By The Right Scoop


This is an great ZoNation because Zo calls out Republicans for not fighting hard enough against liberals who seek to redefine the Republican Party and also for allowing the party to swing toward libertarians. And he spends much of the segment defending Lincoln against the libertarians who hate him. But his main point is that the Republican Party must distinguish itself once again and stand up for it’s true identity – the party of the republic:

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • http://twitter.com/PaulZummo Paul Zummo

    That was great – I hadn’t seen ZoNation before, but he made a lot of points I’ve made in the past. I particularly loved the neocon/neocon play on words there.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OQI5D66OXO7X2FE4NVCZC7BAMA Joe

      He is a TEA Party member too!

      WAIT! – WHAT??

      • blackbird

        Thanks for the link Joe, have not seen that before.

    • blackbird
    • NCHokie02

      Oh man you have a lot of catching up to do. Zo is awesome. His rants on the democrat party being racist and how he points it out are brilliant. I love Zo. You should check out more of his videos on PJTV.

      • tinlizzieowner

        I subscribe to it, as you obviously do. ;-)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OQI5D66OXO7X2FE4NVCZC7BAMA Joe

    I have something to say but
    I don’t want to be first

    I’ll say it later

    • aposematic

      Nice sense of humor Joe…well, it made me laugh anyway.

    • marketcomp

      Say what you need to say, Joe!

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OQI5D66OXO7X2FE4NVCZC7BAMA Joe

        I just did – somewhere

  • sjmom

    Zo just pinpointed the problem. There are too many factions in the Republican party who are at odds on issues. Well done Zo.

    • aposematic

      Agree and the RINOs have control over the R Party leaderlessship.

  • aposematic

    I like Zo a lot, been following him for years. But, the last half of this clip is pure nonsense. The only third Party that would have any chance of winning more than a few Congressional seats would be one where Libertarians and Conservatives unite to bring down this Evil in DC (that means D’s and R’s). As the GOP stands under the present leaderlessship no Conservative will ever get more than a seat in the back of the bus.

    • bjohnson55

      I beg to differ, if we could get a 60% turn out of Registered Republican voters to show up at the polls we would have a land slide victory and it would be called a mandate. Apathy within the Republican ranks is the problem not fighting amongst ourselves, hells bells there is hardly enough passion within the party to account for a good pissing match. Think about it a little before you fire back PLEASE!!

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OQI5D66OXO7X2FE4NVCZC7BAMA Joe

        FOX led the idiots to believe it “was in the bag”

        So lazy voters stayed home

        I have NO respect for KArl Rove and anyone like him

        • bjohnson55

          I have to agree, the root issues are being talked around and not being addressed. Krauthhamer said that this inuguration speech of Obama’s officially puts an end to the era of Reaganism. I beg to differ with him the era of Reaganism ended with HW Bush because of his compassionate conservative crap and was pushed down the rail at light speed by Clinton and finished off by GW Bush. Oh no there I went and said it the skeleton in the closet is “Progressism” within the Republican party and ol Mr Rove was one of the ring leaders.

        • bgth021

          What Fox did is called propaganda blowback. They actually tried to trick the other guys into thinking they were losing. Maybe he wouldn’t turn out. He don’t watch FOX. Idiots.

          Read my .99cent ebook. It’s 2048 and It Happened at Nextfest.
          http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004RD9EEY/

      • aposematic

        O.K., I thought about it and if you could define what victory is and who’s victory that might be. Do you want R’s to blindly vote for any nitwit because they put a capital R behind their name. That’s what the D’s do, isn’t it. So, sounds like you must be a huge Rove fan and any R will do as long as the R’s get to be in charge of redistributing the Republics wealth.

        • bjohnson55

          Oh no way am I a Rove fan, I answered Joe on just that matter in this string;
          I have to agree, the root issues are being talked around and not being addressed. Krauthhamer said that this inauguration speech of Obama’s officially puts an end to the era of Reaganism. I beg to differ with him the era of Reaganism ended with HW Bush because of his compassionate conservative crap and was pushed down the rail at light speed by Clinton and finished off by GW Bush. Oh no there I went and said it the skeleton in the closet is “Progressism” within the Republican party and ol Mr Rove was one of the ring leaders. We tip toe around the subject when it comes to discussing what went wrong in the GW Bush years because we are so busy trying to defend him from the rabid attacks from the left. I believe we need to be honest about his lack of Conservative principles and how that lacking helped land us in the mess we find ourselves in today.

        • bjohnson55

          Victory to me is a step back from the abyss of Socialism and Romney/Ryan would have been that step. Not a perfect Conservative pairing but you have to admit much better than Obama. Once we begin having honest debate within the Republican Party and define what it is to be Conservative versus Progressive and as a party come to a final resolution of who we are then we may have a chance to turn this country back to what the founders intended. RINO’s are what is killing the enthusiasm with-in this Party and until they are purged there will be a cloud of apathy hanging over the Republican Party and we can kiss it all good-bye.

    • http://www.facebook.com/richard.drakos Richard Drakos

      Took the words right outta my mouth. I like Zo a lot as well, but the last half of this video is utter nonsense. Neo-Confederate? A liberal that hates taxes? Does Zo realize that there are plenty of Pro-Life and Pro-Traditional Marriage Libertarians? Well, this is one Libertarian who think Lincoln was a fantastic President.

  • marketcomp

    I am so elated that ZoNation is finally put libertarians and their ideologies on blast! Many, if not most, are Atheist and I have a difficult time even understanding why the Republican Party has embraced their ideology and platform. Well a typical libertarian would be Rand Paul and I have seen him advocate for defunding Israel but back them at the same time as an alley. I have seen him advocate for same-sex marriage saying it’s a State’s Right issue but never supporting legislation that strengthen the family. I have seen him support and advocate for illegal drug use which is troubling and Republicans are told that this is necessary to remain relevant or something to that effect. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. I see Glenn Beck favoring an atheist like, Penn Juliette which is puzzling if not troubling to say the least and Beck says he’s not affiliated with the Republican party but he campaign, and endorsed Romney. We are having enough problems just getting republicans to understand their Constitutional foundations and with liberals, libertarians, and Marxist-Leninist ideologies, America and the Constitution gets lost.

    • aposematic

      This is one Libertarian that puts God, family, and Country above all else and in that order. I do consider myself a ConservativeLibertarian even though I score 100% libertarian on ideology tests. Why, because I believe 95% of what the Fed. Gov. does is none of their business. 80% of what State Gov. does is none of their business. And 50% of what local Gov. does is none of their business. If you think none of that is Conservative, has anyone been watching what Gov. has and is doing to destroy our Constitutional Republic.

      • marketcomp

        I completely understand your positions aposematic.But you must know that it is not Government’s role to support illegal drug use, prositution or any activity that puts the public at risk. I don’t like the patriot act and when Bush was President I was OK with that. But, with Obama as President I am not OK with that and because I know he will use any information against those who did not vote for him because that’s what dictators do. Clinton did it with FBI files against his opposition and so would Obama. So I understand not having Govrenment intervene at every aspect of our lives because the Constitution supports that. But, there comes time when it is necessary in the case of illegal drug use and prostitution and others.

        • RonPaulSupporter2

          Forgive me for injecting into this debate but when you say “…it is not Government’s role to support illegal drug use…”, do you imply that Libertarians believe under a libertarian administration in the USA that it would? If you do, then I believe you don’t understand the Libertarian position on drug use and prostitution.

          A Libertarian DOES NOT SUPPORT OR CONDONE the activities of others. A Libertarian believes that a person has the freedom to live their life the way they want to and to be responsible and accountable for it when and if it goes wrong. The only time a Libertarian would object is if another persons activities or choices puts someone else’s life and well being in danger in any way. I believe a Libertarian administration in the USA would also do the same thing.

          So, for example…

          A Libertarian administration would not allow a person to drive a car under the influence of ANY kind of substance that causes them to be a danger to others. However, if you choose to stay in your home and drink, alchohol, smoke pot, or take some other drug, you should have the right to do so and will live with the consequences of those actions.

          That is not a SUPPORTING position in my opinion. It is a NEUTRAL position. It says that I’m not going to stop you from doing it and I’m not going to help you out if you get into trouble because of it.

          If you know the expression about teenagers that says if you give them an inch they’ll take a mile; the same is true from my perspective about government.

          The USA is in the shape it’s in now because we as a people have allowed the government to “take a mile” time and time again.

          Will a Libertarian administration create a utopia here on earth? NOPE! However, it will create a situation where individuals, by their actions, will determine the fate of the USA. I happen to believe that it would be a lot better than what we have now but I know that’s a matter of opinion.

          I know on this board that Libertarians are definitely in the minority. All that I ask is that whatever you say to them (us) in your replies are as respectful as those who call themselves, “Republicans”, “Conservatives”, etc.

          All the best to you.

          • keyesforpres

            We were founded on ordered liberty and the problem with letting hard drugs be legal is more folks will try them (one of the reasons I never tried them was because they were illegal). Druggies can’t work and need gov’t assistance. That is my big problem with making hard drugs legal.

            • RonPaulSupporter2

              Thanks for the sincere and mature reply.

              Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. In fact, I believe quite the opposite. More people DO try them because of the illegality of them.

              I, like you, have never done any kind of illegal drug ever.

              Was I offered? Yes. Did I accept? No. Would I ever accept? Nope! Even if they were made legal I wouldn’t accept but that’s just me.

              If hard drugs were legal, I believe you could regulate them (on a state or local level) the same way you regulate alcohol, cigarettes, and other narcotics like Oxycontin, and also tax them. It would probably eliminate the drug related violence on our southern border. It would probably eliminate death of users by impure uncontrolled drugs coming in to the country underground. It would probably free up government resources to be used for other purposes.

              Treatment for people “druggies” as you call them should not include jail but some other treatment as it is a social and medical problem not a criminal one. It’s kind of the same thing with the current gun debate as it has to do with mental illness. It’s not the guns, it’s the mental illness that’s the issue. Same with drugs, it’s not the drug, it’s the person that has the problem that needs to be addressed. And (as usual) our society and government do a poor job of dealing with BOTH issues; drug use and mental illness.

              Thanks for the sincere reply. Always a pleasure to debate someone that shows some maturity and respect for another’s opinion and position on the issues.

              All the best to you.

              • NCHokie02

                I agree with most points you make here except for the “it’s not the drugs” part. Granted people are part of that problem but drugs are addictive and a lot of times painful for people if they stop using. So they continue. Now to get started in the first place, yes it’s the person. And to actually try and stop, yes it’s the person. But the drugs to play a part.

                On to legalization I don’t know why everyone thinks that if the Federal Gov’t disbans the DEA and says drugs are no longer a federal crime, that all the states would follow suit and say “Us too…we have state DEA and all drugs are legal here.” I believe most states would continue to keep drugs illegal. However the federal gov’t getting out of the way in this is the correct thing to do because they have no authority from the Constitution to mandate drug use. It should be left up to the states, as per the Constitution. If people believe that their state would legalize drugs then either vote against it, vote in people who would vote against it or move.

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  To address your first paragraph…

                  Then why aren’t cigarettes and alcohol made illegal since it’s a known fact that both of those are addictive and difficult (and sometimes painful) to stop using as well? Since the cigarettes and alcohol play a part, shouldn’t we ban them as well?

                  To address your second paragraph….

