Jesus and Ayn Rand

A friend of mine sent out a group email about Ayn Rand a few days ago.  The recipients were mostly church members.  Here’s the gist of it…..

A few days ago, (spouse) and I watched a documentary about the life and work of Ayn Rand.  She summed up her philosophy in two words:  objective reality.  Even though her parents were Jewish, at about age 10, she confided to her diary that she was an atheist.   Possibly she used objective reality because, leaving The Soviet Union in 1926, she saw how propaganda and coercion could create false reality and control people.  She abhorred altruism, the idea on which Communism and Nazism were able to function by convincing people that the individual is unimportant, that only the group, the nation is worthy of dedication.  She believed each person should pursue self interest openly without deception.

Is it possible that, when we do something good or charitable, we do so in order to feel better about ourselves, to earn approval of our peer group or, in some cases,  to earn a reward after death?  If true, it would mean the person doing good is acting on enlightened self interest. 

I realize you may consider this silly and unworthy of thought or comment, but if you have any thoughts on Rand's work or this  subject, I would be glad to receive them.   Possibly you will share your thoughts with this group of addressees.

I sent back the following, from Rand’s 1964 Playboy interview:

“My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal . . . .

To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism’s terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste—then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.”

This prompted a few emails about Rand’s atheism, and the vast philosophical chasm that separates Ayn Rand and Jesus.  Here’s a sample, from a guy I genuinely admire:

Ayn Rand was very clear that her personal philosophy is the antithesis of the Christian teaching on selfless love.  She disagreed with Jesus in a fundamental way and made no bones about it.  It follows, therefore, that if Christians are attracted to her philosophy they are either confused, they think Rand seriously misread Jesus, or they see Christianity as a private matter with few moral implications.  I think Rand was right on the money.  The two philosophies are antithetical.  Jesus has my vote.

It went on for a while longer.  Most of the people copied on the email were good church people, all of whom I respect and admire.  I like to think that these are the people who would come to my aid if my family were to get into serious trouble.  I like to think that I would help them out in similar circumstances.  But I started thinking about what Rand said and what Jesus said.  NOT how they’ve both been interpreted, but what they actually said. 
Jesus supposedly said the following, in Matthew 6.  The additional italics are mine, for emphasis:

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon (money).

Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

Behold the birds of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much better than they?
 
Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his height?

And why do you worry about clothing?   Look at the lilies of the field, how they grow; they don't work, neither do they spin fabric for themselves:

And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not dressed like one of these flowers.

Wherefore, if God so clothes the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, you of little faith?

Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, How shall we be clothed?

(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knows that ye have need of all these things.

But seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

That's kinda intense. 
Don't worry about what you're going to eat or drink. 
Look at the birds.  They don't grow crops, but God cares about them and provides for them.  Aren't you better than they are? 
Consider the flowers.  They don't work.  They don't make fabric, or anything else, yet they're more beautiful than Solomon! 
 

Here’s Matthew 5:40 – 42:  And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. And if someone forces you to carry his load for a mile, go with him for two miles. Give to him that asks upi, and from him that would borrow of you, turn not him away”.

Translated: If the damn lawyers take away your jacket, let 'em have your overcoat also.  If someone forces you to carry their load for a mile, go ahead and put in two miles.  GIVE to anyone who wants what you have, and if someone wants to borrow from you DO NOT turn them away. 

Luke 14:12-14: “Then said he also to him that asked him, When you make a dinner or a supper, call not your friends, nor your brethren, neither your kinsmen, nor your rich neighbors; lest they also ask tyou again, and a recompense be made thee. But when you make a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: and you shall be blessed; for they cannot recompense you: for you shall be paid back at the resurrection of the just”
 
Don't have family over for dinner.  Ever.  Never, ever, ever.  Always feed the street people first. 
 
Now.... Compare Ayn Rand's statements on charity with those of Jesus.  I only know of one Christian who lives his life according to the statements of Christ quoted above, and most people think the guy is stark raving mad.  Maybe he is. 
 
Everyone that I know, and I mean everyone, Christian or not, tries to maintain health and life insurance, and keep up their house payments.  They try to get educations so they can provide for themselves and their families.  I've never seen anyone go into debt so they can feed more strangers, and I've never seen a robin drop worms into every nest in the forest. 
 
The average yearly income on this planet is $6,000 per person.  I've never known any follower of Christ to give away his stuff until he had less than that.  Ayn Rand advocated giving to people you feel like giving to, but only if it's not going to put you at risk.  Jesus taught that we should sacrifice ourselves, our stuff, and our security. 
 
In short, there has been an ongoing battle in the Christian church between the philosophy of Ayn Rand and the philosophy of Jesus. 
 
Ayn Rand has won it. 

The Great Debate! On TCU Campus! Guns In Texas !

TCU's Young Americans For Liberty and The Tarrant County Libertarian Party proudly present "The Great Debate - Guns In Texas".


This event will feature the Democratic Party's State Representative Lon Burnam, Texas House District 90 debating 2nd Amendment activist Scott Harmon, National Rifle Association volunteer coordinator.

