Okay so did anybody else notice that the VP for the Libertarian party now seems to be a surrogate for Hillary Clinton?

Courtesy of TPM: 

Accepting that his presidential bid will fail, Libertarian vice presidential candidate Bill Weld on Tuesday obliquely urged voters to vote for Hillary Clinton. 

In a Tuesday statement addressed to "those in the electorate who remain torn between two so-called major party candidates," the former Massachusetts governor told Republicans not to vote for the GOP nominee out of “fear for our country.” 

“After careful observation and reflection, I have come to believe that Donald Trump, if elected President of the United States, would not be able to stand up to this pressure and this criticism without becoming unhinged and unable to perform competently the duties of his office,” he said at a Boston press conference. 

Weld ticks off a long list of what he sees as Trump’s flaws, including his childish response to criticism, divisive rhetoric about immigrants and minorities, instability, and lack of familiarity with policy.

Here is a link to Weld's entire statement. 

I have little use for Gary Johnson, but I have to admit that this Bill Weld guy is pretty impressive.

In the past he has also openly shared his admiration for Hillary Clinton and has stated that she would make a fine President.

I have no idea what this means for the Libertarian ticket moving forward, but I bet that Bill Weld just made Donald Trump's list of folks he wants to sue after this election.

John Oliver eviscerates the third party candidates competing in this election cycle, with some very uncomfortable facts.

Well I've been earning about third party candidates for several months now, and also pointing out their various flaws, but leave to John Oliver to take it to a new level while also making it laugh out loud funny.

Just the sound of Jill Stein singing alone is enough for me to dismiss her out of hand.

Can she not hear herself?

However I might give that Joe Exotic a second look just because I am impressed with a partially crippled southern gay man who stands fearlessly in a cage with lions and tigers as if they are simply over sized house cats.

That seems like the kind of guy that might scare the shit out of Vladimir Putin.

For those still thinking about voting for Gary Johnson.

Self-professed liberals who prefer Gary Johnson because he's not Hillary Clinton...I mean, lol pic.twitter.com/cM8oZre9y2

— Kate Oh (@kathoh) September 21, 2016

I swear I think that if the majority of the people who dislike Hillary Clinton actually knew the truth about her, instead of gobbling up the steady stream of bullshit about her online, they would not only vote for her but volunteer to work on her campaign.

The Libertarian VP candidate thinks that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified presidential candidate. Wait, what?

WATCH: Libertarian VP candidate Bill Weld: Not sure anyone is more qualified to be president than Hillary Clinton. https://t.co/DQRZnigfdA

— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) September 30, 2016

I am not sure that any of their campaign advisors bothered to inform Bill Weld that it is traditional to name the person at the top of YOUR ticket as the most qualified for the job, but perhaps somebody should get on that.

Though to be honest considering how flaky and uniformed Gary Johnson has demonstrated himself to be, you can hardly blame Weld for his moment of honestly here.

Of COURSE Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate running, that is why the smart folks have been for her from the beginning. 

Third party candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein will NOT be at the debates.

Courtesy of Politico: 

Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein failed to make the cut for the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced on Friday afternoon, in a significant blow for their campaigns. 

Though Johnson and Stein satisfied two of the criteria necessary to participate – that they be constitutionally eligible and have achieved ballot access in a sufficient number of states to win a theoretical Electoral College majority – neither met the threshold on polling.

This is a very good thing for Hillary as it allows her to focus all of her attention on her one true opponent, and bad news for Trump who has never debated one on one and likes to use others on the stage for distraction.

And let's face in this election Stein and Johnson are really nothing more than a dangerous distraction which can undermine the seriousness of this contest.

This first debate is incredibly important, and could really define this race in many ways.

My prediction is that Trump will do badly, but that the bar will be set so low for him that if he does not vomit on himself or fall off the stage some media outlets will suggest that he held his own.

On the other hand Hillary will have to answer each question, and follow up question, in complete sentences while standing on one foot and juggling chainsaws just to meet expectations.

The positive thing for her is that she can probably do that.

The Vaguely Bearded one returns to lose spectacularly against Lisa Murkowski again.

Courtesy of Alaska Dispatch:  

Two-time U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller will make another run at the office this year, he said Tuesday, trying again to unseat U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, this time as a Libertarian. 