                  Actually, I agree with you one-hundred percent! (Bet you didn’t see that coming! LOL!)

                  Yes, if the states wanted to continue the “drug wars” they absolutely have the right under the constitution to do so. My belief is that they might continue the same thing that the FEDS are doing now but over time one or some states might come up with a better model and possibly others will follow suit.

                  I think as a Libertarian, I often get told that I’m an anarchist. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Every civilized society and free market economy needs government; no question. I just don’t want to see its power and control concentrated in one location (i.e. Washington, D.C.).

                • NCHokie02

                  And too much Ice cream makes you fat. They tried banning alcohol, the correct way, and it didn’t work so they repealed the amendment. All I was saying in my first paragraph is that it is not solely on the people who use and that the drugs do play a role. Yes it is the people’s ultimate decision to use and continue using and I’m not saying they don’t have the majority of the role in the problem.

                  I agree that some states would probably find better ways to combat drug use and trafficking than the feds do. The fed gov’t could say all DEA agents are now under the pervue of the state gov’ts. If they states don’t want a DEA that is up to them and they can not have it.

                • keyesforpres

                  I don’t know….illegal drugs crossing our border and crossing state borders might fall under the commerce clause

                • NCHokie02

                  It’s not the gov’t’s job to decide what can and what can’t cross state borders. The commerce clause was written to ensure that one state didn’t tax another state while letting other states trade freely coming in. If I bring dairy from northern NC into a farmers market in southern VA the federal gov’t should have no say in that.

                  If that’s the case though then what about brining alcohol and cigarrettes across state lines?? States have laws regarding those issues but the feds don’t . Same thing.

              • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

                this is where people lose me.
                the taxability of an item should never have anything to do with its legality.

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  OK. Fine. I can see your point. Please look back at what I said. I said you COULD regulate and tax them. I didn’t say you SHOULD. However, I don’t think I’m going out on a limb to say that if you tax something you get less of it, if you subsidize something you get more of it.

                  We allow cigarettes to be “consumed” by people and we all know that they’re bad for your health. We also regulate them and tax them.

                  We allow alcohol to be “consumed” by people and all know that it’s bad for your health. We also regulate and tax it.

                  We allow people to take narcotics (i.e. Oxycontin) in controlled situations and we also regulate and tax it.

                  Why should other drugs (some not even as powerful as Oxycontin) not be allowed?

                  Also, look at the violence and deaths along our southern border because of the “drug wars”. How many innocent people are killed each year because of it. And these people probably never even used drugs and they’re being kidnapped and killed anyway. Even though a death from the use of an illegal drug is tragic, at least you could make a case that the person brought it on to themselves. In the drug wars others are being killed who were completely innocent to the drug use situation.

                  I think the whole “drug war” needs to be looked at from another perspective and at the very least re-evaluated for it’s TRUE effectiveness for its COST in dollars and more importantly innocent lives.

                  Thanks for the respectful reply.

                  All the best to you.

                • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

                  I’m not saying I disagree, its just something I hear a lot and it always bugs me.

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  And part of me agrees with you.

                  Look, the last thing I want is to see more people under the influence of something being out and about in our society. But being a fan of Milton Friedman, I now see that every story has to sides and things aren’t always as black and white and as simple as people make them. The issues are complex. I also like to look at any problem/situation/crisis/etc. from the standpoint of how can we solve the problem with more freedom as opposed to less.

                  Thanks for the honest and respectful debate.

                  All the best to you.

            • http://www.facebook.com/A1fonzie Al Stepney III

              I like your screen name “keyesforpres”, but I like RonPaulSupporter2’s position better.
              Don’t like “hard” drugs, don’t use ‘em but if someone is fool enough to do so it shouldn’t be govt’s job to stop them, UNLESS they are harming someone else.

              Now, does someone using “hard” drugs have the POTENTIAL to harm someone else. Of course! The question then is what is our collective responsibility and duty to mitigate or keep someone from making that potential a reality? That should be greatest extent of the govt’s intrusion on that persons liberty.

              To ban all drugs (guns, bullets, raw milk products, etc. etc.) to try to eliminate the potential of all harm (including harm to the direct user) is an overreach of power and authority, and is wrong, according to our founding principles.

              • marketcomp

                There are so many problems with illegal drugs including where they are made, who makes them, and the quality and sustainablity of the drugs. Just that alone would be enough for me. guns, raw milk products have a manufacturing process and quality standards that can give some assurances to the public concerning safety and efficacy.

              • RonPaulSupporter2

                Thank you.

                Rarely on this board do my positions get any support.

                I think the underlying theme here is that these problems are not black and white. They are more complex than we realize and the solutions (i.e. ban drugs that some politicians deem harmful) are not simple, clean, elegant, and probably most importantly, don’t always work as planned.

                All the best to you.

              • keyesforpres

                Sorry, but nothing any of you guys say about hard drugs being legalalized will change my mind.
                Our Founders would never have agreed with legalizing something like hard drugs.

                We were founded on ordered liberty…not doing whatever you want. People who do hard drugs are useless….they can’t hold a job and commit violent crimes. It’s not something we need to legalize to give us more liberty. It would give us less liberty.

              • NCHokie02

                should be left up to the states

            • Guest1776rcp

              Pot is not a “hard drug” like LSD, Cocaine, Meth, etc….

              All libertarians want is to get back to the Constitution, many conservatives also believe in big government as long as it suits their politics. I’m with Clarence Thomas myself and believe pot should be legalized and taxed. Here we have the perfact tax to make liberaqls pay their fair share and conservatives dismiss it. Pot is not a gateway to other drugs, alcohol is the gateway to all drugs and alcohol is actually worse than pot.


              Gonzales v. Raich
              Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent, stating in part:

              Respondent’s local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not “Commerce … among the several States.” Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.

              and

              If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to “appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.”

              and further:

              If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined”, while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.

              • keyesforpres

                Actually, the liver can metabolize alcohol…in moderation. Pot…not so much. There was a good video posted here a month or so ago that explained it pretty well.

                I don’t care if someone smokes pot in their house, but I don’t want it legalized. You do that an people will be smoking it in public around small children. Think about that.

                • Guest1776rcp

                  “You do that an people will be smoking it in public around small children. Think about that. “

                  And that would be worse than people drinking alcohol in public and in front of children? Banning alcohol didn’t do nothing except grow the mafia, sadly the same can be said for pot. Legalize it and tax it because if your kid wants to smoke pot he/she is going to smoke pot regardless. Instead of the gubmint collecting taxes the mob collects the money and more people are sent to prison strengthening unions and costing the tax payers. It cost over $50,000 a year to keep potheads incarcerated, its absurd considering alcohol is far more damaging.

          • marketcomp

            But the consequences of your participation in illegal drug use are likely and can and will be a burden to society so that does affect everyone else. Look, I am all for doing whatever you want in your domicile. But, when that person gets cancer or some debilitating illness or disease due to participating in illegal activities then oftentimes society will be responsible for providing medical attention and any other health issue. And at that point you have neither free will nor independence. Meaning all of us pay for someone else’s right to do what they want in their homes. If you are independently wealthy then what you chose to engage in illegal is your business and by all means knock yourself out. But often times being wealthy is rarely associated with libertarians.

            You say, “it will create a situation where individuals, by their actions, will determine the fate of the USA”. Do you understand that when we are in war we need a military and one individual cannot get the job done? We DO NOT live in a utopian world, despite what some may think, like Ron Paul. This is a world that respects strength and one individual represents nothing in the face of an tyrannical aggressor. Republicans for the most part are not preoccupied with what people do in their environment which is why, before the tea party, republicans in mass did not engage in many of the policies that effect our lives. So the tea party was created as a rallying cry to counter the over reach of the Federal Government. And where were the libertarians doing that fight? Nowhere to be found. So there are many issues that I completely disagree with libertarians but chief among them is the legalization of illegal drugs, legalizing prostitution, supporting the legalization of same-sex marriage to name a few.

            • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

              Just to make a point, and not making fun of here……If we continually try to ban things that will be a “burden” to society in general, then NYC would be getting it right, by banning soda(large amounts), salt, what’s next, tasty food? I mean, you will ALWAYS have health problems from people, sometimes it is in there genes. Sadly, others just over eat(ban eating next??). You are reaching beyond the scope of what the government is to do, and dictating by fiat, what is and is not “healthy” in your eyes. Granted, I am not one who would go out and do drugs if they were legalized, but where do you draw the line of freedom and start determining someone else’s rights? If we continue to “dictate” what is “healthy” and not, we are no better than Bloomberg(whom I would think we all don’t like). I honestly don’t think anyone should dictate to anyone else what “they” think is “right”, it only leads to YOUR “rights” being dictated.

              As for war, yes, we need a military, but, do we need an Army when NOT in war? According to the Constitution, the Army is to be disbanded. However, the Navy is to be 24/7, non-stop. You have to look at the words used to understand the difference. Army – to raise and support for a period no longer than a term of two years. Never once is the word “maintain” mentioned for the Army. HOWEVER, when it comes to the Navy, it says to provide and maintain a Navy. Why were there two different terminologies used between the Army and the Navy? The founders were suspect of a full-time Army, and were worried that a tyrannical Government could use it against it’s people. Funny, how that could still be possible with the Army we as citizen champion to “maintain” today. So, why would we “maintain” a Navy? Because we are across vast oceans, meaning they would have to cross “water” to get to us, whoever the “they” are. The Navy was to be the front lines of the battlefield, not the Army. This is where Libertarians get the idea that the “military” is too big. We have NO problems with defense, but, the Army can be used for both good and bad by the Government. The idea that “one man” can’t get it done in the face of a tyrannical regime wanting to attack us, is true, but that is what the Navy was built for, to protect us from foreign invaders. And, before I get the ridiculous idea about the Air Force, we have carriers, so fighter jets would still be used. And lets not forget that we have nuke interceptors on our ships as well, so the thought of nuke invasion should be well protected there as well.

              • NCHokie02

                I think a lot of people forget that members of the military have their opinions as well and our oath is to the constitution. We are not robots. The amount of people in the military that actually do the fighting is very small. There are portions of the military that can be cut back but just saying the army is too big because the gov’t may use them to rule the people is a little far-fetched in my mind. The Army is all volunteer and I don’t know anyone in the military who would obey orders that were against the American people and the constitution.

                • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                  I don’t know anyone either, but far-fetched, I am beginning to believe it is more possible that previously. Just look at how the electorate is, and, if that is a reflection of the people, aren’t those same people joining the military as well? I agree that those of us who believe in the constitution wouldn’t attack our own people, but what about those who blindly follow orders, or just blindly follow? Do you trust them? The military is built around following orders, and if you don’t you are a deserter or worse. What happens if the brass tells those troops to turn their guns on their neighbor, will they do it? Neither you nor I know anyone who would do it, but lets just say, Obama knows who would. He may not be the one to do it, but the next president, or the one after that, might.

                • Amy

                  Just look at how the electorate is, and, if that is a reflection of the people, aren’t those same people joining the military as well?

                  No, it’s not. Anyone who’s served understands completely that the general populace is not representative of those who choose to serve this nation. The military is built upon defending the Constitution – something everyone who joins takes an oath to do. They take this oath a hell of a lot more seriously than any politician does. Your far-fetched scenario is just that – far fetched.