These two fine men will be debating some of the central issues of our time - Who can carry a gun? What can we carry? Where should we be allowed to carry a weapon? What was the intent of the founders, and what does the 2nd Amendment mean today?

This promises to be the best discussion you'll hear on this important topic. Patrick Dixon, the Texas LP's State Chair, will be the moderator.

Free Admission - Saturday April 27th, 2:00 p.m.

Brown-Lupton Auditorium on the TCU campus, 2901 Stadium Drive, Fort Worth, TX 76129

A Prayer For 2016

Dear God,

We don't talk much anymore. 
I acknowledge that I'm a sinner. 
Except for Christmas and some Youth Sundays, I haven't made it to church in about three years. 

I've said horrible, horrible things about three of my Brothers In Christ, George W. Bush and Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.  Perhaps I've made Gary Johnson into a false idol. 

But I've worked really hard to get our children and grandchildren some relief from their parents' and grandparents' ridiculous government debts.  I've worked hard for gay marriage.  I've led discussion forums about the right of self-defense and gun rights and the 2nd amendment.  I've advocated the complete and utter destruction of Ben Bernanke's government money printing press on Blue Mound Road, mostly because inflation hurts poor people so much. 

I've even tried to be Moses.  I've taken a look at the number of black men that Barack Obama keeps in steel cages for marijuana offenses, and I've said "BARACK OBAMA!!!  YOU HYPOCRITICAL POT-SMOKING S.O.B. !!  LET YOUR PEOPLE GO !!"

I recently acted as preacher/priest/rabbi in a secular wedding.  I bet you were proud. 

Balance all that Libertarian Goodness against my continued violations of almost every known commandment, and it probably comes up even.  That's the only reason I'm coming to you, asking just one little favor. 

This website (do you have to hit links if you're God?) says that Jeb Bush, who is George W.'s brother and GHW Bush's son, will probably be the Republican nominee for President in 2016. 

This website says that She Whose Name Is Not Spoken will probably be the Democrat nominee for President in 2016. 

Please let this happen, God.  Please, please, please.  I'll go to church every Sunday for one complete calendar month.  Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.  Please, please, please. 

If voters are given the choice between Gary Johnson and the princelings from a couple of entitled hereditary monarchies, life will be almost too good for words.  Gary Johnson vs. Bill Clinton's wife vs. George Bush's brother.  Can you imagine those two royal families arguing that a commoner should be excluded from the presidential debates???

In spite of today being Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, I'm going to go to work.  Please don't hold that against me. 

Amen. 

Ouch.

Yeah, Romney's budget is goofy. He's not going to cut any branches of government. He could be a civil liberties disaster. But these cartoons are funny.

Hey, MSNBC, it coulda been worse !!!

Why all this weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth from MSNBC? 
Do they not understand that if one Obamney lost this "debate", then the other Obamney is winner by default?
You'll still have your welfare state, godawful wars, Federal Reserve, Prohibition, giveways, corporate welfare, cronyism, dead Pakistani babies, mercantilism and tribalism. It's not like a Libertarian candidate was allowed in the room to kick both of their asses....
This video is pretty funny though. 

Why There's No Point In Watching Tonight's "Debate"

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will have a conversation tonight about who is best qualified to lead our collective plunge over the cliff.


The following remedies for our economic situation will not be on the table. They are considered “outside the mainstream” and “extremist". 

Unfortunately, the only way to escape a 16 trillion dollar debt is to go outside the mainstream.

You will not hear a serious discussion about the following:

1) Cutting government spending. Both men have budgets that actually increase spending into infinity. The Romney/Ryan plan slows down the rate of growth just a tad, but the spending still increases. What makes all of these plans laughable is that no Congress can limit the thievery of a future Congress. Imagine the current group of legislators taking, say, Jimmy Carter’s 2012 spending goals seriously.

2) Ending the Drug War. There are one million government employees who rely on this idiotic conflict for a paycheck.
.
3) Ending the Fed. Both Romney and Obama know that the only way to keep their contributors happy and content at the government trough is for Ben Bernanke to keep printing cheaper and cheaper money. We are due for a massive inflationary leap in the next few years. These higher prices will be blamed on greedy corporations.

4) Shrinking the military. Our military spending equals that of the next 17 to 20 countries, depending on how you do the math. Most of those countries are our friends, BTW. We’ve been in South Korea since the late 1940’s. Ditto for Europe. We never send them a bill for defense. (Also, we have no business going to the Middle East to spread the gospel of “free and fair elections” when f***ing Oklahoma won’t allow Gary Johnson on the ballot. What a farce.)

5) Bringing Hillary back to the house. What makes anyone think that Bill Clinton’s wife is any more qualified to intervene in the Arab-Israeli conflict than, say, Sarah Palin’s husband???

6) Privatizing Social Security. The system is now running in the red. To mention that fact is political suicide. Unless you’re Gary Johnson.

7) School Choice. 70% of the Chicago schoolteachers who went on strike send their own kids to schools not run by the Chicago schoolteachers. How do you think it would work out if the government assigned you a grocery store?

There are other obvious topics that these two guys won’t touch, and that a Libertarian candidate would bring into the discussion.

