Will CPAC Enforce Sharia Law at its Annual Conference This Week in DC?

We've seen how various conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation have withdrawn from this week's annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) due to the participation of GOProud, a gay conservative organization whose quest for freedom from governmental discrimination, lower taxes, and less regulation proves they are in fact for a stalking horse for a nonstop Village People reunion tour.

And we've seen how other conservatives have pooh-poohed CPAC's inclusion of rock-ribbed, motorcycle-ridin' pols like Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-Ind.) because the head Hoosier has called for a truce in various social wars.

And now, with a tip of the hat to self-described softcore libertarian Nathan Wurtzel, we learn of the final pincer-like movement against CPAC: the insidious "influence of radical Islam over the organization that puts CPAC together, the American Conservative Union’s (ACU) board of directors."

So writes Red State's Ben Howe, who continues:

Unfortunately, it has become apparent that there are Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers, apologists, and fundamentalists sponsoring and speaking at the conference this weekend.

At 1:00 pm on Friday in the Jackson Room, there will be a panel discussion called The Importance of Faith & Religious Liberty in the U.S. & Abroad.  It is sponsored by a group called Muslims for America which was founded by the Hasan Family Foundation and runs a blog at muslimsforamerica.us.

Muslims For America supported the building of the "Ground Zero mosque" on the hallowed grounds of a shuttered Burlington Coat Factory (remember, kids, it's not just coats: It's also burkas, hijabs, and phony designer-label items) and has managed to hoodwink none other than Americans for Tax Reform's Grover Norquist, once a widely hailed leader of the vaunted "Leave Us Alone Coalition," and now just another tool of Osama bin Laden's mincing, curly-cue-toed slipper-wearing operatives. Howe quotes columnist Don Feder's lengthy, must-read indictment of the "anti-tax activist":

In an open letter to Republicans last fall, Norquist warned that by opposing the 9/11 Mosque of Triumph, the GOP was “alienating millions of Arab American and Muslim American voters who believe, as we do, in the principles of our party – individual liberty, traditional values and the rule of law.” And the 70% of voters who oppose the mosque – most who actually vote Republican (unlike the 89% of of Muslim Americans who voted for Obama in 2008)? Racists whose views should be dismissed out of hand, in the GOP strategist’s estimation. Republicans would do better taking advice from James Carville.

Feder notes that loving Muslims isn't Norquist's only non-conservative bias:

When even John McCain claimed he’d given up on amnesty, last year, Norquist pushed Obama’s latest open-borders boondoggle. When asked by the "New Yorker" why prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly opposed the measure, Norquist sneered, “I think Phyllis’s theory is; Foreigners suck.” In keeping with this crude smear, one could say the reason he opposes welfare spending is because Grover thinks poor people suck. 

Norquist believes the War on Terror shouldn’t interfere with group sensitivity or civil-liberties fetishism. He opposes the use of secret evidence in terror trials, favors closing GITMO and has endorsed Manhattan trials for those accused of involvement in the mass murder of Americans.

Red State's Howe grants that Muslims per se shouldn't be barred from attending CPAC.

It is not their religion that should give one pause. Whether it was Christians, Jews, atheists, or satanists, the concern stems from the undeniable affiliation with groups determined to annihilate our nation.... Make no mistake: There is a huge portion of Islam, some fear all of Islam, that wishes to subjugate the west and supplant our way of life with theirs.  Some do it from the barrel of a gun.  Some do it from the Mosque.  Some do it from within.

And as Glenn Frey warned us in the obscure and long-forgotten "Party Town," which we can only see now as a Cassandra-like warning against Islamic insidiousness, some "even do it out in the hall." 

Read all of Howe's piece here.

If Norquist should be criticized for anything, it's not his willingness to uphold "conservative" verities against an overreaching state, but his willingness to expend time and energy naming something after Ronald Reagan in every county in the country, which is bound to cost more in tax dollars than it will save by reminding Americans of the president who pioneered the modern approach to deficit spending.

