Liberty Maven

Editor’s Note: After a long hiatus, we’ve just received another article submission from Richard Deekbag. His previous submission was posted here in an effort to represent a perspective opposite of Liberty Maven’s typical material. You can read that previous article, Why Ron Paul is wrong on every damn thing!, here. This new submission is being posted for the same reason. Remember, he’s an anti-Ron Paul neocon who runs the following website (we apologize for the length of the URL):

http://ohmygodronpaulwilleatallofourbabiesandourbabiesbabiesandtheirbabiesbabiesuntiltherearenobabiesleft.com/

————————–

By Richard Deekbag

What a joke! All these idiots complaining about their junk being touched by the TSA. I say we should just stand there and take it like real men. I say, “If it’s for national security then TOUCH MY JUNK, PLEASE!!” It’s the patriotic thing to do. If you opt-out of the junk-touching then the terrorists win, pure and simple. If you opt-out of the junk-touching then you hate America!!

I do think there is room for the TSA to improve this process though. It appears that all females get to be felt up by female TSA agents and all males get to be fondled by male TSA agents. This is a discriminatory practice. The TSA should ask the traveler if he or she is a homosexual. If the answer is affirmative then the traveler should be appropriately touched by a member of the opposite sex.

Yes, all touching in the name of national security is appropriate. Other than that small change I applaud the great work of the TSA over the past few weeks. The skies are infinitely safer and there can be no one who says they aren’t friendlier with this policy in place. In fact, they just published a children’s book to help children adapt to the new policy. Here’s is the cover:

Read More »

With all of the “sky is falling” melodrama over Wikileaks all over the media, I find Robert Gates refreshingly honest in this answer to Michael Yon. Yon asked Gates an intriguing question regarding Wikileaks and the potential damage it may do to sharing information between intelligence agencies. Among other things, Gates said the following:

Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on.  I think — I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets.  Many governments — some governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us.  We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation.

So other nations will continue to deal with us.  They will continue to work with us.  We will continue to share sensitive information with one another.

Is this embarrassing?  Yes.  Is it awkward?  Yes.  Consequences for U.S. foreign policy?  I think fairly modest.

Of course, now some people are making the claim that the information leaked may end up benefiting the Obama administration and the source of the leak may be the administration itself. Is this some kind of weird reverse trutherism? I doubt this claim is true, but it’s an interesting thought when coupled with Gates response above. Read more about this claim at reason.com.

In one of the several interviews Liberty Maven did with Rand Paul I asked a question about strategy that I believe is the main reason Rand Paul won and is now Senator-elect Rand Paul. Here is that question and Rand’s excellent response again:

LM: Your recent op-ed in USA Today discussing libertarianism and conservatism where you deemed yourself “not quite” a libertarian seemed to be another (rather successful in my view) effort to unite conservatives and libertarians by focusing on where there are agreements. Is one of your fundamental campaign strategies to foster agreement between these groups?

Rand Paul: Yes, it is. The views that unite many conservatives and libertarians are grounded in deference to the Constitution and its principles, and a belief in limited government. These ideals have not been acted upon by many in Washington recently, and that’s why I’m running. It’s also why the Tea Parties exist – frustration with a lack of accountability on spending and the size of government.

These ideals – and the joining of all limited government advocates — form the basis for my campaign this year, one that has struck a chord with Republicans, independents, libertarians, and Tea Party activists. For the country’s sake I hope we can keep these groups in agreement and united against those who do not hold the same respect for those Constitutional principles.

Yes. I believe that about sums up why Rand Paul was successful. He united all flavors of voters. The Republicans, libertarians, independents, conservatives, and tea partiers joined together to support him. He also united progressives pretty well too. They were downright venomous for some reason. I guess that’s the way they roll when they disagree with someone.

A little less than a year ago I posted an article entitled, “Why Rand Paul Will Win“. I listed three reasons: public sentiment, fund raising, and the “it” factor. In retrospect it was mostly public sentiment that turned the tide in his favor in both the primary and general.

Also of note, Rand Paul’s father Ron, won his race. There’s a slight chance Ron Paul could be in line for a committee or sub-committee chairmanship now that the House is changing control to the GOP. It’s likely we’ll all be seeing more of the always-entertaining hearing sessions with Ben Bernanke tap dancing around Ron Paul’s questions. I also believe it to be quite likely we’ll see Ron Paul running for president in 2012 given the results and public opinion. Fox News even threw some love Ron’s way by mentioning him as the catalyst for his son’s and the tea party’s victories. Prepare your bank account for an onslaught of money bombs next year and in 2012.

