Oh Those Disrespectful, Amoral Libertarians?

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Oh Those Disrespectful, Amoral Libertarians?

Milo Nickels
Infowars.com
February 16, 211

There was an article recently on FoxNews.com that made my blood boil. Let me share the article with you. Usually, I will post a whole article and then comment afterward, but this one is simply too overflowing with nonsense. I?m going to have to comment far more frequently than usual to handle this one. My comments on the article will be written in bold italics.

Kevin McCullough

Published February 14, 2011

FoxNews.com

The top three winners of this weekend?s CPAC straw poll will not win the 2012 presidential nomination. And if any of the top three do break through to prove that prediction wrong, none of them will go on to win the White House in 2012.

First off, Kev, are you some magical being, a visitor from the future, or the great Miss Cleo? You must be, to make such absolutely certain predictions about the future. The fact is, if any of those people do prove your first prediction wrong, you are only helping the liberals to prove your second prediction right.

This year?s top three placeholders in the poll were Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Gary Johnson. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney repeat their standing from the 2010 poll as No. 1 and No. 2, respectively.

If the results of this straw poll do not sufficiently demonstrate the bizarre nature and overall oddity of this year?s gathering of ?conservatives,? nothing else can.

Notice how McCullough throws the word ?conservatives? in quotations, as if to say that the winners of the CPAC poll aren?t really conservatives at all. This is the root problem of McCullough?s train of thought. He apparently thinks that HIS definition of conservative is the only plausible definition. Before we get into McCullough?s definition, however, let?s see what the Merriam-Webster dictionary says:

Conservatism:

2a ? disposition in politics to preserve what is established.

2b ? a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.

Ron Paul, though technically still a Republican, has given up his GOP identity to embrace the chance to be the poster child for the more libertarian streak that has run rampant through CPAC, largely unabated for the past two years (as if it should be). Mitt Romney, the virtual author of Obamacare, and 2008′s third-place finisher for the GOP nomination, is weighed down by the fact that his universal health care mandate in Massachusetts has largely failed ? with the exception being the $50 state-subsidized abortions. Gary Johnson was only added to the lineup at the last minute, his presence stoking the flame of immoral libertarianism that actually advocated for legalized pot and the redefinition of marriage to include homosexual unions.

Now we start to see McCullough?s true colors. He?s not motivated by political opinion, but by religious virtues; ?immoral libertarianism?? What is that? Where is the Constitution does it say anything about the government enforcing morality? It doesn?t, because morality is not the realm of the government. Morality is the realm of the church. Our government only exists to protect liberties of the people to say what they like, do what they like, and worship how they like, and to stop anyone else (including the government) from infringing on those freedoms (even if those actions are labeled as immoral by someone else). One man?s morality is another man?s sin. Our government was never intended to make those distinctions unless one man?s actions harmed the freedom of someone else. Isn?t it funny that ?conservatives? (like McCullough) are so concerned about morality when it comes to smoking weed, or prostitution, or gays getting married, but they see no problem with denying health care, stopping social programs, or collateral damage as we bomb the hell out of Third World countries (all of which are considered moral issues by liberals).

In other words, this year?s CPAC wasn?t about advancing conservatism. Rather, it exposed the radically disrespectful element of the libertine.

When did it become more important to advance conservatism than individual liberty? When, in America, did it become disrespectful to have differing opinions? This is the fabric of our society. If McCullough wants a completely respectful environment, maybe he could move to a country where the president always wins with 100% of the vote. I hear those countries, with all of their ?uniformity? are lovely this time of year.

It has been the inclusion of the libertarian aspects of the past two years that has thrown the message of conservatism askew in a widely disproportional way.

It is the libertarian in attendance that produced the free pornographic calendar passed out to attendees in 2010. It is the libertarians in attendance who openly promote the inclusion of groups like GOProud, largely as an attempt to silence groups who would speak in strong support of traditional moral values. It is the libertarian in attendance who slandered President George Bush, by claiming his appreciation for the Constitution was best summed up as a ?damn piece of paper.? It is the libertarian in attendance that proclaimed the war to prevent terrorists from regathering strength and coming after our homeland as ?illegal.? And it is the libertarian in attendance that eschewed, booed, cajoled and screamed ?war criminal? to Vice President Dick Cheney, a man who served his country with commitment and still attempts to help the world understand the threat of the radical Islamic element devising plans to eliminate us and our allies.