Here's something that the Jim Demints, Jim Jordans, Heritage Foundationers, Brent Bozells, etc. of the right ought to spend some time thinking about while staying gay-free this weekend as CPAC unveils its glory-hole-worthy lineup of conservatives and libertarians such as Ann Coulter, Andrew Breitbart, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and more:

According to the Harris Poll, which has been tracking "political philosophy" among voting-age Americans since the early 1970s, many more of us define ourselves as conservative rather than liberal. On average through the 2000s, for instance, just 19 percent call themselves liberal while a full 35 percent say they are conservative. So why isn't the party of conservatives, the GOP, always cleaning up at the ballot box?

I suggest it's because the sort of waste of oxygen documented above - noxious silliness that is clearly at odds with the small-government principles conservatives supposedly care about above everything - alienates the moderates who have long made up a plurality of the electorate. In the 2000s, self-described moderates made up 40 percent of adults. The GOP talks a long game about getting the government out of people's lives and letting markets, not mandates, decide how most things in our lives should go. They're gung-ho about getting the feds and other pols outta the boardroom, a view that resonates quite strongly with most Americans' sensibilities. But then the insistence on a plain-vanilla world when it comes to sexual identity, living arrangements, immigration, and more, is ugly in the extreme.

Back in 1975, in a great Reason interview, St. Ronald Reagan said "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism," and then went on to describe all the ways he disagreed with the "desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom" which "is a pretty general description...of libertarianism." If the GOP and conservatives want to "win the future" (and remember kids, as Sarah Palin pointed out, you can't spell win the future without WTF!), they'd best start channeling their inner libertarian. Because that's the way the world is going and there's going to be diminishing returns in bashing gays, culture-war peacemakers, and folks who are a shade or two duskier than Antonin Scalia.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Bingo||

    Ah yes, fiscal meltdowns be damned, what's really important is preventing gays, Muslims, and atheists from corrupting America's noble traditions. God Bless the Social Conservatives, hell bent on finding a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of an electoral victory in 2012.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Ah yes, fiscal meltdowns be damned, what's really important is preventing gays, Muslims, and atheists from corrupting America's noble traditions. God Bless the Social Conservatives, hell bent on finding a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of an electoral victory in 2012.


    What electoral clout do the above groups have?

  • Jim||

    The electoral clout of the millions upon millions of moderates who don't want to see entire groups bashed and marginalized for no reason, and thus won't vote for a party which condones such behavior.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The electoral clout of the millions upon millions of moderates who don't want to see entire groups bashed and marginalized for no reason, and thus won't vote for a party which condones such behavior.


    So moderates would oppose militant Islamist sand Nazis.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Michael let me answer that question with an anecdote: my erstwhile longest-term best friend, a "progressive" environmentalist gal I befriended when she was 18 and I 26, for whom I ended up serving as father -of-the-bride in a Russian Orthodox wedding, wanted me to meet her boyfriend (now husband) when they started getting serious, because he was in the Army and she wanted to make sure he likes the gays. She was going to dump him if he couldn't deal.

    I felt anxious about so much "responsibility," because if I were a straight woman and I met an otherwise good catch whose only problem was a mild homophobia, I am not sure I would care.

    My friend and I talked about this, and tried to find analogies: could you be friends with or date an anti-semite, if it was a "mild" case and it didn't crop up often, etc.

    We kind of concluded that what is going on, and why the answer is that one cannot become too intimate with real bigots, is that the bigotry indicates something more pervasive.

    I bet a lot of voters feel the same way. That's one reason politics and media has devolved into finding and manufacturing gaffes and gotchas.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    We kind of concluded that what is going on, and why the answer is that one cannot become too intimate with real bigots, is that the bigotry indicates something more pervasive.


    It depends on how one defines bigotry.

    Is it bigoted to keep a definition of marriage used by Western civilization for the past seven hundred years or so?

  • Barry Loberfeld||

    JUST SO YOU KNOW:

    Gillespie's piece has drawn a response:

    "Libertarian Wankers"

  • Audrey the Liberal||

    Madness, utter madness.

  • Carl||

    Jeeeez. Communism is dead. I fear that if we dont have Islam to fear, there would be nothing to fear at all. Oh wait, bedbugs?