As for the meaning of this election…

Read More »

Admittedly, I’m conflicted on this particular election eve. I’m excited at the potential for actual change if many of these so-called “tea party” candidates get elected. That potential is based upon hope more than expectation. If I decide to vote, I’ll vote for the Libertarian candidate in my district. I’m glad I have that choice since I can’t stand the GOP candidate (30 year incumbent Frank Wolf) nor can I stand the Democrat (Obamacare supporter).

That being said I have some questions. Most won’t be answered in the near term, but will be answered within the next 2 years.

1. Will Rand Paul win in another “Randslide”?
2. If Sharon Angle defeats Harry Reid will Chuck Schumer become the leader of the Senate?
3. Should Rand Paul win, will he lose the support of the Tea Party during his term as Senator?
4. Will Ron Paul’s supporters be happy with the way Rand Paul votes on foreign policy?
5. If the GOP takes control of the House will Ron Paul become the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee?
6. Will the Republicans be able to repeal Obamacare?
7. Are the Republicans going to to water down the Tea Party message by playing the same old political game?
8. Will Sarah Palin become the GOP nominee in 2012 due to her perceived influence on the Tea Party candidates winning in 2010?
9. When will Ron Paul announce he is running for President in 2012 (My guess is sometime in January of 2011)?
10. When Republicans gain control of the House and nothing changes will a Third Party option become truly viable in 2012?

Those are the main questions I have. Do you have any to add?

Michele Bachmann wants her fellow lawmakers to go back to school. She’d like to make Constitution classes available to our elected officials.

I’m all for our representatives learning more about the Constitution, but isn’t it a bit backwards to ask them to swear an oath to defend something and then ask them to go to school to learn about what they just swore to defend?

From Politico:

First, some background. Proposition 19 in the State of California would “allow Californians age 21 and older to grow up to 25 square feet of marijuana and possess up to an ounce. It also allows cities and counties to authorize cultivation and sales, and to tax them.”

Eric Holder sent a letter to some former DEA administrator’s who have urged the Justice Department to oppose Proposition 19. In it he wrote:

“Let me state clearly that the Department of Justice strongly opposes Proposition 19. If passed, this legislation will greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our citizens.”

So does this mean that Obama’s justice department will begin enforcing federal drug laws once again in California? Yes, it appears it does.

This goes right back to the nullification debate. Do states have the right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws? Given this news it appears that Obama’s justice department’s Constitution goes right from Amendment 9 to Amendment 11.

It appears that a certain California Sheriff has a similar version of the Constitution:

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, who is a co-chairman of the main opposition committee, released the letter at a news conference at his headquarters Friday, flanked by two former DEA heads, the district attorney and the Los Angeles city attorney.

“He is saying it is an unenforceable law and the federal government will not allow California to become a rogue state on this issue,” Baca said. “You can’t make a law in contradiction to federal law as a state. Therefore Proposition 19 is null and void and dead on arrival.”

Wow. Baca’s ignorance would be astounding if it wasn’t for Obama through Holder saying basically the same thing. This directly contradicts our Founders. Obama is King and anyone who disagrees with him are peasants or worse, racists. I suppose we can thank Abraham Lincoln for this.

The America we live in is one where the National Government can nullify state laws and “F%*@ the Founders” sing the Statists.

Earlier this year J. Christian Adams resigned his Justice Department position and began discussing the new administration’s policy of inequality under the rule of law. This story, which should have been national news, petered out over the past few months. However, there’s a new whistleblower in town corroborating everything Adams said. And it’s not just anyone, it is Christopher Coates, the former Justice Department Voting Rights section chief.

He’s testifying against the Justice Department today after being forbidden to do so. From Doc Vega, the Dallas Tea Party Examiner:

Despite news coverage of this lack of response thanks Eric Holder’s discriminatory direction. New Blank Panthers who threatened voters and verbalized racial slurs, clearly in violation of the law, were never charged. Not only was Chris Adams characterized as a disgruntled employee, but he was forbidden by his former employer to testify if subpoenaed by the US Commission on Civil Rights.  Adams left and the story died. Adams was quoted as accusing fellow employees as making comments such as , “this is payback.”

Now Chris Coates, Section Chief, and a vigorous, award winning, litigator for the DOJ, his career has spanned more than three decades, now intends to testify against his former employer. Coates resigned months ago unable to rationalize politicizing his department’s primary purpose. In opposition to the blatant conflict of interest  that has been orchestrated by Eric Holder, Chris will appear in court despite obvious pressure exerted upon him to remain silent.