Isn?t it ridiculously ironic that McCullough will so quickly speak out against radical Islam ? and probably fears countries with Islamic governments ? but he?s disgusted that some politicians don?t want religion-based morality to be the foundation of our laws?

Now the libertarians stuffed the ballot box of the CPAC straw poll, and for the second year in a row made it the laughingstock poll in the eyes of the voters. (This year?s voters are perhaps more engaged, more aware and more plugged in than ever before.)

In head-to-head polling going back a full year to last year?s CPAC, neither Ron Paul nor Mitt Romney has consistently topped a head-to-head match-up against a greatly weakened President Obama.

Romney has only topped the sitting president once in that 12-month period. Gov. Mike Huckabee, a no-show at CPAC for the past years, has beaten the president head-to-head in nearly every poll taken.

David Keene, the American Conservative Union?s outgoing president, gave a lengthy discounting of this year?s poll in the lead up to it. That should serve as a very clear indicator that next year?s CPAC needs some significant changes if it is to become the great conference it has been in past years.

Libertarians and Conservatives are as different as Libertarians and Liberals. The truth is libertarians are the worst form of political affiliation in the nation. Combining the desire of economic greed, with the amoral desire to promote any behavior regardless of its cost to our culture is a stark departure from the intent of the Founding Fathers.

?Libertarians are the worst form of political affiliation in the nation???? WOW . . . just wow. Because our nation doesn?t have any socialists, nazis, communists, green partiers . . . they don?t combine ?the desire of economic greed, with the amoral desire to promote any behavior regardless of its cost to our culture?. They combine a philosophy of financial responsibility in a free market with a love of individual liberty to live life as people see fit. Allowing people to live freely is not a cost to our culture, it is the foundation of our culture. To insinuate that these philosophies differ from the intent of our founding fathers is simply ludicrous. Our founding fathers did not write the Constitution to steer and direct our morality as a people, but to limit the government from doing so.

And it is not consistent with the average conservative voter in America.

The fact that so many faith-based conservatives were missing from CPAC, and are also arguably the most dependable conservative voter in the country only added to the confusing, bizarre, disrespectful and, in many ways, off-putting memories of this year?s event.

FAITH BASED CONSERVATIVES. McCullough bemoans their absence from CPAC. He never even considers that FAITH based conservatives are a major problem in our country. He claims that libertarians grossly deviate from our founding fathers. I say that FAITH based conservatives deviate grossly from our founding fathers. Our founding fathers were strong advocates that there should be a separations of church and state. They believed that our government should not interfere with our freedom of religion, and that our religious beliefs should not shape our government. Correct me if I?m wrong, but isn?t Sharia Law the product of ?faith-based? politics? I?m pretty sure McCullough wouldn?t support those ?faith-based? politicians. His religious beliefs apparently trump all others and should be enacted as laws . . . that?s the foundation of our country isn?t it?

Yes, CPAC enjoyed its largest attendance ever. But one could possibly argue that it was smaller than it would have been if the third leg of the conservative stool ? social conservatives ? had been the key player they have traditionally been in the past.

One COULD argue that . . . but they?d be dead wrong, and probably laughed at. With the dollar collapsing, wars being waged, the national debt rapidly nearing $20 trillion, food and gas prices sky-rocketing, unemployment out of control, billions of dollars being spent every day on wars (where we don?t even really understand our objective anymore), the government increasingly interfering in our lives, TSA molesting our travelers, the Patriot ACT continuing to snoop on us, Janet Napolitano encouraging us to all spy on each other, etc., ?social conservatives? (i.e. religion pushers) are focusing on some pretty irrelevant issues.

And given the fact that the Ron Paul-toting, uber-disrespectful and, in many ways, disruptive ballot stuffing has wrecked the straw poll results, pinging completely unelectable candidates in two of the top three slots, perhaps more significance should be paid to the straw poll to be conducted by the conference that happens in the fall called the ?Values Voters Conference.?

If social conservatives are the largest portion of the conservative discussion, no attention should be paid to a poll that virtually eliminates their presence all together.

CPAC leaders did the best they could to put on the best conference possible. It wasn?t their fault that the libertarian elements within the attendees equate free speech with animalistic expressions, especially when visiting someone else?s ?house.?