  • BradK||

    That's what Teh Gheys are here for. After the Isalmists build their Ground Zero Victory Mosque they'll build a Victory Disco. They might even call it Studio 911.

    There's always someone to hate, you just have to look harder sometimes.

  • ||

    and it would be FULL of bedbugs!

  • Bruce Majors||

    Enviromentalists. I.e., bedbugs.

  • ||

    With any luck, this internecine squabble will be resolved and these people will kiss and make up before the Republican convention, so they'll all be under one roof when the meteor hits.

  • creech||

    In 1969, Don Feder claimed to be a libertarian, but worked against the Libertarian Caucus in YAF. Even then, he claimed libertarians were exclusionists trying to kick out or convert the traditionalists. Now he's worried about gay subversion of the
    conservative movement.

  • Bruce Majors||

    I don't really know the background well enough to ask this rude question but: which side is Tucker Carlson on?

  • Robert||

    David Brudnoy thought "the fundies" somehow "got to" Don Feder.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    If all the terrible things they say about Norquist are true, I'm actually liking the guy. Still, I gotta say, Ann's hair is looking fabuloso! Not too gay! Definitely not! And no Adam's apple jokes need apply!

  • ||

    a/s/l

  • ||

    that is a cross dresser? No, not Norquist - the other one

  • ||

    Does it not occur to you that making fun of Coulter for her looks is precisely equivalent to her strategic use of short skirts to "shore up" her pundit, ahem, "credentials?

  • Bruce Majors||

    Ann's credentials are that she is correct way over 60% of the time, and funny way over 80% of the time, which means she is more of a man than Dana Milbank, E.J. Dionne, Richard Cohen, or the leftover demwititude generally.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Only gay-Islamists-haters refuse to sign their blog posts.

  • jacob||

    CPAC organizers are allowing Ron Paul and Gary Johnson to speak.

    =

    Proof that there's still hope for the GOP.

  • d||

    GOProud will force the GOP to choose between the Bushs' Christian Socialism (Compassionate Conservatism) and Libertarianism. The only difference between the Bushes and Barney Frank is that the Bushes don't like Gays or abortion--neither of which is any proper concern of Government.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The only difference between the Bushes and Barney Frank is that the Bushes don't like Gays or abortion--neither of which is any proper concern of Government.


    And even then, Bush appointed an openly gay man as ambassador to Romania.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Yes I believe that is Mr. Grover "Machiavelli" Norquist's trap -- and they fell into it. And the Muzzie thing may be his next mine-field for the social conservative Xtian theocrats.

    GOProud may not actually be as libertarian as Norquist, what with its call for a "confident" defense (though maybe Yaron Brook should recruit some of them). But the fact that they are NOT libertarians simply, but anti-tax, pro-free market, pro-gay equality conservatives who are STILL conservatives on some issues, makes them a better Trojan horse for conservatism. They enter, Norquist's rivals run away. (Norquist helps GOProud out by being the first straight man to join their board, which as far as I know has no gay men on it yet, just Margaret Hoover, now Andrew Breitbart, and lesbian Tammy Bruce. And as we all know, lesbians don't scare the horses as much, even if Tammy -- love ya Ms. Bruce -- gives it a good try.)

    I will refrain from saying Mr. Norquist married his Moslem bride in order to scare away his rivals by baiting them into attacking Muslims generally and revealing some unattractive bigotry. Though it may be a perk.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'd love to hate-fuck Coulter.

  • d||

    I'd love to have Coulter hate-fuck me.

  • Bruce Majors||

    D that is more likely. I wonder is sarcasmic could take the size of the strap on she would peg him with, should she find herself desperate for some action on a transatlantic train.

    She likes to quip that "our gays are more manly than their straights" when she compares conservatives to the John Edwards/Obamie/Frankenkerry/Al Bore party. When you look at Thatcher/Rand/Coulter/Malkin/Bruce/Ingrahm/Palin/Haley/Bachman etc one is tempted to note that "our" women have more of the manly virtues than their men (and are thinner and better looking than their women, too).

  • Bob||

    She looks like a horse.

  • sarcasmic||

    All the more reason to ride her!

