Lupo, “It’s not gonna be a problem. You can interview me.” This happens so that Lupo won’t be able to film the uninvited intruder being escorted off the premises. So he becomes distracted long enough by security long enough to the point where the crasher is nowhere to be seen.

[*Note: Watch the video, and you'll see and get an idea of what happened.]

Interestingly enough, Lupo had an interesting private Facebook chat with Steve Bierfeldt, one of the detail, over the matter. Here’s the following text of the chat between the two:

Steve
tarrin my man, what are you thinking bud?
12:40pmTarrin
go on
12:41pmSteve
go on? just asking why you think its good for the movement to have someone shouting racial obscenities at a c4l conference
12:42pmTarrin
Ohh I had no problem with you throwing that guy out, I have an issue why you would mess with me
Actually like I said I think you all handled him well
12:43pmSteve
meh, not good for business man. no need to have that on tape. what do you think all the anti liberty folks are going to say? “see, RP supporters are racist” just like the campaign..
12:44pmTarrin
So you thought you would be scene as ANTI-racist for throwing a racist out, if anything it would have showed people the oppisite
Crapp i need to proof, I meant seen
12:45pmSteve
i was just interested in your thought process Tarrin
12:46pmTarrin
Basically I had no idea I what was going on, but I thought you all would want it on tape incase he attacked your security or something, I was not even going to put it up , but I felt bullied by you guys
Why did you feel I was a threat.

Interestingly enough, this occurred on the same day John Bush filmed his interview with Ron Paul, which entails his question to Paul, a question that asks whether the liberty movement’s own congresscritter made a deal to support the incumbent GOP candidates of Texas.

The problem with this incident is that this shows how authoritarian an organization like C4L can be, especially when it censors an citizen journalist who never agreed not to film the entire event, uses the excuse that the organization (which is a political one) is a private organization hosting a private event for its members when the event is shown to the public, and the public can see the activities unfolding at the Sheraton Atlanta (which is where the incident transpired). Furthermore, the group also claims that it is a “private organization” pushing for political change at the state and federal levels when it is a political organization and is not truly a private group by any stretch of the imagination. That is merely a bald-faced lie, because it is a non-profit organization and has been chartered as a corporate entity. (After all, it is a non-profit corporation, which is, like it or not, a creature of the state, not a mythical creature of the “free market.”)

Organizations like C4L must be held accountable for their actions. This latest incident is an apotheosis of the need for that accountability.

[H/T to Tarrin Lupo of LCL Report who supplied me this information, posted the video on his YouTube channel, and provided the private chat to me.]

[Update: Tarrin asks me to include a link to his interview with John Bush regarding his video interview with Ron Paul at the event. Here it is in its entirety:]

[Second Update: According to Tarrin, Bierfeldt was the one who ordered the bald guy to harrass him.]

As soon as the video showcasing an interview made by Texans for Accountable Government member John Bush at the Campaign for Liberty Regional Conference came out a few hours later after late Friday night and before Saturday morning, a devastating rift occurred between two distinct factions within the Liberty movement — Ron Paul supporters and the true pro-Liberty activists (the latter liking a number of Paul’s mostly pro-freedom message and positions but do not see the man as anything more than a messianic political figure looking to secure his entrenched power in the state). The Ron Paul supporters, on the other hand, have politically deified him not as only a man with great philosophical knowledge but as a Pope-like political figure under the rubric of politics who is destined to save them from the political Devil’s diabolical and vile political hell and damnation and lead them onto a path to a political heaven (utopic paradise under the guise of politics). Politics, in the eyes of these worshippers (activists) and apostles (C4L staff and leaders), has become their own warped political Bible that they use in order to attain “liberty” (which is really a state-coddled and state-protected brand of statist conservatism). In a nutshell, Ron Paul is their political Jesus Christ who is their one and true political savior and who will reign in their political heaven.

