Ron Paul's rEVOLution

Ron Paul Revolution's Positive Aftereffects in Los Angeles Republican Party

|

Reuters this week reported on the aftermath of a phenomenon I wrote about here at Reason in March 2012 and in my 2012 book Ron Paul's Revolution: the march of Ron Paul-inspired "liberty kids" to positions of power and influence in the local Republican Party in Los Angeles.

Excerpts:

Amir Zendehnam passionately supports marijuana legalization, same-sex marriage, abortion rights and the Republican Party.

He is not alone. The 26-year-old aspiring restaurateur and chairman of the party's West Los Angeles central committee, is one of a raft of ethnically diverse young libertarians who hold seats in L.A. County's huge GOP apparatus, injecting youthful energy into its operations at a time when the state's Republican Party is nearly moribund.

After winning control the executive board of the Los Angeles County Republican Party in December 2012, the "Liberty Kids," as they call themselves, are seeing the fruits of their activism. This year one of their own is running as the Republican nominee for Congress from the San Gabriel Valley, with Zendehnam serving as policy adviser.

The Liberty Kids are challenging the party's social conservatives and are drawing the attention of Democrats, who see liberal youth as part of their base. And in what could be a harbinger for the GOP, they have begun campaigning in other states, aiming to increase their influence beyond California……

The Liberty Kids hold four of seven seats on the local party's governing board and dozens of spots on its 200-person central committee, representing a county that is home to 10 million people.

Raised during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and excited by the non-interventionist philosophy of Ron Paul, the former Texas congressman and presidential contender, many registered as Republicans to vote for Paul in the 2008 and 2012 presidential primaries and then stayed on in the party….

Despite personal politics that might seem more in tune with Democrats—world peace, ending the war on drugs and addressing global warming top the list of concerns for many—these millennials say they are more comfortable with Republicans' emphasis on freedom than Democrats' penchant for regulation….

The newcomers have clashed with Tea Party libertarians, who skew more conservative on social issues. Many Tea Partiers bristle at the newcomers' views on abortion and immigration, and their deep distrust of the National Security Agency.

One more, localized, data point for the discussion we've been having round these parts, and all across the national media, regarding the "libertarian moment."

Hat tip: DEATFBIRSECIA

NEXT: More on the DEA's War on "Synthetic Drugs"--and One Texas Smoke Shop

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.

  1. world peace, ending the war on drugs and addressing global warming

    Which one of these things is not like the others?

    1. Why? Shrinking the government and boosting economic growth is probably the best way to reduce CO2 emissions in the long run. See Fracking.

      1. See more efficient IC engines, hybrid cars, electric city vehicles…
        I have no problem with that at all as a matter of choice.

    2. I had the same reaction as you but the fact is getting government just out of the way of fracking and using natgas for cars would be a blow to CO2 emissions.

    3. Ending the war on drugs seems feasible and practical.

  2. “abortion rights”

    Just like Ron Paul!

    (from govtrack.us)

    http://bit.ly/1yffHlk

    1. That’s gonna bite him; hope the kids aren’t defending that.

      1. And it’s wrong because…

        1. Give the states the leeway to perform their most basic function – protecting innocent human life – without interference from antilife federal courts.

          The federal judges, after getting over their wounded amour propre, ought to be relieved that they have those radioactive cases removed from their docket.

          1. The Congress finds that life exists from conception.

            You forgot the part where they base it all on scientifically baseless nonsense.

            1. Aren’t you the infanticide guy?

              1. /glances at clock

                It’s not Saturday quite yet guys.

              2. So this is your way of conceding the point I gather.

                1. Do you believe in a right to infanticide? I seem to recall you saying so, or was that someone else?

                  1. Under certain conditions, in the time shorty after birth, yes. If the infant is diseased ex HIV + for instance.

                  2. Notorious G.K.C.|8.8.14 @ 11:51PM|#
                    “Do you believe in a right to infanticide?”

                    Oh! Oh! Look! Strawman down!

                    1. Oh! Oh! Look! Strawman down!

                      Ehhhh….

                      Cytotoxic|8.8.14 @ 11:52PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                      Under certain conditions, in the time shorty after birth, yes. If the infant is diseased ex HIV + for instance.

                    2. Uh, my comment was directed at Eddy; I make no comments regarding Cyto’s posts.

                    3. Grand Moff Serious Man|8.9.14 @ 12:09AM|#
                      “Oh! Oh! Look! Strawman down!
                      Ehhhh….
                      Cytotoxic|8.8.14 @ 11:52PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom”

                      Oops! Sorry GMSF,

          2. Notorious G.K.C.|8.8.14 @ 10:22PM|#
            “Give the states the leeway to perform their most basic function – protecting innocent human life – without interference from antilife federal courts.”

            How many strawmen did you have to carry along?

            1. That’s actually a summary of the bill.

                1. Then I missed the straw man. Wasn’t I summarizing the bill put forward by Dr. Ron Paul, the neonatal specialist?

                  1. Notorious G.K.C.|8.8.14 @ 11:33PM|#
                    “Wasn’t I summarizing the bill put forward by Dr. Ron Paul, the neonatal specialist?”

                    Could be, and I’ll ignore the appeal to authority, but your “summary” was as follows:
                    1) “protecting innocent human life”
                    Bleever claim, absent evidence.
                    2) ” without interference from antilife federal courts.”
                    Can we say propaganda? Yes we can.
                    Look, you are welcome to your bleefs; I don’t care if you think you silly savior is arriving on the next catfish caught in the Mississippi. Stupidity is not illegal, nor can it be.
                    But don’t bother trying to make it a basis for government thuggery.

                    1. Good summary.

                    2. Hey, look, Sevo made a total non-sequitur comment as a result of a point sailing over his head because his religion hate boner drained all the blood from his brain again. Footage at 11.

                    3. 1) “protecting innocent human life”
                      Bleever claim, absent evidence.

                      They are human cells and they are alive…pretty sure they haven’t committed any sins or crimes yet. And without an act of nature or human act (pretty drastic act at that. Abortion is surgery really) they will develop into a baby.

                      I am pro-choice (up to about 3 months) but the whole sureness of SCIENCE about when “life” begins you guys and other pro-choice people have is really so much bullshit

                      You don’t need god to be iffy on the subject. Evolution and biology did not draw in red lines and put up signs of when “life” begins. Fundamentally it is a moral choice.