  • d||

    If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Thank god she doesn't have kids, as you have now descended into the sewer of Letterman-Bernhard anti-(conservative)woman rape fantasies.

    Apologize!

  • d||

    Equus is a God.

  • Tacos mmm...||

    You're being decieved by her hair. Imagine her bald. Would you still fuck her then? If not, she's not really hot.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tacos mmm...

    Imagine her bald.


    You bastard! You made me throw up!

  • ||

    She has a bald taco?

  • ||

    self-described softcore libertarian Nathan Wurtzel

    I thought "softcore libertarianism" was when Katherine Mangu-Ward and Kerry Howley would make out with each other?

  • ||

    OH yeah.

  • A_is_A||

    Threads like this need a "like" button

  • Bruce Majors||

    If you could afford premium cable so you could watch Napolitano's show on FOX Business you would know one of them is pregnant.

    Or is that the kind of lesbian porn that really turns you on?

  • Skip||

    I'd take Howley behind the middle school and get her pregnant.

  • jacob||

    “alienating millions of Arab American and Muslim American voters who believe, as we do, in the principles of our party – individual liberty, traditional values and the rule of law.”

    Not so sure about this. The majority of muslims I know votee Republican in 2004. If the invasion of a muslim country (leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent muslims) doesn't sway people away from the GOP, I fail to see how opposing the mosque would.

    Also, most muslims I know could care less about the mosque.

  • Gus||

    Jacob. That's a jewish name, right?

  • jacob||

    No, it's an Old Testament name.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Jacob lived before the 10 commandments (and Jewish law) were written, so technically he wasn't a Jew. He was a Noahidian.

    Wikipedia says Muslims claim him as a Muslim. Which is kind of weird since there weren't even Jews yet.

  • Steve||

    Also, most muslims I know could care less about the mosque.

    Hush, some libertarians need an excuse to hate and use the government to punish those they disagree with. You're making it harder for them!

  • Zeb||

    There seems to be a group of conservatives that sees evil fundamentalist Muslims as often as the SPLC sees racism.

  • ||

    The bulk of Christian conservative's can't keep themselves from loathing Mormon's, how are they supposed to tolerate Muslims?

  • Eric||

    OTOH, the comments in the RedState article are at least somewhat encouraging.

  • Pink Cosmotarian||

    "Raaaaacist!!"

  • The Thinking Man's NASCAR||

    He opposes the use of secret evidence in terror trials, favors closing GITMO and has endorsed Manhattan trials for those accused of involvement in the mass murder of Americans.

    The fact that this sentence was intended to indict Norquist and that many of his readers will take it as such is profoundly depressing.

  • Old Mexican||

    "So why isn't the party of conservatives, the GOP, always cleaning up at the ballot box?

    I suggest it's because the sort of waste of oxygen documented above - noxious silliness that is clearly at odds with the small-government principles conservatives supposedly care about above everything - alienates the moderates who have long made up a plurality of the electorate."


    Bingo!

  • Old Mexican||

    We've seen how various conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation have withdrawn from this week's annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) due to the participation of GOProud, a gay conservative organization whose quest for freedom from governmental discrimination, lower taxes, and less regulation proves they are in fact for a stalking horse for a nonstop Village People reunion tour.


    GOPround should be able to participate without the naysaying and bigotry of groups like The Heritage Foundation, just as long as none of them look like Bruno.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Here is a picture of Jimmy LaSalvia, one of the directors of GOProud, dancing last December 15 for his birthday on a table at Hooters in northwest DC:

    http://www.facebook.com/photo......1492915108

    It's the most Bruno like thing I could find.

  • Bruce Majors||

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Bruce Majors,

    It's the most Bruno like thing I could find.


    As long as HE is not invited, then!

    ;-)

  • Brett L||

    Hooters? Just more proof that the gay gene and the taste gene are not the same.

  • Some dude||

    A gay person isn't free from government discrimination? Bullcrap.

  • hmm||

    It's TEH GAYPOCOLYPSE!!!

