He that goes a borrowing goes a sorrowing.
Benjamin Franklin
Tweet of the Day
@realDonaldTrump's views on Syrian refugees have "evolved" from saying we have to accept some to kicking them out. https://t.co/SikCB1xDfa
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) December 2, 2015
@realDonaldTrump insists that gullible American voters will make Trump great again.
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) December 2, 2015
@realDonaldTrump is demanding a $5M appearance fee for the CNN episode of Presidential Appentice. https://t.co/vB0s7VV9D9
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) December 2, 2015
@realDonaldTrump insists that thousands of NJ Muslims publicly celebrated 9/11. A fish story from the Ernest Hemingway of the Internet.
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) December 2, 2015
@zombieart @realDonaldTrump Gullible voters are those believing a flip-flopping, unprincipled,fascist,incompetent demagogue should be POTUS.
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) December 2, 2015
Ecofascist Chart of the Day: The "Enlarging" Sahara |
| via Cato Institute |
Blacks and Government Dependency
Facebook Corner
(Lew Rockell). According to NPR, some Ron Paul people in Iowa feel Rand has watered down the message. From the typical value-free political standpoint, that would be OK if it brought in new supporters, even if it lost old ones. Only the latter has happened.
First of all, keep in mind that Ron Paul's share of the GOP vote, in a far less fragmented field, was 10-11%, and Ron routinely lost to Obama in head-to-head polls by 9%.
Rand Paul was polling around the mid-teens until the surge of the Outsiders (Trump, Carson, Fiorina). To a large extent, they ate away Paul's anti-establishment base, although none of them are remotely pro-liberty. Paul was consistently one of best matchups against Clinton, overall maybe within 3-4 pts. It's been a weird cycle, one where the themes of the 2010 Tea Party of bloated deficits, ObamaCare and spending are barely mentioned, to a ludicrous populist fixation on immigration (illegal immigrants are, in fact, down from 2007), Middle East meddling, etc. Paul has consistently been ignored during the debates, with far less speaking time.
I as a fellow libertarian-conservative still support him, despite disagreements over immigration (I am for liberalized immigration), trade (although imperfect, TPP is a plus), and messing with ISIS (I am more non-interventionist). I don't think, though, it's an issue of ideological purity. Rockwell, for some insane reason, is obsessed with the Trump circus, the fascist strongman populist wannabe. the last person any sane libertarian would seriously consider. I think Rockwell thoroughly enjoys seeing the party leadership worried about the party's death wish for Trump leading next year's ticket, but this is a case of being really careful of what you wish for.
If the election is Clinton vs. Trump, I'll go third party. Trump is unacceptable, period. I don't like Clinton, but with a GOP Congress, she's no worse than Obama; we play for 2020, freed of the xenophobes propping up Trump.
I have to agree. I was a big supporter of Ron, but I just can't get excited about Rand. Rand's endorsement of Mitt while Ron was still in the 2012 race was what first bothered me about Rand.
This thread is SPECTACULARLY uninformed. Rand Paul supported his dad in 2012 until Mitt Romney mathematically clinched the nomination. His endorsement was nothing more a formal endorsement of his party's nominee.
(Catholic Libertarians). Some have commented in previous posts wondering if violence against abortion providers is somehow justifiable under just war theory, defense of the innocent, or the Non-Aggression Principle. The answer is no, and Timothy Brahm from the Equal Rights Institute does a good job of explaining why in this article. I'll post my own statement on the matter soon.
« If we can end abortion by non-violent means, then we are morally obligated to pursue those non-violent means. ... An extremely important part of Just War Theory is the idea that in order for a war to be just, it has to be the “last resort.” Even if you have just cause, right intentions, etc., you cannot go to war if you have an alternative course of action. We are in an extremely odd country where people are legally allowed to kill innocent babies, and what’s even odder is that millions of citizens believe it is moral to kill babies. Violence must be used only as a last resort, and there are other (not to mention, more effective) courses of action we can take. We can persuade people that the law needs to change, and we don’t live in a dictatorship where we can’t change the law. It is grossly immoral to kill born human beings when it is not absolutely necessary to do so, just like it is grossly immoral to kill unborn human beings when it is not absolutely necessary to do so.
Another important criterion of Just War Theory is “probability of success.” Due to how destructive war is, if you don’t have good reason to believe you have a high likelihood of being successful, it is not just to go to war. The likelihood of any serious good being done from killing abortion practitioners is virtually zero. Killing a given abortion practitioner does not end abortion. On the contrary, now it will be harder to end abortion. More babies will die because of what Robert Lewis Dear did last week.
It is clearly immoral to kill abortion practitioners, but wondering “why” is common and understandable. Given that, all pro-life advocates should denounce violence towards abortion practitioners to avoid any possible misunderstanding. ... »
I know that I have posted comments here or elsewhere referencing the NAP and just wars in reference to various scenarios, but not in reference to the use of force against abortion clinics. There are a variety of tactics including the social isolation of abortion providers, voluntary association rules and sanctions against those perpetrating violence against children. But nothing I or others have said implies unilateral use of force or violations of due process or the rule of law. In my context, I was making reference to the State's legitimate mandate to protect the unalienable rights of individuals. Your blurb certainly isn't relevant to my comments, which are consistent with libertarian principles.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of the original artist via Ron Paul |
Bryan Adams, "Christmas Time"