                    4. the whole sureness of SCIENCE about when “life” begins you guys and other pro-choice people have is really so much bullshit

                      When biological “life” begins isn’t all that ambiguous, as you indicate in your first sentence. Single celled amoeba’s and bacteria are “life”, but nobody has any ethical qualms about destroying them. The important question is when personhood begins, which is a question of philosophy, not science.

                    5. The important question is when personhood begins, which is a question of philosophy, not science.

                      True, we know that new human life begins at the moment of fertilization. Indeed “person” is specifically not scientific to hide that truth. What philosophies include declaring obviously living human beings as non-persons? Libertarianism or Nazism?

                      As Cytofascist exhibits, those he finds inferior are OK to kill even after they are born because he has declared them not yet “persons”. It IS about philosophy. The philosophy of the rationalization of evil.

                    6. “we know that new human life begins at the moment of fertilization. ”

                      Meaningless. Only beings have rights and zygotes sure as hell aren’t beings.

                    7. Beings? Persons? For a someone who claims to be a “scientist” you sure seem to have a problem with “human” “individual” and “alive”.

                      According to you, living, already born children with defects are not “beings” either? Are Jews and gypsies? Any other groups of living human individuals which you do not deny are alive or human but deny their “personhood”?

                      I do appreciate your posts, though. It is useful to have an actual example of evil for my children. They wouldn’t believe it if I only claimed it. “Surely no human being is that malicious and evil” Yes, children and it calls itself Cytofascist.

                    8. I do appreciate your posts, though. It is useful to have an actual example of evil for my children. They wouldn’t believe it if I only claimed it. “Surely no human being is that malicious and evil” Yes, children and it calls itself Cytofascist.

                      If you have children they must have a mother. How does she feel about your total rejection of her unalienable right to Liberty?

                      Do you also deny her as a joint owner in any property you may own?

                    9. One more pointless argument (yawn)

                      The abortion standard is viability outside the womb. No one-celled zygotes. And nothing as totally crazy as Jews and gypsies. (lol)

                    10. True, we know that new human life begins at the moment of fertilization

                      (laughing)How does that destroy the woman’s unalienable right to Liberty — which is precisely equal to the fetal child’s unalienable right to Life???

                      1) Learn what “unalienable” means

                      2) Then tell us who’s the functional illiterate, you or Thomas Jefferson?

                  2. Wasn’t I summarizing the bill put forward by Dr. Ron Paul,…

                    The same Ron Paul who lies about the Constitution?2 The biggest con man since Charles Ponzi? THAT Ron Paul?

                    All levels of government are explicitly denied any power to “deny or disparage” any fundamental human rights … by the 9th Ammendment … like, oh, a woman’s unalienable right to Liberty … and ,oh,a fetal child’s unalienable right to Life … both rights being precisely equal … which is what unalienable means. No, Dr. Paul and Brian Doherty, Thomas Jefferson was not illiterate.

                    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

                    Ron/Rand Paul are NOT defending Federalism. They advance a pernicious version of States Rights — originated by the KKK — any excuse which allows states to deny fundamental human rights. Originally to blacks. That doesn’t make the Pauls racists, but it does show they are not libertarians.

                    True libertarians would show how both extremes in the abortion issue are anti-individual-liberty. Extreme pro-lifers reject the woman’s unalienable right to Liberty. Extreme pro-choicers reject the fetal child’s unalienable right to Life.

                    So who do we believe, Thomas Jefferson? Or Ron Paul, Rick Santorum and Brian Doherty? Oh yeah, or PM?

                    1. Well, if we get right down to it, True Scotsmen Libertarians probably wouldn’t support the limitation of human rights by a central authority under any conditions. The constitution isn’t a libertarian document. It’s not without just a hint of irony calling the Paul’s, and uh, Brian Doherty, and Reason, of racism over federalism while holding up Thomas Jefferson as an exemplar of libertarian ideology considering that the decidedly not illiterate TJ also, you know, enshrined slavery into the constitution, necessitating several amendments even after the abolition of that institution to explicitly restrain states from denying even basic enumerated constitutional rights to blacks.

                      Like I said, that libertarian purity test is a tough one.

                    2. TJ had nothing to do with the constitution. IIRC, he was in Paris during the convention.

                    3. True Libertarians probably wouldn’t support the limitation of human rights by a central authority under any conditions.

                      OMG. Our constitutional government does not LIMIT rights, it defends them! Even unenumerated rights1

                      The constitution isn’t a libertarian document.

                      Who said it was, Sluggo?

                      It’s not without just a hint of irony calling the Paul’s, and uh, Brian Doherty, and Reason, of racism over federalism

                      SHAME ON YOU. I said, “I said. That doesn’t make the Pauls racists, but it does show they are not libertarians.”

                      while holding up Thomas Jefferson as an exemplar of libertarian ideology

                      Shame on you again, “All levels of government are explicitly denied any power to “deny or disparage” any fundamental human rights … by the 9th Amendment … … both rights being precisely equal … which is what unalienable means. No, Dr. Paul and Brian Doherty, Thomas Jefferson was not illiterate”

                      considering that the decidedly not illiterate TJ also, you know, enshrined slavery into the constitution,

                      Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was written. (laughing)

                      Like I said, that libertarian purity test is a tough one.

                      (laughing) Pissing is probably tough for you. And being truthful

            2. Since infanticide is terrible, I can only assume that the death penalty be in place for a woman who has a miscarriage or still birth due to her behavior? Also, one of those extra heavy periods that’s actually a very early miscarriage/natural abortion must certainly be manslaughter of some sort. Not being aware of those innocent cells within, and maintaining a poor diet etc is no excuse. A fully healthy woman is probably less likely to “naturally” abort, and so it can only be a culmination of behavior = vile, punishable behavior. And any women with a hostile womb shall have her vulva sewn shut lest any innocent fertilized eggs suffer murder.

              1. Since infanticide is terrible, I can only assume that the death penalty be in place for a woman who has a miscarriage or still birth due to her behavior?

                Um… no, and there is no sense in which such would naturally follow from a fetus’ personhood rights being respected anymore than the accidental death of a child in one’s care automatically leads to a death sentence or even a trial.

