Posts Tagged ‘Politico’

Yale prof surprised: “Tea partiers know more science than non-tea partiers”

October 19, 2013
Pro-life activist Lila Rose

Pro-life activist Lila Rose (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Eureka! Tea partiers know science!

Politico’s headline shows their surprise, too (Eureka!), weakly suppressing a disdain for the hoi polloi they do not want running free. He wanted (ahem, “expected”) to see the opposite result. Academia lives in a bubble of their own creation: “I don’t know a single person who identifies with the tea party,” he said. But now they know: they understand more science than those who aren’t.


Navy Seal thinks the [federal] government may be trying to provoke conditions for martial law:

Not so crazy an accusation. He quoted Sheila Jackson as demanding that Obama declare martial law so he could stop the “shutdown”. I’ve seen that for a long, long time.

I saw it in the pro-life movement. They were desperate to make the pro-lifers get violent (never mind the violence done to babies inside the abortion mills) that they started arresting them for standing on sidewalks. Finally, in desperation, they used what were (to me) obvious moles. Like one guy in Pensacola who kept trying to talk pro-life demonstrators into violent action, and they always shouted him down, “Shut up!”, “What are you thinking”, You’re in the wrong movement buster. So he got a gun and shot a doctor. Which was promptly blamed on the people who told him not to.


AGENDA: Grinding America Down (Full Movie) FREE to watch for a limited time!

I’ve not watched it through yet, but from the parts I’ve seen and from the reviews, this promises to be a good historical perspective on why America is like it is right now…

How the Old Left is continuing to world to bring America down, meeting after the fall of the Berlin Wall. They were talking about using the environmental movement (for business-killing regulations) and pushing to destroy traditional family structure, and other such things.

The Naked Communist“, a 1958 book, says some of these things too.

[My note: I think America’s “cup of iniquity” is already too full to
escape God’s judgments. But this is how, and people need this

The narrator says “anarchy” doesn’t make sense. I beg to differ. Any government tends toward more central control.

Also, some of the people featured in comments in this video are likely not necessarily genuine or complete freedom-loving actors. Nevertheless, their exposure of the “AGENDA” is informative to a new generation, if they watch this…

Fabian socialism trademark: a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Hillary Clinton’s defining paper in college was a report on Gramshee, the Communist strategist.


Ron Paul’s endorsement of Ken Cuccinelli for Virginia governor

October 13, 2013
Ken Cuccinelli (R)

Ken Cuccinelli (R) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


In a moment of “wow”, Ron Paul has endorsed Republican Party candidate Ken Cuccinelli for Virginia governor, according to Politico.


to the surprise of some people, because there is a candidate from the Libertarian Party (Robert Starvis) who has been creeping up in the polls.


Politico plays up the surprise element in the article, but does allow through the reasons Ron Paul made this announcement:


“Ken Cuccinelli has always stood for smaller government and limited government,” writes Paul. “He has consistently and unapologetically worked with the Liberty movement in Virginia. His stand against ObamaCare shows he is willing to stand up to Washington’s continued abuses on our individual liberties.”

He quotes his friend Donna Holt, a libertarian activist, calling Cuccinelli “the most pro-liberty legislator and Attorney General we have ever had in Virginia.”

Read more:


In another paragraph find the reason Politico and some third-party boosters may have thought Sarvis would be the better liberty-supporting candidate, and some self-identified libertarians might get confused as to why. Note the transparent spin in the choice by Politico’s writers in deciding to use the expression “should be” and “concerned”:


Libertarian Robert Sarvis could be a spoiler in next month’s off-year election, attracting what should be Republican voters concerned about the nominee’s strong opposition to gay marriage and abortion.


For one thing, that statement shows the Politico, like almost all of statist media, is clueless about who libertarians are in general, and how libertarians think on many specifics.


The two issues they mention are telling.




On the first one, apparently a growing percentage of libertarians are strongly opposed to killing a baby in the womb as much as outside the womb, on libertarian grounds. The reasoning is the same for every pro-lifer and pro-life organization mission statement that I know of, and that is that a new human life begins at conception. There are atheists that despise this brutal practice as well. The pro-abortion organizations and the groups that make lots of money in the abortion industry (including the profitable government-supported “non-profits”), they use the false claim that it is a religious idea.


But the truth is that opposition to killing babies inside the womb is the same thing as killing babies outside the womb. This is the motivator. And libertarians claim the idea that all aggression against individuals is wrong, that all uses of force is illegitimate except for defense against aggression. Apply this to babies inside a mother’s womb and you can only be pro-life.




Here is another one that confuses some of the younger libertarians, who think supporting a candidate who favors “gay marriage” is the same as supporting freedom.


But it’s not like they are supporting freedom. For one thing, the libertarian view is that nobody and no government has any right to force you to associate with any other person or group, and that liberty is defined in terms of individual rights to be free from aggression and force by others.


That means discrimination for any reason is a universal right. It is an illegitimate use of force to apply it in favor of one group (as the current U.S. federal government does for homosexuals) while denying it to another (like they have done against Christians often, for example). Government discrimination is always and forever wrong; individual discrimination is a right. Banning individual discrimination is impossible anyway, without telepathy, but they do it anyway.


That said, seeking government marriage privileges, or forcing you to do it, is wrong. I had to marry legally to arrange my wife’s visa. Before anybody says hypocrite, say first whether you use federal reserve notes to pay for things in the store, or whether some of your tax-and-inflation-taxes go to things you despise.


Seeking to get the government to approve same-sex marriage, though, is not not not a stance consistent with libertarian philosophy. It is creating additional government benefits for a boiler-plate contract and the subjection to obligations on the part of the “engaged” couple, answerable to government control.


In other words, the proper stance would be to seek ways to get government out of controlling marriage and its supposed definition, even though “same-sex marriage” has always been an oxymoron in the English language.


There are other extra-governmental reasons not to “oppose gay marriage”, but to bring open discussion to the merits of same-sex pairings, free of coercion. That is a different topic. Government has no business deciding who should have what, do what, or do without what….