Miller will take the place of Cean Stevens as the Libertarian candidate on the Nov. 8 general election ballot after Stevens withdrew. 

The Alaska Libertarian Party appointed Miller to run on its ballot line after Stevens told its half-dozen executive board members last week she was withdrawing from the race, said Terrence Shanigan, the party's chair.

Miller switched his party registration to Libertarian and the party's executive board voted unanimously last week to appoint him to take Stevens' place, Shanigan said. 

Miller couldn't be reached for comment Tuesday afternoon. But in a talk radio appearance, he told Anchorage Assembly member Amy Demboski, a conservative Republican and host on KVNT: "I felt that the voters of Alaska needed a choice." 

"There can't be a greater contrast between Lisa Murkowski and myself on the issues," Miller said, describing himself as a "federal Libertarian." 

Yes and the contrast is that one of you is actually a viable candidate. 

Miller has been out of the spotlight for a couple of years now.

The last big story that concerned him was his orchestration of the overthrow of the Alaska GOP.

And then after that there was his second attempt to win the Senate in 2014. But he failed miserably.

Miller is like that old ass injury that just keeps flaring up no matter how many happy pills you take or how long you sit on that inflatable doughnut.

Ultimately it goes away and you forget all about until the next time you sit down to take a crap, and there it is again.

I am really only mentioning this Miller campaign so that we can all laugh about it when it disintegrates as it smashes head on into Lisa Murkowski's unbeatable behemoth of a campaign. 

New Libertarian party VP candidate drops a truth bomb about a possible Hillary Clinton indictment.

Courtesy of Law Newz: 

“I will give you one news tip,” he said. “All this stuff about Secretary Clinton’s use of email accounts and the report that came out, how she might get indicted, I’m not buying it. I used to be head of the criminal division of the Justice Department of the United States.” 

Todd pressed Weld on why he wasn’t buying the rumors. 

“I’m not buying it, you can’t indict somebody if there is no evidence of intent, and I don’t see it, I don’t see any evidence of criminal intent,” Weld said.

Yeah, no shit.

One of my favorite responses by the trolls lately is 'Well just wait until your queen is indicted, we'll see who laughs then."

Well they cannot see it at the time, but I am usually already laughing myself while I read that.

No, that is not what is going to happen no matter how hard the Right Wing conspiracy theorists and Bernie Bros may pray that it will.

Here was a simple step by step explanation that I actually found in the comment section for this article: 

1. Even now, there is NO LAW that says an SoS can't have and use a private cell phone for private purposes. 

2. Until 2013, there was NO LAW that said an SoS could not have and use a private cell phone thru private server she owned or controlled. 

3. DoS POLICY "required" an Sos in 2009 and after to advise Dos of her wish to use a private phone for personal purposes. But there was no criminal enforcement of that, All possible sanctions THEN were internal, and only applied so long as the person remained in the dept.

Yes I know there is an FBI investigation, but if you really think that is going to lead to criminal charges, then you are a victim of the Right Wing media whether you realize it or not.

Even IF Hillary's e-mail server was hacked it would still not be a big deal because so was the State Department's, which takes the air right out of any argument that her e-mails would have been safer if kept in house.

And if she was never hacked the fact that she had a private server (Which by the way she has had since she was a Senator from New York) kind of makes her look like a genius.

So no, Hillary Clinton is NOT going to be indicted over Benghazi. She is NOT going to be indicted for killing Vince Foster. And she is NOT going to be indicted for using a private e-mail server.

Senator Bernie Sanders reveals the REAL Koch brother agenda.

So Senator Sanders remembered that David Koch ran for Vice President on the Libertarian party ticket. This was the party platform under which he ran:  

Here are just a few excerpts of the Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on in 1980: 

“We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.” 

“We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.” 

“We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.” 

“We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.” 

“We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.” 

“We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.” 

“We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.” 

“We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.” 

“As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.” 

“We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.” 

“We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.” 

“We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.” 

“We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.” 

“We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.” 

“We support abolition of the Department of Energy.” 

“We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.” 

“We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.” 

“We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.” 

“We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.” 

“We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.” 

“We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.” 

“We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.” 

“We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.” 