                I find that pro-choicers have a surprisingly poor understanding of the particulars in the debate, and make exceedingly poor analogies and arguments as a result.

                1. Bit it’s negligence TIT!

                  The analogies aren’t bad, that’s just your reaction to seeing how absurd your own illogic is.

                  1. No, it’s not.

                    If your child stabs himself with a pair of scissors there isn’t a jury in the world that will put you in prison unless there is an aggravating circumstance. There are plenty of situations where your child can die or come to harm under your care, where you are not considered directly responsible. If personhood rights were granted to the fetus, there is no way that a natural miscarriage or stillbirth would be punishable.

                2. I find that pro-choicers have a surprisingly poor understanding of the particulars in the debate, and make exceedingly poor analogies and arguments as a result.

                  Not the case at all. They have decided that there is the possibility to not take responsibility for one’s actions. Everything beyond that point is simply the rationalization of evil. They know for a fact that human life begins at fertilization but can’t face their own murderous desires so they only pretend they don’t understand.

                  Replace their claims with those of the Nazis. Exchange the word “unborn” with “Jew”. They are identical.

                3. I find that pro-choicers have a surprisingly poor understanding of the particulars in the debate, and make exceedingly poor analogies and arguments as a result.

                  Precisely as stupid as extreme pro-lifers. BOTH of them deny unalienable rights — the woman’s right to Liberty, and the fetal child’s right to Life — each right being precisely equal to the other.

          3. Give the states the leeway to perform their most basic function – protecting innocent human life

            Here is your problem. The purpose of government is not to protect human life. The only legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of individuals. Huge, HUGE, fucking difference.

            1. Because individuals don’t have a right to not be killed? WTF?

              “The government is supposed to protect the rights of the individual but the right to live is NOT among them”?!

              Bizarre.

              1. but the right to live is NOT among them”?!

                Of course the right to live is among the rights of an individual. That is not in question.

                What is in question is when that lump of cells becomes a person (individual) and obtains rights.

                1. They’re BOTH wrong. Wait for it!

                  Marshall Gill:“The government is supposed to protect the rights of the individual but the right to live is NOT among them”?!

                  Francisco d’Anconia What is in question is when that lump of cells becomes a person (individual) and obtains rights.

                  Bullshit. Mother and fetus BOTH possess unalienable rights, which are precisely equal to each other. This is called competing or conflicting rights, no rights being absolute.

                  Thus the judiciary is empowered to establish the boundary which defines the rights in conflict. But they are obliged to defines a boundary which best respects and defends BOTH rights.

                  Common example, in the vernacular: Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. The tip of my nose being the boundary.

                  This ENRAGES both extremes of pro-life and pro-choice, neither of which gives a flying fig about equal rights.

                  1. Bullshit. Mother and fetus BOTH possess unalienable rights, which are precisely equal to each other.

                    Nonsense. They are NOT equal.

                    If the fetus is not yet a person, the woman’s rights obviously take precedence, as the fetus, at that point, has no rights at all.

                    If the fetus is a person, its right to life clearly trumps the mother’s right to not be uncomfortable for 9 months, particularly when she voluntarily chose to bring that life into existence.

                    Since no one can answer whether the fetus is a person (with rights), no determination can be made as to whose rights dominate.

                    And, please, do not confuse me with being pro life or pro choice. I am neither. Let alone confuse me with either of the extremes.

                    1. HIHN: Bullshit. Mother and fetus BOTH possess unalienable rights, which are precisely equal to each other.

                      Nonsense. They are NOT equal.

                      Dictionary. Unalienable. Learn it.

                      If the fetus is not yet a person, the woman’s rights obviously take precedence, as the fetus, at that point, has no rights at all.

                      Bullshit. Its personhood does not repeal the woman’s right to Liberty.

                      If the fetus is a person, its right to life clearly trumps the mother’s right to not be uncomfortable for 9 months, particularly when she voluntarily chose to bring that life into existence.

                      Bullshit. On what authority do you dismiss an unalienable right to Liberty for some wacky bullshit about being comfortable?

                      Since no one can answer whether the fetus is a person (with rights), no determination can be made as to whose rights dominate.

                      The Supreme Court makes that decision, not your make believe logic built on strawmen and false premises.

                      And, please, do not confuse me with being pro life or pro choice. I am neither.

                      You combine the worst of both of them. Sophistry.

                      And, please, do not confuse me with being pro life or pro choice. I am neither. Let alone confuse me with either of the extremes.

            2. Here is your problem. The purpose of government is not to protect human life. The only legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of individuals.

              Francisco DENIES an unalienable right to Life. How about Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?

              Huge, HUGE, fucking difference.

              Who tells Jefferson and the Founders? Or every US History teacher or prof who ever lived?

              1. Francisco DENIES an unalienable right to Life.

                I said no such thing.

                You know what, this is the first time I’ve seen you comment here and my first impression is that you are a fucking asshole who can’t read.

                Fuck off and die in a fire, troll.

                1. HIHN: Francisco DENIES an unalienable right to Life.

                  I said no such thing.

                  (laughing) Emphasis added

                  Here is your problem. The purpose of government is not to protect human life. The only legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of individuals.

                  (lol) wait for it!

                  1) Government has no purpose to defend human life.
                  2) The only legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of individuals.

                  Translation for the mentally retarded.
                  “Government’s only function is to protect the rights of individuals … BUT NOT DEFEND HUMAN LIFE”

                  Logical conclusion: Franciso denies an unalienable right to Life! How about Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?

                  my first impression is that you are a fucking asshole who can’t read.

                  I added the ridicule solely because of your thuggish trash mouth

                  Fuck off and die in a fire, troll.

                  You disgrace the name of the Francisco d’Anconia I’ve known for nearly 60 years. You’re actually Ellsworth Toohey in drag.

        2. Notorious G.K.C.|8.8.14 @ 10:20PM|#
          “And it’s wrong because…”

          It takes bleevers to say so.
          A1, and I’m tired of listening to bleevers claim otherwise.

          1. Dr. Ron Paul, the Ob Gyn, witnessed abortions. He dealt with unborn children as his job, saving rather than killing them. Yet to hear you talk, he has less commitment to science than Amanda Marcotte, because she’s a choicer and he’s prolife.