                • NCHokie02

                  Disagree. It’s pretty well ingrained that soldiers are not to follow an illegal or unconstitutional order. Guys that do that overseas in a foreign land is one thing but back home to their neighbors?? No way. Plus as I mentioned the vast majority of the guys that do the fighting in the military are conservative. Not following orders doesn’t make you a deserter. It makes you question the orders. Now if they are legal and lawful orders and you refuse then yes you are subject to UCMJ. But if they aren’t you are in the right and the person who gave the unlawful order is subject to punishment.

                  Obama doesn’t know who would turn their guns on their neighbor in the military. Maybe he has his own little group to come around, but the entire US?? Thats a lot of people. They would have to also contend with state and local police as well as the National Guard if the Gov so inclined to call them up.

                • keyesforpres

                  What scares me is O is letting the Chinese buy into our energy sources here and other businesses. They are building their own little towns with only Chinese workers. The Communist gov’t owns the Chinese businesses….these are Chinese military installations he is allowing on our soil.

                • NCHokie02

                  give china a couple of years and they will be in shambles economically. It’s the same with the Japanese in the late 80’s and 90’s. Everyone thought Japan was going to become some big power and they were buying crap up over here, then their economy crumbled and they still haven’t recovered. The same is true with China. Their one-child policy is going to bite them in the ass big time. One child taking care of two parents (which is customary in that part of the world) isn’t going to cut it. What is their military force going to look like when they can’t even have a sustainable labor force?? China can’t even push their 1 aircraft carrier beyond the south China sea. China is concerened about their neck of the woods most importantly. Yes they may be trying to profit off of some things here but they are not going to overtake us.

              • marketcomp

                Ok Barton, there is a lot here to discuss so here goes, it was never the Founders intention to ban everything deemed to infringe on the liberty of the individual. But when your activities infringe on the liberty of others, like engaging in high risk activities that put others life in danger such as driving under the influence of illegal drugs, cannot be sanctioned under the opuses of liberty and individual freedom. I don’t think sodas are high risk but the people of New York elected that man so they get what they get. While you may choose to engage in those high risk activities does not mean that the Government must sanction those activities or ignore them because you choose to engage. Moreover, because those activities include breaking because they out the public at risk you are also limiting the liberties and freedoms of others in your decision making. We must use discernment when developing laws that support freedom for the individual, and not just freedom for the few.

                The Constitution actually calls for a “Well trained militia” and in your infinite wisdom I am sure you know that it means practice, routine, hierarchy, and understanding and developing rules of engagement regardless of the Commander and Chief. This is essential and I don’t care what Ron Paul and his supporters may think having a trained military is necessary and essential. I don’t think the Founding Fathers envisioned terrorist or in some cases treason like we have seen since the Constitution. We have the military forces, my friend, which patrols the sea, land, and air and that includes the Navy, Army, Air Force, and all other divisions that delineate from those branches such as the Marines, and Coast Guard, to name a few. When we refer to “foot soldiers” or “Army of patriots” we are using terms to express many or few. But, that’s not the same as the United States Army sanctioned by the US Government where we select Representatives, Senators, and the President (OK with a few exceptions) to ensure our security and to preserve our unalienable rights.

                • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                  To your first part, I agree for the most part, but, the constitution was to provide freedoms to the few, not the many, which, whether you or I like it, that does include things we wouldn’t do ourselves. The best example I can give to defending the few, would be the “Piss Christ” so-called artwork. I don’t like it, but I will defend it’s right to be done, whether I agree with it or not(granted, this is a WHOLE other aspect of the argument, but, it defends the few). Without getting off subject, I agree with driving laws, but, if the driving public is in danger, then alcohol should be banned by that same statement, which, I don’t agree with. Drugs are absolutely bad for you, but, who are you or I to determine what goes in one’s body? If drugs were regulated like alcohol, the “purity” of it would be MUCH less than it is on the streets today. Same went for alcohol as well. There was moonshine, which was far from regulated, and could have killed with just one drink. Once regulated, alcohol had to be “dumbed down” for health reasons. There are still a select few who make moonshine, but it isn’t rampant as it once was under prohibition, and we don’t have the cartels running it either. I believe the same would happen with drugs as well. Doesn’t mean I want to do it, or be around it. I think there is a better way to do the “drug war” and actually dwindle the cartel’s ability to hold entire states(Mexico being one of them) at bay. So far, the “drug war” has only emboldened the cartels, which hasn’t been good for our southern boarders.

                  To your second part, the militia was to be “trained” in times of war. I disagree that the founders didn’t envision terrorism, as they saw it first hand from the middle-east. They also saw first hand what treason looked like. There was tons of it during the uprising of the country itself. The founders today would be regarded as treasonous or even terrorists by today’s standards. Don’t take that out of context as I was using it as an example nothing more. I don’t think we should dilute the constitution by trying to deem what they saw to what is happening now. That is where we loose the battle. We must imagine that they saw things this far down the road, and knew of a better way of doing things, having seen what happens when troops turn their guns on their fellow man. Remember, the Americans were Brits at one time, and the Brits turned their guns on their own people. This is why they didn’t want a standing Army. Look at the reasons for the confederation and the charges to the King at the time. This is why I asked the question earlier, why was the terminology different for the Army versus the Navy? If they hadn’t envisioned treason, why would they NOT want a standing Army, but a 24/7 Navy? You point out the “well trained militia” but that is from the second amendment, meaning that the people were to be armed and ready to be called forth by the congress in such cases as needed for defense of the country. It has nothing to do with maintaining an active Army. The enumerated power states: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. This has nothing to do with keeping an Army at all times, it states that the States were to name their leaders, and subsequent officers, arm them as needed, and to organize it in a manor that was prescribed by congress. Nothing there that I can find states we were to have bases setup all across the globe, nothing there about providing indefinite servitude in the Army. It states to call forth a militia, not to have one standing by at all times, just in case. Granted, most Ron Paul supporters are against any kind of military, I am just stating we should stick to the Constitution, and follow what it says, which is maintain a Navy, and raise and support an Army for no more than 2 years. I am not one of those lunatic Ron Paul supporters, but I do support bringing home the expanded Empire, no need for nearly all those bases abroad. But I also don’t believe in leaving Israel to the wolves. We must stand with God’s people, or we will be punished for leaving them to suffer. With that said, I would leave our base(s) in Israel.

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  A couple of comments….

                  1.) Ron Paul supporters are NOT against any kind of military. In fact, most of us want a state of the art military. What we typically are against is using the military for purposes other than the DEFENSE OF THE U.S.A. We are against preemptive war. We are against nation building. We are against entangling alliances with other countries. Here’s a youtube clip of Ron Paul himself talking about defense spending vs. military spending….

                  Whether you agree with his position or not is not the issue. Just understand that he’s NOT against any kind of military as you say.

                  2.) Please refrain from calling Ron Paul supporters “lunatics”. That is clearly an insult. You may disagree with Ron Paul’s positions on political, military, and economic matters and those that support him but for the most part we can articulate our position very well and can offer up meaningful dialog in debate forums such as The Right Scoop. I have been called out a number of times on this board by the moderators when I refer to others as “neocons” and the like but I rarely see anyone who insults Ron Paul supporters get called out by those same moderators; definitely a double standard here. Please, I respectfully ask that you do not add to that double standard.

                  All the best to you.

                • stage9

                  Would fighting terror on a foreign shore rather than our own include your definition of “preemptive war”? Iraq excluded?

                  You would also allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, if your views are consistent with Mr Paul’s. This is what’s called lunacy. Having the power to stop evil but doing nothing.

                  Also you would not fund Israel, a close ally of the US. And it is clear Mr Paul doesn’t want to fund ANY ally opting instead for seclusion and reclusion. That’s great, until one day a pact of rogue nations decides to challenge our sovereignty through force and we have no allies to come to our defense because we never wanted any.

                  You do realize that we couldn’t win the Revolution without the French right? And their coming to our aid wasn’t free or done out of the goodness of their hearts.

                  And frankly you are no different than a liberal. You are a neoliberal. You only seek liberty so that you can build some illusory immoral utopian fantasy. Funny though how that worldview has never survived history and never will.

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  Read your comments. Refuse to debate you. Obviously, your mind is already made up. Not worth my time to engage you.

                • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                  RPS2, don’t take that the wrong way, I was talking about the far fringe, not every RP supporter. I supported him to the dismay of those here, but, I don’t mind the beating. Once I knew he wasn’t going to be the nominee, I choose the lesser of 2 evils with Romney. Here is to hoping Rand runs soon.

                  All the best back to ya as well.

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  And I also chose to cast my vote for Romney, just so you know.

                  However, I really wish you would’ve articulated that point in your reply to “marketcomp”. It didn’t appear to me that your were making a distinction.

                  I believe you could make a case for the extreme wing of ANY group being lunatics, even those that supported Ronmey or Gingrich, Giuliani, Johnson, etc. and certainly Obama!

                  Hopefully you at least watched the video and now understand that he’s not anti-military.

                  Thanks for the mature and respectful debate. My sincere apologies if I misunderstood the intentions of your comments.

            • RonPaulSupporter2

              OK…one point at a time…I’m gonna try and address all your comments…here goes…

              You said: “But the consequences of your participation in illegal drug use are likely and can and will be a burden to society so that does affect everyone else.”

              My reply: Users of illegal drugs are only a “burden to society” if “society” allows them to.

              You said: “….oftentimes society will be responsible for providing medical attention and any other health issue.

              My reply: What is society? Who defines society? Are we all the same? No. Therefore if INDIVIDUALS want to come forward and help other INDIVIDUALS, then they have the right to do so without the permission or involvement (either monetarily or otherwise) from “society”. This is the way it should be. Remember, bottom line Libertarian philosophy is YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN LIFE, HEALTH, AND WELL BEING, NOT “SOCIETY”. How that help happens can fill up pages of text which I won’t get into now.

              The rest of your first paragraph can be addressed in basically the same way as what I’ve said above.

              You said: “Do you understand that when we are in war we need a military and one individual cannot get the job done?

              My reply: Yes, I absolutely understand that. And so does Ron Paul. Don’t forget, he was in the military, served his country, and went when ordered to go. The Constitution says in the very first paragraph “provide for the common defense”. I believe that the USA needs a strong state of the art military. What Ron Paul and his supporters question is the PRESENT DAY ROLE of the military around the world and what defines “common defense”. For example, what does building an embassy in Iraq bigger than the Vatican have to do with the defense of the USA? Yes, I’m sure there are those that will make a ’roundabout argument for it with enough therefores to choke a horse. From my perspective, it is the equivalent of stuffing the proverbial round peg in the square hole. You make the Constitution fit your justification when the intent was never there in the first place.

              You said: “We DO NOT live in a utopian world, despite what some may think, like Ron Paul.”

              My reply: In all the many years of listening to him speak, I have NEVER heard him say that if we follow his principles, the USA will become this Utopian paradise. Ron Paul believes in freedom and liberty. He believes in low taxation, sensible regulation, and protection of the rights of the individual. None of those beliefs directly point to a Utopian outcome.

              You said: “This is a world that respects strength and one individual represents nothing in the face of an tyrannical aggressor.”

              My reply: And if Libertarians had been in charge of our government for many, many years, we’d have (arguably) the strongest, most technologically advanced, state of the art, military the world has ever seen. What the USA would NOT have is a military that is under-funded (which I believe ours currently is), under equipped for our own defense (we are still vulnerable to missile attack from rogue nations), and over utilized all over the world (we provide military defense and other operations to and in countries that are more than capable of taking care of themselves yet we leave our own borders open so terrorists could walk across, plant a dirty nuke in any of our cities, set it off, and probably never get caught…unbelievable).