“We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.” 

“We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.” 

“We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”

Just for a second imagine if the Koch brothers were able to implement even  a handful of these changes.

No taxes whatsoever would make retaining a military impossible.

Abolishing Medicaid and Medicare would leave millions without health care. Not exactly a problem for billionaires but a substantial one for many of us.

No FEC, no U.S. Post Office, no public education, no Department of Transportation, no FAA, no FDA, essentially no government oversight of business whatsoever.

In other words a country that does not have any checks and balances on businesses, collects no taxes, does not educate its children, and has no military to protect it.

Somehow none of that sounds like a particularly attractive place to live.

And just take a moment to remind yourselves of how closely that parallels the same things being advocated by the Tea Party, by Rand Paul, and by Joe Miller.

This is clearly the ideal that drives the Koch brother's political agenda, and it is what they are spending their money to achieve.

Some conservatives have come to their defense asking "What harm have they done." I think the answer is that they have done substantial harm, but not nearly as much as they intend.

Joe Miller to officially launch his campaign on April 21st. He promises to do away with abortion, the IRS, and the Department of Education. Whoa Nelly, this ought to be good!

Courtesy of Alaska Dispatch:  

Claiming that one of the first things he’d do in office is support Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s effort to outlaw abortion, Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller also told student groups at the University of Alaska Anchorage on Thursday that he’d work to get the federal government out of people’s lives by turning over power to the states. 

Talking with reporters and speaking in one of his first appearances after keeping himself "under the covers" for several months, Miller said he will announce his candidacy at the Wasilla Lake Resort the evening of April 21.

Why’s he been lying low? No particular reason, he said. 

But that’s changing. His fundraising is up significantly from the last quarter, when he raised $30,000, much less than that raised by his two Republican opponents. Current Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell took in $228,000 in the quarter, and former Alaska attorney general Dan Sullivan took in $1.3 million. Miller said he’ll release the new fundraising reports soon. His donations for latest quarter are mostly from the “little people,” average donations of about $75, he said. 

Answering questions from the audience, Miller said he plans to win the Republican primary and beat Democratic Sen. Mark Begich. But Begich isn’t his target. It’s a federal government on the verge of bankruptcy and rife with crony capitalism. 

“My ultimate goal is not to get rid of Begich,” he said. “It’s to reverse the course of this country through proper representation of Alaska. That has got to be the goal. And where we’re at today is the result of both parties. It’s not the evil Democrats. It’s not the evil Republicans. It’s the evil Republicans and Democrats.”

So the guy seeking the Republican nomination wants to go to Washington to battle the evil Republicans. Such a great campaign slogan. 

But that's not all he wants to do.

Miller also claims that he wants to do away with the Department of Education, the IRS, and change the country's "surveillance state." Which I assume means doing away with the NSA in its current as well.

All things that I am sure are going to go over big with the establishment Republicans.

However it seems that Miller might be getting some of this talking points from a rather familiar source. Does this sound familiar?

Miller said there’s a broad fracture in the Alaska Republican Party that’s been created by the establishment, without naming names. 

“They’re there for one thing and that’s crony capitalism,” he said. “They don’t care about the platform. They don’t care about restricting the scope of government. They don’t care about fighting for the people. They care about the rewards of office.”

So what do you think, will she, or won't she endorse him again?

My money is on no endorsement, but then again these are insane people so you never know.

Doesn't really matter though, Miller is poison in this state, and the only way he would get this nomination is if the other two contenders  suddenly dropped dead.

Don't laugh, this is Alaska, stranger things have happened.

Some Libertarians are so anti-government that they are willing to risk their health on non-pasteurized milk.

Courtesy of the Washington Post:  

An alliance of food activists and anti-regulation libertarians is battling to legalize raw, unpasteurized milk, despite warnings from health officials about the rising toll of illnesses affecting adults and children alike. 

As the popularity of raw milk has grown, so too have associated outbreaks. They have nearly doubled over the past five years, with eight out of 10 cases occurring in states that have legalized sales of the unpasteurized product, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. Public health officials have also documented how pathogens in raw milk have produced kidney failure in more than a dozen cases and paralysis in at least two. 