            1. Did you have a point?

              1. Yes- that your point is wrong.

                1. Notorious G.K.C.|8.8.14 @ 11:35PM|#
                  “Yes- that your point is wrong.”

                  You failed. I claimed bleevers; you said bleevers say so.
                  Now, do you have a point?

                  1. You claim that a prolife obstetrician is an ignorant bleever, while you and Amanda Marcotte belong to the Party of Science because you’re choicers.

                    1. Notorious G.K.C.|8.8.14 @ 11:49PM|#
                      “You claim that a prolife obstetrician is an ignorant bleever”

                      Yes, as a matter of fact I do, since appeal to authority is typically the refuge of those who have no evidence to support their claims.
                      That would be you.

                    2. appeal to authority is typically the refuge of those who have no evidence to support their claims.

                      Isn’t that kind of the same you’re doing by claiming that “science” itself supports your belief about personhood, which isn’t even a biological question?

                    3. Yes, as a matter of fact I do, since appeal to authority is typically the refuge of those who have no evidence to support their claims.

                      Those who are incapable of marshaling any evidence, or defending their points, run around accusing others of “appeal to authority.”

                      To me, they’re both shouting each other down. All heat and no light.

                      That’s why we lose, even with a majority of Americans being at least “generic libertarians” for nearly four decades now.

                    4. You claim that a prolife obstetrician is an ignorant bleever, while you and Amanda Marcotte belong to the Party of Science because you’re choicers.

                      Obstetricians are NOT experts in Constitutional Law!!

                      And Choicers (many of them) are just as wacky as Lifers (many of them). One denies a woman’s unalienable right to Liberty. The other denies a fetal child’s unalienable right to Life. (yawn)

                      Ron Paul is a stalking horse for the extreme Christian Right (many of them). And Reason (much of it) is a co-conspirator. Is that a Libertarian Moment … or the Eve of Destruction?

                    5. You heard it here first, folks. Reason is a proxy for the extreme Christian Right.

                      THIS IS WHAT MICHAEL HIHN ACTUALLY BELIEVES

                    6. This is a retard in action!!

                      PMYou heard it here first, folks. Reason is a proxy for the extreme Christian Right.
                      THIS IS WHAT MICHAEL HIHN ACTUALLY BELIEVES

                      One more time for the mentally impaired: Extreme Right-To-Lifers deny the woman’s unalienable right to Liberty Extreme Pro-Choicers deny the fetal child’s unalienable right to Life. Ron/Rand Paul lie about the Constitution by rejecting the Ninth Amendment

                      PM’s latest lame excuse is that “reason” consists of denying the entire concept of equal and unalienable rights. His words are in plain sight. (lol)

                      For at least three weeks, I keep challenging PM to list the “other rights” which all levels of government are denied any power to deny or disparage. He refuses, instead hiding behind a tree and throwing rocks. A coward, a thug or both?

                    7. Jesus tap dancing christ that is stupid! Do you read before you post? Are you drunk?

                      Please take me to task for just slamming you as an ignorant buffoon and not actually putting forward an argument or evidence to rebut your claims.

                      I will wear it as a badge of honor.

                      Reason…co-conspirator…Christian Right…KKK…Jefferson.

                      The stupidity, it burns!

                    8. I was responding to Michael Hinn. Why don’t the replies appear indented under the comment one is responding to?

                      Is this yet another way that Reason supports the Christian Right, by sowing confusion in the comments section? NO!!!

                    9. There is a stupid indentation limit, as everyone who posts or even reads here for a while knows.

                      So listen newb, fucking lurk and learn before you post. That said, I agreed with your post.

                    10. I was responding to Michael Hinn

                      And making a total ass of yourself … and a thug … unless and until you can explain your rejection of a woman’s unalienable right to Liberty. Since you people rarely know what “unalienable” means, it means the woman’s right to Liberty is precisely equal to he fetal child’s right to Life … except to anti-constitutional thugs.

                      Now I’ll teach you how to handle the indents, ie clarify what person or post you are replying to. Three ways.

                      1) Simply address the person you’re talking to, like “Lord Peter Wimsey,”

                      2) Reply directly to specific words by italicizing. Paste the quote between these open and closing codes. “i” and “/i”, each between angle brackets, the symbols for “less than” and “greater than”

                      3) Indent like I did at top. That’s called a block quote, so place the quote between “blockquote” and “/blockquote” – same angle brackets

                      If anything else befuddles you, don’t hesitate to ask, okay? I’m for all points of view having a voice, and in 50 years of political activism, I have NEBER shouted anyone down.

                      Don’t forget to explain how you justify your denial of ANYONE’s unalienable rights. The 9th Amendment was specifically intended to protect us from people who seek to deny the rights of anyone. Thank God!

                    11. The stupidity, it burns!

                      Stop screeching like a wild man and simply state on what authority you reject a woman’s unalienable right to Liberty?

                      I’ll wait.

            2. Ob Gyn =/= scientist

              Dealing with unborn children =/= scientific expertise

              1. It is, if Marcotte and you are the competition.

                Aren’t you the infanticide guy?

                1. It is, if Marcotte and you are the competition.

                  There’s no competition you idiot. You have no scientific backing, end of story. I, OTOH, am pretty well credentialed as a MSc.

                  1. Lol. So here we find ourselves through the looking glass where a medical doctor specializing in obstetrics and gynecology is dismissed as a science illiterate because of his beliefs on an issue having absolutely nothing to do with science, while a guy with a MSc uses a university credential to bolster his viewpoint, again, having nothing to do with science, whilst simultaneously denouncing appeals to authority.

                    It’s a good thing you guys aren’t irrational like those religious nuts.

                    1. So here we find ourselves through the looking glass where a medical doctor specializing in obstetrics and gynecology is dismissed as a science illiterate …

                      Why do the nutjobs think that Obstetricians are experts in Constitutional Law? Ron Paul is a dumbass constitutional illiterate. But he snarls so well.

                      It’s a good thing you guys aren’t irrational like those religious nuts

                      (laughing) See my first sentence.

                    2. Why do the nutjobs think that Obstetricians are experts in Constitutional Law?

                      Well, nobody actually said that, and it wasn’t the topic under discussion, but hey, reading is hard.

