A #British Libertarian’s #Voting Strategy

Britain, Elections, libertarianism

As a private individual, and not in his capacity as director of the UK Libertarian Alliance, Sean Gabb, to whose Libertarian Alliance Blog I contribute, summed up his voting strategy thus: He voted for the people he hates to keep out the people he fears.

The big differences are the survival of England and of political accountability. If the Conservatives remain in government after today, they will allow another reasonably free election in 2020. If Labour forms a government, it will fix the voting system to keep itself in power till street protests are needed to remove it. This fixing will be dressed up as “electoral reform.” Moreover, if Labour must rely on Scottish support, the price will involve some Balkanising of England. In or out of the United Kingdom, Scotland cannot be an important entity in the British Isles so long as there is an England. Therefore, any reasonable Scottish nationalist will need to press for the dissolution of England into a group of devolved and squabbling territories. Only the Conservatives stand in the way of this.

My vote is unlikely to determine who wins the election in my constituency. But it may add to a Conservative victory in England in terms of votes if not of seats. This will give Mr Cameron the right to insist that he is the real winner today, and that he should be allowed to stay in government.

Judged by libertarian standards, the Conservatives in government have been half useless and half malevolent. I despise them and I hate them. But I fear Labour. For this reason, I see it as my duty to vote for the lesser of evils. Voting is more of a public duty than a private right, and I see it as my duty to vote for the people I hate to keep out the people I fear.

In closing, I will repeat that this should in no sense be regarded as a recommendation from the Libertarian Alliance. I am speaking not ex cathedra as Director of the Libertarian Alliance, but as a private individual. I also accept that I may be wrong. …

… Read “The Evil Party or the Stupid Party? A Topic for Debate, not a Recommendation.”

Pamela Geller Offends Shariah Media

Constitution, Europe, Free Speech, Islam, Jihad, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Political Correctness, Propaganda

There’s a “FRENCH CONNECTION” and a “RED CONNECTION”—both bad—in “Pamela Geller Goes Against Sharia Media,” the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

Sandhya SomethingOrAnother is a “social change” reporter for The Washington Post. (Yes, the WaPo has such a beat.) Ms. Somashekhar (her surname copied and pasted) implied that WND columnist Pamela Geller ought to repent for staging a Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest in Garland, Texas, an event that was briefly attended by two, uninvited ISIS-Americans. Sandhya must have been angry because she called Geller, in error, “a housewife from Long Island.” Progressives don’t much like housewives.

Like most Geller haters, Somashekhar (her name copied and pasted) cited the Southern Poverty Law Center as her “scholarly” source for Geller’s hatefulness. The SPLC is a “leftist vigilante group,” explained Paul Gottfried, a real scholar. It is “unmistakably totalitarian in the drive to suppress and destroy deviationists from the party line on race, gender, and ‘discrimination.’” The “$PLC” is as dodgy in its financial dealings as it is in its strong-arming tactics. (Read “Is The Southern Poverty Law Center ($PLC) The Next Financial Bubble?”)

“Stupid,” ruled a less obscure enforcer of political correctness, Bill O’Reilly, on Geller’s event. Also at Fox News, host Martha MacCallum suggested Geller ought to have explored kinder, gentler ways of protesting Islam-imposed restrictions on expression.

Pantomime, perhaps?

The left-liberal Jon Stewart took the safe route. The idiotic urge to kill over any annoyance was the object of the satirist’s spoof. Stewart’s Thou Shall Not Kill skit was hardly cutting-edge comedy. So he livened up the tired shtick with a curtsy in the direction of the Prophet’s avengers. Geller’s group, The American Freedom Defense Initiative, was about hate speech, warned Stewart.

The biggest clown in the media circus, however, was TV anchor Chris Cuomo. While Geller staged her vital challenge in private; Cuomo, a lawyer, flaunted his “smarts” in public. He tweeted that “hate speech” was unprotected by the Constitution. Not everyone was speechless. Another of CNN’s cretins, Alisyn Camerota, stood squarely in the corner of the victims: those poor ISIS-Americans whose descent into hell was hastened by a guard at Geller’s Garland cartoon contest.

It was difficult to tell what it was about Pamela Geller’s position on impolite and impolitic speech—echoed in the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights—that so puzzled Camerota …

… Read the complete column, “Pamela Geller Goes Against Sharia Media,” on WND.

CNN Cretin #ChrisCuomo ‘Thinks’ Constitution Doesn’t Protect Hate Speech

Constitution, Free Speech, Individual Rights

CNN Cretin Chris Cuomo, a lawyer, it would appear, has confused the US Constitution (intended as a charter of mostly negative liberties) with the South African Constitution, an obese and obscene charter of positive liberties. Check out the thread.

#RobertSpencer Savages #PamelaGeller Attacker

Free Speech, Islam

“Don’t be fooled by Haroon Moghul,” cautions Robert Spencer, in his rebuttal of CNN’s unknown entity’s assault on Pamela Geller, whose sin was to prove that ISIS-Americans intend to decide what Americans may say about Islam’s murderous muse, The Prophet Mohammad.

The clearest indication that Haroon Moghul is a jihad terror-enabling charlatan is the fact that after jihadis attempt to commit mass murder at a free speech event, he doesn’t write a piece defending free speech and explaining why Muslims must accept it, or a piece condemning the Islamic jihadis and explaining why Islam’s death penalty for blasphemy must not be carried out in the modern age, or a piece calling for reform of the teachings and doctrines that Islamic jihadis use to justify violence and supremacism.

Oh, no. You will never see such from his august pen. What Haroon Moghul, fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, Fellow at the New America Foundation, perennial Ph.D. candidate at Columbia University, and an energetic purveyor of the spurious concept of “Islamophobia” (a propaganda term designed to intimidate people into fearing to resist jihad terror), serves up instead is yet another in today’s ever-growing pile of condemnations of Pamela Geller for daring to stand for the freedom of speech.

Moghul is desperately afraid that other Americans might realize that standing up for free speech against violent intimidation is a great idea, in the finest American tradition. That would interfere with the mainstream media’s push to get us all to silence ourselves and conform to Sharia blasphemy laws in order to save our skins. And so Moghul pens this vicious little screed in order to convince his easy marks at CNN that Pamela Geller is not really a defender of the freedom of speech but really a very bad person, and to stay on the reservation, not question the elites, and continue to allow for restrictions on the freedom of speech. …

More.