This crucial testimony will uncover the illegal abandonment of duty based upon racial bias and in violation of civil rights laws. Coates testimony will necessitate proceedings against the Department of Justice. As before with Christian Adams, their defense strategy will probably entail trying to discredit Coates by portraying him as yet just one more disgruntled attorney who is making unfounded allegations. The only other possible defense would be to feign ignorance of the internal policy of the DOJ that had dictated an illegal leniency for black offenders. Either defense will prove preposterous. To depict Chris Coates, one of the most prolific defenders of civil rights as a right wing protester to an ideological argument will not bode well for Obama or Eric Holder. It will expose them!

Will the main stream media cover this new development in this story? Shouldn’t this be something the American people are made aware of? There are a few reasons they could sweep this under the rug again.

Could it be that the media is just liberal-leaning and delivers the news much like today’s Justice Department selectively litigates cases? Could “white guilt” be the culprit? Where is the objectivity? Whatever the reason for the media stonewall, the age-old axiom of “blind justice” does not apply to Eric Holder’s Justice Department.

You can read Chris Coates damning testimony from Pajamas Media while we all wait and see if the main stream media does its job.

Earlier tonight Ron Paul appeared on CNN with Anderson Cooper and boldly stated, “We live in revolutionary times”. He’s right. You can watch that appearance below. There’s been a lot of discussion lately about a fractured Republican Party following Christine O’Donnell’s win in the Delaware GOP primary over establishment moderate Mike Castle.

Jim DeMint endorsed O’Donnell and is being criticized by some for being too ideological. DeMint is having none of it. From Politico.com:

To paraphrase what I heard in Barack Obama’s speech earlier tonight…

- We’re bringing our combat troops home from Iraq…  and sending them to risk death in other no-win wars.

- But we’re gonna keep about 50,000 troops in Iraq to… do what they’ve already been doing since around 2005… nation-building.

- Sometime in 2011 we will remove all U.S. military troops from Iraq (yeah right) but we will leave behind a private “force” to continue our nation-building there.

- Though George W. Bush was a patriot and we may have disagreed on a bit of foreign policy minutia we are in large agreement that we must continue breeding hatred for all things America by shifting our focus toward different faux-monsters to destroy in far away lands.

- Yes, like George W. Bush, I have trouble going to sleep at night because there are terrorist monsters under America’s bed. I don’t care if you can’t see them when you turn on the light and look. They are there! I swear!

- We spent far too much money on the Iraq War so we must bring it home and spend it on entitlement programs then borrow perhaps another trillion or so to copy our Iraq effort in Afghanistan and who knows maybe we’ll do the same in Iran or Pakistan a bit later. This will be sure to help our economy here at home.

- Our troops are great.

- The Military-industrial complex will remain intact as long as I’m around!

- God Bless America because we need all the help we can get with me as your president.

- You should have all voted for Ron Paul. Let’s hope you get another chance in 2012.

—————–

That about sums up what I heard from President Barack Obama tonight. The non-paraphrased version is available too. I assure you there is not much different than my condensed version except for maybe that last Ron Paul bit.

And so it continues. The Associated Press released an article attacking Rand Paul for receiving donations from “pornographers”. This latest attack just happens to coincide with the second day of his 2 day money bomb commemorating his father Ron Paul’s birthday. Over $250,000 was raised, but instead, let’s talk a bit about what is pornography and what isn’t.

First, the contributors run a web site called Zivity.com. It’s an adult social media site where models, photographers, and users unite to create and appreciate artsy photography of the mostly non-nude female form. In the minds of some this may pass for “pornography”, but I’d say most people would agree this is more art than porn. Have a look yourself.

Michael Arrington at TechCrunch gets it right.

Despite the fact that the donations weren’t from Zivity, and that Zivity would barely fall under the definition of pornography, people are calling for Rand to return the money. Says someone who has no idea what he’s talking about:

“A lot of Kentuckians would have a problem with a candidate accepting money from organizations that are tearing down the culture,” said Martin Cothran, a policy analyst for The Family Foundation of Kentucky. “And we assume that the Paul campaign understands that.”

Schreiner himself seems to have little knowledge of Zivity either. By phone yesterday he asked me if I could tell him more about the site. He had not, apparently, ventured farther than the home page.

The fact is Zivity is nowhere near as graphic as mainstream television. Sexual acts are never shown, and often the models aren’t even undressed. A typical Saturday evening on Showtime or HBO would be far more likely to “tear down our culture,” in the words of whoever that guy is. And I doubt the AP would be trying to make a big deal out of a HBO employee making a donation to a campaign.

It’s pretty safe to chalk this one up to the recent trend of the left media’s attempts to spread dirt on Rand Paul every chance they get. Oh and by the way, Martin Cothran quoted above, still plans on voting for Rand Paul as he makes clear in an article of his own.

Now what follows is what the media should be talking about. To me this passes as far more pornographic than what the folks of Zivity are doing…

Read More »