Show me one instance from the recent CPAC conference where libertarians acted like animals?

Libertarian elements, because of their strange combination of policies that add up to anarchy without moral limits, don?t mix with conservative ideals. And, because of that, perhaps they should have their own conference and let all the pot-smokers and gay marriage supporters come and complain about how the U.S. shouldn?t be fighting terrorists, while they slander public servants.

Again. Libertarian policies DO mix very well with the Constitution. They don?t mix very well with religious morality. Fortunately, none of the libertarians I?ve ever met want to run for Pope.

At the very least, the winner of their straw poll would be somewhat reflective of the title of who they are, and what they believe.

Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of ?The Kevin McCullough Show? weekdays (7-9 a.m. EST) & ?Baldwin/McCullough Radio? Saturdays (9-11 p.m. EST) on 265 stations. His newest book from Thomas Nelson Publishers, ?No He Can?t: How Barack Obama is Dismantling Hope and Change,? will be published March 2011.

In summation:

Ron Paul for president? HELL YES!!!

Ron Paul for pope? apparently not? who knew?

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)As far as morality goes, libertarians come from all religious belief structures. Many libertarians, due to their religious beliefs, are personally opposed to drugs, prostitution, and gay marriage, and don?t engage in those activities. What separates those libertarians from ?Faith Based Conservatives?, however is the strong belief that morality is not an issue to be decided or controlled by government. Faith-based conservatives do as much for the advancement of liberty as faith-based healers do for the advancement of medical technology. I only hope that, if a libertarian faces Obama in 2012, morons like Kevin McCullough will promote the party that actually endorses individual liberty, personal responsibility, and philosophical consistency. Would you really support Obama?s tyrannical, all-controlling agenda, simply to stop people from possibly smoking weed, and gays from getting married?

Milo Nickels writes for Activist Post, where this article first appeared.
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Tea Party Crashes: The Most Unpatriotic Act

Tea Party Crashes: The Most Unpatriotic Act

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Tea Party Crashes: The Most Unpatriotic Act[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]by Susan Lindauer[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]The People's Voice[/FONT][/FONT]​




I confess that since November I've been holding my breath, watching the clock for how long Tea Party newcomers could hold out against the entrenched Republican elite on Capitol Hill. Collapse was inevitable, however I admit to feeling bitterly surprised at how rapidly they have thrown in the towel.

For the record, most of the Tea Party quit their principles of liberty on February 14, 2011 ? 20 days into the new Congress ? when Tea Party leaders abruptly abandoned their opposition to the Patriot Act and voted to extend intrusive domestic surveillance, wire tapping and warrantless searches of American citizens. In so doing, they exposed the fraud of their soaring campaign promises to defend the liberty of ordinary Americans, and fight government intrusions on freedom. All those wide-eyed speeches that flowed with such thrilling devotions, all of it proved to be self-aggrandizing lies.

The Tea Party didn't even put up a fight. Briefly they rejected a sneak attack to renew three surveillance clauses of the Patriot Act on a suspension vote. That filled my heart with hope. One push from the Republican elite, however and they went down with a loud thud.


My disappointment is particularly acute. Rather notoriously, I am distinguished as the second non-Arab American to face indictment on the Patriot Act, after Jose Padilla.

My status was pretty close to an enemy non-combatant. One would presume that I must have joined some terrorist conspiracy? Or engaged in some brutal act of sedition, such as stock piling weapons and munitions to overthrow those crooks in Congress?

You would be wrong. I got indicted for protesting the War in Iraq. My crime was delivering a warm-hearted letter to my second cousin White House Chief of Staff, Andy Card, which correctly outlined the consequences of War. Suspiciously, I had been one of the very few Assets covering the Iraqi Embassy at the United Nations for seven years. Thus, I was personally acquainted with the truth about Pre-War Intelligence, which differs remarkably from the story invented by GOP leaders on Capitol Hill.


More dangerously still, my team gave advance warnings about the 9/11 attack and solicited Iraq's cooperation after 9/11. In August 2001, at the urging of my CIA handler, I phoned Attorney General John Ashcroft's private staff and the Office of Counter-Terrorism to ask for an "emergency broadcast alert" across all federal agencies, seeking any fragment of intelligence on airplane hijackings. My warning cited the World Trade Center as the identified target. Highly credible independent sources have confirmed that in August, 2001 I described the strike on the World Trade Center as "imminent," with the potential for "mass casualties, possibly using a miniature thermonuclear device."