              You said: “So the tea party was created as a rallying cry to counter the over reach of the Federal Government.”

              My reply: I agree.

              You said: “And where were the libertarians doing that fight? Nowhere to be found.”

              My reply: And you have concrete proof that not a SINGLE LIBERTARIAN has EVER attended a tea party event? Well my friend, I cannot speak for others but I can tell you this: I attended BOTH 9/12 rallies in Washington D.C. in 2009 and 2010. During the first rally in 2009, Ron Paul himself made an appearance. When his name was announced, a pretty good size cheer went up from the crowd. Again, I can tell you that because I WAS THERE! If only Libertarians like Ron Paul, then there was either a lot of us there or a lot of others besides Libertarians also like Ron Paul.

              You said: “So there are many issues that I completely disagree with libertarians but chief among them is the legalization of illegal drugs, legalizing prostitution, supporting the legalization of same-sex marriage to name a few.

              My reply: Then you believe in using the power of the federal government for your causes and what you believe “society” either wants or should want. Don’t you see it’s exactly the same thing as the democrats ramming healthcare down our throats? You just want to ram something different that YOU BELIEVE IN down their throats. It’s the same thing! You’re just as guilty as the democrats, progressives, statists, and liberals of trying to make the USA out to be what you want it to be! You want everybody else to believe what you do but yet you oppose them doing it to you! If that’s not hypocrisy than I don’t know what is!

              • marketcomp

                Look, I don’t care what either you or Barton want people to believe about your libertarian positions. I accept that your beliefs are counter or different that mine and probably most on RS. And even if your positions are totally counter to what I believe, you still have the right to believe them. So go and convenience others. I am not interested.

                • RonPaulSupporter2

                  Fine. You say you’re not interested. OK. You certainly seemed interested until I countered all your points. Well anyway, if you want to debate the issues anytime in the future, I’ll be waiting.

                  All the best to you.

                • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                  Being counter, or different, in opinion, isn’t that a good thing, or at least healthy? I may not totally agree with RPS2 completely either, but, that is what makes us individuals. It is healthy to debate, and counter-productive to argue. All I was making the point about was the reasoning for the difference in verbiage that was used in the Constitution, and the closest answer I have received as an explanation for why it was used that way, was that they couldn’t have foreseen what the future held, so we have to have bases and military spreed throughout the world. Isn’t the argument the same as the liberals, that the founders couldn’t have foreseen X(guns as an example)? I have contended that the Founders DID foresee what was coming 200+ years down the road, hence why the verbiage was written the way it was. But not one person can explain why. Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians believe in about 80% the same thing, the 20% is what bothers most Republicans. They want to keep what is the status-quo, which is their opinion, but, as a strict Constitutionalist, I want to follow what is written, not what I want it to say, and THAT is the difference.

        • aposematic

          Hmmm… Marketcomp? What part of my reply to you did you not understand????

  • bjohnson55

    Clarity is what you get with Zonation, thanks!!

  • Sober_Thinking

    Based on what Zo said, there doesn’t seem to be many real Republicans left.

    Zo is spot on as usual. Love his contributions… always excellent. Always.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OQI5D66OXO7X2FE4NVCZC7BAMA Joe

    OK – I’ll be past the 10th comment

    ZO is correct

    The GOP has lost its way and lost touch with the people who want the nation BACK TO
    the way it was founded

    They are like the British Army fighting in line formation on the battlefield against

    the Patriots hiding in the trees and brush

    The Liberals are kicking our A$$

    The GOP MUST wake up and fight dirty like Libreals are – There is too much at stake!

    If they say racist – say prove it!

    The GOP is hated anyway BUT They must do the right thing or go down fighting
    like YOUNG men – not like OLD men

    Boehner must go!

    We NEED more YOUNG MEN like ZO to wake up the brain dead!

    • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

      Why would you think you’d get yelled at?! It’s the truth!!
      Well said as usual Joe!

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OQI5D66OXO7X2FE4NVCZC7BAMA Joe

        Scoop thinks I am first to post all the time

        (Not sure why that’s bad)

        If I had a job – I wouldn’t be

        • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

          lol. I like it when you get to post first! :-D Some days it’s either you or me lol. We can’t help it if we’re addicted to Scoop!!

        • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

          I didn’t say posting first is bad. It was what you did with those posts on certain threads.

          Not to rehash…just clarifying.

  • keyesforpres

    You know what’s really annoying with these Libertarians and their rabid hatred of Lincoln? It was the South that ignored “States’ Rights” with the Dred Scott decision.

    I am reading a book that was published in the late 1800’s and it says that the North offered to extend slavery all the way to California (below a certain line) to try to keep the South happy. A guy in Jefferson Davis’s cabinet begged Davis not to fire on Ft. Sumter. He said if he did, it would be the South’s fault and the South would have started the war.

    A few months later the South INVADED Kentucky in two places…Paducah and the Cumberland Gap (I think..I don’t have the book with me right now). The books says Lincoln gave an order that the North was NOT to be the aggressor….it was the South that started it and it was ALL about slavery….I don’t care how libertarians have changed the story in the past 30 years.

    • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

      I often wonder if the South hadn’t started the war, if their Secession would have stood. Seems like the biggest possible blunder they could have made, and they just went ahead and did it.

      • keyesforpres

        That’s a really good question. Based on this history book, it sounded like Lincoln did not want the North to be the aggressor (that’s what it said), so I would guess he wouldn’t have attacked the South.

        I plan on making an outline of it when I finish reading it. The line out to California is something I had never heard of before. The North was bending over backwards to try to convince the South to stay in the Union.

        I had read in David Barton’s book, “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black and White” about the Knights of the Golden Circle. The south formed this group and it was dedicated to forming their own nation and at the cornerstone would be slavery. In fact, they wanted their own slave nation down through South America and decided it would be too difficult. The book said that Georgia was thinking about seceding in the late 1700’s….all of it over slavery….that is what makes me sick about Libertarians claiming it was a tax…states’ rights, etc…….states don’t have rights…..people do!

      • keyesforpres

        It also said the south was gearing up for war right after Lincoln won.

        • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

          I guess I should study this more.

          I also agree with the fact that it was about slavery. I know it’s fun to call it the War Of Northern Aggression and claim it was really (or ONLY!) about states’ rights. But the fact is, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, and tied it forever to ending slavery, regardless of why it all got started. Once black troops got involved, and Sherman awarded “Forty Acres and a Mule” to freed slaves, that MADE it about slavery, beyond all dispute.

          Sadly, the Northern racists coerced President Johnson to make sure Sherman’s land grants were revoked, and thereby forced generations of black men (the freed slaves, that is) to be sharecroppers, and not landowners. That’s friggin’ Democrats, for ya.

          • http://onthemark1.blogspot.com/ On The Mark

            The Emancipation Proclamation was issued after the war had been going on for two years. It was followed by riots in large cities like New York and mass desertions from the Union army because many who favored the war would have adamantly opposed it had they any idea it was about slavery.

            The Emancipation explicitly excluded slaves in areas controlled by the union at the time it was issued, like Kentucky, West Virginia, and most of Louisiana. That is, it excluded slaves that could actually have been made free. When asked to explain his reasons for it, Lincoln called it a “war measure.”

    • aposematic

      Not true! The South was angry that the North placed high taxes on cotton exports. The North did that to keep cotton prices low for the Northern buyers as cotton was in huge demand. You should find another book. Lincoln fought desperately to keep slavery from becoming a “topic” in the Civil War. Not until Lincoln was faced with a loss in his reelection did Lincoln’s advisers convince him to rally a dwindling support for continuing the War by Notherners, the North was ready to stop the War even if the only way to do that was to dump Lincoln, by appealing to the slavery issue. It also didn’t hurt that tens of thousands of Irish fleeing starvation from Ireland’s potato famine were flooding into the North at that time. An unexpected boom to the North’s Army that more than gladly gave them a meal, an uniform, and a musket to carry South. The rest is as they say history.

      • keyesforpres

        Sorry bud, this book was written about 30 years after the war ended. I believe it is much more accurate than stuff written in the past 30 years.

        So you are saying the South invaded Kentucky in TWO places over a tax on cotton? Disturbing indeed. It was ALL about slavery. I really don’t understand why libertarians have chosen to rewrite the Civil War history.

  • sDee

    I listened twice and still cannot follow him.

    Sounds like he is moving air around in the ballon.

    The Republicans are aligned 90% with everything that is happening in America right now under the Hussein Regime. The Libertarians opposed to 90% of it. That is all I know.

    • Indiana

      I will disagree

  • Indiana

    The biggest mistake in GOP history was the nomination of Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964.

    • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

      No, it was letting the news agencies use “Blue” instead of “Red” as the color of republican districts.

      • Indiana

        Nope, it was Goldwater.

        • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

          No, it was failure to impeach Ted Kennedy.

          • Indiana

            Nope, it was Goldwater.

            • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

              No, it was electing George Bruce Cortelyou as GOP Chairman in 1904.

              • Indiana

                Nope, it was Goldwater.

        • keyesforpres

          Nope, it was the press.

          • Indiana

            Nope, it was Goldwater

            • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

              No, it was calling it the “Republican” party, instead of “The Anti-Federalist Christian Abolitionist” party.

              • Indiana

                Nope, it was Goldwater

                • keyesforpres

                  No it wasn’t. My dad was friends with a guy who was a big domocrat during that time and that dem told my dad that Goldwater was telling the truth…he said he’d go into Vietnam and kicked butt and get out. He told my dad Johnson was lying when he said he wouldn’t send in more troops and escalate the war. Then the press ran that ad with that little girl picking petals off a daisy and the American public was gullible and uninformed.

                  I blame the press and the American people.

                  Heck, a democrat got it!

                • Indiana

                  I meant his southern campaign strategy to appeal to people against the Civil Rights Act.

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    I don’t really know how I feel about this one. It’s directed at “Republicans” which is something awfully mushy and loose already. I don’t make the mistake of equating Republicans with Conservatives, which is what I see Zo doing here.

    We’re currently stuck with a two-party system, so that means no matter what we do, the supposed “right” will include the Mushy Middle, Rockerfeller types like Cristol, Noonan, and Boehner. It will also include actual Conservatives like Rush and Mark Levin, and it will include lower-case ‘l’ libertarians like the late William Safire, and some hardcore, Rothbard vs. Rockwell types like John Stossel. Unfortunately it also includes mutant libertarians like Ron Paul, and some ultra-right-wing wackos. None of those folks are going to consider themselves as being on the left, no matter what happens.

    The trouble is that the mushy Rockerfeller types are in control of the party. It would be nice if the Conservatives got to drive for a while.

    • Conniption Fitz

      Christie, Romney and Boehner, McCain and Murchowski and all the Bushes are what’s wrong with the GOP.

      And the faux conservative media like Coulter and others.

      They are social liberals, big gov. socialists and politicians – not statesmen and guardians of our nation.

  • stage9

    libertarians are nothing more than glorified anarchists.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KMOVIND5XWSO6UOG7QJIZZHFJU William McCullough

    Ummm, no, the reason many Libertarians dislike Lincoln, is because he trashed the constitution, not because he freed the slaves. If he’d actually gone to war to free the slaves, I’d have no problem with him. He went to war to stop the south from seceding. Didn’t the US support Soviet states that seceded from the former USSR.

    • keyesforpres

      Actually it was the South that attacked the north when the fired on Ft. Sumter and then the South invaded Kentucky in two places a few months later because they wanted to secede and have their little slave nation.

  • http://twitter.com/patriotmom61 Shirley Widlacki

    Thank YOU Zo! Finally someone out there who understands and articulates so well exactly what I’ve been saying since the GOP primaries. Conservatives MUST not only wrest OUR Republican Party back from the RINOs now in charge, but we also must prevent the overtake by socially liberal Libertarians. 2016 will be another repeat of 2012 unless we can re-establish ourselves as a truly comprehensively conservative Republican Party. I have had it with Libertarians trying to redefine what conservatism is. Libertarians are NOT conservatives and have no business running as Republicans. Ron Paul’s charade in the GOP primaries was a disgrace to what our party has always stood for. He IS a RINO. His entire primary campaign was geared to attack Rick Santorum, not Barack Obama. I think Ron Paul was more suited to challenge Obama as an anti-tax, anti-war opponent in a Democrat primary. Same goes for Rand Paul, who, to advance his political future for his and his dad’s cause, is putting on a quasi-conservative front to attract conservative Republicans in an attempt to take over the party. That is their openly stated goal. Do Libertarians not understand that liberty and fiscal restraint are not exclusive to their cause? They have ALWAYS been tenets of the Republican Party.
    I am sick and tired of having to do battle within the GOP with those who are aiming for an extreme makeover of our party. I’m fully behind restoration of our GOP, not a fundamental transformation of such via either milquetoast moderate RINOs or Ayn Randian Libertarians. Now, if we can just dethrone the establishment moderate RINOs heading the RNC, block further influence and manipulation from their talking egghead cohorts at Fox News, and successfully thwart the coming Libertarian advance, we stand a good chance of again being the party Zo so articulately characterized. It’s the ONLY way we’ll ever win again.

    • Myptofvu

      Or another way to look at it is…You Wouldn’t Have a Damn Party if the Libertarians hadn’t saved your ass in the 2010 midterms for which you shat all over them. Considering who gave new life to the GOP whose Party should it really be?

      • keyesforpres

        I’m so sick of libertarians always whining that we don’t give you guys enough attention, shat on you, etc. What do you guys want? I don’t see where libers gave our party new life.

  • http://www.facebook.com/A1fonzie Al Stepney III

    Sorry to disagree with you Zo, but as a libertarian myself I don’t quite agree. I think the problem Libertarians have with Lincon is his abuse of the Constitution.

    Yes States were committing human rights attrocities. Those States that wanted to leave the Union should have been allowed to leave and operate independently. They should have been left to fend for themselves against England, the French, or any other invading country. All trade with these slave states should have been boycotted.

    Those states should have been treated like we treat Iran, Syria, and other regimes where we don’t like their human rights attrocities. We don’t start wars with them we try to isolate them, shun them, and make them pariahs. By Lincon’s logic we should be invading all over the world forcing those govts to abandon their evil ways?….oh wait that’s we’re doing today.

    Does that make me a neoconfederate? Does that make me want to bring back slavery? Is that who you say Libertarians are?

    My knowledge of Libertarians is that we love liberty, economic and personal to the extent that one persons liberty does not infringe upon another’s.

    • tinlizzieowner

      I had a hunch this video would bring out all the ‘liberalitarians’. ;-) ;-)

    • keyesforpres

      It was the south that started the war…firing on Ft. Sumter and then a few months later he South invaded Kentucky in two places.

  • http://www.facebook.com/paul.christian.942 librtifirst

    I wish I had time to go into this properly, but Zo really blew it here. Why do Libertarians use the republican party? Easy, there is a two party dictatorship who controls elections and changes the rules as they go to keep other parties out of the process. Not to mention that the press only covers the two parties. Since fraud has been proven on so many levels, the only possible way to change anything is to change one of the parties.

    Why choose the republican party. Simple. The republicans say that they believe in the same baseline government that Libertarians believe in. Libertarians call for a strict adherence to and an original interpretation of the constitution. They want as much government as the founders did. The democrat party doesn’t even claim to stand for that.

    What is the primary difference between the republicans and Libertarians concerning modern policy making? Foreign policy. Libertarians agree with the campaigning Bush 1 of not policing the world. They want to reduce the fed gov down to protecting our borders, running the courts, and solving disputes between the states, while honoring the ninth and tenth amendments, along with the rest of the bill of rights. They want Americans to have the ability to defend themselves with any weapons they can acquire to do so. They want “real” free market capitalism and “real” free trade. They want to end corporate cronyism. They are Oath Keepers.

    Libertarians want a sound sovereign currency. They want out of the UN. They want to close the borders to criminals and illegals. They don’t want to force Americans to send their future wealth overseas to countries who hate us in the form of foreign aid. They want a strong national defense that no other could match. They want personal privacy respected and the return of Posse Comotatus. They want property rights reinstated. They want people to have the right to drink raw milk and grow organic food if they want to.

    WHY THE HECK WOULD REPUBLICANS WANT TO JOIN WITH THESE PEOPLE ?

    Instead, lets let the republican and democrat leadership maintain their monopoly on power, dictate election rules, stick their hands down our pants to get on a plane, search us without warrant, kill us with just the signature of the president, detain us indefinitely without due process, send troops in to police American cities, disarm the public, leave the borders wide open, fight wars for resource control, put Muslims in charge of conquered countries, take our property rights, tax us into economic oblivion, spend our future away, go into debt to a private central bank, destroy the very currency that we are tied to raising the cost of living and destroying the middle class, take control of the last free speech zone we have in the internet, ………………………….

    Sounds like a good plan. By the way, is everyone here still buying the now old line about Lincoln fighting a war for the rights of blacks? I guess that I now have to go back to PUBLIC SCHOOL and re-learn history.

    • Myptofvu

      First time I’ve found myself disagreeing with Zo.

  • SurfinCowboy

    “A Libertarian is basically a Liberal who hates taxes”

    So very uneducated. So wrong. So, so, so painfully wrong.

    There is a fringe group of libertarians who are anti-Lincoln. A fringe group.

    Liberal = large federal government
    GOP = large federal government
    Libertarian = small federal government

    Liberal = crony capitalism, loves picking winners and losers
    GOP = crony capitalism, loves picking winners and losers
    Libertarian = free markets with no federal government picking winners and losers

    Liberal = loves complex tax system to dole out favors to special interests
    GOP = loves complex tax system to dole out favors to special interests
    Libertarian = desires flat/FairTax with no ability for Congress to dole out favors

    I love Zo videos, but obviously he has been listening to/reading someone who is not speaking truthfully about libertarians. Even Levin has said that he only has problems with the lunatics in the Libertarians – you might have noticed Levin is not so happy with many GOP members as well.

    “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism” – Ronald Reagan

    Just because a group of minarchist/anarchist/Lincoln-haters calls themselves libertarian does not make it so.

    Equally, just because some RINO has an “R” next to their name does not make them a conservative.

    Three main Tea-Party goals: Less government, less taxes, less spending. Every one of these is libertarian. NONE of them are Republican. You can SAY they are, but whenever the Republican Party is in charge government and spending increases.

    If anyone is resembling anyone it is the GOP and the Democrats looking very similar, not libertarians.

    Zo’s mistakes, and many comments on this thread disappoint me.

    • WordsFailMe

      The interesting thing is that if Alonzo had been blogging in 1863, would he have advised Lincoln to stay away from the emancipation proclamation and let the Congress handle the issue? Had Lincoln avoided his dictatorial stance on slavery, if Lincoln had used a more conciliatory method the bring about the end of slavery, he would not have been ham-strung and castrated the Republican Party for 200 years.

      God save us from these saviors.

    • Conniption Fitz

      Ron Paul and his people made libertarianism look too much like a drug, porn and human trafficking and gay marriage legalization group. Paul was right about banishing the FED, deficit spending, backing our currency with precious metals, protecting our economy, staying out of foreign government affairs, not sending our troops unless approved by Congress. However, he was so wrong about legalizing drugs, etc.

      Constitutional Conservative Party would be a better name than Libertarian and it’s better than TEA Party too.

      Libertarian sounds too much like Libertine.

      TEA Party is not a name that defines anything and leads to misunderstanding.

      Constitutional Conservative is what I am willing to call myself…and will do so.

      • Conniption Fitz

        If the GOP and Democrats (CIA and FBI) had respected the Constitution, Obama would not have been allowed to run.

        As alleged biological and adoptive son of foreign nationals, and with his background, he is completely unqualified.

      • SurfinCowboy

        I hear what you say about the Ron Paul effect, but reading your words about how it made libertarianism “look too much like a drug, porn and human trafficking and gay marriage legalization group” makes me realize that the Media’s hard work at labeling the libertarians as such a thing has been successful.

        There is a reason why the MSM focuses on drugs, porn, and marriage when talking about the libertarians. Keep the opposition to liberal tyranny divided and fighting among themselves.

        Zo played right into it as well. Shame.

        For the record, I consider myself a Constitutional Conservative as well – but at a state level as opposed to the Federal level, where I am a libertarian. Let the 50 laboratories of invention and experimentation do what their citizens would like to do, then lets see what works.

        I have a funny feeling the “blue” states will be broke and their social framework in ruins within a decade or two.

        As long as we allow either party to run our lives from the federal level we lose.

  • Biggbear52

    I really like this kid. Speaks from the heart and doesn’t care if someone doesn’t like it or not.

  • Conniption Fitz

    I’m going to wait, listen to other comments and think before I comment.

  • Kordane

    Democrats are in favor of hard-tyranny both economically and socially/politically;
    Republicans are in favor of soft-tyranny both economically and socially/politically;
    Conservatives are in favor of economic freedom, but in favor of social/political hard tyranny (medievalism, to be precise);
    Libertarians are in favor of liberty, both economically and socially/politically… but without any consistent and integrated philosophy to support their cause of liberty (ie. liberty for the sake of ??)

    There are other groups, such as Objectivists, Voluntaryists, Anarcho-Capitalists, and so on.

    Quite frankly, I don’t know where all this stuff is coming from about Libertarians hating Lincoln, and Libertarians favoring the Confederacy. I know I don’t believe any of that crap, and I certainly haven’t heard any of it in Libertarian circles. The only times I’ve heard it are from Mark Levin and (now) Zo.

    • Myptofvu

      I consider myself a Libertarian and NO I don’t hate Lincoln but yes I favored the Confederacy. How was what the South did any diff than the Revolutionary War? The Gov became unrepresentative of them and oppressive towards them.

      Besides, how many times did the New England States threaten secession? Several times, the War of 1812 which they refused to participate in, over the Louisiana Purchase and even over the slavery issue because they didn’t want to be a part of a Union that had slave States. Oddly there was no military action against them.

      • keyesforpres

        Again, it was the south that fired on Ft. Sumter and then a few months later they invaded Kentucky in two places.

        The north actually tried to work with the south by offering a line all the way across the US to Ca and below that line slavery would have been allowed. The south still attacked and said no.

  • 911Infidel

    The problem with the Republican party is not their different groups. The problem with the Republican party is that they have failed to reach the culture. You can have all the web sites, newspapers, TV, or whatever…but as long as Republicans stay in their Ivory Towers, they might win a few tactical political battles but not the strategic ones.
    Choose a leader than can reach into the culture and fight the dual enemies of the leftist opponents and the leftist media with alacrity and clarity. Keep your promises, stand your ground by sticking to traditional conservative principals and they’ll win the next election.

    • http://www.facebook.com/paul.christian.942 librtifirst

      If anyone is upset about Libertarians in the republican party, they need only to consider that it is essentially Boehner’s fault. When republicans appear to have the same agenda as the democrats, the libertarians look pretty good.

      • 911Infidel

        The parties used to look the same 40 or 50 years ago too. Back then it was a good thing. Not so much anymore.

  • Biggbear52

    com·mu·nism   [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
    noun
    1.
    a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
    2.
    ( often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
    3.
    ( initial capital letter ) the principles and practices of the Communist party.

    NUFF SAID

  • Biggbear52

    Definition of SOCIALISM

    1
    : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
    2
    a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
    b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
    3
    : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

    AGAIN NUFF SAID!

    • bgth021

      Here is the problem. Those labels don’t work anymore.
      -Young people are too new to know about the stigma of being called those names.
      -Minorities never really cared.
      -Women are social.

      Although the academics, history and civics of the argument are required. You guys have started to look like better than the rest old farts. This has to get fixed or just wait. Tides always turn.

      Read my .99cent ebook. It’s 2048 and It Happened at Nextfest.
      http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004RD9EEY/

      • Biggbear52

        Here’s the problem

        The powers that be have spent over 100 years PROGRAMMING that ideal into the heads of the young. It is the worst kind of pedophilia and should be stomped out like a runaway campfire. The other problem is the defeatist attitude. It is very apparent that some in our society have GIVEN UP. Just like the bulk of the lame duck Congress. Copitulation is DEFEAT! PERIOD.

  • Kordane

    When Zo talks about the Republican party, he’s talking about an “ideal” based upon what he thinks the Republican party are supposed to be all about. The problem is that they are nothing like what Zo believes, because the reality is that the Republican party are the party of soft-tyranny both economically and socially/politically.

    If you elect Democrat, you get tyranny. If you elect Republican, you get tyranny.

    You’re fed food as poison, and the antidote as poison. Flip a coin: heads – tyranny; tails – tyranny.

    Quite frankly, Zo needs a reality check.

    • Biggbear52

      Eeeeeeeeeeeeh, wrong again Mr. Wizard. Read the REPUBLIC PAPERS. written before the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. In which it states ” NO ONE PERSON HAS THE AUTHORITY NOR THE RIGHT TO FORCE ANOTHER TO HIS WILL. THAT RIGHT IS SOLELY IN THE HANDS OF GOD!”
      That is what all Republican’s I have ever met, true republican’s anyway, believe in. That include myself and my wife. No one will ever or dare ever come to our home and TELL US how we can and cannot live. What we can eat or not. Or whom we can or cannot ask to NOT OPPRESS US!

      • Kordane

        Like I said, it’s the difference between what the “ideal” is and what the “reality” is. The “ideal” is that the Republican party is the champion of individual freedom, but the “reality” is that the Republican party is the party of soft-tyranny / the hand-maiden to the Democrat’s agenda.

        I don’t think there’s any hope of salvaging the Republican party, and even if there was it’d would be too late to do anything about it.

        I say, just let it die, and let something stronger take its place.

        • Biggbear52

          Tell you what” you produce one shred of viable and irrefutable evidence that cab be proven beyond any doubt and I will retract everything I said. Until you do that, you are still utterly out there and wrong!

          • Kordane

            You’ve lost the plot, mate. Try replying to what I’ve actually said, rather than going off on one.

          • http://www.facebook.com/paul.christian.942 librtifirst

            Clinton was so into policing the world that GW campaigned against it. Clinton received bipartisan support for doing it. GWB went well beyond catching Bin Laden and invaded multiple countries who never attacked us. The democrats opposed GW, yet voted for it all. GW has the Patriot act written, changes it at the last minute and sends it back for a vote. Without reading it, both parties voted for it. Regardless of all the misinformation, the NDAA 12′ and ’13 does allow for indefinite detention of US citizens without due process. Both parties supported it, and rejected amendments that would exclude Americans from the ID clause. Both parties raise the debt ceiling time after time. Both parties vote to grow government. Both parties vote for spending bills that fund abortion. Both parties appoint corporate heads to head up regulatory agencies. Both parties support imcrementally disarming the public. Both parties keep the borders wide open. Both parties vote to bail out big business at the expense of the citizens. Both parties vote to fund thre welfare state, police state, and massive socialist programs.

            If the libertarians want to come in and say “NO MORE”, then I am fine with that.

        • Biggbear52

          Slavery into new U.S. territories and states. What began as a single-issue, independent party became a major political force in the United States. Six years after the new party was formed, Republican nominee Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. presidential election. The Republican Party and its counterpart, the Democratic Party, became the mainstays of the nation’s de facto two-party system.

          Lincoln’s victory in 1860 signaled the demise of the Whig Party and the ascendance of Republican politics. From 1860 to 1931, the Republicans dominated U.S. presidential elections. Only two Democrats were elected to the White House during the 70-year period of Republican preeminence.

          The early Republican Party was shaped by political conscience and regionalism. Throughout the early and mid-nineteenth century, states in the North and South were bitterly divided over the issues of slavery and state sovereignty. In 1854 the enactment of the Kansas-Nebraska Act inflamed political passions. Under the act residents of the new territories of Kansas and Nebraska could decide whether to permit slavery in their regions. In effect, the act invalidated the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which prohibited the extension of slavery in new areas of the United States. Opponents of slavery condemned the measure, and violence erupted in Kansas.

          Antislavery parties had already sprung up in the United States. The abolitionist Liberty Party began in 1840, and the Free Soil Party was formed in 1848. In much the same spirit, the Republican Party arose to protest the Nebraska-Kansas Act. The new group drew support from third parties and disaffected Democrats and Whigs. After organizational meetings in 1854 in Ripon, Wisconsin, and Jackson, Michigan, the Republican Party was born.

          In 1856 the Republicans nominated their first presidential candidate, John C. Frémont, a former explorer who opposed the expansion of slavery in new U.S. territories and states. Although defeated in the national election by Democrat James Buchanan, Frémont received one-third of the popular vote.

          In 1860 Abraham Lincoln from Illinois was the Republican presidential nominee. Lincoln appealed not only to antislavery voters but to business owners in the East and farmers in the Midwest. The Democratic Party was in turmoil over slavery. The northern Democrats nominated stephen a. douglas, who tried to sidestep the issue, and the southern Democrats backed John C. Breckinridge, who denounced government efforts to prohibit slavery. Lincoln defeated both candidates.

          Although Lincoln’s election was a triumph for the Republicans, his support was concentrated primarily in the North. Shortly after Lincoln’s victory, several southern states seceded from the Union, and the bloody U.S. Civil War began.

          Throughout the war Lincoln and his policies took a drubbing from the press and public. When Lincoln ran for reelection, the Republican Party temporarily switched its name to the Union Party. Lincoln sought a second term with Democrat Andrew Johnson as his running mate in order to deflect criticism of the Republican Party. Johnson, from Tennessee, was one of the few southerners to support the preservation of the Union. Despite his critics Lincoln defeated the Democratic nominee, George B. McClellan, who ran on a peace platform.

          After the North’s victory in 1865, the Republicans oversaw Reconstruction, a period of rebuilding for the vanquished South. Lincoln favored a more conciliatory attitude toward the defeated Confederacy. Radical Republicans, however, sought a complete overhaul of the South’s economic and social system. After Lincoln’s assassination in 1865, the Republicans’ Reconstruction policies—such as conferring citizenship and voting rights to former slaves—created long-lasting resentment among many southern whites.

          Republicans depended upon the support of northern voters and courted the vote of emancipated slaves. The party fanned hostility by reminding northern voters of the South’s disloyalty during the war. The Republicans were the dominant party in the United States from 1860 to 1931, and the party’s base among southern whites began to grow in the 1950s, when political loyalties began to shift.

          During their long period of political dominance, Republicans sent the following candidates to the White House: ulysses s. grant, rutherford b. hayes, james garfield (died in office), chester a. arthur (vice president who succeeded Garfield), benjamin harrison, william mckinley (died in office), Theodore Roosevelt (vice president who succeeded McKinley and was later elected on his own), william howard taft, warren g. harding, calvin coolidge, and herbert hoover.

          During the 1880s and 1890s, there was an important shift in party affiliation. Struggling Republican farmers throughout the Midwest, South, and West switched their political allegiance to the Democrats who promised them government assistance. The financially strapped farmers were concerned about the depressed national economy. Many turned to the populist movement headed by Democrat William Jennings Bryan. A brilliant orator, Bryan called for the free coinage of silver currency, whereas the Republicans favored the gold standard.

          Despite his popularity Bryan was defeated by Republican William McKinley in the 1896 presidential election. The Democrats appealed to farmers, but the Republicans had captured the business and urban vote. After the U.S. economy improved during the McKinley administration, supporters dubbed the Republican Party “the Grand Old Party,” or the GOP, a nickname that endured.

          After President McKinley was assassinated in 1901, Vice President Theodore Roosevelt assumed the presidency. He pursued ambitious social reforms such as stricter antitrust laws, tougher meat and drug regulations, and new environmental measures. In 1912 Roosevelt and his followers broke off from the Republicans to form the Bull Moose Party. The third party split helped Democrat woodrow wilson defeat Republican candidate William Howard Taft.

          After eight years of Democratic power, during which the U.S. fought in World War I, the Republicans returned to the White House in 1920 with Warren G. Harding. Unable to stave off or reverse the Great Depression, the Republicans lost control of the Oval Office in 1932.

          During the Great Depression, the public became impatient with the ineffectual economic policies of Republican President Herbert

          Hoover. Democrat franklin d. roosevelt swept into the White House with a promise of a New Deal for all Americans. From 1932 to 1945, Roosevelt lifted the nation from its economic collapse and guided it through World War II. During Roosevelt’s administration the Republican Party lost its traditional constituency of African Americans and urban workers. Harry S. Truman followed Roosevelt in office and in 1948 withstood a strong challenge from Republican thomas e. dewey.

          Republican dwight d. eisenhower won the presidency in 1952 and 1956. A popular World War II hero, Eisenhower oversaw a good economy and a swift end to the Korean War. Eisenhower was succeeded in 1960 by Democrat john f. kennedy who defeated Eisenhower’s vice president, Republican nominee richard m. nixon. In 1964 Republicans nominated ultra-conservative barry m. goldwater who was trounced at the polls by Democrat lyndon b. johnson, the incumbent. Johnson, Kennedy’s vice president, had assumed the presidency after Kennedy’s assassination in 1963.

          When Republican Richard M. Nixon was elected president in 1968, he began the reduction of U.S. military troops in Southeast Asia. Nixon opened trade with China and improved foreign relations through a policy of detente with the former Soviet Union. During his term the shift of southern Democrats to the Republican Party accelerated. (In fact, from 1972 to 1988, the South was the most Republican region of the United States.)

          The nadir for the Republican Party occurred in 1974 when Nixon left office in the midst of the Watergate scandal, a botched attempt to burglarize and wiretap the Democratic National Committee headquarters. Implicated in the scandal’s cover-up, Nixon became the only president in U.S. history to resign from office. He was succeeded by Vice President gerald r. ford of Michigan who served the remainder of Nixon’s term and pardoned the disgraced president.

          Ford lost the 1976 presidential election to Democrat jimmy carter of Georgia. A sour economy and the bungling of foreign affairs (most notably the Iran hostage crisis) led to Carter’s defeat in 1980 by Republican challenger ronald reagan and his running mate, George Herbert Walker Bush.

          The Republicans controlled the White House for twelve years, with Reagan serving two terms and Bush one. During Reagan’s tenure, southern Democrats turned in droves to the Republican Party, embracing Reagan’s politically conservative message. Pointing to widespread ticket-splitting, many analysts believe voters embraced the charismatic Reagan, not the party. Bush became president in 1988 but was defeated in 1992, by Democrat bill clinton of Arkansas.

          Although considered the party of business and the suburbs, the GOP has made significant inroads in traditionally Democratic areas such as labor and the South. An extremely conservative element dominated the Republican Party in the 1980s, but a more moderate wing began to exert influence in the late 1990s. Many of these moderates were elected to Congress in 1994, giving the Republicans control of both houses for the first time in more than 40 years.

        • Biggbear52

          By the way genius. You can thank the wigs and republican parties for the very ability to say what you are saying and not going to jail over it like in China or North Korea. Does Concord ring a bell, I THOUGH NOT!

          • Kordane

            I thank the founding fathers for recognizing the unalienable individual rights, but I don’t thank political parties for doing their job (protecting those rights), since gratitude is not a required payment for their services. Besides, the Republican party have long ago stopped caring about protecting the unalienable individual rights; they’re (now) almost as bad as the Democrats when it comes to violating those rights.

          • http://www.facebook.com/paul.christian.942 librtifirst

            Do you realize how many people Lincoln put in jail for disagreeing with him? That included members of congress. He jailed journalist and whoever openly opposed his agenda. Thousands of people.

  • Biggbear52

    From the hand and mind of GOD, to my spirit and then to you, MY FELLOW AMERICAN’S

    26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless

    If this, to you, is not self explanatory. Then it is speaking of and directly to you!

  • http://alsbach-art.com/ Floyd Alsbach

    I’m a Libertarian and I don’t hate Lincoln. In fact I admire him. Lincoln’s was a unique situation, a war for survival. He was fighting an enemy army just across the darn river that, for most of the time was winning the battles. Despite what Jefferson Davis said about leaving us alone, I suspect most Confederates wanted the war… at the beginning.

    • Kordane

      It’s just one of Zo’s strawman arguments. I wouldn’t sweat it if I were you.

      Ronald Reagan said that “Libertarianism is the heart and soul of the Republican party”, yet that heart and soul is precisely what Zo wants ripped out. When you rip out the Libertarianism (heart and soul) from the Republican party, you just get a walking corpse / zombie of its former self.

  • http://onthemark1.blogspot.com/ On The Mark

    I don’t consider myself a Libertarian because I differ on several points with ‘typical’ Libertarians. I believe my views are identical to those of most of the Founders.

    Zo’s suggestion that my disgust with Lincoln’s impeachment-worthy violations of our Constitution, his bloody and tyrannical subjugation of sovereign states, and his later revisionist pretense of nobility proves my supposed support for slavery is not only false and unfair, but also a fantastical ad hominem lie worthy of Benghazi Hussein Obama himself.

  • Kordane

    Libertarians (and Conservatives to a lesser degree) are the only ones trying to save the Republican party from its statist tendencies, yet Zo claims that Libertarians are trying to “distort” said party. Distort it to what? The vision of the founders? That’s a good kind of distortion that should be embraced.

    • stage9

      OH HOGWASH!

      This article does a fine job of dismantling the entire libertarian fantasy:

      Libertarianism: Marxism of the Right
      http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marxism-of-the-right/

      libertarians stood alongside Occupy Wall Street and hold MANY of the same views. I categorize them as anarchists-lite.

      • http://www.facebook.com/paul.christian.942 librtifirst

        Many of our favorite founders were anarchist light. Libertarianism is the exact opposite of Communism, Socialism, and Marxism. Libertarians want to flip the power back to bottom up from the current top down situation that both parties have created.

        It seems to me that people have a distorted view of anarchy. They assume that it will lead to chaos. Anarchy does not mean “no government”, just no central government. Anarchy is not practical anymore, but is basically just smaller groups of people governing themselves. The founders used that principle in the bill of rights. The ninth and tenth amendments were as close to ensuring anarchist states as they could while still having a federal government. They put into our surpreme law such wording that was supposed to ensure the preservation of the anarchist states, but with a federal protectory. The feds were not to infringe on the individual liberties of the people, but only protect the borders and the supreme law itself.

        Anarchy is the enemy of the State, because it opposes central government control of personal choices and property. Anarchists generally show up to create many problems and enact violence during political events. Yet most people don’t seem to know that these “anarchists” are generally hired thugs sent in to create a scenario that requires the State to intervene in free speech exercises. Such was the case in Washington state during the peaceful WTO protests. The cops stood down while the “anarchists” were busting out bank windowns and destroying property. The anarchist were let free while the protesters got stuffed, cuffed, and processed at the airport.

        It would just be nice to have things referred to in their proper context once in a while.

      • Myptofvu

        There are many Noteworthy Libertarians yet I can’t think of one of them that fits your description “libertarians stood alongside Occupy Wall Street and hold MANY of the same views”

      • Kordane

        That’s a pretty disgusting article, quote “Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function.“. My oh my, and this is what “theamericanconservative.com” considers Conservative thought?

        So now, to be a Conservative, you have to live a contradiction. You have to advocate individualism, but also advocate collectivism, and you have to advocate self-interest, but also advocate self-sacrifice. Well which is it? You can’t have it both ways! They’re diametrically opposed moral codes of right and wrong.

        Think about it. The pursuit of happiness wasn’t the pursuit of the happiness of the happiness of others – it was an individual right to your OWN pursuit of happiness, your OWN liberty, your OWN life. All of the individual rights are rights to be selfish!

        Government is supposed to be there, according to the founders, to protect the individual rights, which means that it’s supposed to be there to protect our individual right to be selfish.

        Selfishness isn’t evil. Only GOOD things come from selfishness. Murdering, thieving, defrauding, and so forth, are NOT selfish actions; they’re self-destructive/self-less actions; the self is what is being destroyed by such actions. Selfishness is only the development/benefit of the self. You and all Conservatives have to get into your thick heads that just because a particular action isn’t being done for others, does NOT mean that it’s a selfish action. Selfishness, or should I say the politically correct way – “self-interest” – is the act of making one’s life the best possible life that it can be; of pursuing one’s happiness; of working for rational values in life. It’s NOT the evil that you’ve been brainwashed into thinking that it is.

        The article then goes on to say that quote: “freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life” and then it lists “security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments“. This kind of language eliminates the principle of limited government. It says that government’s role isn’t just to protect the individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (as the founders intended), but that it’s supposed to meddle in all aspects of an individual’s security, prosperity and family. Why should government be concerned with my family? Why should government be concerned with my prosperity? Government needs to bugger off out of these things. It has NO business being involved in any of them. Leave me alone.

        Ugh, and here we go again, Conservatives can’t stand pornography, so let’s get government to ban it, quote: “Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it“.

        This is tyranny, right here. The kind of tyranny that Conservatives advocate.

        By what standard does one measure the “vulgarization of the culture”? It can’t be objectively measured, and even if were possible, it still wouldn’t be something that government can crack down on, considering that government is only allowed to crack down on violations of individual rights, and “vulgarity” is not an initiation of force / violation of individual rights.

        I reserve the right to use maximum vulgarity towards ANYONE. If I want to say every single racist word I can think of, it’s my freedom to do so, just as if I want to watch/produce/buy/sell pornography, it’s my freedom to do so. Vulgarity is not a crime, but the tyrannical Conservatives would make it so, even though vulgarity is not a violation of individual rights and therefore not a legitimate thing for government to crack down on.

        I’m only 1/3rd down the article, yet already I’ve written a wall of text about the disgustingly tyrannical nature of Conservatives, as proven by this article from theamericanconservative.com

        • stage9

          “Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it”.

          “This is tyranny, right here. The kind of tyranny that Conservatives advocate. “

          How in God’s name is this tyranny?

          You might as well say: Because the government won’t allow me to murder my neighbor, they are being tyrannical! I mean immorality is a cancer. It spreads and infects all of society. It’s written into laws in Roe v Wade and Texas vs Lawrence. It’s ignored by the FCC when it comes to entertainment. Musicians endorse it and children absorb it.

          Liberty does NOT mean anarchy! Liberty only works when it is tempered with morality. And in the US, OUR morality is grounded in Judeo/Christian morality. That rubs the pervert and the godless the wrong way, but too bad. This nation, as it was established, can only continue to operate properly if/when the individual’s life is governed by objective moral ethics. If the individual will not restrain his OWN behavior then government inevitably will have to step in and do it for him. That is why there are prisons. Not because the government is tyrannical but because it is being consistent in punishing immorality to protect the civilization. That’s why there are laws. Laws restrain evil.

          What is evil? I would argue, and so most certainly would the Founders, that evil is that which defies God’s laws. When God says: Thou shalt not murder, and we murder, we have defiled God’s law LONG BEFORE we defiled man’s laws. Because murder is conceived in the heart and meditated on long before the murder ever occurs. The same is true with greed, sexuality, life, et al.

          God has already defined the parameters of morality. It is our duty then to GOVERN ourselves based on those moral absolutes. When we fail to do that, we get modern day America where violence and immorality have reached epic proportions. And it is going to get worse.

          What it boils down to is that the Founders essentially said: “Look we’ll give you the framework of a government, but this government will not be able to entirely restrain what lies deep inside the human heart — the propensity to want to feed the monster of sin and lust and greed within. This government we’re giving you will require a self-governing people to preserve it. A people who can differentiate between what is morally right and morally wrong. Any other sort of people — perverse people and people who deny moral absolutes grounded in the Creator’s law will not be able to preserve this Union. They are incapable.”

          • Kordane

            Quote: “How in God’s name is this tyranny? You might as well say: Because the government won’t allow me to murder my neighbor, they are being tyrannical!

            No, there is a profound difference between the two. Murder is a violation of individual rights, and should rightly be punished by government’s retalitatory force (eg. police), but being “vulgar” (a subjective term in itself) is not a violation of individual rights; no physical harm has been caused, and no property has been damaged/destroyed; government has NO role here.

            So for you to support an author who is implying that government should retaliate against “vulgarity” (pornography, in this case) by (I logically assume) banning it, would be a gross violation of the individual rights of those who watch/produce/sell/buy pornography.

            Any violations of individual rights by the government is by very definition tyranny.

            You support an author who is implying that he advocates tyranny, and so therefore it suggests that you support tyranny too.

            Quote: “I mean immorality is a cancer. It spreads and infects all of society. It’s written into laws in Roe v Wade and Texas vs Lawrence. It’s ignored by the FCC when it comes to entertainment. Musicians endorse it and children absorb it

            Have you ever considered that individual rights TRUMP your moral code? That pornography might be considered “immoral” according to your moral code, but that I still have unalienable individual rights to watch/produce/sell/buy pornography, meaning that government can’t do and shouldn’t do anything to stop it.

            Contrary to your thoughts, government is NOT there to enforce your particular moral code – The government is simply there to protect the unalienable individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – as the founders intended.

            If you want a government that enforces your religion’s moral code on everyone, then you by very definition want a theocracy, not a constitutional republic. Just admit it. You want a theocracy, just like that which exists in Iran, but a Christian one. You don’t give a sod about individual rights; you only give a sod about enforcing your religion’s moral code on everyone, regardless of whether it violates individual rights in doing so.

            Also, your last paragraph is a load of rubbish. I’ve indicated why, in response to this quote.

      • Kordane

        People often criticize me for going on about altruism vs self-interest all the time, but as you can see from this article, it’s a vitally important moral conflict that has to be resolved. Conservatives still hold onto collectivism and altruism (like holding onto a corpse), even though collectivist-altruism was the moral code of the ideologies of the Nazis and the Communists. People weren’t treated as individuals with unalienable individual rights, they were just treated as mere cogs in the machine, any of which can and should be sacrificed for ‘good’ the greater whole. Conservatives want it both ways though, even though individualism and self-interest (both of which are profoundly American) are both utterly incompatible with the Communist/Nazi collectivist-altruism.

        Conservatives are morally conflicted because they want individualism, collectivism, altruism and self-interest, and they’re up against Democrats who are morally consistent because they hate self-interest and individualism, but they love altruism and collectivism. In any such battle the most morally consistent side will always win. Democrats are winning right now, and the Conservatives’ moral conflict is letting them win.

        I listen to Mark Levin, and one thing that boggles his mind is how zealous the Left are. He simply does not understand that their zealotry comes from their moral consistency. The Left think they ‘know’ that altruism and collectivism are good, and they think they ‘know’ that self-interest and individualism are evil. They see the “hypocritical Conservatives”, on the one hand saying that individualism is good, but then saying collectivism is good, and then on the one hand saying that altruism is good, but then saying self-interest is good. No wonder people don’t vote Republican!

        • stage9

          I disagree. I’m not conflicted at all. I don’t believe in collectivism. I want individualism but even that goes so far. A person who rapes women can be an individualist because that represents his own self-interest, but to say his individualism is good for society or even women! is another thing entirely.

          And liberals are anything but moral. How is the murder of millions of unborn and the defense of every perverse lifestyle imaginable “moral” exactly?

          No, it’s not the “most morally consistent” side that wins; it’s the side that feeds the monster of sin the most that wins. It’s always been that way and always will be.

          It is human nature to feed the lusts of the heart and it’s the politician’s role to remain in power by fueling that lust. Whether it’s welfare so that the lazy can stay at home and collect freebies off the working man or whether it’s the college degenerate who wants free contraception so she can play the whore, the monster within us all demands to be fed. And politicians, like drug pushers are all too glad to oblige them.

          And you are dead wrong about the left’s “moral consistency”, unless by “moral consistency” you mean that they are consistently IMMORAL (I’m not sure which you mean). Organized, yes, “morally consistent”, no. They believe in individual rights until those rights infringe upon their threshold of what is a “right”. Then they seek to take those rights.

          And I don’t know why you think Conservatives believe in collectivism. Maybe you’re referring to Republicans, I don’t know. Perhaps you can provide an example of this.

          And I don’t vote repubugnantcan…at least not anymore. I vote Conservative. I am not a mindless pawn of any party. I believe in ideas grounded in moral absolutism. That worldview excludes me from embracing the left or the current repugnantcan party.

          • Kordane

            Quote: “I want individualism but even that goes so far. A person who rapes women can be an individualist because that represents his own self-interest

            In what crazy world is raping someone in one’s self-interest?

            Sure, you may get that short term gain from raping someone, but self-interest isn’t just about short-term highs, like snorting a line of cocaine. Self-interest is for the whole time frame of one’s life. Sure, you may get that momentary enjoyment, but you’ll likely spend most, if not the rest of your life in jail, and your conscience will be tortured by what you did.

            An example that I like is Bernie Madoff. People think he was acting in his self-interest when he defrauded people out of billions of dollars in a ponzi scheme, that he was living the high-life on others’ money – But actually he was totally miserable all the time; he had to lie to his friends, his family, and the people he dealt with; he lived in constant fear that he’d be caught and punished. In fact, after being arrested, he now admits that he’s happier than he was before he got caught, because at least his mind can now rest easy since he’s already caught. Also, one of his sons committed suicide as a result of all of this, so Madoff has lost a son now too, and that comes with its own grief. Anyone who says Madoff was acting in his self-interest for doing that ponzi scheme, is about as wrong as people who say that raping someone is in your self-interest, or robbing someone is in your self-interest, or that murdering someone is in your self-interest.

            Acting in one’s self-interest is actually about figuring out how to make your life (the whole thing) the best possible life that it can be. It ISN’T about short term gain, but long term pain – That’s self-destructive. The “self” is being destroyed by the short term actions.

            You really need to re-think your premises on self-interest, because yours are currently really screwed up.

          • Kordane

            Quote: “No, it’s not the “most morally consistent” side that wins; it’s the side that feeds the monster of sin the most that wins

            What I said was logical. If you have moral consistency, ie. You know and preach that certain things are right and that certain things are wrong — Then you will win every time against people who advocate contradictions and are hence morally inconsistent.

            If you had to choose between a side that knows what’s right and wrong, or a side that constantly contradicts itself when it talks about what’s right and wrong, then you’re always going to choose the former.

            I mean, that’s a nice platitude of yours, but it doesn’t refute the logic of my argument.

            Quote: “Organized, yes, “morally consistent”, no.

            You’re right that they do not practice what they preach, but that’s only because nobody can fully practice what they preach, as this quote from “The Fountainhead” illustrates:

            “Tell man that altruism is the ideal. Not a single one has ever reached it and not a single one ever will. His every living instinct screams against it. But don’t you see what you accomplish? Man realises that he’s incapable of what he’s accepted as the noblest virtue – and it gives him a sense of guilt, of sin, of his own basic unworthiness. Since the supreme ideal is beyond his grasp, he gives up eventually all ideals, all aspiration, all sense of his personal value. He feels himself obliged to preach what he can’t practice. But one can’t be good halfway or honest approximately. To preserve one’s integrity is a hard battle. Why preserve that which one knows to be corrupt already? His soul gives up its self respect. You’ve got him. He’ll obey. He’ll be glad to obey – because he can’t trust himself, he feels uncertain, he feels unclean.”

            And that’s how it works.

            Quote: “And I don’t know why you think Conservatives believe in collectivism. Maybe you’re referring to Republicans, I don’t know. Perhaps you can provide an example of this

            The article that you linked me to. I’ve quoted the relevant part in an earlier post.

      • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

        Glenn Beck had a little “roundtable” a few weeks back, where they were trying to navel gaze over what went wrong in the election, and what to do about it.

        The guy from Reason magazine, Nick Gillespie, said something like, “we need to liberalize our immigration policy, and make it easier for people to come to America.”

        At first I thought he was joking.

  • Hologram5

    They let it happen because they’re too busy attacking each other instead of uniting for one cause. Stand united or divided you’ll fall….

    • bgth021

      Unity is impossible. You guys have to many concrete principles. It started with the litmus test principle. Look at the other guys they are as flexible as slippery soap. Today they lifted the ban on women in combat. I disagree but that’s flexibilty. That’s attractive.

      Read my .99cent ebook. It’s 2048 and It Happened at Nextfest.
      http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004RD9EEY/

  • CardiLover

    I love Mr. Rachel!

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    It’s ironic that we’re at this point in our political history.

    Back when GWBush was President, and Republicans ran both houses for a few months, I was laughing at Democrats for being unable to win any elections. I honestly had fear at the time that the Dems would become so out-of power that we’d have one-party rule.

    I actually had some small hope that the Republicans would split along libertarian lines, to from two new parties, and the Dems would fade away entirely. I felt that such a two-party configuration was a more sane, normal one, rather than what we face with the ascendancy of the racist, totalitarian left.

    • http://www.facebook.com/paul.christian.942 librtifirst

      That is an interesting concept. I would much prefer that to what we have. Essentially, you would kinda do a reset back to a different time. The RINOs would become the new libs, and the libertarian wing would be the new radical right wing side. The RINOs would simply take the place of the dems, but would still have to put out the rhetoric of the traditional right wing ideology.

      • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

        Exactly!

  • DebbyX

    Yeah, quit tryin’ to get all up our tent!

    Love that!

  • http://www.facebook.com/johnylily John Giglio

    I am not a Lincoln fan. I believe that slavery was immoral. I also know that our “Civil War” had nothing to do with slavery. I also know that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free one single slave. The EP did not apply to all states. I love Zo, but I couldn’t disagree more on this point.

  • http://twitter.com/FreetheRepublic jaybird

    libertarian is not a liberal who hates taxes, that’s a ignorant thing to say Zo. I agree most libertarians are ignorant on islamification and a few other issues but they are on the right side of the argument for the most part zo. To try and be divisive and ask them to find a different party is laughable. Libertarians are those who believe in constitutional republic more so than conservative republicans. Most Republicans will tell you we are a democracy, most libertarians will call us a Constitutional Republic.

    I think you and the evangelicals don’t like libertarians because they are ok with gays. Libertarians feel the constitution and bill of rights protect them to where evangelicals see the bible as the final law of the land. In fact I think the reason the teaparty was sidetracked and lost most of is power from 2010 on is because of similar thinking. You know, drill baby drill, mountain top coal removal is great for the environment. Cut down the last redwood to prevent forest fires, that type of general ignorant thinking. Face it Zoo, the GOP and RNC are simply different wings on the same corrupt bird. The fact GB and evangelicals changed the course of the movement after GB 8/28 rally from limited gov, taxes and spending into a movement about God and religion is why Romney lost. It divided the movement and that is why you saw such a decline in the rallies that followed and up till now.

    The GOP would be smarter to embrace common sense approaches that the majority of citizenry support. Take away the lefts argument and give them nothing to be right about.
    Zoo, you and the GOP need the Paul bots and moderate Republicans and disgruntled democrats, who are you trying to kid. The church voted 50% for Obama so you will find no salvation there. Maybe it is that majority you should be trying to shun. If anyone is to blame for the loss of the republic it is the 60% of white church goers who ushered Obama and his socialism in as our new Republic.

    The political platform of the Libertarian Party reflects the ideas of libertarianism, favoring minimally regulated markets, a less powerful state, strong civil liberties (including support for same-sex marriage and other LGBT rights), the legalization of cannabis, separation of church and state, open immigration, non-interventionism and neutrality in diplomatic relations (i.e., avoiding foreign military or economic entanglements with other nations), freedom of trade and travel to all foreign countries, and a more responsive and direct democracy.[9] The Libertarian Party has also supported the repeal of NAFTA, CAFTA, and similar trade agreements, as well as the United States’ exit from the United Nations, WTO, and NATO.[10] The party has no official stance on abortion as its members have different opinions on the issue. Ron Paul, one of the former leaders of the Libertarian Party, is strictly pro-life. Meanwhile Gary Johnson, the party’s 2012 presidential candidate, is pro-choice.

    Although there is not an explicitly-labeled “left” or “right” designation of the party, it is considered by many to be more left-wing than the Republican Party but more right-wing than the Democratic Party when comparing the parties’ positions to each other. Many members say they are more socially liberal than the Democrats, but more fiscally conservative than the Republicans. On the two-axis Nolan Chart, the party appears in the uppermost quadrant.