                    3. ME Why do the nutjobs think that Obstetricians are experts in Constitutional Law?

                      PM Well, nobody actually said that,

                      Several times on this page. Here’s just the wackiest

                      Notorious G.K.C.:

                      Dr. Ron Paul, the Ob Gyn, witnessed abortions. He dealt with unborn children as his job, saving rather than killing them. Yet to hear you talk, he has less commitment to science than Amanda Marcotte, because she’s a choicer and he’s prolife.

                      The science crack was indeed wacky, but the claim of WITNESSING abortions is equally wacky as a qualification..

                      Like I keep saying, both extremes of the abortion issue are wackjobs, because each denies the entire concept of equal and unalienable rights.

                      And YOU have been refusing to defend your constitutional heresy for several weeks now. (sigh)

                    4. An obstetrician really does not confer any special insight into whether the unborn are people. None. It’s basically a trade.

                    5. An obstetrician really does not confer any special insight into whether the unborn are people. None. It’s basically a trade.

                      But your claimed degree does? It is also basically a trade?

                      “My claims of authority are much more valid because I say so”?

                      It is almost as if the person posting under you nick wants to make you look like an imbecile and is succeeding fabulously.

                2. Notorious G.K.C.|8.8.14 @ 11:50PM|#
                  “Aren’t you the infanticide guy?”

                  I’m not sure exactly what this means, but somehow I think it is an appeal to emotion from a bleever.
                  Do I have it?

                  1. Do I have it?

                    Nope.

                    And show some respect for those believers who are NOT so stucking fupid on the plain language of our Constitution. (9th Amendment)

                    Howzat?

                    1. Michael, I visited your website and found it thoughtful and reasonable. If your comments here were in the same vein of building common understanding, most would find you agreeable. But I read more anger here, most recently at Ron Paul. No candidate will perfectly match your or my preferences, but I support those who can do the most to undo the bad situation we have without inflicting more harm. Abortion rights are here to stay, so anti-abortion positions are almost irrelevant, unlike big govt positions. Trashing Ron Paul does more to hurt the libertarian cause than help it.

                    2. Yeah. Michael, too often I find you to be angry first, educational second here. So I can’t bring myself to go to the blog.

                      I’ve said it here before: I think you make some good points and have good supporting evidence. Then, when you’re wiping the spittle off your invective-filled insults, I just think “What an ass.”

                    3. What blog?

                      The invective comes from the assholes, never me. I’m simply defending the Constitution.

                      And, when push comes to show, I don’t give a shit want you think. It’s the American voters who matter. How often have YOU been elected?

                    4. BigT, it can look that way if one doesn’t know the issues at play.

                      1) Barry Goldwater said the Moral Majority would destroy his party. If not yet, then damn close.

                      2) So how does an extreme social conservative NOT damage the libertarian cause, when our brand is ALREADY in the toilet?.

                      3) Learn politics. Rand Paul would be CRUCIFIED for his extreme social conservatism …further damaging a brand already rejected by 85% of LIBERTARIANS.

                      4) The damage was done long ago. Libertarians have been the majority in America for at least 35 years, if I recall correctly when I began giving the World’s Smallest Political Quiz.

                      4) For over 3 decades, WE have defined libertarians as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.”

                      No candidate will perfectly match your or my preferences

                      5) Please spare us the strawman fallacies.

                      6) In formal polling, Cato’s 2005 Zogby poll foundthe libertarian brand TOTALLY toxic.
                      59% self-identified as “generic libertarians,” fiscally and socially.
                      That falls to 44% if “also known as libertarian” is added. Do the math. The libertarian label is rejected by 25% of LIBERTARIANS.
                      It was only 9% for “libertarian” alone.
                      The further we get from our definition, toward the brand, the worse we rate.

                      7) A growing majority of Americans are socially liberal. You would ignore them?

                      Capitalize on the fanciful libertarian moment … by running an extreme social conservative … who lies about the constitution.

                    5. As someone who thinks the 9th covers all natural law rights not otherwise listed, its still unclear to me how it covers abortion.

                    6. Not sure, “Follow me, I’m the most pissed off!” is a winning strategy.

                    7. BTW, go to Zero Hedge comment section if you want to see why Reason doesn’t indent every comment.

                    8. Yeah, but it take next to nothing to change the header of each comment to include the name if the person you are responding to.

                      Francisco d’Anconia (to straffinrun) |8.9.14 @ 12:46PM|

                    9. I’ve been doing websites for over 20 years, and in political forums just as long.

                      Very few forums have unlimited indenting. It’s a space thing. As long as Reason chooses such wide side margins, they will be limiting the indents. As I look up the page, I see nothing but the narrowest comments and they can’t get much skinnier.

                      I don’t know if they use software or a custom code, but all the software has an explicit control over the number of indents.

                      Having said that, many comment sections now have few or no indents, but they have a tiny type, usually grey, naming who we respond to.

                    10. As someone who thinks the 9th covers all natural law rights not otherwise listed, its still unclear to me how it covers abortion

                      I’ve never heard anyone deny an unalienable right to Liberty.

                      The 9th states “other” rights not enumerated in the Constitution. Most scholars, and the debate, conclude that this was how the founders inserted Jefferson’s unalienable rights into the Constitution. And the Declaration states that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are NOT the only unalienable rights endowed by a Creator.

        3. And it’s wrong because…

          It’s not wrong and it’s not right. There is simply not enough data to make that determination. Which is why it’s simply not a “libertarian” issue.

          1. In the total absence of evidence for personhood of unborn entities, the only correct libertarian answer is total legalization of abortion.

            1. Yes, in practice. However, I would phrase it a bit differently.

              In the total absence of evidence for personhood of unborn entities, the only correct libertarian answer is that a law prohibiting abortion should never have been made in the first place and such decisions should be left up to individual beliefs.

              I would also be willing to compromise. I’m quite certain it’s not a person at conception. I’m also quite certain it is a person at birth. I’d be happy to split the difference and call it a person at 4.5 months. Such a compromise would have the added benefit (for me) of making BOTH sides (of whom the extremists are equally nut-jobs) absolutely irate.

              1. How do we “split the difference” on unalienable human rights, when the court is obliged to find a solution that BEST defends BOTH individual rights.

                Ever since Roe v Wade was changed the standard has been viability outside the womb, including artificial means (incubators sofar).

                About 15 years ago, I spent two LP national conventions on the Platform Committee. trying to insert something like, “The woman always has a right to expel a fetus, but there can be no separate right to kill a fetus who can live outside the womb.”

                At the time, the Platform and Committee was extreme pro-choice, up to the point of birth. They have since wised up … a little.

                1. You might want to read what I actually said instead of what you thought you read.

                  I am splitting the difference on where personhood starts, not on rights.

                  1. You might want to read what I actually said instead of what you thought you read. I am splitting the difference on where personhood starts, not on rights.

                    Not true. You repeatedly equate personhood with rights — for several strange reasons. This is what you said, immediately before the paragraph I cited.

                    In the total absence of evidence for personhood of unborn entities, the only correct libertarian answer is that a law prohibiting abortion should never have been made in the first place and such decisions should be left up to individual beliefs.

                    You use “evidence of personhood” line a lot, which has never been a matter at law..

                    First, the current boundary is fetal viability outside the womb. That means the fetus is capable of living on its own, no longer connected to its mother. But not a person? REALLY?

                    Second, you use personhood to argue that it’s not even a “libertarian” issue. It’s a libertarian issue BECAUSE our Constitution makes it an issue of rights. Even if we accept your bizarre “clump of cells” the woman had an unalienable right to Liberty, which — if in conflict with any other rights — must have boundaries acceptable to the court.

                    1. Francisco follows a pattern.

                      Every time he’s called out, he falsely denies having said what he said … even thougn his words are in plain sight on ther page. Hmmm.

  3. they have begun campaigning in other states, aiming to increase their influence beyond California

    Perhaps because their influence in California is negligible at best. This is prog country.

  4. Oh, my god, I remember someone saying something in jest about this the other day, but they seriously did it. He died from a 30 yr old gunshot wound? Why stop there, why don’t they take it back to complications from his child birth 73 yrs ago?

    1. oh yeah, the link on brady’s homicide

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    2. Wrong thread…

  5. Good thing, because Republicans are winning all sorts of elections in Los Angeles.

  6. If the Liberty Kids can start producing victories, and even if they don’t, they can become a more libertarian alternative to the TP which is a flagging force. What’s their stance on immigration? If they are pro-freedom there too and can get victories with that then maybe they can become a kind of ‘gateway drug’ to sanity on immigration for the GOP.

    1. If my reading of the righty blogs over the last year or so is any predictor the Republican party is going to die on the immigration hill.

      I’ll go from sites that are good on a lot of things (for red teamers) to sites that are basically the lesser evil and they seem to be united on one thing: No Amnesty or anything that smells like it.

      1. So the righties are gonna die on the hill of keeping those horrible brown people out of the country?
        Well, in that case, they deserve it.

        1. Indeed. DWT is right these people are fucking insane. PapayaSF will seriously froth at the mouth about LA RAZA and the coming wave of HIV and other diseases. Remember, conservatives really are as dumb as the left makes them out to be.

      2. The Texas state GOP has dropped a lot of anti-illegal nonsense and they have not only survived growing numbers of Hispanics but thrived, putting truth to the lie that more Hispanics = TEAM BLUE dictatorship foreva. If the crazies can’t hold the Texas State GOP during an economic downturn with few jobs, they can’t hold anything.

        1. Yeah, but the Texas GOP is also trying desperately to keep messicans from voting through things like voter ID, remember? Try to keep your narratives straight.

          1. That’s not my narrative. Keep your commenters straight!

      3. Im pro open borders and anti amnesty. Remove the cap on work visas and make them check in legally.

        Amnesty is a horrible solution.

        1. Why? Because freedom is icky?

  7. Libertarian Moment, huh? I suppose Obamacare, the NSA and the IRS will become abolished in 2017? And they would have to battle the bureaucracy and media fear mongering about budget cuts. And I mean actual budget cuts at that.

    And I would think the libertarian moment is occurring if the libertarians can manage a Harding/Coolidge type fiscal conservative rather than a Reagan/Carter/Clinton/Obama one.

    1. Reagan/Carter/Clinton/Obama

      You have a problem with conceptual thinking if you can lump those four together. And a far more serious problem if you say Carter and Obama are conservatives.

      And just plain stupid about Reagan.

  8. This gets funnier every day!

    GOP social conservatives are being challenged by supporters of Ron Paul … an extreme social conservative!.

    And to hell with the Ninth Amendment. Again.

    1. That libertarian purity test is a toughie. I guess at the next meeting it’ll pretty much just be Michael Hihn and Shrieeeeek.

      Also, needs moar INALIENABLE RIGHTS

      1. Now you even ridicule unalienable rights! (OMG) A Ron Paul clone!

        Here’s the 9th Amendment AGAIN. Emphasis added AGAIN.
        “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

        For AT LEAST the 10th request. What do YOU say are the “other rights” which no level of government may deny or disparage? I’ve been waiting weeks for your answer.

        1. The right for a specific gender to murder, obviously. How dare the government try to deny that?

          1. Geez, Brian D, I even put it in boldface.

            On what authority do you deny the woman’s unalienable right to Liberty?

        2. Lest we forget, you also support the UNALIENABLE RIGHTS of fetuses as well. And still can’t comprehend how that position is untenable as it regards the abortion issue.

          The 9th Amendment doesn’t tell us anything meaningful about how to interpret your self-contradictory view of the UNALIENABLE RIGHTS of women and their fetuses. Or about abortion more broadly. But FWIW, if it helps solve your weeks-long conundrum, I think the 9th Amendment as well as the 10th is fairly clear in its meaning and intent – all rights not enumerated in the constitution, as amended, belong to people and the states, respectively.

          1. Lest we forget, you also support the UNALIENABLE RIGHTS of fetuses as well.

            (OMG) That’s what unalienable means!

            And still can’t comprehend how that position is untenable as it regards the abortion issue.

            One more time, conflicting rights. Have you EVER heard EITHER:

            1) There is no free speech right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.

            2) Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

            When rights are in conflict, the judiciary must defend a boundary which best defends EACH right. My nose in #2 above.

            Now, the massive screwup I predicted

            I think the 9th Amendment as well as the 10th is fairly clear in its meaning and intent – all rights not enumerated in the constitution, as amended, belong to people and the states, respectively.

            You screwed up BOTH the 9th and 10th Amendments!

            1) The 10th deals with unenumerated POWERS, which are reserved to “the people and the states”

            2) The 9 deals with unenumerated RIGHTS, which are reserved to ONLY the people. States are never mentioned.

            Which is why Ron/Rand Paul are phony federalists.

            The 9th Amendment doesn’t tell us anything meaningful about how to interpret your self-contradictory view of the UNALIENABLE RIGHTS of women and their fetuses.

            (sigh) Unalienable means BOTH the woman and the fetus have precisely equal rights. One to Life, the other to Liberty.

            Will you NOW stop stalking me?

        3. Michael, take your meds. Supporters of Ron Paul are not necessarily so-cons. Liberty types have to take the bad with he good. They hope to challenge the expansion of government; not rewrite the constitution with the aid of Old Testament law.

          You rant like a progtard. Why not go the whole nine yards and call us all racists?

          Oh, wait, you already did that. Supporters of PaulStates’ RightsKKK

          Sorry, I forgot.

          1. Supporters of Ron Paul are not necessarily so-cons.

            I never said they were (lol)

            They hope to challenge the expansion of government; not rewrite the constitution with the aid of Old Testament law.

            They (and you) LIE about the Constitution. Ninth Amendment. Read it.

            Why not go the whole nine yards and call us all racists?
            Oh, wait, you already did that.

            SHAME ON YOU. This is what I said. Emphasis added for the integrity depraved.

            Ron/Rand Paul are NOT defending Federalism. They advance a pernicious version of States Rights — originated by the KKK — any excuse which allows states to deny fundamental human rights. Originally to blacks. That doesn’t make the Pauls racists, but it does show they are not libertarians.

            How many times must I correct your thuggish lie?

            One more time, on what authority do you reject the equal and unalienable rights of EITHER the mother or the fetal child? Still waiting.

  9. Despite personal politics that might seem more in tune with Democrats – world peace, ending the war on drugs and addressing global warming top the list of concerns for many…

    Aside from “addressing global warming” (through the intervention of a massive government – libertarian as fuck), how does any of that seem in tune with Democrats?

    1. Aside from “addressing global warming” (through the intervention of a massive government – libertarian as fuck)

      I suppose he could be referring to the various ways that libertarians can deal with global warming without government intervention but without context it is hard to say that he isn’t calling for government intervention.

      It’s like that awful term “social justice.” Libertarian policies can indeed be considered a form of “social justice” but considering how it normally used by proggies it is hard to see a libertarian using it.

  10. By the way when will those libertarians win elections in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, DC, Chicago, Detroit, New York, Denver, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Boston?

    1. By the way when will those libertarians win elections in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, DC, Chicago, Detroit, New York, Denver, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Boston?

      When they get off their asses and form alliances with the majority of Americans who have been generic” libertarians” for maybe 40 years now (fiscally conservative and socially liberal)
      .
      That’s got me elected twice, despite attacks for being libertarian, and won a local tax revolt. The tax revolt group was so diverse, left and right, that we joked how our meetings were the only place in town where they’d all they’d all be in together. Except a supermarket. My biggest supporters, both time and money, were Christian conservatives. They knew I’m an atheist — they always ask! — but they didn’t care.

      The alliances are so important because too many INSIDE the movement would rather debate esoteric points of Austrian Economics than GOVERN (about which they are totally clueless).

      1. There’s so much irony here. So lack of self-awareness.

        1. There’s so much irony here. So lack of self-awareness

          (laughing)

    2. That you think the moment comes in the form of election victories is a reflection of your blinkered and extremely limited understanding of the nature of the moment.

      1. So the libertarian moment will involve, what? Dems and Repubs raising the budget by 5% instead of 10%?

        1. Would you prefer 10% over 5%?

          1. Would you prefer 10% over 5%?

            I just think that the libertarian moment would involve actual budget cuts rather than a return to Carter or Clinton.

              1. So becoming the sort of politicans they claim to hate? The “fiscal conservative” who only reduces spending increases?

                1. The “fiscal conservative” who only reduces spending increases?

                  Umm, you do what you can, as fast as you can. This is not a dictatorship, despite the ravings of the ani-gubmint crowd — who applaud a Rick Santorum with spending cuts.

                  That’s what comes of rejecting pro-liberty for anti-gubmint.

            1. Libertarians turning out to be somewhat fiscally responsible progs (or neocons for that matter) is not what I would call a libertarian moment. It would be more of a sign of libertarianism being swallowed up by the establishment like all the previous “anti-government” movements which only nibble at the edges rather than enacting any real change.

              1. You cannot have a libertarian government without first changing the opinions of constituents. That ain’t gonna happen all at once. It’s going to take a slow re-education process. A little at a time. As we make gains, the world will get better and we will win more and more converts.

                Would I like it if we could go full up principled libertarian all at once? You bet, but that’s not realistic. The Pauls realize this and I truly believe that’s their program. Educate.

                1. How can one educate by lying about the Constitution?

                  Or claiming we can repeal the income tax, cut federal spending 45%, and run the entire federal government on FICA taxes??

                  Or say abortion should be a state issue, and brag — ON THE SAME WEB PAGE!– of sponsoring a FEDERAL bill to ban all abortions?

                  Or say gay marriage is a state issue AND “I’d have voted for DOMA if I was in office at the time.”

                  So they’re for state decisions, except when they aren’t?

                  Ron Paul’s early newsletters were explicitly racist, but he says he was not of aware of, and never saw, the content.

                  A Rand Paul op-ed was severely plagiarized, but he says he was not aware of that when he added his name to the op-ed.

                  We ridicule Obama because he doesn’t know everything that goes on in the federal government. But we’re being “educated” by guys who don’t know what’s going on with newsletters and op-eds!

                  After Ron Paul ran on the LP Presidential ticket, he declined to run four years later, and instead became an active supporter for Pat Buchanan!

                  Donlt scream at me. I’m just showing you how either one of them would be cut the shreds in the media. All true.

                  But they’re on our tribe, so we swallow whatever they say and do … out of tribal loyalty. Yeah!

                  You’re EAGER to be hustled.

                2. I’ll be honest and say that I can see that libertarians have been making some minor gains and have a chance to really shake up the system but the latter hasn’t happened yet and it could very well fail miserably.

                  I mean can it be said that the libertarian moment has arrived when you yourself will admit it will take awhile to show real results? Or that Matt Welch himself wrote an article saying that Obama’s successors may very well be a lot worse than him which would imply the opposite of a libertarian moment.