But distrust of government and a thirst for the milk have helped fuel the movement to do away with federal and state restrictions despite the warnings. In states where raw milk remains banned, black and “gray” markets have emerged for enthusiasts seeking “moonshine milk” in the belief that bacteria-killing heat from pasteurization also kills powerful enzymes and eliminates other properties that can cure allergies, asthma and even autism. 

During this legislative session, 40 bills have been introduced in 23 state capitals, all seeking to legalize unpasteurized milk within state borders. 

It is illegal for raw milk dairy farmers to sell and transport their product across state lines — a ban the FDA is charged with enforcing. But every day, thousands of gallon-sized glass jars filled with raw milk move from state to state, arriving at consumers’ front doors through co-ops, buyers clubs and from friends and relatives who sometimes pack the milk in dry ice and ship it via FedEx. 

Consumers pay as much as $12 a gallon for raw milk from cows and goats. 

Yeah what's a little paralysis and a few stomach parasites when you can stick it to the government?

Gee and to think that Louis Pasteur spent all of those years working to keep milk from killing people, only to have his efforts rejected by a bunch of self destructive idiots who think that anything the government touches immediately takes away their freedom on contact.

Alaska is on the brink of legalizing pot. It is so confusing living here sometimes.

Courtesy of the Washington Times:

Alaska is poised to become the third state to legalize retail marijuana after pro-pot advocates this week cleared the signature hurdle to place an initiative on the August ballot. 

The Committee to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Alaska hit 31,593 valid signatures Tuesday, well above the 30,169 signatures required to place the measure before voters. The initiative is expected to appear on the Aug. 19 primary ballot once a final count is certified by the state. 

Alaska follows in the footsteps of Colorado and Washington, where voters approved measures to regulate the sale of recreational marijuana for adults in November 2012. Colorado unveiled the nation’s first retail pot shops in Jan. 1, and Washington is expected to begin marijuana sales in June. 

Dependably Republican Alaska would become the reddest state to approve retail marijuana, but Committee spokesman Taylor Bickford predicted the legalization effort would appeal to the electorate’s libertarian streak. 

“Alaska voters have a large degree of respect for personal liberty and freedom, and that’s reflected in the poll numbers we’ve been seeing,” said Mr. Bickford. 

On the one hand we are so conservative about social issues, like gun control and taxes, but then on the other side we are all, "Hey let's get high!"

This could of course simply be driven by our libertarian streak, or it could mean that the state is finally ready to return to its blue state roots.

After all we are also starting to change our minds about marriage equality: 

For the first time, the left-leaning polling organization found that more Alaskans support gay marriage than oppose it, with 47 percent of voters in favor and 46 percent opposed, according to the poll done Jan. 30 through Feb. 1. A few weren't sure. Last year, 43 percent supported it and 51 percent were against it. And 71 percent back civil unions for gay couples. 

Well as a liberal all I can say is that I welcome the return of Alaska's progressive overlords and wish them a long and fruitful reign. 

About damn time too!

Speaking of Obamacare, it looks like it has converted yet another conservative.

Image source

Courtesy of Think Progress: 

Joshua Pittman is a 31-year-old self-employed videographer from Montgomery, Alabama. A libertarian Republican who voted for Ron Paul in 2012 and believes that Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is the future of the GOP, Pittman sees Barack Obama’s presidency as a “failure” who hasn’t lived up to the nation’s expectations. 

But on Tuesday morning, Pittman logged on to HealthCare.gov and after some initial glitches and delays, successfully enrolled in a Bronze-level Obamacare health insurance plan. “It took me all day, really,” he says with a laugh. “It kicked me out and told me you have to try again, but I knew what I was getting into with so many people exploring it.” 

Though he initially supported repealing the law, Pittman became curious about Obamacare in the days and weeks before it launched. For years, he had gone uninsured, thinking he’d be able to “get over anything with a bandaid and a six pack of beer.” But a lead poisoning incident earlier this year shook his confidence and bank account, leading him with tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills. “I was a healthy person and it really depleted me financially, so it made me look at things in a different way than I would before. I understood the importance of people being insured.” 

“I’ve seen first hand people hitting up the emergency room for free health care and then putting a burden on [everyone else] and that’s not something I would want to do, I want to take personal responsibility … By no means am I trying to take a government handout…it’s not a free handout, you’re paying for this health care, but it’s making it more accessible to more people.” 

Asked what he liked about Obamacare, Pittman highlighted its prohibition against denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, noting that he wouldn’t be able to find coverage without it, and said that the policies offered in the marketplace seemed more affordable and comprehensive than those available to him on the individual market.

This is just the beginning. 

It will not take too long for people to really start signing up en masse and I have the feeling we are going to see a whole lot more of these testimonials appearing all over the internet.

I also think that the Republicans have realized that which is why they are walking away from the subject in droves.

Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, claims that only hope for America is to elect Rand Paul. Annnd there goes the last of your credibility.

Courtesy of Daily Kos: 

It's always good to know where people really stand-what their core beliefs are. Well, for those who may not have been sure about Julian Assange, he gave us a peek during a forum hosted by Campus Reform and OurSay.org. : 

[I] am a big admirer of Ron Paul and Rand Paul for their very principled positions in the U.S. Congress on a number of issues, * * * * They have been the strongest supporters of the fight against the U.S. attack on WikiLeaks and on me in the U.S. Congress. Similarly, they have been the strongest opponents of drone warfare and extrajudicial executions. 

Assange concluded by saying 

The only hope as far as electoral politics presently, is the Libertarian section of the Republican party.

By the way Rand Paul is also the choice of crazed conspiracy theorist Ales Jones,  Joe Miller, and of course Sarah Palin. Need I say more?

Oh and did I mention that he also likes Matt Drudge?

Publishing information that the establishment media would not. It is as a result of the self-censorship of the establishment press in the United States that gave Matt Drudge such a platform and so of course he should be applauded for breaking a lot of that censorship.

And we're done here.

If Edward Snowden ever wanted to be taken seriously, he should have avoided Glenn Greenwald and Assange like the plague. 

If Sarah Palin leaves the Republican party she has no place to go. To put it bluntly NOBODY wants her.

Courtesy of US News:  

Former vice presidential candidate and Gov. Sarah Palin, R-Alaska, openly mulled leaving the Republican Party in a Saturday interview on Fox News, citing her "libertarian streak." The Libertarian Party, frequently a refuge for renegade Republicans, isn't sure that she would be a good fit – and the Reform Party, too, says it has "zero interest" in Palin. 

"[W]hile a few of Sarah Palin's views are aligned with those of the Libertarian Party, her pro-interventionist foreign policy, her support of the 2008 Republican-led bailouts, her loyal support of Big Government Republicans, her social conservative agenda and her lack of concrete backing for any serious downsizing of Big Government runs afoul of the Libertarian Party's goals and most Libertarians' views," the Libertarian Party's executive director, Carla Howell, told U.S. News. 

Palin could conceivably find a home in the Constitution or Reform parties - but the Reform Party, which had its heyday in the 1990s, is entirely uninterested. 

"The Reform Party would probably have zero interest in Sarah Palin," Reform Party Chairman David Collison told U.S. News. "The primary reason is that we are not really as closely aligned with the tea party as people would think." 

Collison said his party aspires to be viewed as centrist, and embraces activists affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street movement. "Palin would basically torpedo that," he said.

As if that was not bad enough I had heard in the past that even Alaska's AIP party was keeping their distance. Essentially Palin is  poison and just about everybody knows it.

And the misses just keep on coming for Palin as the Washington Post examined her claim that Hispanics are against an immigration bill and gave her three Pinocchios for being such a dumb ass. 

However Buzzfeed might leave the biggest mark on her punditry pinata as they discover that before Palin was against passing immigration reform which contained amnesty for illegals, she was for it.

Well she wanted people to pay attention to her again, and they certainly are.

Rand Paul pulls a 180 on drone strikes directed at American citizens: "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him." Wait, what?

"Shh, don't wake it, it's sleeping."

Courtesy of The Hill:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that he would have supported police using drones in last week's hunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombing. 

"If there is a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them," Paul told Fox Business Network. 

Last month, Paul conducted a nearly 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor after the Obama Administration said in a letter that it was theoretically possible for President Obama to authorize a lethal drone strike on an American citizen under "extraordinary circumstances." The administration subsequently clarified that they did not believe the president had the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat." 