This is the heart and soul of the abstract construct of “cult of personality” — that is, a politically-charged excess of hero worship or idolatry towards a figure (in this context, a political figure), often expressing extreme adulation with intense flattery and praise in a political or religious (in the case of Ron Paul, both) context. When political worshippers, disciples, and apostles of a political figure (once again, in this case, Ron Paul) see him incapable of any egregious transgressions, bad choices, and serious wrongdoing of any kind, then they will thus be incapable of seeing the immoral, unethical, and political wrongdoing because they refuse to separate the man from the politician. In other words, in their eyes, you can’t take the politics out of the man and vice versa. The way they see it, they must permanently be one and the same. The politician’s “principles” simply are irrelevant in the context of remaining in office, especially if the goal is to keep himself entrenched — and even further entrenched — in political office and in the movement.

Scores of numbers representing the Ron Paul machine say that this is what politics is all about, that compromise is necessary in politics, and that it’s crucial for Ron Paul to deviate from libertarian principles to keep his place in Congress, his seats on the committees on which he serves, etc. The litany of excuses have spread all over the web, including Facebook: Ron Paul is “awesome” and must be supported no matter what his reasons are, Ron Paul has to “carefully choose” who his enemies and friends are “in the interests of advancing” his “politics and beliefs,” Ron Paul has more credibility in the mainstream public than you [the critic] do [does], Ron Paul “rules,” politics is a game you HAVE to play to win, Ron Paul has “done more for the movement than you [the critic]” ever will, Ron Paul makes people aware of the issues, etc. (The last excuse, of course, is debatable, as many non-Paul supporting libertarians have provided excellent examples of what kinds of anti-liberty actions Paul has taken over the years. Wendy McElroy, KN@PPSTER‘s Tom Knapp, and Stefan Molyneux are excellent examples of pro-Liberty figures who have never had any illusions about Paul’s motives and his actions in Congress and have never jumped on board the pro-Paul bandwagon.)

The problem with most of these claims made by the Ron Paulians (who even unapologetically stand by them that is, by the way) is that they are nonsense, and the supporters refuse to look at the real world here. Compromise, especially in the realm of politics, has never gotten the movement anywhere anyway; in fact, it has outrageously and horribly damaged the movement’s chances of gaining traction whatsoever. For example, the Audit the Fed bill (also known as H.R. 1207), which has been given enormous amount of media coverage (and granted, it has received a lot of media buzz over its key provisions), has enabled Paul to go on cable networks like CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and the various talk shows including the talking heads who run them. Has it really gotten the movement closer to freedom, despite the watered-down provisions of the bill, especially when a good chunk of the pro-transparency language has been omitted from the original draft of the legislation? Keep in mind that the Senate version (not the House version) of the bill has been rendered useless and neutered because of the “compromise” to which both major parties have surreptitiously agreed. (The House bill is being stalled deliberately and the possibility of it ever passing intact without any part of the language amended is nil.)

In a nutshell, what good is the bill if it won’t achieve the original aim and goal that Paul wanted? What good will these new versions of the bill do? How will they make the Fed more accountable? Even Paul has admitted on camera that the bill (especially the Senate version) has been nullified (in terms of how it will be enforced). Did the activists really think that, via the apparatus of politics, the Federal Reserve, in collusion with the government, was going to say, “Yup! You’re right. We have been keeping deep, dark secrets from the public, and we want to destroy the value of the dollar!” Did anyone on board the Paul train really think the bill was going to accomplish anything? If anything, it was a pipe dream; nothing more. [*Note: I don't blame Paul for the compromises of the Senate bill, and the stonewalling of the House bill is done at no fault of his own.]

Compromise is what has gotten this country in the mess in the first place. It’s the reason why the state shouldn’t be existing at all. We’re more than willing to give up liberty in exchange for holding onto the reigns of power because the feeling of the power is more important and better than the principle itself. Party loyalty means something, whereas the principle doesn’t.

