Category Archives: libertarianism

UPDATE II: Newt Pokes the Palestinians (Paul Brings It on ABC)

Elections, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Intelligence, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Journalism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Objectivism, Palestinian Authority, Pop-Culture, Republicans

Newt poked at the Palestinians yesterday, and the matter was rehashed during another debate between the GOP candidates. That’s the only interesting thing there is to report about the ABC moderated debate in Des Moines. I mean, there might have been more, but since transcripts are unavailable, I can’t tell.

You must have noticed how these presidential candidates are tripping over themselves to make nice with Israel and distance themselves from the “plight (or is it the blight) that never shuts up.” (You already know my position on foreign aid to Israel and to all the rest: NADA.)

Gingrich defended the controversial comments he made Friday, when he said the Palestinian people were “invented.” He said tonight that his statements were “factually correct.”
“Is it historically correct? Yes. Are we in a situation where every day rockets are fired into Israel while the United States — the current administration, tries to pressure the Israelis into a peace process. Hamas does not admit the right of Israel to exist and says publicly not a single Jew will remain,” Gingrich said.
“It’s fundamentally time for somebody to stand up and say enough lying about the Middle East,” he said.

I will say that I am amazed at the love caucus goers are showing Newt and the disdain they’ve heaped on Romney. Leave aside politics and my own political philosophy; Mitt Romney is the better character (as in human being). But Americans hate success when it is combined with good looks, fidelity to family and faith—and when these traits belong to a man who is mild-mannered and contained and not given to Oprah-like abreaction.

A slimy statist slob like Newt; now that’s a candidate Americans can relate to. I’m sorry; I don’t get it.

Idiot alert: From the fact that I have mentioned Mitt’s character and carriage favorably, please do not deduce that I support his polices. The last does not follow from the first. If you are a newcomer to this space, do read my commentary before you implode at my impartiality.

I’m a paleolibertarian, not a Republican. I apologize in advance for offering a dispassionate opinion about Mitt’s character while not being a supporter of his policies. I know how confusing an impartial comment could be to many who’ve come of age in the “Age of the Idiot.”

UPDATE I (Dec. 11): “WHY COME YOU DON’T HAVE A TATTOO?” My apologies to all those who were offended by my comments above. However, I am sick of being forced into tribalism. Because I’m libertarian—with certain political allegiances and loyalties—I’m expected to refrain from offering an impartial analysis of the political and cultural landscape, if that assessment fails to favor “my side.”

This tribal logic (or rhythm rather) works as follows: If she supports Paul she must not say a good thing about Romney’s private persona.

Forget about it. Get used to being exposed to more that cheerleading for “our” side. You come here for analysis; get used to it. My assessment of the political and cultural landscape will be forthcoming irrespective of my political allegiances and loyalties.

People who can’t tolerate this remind me of the “tarded” doctor character in the film “Idiocracy,” when he discovers that his patient doesn’t have the tribe’s stamp of approval: a special tattoo.

Doctor: “And if you could just go ahead and, like, put your tattoo in that shit.”
Joe: “That’s weird. This thing has the same misprint as that magazine. What are the odds of–”
Doctor: “Where’s your tattoo? Tattoo? Why don’t you have this?”
Joe: “Oh, god!”
Doctor: “Where’s your tattoo?”
Joe: “Oh, my god.”
Doctor: “Why come you don’t have a tattoo?”

Next: Myron, are you on a liberal (of the leftist kind) binge today? With respect to your comments below: If the singular reason for political organization is pelf—the destruction, murder, robbery, and delegitimization of the relatively civilized entity adjacent to it—then, I would argue, a “people” does not have a right to organize. Or, at least, such “organization” should be disrupted by its victims.

Reality tells us that this is the reason for the Palestinian push for self-determination—the gains to themselves must always coincide with losses to their Israeli neighbors; loss of life, land, political legitimacy. By reality I mean their ACTIONS, political and other.

Second: The fact that Jews fought in the WW II, or on the South’s side during the War Between the States, for that matter—does nothing to invalidate or vaporize their biblical ties to Israel. Those ties are validated in reality, by the fact that certain Jews have revived Israel for the better, and at huge costs to individuals pioneers. The place was a no-man’s land before modern Jewish settlement commenced.

UPDATE II: PAUL BRINGS IT. Paul, who by the way agrees with me and called Romney “more diplomatic than Gingrich,” was presidential during the debate. I glean this from snippets the moron media screens. Here’s some script at last via The Liberty Tree:

It was Texas congressman Ron Paul who delivered the most substantive responses and drew the loudest applause.
Early in the debate Congressman Paul was asked to comment on Gingrich’s flip-flopping. “He’s been on so many positions on so many issues,” Paul responded, but drew attention to his own record, stating, “you might have a little bit of trouble competing with me on consistency.”
On the subject of Gingrich’s earnings from Freddie Mac, Paul said, “He was earning a lot of money from Freddie Mac while I was fighting over a decade to try to explain to people where the housing bubble was coming from,” In a rebuke of the former Speaker, Paul added, “I think you probably got some of our taxpayers’ money.”