Paul said that the question of an "imminent threat" was the pivotal one when considering drone policy. 

“Here’s the distinction — I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on," Paul said. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities." 

Okay that "imminent threat" excuse does not hold any water in my opinion. What really seems to be the case is that Paul is perfectly fine with killing people, he just doesn't want anybody to spy on him while he is soaking his tiny Libertarian member in the hot tub.

Paul got ALL kinds of positive praise for holding in his urine for 13 hours to complain about the use of drone strikes,  which culminated with libertarians, college kids, and desperate pro-war Republicans throwing confetti all over his hairpiece.

But as far as I am concerned this statement the other day COMPLETELY undermines his argument, and provides ready made political advertisements for his future opponents.

And Paul, seeming to realize this, attempted to walk back his comments:

“My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed. 

“Let me be clear: it has not. Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations. They only may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. I described that scenario previously during my Senate filibuster. 

“Additionally, surveillance drones should only be used with warrants and specific targets. 

“Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections. This was demonstrated last week in Boston. As we all seek to prevent future tragedies, we must continue to bear this in mind.”

 No his comments did not "leave the impression" that his "opinions had changed." They stated it outright!  Or, to play devil's advocate, they demonstrated an example of blatant hypocrisy.

In other words it is NOT okay for the President to use drones, but totally cool for local law enforcement to use them to gun down a guy with a bottle of stolen Jack Daniels in one hand and a fifty dollar bill in the other. How's THAT work?

Look I am not a fan of the use of drones either, though to be fair I much prefer them over having our soldiers coming home in body bags. And I appreciate the fact that this conversation about the appropriate use of drones has started. (You can see Alex Wagner's report on yesterday's Senate hearings on drone strikes here.)

However if Rand Paul thinks that he is still the "go to guy" on the appropriate use of this new technology he is fooling himself

As for the drones being used on American soil, unlike Rand Paul I am MUCH more at ease with the idea of them flying over my hot tub than having them open fire on American citizens. Somehow the idea of the government sneaking a peek at my trouser snake is much preferable to the idea that they might instead shoot it off.

But hey, that's just me.

On last night's New Rules Bill Maher trashed Libertarians for "trashing Libertarianism."

More courtesy of Mediaite:

Bill Maher ended his show tonight by railing against a political movement he has aligned himself with in the past: libertarianism. He slammed the current wave of libertarians, among them Paul Ryan and Rand Paul, for having a “creepy obsession” with free markets, Ayn Rand, and government staying out of the way. He made it clear that he has not abandoned the libertarianism altogether, saying, “I didn’t go nuts, this movement did.” 

Maher complained that the current crop of libertarians are “ruining libertarianism,” saying there’s a difference between holding that political philosophy and being a “selfish prick.” Maher admitted that he has expressed support in the past for a lot of what libertarians have to say, but along the way he noticed it evolved into a “creepy obsession with free market capitalism.” 

Maher specifically brought up libertarian worship of Ayn Rand, whom he argued only sounds good when you’re a teenager but actually lacks any real substance. He declared that libertarians like Ryan and Paul who subscribe to this line of thinking are “intellectually stuck in their teenage years.”

There are a few issues that Maher and I certainly do not see eye to eye on, and one of those was the fact that he embraced of Libertarianism, which to me was always a movement that gave selfish people an excuse to be assholes.

Nice to see that Maher is finally seeing the light as well.

P.S. If HBO act like assholes again and  and block the YouTube video, just go to the Mediaite link and watch it there. It definitely worth your time.

Ron Paul seeks support from the United Nations, an organization he once described as "rife with corruption and backroom deals," in battle with (Get this!) his own rabid fan base.

"You give me back my name or I will sic the UN on you."

Courtesy of the Atlantic Wire:

Paul was interviewed by Conservative radio show host Alex Jones at the beginning of January and said he wished he had control of RonPaul.com. It's not an uncommon wish. Everyone wants to own theirname.com. The site was registered by his fans years ago, though it's unclear who exactly owns the domain. Ownership have protected their identity from public searches. Regardless, Paul supporters have used the site as an organizational tool to help the popular libertarian since. 

The proprietors of RonPaul.com say they reached out to the retired politicain and offered him RonPaul.org as a free gift, but if he "insisted" on owning RonPaul.com then they would sell it to him. There was a catch, though. It would be part of a "liberty package" with the site's 170,000 person mailing list for... wait for it... $250,000. They think the price is totally worth it: 

"The value we put on the deal was $250k; we are getting our mailing list appraised right now but we are confident it is easily worth more than $250k all by itself. Claims that we tried to sell Ron Paul “his name” for $250k or even $800k are completely untrue, and there is little doubt that our mailing list would have enabled Ron Paul to raise several million dollars for the liberty movement this year. It would have been a win/win/win situation for everyone involved."

But Paul did not respond to their generous offer. Instead, he went to the United Nations' World Intellectual Property Organization to file a 13 page complaint asking for control of both domains. 

Oops! Paul's opting for legal action is notable because he's spoken out against the U.N. in the past. They generally aren't very popular among libertarians. They aren't so bad now that he wants control of his own name's website. 

And now his fans are pissed: 

"Back in 2007 we put our lives on hold for you, Ron, and we invested close to 10,000 hours of tears, sweat and hard work into this site at great personal sacrifice. We helped raise millions of dollars for you, we spread your message of liberty as far and wide as we possibly could, and we went out of our way to defend you against the unjustified attacks by your opponents. Now that your campaigns are over and you no longer need us, you want to take it all away – and send us off to a UN tribunal?"

Ron Paul's supporters did not reach there distrust of the UN all on their own, Ron Paul led them there with statements like this:

• Its global planners fully intend to expand the UN into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and a standing army. 
• The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body. 
• Like any government or quasi-government body, the UN is rife with corruption and backroom deals. Worst of all, it serves as a forum for rampant anti-Americanism. 

And Ron Paul supporters ate that up with a spoon. So for Paul to suddenly turn to the UN as arbiters in this disagreement, is like walking up to each and every one of his fans and pissing on their shoes.

Personally I have NEVER understood the Ron Paul attraction. But it has been widespread, mostly because of his anti-war stances and desire for us not to get involved in the conflict that happen in other countries. I agree with that as well, but then Paul loses me when he talks about returning the country to the Gold Standard or suggests that government has virtually no role to play in the lives of the American people.

Clearly he is somewhat of a lunatic, and the evidence for that is in the first few lines of this post:

Paul was interviewed by Conservative radio show host Alex Jones.

You don't get much more fringe, or outright insane than Alex Jones, who many of you may remember from his venom spewing defense of the 2nd Amendment on the Piers Morgan show.

I think that for those Ron Paul supporters who are still clinging to the ridiculous belief that Paul, or his son, actually have a shot at becoming President of this country this will serve as a long overdue wake up call. 

For the rest of us it is just an affirmation that Paul is essentially full of shit. Which is really not much of a shocker.

Rand Paul's 2016 presidential prospects just crashed and burned.

Many people feel that Ron Paul's subversive overthrow of the Republican party from within is not so much aimed at body checking Mitt Romney off the ticket in 2012, but rather to seed the ground in preparation for his son, Rand Paul, in 2016.

Cheating is a way of life for the Republicans in the political arena and members of the Paul family have been VERY attentive students.

However much of their plan is contingent on being seen as the very embodiment of the small government conservative movement that the Teabaggers only claim to represent.

By staying away from social issues they hope to attract moderates to their side of the aisle, which may in fact NOT be completely aligned with the GOP we see today.

However, that more moderate viewpoint is only a facade, and Ron and Rand are both just as prejudice to their core as ANY Southern White Baptist politician, regardless of how careful they are to hide their religious affiliations. A fact which, at least in Ron Paul's case, was in full display after the discovery of his racist newsletters.

As for their views on the hot topic of the day, gay marriage, the above leaves little doubt concerning Rand Paul's feelings about "teh gays," and Ron Paul's freakout after finding himself in a room with Bruno (Played by Sacha Baron Cohen), doesn't  really leave much doubt concerning his feelings either.

Make no mistake the GOP simply CANNOT abide the idea of the acceptance of same sex marriage, and that will most certainly be front and center in the 2012 election. Which, in my opinion, works in our favor quite well.
 

I found some Ron Paul supporters. Can you say, awkward?

I have to admit that I kind of agree with Ron Paul on this.

I am not somebody who thinks that what these women do should be against the law, though I have great concerns for their mental well being.

I once worked as a bouncer in a strip club and I know that certain lifestyles can really play havoc with your self esteem and ability to resist falling prey to substance abuse and predatory relationships.

But having said that I am not at all convinced that a profession that is as old as human kind itself should continue to be against the law in this day and age. After all is this not the very definition of capitalism?

Your thoughts?

Former Ron Paul staffer tries to defend Ron Paul. I believe the appropriate phrase here is "EPIC FAIL!"

"Hey, hey! Stop helping me!"

Courtesy of Balloon Juice:

Is Ron Paul a “racist.” In short, No. I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently. I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once. And understand, I was his close personal assistant. It’s safe to say that I was with him on the campaign trail more than any other individual, whether it be traveling to Fairbanks, Alaska or Boston, Massachusetts in the presidential race, or across the congressional district to San Antonio or Corpus Christi, Texas. 

He has frequently hired blacks for his office staff, starting as early as 1988 for the Libertarian campaign. He has also hired many Hispanics, including his current District staffer Dianna Gilbert-Kile.

(Well hell if he actually hired black folk and Hispanic folk, than he couldn't possibly be a racist right? Yeah right.)

One caveat: He is what I would describe as “out of touch,” with both Hispanic and Black culture. Ron is far from being the hippest guy around. He is completely clueless when it comes to Hispanic and Black culture, particularly Mexican-American culture. And he is most certainly intolerant of Spanish and those who speak strictly Spanish in his presence, (as are a number of Americans, nothing out of the ordinary here.)

(So he has no problem with Hispanic people so long as they don't speak their native tongue in his presence. That is not just "unhip" that is "intolerant.")

Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or in my personal presence that could be called, “Anti-Semite.” No slurs. No derogatory remarks. 

He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs. 

(THAT is certainly NOT going to sit well with the Republican voters.)


Again, American Jews, Ron Paul has no problem with. In fact, there were a few Jews in our congressional district, and Ron befriended them with the specific intent of winning their support for our campaign. (One synagogue in Victoria, and tiny one in Wharton headed by a well-known Jewish lawyer). 

(WTF? He pretended to like some Jews so that they would support his campaign? And this is a plus?)

*** 

Is Ron Paul a homo-phobe? Well, yes and no. He is not all bigoted towards homosexuals. He supports their rights to do whatever they please in their private lives. He is however, personally uncomfortable around homosexuals, no different from a lot of older folks of his era. 

(That one speaks for itself.)


There were two incidents that I will cite, for the record. One that involved me directly, and another that involved another congressional staffer or two. 

(I am revealing this for the very first time, and I’m sure Jim Peron will be quite surprised to learn this.) 

In 1988, Ron had a hardcore Libertarian supporter, Jim Peron, Owner of Laissez Faire Books in San Francisco. Jim set up a magnificent 3-day campaign swing for us in the SF Bay Area. Jim was what you would call very openly Gay. But Ron thought the world of him. For 3 days we had a great time trouncing from one campaign event to another with Jim’s Gay lover. The atmosphere was simply jovial between the four of us. (As an aside we also met former Cong. Pete McCloskey during this campaign trip.) We used Jim’s home/office as a “base.” Ron pulled me aside the first time we went there, and specifically instructed me to find an excuse to excuse him to a local fast food restaurant so that he could use the bathroom. He told me very clearly, that although he liked Jim, he did not wish to use his bathroom facilities. I chided him a bit, but he sternly reacted, as he often did to me, Eric, just do what I say. Perhaps “sternly” is an understatement. Ron looked at me directly, and with a very angry look in his eye, and shouted under his breath: “Just do what I say NOW.” 

(Makes sense. Paul being a doctor knows that if he risks using the bathroom of a known homosexual he will emerge completely covered in the "teh gay."  Next thing you know he will be flaunting a feather boa and singing show tunes on the campaign trail.)


*** 

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

So to be clear, this is a Ron Paul SUPPORTER.

Let's face it, Paul is NEVER going to be the GOP nominee and for every moron who truly believes this intolerant, racist asshole has a chance to win going up against the President I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you right here in Alaska.