Moreover, Paul’s stances on social issues (from where he is getting the support from in his electoral and political bases) have been met with intense scrutiny in the last few years. The aggravating part to many non-Ron Paulers (and that includes me even more than when I supported him for president in 2007 and 2008) is that is that the Ron Paulians are willing to look the other way when it comes to his willingness to violate individual rights (in some instances) when it’s politically convenient and beneficial for him to do so. Wendy McElroy, in her blog posting on Paul (at the time when he was running for the presidency on the GOP ticket on July 26, 2007) titled “Why Libertarians Should Applaud Slap RonPaul,” makes an excellent case against him here:

My call for a Slap RonPaul site has elicited some negative and some surprised responses, which I answer. Before doing so, however, I want to suggest that there is nothing outrageous or offensive about a hardline libertarian wishing to slap the face of any politician…of any man or woman who seeks a position of political power over the lives of others, let alone the position of Supreme Commander/President. Indeed, it is offensive to libertarianism to elevate a politician to such a height that slapping his or her face on a game site is considered outrageous. Iconoclastic disrespect for politicians and the political process is a hallmark of libertarianism; god help us if we lose that attitude. In one sense, however, critics of the idea are correct in calling it inappropriate. Although Paul is squarely in the Religious Right, he probably deserves a slap less than other Presidential candidates like the hawkish McCain. I may be displacing the irritation I feel toward the many libertarians who are jumping gleefully onto the Paul bandwagon and, instead, directing the irritation toward Paul himself. Perhaps I should be slapping them and yelling “Snap out of it!” On second thought, nah…that’s not it. The man himself irritates me.

Then she goes further:

A friend whose opinion I value explains that he is supporting Paul as ‘the best candidate among the declared candidates,’ and adds ‘I know, that’s not saying much.’ With genuine respect toward my friend, no that is not saying much and the choice between two evils is still evil. He continues to explain, ‘there are three issues I don’t agree with Ron Paul on: Abortion, Church & State, Immigration.’ Even if those were the only issues upon which Paul is frightening as hell, they are incredibly important issues with far-reaching implications. It is rather like saying ‘other than advocating slavery, he is a great candidate.’ The man’s campaign literature now identifies him as ‘a real conservative’; he represents the Religious Right that wants to collapse the division established by the First Amendment.

She also correctly identifies another problem with Paul here (which is something his hero-worshipping zealots refuse to take into account):

Ron Paul Says Privacy Rights and Freedoms Don’t Include Abortion. I believe Paul’s anti-abortion stance would destroy privacy rights, especially medical privacy. Given that he has voted “yes” on federal bans on abortion, I don’t take seriously his loophole explanation that states should decide such matters.

Wendy is absolutely right. Paul’s defense on his position on abortion should have angered and alarmed those who pay lip service to human liberty across the board, yet it hasn’t. By compromising on those principles, Paul has shown that he would rather throw a mother who had just aborted her unborn child to save her life in jail because of his misguided view that abortion is wrong. I side with Wendy on this matter, considering, although personally I’m against abortion, it is still not the state’s decision to decide whether the unborn child must be or must not be saved. I too reject the state’s rights arguments because they violate the rights of the individual. Conservatives who gleefully jump on board of the states’ rights rhetoric are wrong about this, and so is Paul. Paul, who has adopted the conservative line on this matter, has voted “yes” on many federal bans on abortion.

In simpler language, Paul is enslaving women by coercing them to keep the unborn baby inside them via the power of the state. How does that reconcile with his “libertarian” credentials (which are actually conservative, not libertarian)?

(By the way, one can find more blog postings of Wendy on her feelings on Ron Paul at her website, as the URL to it is given above. Peruse them. Agree or disagree, I urge my fellow readers not to take them personally but do want you to take them seriously.)

[*Note:His records on immigration, the "don't-ask, don't-tell" policy of the military, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (which allows states to have this mythical right to adopt statewide bans on recognizing the right of gays to marry by only recognizing a legal marriage as between a man and a woman). Despite his rhetoric, where's the substance in his arguments? There aren't any, as far as I'm concerned.]

Getting back to the Paul ruckus, the matter is simply not only about Ron Paul (keep in mind that I do not personally have any feelings of ill will or hatred towards the man, and my criticisms of him are serious but not personal). They are mainly about the attitudes and reactions of the pro-Ron Paul crowd that have, since the revelation of Paul selling out the movement, demonized pro-Liberty activists who have supported Ron in the past but no longer do for this reason as well as other unstated ones. The attacks against the principled activists have indeed become personal, unfair, hurtful, and even uncalled for. I can vouch for that, because I have been subjected to a number of unnecessary and unfair ad hominems and criticisms on Facebook and on this blog over the whole matter. (The comments aimed at me can be found here, so there is no need to rehash them at all.)