Thanks to the Patriot Act, Americans have zero knowledge of those truths, though the 9/11 Community has zoomed close for years. Republican leaders invoked the Patriot Act to take me down 30 days after I approached the offices of Senator John McCain and Trent Lott, requesting to testify about Iraq's cooperation with the 9/11 investigation and a comprehensive peace framework that would have achieved every U.S. and British objective without firing a shot. Ironically, because of the Patriot Act, my conversations with Senator Trent Lott's staff got captured on wire taps, proving my story.


You see, contrary to rhetoric on Capitol Hill, the Patriot Act is first and foremost a weapon to bludgeon whistleblowers and political dissidents. Indeed, it has been singularly crafted for that purpose.

The American people are not nearly as frightened as they should be. Many Americans expect the Patriot Act to limit its surveillance to overseas communications. Yet while I was under indictment, Maryland State Police invoked the Patriot Act to wire tap activists tied to the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, an environmental group dedicated to wind power, solar energy and recycling. The DC Anti-War Network was targeted as a "white supremacist group." Amnesty International and anti-death penalty activists got targeted for alleged "civil rights violations."

All of these are American activists engaged in lawful disputes of government policy. All of them got victimized by the surveillance techniques approved by Tea Party leaders, because they pursued a policy agenda that contradicted current government policies. The Tea Party swore to defend the freedom of independent thinking in Congressional campaigns. One presumes those promises are now forgotten until the next election.


I cannot forget. I cannot forget how I was subjected to secret charges, secret evidence and secret grand jury testimony that denied my right to face my accusers or their accusations in open court, throughout five years of indictment. I cannot forget my imprisonment on a Texas military base for a year without a trial or evidentiary hearing.

I cannot forget how the FBI, the US Attorneys Office, the Bureau of Prisons and the main Justice office in Washington ? independently and collectively verified my story ? then falsified testimony to Chief Justice Michael Mukasey, denying our 9/11 warnings and my long-time status as a U.S. intelligence Asset, though my witnesses had aggressively confronted them. Apparently the Patriot Act allows the Justice Department to withhold corroborating evidence and testimony from the Court, if it is deemed "classified."

I cannot forget threats of forcible drugging and indefinite detention up to 10 years, until I could be "cured" of believing what everybody wanted to deny ? because it was damn inconvenient to politicians in Washington anxious to hold onto power.

Some things are unforgivable in a democracy. The Patriot Act would be right at the top of that list. Nobody who has supported that wretched law should ever be allowed to brag of defending liberty again. That goes for the Tea Party. By voting to extend surveillance of American citizens, they have abandoned the principles of freedom that brought about their rise to power. They have shown their true face.

It is a face that we, the people, will remember. I, for one, have no intention of allowing them to forget.


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]February 17, 2011[/FONT]​
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Susan Lindauer is a whistleblower indicted under the Patriot Act. She is the author of Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq.[/FONT]​
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
So when is Ron Pail going to grow a pair and run as a Libertarian rather than as a Republican?

Too bad he has no balls. I might vote for him if he did.
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
So when is Ron Pail going to grow a pair and run as a Libertarian rather than as a Republican?

Too bad he has no balls. I might vote for him if he did.

Like you have any concept of posessing Nads?

M.O.D True Colors Lyrics:
Opportunities arise, open your
eyes don't decline.
Open the door.
What's right for you may not be
what's right for me.
Ultimatums shown us or them I don't know.
Open the door.
Take our hands cause you know
we're your friends.
You call me a friend, but stab
me in the back again.
From this deed now I learn.
On you, my back I never turn.
What was mine was always yours.
But you're slammin' all the doors.
True colors my are growing bright.
But you're still stuck in a grey life.
Jealousy, can't you see what it's done.
Open the doors.
I thought I knew, what kind of friend are you.
Honesty flows through me - with purity.
Open the doors.
Once again, we were friends, we're through.
Because of you and your
TRUE COLORS.
Let them shine.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pX-gQE5aXDc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/00xowLz-vKQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ztgvZlECUOs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top