LP Says Obama has Screwed the Pooch with Muslim Countries

I’m eternally on the LP newsletter, having been a card carrying member at one point, and active in the Texas LP when I ran a friend for the legislature.

Excuses aside, found this nugget in the letter today about the bombing of Libya:

"While the justifications vary in each case, the disturbing common thread is that these are all predominantly Muslim countries. And the goodwill expressed by Arab people about Obama in opinion polls early in his administration has completely vanished: in the most recent Zogby survey, 85% expressed an unfavorable opinion toward the United States, eclipsing the 83% negative opinion in the final year of the Bush administration.

Of course, the only reason this upsets the LP is because the national policy has become rather isolationist in the party.

Guy McClendon on Ron Paul and the LP Dilemma

Guy McClendon from the Texas State Libertarian Committee had some interesting points on the dilemma American Libertarians face due to Ron Paul’s presidential run:

The LP’s big problem is that our LP Nat’l Convention is in May 2008, and the Republican Convention is in ~Sept 2008. However on the plus side, there will have been enough primaries by then to give a great idea as to where he stands by May.

The agony is that LP members need to decide much earlier than May 2008 whether to affiliate with the LP [our obvious preference], or vote for Dr. Paul in the Republican primary. For LP folks who tend to support Ron, their inclination is to do the latter. However, that’s a bad decision for several reasons. An additional 500 votes in the USA is most probably not going to impact the Republican primaries.

It’s always great to have a Plan B. If all the constitutionalists in the LP vote in the Republican primary, there will be nothing but purists in the LP convention. The purists would very likely not vote for Dr. Paul simply because his immigration position is not 100% open borders. Duh … Instead, they would probably vote for some non-credible candidate like George Phillies, or maybe someone having a criminal record. If 500 constitutionalists instead go to the LP national convention, Dr. Paul would be assured to gain the LP nomination … and, would thereby be guaranteed a slot on the general election ballot … in all 50 states.

So far as his chance to win the Republican nomination, it would be political suicide for Dr. Paul to even think about running on a ticket beside the RP ticket. So, I certainly am not going to even ask. Of course, if the neocons flood the Republican primaries and nominate a good communist like McCain, our LP ticket could start looking good to Dr. Paul in May 2008. Do you recall how Joe Lieberman flopped from Democrat to Independent during the 2006 election … AFTER having lost the Democratic primary?

Guy

Want to be part of the Rizzn-ite army? Indoctrination instructions here.

Two Interesting Technorati Things

1. youtube
2. sarkozy
3. galilea montijo
4. myspace
5. ron paul
6. paris hilton
7. joost
8. mario lopez
9. authority
10. shoppero

Update: even better, check out this search trend graph.
Posts that contain "ron Paul" per day for the last 30 days.

Get your own chart!

Non Partisan Libertarianism

My Exit from the Libertarian Radical Caucus: Getting government out of marriage

The following was my unsubscribe message sent to the Libertarian Radical Caucus, a caucus belonging to the National Libertarian Party. Their foundation is strict adherence to Libertarian principals in promoting personal freedom (or as it’s description says: a free-ranging discussion via email about the Radical Caucus and its role in the Libertarian Party).

Their moderation is spotty at best, they’re highly infiltrated by liberals promoting cultural agendas instead of real promotion of freedom.

The discussion was originally about Bob Barr’s support of the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) as success for Libertarians in handing more freedom and control back to the state level instead of the Federal level.

I think I’m done with this discussion group. Rules of moderation prevent me from singling you out and saying exactly what I think of you, but since this is my parting shot, I’m not going to hold back.

I know what the legislation was meant to achieve, but when the intent behind the legislation aims for something but achieves another thing, I think it’s mighty hypocritical for you as a libertarian to call upon libertarians to ‘repeal it.’ As I stated before, it deregulates marriage and de-regulates the definition of marriage down to the state level. This is a step in the right direction.

The only reason for the Federal government to recognize marriage is for taxation purposes, and moral gerrymandering. The federal government has no business in my romantic or spiritual life, or the lives of anyone (not to mention income taxing in the first place). Marriage is a social contract with your significant other, your community, with your family and friends, and depending on your religion, with God. If you can find a church and a community that will accept your lifestyle choice, then you should do so.

Deferring to the state on the definition of marriage makes the definition actually easier to change. Local platforms are easier to speak from than national platforms. Again, I reference the Howie Rich initiatives.

If you are supposed to be a libertarian radical through and through, you don’t get to pick deregulation when it doesn’t line up with your pet special interest group’s wishes.

And finally, as a general aside and pet peeve of mine – I’m tired of being dismissed (by you) and accused of not “being in the same universe” (by goldrecordings) simply because I don’t walk in lock step with politically correct LGBT rhetoric. The LGBT rhetoric, more than any other set of rhetoric, is full of logical and philosophical holes that thorough thinkers are expected to overlook simply because it’s treason to offend someone from that special interest group. I’m not a racist, and I’m not a homophobe, and I’m not trying to justify some sort of anti-gay agenda.

I’m not here to promote liberal agenda under the guise of LPism. The right to define the word marriage is not one of the pressing social issues of our age. There are very few, if any, enslaved homosexuals being denied basic human rights, so attributing the same amount of fervor and venom to the LGBT movement as the Black Civil Rights movement is disingenuous.

On the other hand, I am here to promote civil liberties of Americans. Americans have been held without having been charged for years at at time, and it has been since way before the Patriot Act (anyone remember Kevin Mitnick anymore?). Attention to laws that abuse freedom are significantly more important than adhering to cultural liberalism and what are frankly tertiary issues.

Having said that and flouted moderation rules, I’m going elsewhere.

Peace, Love and Revolution.

/mark “rizzn” hopkins

On 3/7/07, Starchild < sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:

Mark,

It’s hardly just my “personal opinion.” Ask any politically
well-informed person whether the people behind the “Defense of
Marriage” Act were trying to make it easier, or more difficult, for
same sex couples to have their marriages recognized. Again, please
don’t quibble about the precise wording of the act. You know the effect
the legislation was meant to achieve as well as I do.

Love & liberty,
<<>>

On Wednesday, March 7, 2007, at 10:00 AM, Mark “Rizzn” Hopkins wrote:

> Your personal opinion of the intent behind the bill aside, it’s a step
> towards, not away from, deregulation of marriage.
>
> On 3/7/07, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Let’s not mince words — I’m speaking of the plain intent behind the
> > law.
> >
> > <<< starchild >>>
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, March 7, 2007, at 09:31 AM, Mark “Rizzn” Hopkins wrote:
> >
> > > The “Defense of Marriage” Act does not forbid same-sex marriage.
> > >
> > > On 3/7/07, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > Very good; in the United States, we can start by repealing the
> > > > “Defense of Marriage” Act and other laws forbidding same-sex
> > > marriage.
> > > >
> > > > <<>>

Update: Susan sent a personal message to me after I unsubscribed:

That’s showing real class there, Mark. *sigh*

–
/mark “rizzn” hopkins
For my blog, profile, and wikipedia entries, simply Google “rizzn”
–
intelligent discussion: http://groups.google.com/group/rizzncom-v83/
–