The sentiments of the Ron Paul supporters espoused online come off as the following: “How dare you criticize the one and great Ron Paul! He is always right and never wrong! You have no right to criticize him or even excoriate him, even if he does make a wrong choice!! Again, how dare you!!!” Wrong on all counts, I’m afraid. Pro-Liberty activists who can separate the man from the politician (and his rhetoric as well) do HAVE a right to be angry over what has happened. They are justified in being angry over this matter. In fact, the blame falls on Ron Paul’s shoulders and his entire congressional team to begin with. While it is true that we don’t know the entire details of the deal that Paul made with Lamar Smith, he is still accountable for his actions, especially because of the deliberately-concealed information regarding the agreement(and not because there is a lack of it). Furthermore, those who are unfairly and unjustly attacking the anti-Paul pro-Liberty activists should be angry too. They have a responsibility to find out why their beloved man has made this disastrous choice. It is utterly irresponsible to sweep this matter under the rug, as the old racist newsletter ruckus was.

There is also a deep concern that this controversy has raised. I called into Rise Up Radio on the Rule of Law radio network on Monday morning a little after 7 a.m. CST, and I was on the air with John Bush, Catherine Bleish, and Paul supporter Brooke Kelley of the popular YouTube reality show PuZzLeD. The point I raised was, because of this “elephant-in-the-room” (no pun intended) mess, if the Democrats and the average Joe who knows about Paul’s record and his position on the War on Iraq and the Bailouts of 2008, what will they think? They will believe that Paul has caved in to political pressure by endorsing a candidate who represents everything that Paul is believed not to represent in their eyes. It is very likely that, if this matter does get out into the limelight, they will make political hay and use this against him, accusing him of hypocrisy, playing party politics, and disingenuousness across the board. Plus, the new listeners and supporters of him message will erroneously confuse libertarianism with his “hip” brand of conservatism. Is that how we want the liberty message to be viewed by the public, let alone the entire world? Is it really worth to throw everything away, just because it’s better to trump principles for politics? These matters, whether the Ron Paul machine wants to acknowledge this or not, believe it or not, accept it or not, and embrace it or not, are black and white, not just for the entire movement but also to the public at large. We should be condemning these remarks and move to strive to reach the masses with the idea that voluntaryism and agorism are the best ways to achieve liberty, not via the guns of the state. The state is the agent of violence; thus, why give it more credence than we already have?

There’s plenty more to be said on this topic. The criticisms aimed at Paul and his supporters are not meant to be hurtful and disaparaging, but to prove how ill-thought out, divisive, and dangerous the desired pathway to electoral politics is. Activism can bring about change (especially for liberty) in many forms, but that doesn’t necessarily require that politics be a part of it. A commitment to integrity, truth, and a respect for individual rights is strongly needed. Let’s not blindly abandon that just for the sake of “good government.”

Is that too much to ask?

his opposition to the rising control of Neocons and their support for the Iraq war

Here’s a YouTube of anarcho-capitalist John Bush at the C4L Regional Conference in Atlanta, Georgia last night, asking why Ron is supporting a Neo-Con:

Katie Wilhite Brewer‘s quote from Ron Paul’s answer to Bush is of the following:

I’m a republican, I made a commitment to support the Republican incumbents in texas. I’m the most independent republican in the GOP but you can only get away with so much independence.

She then replied to that quote with the following:

Wow! There you have it folks. YouTube video will be out soon.

Smith, a Neo-Con who has voted for a resolution calling for the “Use of Military of Force” against Iraq on October 10, 2002 and voted for the bailout for the banks last fall, has a deal with Paul, saying that he will endorse and support Ron’s campaign for re-election if Paul returns the favor. The idea is that Ron needs Smith’s support, because if he doesn’t, then he will lose his seat to a progressive Democratic challenger in the U.S. congressional race. Another reason is that, if Paul doesn’t do it, then he will be forced out of the GOP, thus losing his seat on the Finances Services and his seat as a Ranking Member of the Domestic Policy Sub Committee.

A Ron Paul sycophant by the name of Brandon Trent (who sounds more like a GOP loyalist and stalwart in his responses to the irate pro-Liberty activists who were disheartened and disappointed by Ron’s statement quoted Katie’s Facebook page) tries to justify and rationalizes Paul’s decision with the following quote in the comments section of the thread:

Brandon Trent
here’s the thing; think rationally for a moment; how much good could Ron Paul do if he is expelled from the party; he would lose his status as a senior member of the Financial Services Committee; including his position as Ranking member of the Domestic Policy Sub Committee…..I’d rather have him in the Republican Party with some clout than out of the Republican Party with absolutely no clout what so ever. Politics is a dirty game; and Im sure Lamar Alexander will in some way return the favor
4 hours ago

Here’s a reprint of the original campaign letter sent out on December 30, 2009 to the Ron Paul for Congress supporters:

Congressman Ron Paul
Dear Fellow Texan,

As you know, America faces tremendous problems. I have dedicated my career to fight for solutions, but I need friends in Congress who will help and work with me in these critical times.

That is why I am grateful for the friendship of Congressman Lamar Smith. Lamar Smith is a thoughtful, intelligent leader who keeps his door open to me and is always willing to listen. As the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Smith’s word carries a lot of weight on Capitol Hill and I am glad to see he fights to take principled stands on important issues like Healthcare and Cap and Trade.

Congressman Smith made a point of reading both of my recent books, The Revolution: A Manifesto and End the Fed and I enjoyed our discussion. True intellectual exchange has become all too rare in Washington and I appreciated his effort.

Lamar is also one of the true gentlemen in Congress. I value Congressman Smith’s thoughtful approach and consider him a true friend. If more leaders in Washington adopted his style of governing, I know we could break down a lot of barriers.

I am proud of my friendship with Lamar Smith. I hope you will consider supporting him in his bid for re-election.

In Liberty,

Ron Paul

Interestingly enough Ron Paul Republican congressional candidate Stephen Schoppe expressed his astonishment with the news.

As Schoppe notes in part:

I really respect Dr. Paul but am disappointed with his email since Lamar voted for the $700 billion banker bailout. Compromises like this with Democrats have led to the financial disaster our nation is in today.

(Schoppe also stated that he was “encouraged that his campaign has spurred Lamar Smith to seek an endorsement from Ron Paul.”) As he explains:

We must be having an effect if Lamar is kowtowing to Ron Paul

Interestingly enough (although not a surprise), Lew Rockwell has been obviously silent on the matter on his blog.

As far as I’m concerned, as a former Ron Paul 2008 supporter, I’m done with Paul. I have denounced him publicly on Facebook because of his action, which is a straw (more like a hammer) that broke the camel’s back. It’s obvious that Paul is doing this for political expediency, at a cost of his past support from his devout pro-Liberty base. So much for his principled pro-Liberty political capital that he had been banking for well over a decade.

After all the crap involving the old (not to mention “brush-under-the-rug”) racist newsletter controversy, his decision to accept a donation of $500 from neo-Nazi Stormfront leader Don Black at one point during his 2008 presidential campaign, his anti-abortion and anti-illegal immigration records (which show that he’s an anti-Liberty zealot on the said issues), his son Rand Paul’s support for Gitmo, and GOP senatorial candidate Peter Schiff’s defense of the preemptive war doctrine that had long since been established precedent by previous precedents by past presidential administrations (including George W. Bush’s), I must wash my hands of Ron Paul and the groups that have long since been associated with him. For a man who takes this anti-Liberty stance in favor of being re-elected because it is just the price we pay for being involved in a dirty game called politics is retching and unconscionable.

That also includes all and any organizations and groups that support and will continue to support Paul, including the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Campaign for Liberty, LewRockwell.com, the LRC Blog, the Daily Paul, etc.

I wonder what Paul’s friend Rockwell will say about this latest fall-out (not to mention how he’ll say it). How is he going to spin this mess in Ron’s favor? Furthermore, how’s he going to defend Paul? If he, Ron, and Paul’s ardent defenders are worried about the media fallout over this revelation and the egg on face that will be splattered all over Ron, his congressional campaign, and his entire support base, then perhaps he should have thought about that before he made a vile pact with the political Devil by aligning himself with a congressman who’s not even remotely like him.

Enough of this vulgar libertarianism! Down with the state! It’s time to work outside the political system. Forget the political beast; it can’t be “saved” or “reformed.” It’s time to throw the baby out with the bath water. And that’s especially because the baby happens to be Rosemary’s Baby.

At one point during the talks, my brother, my father, and I found ourselves in a discussion over the ObamaCare bill that the Senate had just voted to pass its version of it. (The final vote tally is 60 to 39, with Biden presiding over the key vote on the mandate.) Now the Senate and the House (and even my sibling confirmed this at the table) are scrambling to match their provisions contained in their versions of the bill, so that they can draft a final bill to be passed by both chambers of the House and Obama to sign it into law.

(Keep in mind that, all his best intentions notwithstanding, my brother idealistically — but not erroneously — believes that the law will be successfully challenged by the courts on constitutional grounds. It’s possible that the U.S. Supreme Court can and might overturn the impending law, but given the fact that most conservatives — not to mention their right-wing populists and allies – have historically gone along with government programs once and long after they have passed, it stands to reason that this program will remain in place and be nearly impossible to abolish at the federal level.)

At one point in the conversation, (I’m paraphrasing here!), my brother states that when he talks to people regarding health care, they respond, “We have a right to health care!” My brother argues against that proposition (assuming those people with whom he spoke are of the progressive mindset), claiming that no one has a right to it because he takes the constitutional position that an individual “has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” (While the praxeology per se is valid, it is not a good argument to make against the so-called public option because it is a cookie cutter talking point that libertarianesque conservatives like him take.)

The reason for his argument against the “public option”? He says that it’s taking money from those who didn’t pay for it and giving it to those who can’t. It’s a fair and valid point, and quite a solid libertarian one at that. Who can rightfully argue against that? (The progressives can make a counter-argument in response to that standpoint, but that’s a subject for another post.)

Of course, I interjected by saying that the same argument can be made about Social Security, and I made that point after he applied that same principle to Medicare. He even agreed that Social Security “should never have been created in the first place.” It’s nice to know that we concur on the principles, because his talking points are libertarian to the core. I even pointed out that those programs absolutely should never been created in the first place, and that I have told my listeners and guests on my BlogTalkRadio.com Internet talk radio show Liberty Cap Talk Live (specifically, some of those listeners who really don’t get the point yet) that, once those programs are created, they eventually morph into something other than they were originally intended to be. (Interestingly enough, he agreed. I did even bring up my criticisms of the Big Players of the insurance industry who had a stake in this mess, but we were cut off because my mother, my sister-in-law, and my niece returned from their “in-the-garage” cigarette break.)

But this is what I wanted to ask him, and I wish I had the opportunity to ask him this but didn’t have a chance to do so: “Do you oppose or support the big corporate players in the insurance industry (specifically the big corporate insurance firms like Blue Cross Blue Shield and BlueCare Network) that are on board with ObamaCare?” Furthermore, I wanted to ask him, “Do you oppose welfare in all of its forms? Or do you oppose welfare only for the poor, but support corporate welfare (or corporatism) all the way?”

I suspect he supports the latter. After all, his admission of his supporting the government bailouts of the Big Three and the automotive industry that transpired in the last few months of Bush’s final term of his presidency (when I was at his house for Christmas Eve last year) is an overwhelming indication of that.

Herein lies the heart of the problem with my brother’s thinking, including the mindset that dominates the old libertarian movement. The mentality that has long pervaded the libertarian movement is this: “Despite government intervention in the economy, corporations are still needed, are not the creature of the state, and are not protected by but are victims of the state. Oh, and we do need limited liability laws to protect the interests of our shareholders, specifically the small ones.”