I used to drunk-blog these things, but tonight I don’t think I’ll bother. A real debate would include parties besides those which got us into this mess. 

An open letter from Lee Wrights

I wasn't able to make it to the Libertarian Party's National Convention in Vegas. 
My friend Lee Wrights was one of several LP nominees for President Of These United States Of America. 

As I understand it, the delegate votes worked it down to Wrights and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. 
At that point, there was a debate.  Here's Reason magazine:

Las Vegas—The final debate in the race for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination between Gary Johnson and Lee Wrights was, mostly, a friendly affair that felt more like an infomercial for libertarianism than a debate. Former LP presidential candidate David Bergland softly tossed questions to the candidates that seemed as if they were designed to elicit responses that would convert those watching on C-SPAN to libertarianism rather than display the differences, however slight, between the two candidates. At times it was even tedious, though as Johnson would say later in the debate, you almost always know how a Libertarian will come down on an issue. Even though we live in an era where libertarianism is more popular and widespread than ever there are still people out there that have no idea what it is about, so there is the need, in the LP’s eyes, to appeal to the casual viewer.


Early questions like, “How you found the Libertarian Party” and “What is Libertarianism?” reinforced the infomercial feel but they did get some great responses.

Johnson said he became a libertarian after somebody gave him a book in 1971 about libertarianism. His worldview was forever changed and he passed the book on in the hopes of changing the mind of somebody else.

“For eight years I got to serve as a Libertarian governor under the guise of being a Republican. I have come out of the closet,” he said.

Wrights tried to connect his libertarianism with the delegates on a more personal level.

“Libertarianism is a life choice, it is more than a political party. It is more than the people in this room,” he said.

As the debate wore on it became clear that Johnson was taking the debate very seriously and thinking about the long term while Wrights played the role of convention jester. Johnson has stated numerous times during his run that he is committed to the Libertarian Party and, assuming he loses in 2012, running again in 2016 on the LP line. Wrights has been running since 2010 and tomorrow could potentially be the end of his presidential aspirations, meaning that he has nothing left to lose.

Hit the Reason magazine link to read the whole thing.  Good stuff, as usual. 
Here's what Lee wrote on his website yesterday, thanking his supporters after the Johnson victory, marveling at our ability to go at each other politely but aggressively, and still congratulate each other afterwards on a good game well-played....
I think I would sell myself into slavery for one year if it would guarantee that Lee Wrights or Gary Johnson would be a guaranteed participant in the debates with the Obamneys. 

Hearing my name placed into consideration for the Libertarian Party’s nomination for President of the United States was the proudest moment of my life. It was a privilege and an honor for me to be considered for that august office by my family - the Libertarian Party.


When I started my campaign for the nomination I said that I was determined to ensure that whatever else happened the Libertarian Party would talk about war during the 2012 national convention. We did that. Every American who watched the presidential candidates debate or the convention proceedings on CSPAN heard that message loud and clear - stop all war.

They also were treated to a fine example of how political discourse should be conducted in America. During the debate, they didn’t witness the spectacle of two men going after each other, out for blood and tearing each other apart. They saw two rational and reasonable people discussing alternative ways that liberty and freedom can bring peace and prosperity to our nation.

Yes, there were contentious debates and votes — several votes - over electing members of the national committee. But no blows were struck, no blood was spilled, and no one stormed out of the room. We resolved our differences peacefully and nominated candidates for President and Vice President every Libertarian can and should support.

We showed America that Libertarians are not the bogeymen the mainstream media and establishment politicians make us out to be. We showed America why libertarians are different and how, by being different, the Libertarian Party will make a difference in the 2012 election. I left the convention proudly wearing a Gary Johnson for President button.

My entire staff and I are unwaveringly committed to working for the Johnson-Gray ticket, and continuing the Million Vote March to get one million votes for the Libertarian candidate for President of the United States - to get one million votes for peace, prosperity and progress.

Even after taking off a week to rest and recuperated in Vegas, I’m still at a loss for words to express how grateful I am to the members of my staff, all the volunteers who worked so hard on this campaign, the donors and supporters who made this campaign possible - and my family, the Libertarian Party. I could not have done anything without your hard work, dedication, and perseverance.

I would thank you all from the bottom of my heart … but for you, my heart has no bottom.

Lee Wrights is a great, great man.  I'm gonna work on getting him to appear at the Tarrant LP Speaker Series.  Good stuff, good stuff. 

On the Democrat Party mindset

I went to a local Community College Thursday night to hear Hugh Chauvin participate in a candidate forum.  Hugh is running as a Libertarian for Congress in the Texas 6th District. 

Hugh did well, of course.  He's a Libertarian.  His Republican opponent, Joe Barton, was busy in D.C.  His Democrat party opponent wasn't able to stay for the entire forum and had to bail halfway through the event.

Then came the candidates for District 33. 

OMG. 

The Libertarians don't have a candidate running in this new, Gerrymandered district. 