  • GILMORE||

    It is not their religion that should give one pause. Whether it was Christians, Jews, atheists, or satanists, the concern stems from the undeniable affiliation with groups determined to annihilate our nation.... Make no mistake: There is a huge portion of Islam, some fear all of Islam, that wishes to subjugate the west and supplant our way of life with theirs. Some do it from the barrel of a gun. Some do it from the Mosque. Some do it from within.

    Translation = "We don't hate all of *Islam*, per se = that would be bigotry! Its just that many muslims are terrorists, and the ones that aren't...well, they are latent terrorists waiting to happen. Or they're doing non-terrorist stuff that has subversive, subliminal terroristic overtones. Makes perfect sense! Just don't call me a bigot cause its not true!"

    "Some fear all Islam"...

    Is that his biting Obama's "some say" rhetorical trick? Its pretty clear that the person speaking is hisself one of them "some", wetting his pants in fear of being in the same room with *republican muslims*

    I love this, "subjugate the west" stuff. We can't just have an enemy because they hate the joos and hate us having our military in saudi arabia, and hate us propping up their legacy dictators... Noooo, it always has to be *they seek to overthrow our way of life*. It's some holdover from the Cold War or something... these old school pants-wetters aren't happy unless the 'enemy' is an all encompassing ideological movement intent on world domination and enslavement of white women.

    Seriously, even if Osama could reestablish a Caliphate, I'd think he'd probably be moderately satisfied with the Arabian peninsula + some of the Levant. Big whoop. And its not like hes ever going to get that either.

    It sort of reminds me of Red Dawn, or Invasion USA... the 'take-it-seriously-presumption' that - given the chance - crazy jihadists will be parachuting into Montanta and making amphibious landings on beaches in florida to wage a full-scale occupation, burning down our strip malls and herding the population into concentration camps to be reeducated in Koranic law.

    I mean, that sort of storyline makes great schlock-cinema... at age 12 I loved that shit... but even at that age, *i didn't believe it for a moment*. (or was at least aware that mass soviet/cuban airborne operations against *rural middle America* was strategically possibly the dumbest idea ever sold as a threatening scenario)

    If anything, I simply can't take these social conservatives seriously because they're *such big babies* about this stuff. They're upset by teh gay and the mooslems... REPUBLICAN gays and muslims. Its like they've never a) sat next to a black person on the bus or b)had a conversation with a gay person at a cocktail party without constantly thinking they're either a) about to get robbed, or b) raped. (in retrospect...maybe a) would be robbed AND raped)

    They use their euphamisms like, "protecting family values", and such...but all they mean is that they are a bunch of pussies who are scared of gays and muslims.

    The funny thing is that by creating this kerfuffle over the CPAC, all they've done is make themselves look like a bunch of bigoted pussies... I mean, they seem to be making a calculated determination that their constituents will *admire* them for their intolerance. (someone else noted this above) God forbid they ever go, "what's the big @*$& deal?" I guess they aren't trying to appeal to the reasonable.

  • Whappan?||

    You reminded me of something my boss told me. His brother is an officer in the Marines, and he told my boss some cockamamie story about how the Chinese have tons of troop transport ships, and millions in the army, and how they could launch a massive invasion of the west coast at any time.
    I just laughed at him. As if any of those ships, if they existed and the Chinese were stupid/insane enough to try something like that, would make it 1000 miles from the Chinese coast.

  • Titty Twister||

    Well, as Jack Conway noted, Rand Paul is a Sufi and his dad is a Bahai!

  • Bruce Majors||

    I am beginning to think the Phelps family is fundamentally correct in its analysis of American culture.

    Sprinkle a gay or two on the CPAC hotel and big strong right-wing Christian men run screaming in terror. While the hardier, tenacious Muzzies stay and take their women.

    Christendom is doomed!

  • Steve||

    Disagreement is now "hate." Gee, nothing to worry about here; I'm sure it will all work out just fine!

  • Michael Ejercito||

  • GILMORE||

    ""If you support the homosexual agenda you are anti-constitution ""

    I dont understand that sentence at all.

    I have still never found a copy of this oft-mentioned 'homosexual agenda'. And I'm not sure what teh gays have to do with the constitution, unless there's like an amendment to set the National Anthem to pumping house music.