Thus, in corporate libertarianese (particularly those espoused by those self-proclaimed libertarians from both the CATO Institute and Lew Rockwell‘s Ludwig von Mises Institute), corporations are the apotheosis of laissez-faire and that they can exist without state-sanctioned privileges and guarantees and state-furnished subsidies. (Imagine the health insurance corporations that stand to gain everything once the state-provided, vile ObamaCare is set in stone. After all, consider how much tax money is riding on this bill by the entire corporate insurance establishment that’s colluded with the state with this bill.) Furthermore, it’s also another reason why many progressives revile libertarians for adopting Ben Steinan/Lawrence Kudlowesque rhetoric that has significantly dominated the vast majority of the movement, thus harming and scathing it in its entirety.

“Left-libertarian” a.k.a. ideologically pure libertarian/anarchist/agorist Sheldon Richman, who has been in the old libertarian movement for nearly 40 years, had this to say about the state of libertarianism as it stands today:

There are also good strategic reasons for associating libertarianism with the left and not with the right. The modern movement has, despite futile protests that we pro-Liberty activists are “neither left nor right,” been placed on the right as sort of a hip variant of conservatism. Some of this comes from the observers’ lack of perceptiveness, but much of it is the movement’s own fault. A good deal of libertarian commentary sounds like corporate apologetics.

Sheldon is right on the money. Today’s “modern movement” is seen by progressives and many other nonlibertarians as a “cool” aberration of the modern conservative movement. This is not a good PR image for the movement, whether we care to admit it or not. It does not bode well for us in the long run.

Furthermore, libertarians who take — and not to mention embrace — the unconvincing (and largely unbelievable) “neither left nor right” stance have given their adversaries excuses to think that conservatives and libertarians come from the same family when that is not so. Conservatives are fundamentally different from true advocates of liberty (whether those advocates use the label “libertarian” or not). Moreover, the movement has been infiltrated by shady opportunists and collectivists who seek to use the state to their advantage. Look at alleged “libertarians” like Wayne Allyn Root whose most recent book reads like a playbook for a Republican football team and former Libertarian Party activist and now retired Republican talk radio show host Larry Elder who fled the LP a few years ago because of its old non-interventionist position on foreign policy! He even has supported Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan consistently and the government’s incessant intervention of the economy via corporate protectionism and mercantilism. Is that the image that we as pro-Liberty activists want to portray?

(Furthermore, how about the pro-preemptive war comments that GOP senatorial candidate Peter Schiff recently made? How would anti-war nonliberal leftists respond to that rubbish? Or how about Rand Paul’s recent statements on the Gitmo detainees in his senatorial campaign’s press release on the issue? What are civil libertarians and antiwar activists supposed to take away from that crud? Many of the defenders of those two candidates are “libertarian” [actually conservative] supporters of the Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul wing of the movement who, while trying not to come off as not very corporatist in rhetoric, appear to be very apologetic of the corporate state. Some of them take the “libertarian Republican” [quite an oxymoron to boot!], or what should be called the neolibertarian, position that an aggressive foreign policy and a solid national defense [conservative concepts, by the way!] will keep us safe from would-be terrorists and produce peace only by means of an offensive war.)

This is what “free market anticapitalist” Kevin Carson was referring to when he coined the term “vulgar libertarianism” — the brand of libertarianism practiced by those “libertarians” who believe that today’s corporate market would be what the free market entails if decades of government intervention and central planning had not been in the way. When libertarians have that attitude about the marketplace in that fashion, then they give the progressives legitimate reasons to discredit us and persecute us, thus making our jobs harder or even nearly impossible to remove the state from our lives.

Let’s not forget that many free marketeers come off as very combative, very belligerent, and very antagonistic when a morsel of sympathy is given to working class laborers who are the true victims of government taxes, regulations, and pro-state business/corporate guarantees, protections, subsidies, and privileges. A number of those libertarians who complain about this spew this nonsensical attitude that a free market (especially one without state privileges, guarantees, and the like) would not last very long and that the current market, despite the government’s incessant interventions, could not exist in the absence of the state. That assertion tells me several things: that ilk lacks an extraordinary amount of deep perception and objectivity, certainly fathoms the concept of a free market but has never experienced it in a real sense, and has never fathomed how the pains of government intervention have affected the poor and the blue-collar middle “working” class on all levels, physical, economic, mental, and psychological.

When libertarians become indifferent and cold to people who experience true cruelty and misery by defending rotten employers who treat their good employees like a pile of rubbish, it gives nonlibertarians and progressives an excuse to attack free enterprise and side with the state. Of course, there are rotten employees too, and that’s a given in any business, yet that’s not the point. Not only that, it’s an unfair talking point, because libertarians (and conservatives as well) who employ that argument lump in the good laborers with the bad.

And that also raises another paramount standpoint as well: when shady, politically-protected firms abuse their good workers, and those libertarians come to their defense despite all that nonsense, that alienates those workers, thus pushing them into the arms of the politically-connected unions, the bureaucrats, and the politicians who will use them as political and campaign fodder to score some political points, even on the campaign trail. That transpires all the time during every election and legislative cycle. If the politicians, as opportunistic as they are, capitalize on the pains of the working class by appearing to be champions of the poor and the middle class, then those groups will flock to them and see their employers and the entire marketplace as enemies of the “working man.”

This is a massive reason why libertarians of all stripes in the Liberty movement lose on economic liberty big time every single time, before, during, and after every election season. They will keep losing until they stop seeing big employers’ workers as albatrosses on the necks of their businesses and understand that, without their customers and employees, employers don’t have their businesses. If libertarians and employers do that, then the working class and the poor, who are the victims of the state like the entrepreneurs and every non-politically-connected businesses are, will side with them and support a real return to the free market. Why can’t they just do that? What have we go to lose if we do exactly that?

The real advocates of liberty are the original leftists who support and advocate a voluntary society based on mutual consent, not the kind of society that these corporatists and their government cronies want to engineer for all of us.

She will be on to talk about the disastrous Continental Congress 2009 convention, her show, the convention booting PyraBang‘s Chris Pirillo from the event, and the current state of the Liberty movement.

Pass this on to every person you know.

[Cross-posted at Let Liberty Ring.]

In order to create money, you have to buy bonds to issue the dollars. So they are always involved in fiscal policy. And, as for this inflation and…and…and this fiscal cri….this financial crisis, well, I think Congress had a lot to do with it. You know, they’ve had a hand in monetary policy or financial policy. For example, the Community Reinvestment Act, which encouraged banks to make irresponsible loans. The meddling in the activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, getting them to make irresponsible loans. A $1.5 trillion deficit. That creates bonds that investors hold internationally. It’s as good as dollars. Wait a minute! If anybody’s going to apologize, then it has to be the people who are totally out of control on Capitol Hill.

While Morici is right on the button on those points, what he fails — perhaps neglect — to mention is that it is all the fault of Congress, the banks (including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), the mortgage and financial lenders, and the Federal Reserve for having a hand in the wipe out and evisceration of the value of the dollar, producing the fall of the financial markets, and so on. The only point that Morici gets wrong is that the Fed <i>buys</i> the bonds to print those dollars (as he contends religiously). Actually, it <i>prints</i> money out of thin air with no intrinsic value backing those dollars whatsoever.

Ron gets it right completely. Morici is an idiot when he says that we shouldn’t link our monetary system to gold because it “will always be rising over time.” He’s ridiculous when he fearfully opines, “Well, there’s simply not enough gold in the world. If you want to have 1880s, 1890s deflation, that’s a great way to have it happen.” Morici, on the price of gold, further notes, “The price of gold will always be rising over time while it gyrates around the trend. It will be rising, it will be very difficult to manage the currency that way.” Ron Paul talks over him, correctly noting:

The pri…the price of gold does not go up; the value of the dollar goes down. You gotta understand that point, or you will never solve our problems.

Well, said, Ron! Well said indeed!

[H/T to Lew for his blog posting on this.]

[Cross-posted to Let Liberty Ring.]