Well said Mr. Davis. Congrats.

Dinesh D'Souza should realize that with religion and past lives, one fath or biography doesn't fit all. I started out as a liberal before embracing the libertarian philosophy. I know libertarians of a wide variety of religions. The president of our chapter is Jewish. While I belong to a religion that considers home sexual behaviour to be morally wrong, I have no objection to gays serving in the armed forces or running for elective office.

I definitely support the idea that people should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it's voluntary and nobody else gets hurt.

Well, he said "many", not "most." I think we could all agree that it is, at least, "some."
Anyone with an insider's view of the conservative movement or Republican party would find just as much "immoral behavior", drunkenness, fornication, wife-beating, homosexual activity, etc. within those organizations as within libertarian ones. Certainly, however, we have them beat on atheism.
Not that there is anything wrong with it.

Creech: I've put a link up on the Facebook group page that shows the Conservative Republican moral hypocrisy.

Here's a little secret that a lot of you should know: When compared to John Kerry, William Jefferson is a conservative (I payed attention to his radio ads).

ANDREW DAVIS WROTE: "For me as a Southern Baptist, I saw the Libertarian Party as the only political party committed to the basic principles of my faith."

How many others find this statement odd? It's been my experience that most all/many "Southern Baptists" are sexually uptight and ignorant warmongers, authoritarians, etc...A near perfect fit as supporters of the stinking Republican Party!..they are certainly not 'libertarian' in any honest sense!..

Mr. Davis did the LP send out a media release about Bush signing the budget bill?

MHW

Mr. Clark, you are sadly correct about many Southern Baptists who are guilty of following the crowds to the polling booths instead of investigating and thinking for themselves about the issues and the candidates. Mr. Davis is correct here, the LP often espouses values quite similar at the core to that of the SBC. However, because the moral initiatives of the GOP get more attention, many social conservatives form a subconscious litmus test (based on whatever social issue seems paramount to them) for the frontrunners and vote accordingly. It's sad but true that many Southern Baptists are politically uninformed or misinformed and apathetic toward research. I know this because I am one, though not apathetic toward research of course. :) Most of the individuals I've spoken to feel it's almost their moral obligation to vote straight GOP, which is quite sad actually. Political illiteracy is rampant and I am uncertain as to its solution.

D'Souza has made a career out of generalizing groups of people he doesn't understand. Perhaps he should learn shut his mouth before his foot gets stuck in it so often. I know of few people who know what the taste of their own foot is like so well as Dinesh D'Souza.

What D'Souza always fails to point out is that the smallest minority (much smaller than the percentage of atheists in the general population) of those doing time in the U.S. prison system are atheists. Why does he conveniently ignore such things?

"According to D'Souza, who recently blogged about Christopher Hitchens' appearance at a Reason magazine Christmas event, 'many libertarians are basically conservatives who are either gay or druggies or people who generally find the conservative moral agenda too restrictive.'"

What? No, no, I'm much more like a liberal who simply thinks forcing people to share at the point of a gun is wholly unethical.

One of the things I love about libertarianism is that it's open to everybody. If you're more conservative in your personal life, but refuse to force your values onto others, you are a libertarian. On the other hand, if you're more liberal in your personal life, but refuse to force your values onto others, you are also a libertarian!

If you're Christian, fine! If you're atheist, fine! If you're Hindu, fine! Islamic, Jewish, Paegan, Satanist, all are welcome!

Straight, welcome. Gay, welcome. Bi-sexual, welcome. Pansexual, come on in! Asexual, you're welcome, too.

Do some libertarians smoke pot or drink? No doubt some do. But we likewise have many straight-edge libertarians, people who reject all non-medicinal drugs (including alcohol) but whom see the war on drugs as a massive failure which wastes money, restricts Liberty, and fills our prisons with non-violent victims of the system.