                  I could be wrong and that in ten years the Republicans will replaced/taken over by libertarians who will win the White House and a substantial majority of Congress but on the other hand libertarians could be destroyed by infighting between pragmatists and radicals, the pragmatists could sell out by turning into the sort of Republicans they claimed to hate and/or be subsumed by the other parties or libertarians could lose once people learn that libertarians want to cut social programs, the minimum wage and regulation or perhaps societal collapse could lead to communism or some right-wing dictatorship.

                3. As we make gains, the world will get better and we will win more and more converts.

                  We don’t need converts. THAT is what keeps us in the backwaters.

                  What’s the difference between a libertarian society and a free society? I’ve been asking that question for 25 years. Most libertarians think the question is crazy. The libertarians who get it … laugh.

                  In a libertarian society, we’d all live in gated communities with private police forces and competing court systems. John Galt’s statue stands in every town square.

                  In a free society, Galt’s Gulch is next to a Marxist commune ? lesbians up the street from a community of Christian Fundies ?. retired Catholic priests across the field from Wiccans. Each community is voluntarily. And that statue is Voltaire, inscribed: “I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”

                  Instead of selling our own values, why not defend everyone’s with a libertarian Social Contract?

                  I may disagree with how you live, but I will defend your right to do so peaceably. In return, I ask only that you defend my right ? to live my life, my way, without threatening you in any way.

                  Or ? “ban all abortions?” WTF

                  Copyright 2005-2014 by Michal J Hihn. All Rights Reserved and Defended

      2. That you think the moment comes in the form of election victories is a reflection of your blinkered and extremely limited understanding of the nature of the moment.

        Today’s new delusional libertarian. We can have a libertarian society without a libertarian government. Simply lock all thje doors and crawl under the bed, in that gleaming Ivory Tower.

        But when they close their eyes, the Universe does not disappear. Sorry.

  11. So who is More Delusional? Libertarians proclaiming the libertarian moment, German Communists in the 1930s who predicted “First Brown then Red”? or the homeless guy with a sandwich board proclaiming that the End of the World is Nigh?

    1. Well, the sandwich board guy is at least right if you use a long enough time scale.

    2. You for thinking your posts are in any way insightful or worthwhile.

  12. So explain to me how these folks are the coming libertarian generation?


    But young Americans also want government to guarantee health insurance and living wages; plan to vote for Democrats in 2014 and 2016….

    [M]illennials also support more government action and higher spending in a number of key areas:

    71 percent favor raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour

    69 percent say it is government’s responsibility to guarantee everyone access to health care and 51 percent have a favorable view of the Affordable Care Act

    68 percent say government should ensure everyone makes a living wage

    66 percent say raising taxes on the wealthy would help the economy

    63 percent say spending more on job training would help the economy

    58 percent say the government should spend more on assistance to the poor even it means higher taxes

    57 percent favor spending more money on infrastructure

    54 percent favor a larger government that provides more services, when taxes are not mentioned

    54 percent want government to guarantee everyone a college education

    1. Do you think the NY times would have written a story about libertarianism five years ago? The world is exploring libertarian beliefs, to the chagrin of those currently in power.

      You are in denial because Nick was right and you were wrong. A real man would admit his error and move on instead of doubling down on it.

      1. The world is exploring libertarian beliefs, to the chagrin of those currently in power.
        True but a politically significant number of people actually accepting those libertarian beliefs and implementing them in some fashion is another.

        You are in denial because Nick was right and you were wrong. A real man would admit his error and move on instead of doubling down on it.

        Well if in 10 years there is Harding/Coolidge type fiscon then I will admit that I am wrong because otherwise the “libertarian moment” would have amounted to very little.

        By the way Gillespie was the guy who said in 2008 that Obama’s election would end racial strife so I highly doubt his predictive capabilities. And did he admit he was wrong on that?

        1. Why do you believe change cannot happen? Socons took over the Republican party 30+ years ago, The Whigs became irrelevant…there is absolutely no reason there couldn’t be a libertarian revolution. Especially when shit is as bad as it is. Why are you so vested in its failure?

          1. Why do you believe change cannot happen?

            Not for quite some time.

            1) We’ve been a majority for at least 35 years, but 85% of LIBERTARIANS reject the libertarian label.

            2) Beyond non-interventionism, we have ZERO policies that make sense, and several that are totally stupid.

            3) We don’t have a single political leader who matches our majority.

            4) Now we’re chasing independents, 30% of which are collectivist, while STILL ignoring our own majority.

            Especially when shit is as bad as it is.

            Discover reality. Some of us have waited and worked 40 years or more for an opportunity like this, Congress and both parties in the toilet. The President’s popularity sinking like a rock. But we’re nowhere near ready, and are blowing it BIG time.

            We’ve wasted all those decades in an ivory tower. And we trashed our best electoral principle: Always be pro-liberty. Never by anti-gubmint.

            Point me to ONE piece of work .. just one … dealing with libertarian GOVERNANCE. You can’t hit what you never aim for, duh.

            There cannot be a libertarian society without a libertarian government. And there can’t be a libertarian government without electing one.

            We’ve been defending libertarianism for ourselves instead of a free society for everyone. So they ignore us. Because we ignore them. Dumber than a box of rocks.

            1. Correcting myself

              We don’t have a single political leader who matches our majority.

              Gary Johnson.

              Ron/Rand Paul is our Goldwater. Totally unelectable. As Katherine Mangu-Ward accurately described Ron Paul: “He’s good on principle but bad at politics.”

              And Gary is our Reagan.

          2. Why do you believe change cannot happen? …. Why are you so vested in its failure?

            Let’s see Strawman and accusation of rooting for failure. Obama, is that you?

          3. Francisco “Why do you believe change cannot happen? Socons took over the Republican party 30+ years ago.”

            And destroyed it, as Goldwater predicted … which they are now doing to the libertarian movement. They excel at infiltration. Like Marxists. And just as statist. The Christian Jihadists (a minority of even the Christian Right)

        2. Nick also spent most of LAST year telling us that we were in a libertarian moment … perhaps a libertarian ERA!

          Barely one week into THIS year, he said that last year was one of the worst for libertarians, but THIS year …. (lol)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.