Free Mercer Merchandise

Ilana Mercer, libertarianism, Literature, Music, South-Africa

STAIRWAY PRESS HAS LAUNCHED A HOLIDAY GIVEAWAY AND FACEBOOK EVENT FOR MY BOOK, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa.

Invitation have gone out from The Cannibal’s Facebook Fan page. (“Like” The Cannibal when you pop by.)

On offer is Mercer merchandise galore. Every fifth buyer of Into the Cannibal’s Pot will receive a free copy of my libertarian manifesto Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash with a Corrupt Culture, together with a CD of the progressive rock guitar virtuoso and composer Sean Mercer.

Order NOW and The Publisher will endeavor to deliver in time for Christmas.

Theatre of the Absurd

Barack Obama, Democrats, Elections, History, Ilana Mercer, libertarianism, Political Philosophy, Private Property, Republicans, The State

A couple of hours ago I filed this week’s WND column with my editor (I file on Wednesdays). I have just heard Judge Napolitano deliver his editorial on Freedom Watch. Uncanny. The theme of my new column tracks with the Judge’s editorial. I had titled my column “Who’s It To Be? Teddy # 1 Or Teddy # 2?” (My good editor will often find better, more pithy titles.) In any event, I wrote this:

“What are the odds that a Democratic commander-in-chief and his chief Republican rival declare their philosophical fidelity to the Progressive Theodore Roosevelt on the same day? And I replied, “The dice were loaded in Teddy’s favor. The sitting Democratic president (Obama) and the Republican odds-on favorite for president (Gingrich) are in TR’s corner…”

Our heroic Judge, in his December 7 segment (not yet posted), asks and answers similar questions.

Hopefully, many more people beyond the libertarian orbit will come to experience the same gut reaction at this theatre of the absurd.

UPDATE III: ‘That’s How Ron Paul Rolls’ (Tosses & Gores Trump )

Energy, libertarianism, Liberty, Republicans, Ron Paul

Finally, Ron Paul takes the gloves off and goes hard-core. Yes, we want to drain the swamp. Yes, we are tired of the Tea-Party bark which has turned into the whimper of little Shih Tzus (or is it shit-so-and-sos). Department of Education? Gone. Interior, Energy, HUD, Commerce? Gone. Later bureaucrats. That’s how Ron Paul rolls.”

Excellent ad (thank you Roy Bleckert for sending the link). Give me more. If Ron Paul shakes off the shackles of the Beltway libertarians, and sticks to his original Old-Right instincts, we’re there. One problem: My man Ron forgot the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The goons must go. That is the first peace offering any candidate of mine must offer up.

Now how does a president do all this without his party taking both Houses? And how does he do all this as a pragmatic matter?

UPDATE I: JT (on Facebook): We need a uniter in this fractured country of ours. If Ron Paul can drum some sanity into the Nation of Islam, what’s wrong with that? Today I heard the Left speak fondly of him, on MSNBC, and joke about Paul’s cutting everything. Good. We want the Left neutralized. Paul is the candidate most likely to remain on the Right, and unite all factions.

UPDATE II: Newt; Serial Hypocrite and worse—serial statist. I feel a visceral urge to vomit each time I see that sanctimonious so-and-so. Still, this anti-Newt ad is unfocused and confusing. It’s hard to tell that its subject is Ron Paul. The new ad above is in a new mold.

UPDATE III (Dec. 6): Paul tosses and gores Trump. Needless to say, BAB won’t be covering the upcoming Idiocracy debate—and not because Trumpt promised to attend, but was a no-show at the Republican Party of Iowa’s annual Reagan Dinner:

“The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee rejects the selection of Donald Trump as moderator for the Republican presidential debate to be held on December 27th in Iowa.
“We have conferred with our Iowa campaign chairman Drew Ivers and vice-chairmen David Fischer and A.J. Spiker who are all RPI State Central Committee Members, and they concur with this decision.
“The selection of a reality television personality to host a presidential debate that voters nationwide will be watching is beneath the office of the Presidency and flies in the face of that office’s history and dignity. Mr. Trump’s participation as moderator will distract from questions and answers concerning important issues such as the national economy, crushing federal government debt, the role of the federal government, foreign policy, and the like. To be sure, Mr. Trump’s participation will contribute to an unwanted circus-like atmosphere.
“Mr. Trump’s selection is also wildly inappropriate because of his record of toying with the serious decision of whether to compete for our nation’s highest office, a decision he appeared to make frivolously. The short-lived elevation of Mr. Trump’s stature as a candidate put him on the radar of many organizations and we recall that last spring he was invited to keynote the Republican Party of Iowa’s annual Reagan Dinner, yet at the last minute he left RPI holding the bag by canceling. In turn, RPI canceled its biggest fundraising gala of the year and suffered embarrassment and in addition RPI was required to engage in refunding measures. Our candidate will not even consider participating in the late-December debate until Mr. Trump publicly apologizes to Iowa party leaders and rectifies in full the situation.
“Therefore our candidate Ron Paul, the champion of the Constitution, has advised he will not attend.”