In summation, the Libertarian Party, and the larger libertarian movement, are big-tent. In fact, if this is the first thing you ever read on libertarianism, chances are you already agree with libertarians on something.

Cheers,
Alex Peak

Well said Alex Peak.

On another issue. Here is a press release from LP founder David Nolan.

"More than 100 members of the Libertarian Party, including its founder, a former Presidential candidate, and two of the 2008 Presidential aspirants, have signed a petition calling on the 2008 Platform Committee and convention delegates to restore the 2004 Platform as the starting point for the 2008 version. The petition appears on the website of the newly-formed Restoration Caucus:

http://www.restore04.com

The first 100 endorsers of the proposal signed up in less than three days, with more names coming in at about one per hour, according to website coordinator Jack Dean. "We're very pleased by this
enthusiastic response," he said. "We launched the site on December 26, and were hoping for 100 signers by year-end. To reach that goal in
only three days shows that a lot of Libertarians are very unhappy with what happened at the Portland convention in 2006, and want to undo the
damage that was done there." Among the high-profile Libertarians signing the first day were Presidential contenders Steve Kubby and Christine Smith. Anyone wishing to join them in this effort to keep the LP "the party of principle" is urged to log on at www.restore04.com and sign the petition."

I am Libertarian, and have run for office several times under the banner. I am NOT a conservative, though I used to be when it did not involve the religious influence that now dominates that movement. Not to change the subject entirely, but, like many Libertarians, I have sent money to Ron Paul -- perhaps just to irritate his fellow Republicans. Yesterday, via his MySpace page, I viewed his latest TV ad in New Hampshire -- aimed at illegal immigrants, and touting his "no amnesty" stand. What a shame that he has sold out to the haters. No more money or support will come from me. Now, let's get to work on building our own party, so there will be a real alternative on election day!

Liberty is a unifying force indeed. I am a liberal Democrat turned Libertarian/Ron Paul supporter, and it's really wonderful to see secular liberals AND Christian fundamentalists both rallying behind Dr. Paul. Bill Clinton, George Bush, John Kerry, Mike Dukakis, etc. coudn't bring those groups together, they didn't come close. But Dr Paul has, so far.

If we as an nation are to survive and prosper in the next century or longer, we must embrace the libertarian philosophy. Governnment has taxed us too severely, taken away too many rights, and fought too many wars. The statists have had their day, it's time for them to move out.

I ally myself with Hitchens on religion. It is authoritarian by design, with God as omnipotent Kim Jong-il. D'Souza always loses every debate, because he relies wholly on straw-men and other fallacious methods of argument. Truth is truth; lies are lies. You cannot spin either to make them appear as their opposites. That is to say: you can try, but you will ultimately fail, as D'Souza does, because every person is born with an internal BS-detector, pre-installed at the factory. Critical thought can only lead the objective thinker to concede that Hitchens is right on religion (never mind that he is wrong on politics, and always has been...funny how a man can do a political 180 and still end up dead wrong).

Paul, et al

Nothing happened at the '06 NatCon to water down Libertarian Principles.

What the Reform Caucus (www.reformthelp.org) accomplished there and will continue to push for is for the LP to become more competitive in the political arena while MAINTAINING our basic principles of small government, low taxes, and maximized individual liberty & responsibility.

We cannot grow liberty in this country by advocating things like selling off national parks and promoting a concept as bizzare as legalizing access to drugs and sex for children.

We either want to advance real liberty, or not.

JOHN SHUEY WROTE: "What the Reform Caucus (www.reformthelp.org) accomplished there and will continue to push for is for the LP to become more competitive in the political arena while MAINTAINING our basic principles of small government, low taxes, and maximized individual liberty & responsibility." (End)

It's been my experience "The Reform Caucus" is dominated by stinking Republican Party operatives..

I believe you'll find many Republican suck-holes such as !Frank Luntz--a long-time, Republican/corporate pollster/poltroon--are affiliated with these Republican phonies/future Mitt Romney suckholes, etc. suck-holes at "The (stinking) Reform Caucus!..

As we proceed, fellow libertarians, maybe first and foremost, let's acknowledge that these stinking 'political competitions,' to which we are all somewhat witness, are A STINKING FRAUD!..and that the most powerful force$, the most important 'issue$,' etc., WILL NOT BE DISCUSSED BY ANY STINKING REPUBLICRAT NOMINEE!

..'The power$ that be' don't want anyone 'nominated' who is a threat to the existing, $tinking order!..So get used to listening to the likes of stinking HillBilly Clinton, Nitwit Mitt, and the rest of the god-damned 100-'dollar'-haircuts-on-5-'dollar'-heads, as they promise to 'fix' the illion 'dollar' eCONomy even though they are WORSE than ignorant about the nature, origin, etc. of even one 'dollar!'

(And !Happy New Year, Republicrats and sane decent people too!) (;>)

Mr. Paul's immigration stance troubles me as well, but then again, so did Michael Badnarik's. What neither Paul's commercial nor his critics say is that Paul has said that we must make significant progress toward dismantling the welfare state before "open borders" can be practical. On the other hand, he would streamline and open up the immigration process so that many more people could come in legally than the immigration-conservatives might wish.

As a Libertarian, I want there to be at least one place in the world where liberty can flourish. In the world as it is, such a territory is necessarily defined by borders. We need to be able to define, enforce, and defend the borders of our territory, and nobody should be "rewarded" for violating them. On the other hand, the law should make it quick, simple, and straightforward for peaceful people to cross the borders for business, travel, or pleasure, reducing the number and scope of "border violations." Further, the process of becoming a citizen should likewise be straightforward, predictable, and nowhere near as byzantinely burdensome as is now the case. From what he has said and written, it seems that Paul would push for suitable reforms in the laws. By not accepting amnesty, Paul sends a signal that the laws should be respected. But in things he has said and written, he states clearly that there are many laws on our books, including in the area of immigration, that are NOT RESPECTABLE. I get the impression that he wishes to resolve the conflict between the understandable need for people to respect the law, and the need to retain on the books only those laws that can be respected. It will be interesting to see what specific immigration reform proposals will be publicized by the Paul camp before the primary/caucus season ends. I don't think that Paul's immigration stance is as bad as hard-core libertarians might think; but this would mean that his stance would be WORSE than immigration-conservatives might think. Which side of the house will Paul play to, I wonder?

Clark: It's been my experience "The Reform Caucus" is dominated by stinking Republican Party operatives..

Bob: That's quite an assertion, Clark. Please provide evidence. I can tell you I'm not a Republican and have never even voted for a Republican. I'm in the Reform Caucus, and I know of no GOP operatives in the leadership or membership, to my knowledge.

If you're going to make wild assertions, please back them up.

A wonderful article! We need Southern Baptists and other Christians and people of other faiths in the liberty movement. When enough of them understand liberty the way this author does, our movement will take a gigantic leap forward. Thank you for writing!

Apparently most of the Southern Baptists are supporting Huckabee, their religious candidate of choice. Have they forgotten that the 9/11 attacks were "faith-based initiatives?"

BOB WROTE: "That's quite an assertion, Clark. Please provide evidence. I can tell you I'm not a Republican and have never even voted for a Republican. I'm in the Reform Caucus, and I know of no GOP operatives in the leadership or membership, to my knowledge.
If you're going to make wild assertions, please back them up." (END)

BOB, it's obvious to me the "Republicrat" people, etc. wafflers, who dreamed up the following fluffery are deluded..BTW THIS STINKING DRIVEL SOUNDS LIKE IT COULD BE A STINKING SHITT ROMNEY/HILLBILLY CLINTON COMMERCIAL!!:

"Short Platform A...

1. Cut taxes, simplify the tax code, eliminate wasteful spending, and balance the budget.

2. Bring our brave troops home from Iraq, maintain a strong national defense, and secure our borders"...etceterot! (END)

(hint: I learned to love the LP for the BOLD 'truths' 'the party' promoted..the knowledge I gained from THE PLATFORM, etc.,
..certainly not the stinking, wishy-washy, slick, Madison Ave., focus-tested, empty, Republicrat, weasel-words to which you folks seem prone!

Btw, if I lived in ?NC, etc. I would probably attend a meeting(s) and (mostly) be silent, cordial..BUT I'D CONSTANTLY BE THINKING: "IT'S NOT "THE PLEDGE" OR "THE PLATFORM," ETC., "KEEPING PEOPLE AWAY FROM LIBERTARIANISM," you semi-Republicrats, etcetercrats!

..Btw, CLARK enthusiasts, it seems AT LEAST some of these folks are goofy abortion prohibitionists..yacking about the evils of 'big government' yet shilling for some stinking government abortion polic(e)ies!..attempting to use government to enforce their Republicrat world-view(s) here.. (;o)

I'm a hedonistic atheist, but I'm also a hard-worker with a strong set of morals. Stronger in many ways than Republicans or Democrats who steal from my 60 hour work week paycheck. But that's the great part about this Party. I can be a hedonistic atheist, this guy can be an uptight bigot, and we don't have to deal with each other.

A lot of people get the wrong idea re: Southern Baptists and other evangelicals.

Look, anyone whose basic attitude is "the Bible should be interpreted according to the intent of the authors, and where that is vague, according to its plain language; and the lessons therein should really seriously limit one's behavior" and who regards departures from that view as intrinsically shady and dishonest, is going to have a LOT in common with folks who say, "the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted according to the intent of the authors, and where that is vague, according to its plain language, and the laws therein should really seriously limit one's legislation" and who regard departures from that view as intrinsically shady and dishonest. The parallels are screamingly obvious.

A lot of (theologically) conservative evangelicals were "politically homeless" until the Republican party became socially conservative and demonstrated that it did not habitually disparage those in the populace who have a relationship with their Creator. Once they heard a few kind words from the GOP, they gravitated to it, thinking it was their only friend in town. (Even though all the GOP really did was parrot the same kinds of "civic religion" phrases used by nearly every noteworth U.S. President right through Bill Clinton.)

The Democrat base (and to some extent its leadership) has only reinforced this impression. They consistently exhibit any of three attitudes toward churchgoing/churchgoers:
(a.) that church is and should be a cross between a social club, a Planned Parenthood chapter, and a PAC, rather than a place for communing with an existing, living, caring God;
(b.) that church is a self-help group for socially-stunted snaggle-toothed illiterate bigoted hicks;
(c.) that religion is a conversation topic so fearsome that mentioning it provokes more cold sweats than a waterside drive with Ted Kennedy (were Victorians ever as prudish about sex as Democrat candidates are about religion?).

So, given those choices, where would a Southern Baptist go? Especially when he's never heard of the Libertarian party? Or, if he has heard of it, all he knows is that it's "the pot legalization party?" Hmm. "Never used it m'self. I dunno that I have much in common with a group of folks willing to form a political party about it." (Like it or not, that IS the usual first impression.)

Now the funny thing is, when you really talk about it with a Southern Baptist, he generally does NOT want to lock up gays. And, he knows no GOP candidate is seriously contemplating doing so. He gets disgusted by GOP pork and "welfare for businesses" but figures that's the price you pay for choosing the lesser of two evils, and anyway, "the Democrats do it too."

In short, his personal behavior is socially conservative, but as to whether that means government should *enforce* socially conservative behavior? Well, he hasn't really thought about it much, "but now that you mention it, I suppose it'd be a problem if the county sheriff had to arrest everyone who cheated on his wife." Which is no bad place to start the conversation.

My point is that Christianity does actually contain serious Libertarian streaks -- more so, I think, than any other Theistic faith, though I may be mistaken -- and that, given the right kind of outreach, Libertarians could capture the evangelical vote. That evangelicals are not usually Libertarians mostly results from them not perceiving LP as an option. It's not on the menu.

But LP would have to speak the right language and address the right concerns. I believe LP can do this without sacrificing libertarian principles, by merely pointing out to the evangelical how profoundly libertarianism lines up with the Christian view of God and man.

(Sorry for the long post. I could go on for hours.)

Now that IOWA has the option to select libertarian or green on the voter's registration, I requested a new form and I'm SWITCHING from dumbocrat to libertarian immediately.
here's how you do it- you put a big fat red X in the box where it says "libertarian", fill out the rest of the form and mail it back.
You fill it in like I did here;

http://www.imageposter.com/uploads/get/169034

Clark, some of your last post sounds hostile and hyperbolic. Sorry you feel that way.

Here's a few suggestions:

CLARK: BOB, it's obvious to me the "Republicrat" people,

BOB: Earlier, you'd said "Republican Party operatives." Now, it's "Repubicrats." So, it appears that you're backing off a specific assertion, and now making a more generalized ad hominem attack. It's an improvement, IMO.

CLARK: THIS STINKING DRIVEL SOUNDS LIKE IT COULD BE A STINKING SHITT ROMNEY/HILLBILLY CLINTON COMMERCIAL!!:

BOB: Your opinion is duly noted.

CLARK: (hint: I learned to love the LP for the BOLD 'truths' 'the party' promoted..the knowledge I gained from THE PLATFORM, etc.,
..certainly not the stinking, wishy-washy, slick, Madison Ave., focus-tested, empty, Republicrat, weasel-words to which you folks seem prone!

BOB: Yes, based on the level of your language, Clark, I can see why you'd be attracted to hyperbole. Whether the current platform is the "truth" seems to be an open question. For ex., the CURRENT platform says this: "We further oppose all attempts to ban weapons or ammunition on the grounds that they are risky or unsafe." Is that the "truth"? This implies that Libertarians support the "right" to private nuclear weapons. I assure you, Clark, not THIS Libertarian.

Now that Ron Paul "beat" Giuliani in the Iowa caucus, will Giuliani be excluded from the Fox forum?

James R.-
Last I checked the weather channel Hell is not due for any ice.

TO NO SURPRISED HAS RON PAUL BEEN OMITTED FROM THE FOX NEWS DEBATE. The media is soooo bent on pushing Hillary or Obama in our faces it is pathetic. I have read on quite a number of sites that talk about wanting Ron Paul. If Hillary or Obama wins run for the Hills, because I believe for sure that not only is the media bought out but I believe the voting is also fixed. I cannot believe for how many sites that talk about Ron Paul, that the media is doing everything that they can to shove him aside. Ron Paul is the most logical choice for most of his stances in comparision to the others he got right. Either we have such stupid people who is being bought out with money and don't care or the voting is fixed or both. Of course it is the big corporation that is controlling the news media and big corporation is owned by big brother.

Figured so, J.T.

Andrew Davis says of Dinesh D'Souza's characterization of libertarians as favoring "much wider parameters of personal behavior" that "such petty stereotypes demonstrate that the accuser has either a very tenuous understanding of the libertarian philosophy or is just stupid."

Sad though it is, Davis is probably being too charitable. My impression is that Dinesh D'Souza is neither stupid nor ignorant of libertarian philosophy. Rather, he is engaging in a disingenuous attempt to cost libertarians political support by trying to get his largely conservative audience to associate libertarianism with licentiousness.

The truth is that many libertarians *are* hedonists -- just as many conservatives are. A significant difference is that those conservatives are much more likely to be closeted hypocrites, being willing to see others jailed and persecuted for behavior they themselves engage in -- Larry Craig's restroom sex, George Bush's past drug use, Mark Foley's hiring of prostitutes, etc. Libertarians, hedonist or otherwise, say live and let live, and show the same respect for the rights of others that they insist on for themselves.

John Shuey writes: "We cannot grow liberty in this country by advocating things like selling off national parks and promoting a concept as bizzare as legalizing access to drugs and sex for children."

I'd appreciate knowing who is advocating sex for children in the LP which is what I am assuming Mr. Shuey is writing about.

Please clue me in.

Thank you,
MHW

ROBERT CAPOZZI, I stand pat..But I can forgive you folks for spewing Republican/crat weasely horsepucky..

..After all, you can hardly turn on your Pavlov's Dog radio without QUICKLY being treated to, for example, Willard Milton Romney's stinking, lying, Republican/crat cheerleaders!..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/14/romneys-bain-capital-buy_n_76801.html

"What would it cost to buy the support of just about every nationally-syndicated neocon talk show host in America? About $19.5 Billion, which is what Mitt Romney's private equity firm, Bain Capital, and Thomas H. Lee Partners have agreed to pay in a leveraged buyout agreement with Clear Channel Communications, the largest radio station owner in the country.

Ed. Note -- The original story we posted on this topic inferred that Bain Capital had recently purchased Clear Channel Communications. That is not true. The transaction took place in November of 2006. The facts remain that Bain earns a share of Clear Channel's profits and that Mitt Romney, while a retired partner, still earns money from the private equity firm."

(Small wonder stinking Limbaugh, Hannity, etcetercrats galore, have been sucking for Romney!..Btw, I know a lot of putzy Republican rubes who listen loyally to stinking 'Smear Channel'..I haven't met one yet who knows about this story!!)

Shouldn't Ron Paul have done better in New Hampshire or was that "free state" project just another pipedream?

Geez! No new blog subjects for 2 weeks. Somebody's sleeping on the job.

It looks like it's over for Paul... I'll still support him until the end but the powers that be have done everything they could to ignore and discredit his campaign, and it seems to have worked.
Well... here's to another 30 years to get noticed and have a chance.
For god's sake the people in this country are eventually going to wake up... even if it takes bankruptcy, depression, and socialism... if that is what it will take then so be it.
I say we vote for the most tyrannical candidate to quicken to oncoming downfall of this country, then maybe we can start over from scratch.
We've got a better chance at that than we do now.

I'd be interested to know what Ron Paul insiders may know about recent internet stories/rumors of ?'Ron Paul's affiliation with a 'racist' 'ignorant' newsletter(s), etc...

I've have seen no attributions/citations to any particular publication(s)..

Maybe some 'Libertarians for Rudy Jew' are former disgruntled employees?

YES PEOPLE DISCREDIT Ron campain, so does other politician that also get discredit. And even with some of these discredit, we still get bad politcian in office. The media tries to program us by pushing who they think they want in office by raming it down our throats.

Why didn't Bush get impeached, for every reason he shouldn't been elected in the first place. They want whats in it for them and we have stupid people who head is stuck up in the you know what think government is going to rescue them. OH save me, help me with health care. Yes put out a carrot and hook them and then treat them like cattle.

I would really like to see more discussion from both sides of the LP platform reform.

It is very disheartening to me to see the changes that have been made and will need to do some "soul searching" if I ever decide to vote Libertarian again.

For me the beauty of the Libertarian has been my peace of mind. Once the Party was introduced to me, I no longer needed to wrory about where my Party stood, what they believed and the integrity of the individual I was voting for.

I had so little concern for it that I felt I no longer needed to keep up with any issues at hand. My Party is steadfast and true. Well at least that is what I thought, now I am not so sure.

The Platform reform has shaken my "faith" and it may now be time to search for a new Party that will not waiver. I am all for change and breaking paradigms, but the LP was a welcomed constant in my life.

(Clark) "I'd be interested to know what Ron Paul insiders may know about recent internet stories/rumors of ?'Ron Paul's affiliation with a 'racist' 'ignorant' newsletter(s), etc...

I've have seen no attributions/citations to any particular publication(s)..

Maybe some 'Libertarians for Rudy Jew' are former disgruntled employees?

(Kevin) Clark, you are a poster-guy for libertarian hawks like myself, who decry the alignment of psuedo-libertarianism with neo-nazism (and, paradoxically, neo-pacifism). You exemplify some of the worst elements now infiltrating the movement. Your phrase "Libertarians for Rudy Jew" is highly offensive and indicative of a hateful and warped state of mind.

Perhaps you think that both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were the work of Jews? That kind of thinking almost extinguished the libertarian movement during WWII. Let us not repeat their mistakes as we fight a resumption of a centuries-long struggle between civilization and Jihadism, this time fueled by nationalized oil in dar al-Islam.

You want proof of Ron Paul's association with the Ron Paul Newsletter etc? Read this:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

Please view the website for the Libertarian Defense Caucus:

http://www.libertariandefensecaucus.blogspot.com/

KEVIN DEFECATED: "Your phrase "Libertarians for Rudy Jew" is highly offensive and indicative of a hateful and warped state of mind. (END)

Lighten up, you phony Republican-cheerleading blowhard!..in case you missed it, 'Rudy Jew,' like the rest of your phony neocon sewer rats, favors stealing billion$ from Americans and giving it to the vicious scum that runs the vicious state of Israel!..ergo "Rudy Jew"..

http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/lp-platform-proposals-for-2008/

I just cast my very first vote (just turned 18) for Ron Paul. It felt great... If he doesn't win the nomination I'll cast my second vote for The Libertarian Party come November.

Clark said: "KEVIN DEFECATED: "Your phrase "Libertarians for Rudy Jew" is highly offensive and indicative of a hateful and warped state of mind. (END)

Lighten up, you phony Republican-cheerleading blowhard!..in case you missed it, 'Rudy Jew,' like the rest of your phony neocon sewer rats, favors stealing billion$ from Americans and giving it to the vicious scum that runs the vicious state of Israel!..ergo "Rudy Jew"..

(Kevin) Arab/Muslim regimes get about 3x the amount of foreign aid that Israel receives. So, your criticism is not really about the aid, but the recipient.

You are misusing libertarian rhetoric to further your anti-Jewishness, probably extending to neo-Nazism. Comparing Jews with sewer rats is an old Nazi technique:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/der-ewige-jude/stills.shtml

Your characterization of my comments as "defecated" and your general lowbrow tone indicates a lack of intellectual foundation for your political musings. Your writing style, far from being Miseian, falls below even the low standards set by Hitler. At least, he could rouse a crowd.

You say, I am a Republican cheerleader. Yet, your hero, Ron Paul, is a Republican member of the House and is running for president in the Republican primary. Lew Rockwell is really the brains behind the Ron Paul front; and something is definitely rotten about a tiny band of bigots and theocrats, who far from being "anarcho-capitalist" do not even understand what that means.

In case you haven't noticed anything outside of your fever swamp, mainstream media are catching unto Ron and Lew's game, and have exposed their many connections to white supremists and Nazi apologists:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

and:

http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=656

and:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129

KEVIN SLITHERED: "Arab/Muslim regimes get about 3x the amount of foreign aid that Israel receives. So, your criticism is not really about the aid, but the recipient." (END)

You may fool some stinking Republicans..but no honest libertarians..

http://www.wrmea.com/us_aid_to_israel/index.htm

"..Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world's population and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes. Indeed, Israel's GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. With a per capita income of about $14,000, Israel ranks as the sixteenth wealthiest country in the world; Israelis enjoy a higher per capita income than oil-rich Saudi Arabia and are only slightly less well-off than most Western European countries..."

(apparently telling the truth gets these murderous Israeli cheerleaders foaming at the mouth!)