The only Republican running is a pleasant enough chap, but he told the audience that the president he most admired was FDR.  (In the opinion of many, FDR got us through the Great Depression.  In the opinion of others, the best way to prolong a recession is to get the government involved in trying to end the recession.  See: Obama, B. or Carter, J. or Roosevelt, FD.) 

This was the first time for me to observe Democrat Party candidates in the wild, in their natural academic setting.  Their core beliefs, as stated Thursday night, are centered around the following key principles:

1) There is a war on women. 

2) If it weren't for the guiding hand of Dear Leader, the Teleprompter Jesus, none of us would survive. 

3) The best way to get money into the economy is for government to take it from the wealthy, take a cut off the top for themselves, then give some of the money to favored contributors and constituencies.  (There is a competing, less popular, Libertarian theory that says if the wealthy are allowed to keep more of their own money, they'll leave it in banks to earn something called "interest".  The only way the bank can pay this "interest" is to loan it to people who are working in the economy.  This method allows fewer opportunities for graft and cronyism, and therefore is unacceptable.) 

4) The Affordable Care Act will decrease the cost of healthcare, simply because that is the stated goal of the program. 

5) The best way to create jobs is through government programs. 

6) In a debate or forum setting, it's best not to mention government programs that are bankrupt, ineffective, or failures.  This limits the discussion to government programs that have not yet been implemented. 

7) Government seldom spends money.  Government invests. 

8) The solution to our energy woes is through sunshine and algae. 

In the late 1970's, I saw the original Alien movie on the big screen.  Ditto for Friday The 13th and Halloween.  None of those films were as scary as this political event. 

We don't have a Libertarian candidate in this race.  If I lived there, I'd probably go for Pastor Kyev Tatum (D).  I disagree with the guy on a lot of issues, but he had some good things to say about education. The only Republican seemed out of his depth, plus the last thing we need is Republicans who think that more government involvement is the best way to grow the economy. That's an ender.
Sheesh.

Go here to visit Pastor Tatum's website.

Interview with Gary Johnson

The Tarrant County Libertarian Party recently sponsored a debate between six candidates vying for the LP nomination. 
It was pure, undiluted greatness.  I'll post more on it when I get the final cut of the video.  10,000 Thanks to John Spivey for putting that event together.   


Shortly before the debate, Mike Coyne and I got a chance to talk with former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson.

Gary Johnson has been referred to as the ‘most fiscally conservative Governor’ in the country and was the Republican Governor of New Mexico from 1995-2003. Governor Johnson brings a distinctly business-like mentality to governing, believing that decisions should be made based on cost-benefit analysis rather than strict ideology.


An avid skier, adventurer, and bicyclist, he has reached the highest peak on four of the seven continents, including Mt. Everest.

Why libertarian?

I believe that most people are “closet libertarians”. Most of us are fiscally conservative. Most of us are socially tolerant.

What was the catalyst that brought you to libertarianism?

I received a free libertarian handout book/pamphlet around 1971, and it struck a nerve. The man who gave it to me simply said “Here, read this; pass it on.” The contents of that book have stuck with me, and every time an issue or policy came up, there was no ambiguity.

Johnson then told a couple of stories about going to conventions back in the early 1980’s, and discussing the Democrat, Republican and Libertarian policy positions and debate performances. The general consensus was that the Libertarians had the best positions and debaters, but the conventioneers would go back to their parties and continue voting the way they had always voted.
He also mentioned the undiluted thrill of recently going to the Florida State Fair and wearing a Libertarian T-shirt.

“I believe that certain Republican positions are indefensible – in my opinion – bombing the planet into submission, for instance.

I’ve never put myself into that position by wearing a Republican T-shirt. Guys, these events (like our debate) are like coming out of the closet for me.”

How can libertarians change the world?

“Poll at 15%. I’m already at 7% on an Obama/Republican challenger ballot ! That’s the opportunity. Once we hit 15%, the Libertarians can go onstage against the other two parties in the debates. The other game-changer….if we get 5% of the vote, the Libertarian Party gets 90 million dollars in matching funds for their next candidate. That would change everything.”

Here’s the unofficial Tarrant County LP stance on taking this money: Taxpayers voluntarily checked the box agreeing to send an extra dollar in taxes to fund presidential elections. This was a voluntary contribution. There is no moral or philosophical problem connected to taking this money. Whether a total of 270 million dollars is contributed to this pile every four years (90 each for the Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians) is a subject for further research.  Yeah, it's a problem.  One of the State Libertarian Executive Committee members sitting beside me almost birthed a large softball when Johnson made a similar remark during the debate. 

How would you contrast libertarians with conservatives and contemporary liberals?

“Libertarians embrace the best of the liberals or Democrats in protecting our civil liberties. The Democrats haven’t done very well on those issues. Conservatives, or Republicans, are supposedly the guardians of the checkbook, and they’ve not done well there at all. My first vote for a Libertarian candidate (David Bergland) was essentially against Ronald Reagan in his second election, mostly because of Reagan’s deficit spending.”

“Here’s how we get to 15%, and if I’m not the winning candidate in 2012, I’m coming back in 2016. I wouldn’t be in this thing if I didn’t think I could win. 80% of the electorate now say that they would support a 3rd party candidate. Independents now outnumber Democrats ! My pledge, if elected, is to present Congress with a budget in January 2013. It will have a 43% (or 1.4 trillion) reduction in spending. If we don’t (make these cuts) we’ll find ourselves with nothing.

We can do it. We just have to fix it.”

You eventually became known as "Governor Veto".  Vetoed something like 450 bills?  How difficult was that. 

Not very.  Actually it was closer to 700.  Look, the sky wasn't going to fall if these pieces of legislation weren't passed.  Only two vetoes were overturned.  But billions and billions of dollars were saved.

I believe that I vetoed more bills than all 49 of the other governers.  People liked it !  They knew what was going on. 

If I had been dictator, I could've cut government spending by 1/3, and no one would have noticed.

And I was always described as a libertarian. 

What's the secret of starting a successful business? 

I put out a circular that said "College Student Needs Work:  Carpentry, Painting, Cement, Everything!!".  I showed up on time, I got the job done properly, and then did a little more than necessary. 

What economists do you like to read or follow?

Jeffry Miron of Harvard is my top economics advisor.  (Miron is also the author of "Libertarianism: A to Z")

What about the "sick child" argument for government spending?  There's a sick child requiring hundreds of thousands of dollars in care, and there's no way that private charity can handle the expense....

I oversaw the reform of Medicare in New Mexico, from a Fee For Services model to a Managed Care model.   If the Feds had block granted 43% less, I could've still served the poor with that much less in funding.  So how do you fix the system?  Give Block Grants to the states.  Establish 50 laboratories, each one experimenting to find the best solution, as opposed to a Washington "Top Down" model. 

Same model for education.  The states are (currently) getting eleven cents of every dollar they spend from Washington, but that eleven cents comes with sixteen cents worth of strings attached. 

Why do you think Civil Libertarians continue to support Obama? 

My ACLU Report Card is the best of any of the candidates. 

Johnson went on to give the scores for each candidate still in the race.  He was speaking faster than I could write at this point, and I didn't catch all of the numbers, assuming they would be on the ACLU site.  According to this guy, Gary Johnson scored a 21, Ron Paul was scored at 18, Barack Obama came in third with a 16, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry each were rated at 2, while Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum scored a zero.  
This ACLU Liberty Report Card shows the same ranking, but with slightly different totals. 


Anything else you would like to tell us, Governor? 

This is like "coming out of the closet" for me.  It's good to be here.   

Can you imagine how much money we would have saved if, back in the early '90's, Gary Johnson had been elected President instead of Governor?  Or how much lower The Butcher's Bill for our overseas adventures would be? 
Great guy, that Gary Johnson !!!

Tarrant County Libertarian Meetup Tonight !!!!!

Hello Tarrant County Libertarians !

We’ll be having another Tarrant County Libertarian Meetup on Thursday, March 8th, at 7:00 p.m. in the Zio Carlo Brewpub – 1001 West Magnolia, Fort Worth.
We have a lot of things to discuss – Ben Bernanke is wanting to print another batch of money, President Obama vetoed the Keystone Pipeline project, gold and silver prices are fluctuating daily, Iran and Israel are squaring off at each other, and the Republicans seem to think that their best chance of defeating Barack Obama is by nominating…..another Barack Obama.

... So how can a bunch of Libertarians sitting around a brewpub have an impact on all of this?

Tarrant County is playing host to the Libertarian Party Presidential Debates on April 7th. (Our eventual nominee will be chosen at the Las Vegas Libertarian Party convention in May.)
Because of the well-publicized discontent with President Obama and the Republican field of candidates, there is an excellent chance that the winning LP candidate will be polling high enough to participate in the September and October multi-party debates against the President and his Republican challenger. The Libertarian Party has never had a better chance to win.

At Thursday night’s meetup you will have a chance to submit questions for our April 7th Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Debate! The best questions will be submitted to our debate moderator. You can influence the direction of the Libertarian Party with your questions and concerns. (Remember Rick Perry’s “Whoop’s” moment in the Republican debate? Think of the impact of that one question….)

Please show up Thursday night with questions that will help us narrow the field !

See you there,

Allen Patterson
Tarrant County Libertarian Party Chair

P.S. – We’d also like to start a monthly book discussion group. Bring your suggestions for those events also.

Return Of The Chickenhawks !!!!

It looks like we've finally gotten an anti-war movement going again! 
(Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are the only ones in it, of course.)


Like I read someplace on the 'net recently, calling Paul and Johnson "isolationists" is like calling your neighbor a "hermit" because he doesn't come into your yard and house and bust all your stuff. 


Here's something from Anti-War.com:

What a joy to see Ron Paul take down Newt “Chickenhawk” Gingrich in front of millions of Americans. Slogging through fifteen Republican presidential debates was totally worth it just to witness this defining moment. Dianne Sawyer, who sounded like she was on Quaaludes, raised her eyebrows quizzically as she asked him if he stood by his previous characterization of Newt as a “chickenhawk.” Her tone implied she thought this a little harsh. Paul took this opening and ran with it:

“I think people who don’t serve when they could and they get three or four or even five deferments – they have no right to send our kids off to war … I’m trying to stop the wars, but at least, you know, I went when they called me up.”

Ouch! Having drawn the first blood of this presidential gladiatorial contest, the good Doctor moved in for the kill:

“We have hundreds of thousands coming back from these wars that were undeclared, they were unnecessary, they haven’t been won, they’re unwinnable, and we have hundreds of thousands looking for care. And we have an epidemic of suicide coming back. And so many have – I mean, if you add up all the contractors and all the wars going on, Afghanistan and in Iraq, we’ve lost 8,500 Americans, and severe injuries, over 40,000. And these are undeclared wars.”

Gingrich’s response was worse than if he had said nothing at all:

“The fact is, I never asked for deferment. I was married with a child. It was never a question. My father was, in fact, serving in Vietnam in the Mekong Delta at the time he’s referring to. I think I have a pretty good idea of what it’s like as a family to worry about your father getting killed. And I personally resent the kind of comments and aspersions he routinely makes without accurate information and then just slurs people with.”

The trap, so carefully set, was sprung: “I need one quick follow-up, said Paul with a gleam in his eye:

“When I was drafted, I was married and had two kids – and I went.”  (Here's the good Doctor with one of his boys.)

The applause was the loudest of the evening. Newt’s puffed up persona seemed to visibly shrink as he stood there on the stage, reduced to squealing like a stuck pig:

"I wasn’t eligible for the draft! I wasn’t eligible for the draft!”

Hit the link up top to read the whole thing.  Seriously, it's good stuff. 

It's going to be a great year for Liberty.  Let's pray together, shall we? 

Dear God, I know that I'm a sinner, and we are all sinners, but please, please, please let The Libertarian Party have Gary Johnson and Ron Paul on the same ticket.  Amen. 

Hit this link to see the video, which can't be embedded for some reason or another.  Otherwise, this thing would have more viewings than all the cute cat videos combined.  Pass the popcorn !!!!

This pic came from The Huffington Post. 

What Ron Paul said vs. What people think Ron Paul said

Here's something from the recent debate:

Wolf Blitzer: You’re a physician, Ron Paul, so you’re a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question.


A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides: “You know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it.” But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it. Who’s going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?

Ron Paul: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him. … But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced …. That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks.


I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.
… And we’ve given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it.


This whole idea, that’s the reason the cost is so high. 

The cost is so high because they dump it on the government. It becomes a bureaucracy; it becomes special interests. It kowtows to the insurance companies and the drug companies, and then on top of that, you have the inflation. The inflation devalues the dollar; we have lack of competition. There’s no competition in medicine. Everybody is protected by licensing. And we should actually legalize alternative health care, allow people to practice what they want.


Here's what the Lamestream Media is reporting that Ron Paul said:

Ron Paul: "Let 'em all die !!!   Die, die, die !!!"
*********

I think there's a difference. 

A dream about last night's Republican/Tea Party debate

I watched some of the CNN/Tea Party debate.  Mitt Romney can't bring himself to say that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.  And other than some great Ron Paulishness, that's all you need to know about the debate.   

All I could think of is this....  Imagine that Mitt Romney or Rick Perry get the nomination.  Imagine that one of them picks the other for Veep.  Or even better, he picks Santorum or Huntsman as Veep.   

Imagine Ron Paul deciding that he's not finished Speaking Truth To Power, and running at the top of the Libertarian ticket.  Then imagine that Gary Johnson gets the #2 spot. 

Imagine the debate between Romney, The Teleprompter Jesus and Ron Paul, in the unlikely event that the Republicrats or Demoblicans would allow an outsider to appear in a discussion of what they now think of as "their" election. 

We can only dream....

Why the Republicans shouldn't change the time of their debate

Somebody has scheduled The Teleprompter Jesus to make a very, very, very important jobs speech on Wednesday, September 7.  Obama is going to roll out his new plan to create jobs.  Very, very important. 

By accident or by design, this speech clashes with the Republican Primary debate to be held on the same date. 

Republican Speaker John Boehner, who apparently has the imagination of a potted plant, has actually asked The Teleprompter Programmers to schedule Obama's speech for a different time !!!!

The Republicans shouldn't dare push for a different time for Obama to read his jobs speech.  Opportunities like this one are rare.   

Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary, came very close to the best solution.  Carney suggested that the Republicans postpone their debate by an hour. 

Close, but not quite good enough. 

Here's what the Republican Party oughta do.  (I'm in the shipping and freight industry, and that qualifies me to make these suggestions.....)

The Obama jobs speech should be allowed to roll, uninterupted, on a mega-screen onstage at The Reagan Library, somewhere to the left or right of the debaters.  Let Obama's speech play for about 5 minutes.  This will allow Obama's programmers to blame Bush, blame the earthquake, blame what all he inherited, blame the Japanese Nuke Meltdown, blame the moon for being in the cusp between Virgo and Libra, and all of the usual Barackaganda that we've come to know and love.  None of that mess deserves a rebuttal any longer.   

When those 5 minutes of Presidential Throat-Clearing have run their course, each candidate for the Republican nomination will be handed a remote control that will allow him or her to freeze Obama's speech for 45 seconds.  Whoever hits "pause" first would get 45 seconds to destroy whatever Statist lunacy our president has proposed.  Green Jobs, another stimulus, tax credits for behaving nicely, indebting unborn fetuses, investing in education, or whatever.  Rip it to shreds.  If someone wants to take a whack at, say, borrowing more money from China, he too can hit the pause button. 

The video could be programmed to ration one minute of Obama's Keynesian fantasies to every three minutes of Republican attempts at rebuttal, no matter how many candidates have hit the pause button.  After all, it's gotta end sometime.  I don't believe any responses but Ron Paul's would be worth listening to, but it would be some great freakin' television.  And if The Programmers know that the words they'll put in Obama's mouth are going to be ravaged in real time, it could possibly save the nation a few trillion dollars.  Who knows what could happen? 

One other question about this debate.... Why is the Lamestream Media's favorite Republican, Jon Huntsman, allowed to participate, while New Mexico's Libertarianish former governor Gary Johnson not allowed onstage? 

Worst. Debate. Format. Ever.

I decided to Tivo last night's Republican debate, choosing to go drink coffee with The Aggie instead of liveblogging it.  Heck, they invited Donald Trump to participate, but didn't invite the only semi-Libertarian with executive-level experience (Gary Johnson). 

Spending time on something else last night was a good call.  Lord have mercy, what a horrible format.  Let's have the moderator ask a question of just a few candidates, then cut to someone in the audience who wants to spend a few minutes asking a question, giving two candidates 8 seconds to answer, let's bracket the commercials with cutesy "either/or" "Letterman/Leno" "sadism/masochism" questions, and then cut to another CNN personality who introduces someone in Gobbler's Notch, New Hampshire, who says something like this:

"Hello, my name is Whited, and I have a Libertarian blog at www.thewhitedsepulchre.blogspot.com, and while I have no children serving in the military, but I support our troops, and have written extensively on the subject for mulitple periodicals, and have dozens of dozens of Twitter followers, I'd like to ask the candidates a question that I believe goes to the heart of our predicament as taxpayers and voters.  As a blogger and a shipping manager (and a libertarian activist), I depend on a stable fuel supply to run my business.  While this does not have a direct correlation with ObamaCare, what would you do, as President, to defend marriage?" 

I've noticed this for years at literary and political events.  If you're lucky enough to ask, say, Stephen King or Ron Paul a question, get to the point.  The rest of the audience doesn't care about what books your currently reading, your job, or your motivation for asking the question. 

Just ask the question. 

A couple of other things.... When Newt started bragging that he wrote the Defense Of Marriage Act, I almost spewed my breakfast across the den.  I don't care who you are, that's funny. 

Last, with ALL Republicans at this event brandishing their small government credentials for an hour and a half last night, how is it that we're 14 trillion in debt ?

Worst. Debate. Ever.

Stephen Green of Pajamas Media drunkblogged the Republican debates last night.  Green's best line was about the libertarian-ish Gary Johnson:

As a semi-recovering member, I can tell you: He’s a typical libertarian — great on the facts, snoozy/geeky/awkward on the delivery. If you loved the Atlas Shrugged movie, you’re totally digging him right now.



I Tivo'd the debate, and watched about 2/3rds of it this morning.  A few observations:

1) Fox News hosted it, and set it up as a series of "gotcha" questions to each candidate, rather than bringing up an issue and letting all 5 participants address the same question.  Therefore, the debate had the exciting feel and flow of channel surfing in a hotel with 5 TV stations. 

2) Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum are two incredibly dull people.  I actually found myself yearning for the 190 pounds of wind, shit and excitement known as Mitt Romney. 

3) Herman Cain is a lot of fun.  I'd work for that guy.  (The businessman, not the potential president.) 

4) Gary Johnson, when he starts to awkwardly explain something, reminds me of....me. 

5) Can we all, for the good of our Republic, pull together as a nation and RENT a new suit for Ron Paul? 

This debate was a total waste of time.  Fox News shouldn't be allowed to host a post-baptism family luncheon at East Fork County Line Baptist Church.  If Pawlenty and Santorum are supposed to be the "establishment" candidates, the Republicans need a new establishment.  Paul and Johnson, the two libertarians, could both use a speech coach.  Herman Cain probably gained the most ground from this event. 

Here's who I'd like to see as debate moderators next time.....

Denny from The Grouchy Old Cripple. 
Rachel Maddow from MSDNC.
Don Boudreaux from Cafe Hayek (and, incidentally, George Mason University)
Nick Gillespie from Reason magazine.
Keith Olbermann from Al Gore's TV station. 

Each presidential candidate would be allowed to ask one question during the two hour debate.  The moderators would discuss the question for 10 minutes or blood flowed, whichever comes first. 

Lord have mercy, that thing last night was dull. 

Painful video from New York Assembly debate

Go here for the details.  This is New York Assemblyman Bob Reilly, in the most painful debate performance I've ever seen. 
My favorite part isn't the imitation of Carl Kyle, but the 10 second glare at the end.  It's like he's saying, "Top that, sucker !!!"



I know Kyle, and Bob nailed him.  Give that man an Oscar !!! 

The Democratic debates, revisited

Dr. Ralph, who is the Laurel to my Hardy on this site, enjoys asking "where were The Libertarians?" back when G.W. Bush was blowing the budget, trashing the constitution, and generally behaving like a John The Baptist forerunner of The Obamessiah Who Did Not Yet Dwell Among Us.

While researching the answer to that thorny question, I stumbled across this, one of my live-blogs of the Democrat Presidential Debates.  I think it's worth revisiting.  Lordy, they all seemed so innocent then.   

And yes, I really did think that Joe Biden won it. 

That's Mike Gravel on the far left (figuratively, not literally.)  There's Obama, waiting to be annointed.  Then Chris Dodd, waiting to be indicted.  Next is John Edwards, smiling and pointing at his videographer.  Dennis Kucinich, if you read my link, is trying to find the right combination of hand claps that will allow him to once again commune with The Mother Ship.  Joe Biden is standing back, aloof, wondering who all those other guys are pointing at.  Bill "Pay To Play" Richardson is protecting his crotch against a possible upcoming FBI investigation.  On the far right (figuratively, not literally) is the 2012 Democrat candidate, patiently waiting her turn. 

Libertarian Gubernatorial Debate, Southern Methodist University, February 16th 2010

I have about 5,000 good things to say about the Libertarian Gubernatorial Debate that was held at SMU last night. 
Any of the four Libertarian candidates for Texas governor, Jeff Daiell, Ed Tidwell, Steve Nicholls, or Katherine Youngblood Glass, would be a superior alternative to the gang leaders being offered by The Crips and The Bloods.  I'll try to post some opinions about each candidate later tonight. 

Here's what impressed me most, though.  Check out the SMU Libertarian website.  The Southern Methodist University Libertarians have divided up their organization into a variety of interest groups: NORML (National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws), GLBTA (Gay, Lesbian, Bi-, Transexual, and I have know idea what the "A" stands for, and I'm not going to speculate here), Tea Baggers (note the SMU mustang's tail on the logo), and Gun Rights.  They listed some other new goups in their intro to the debate, things like Austrian Economics.  This way they have a subdivision for kids who might be passionate about fighting Victim Disarmament Laws, but who might be lukewarm about economic issues.  Good idea. 

I sat behind some of their officers, and couldn't help overhear one particular conversation.  They were sitting in a pack, of course, and one of the leaders stood up and said "Hey, guys, look around this auditorium at all these people.  These are our potential group members.  Leaders don't sit and chat with each other at an event like this.  Let's get out there and mingle."  They got out there and mingled. 

Well said, sir.  We can be a traveling evangelist, or church preachers.  We need evangelists.     

8 or 9 kids were there from Allen, Texas.  They have a Libertarian Facebook group, and were at the debate simply because they're into it.  After the debate I walked with them back toward the parking garage and was pleasantly surprised at how well they caught the distinctive hot button characteristics of each candidate. 
BTW, more than one kid said told me that his/her parents were a bit cynical about their involvement with the Libertarians. 
Hang in there guys.  The Republicrats and Demoblicans are running up a huge bar tab on your credit cards, and I apologize for my generation and the one that came before me.  If you're really lucky, somebody will attack Pearl Harbor again and we can bomb some of our competitors back into the Stone Age and take all their property.  (Kinda joking, but I see no other way out.) 
Guess who the Allen High School Libertarians thought won the debate? 
Jeff Daiell. 
Jeff Daiell has read, researched, campaigned, and fought for the Libertarian Party for ages.  Jeff isn't in the best health and therefore is kind of frail looking, and he's got hair made for radio.   
And one of the Allen High School Libertarians said "Jeff Daiell rocked." 

Our children (my own little Aggie among them) are figuring this stuff out.  They know they're the ones who will have diminished lives if present trends continue. 
I was impressed with all four of our candidates for governor. 
I was blown away by the audience. 

Here's The Who, from 1965.  The Kids Are Alright. 



I feel better about my country than I did yesterday. Thank you, Texas gubernatorial candidates for putting yourselves out there for us.  Thank you SMU Libertarians and Dallas County Libertarians for hosting, Thank you Paul Peterson for moderating, and thanks to the Allen High School Libertarians for improving my outlook.

Nick Gillespie debates Lawrence Lessig

My friend Dr. Ralph, of The Journal Of Post-Ralphaelite Thought, has long been the agent provocateur of this site, and he does his job well. Especially for someone whose job it is to be WRONG WRONG WRONG on almost all economic issues.
Dr. Ralph admires Harvard University's Lawrence Lessig.

I'm a huge fan of Reason magazine's Nick Gillespie. I have a black leather jacket that's almost identical to the one Gillespie wears to all his video and TV appearances, and my political opinions are almost identical to Gillespie's, but I have much less hair.

Lessig and Gillespie debate The Supreme Court's recent Citizens United ruling here. Bill Moyers is the moderator.

Enjoy.