    Wikipepdia = always my savior..!!

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

    Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by social conservatives to describe the advocacy of cultural acceptance and normalization of non-heterosexual orientations and relationships...

    Hm.

    The 'agenda' is to achieve 'normalization'? Like,
    "not be discriminated against"?

    Does that mean Civil Rights was like, "the African-American Agenda"?

    ...It is an agenda that they basically set in the late 1980s, in a book called After the Ball,[17] where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior — in a decade-long time frame.... They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly. In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda. The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 was explicit:

    Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible(...)
    Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers(...)
    Give homosexual protectors a just cause(...)
    Make gays look good(...)
    Make the victimizers look bad(...)
    Get funds from corporate America(...)[1]

    Man, thats some scary stuff. *Make victimizers look bad* Dastardly! Insidious! They're trying to make Gay-Bashing *go out of style*~!

    I didn't realize the "God Hates Fags" thing was quite so popular in D.C.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The 'agenda' is to achieve 'normalization'? Like,
    "not be discriminated against"?

    Does that mean Civil Rights was like, "the African-American Agenda"?


    Ethnic descent should not be confused with behavior.

    Note that in the 19th century, the very same people who opposed slavery also opposed polygamy. They called them "relics of barbarism". Imagine what their attitude was towards homosexual acts.

    And even if we concede that people should be free to pursue homosexual or polyamorous behavior, this does not mean that the state should sanction such lifestyles, or that it is anti-libertarian to oppose efforts to promote such behavior in our Western civilizational culture.

  • GILMORE||

    You seem, like the Free Republic, to conflate 'passively tolerate' with 'actively promote'

    meaning, taking gay marriage = how is allowing people to engage in what is essentially a legal contract in anyway promotion of behavior, or any kind of 'endorsement'?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    meaning, taking gay marriage = how is allowing people to engage in what is essentially a legal contract in anyway promotion of behavior, or any kind of 'endorsement'?


    It constitutes an endorsement due to the legal protections given to marriages, as well as the social meaning and cultural meaning.

  • jacob||

    Thank you for reminding me why I'm a libertarian

  • spur||

    "There is a huge portion of Islam, some fear all of Islam, that wishes to subjugate the west and supplant our way of life with theirs."

    What culture and what military is dominating and subjugating who at the moment? If anything its the other way around. Western culture rules and stuff, I'm not playing the moral equivalence game, but we do have troops in all their countries and they have zero troops in ours. Until Iraq has 100,000 troops in Canada the above quote is utter nonsense.

  • TEAM AMERICA||

    What culture and what military is dominating and subjugating who at the moment? If anything its the other way around

    FUCK YEAH! Comin to save the motherfucking day yeah!

    In your face, Islams!

  • Neocon Analyst||

    , but we do have troops in all their countries and they have zero troops in ours. Until Iraq has 100,000 troops in Canada the above quote is utter nonsense

    Ahh, but you exaggerate.

    Our naval base in Bahrain is a legacy lease from the British...and our troops in Saudi Arabia were invited there by the royal family to protect them from Saddam... our use of drones in Yemen is purely an anti-terror effort... Our troops have ended combat operations in Iraq; they will only remain to put pressure on Iran, who we have sanctions against...

    I mean, we don't have any troops in Syria or Jordan or Lebanon (anymore). Just CIA operations. What are you complaining about? These people are a threat to our way of life.

  • Draco||

    I want to be a libertarian because it automatically bars me from being a hater, or a racist, or a sexist, or any other horrible thing.

    It's so cool that simply by "being a libertarian" I can be guaranteed of that (I believe it happens soon after one has clearly enunciated the NIOFP, with or without one's hand over one's heart). Reason has taught me that, if nothing else.

    Why aren't more people signing up?

  • ||

    How many years is it going to take you, Nick, to complete your enlightenment that American "conservatism" is largely hateful, statist bullshit?

    Jesus Fucking Christ, you're slow!

  • Barry Loberfeld||

    JUST SO YOU KNOW:

    Gillespie's piece has drawn a response:

    "Libertarian Wankers"

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement