Posts Tagged ‘Libertarians’

Newt Gingrich on Guns: A Mixed Record

November 10, 2011

Prior to the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia had earned an A rating with Gun Owners of America. But that all changed in 1995, after Republicans were swept to power and Gingrich became Speaker of the House.

The Republicans gained the majority, thanks in large part to gun owners outraged by the Clinton gun ban. And upon taking the reins of the House, Speaker Gingrich said famously that, “As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.”

His promise didn’t hold up, however, and his GOA rating quickly dropped like a lead sinker to a “D.” In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the “gun free school zones act,” creating criminal safe zones like Virginia Tech, where the only person armed was a murderous criminal. Speaker Newt Gingrich voted for the bill containing this ban.1

The same bill also contained the now infamous Lautenberg gun ban, which lowered the threshold for losing one’s Second Amendment rights to a mere misdemeanor.2 Gun owners could, as a result of this ban, lose their gun rights forever for non-violent shouting matches that occurred in the home — and, in many cases, lose their rights without a jury trial.

While a legislator might sometimes vote for a spending bill which contains objectionable amendments, that was clearly NOT the case with Newt Gingrich in 1996. Speaking on Meet the Press in September of that year, Speaker Gingrich said the Lautenberg gun ban was “a very reasonable position.”3 He even refused to cosponsor a repeal of the gun ban during the next Congress — despite repeated requests to do so.4

Also in 1996, Speaker Gingrich cast his vote for an anti-gun terror bill which contained several harmful provisions. For example, one of the versions he supported (in March of that year) contained a DeLauro amendment that would have severely punished gun owners for possessing a laser sighting device while committing an infraction as minor as speeding on a federal reservation.5 (Not only would this provision have stigmatized laser sights, it would have served as a first step to banning these items.) Another extremely harmful provision was the Schumer amendment to “centralize Federal, State and Local police.”6



[1] Final passage of H.R. 3610, Sept. 28, 1996 at: . Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) warned his colleagues about the hidden dangers in H.R. 3610, and in regard to the Kohl ban, noted that it would “prohibit most persons from carrying unloaded firearms in their automobiles.”

[2] See Gingrich’s vote at: .

[3] Associated Press, “Gingrich Favors Handgun Ban for Domestic Abuse Convicts,” Deseret News, Sept. 16, 1996. The full quote reveals how much Speaker Gingrich had adopted the anti-gunners’ line of thinking: “I’m very much in favor of stopping people who engage in violence against their spouses from having guns,” the Georgia Republican said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think that’s a very reasonable position.” But the fact that this gun ban covers misdemeanors in the home is primary evidence that NON-violent people have been subjected to lifetime gun bans for things like: shouting matches, throwing a set of keys in the direction of another person, spanking a child, etc.

[4] See H.R.1009, “States’ Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 1997,” introduced by Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID).

[5] H.R. 2703, March 14, 1996 at: .

[6] S. 735, April 18, 1996 at: .


Will we be left with yet again holding our noses as we cast our votes..? Herman Cain‘s 999 plan will in fact raise taxes on virtually all Americans. That’s a really big no no for me. Romney is yet another RINO that would make the epic failure obama a shoe in if he were to run with Romney as his V. P. pick. Cain is also a suspect when it comes to being a closet gun grabber. Rick Perry has no real plan to deal with the invasion across our southern border, a deal breaker for me. Bachman needs to grow up politically. Ron Paul… is Ron Paul, what else can I say? Too be blunt, I have no use for Santorum, or any of the others, and in fact believe that they would be dangerous if placed into high office.

Still, I have to be considered a charter member of ABO, the anyone but obama group. Beyond that, the epic failure just might get reelected. To that end it is of utmost importance that we Conservatives and Libertarians see to it that both the Senate and House are solidly out of the hands of the Communist/Democrat/Progressive’s that are hell bent on destroying these United States. Election 2012 will, I believe, mark a turning point in American politics for years to come. Gary Nolan, a founder of the Libertarian Party, marked this election that way years ago while speaking at the Colorado convention. Something to do with election / political cycles.

Granted, no candidate is ever “perfect.” But compromising is simply not on the table when your core values are on the line. I say that along the lines of Barry Goldwater and it is a very good policy to follow. That takes a sort of moral courage that is, in reality, possessed by few people…


The great debate… Sort of…

September 8, 2011

The much anticipated Republican Presidential candidates debate was, well, for myself a lot of hooey that didn’t cut to the chase. It reminded me more of a game of dodge ball in that Romney and Perry pretty much stole the show. My lasting question being, “who squirmed be best?”

I seriously have to wonder about these people. Between obamnycare, and illegal immigration I have doubts about both the leading candidates. Then we have the Social Security red herring issue. Look folks, it’s a rip off that I myself am going to have to live with just because of how many times I have seen the sun set in the west. That does not mean that Americans should be saddled with this big government rip off forever, and allowing the democrats to frame that debate leaves me wondering just how much true leadership really exists within the Republican Party. Tell you what? Perhaps the Republicans should once again co-opt the Libertarians positions and strategies on that issue. Those from back in the day when the Libertarians still had brains, and were indeed the Party of Principle.

On that note: All of you that so hate the Libertarians, the philosophical Libertarians, not the LP whack jobs? Take a look at the real positions taken by the TEA Party folks… Looks an awful lot like the LP platform from the eighties... Complete with a serious lack of real leadership!

Even after all the bally hoo, I still see no real plan to:

  • Get the economy back on track in a meaningful way.
  • Restore the Bill of Rights and Constitution as it was meant to be.
  • Reestablish American pride and exceptionalism.
  • Restore the faith of the people across the world in America as a bastion of freedom and liberty.

As much as I admire many of those running for the office of President I have serious doubts about most of them.



S. 436..? Yet another abomination from the usual suspects…

April 18, 2011

Gads… Go on the road for a few months. Alright, more than a few, and what are the treasonous types up too?

You guessed it; No good! At least if you are any sort of decent American. Read on…

This is an effort to embody Barack Obama’s Arizona newspaper article into legislation — and to milk political advantage from the tragedy in Tucson. It would:

  • withhold federal crime-fighting funds from states which fail to provide a sufficient number of names to the FBI’s Instantcheck system (with penalties possible for states that fall as little as 10% short of providing all names [sec. 101];
  • require federal agencies to turn over the names of all prohibited persons (which would presumably include the names of all persons admitting to having smoked as little as one marijuana cigarette) [sec. 102];
  • redefine “adjudicated as a mental defective” (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4)) to impose a gun ban in any case in which a “lawful authority” (including, presumably, a school or a Medicare-funded doctor) prescribes counseling or medication in response to “subnormal intelligence, mental illness, or incompetency” [sec. 103];
  • require colleges to set up a procedure for investigating students who are acting strange and “reporting” them [sec. 103]; -allow a person to be put on the FBI’s drug abuser list if, among other things, he admitted to “possessing a controlled substance unlawfully within the last five years” (thereby, humorously, removing current law’s theoretical gun ban for large numbers of unadmitted pot smokers) [sec.104];
  • ban all private person-to-person sales of firearms, requiring that all sales go through federal firearms licensees or the police, who would conduct a background check [Title II].

See All Firearms Legislation In The 112th Congress

This is yet another abomination being thrust upon the people of the United (apparently not so.) States of America.

Back a few, yes only a few years ago, a fellow called TexasFred started talking about a thing. It was called, or more properly became called, the Taxed Enough Already movement. The TEA PARTY. The idea being local control, and accountability of the various politicians. That is still the overriding mission of real TEA PARTY people. Keep it local, keep it hot, and hold those that we elect to their words and promises. All these “National” TEA Party types are forgetting the mission. The mission folks, is local needs, desires, and accountability. We, the local people, have a duty as well as responsibility to see that our wants, needs, and desires are supported by those that we elect as our leaders.

Then the cards fall as they were dealt. Yes. That was a Libertarian view. However, the TEA Party is not Libertarian in a philosophical sense. It is made up of a vast selection of peoples. It crosses racial and ethnic boundaries, political, and regional facets. It does include peoples of many stripes; As it were. We are called AMERICAN’S. For a reason… We are all different, and we combine the strengths of our backgrounds while never forgetting our weaknesses. From there, we go on. Never have we been perfect. Yet I would submit; We AMERICANS have established the finest of nations that this world has yet to see. Anyone that thinks different is more than welcome to post about a better place.

We; Americans, need to guard our liberty and freedom. Every day, every minute, from those that would steal our birthright. That being Liberty and Freedom. Think about it people!

Last; Please say a prayer for those folks plying Elk Mountain and Bordeaux Road. Truck drivers die every hour because states (corruption) refuse to close roads, driver managers preach safety yet send their charges into the gates of hell. All so that you can have your broccoli…

May God bless each and everyone; Keep your powder dry.

Is the Tea Party Becoming the New Grand Old Party?

September 3, 2010

I came across this in my email, and I think it’s an interesting read. Be sure to follow the link.

Is the tea party the new Republican Party?

The grass-roots network of fed-up conservative-libertarian displayed its power in its biggest triumph of the election year: the toppling of Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska’s GOP primary. Political novice Joe Miller is the fifth tea party insurgent to win a GOP Senate nominating contest, an upset that few, if any, saw coming.

With the stunning outcome, the fledgling tea party coalition and voters who identify with its anti-tax, anti-spending sentiments proved that democracy is alive and well — within the Republican Party. Don’t like who is representing you? Rise up, fire them and choose someone new.

The tea party has taken hold in the Grand Old Party, unseating lawmakers, capturing nominations for open seats and forcing Republicans to recalibrate both their campaign strategy and issues agenda. Out is talk of delivering federal dollars back home; in is talk of fiscal discipline.

Within minutes of Murkowski conceding late Tuesday night, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., was among the conservative Republicans cheering Miller.

“He pulled off the upset victory of the year because he ran on principles and because Alaskans, like all Americans, want to stop the massive spending, bailouts and debt that are bankrupting our country,” said DeMint.

Taking a shot at Murkowski if not the entire Republican establishment, he added: “Joe Miller’s victory should be a wake-up call to politicians who go to Washington to bring home the bacon. Voters are saying ‘We’re not willing to bankrupt the country to benefit ourselves.'”

Full Story

Ron Micheli: Never quit, never surrender!

August 18, 2010

Well folks guess what? Even in Wyoming, yes, Wyoming! Political correctness reached out like a Copperhead… That, and the basic political machinery of our nation… There is a reason that I joined the Libertarian Party back in 1980… We need to break the back of the two party system. It is that simple folks. Sure, reform the Republicans, or even the Democrats. I don’t give a hoot what you call it…

I used to say that once in power that there was not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties. Guess what folks? I was wrong. (Typed / said with a stutter ala “The Fonz.”) I bitched at the Republicans spending like not just drunken, but stoned sailors… No, it’s not a dimes worth, it is in the trillions of dollars!

And, not to mention: While the Republicans threatened to use the Constitution as toilet paper? The Democrats have. At least the Bill of Rights!

Then, we have what happened in Wyoming, of all places..?

Keep your chin up, and hold your head high Ron. You fought the good fight.

Debating Liberals…

March 12, 2010

Long ago, a Professor Emeritus once gave me some advice. What he said to me was “Young man, never get into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.” For the most part that has been sound advice for close to forty years. Lowering one’s self to the levels of intelligence often encountered in this world is a no win situation and nothing is ever gained from it. Other than perhaps some adolescent glee at putting down another person… Mark Alexander may have an alternative method of dealing with people that are stone cold liberals much as Michael Cloud has for Libertarian ideology. So, what does Mark Alexander have to say on the subject? Read on…

When Debating a Liberal, Start With First Principles

“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” –Thomas Jefferson

There are only two rules you need to know when debating a liberal.

Rule Number One: You must define the debate in terms of First Principles, which is to say, you must be able to articulate those principles. (Read Essential Liberty for more.)

Conservatives subscribe to the fundamental doctrine of Essential Liberty as enumerated by our Founders in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. We understand that individual responsibility is the foundation of a free society. We advocate for the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary. We promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values.

In short, conservatives endeavor to conserve Rule of Law as our guiding principle, and any legitimate policy debate must start there.

Liberals, on the other hand, subscribe to principles du jour; whatever solution feels best for the day’s most popular, fashionable, or prominent cause célèbre.

In short, they believe that the feel-good solution (a.k.a. “rule of man”) supersedes Rule of Law.

For the most part, today’s liberals are a case study in hypocrisy, the antithesis of the once noble Democrat Party, the party of Thomas Jefferson.

Liberals speak of unity, but they incessantly foment disunity, appealing to the worst in human nature by dividing Americans into constituent dependencies. They speak of freedom of thought — except when your thought doesn’t comport with theirs. They assert First Amendment rights — except when it comes to religion or speech that doesn’t agree with theirs. They promote tolerance — except while practicing intolerance and seeking to silence dissenters.

Liberals deride moral clarity because they can’t survive its scrutiny. They protest for the preservation of natural order while advocating homosexuality. They denounce capital punishment for the most heinous of criminals while ardently supporting the killing of the most helpless and innocent among us — the unborn, the infirm and the aged.

Liberals loathe individual responsibility and advocate statism. They eschew private initiative and enterprise while promoting all manner of government control and regulation.

Now, I’m not suggesting that everything liberals believe or support is wrong, but their underlying philosophical doctrine surely undermines our “unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” as established by “the laws of nature and nature’s God.”

As Ronald Reagan observed, “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

Thus, don’t be snookered into defending or denouncing the merits of any issue as framed in liberal terms. Such deliberations are rarely resolved and tend to end in gridlock, or worse, deadlock. (If congressional Republicans really want to end gridlock, they too need to control the debate in terms of First Principles.)

One means of taking control of a debate is to inquire whether an opponent has ever taken an oath to “support and defend” our Constitution. (If you have not, or wish to reaffirm your oath, then we invite you to do so by registering with The Essential Liberty Project.

If your opponent answers “yes,” then inquire as to which constitution — the one upon which our nation was founded, or the so-called “living constitution” adulterated by generations of legislative and judicial diktat.

Of course, you must be prepared to explain the difference — to explain that only one of these constitutions exists in written form, while the other is a mere fabrication. This can be best accomplished by presenting your copy of the Essential Liberty Guide.

Another means of framing the debate is to ask your opponent to articulate the difference between constitutional Rule of Law and the rule of men. Again, you must be prepared to explain the difference.

You may also start by asking your opponent what “liberal” means. Most liberals will define “liberal” in terms of the issues they support, so ask your opponent if those issues comport with our Constitution.

Once you’ve framed the debate in terms of First Principles, give your liberal opponent a recess, and a copy of the Essential Liberty Guide.

Principled liberals (admittedly an oxymoron) will remain satisfied that what they feel is equivalent to, or even supersedes, Rule of Law. These poor souls are on their way to becoming über liberals, or Leftists, and are probably beyond any logical redemption.

But if you use your Essential Liberty Guide as an education tool rather than a hammer, some liberals may actually start to come around, and this conversion should be your primary objective.

Further, if confronted by your opponent with a challenge to provide a constitutional defense for some Republican legislation, don’t bite. Most Republican legislation, though it may be more in line with our Constitution, rarely comports with the plain language of Rule of Law. Don’t let your opponent frame you as a hypocrite. Remember: You are, first and foremost, a constitutional conservative, not a tool of any political party.

Alas, selective interpretation of our Constitution has expanded its meaning beyond any semblance of its original intent, and it will take time and discipline to contract its meaning through due process to restore its original intent.


Rule Number Two: You must distinguish between liberals and Leftists. The former subscribe to a plethora of contemporaneous solutions, while the latter are bona fide “useful idiots,” those Western apologists for socialist political and economic agendas that terminate with the institution of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism masquerading as regulation and taxation.

When it comes to debating Leftists, the outcome is utterly dependent on who has superior firepower.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

The times they are a changing…

October 30, 2009

Or so the song goes. Change is not always bad, nor is it always good. So much though that has come about in recent times leaves one to wonder.

From Rules of Engagement that strap our troops ability to fight and win in real war. To undermining the core values of the military. To Chairborne Rangers with stars on their collars, that are political beasts and perfumed princes the leadership is, for the most part, FUBAR

From an administration that spreads obamanure across the land, supported by those that detest America, private property, and private enterprise. With RINO coconspitators that defile the Constitution and the Bill of Rights seemingly at every opportunity.

To a Supreme Court that ignores the Constitution, and principle of law that they all swore to protect and defend.

We, as a nation, are in fact, Balkanized. We are split into factions more so than ever before. More than at the beginning, when only a small percentage of people were pro-revolution, and in favor of splitting from England. More than at the beginning of the War of Northern Aggression. More, by a long shot, than during the nineteen sixties and seventies when a revolution seemed to be imminent to many of us.

Anthony writes for the Examiner an insightful essay series. Check it out, and think about what was written.

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

What are we to think and do when confronted by all that is being force fed to us? Further, if it is all so good and righteous then why is it being force upon us? Here, I think that I will paraphrase something that I paraphrased many years ago.

Second Amendment solutions for bureaucratic belligerence and official oppression? Freedom, is found on the edge of a sword, and the muzzle of a gun. Especially when the ballot box only serves to thwart that freedom.

Message to GOP: Don’t Take Tea Partiers For Granted

October 17, 2009

For my part the GOP, as well as the Republicans can just go away and never come back. The recently started American Conservative Party is also proving to be less than stellar as noted by friend and fellow blogger Texas Fred. The Libertarian Party still offers the best hope for limited government but, alas, they too have gone off the deep end on so many issues. I am seriously beginning to believe that secession may be the only method of restoring the unalienable rights, liberties, and freedoms of individuals. One state at a time…

It’s the dream of every political strategist: a large and highly motivated group of voters ready to get out, work for, and financially support a slate of candidates whom they align with politically. True to form, the national Republican Party missed the opportunity to take full advantage of the Tea Party movement, mainly because the GOP is continuing to back candidates who don’t always work for lower taxation and less government.

Tea Party protesters angered by Republicans supporting Wall Street bailouts and the Waxman-Malarkey cap-n-tax bill are also bitter at the GOP establishment — particularly the National Republican Senatorial Committee — for backing certain incumbent or anointed candidates who are working with Leftists in Congress.

To that end, conservatives and political activist groups such as Club for Growth are throwing their support behind candidates whom the GOP establishment has shunned, such as Chuck DeVore in California for U.S. Senate; Marco Rubio in Florida for U.S. Senate (who is in a primary battle against the “moderate” outgoing governor Charlie Crist); and Doug Hoffman of New York, who, as we reported last week, opted to run under the Conservative Party banner after being spurned by local Republican officials. Instead, ACORN-backed Dede Scozzafava, whose positions make the Democrat candidate look like Ronald Reagan, is the official Republican candidate running in the upcoming Nov. 3 special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District, though her campaign is out of cash. Backing ACORN candidates is unfortunately illustrative of the elite GOP’s mindset.

In a year where the political winds and poor performance of Democrats both favor a Republican resurgence, their treatment of this motivated voter bloc shows the national party is doing itself no favors by listening to the Beltway insiders rather than the people. GOP big shots may look back after next November and lament a lost opportunity.


Fire and Fury in the Rocky Mountain Empire?

September 24, 2009

I once listened to a somewhat famous politician call the Rocky Mountain West an Empire. He cited, among other things, fierce independence and an outright distrust of Government.

“Leave us well alone!” was the title of a fellow student that was in a Political Science course that I took, and yes, her thesis was on western politics as opposed to far western, as in West Coast, and Eastern, as in the eastern states that make up New England. Is it just regional pride? Possibly, but, I have another hypothesis.

Before the United States was founded a group of men came west. Those men are generally referred to as “The Mountain Men.” Most were, shall we say “social outcasts?” They came from places like Georgia, and Alabama, and notably Tennessee and Kentucky. They too were a fiercely independent group of men. They fought with, and often joined Native American tribes taking wives, and eking out a living in a very unforgiving place, and time in history. They were rebels simple, and pure. Some time later there was “The War of Northern Aggression.” Which was followed by a great migration of people to Oregon, Washington, and California. Most of those people came from places such as New England. Others came, and stayed, and tamed the harsh environment. Those people,for the most part, were from the Confederation, and they brought with them the same streak of courage and independence that the Mountain Men had brought. Texan’s settled Montana. The Mormon’s sought freedom in Utah, and so on. The underlying theme being a quest for freedom and liberty. In that most free of earthy nations.

Today while surfing the net I came across an essay worthy of classical journalism. The kind that is just not seen these days. It is indeed a long read. As tomes should be! Read it at…

Dems lose footing in the Rocky Mountain West

2009, a look to the future

January 1, 2009

As I wandered around the Internet today I found a common theme on a lot of forums, blogs, and personal websites.

What will 2009 bring to us ordinary, and not so ordinary people here in America, and across the world. Here is my list; I really hope that some of these things don’t happen, but, that does not change my thinking that they very well might.

  1. America will continue in becoming balkanized. The ground work for an actual secession of many states, or an actual revolution is being laid as I type this.
  2. Israel will attack Iran after Iran delivers a devastating blow to Israel. Much of the world will be drawn into the conflict, and it will go nuclear.
  3. The American economy will go into an actual depression, as defined by economics. The trickle down effect will have terrible consequences for the rest of the world. See #1 above.
  4. The Bill of Rights will be gutted, and shaped to fit those that have come into power. Call them what you want; NWO, Elitist’s, it really will not matter.
  5. The issue of illegal immigration will be settled. By the issue of Gun Control.
  6. The issue of “Gay Rights” will be settled. Again, by the issue of Gun Control.
  7. The issue of Private Property Rights will be settled, not by the cowards in the Supreme Court. Again, by the issue of Gun Control.
  8. Education will fall by the wayside in human priorities. It will be food, or can Johnny learn to be a good socialist.
  9. The people of the world will return to a precious metal standard for monetary purposes. Because the mints print worthless currency.
  10. Irish Whiskey will regain it’s position of supremacy as the finest gift from heaven to man. Our Scot cousins will still be allowed in our homes though. After all, family, is family.

Please note that nearly all of these relate directly to number one. I fear for the future of these United States of America.

%d bloggers like this: