Stossel's Show Inquires "What Is A Libertarian?"

Fox Business blogger and Stossel talk show host John Stossel did an entire segment on his show on the meaning of the term libertarian. The question he posits to the public at large is, "What is a libertarian?"

Incidentally, his guests included CATO Institute Executive Vice-President David Boaz, self-proclaimed (but not truly) "libertarian" syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock, Harvard University Director of Undergraduate Studies Jeffrey Miron, Fox News' Freedom Watch talk show host and judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano, conservative political satirist P.J. O'Rourke, and, of course, my good friend and fellow left-libertarian/anarchist and individual feminist writer and blogger Wendy McElroy.

Here are the unabridged YouTube videos of the entire show (as shown in five parts):

Part 1:



Part 2:



Part 3:



Part 4:



Part 5:



I will comment on the show at a later time, but for now these videos are available for your enjoyment.

Collateral Murder in New Baghdad, Iraq

WikiLeaks has just unveiled a new yet highly-classified U.S. Military video that depicts the slaying over a dozen people, two of them being Reuters news staff.

According to the website:

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.

The website further reveals:

The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.

After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".

Consequently, WikiLeaks has released the classified Rules of Engagement for 2006, 2007 and 2008, revealing these rules before, during, and after the killings.

WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.

WikiLeaks obtained this video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers. WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.

WikiLeaks wants to ensure that all the leaked information it receives gets the attention it deserves. In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work.

Here's the 17-minute and 47-second clip in its entirety. I advise parents and everyone who are about to watch this may not suitable for your children, as it does contain graphic, obscene violence:



If Americans are shocked by this when they see this, my question to them will be, "Why?" What the U.S. federal government has done to the people of Iraq and the rest of the Middle East does not surprise me, but that does not mean it does not disgust me further.

Color me both unsurprised and sickened at the same time.

Financial Aid: There is No More Choice

Attached as an Amendment to the “health care reform” deemed to have passed the House of Representatives and voted on in the Senate as part of reconciliation, was a provision known as “The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act” that forces potential college students to get financial aid directly from the federal government. US Senator Lamar Alexander said, "The government will borrow money at 2.8 percent and loan it to students at 6.8 percent, then spend the difference on more government. Any savings should go to the students, not the government.”

The House Committee on Education & Labor says that by converting “all new federal student lending to the stable, effective and cost-efficient Direct Loan program. Beginning July 1, 2010, all new federal student loans will be originated through the Direct Loan program, instead of through the federally-guaranteed student loan program. The Direct Loan program is a more reliable lender for students and more cost-effective for taxpayers.”
And will:
“Invest the bill’s savings to make college affordable and help more Americans graduate
* Invests $36 billion over 10 years to increase the maximum annual Pell Grant scholarship to $5,550 in 2010 and to $5,975 by 2017. Starting in 2013, the scholarship will be linked to match rising costs-of-living by indexing it to the Consumer Price Index. This includes an investment of $13.5 billion to fund a shortfall in the Pell Grant scholarship program due to increased demand for the scholarship.
* Invests $750 million to bolster college access and completion support for students. It will increase funding for the College Access Challenge Grant program, and will also fund innovative programs at states and institutions that focus on increasing financial literacy and helping retain and graduate students.
* Makes federal loans more affordable for borrowers to repay by investing $1.5 billion to strengthen an Income-Based Repayment program that currently allows borrowers to cap their monthly federal student loan payments at 15 percent of their discretionary income. These new provisions would lower this monthly cap to just 10 percent for new borrowers after 2014.
* Invests $2.55 billion in Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority-Serving Institutions to provide students with the support they need to stay in school and graduate.
* Invests $2 billion in a competitive grant program for community colleges to develop and improve educational or career training programs.”

While this reform may make it “easier” for students to get financial aid, it ignores the real question. Why is college so expensive?
There are many reasons; increased administrative costs, increased teacher salaries both play a part, not to mention easy money that helps drive the cost up.
This “reform” will not bring down the cost of higher education, only a change in the philosophy of college presidents and administrators will bring costs down.

Starting Work on My New Book "Red, White, and Left-Libertarian"

I am now announcing that I have begun working on my first new book, which will be officially titled Red, White, and Left-Libertarian: America's Need to Reclaim Its Pro-Freedom Heritage. I started to conceive this book project years ago under its original working title Red, White, and Libertarian: America's Need to Reclaim Its Pro-Freedom Heritage, but since then, my pro-liberty views have evolved to a certain extent. At one point, it was retitled The Free Marketeer, but I didn't like it in the grand scheme of things. I like the new title, as it is catchy, so it will be published by Xlibris under that name.

I project that the book will be released later this year, but it could be much later than that. Either way, work on this piece is under way.

I'm quite ecstatic about it, and I'm sure my blog readers are too. It will be out soon.

Keep your eyes peeled for future announcements. While I'm not at liberty to say what the book will be about, it's going to be quite an interesting read.

What's Sauce for the Goose Is Sauce for the Gander

Proponents of Obama's pro-subsidized insurance industry medical-care "reform" a.k.a. ObamaCare are absolutely (and entirely) correct to object to the death threats and acts of physical violence directed at some congressmen that followed the recent ObamaCare vote in the House. It is paramount to stress that all decent and civil people must condemn and reject the actions of those who partook in them. Regardless of their reasons, what transpired was and still is immoral in every step of the way. It's immoral because it violates the essence and spirit of the Non Aggression Principle (NAP) and should not be tolerated across the board. Not only that, it sullies the cause of human liberty, which entails the diminishing of State power over the lives of freethinking individuals.

Having said that, the supporters of the so-called overhaul come off as nothing more than hypocrites because of their support for State violence against nonviolent individuals who just want to be left to their own devices. These individuals should be renouncing violence, yet they embrace it by supporting the plan. Considering the fact that the Obama administration has ordered the IRS to hire 16,00 new employees to be armed and loaded and carry out the medical-care mandate, violators, who happen to be uninsured Americans and who refuse to comply with the federal mandates and regulations by enrolling and paying for the newly state-mandated insurance, will be levied fines of nearly $700, which is nothing more than an assault on his or her liberty. Those fines can include, but not limited to, a confiscation of the violator's property, further sanctions such as arrest and incarceration, etc. All those things coupled with resistance to arrest and incarceration can, and will eventually, include the mighty wrath of the vile and pernicious State. And that simply can occur because an innocent and peaceful individual rightfully abstained from complying with a government mandate.

The point is that, if universal health care were such a noble endeavor and a goal truly worth of praise (and it would most certainly be), it would have been enacted freely and voluntarily in the absence of the State. This would be best achieved exclusively via voluntary exchange and social cooperation, not via brute force. After all, as the legendary George Washington once pointed out, "Government is not eloquence. It is not reason. It is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master." While they could have implemented otherwise, the proponents of ObamaCare decided that coercion must be employed (by using threats of violence) to get their way. That attitude is predicated on the notion that the ends must always justify the means. If they oppose violence by speaking out against the death threats and other threats of violence aimed at them, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. They are hardly setting a good example.

Advocates of liberty across the board must reject such calls of violence. They need not to sink to their level.

Reality or Alarmism?

Democratic operatives and mainstream media shills and apologists for the Obama administration's just-passed and enacted medical-care overhaul are now accusing the rank-and-file Republicans and their cronies who oppose the much-touted yet highly-unpopular "reform" and warn people of dire medical and economic consequences of being alarmists. The standard argument now being offered goes like this: "You and your ilk made the same claims about Medicare when it was passed in 1965."

That is quite a hilarious contention, come to think of it. When Medicare was passed and enacted into law, opponents of the program at the time predicted that it result in the state's greater control of the medical system than ever.

Here's a couple of fair questions to people: does anyone now believe that Medicare was such a good idea to create? And while we're at it, does anyone now think that was a horrible prediction at all?

Medicare, as it stands, has an unfunded liability -- that is, empty promises -- of $37 trillion over the next 75 years, the insolvency of the program notwithstanding. To give the devil his due, Obama at least admits that Medicare is a major reason for the federal deficit, which creates the massive national debt. To rectify the problem (namely the out-of-control budget), coverage for a handful of services are being denied. Doctors are now routinely being prompted to stop accepting new Medicare patients, thanks to the insane bureaucratic burden imposed upon them.

All in all, the government medical program has stimulated supply and demand of services, thus propping up prices for everyone across the board by subsidizing medical care for the retirees. Costlier medical care results in costlier medical insurance. Medical insurance companies are soon priced out of the market, thus becoming wiped out of existence after the price of insurance skyrockets. That certainly adds to the number of people who are uninsured. (Although this is not the only factor of inflation, it remains a relatively large one.)

With prices rising higher and the number of uninsured growing larger (all because of the government product known as Medicare), there is no question that all this has energized the government's attempt to increase its power over the medical system.

Now, in the present day, the predictions made about Medicare have come true, not to mention legitimate. It has opened the door for more state intervention in our medical-care choices -- meaning us.

The question that needs to be asked is this: is what we've warned about ObamaCare making us alarmists or talking about reality?

The Moral and Economic Bankruptcy and Ignorance of Real Time Host Bill Maher

Statist liberal and Barack Obama shill Bill Maher, host of his populist HBO talk show Real Time with Bill Maher, fired a rant that contained a series of smears and ad hominems at the Republicans who are up in arms over the passage and enactment of ObamaCare.

Here's a YouTube clip* of Maher making his speech on the March 26, 2010 episode of his show:



Here's a transcript of what Maher said:

Finally, New Rule: You can't use the statement 'There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year!' as a threat if there was no cooperation in the first part of the year.

Here's a word President Obama should take out of his Teleprompter: Bipartisanship. People only care about that in theory, not in practice. The best thing that happened this year is when Obama finally realized that and said: 'Kiss my black ass, we're going it alone George W. Bush style.' [applause]

Now, two months ago, conservative Fred Barnes wrote, 'The health care bill is dead with not the slightest prospect of resurrection.' Well, if it's dead, you just got your ass kicked by a zombie named Nancy Pelosi. Seriously, the last time a Democrat showed balls like that John Edwards' girlfriend was filming it.

And yet, even before the Democrats got to take a single victory lap, they were being warned not to get drunk with power. I disagree. All you Democrats do a shot and then do another. Get drunk on this feeling of not backing down and doing what you came to Washington to do. [applause]

Do not listen to the people who are now saying that nothing else big should be attempted for a while because health care was so rough. Wrong. Because I learned something watching the lying bullies of the right lose this one. When they’re losing, they squeal like a pig. They kept saying things like, the bill was being 'shoved down our throats.' Or the Democrats were 'ramming it through.' The bill was so big they 'couldn't take it all at once.' [laughter]

And you know what? I realized listening to this rhetoric that it reminded me of something. It reminded me of Tiger Woods' text messages to his mistress that were made public last week, where he said, and I quote: 'I want to treat you rough, throw you around, spank and slap you and make you sore. I want to hold you down and choke you while I fuck that ass that I own. Then I'm going to tell you to shut the fuck up while I slap your face and pull your hair for making noise.' Unquote. [laughter]

And this, I believe, perfectly represents the attitude the Democrats should now have in their dealings with the Republican Party. [applause]

Yes, it does. That's what they should be saying to the Republicans: 'Shut the fuck up while I slap your face for making noise! Now pass the cap-and-trade law, you stupid bitch, and repeat after me, "global warming is real."' [applause]

The Democrats need to push the rest of their agenda while their boot is on the neck of the greedy, poisonous old reptile. Who cares if cap-and-trade bill isn't popular, neither was health care. Your poll numbers may have descended a bit, but so did your testicles.

So don't stop. We need to regulate the banks, we need to overhaul immigration, we need to end corporate welfare including at the Pentagon, we need to bring troops home from everywhere, we need to end the drug war, and we need to put terrorists and other human rights violators on trial in civilian courts -- starting with Dick Cheney. [applause]

Democrats, in conclusion, Democrats in America were put on earth to do one thing: Drag the ignorant hillbilly half of this country into the next century, which in their case is the 19th. And by passing health care, the Democrats saved their brand.

A few months ago, Sarah Palin mockingly asked them: 'How's that "hopey-changey" thing working for you?' Great, actually, thanks for asking. And how's that whole ‘Hooked on Phonics’ thing working out for you? [laughter]

This is a perfect epitome of the moral and economic bankruptcy and ignorance of Bill Maher and his cronies. He's morally and economic bankrupt because he doesn't care that the state is getting bigger, that it's exacting force on innocent individuals to fatten the pockets of Big Insurance, and it's confiscating the fruits of labor from those who earned and giving it to those who didn't, simply because it's the "good" of society. He's ignorant, because he refuses to fathom what the evils of the law are doing to those uninsured people whom he purportedly cares about (and who neither want nor have asked for the new government-provided insurance and expanded health care entitlement system in the first place).

He's also being disingenuous by framing the paradigm as though this is a "Democrat-versus-Republican" war, when frankly it's a "Democrat-and-Big-State-versus-Freedom-and-Non-Coercion" war in every step of the way. This argument of his is a perfect indication of cognitive dissonance, which is a psychological term referring to a set of simultaneously conflicting ideas coupled with a feeling of great discomfort between two or more groups of people. It's cognitive dissonance, because he, on one hand, believes that everyone should have health care and insurance, but health insurance is evil, so the state is justified into wiping the insurance industry (which lobbied for the passage and enactment of the law).

Hypocrisy, idiocy, and fallacies know no bounds when it comes to a cretin like Bill Maher. The sad truth is that he'll never understand that.

[*Update: YouTube took down the original video (that I had on this post) hosted by one of its users due to a copyright complaint filed by HBO. HBO has been watching YouTube to see if its users have been violating its copyrighted material and has been very tyrannical about it. Hence, an excellent argument to eliminate IP laws, but that's for another blog post for another day. Head to 2:57 to see Maher go off on the GOP with his lame diatribe.]

[*Second Update: Here's the video that was removed by YT. Enjoy!

Walter Block Responds to Sheldon Richman Once Again

My friend Walter Block, whom I took to task for his argument against Sheldon Richman's Libertarians Against Capitalism Facebook group, issued another rejoinder to Sheldon's blog post criticizing his commentary.

Knowing how ridiculous Block's argument is getting, there's nothing else to be said.

Health Care Reform Is about "Control" Not "Health Care"

Just a few days ago President Barrack Obama signed into law a piece of legislation that among other things mandates that every American will be required to purchase health insurance. There are also penalties for “offenders” and all sorts of regulations facing doctors and other health care professionals. Congress, who passed the bill using a combination of tactics “deem and pass” and reconciliation, doesn't know for sure what is in the bill. How do I know? Nancy Pelosi acknowledged the fact almost two weeks ago when she said, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
I should also be noted that a copy of the bill, complete with amendments, wasn't posted online until after the House voted for a package of “fixes” to the Senate version and “deemed it” to have passed the bill; which oddly was signed into law before going to the Senate for reconciliation. This alone is questionably constitutional, not to mention the unconstitutionality of the bill itself.
Asked by Detroit radio host Paul Smith why if the bill’s insurance coverage is so important that the coverage isn’t implemented until 2014 Congressman John Dingell said, “Let me remind you this [Americans allegedly dying because of lack of universal health care] has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.” Finally, someone admits the purpose of this bill isn't “health care”, but about control. Sen. Orrin Hatch said, “They want to force people to do whatever they want them to do. That’s what you call totalitarianism. It is not really good government.”
In a bit of irony and hypocrisy, he continued, “In this country we believe in liberty. We believe in freedom. We believe people ought to have choices. We believe they can make their own choices.” This from the same Senator that supported the “PATRIOT Act,” FISA & “No child left behind.” Not to mention, the Senator doesn't believe you should have a “choice” about whether or not to use cannabis for medicinal purposes. He doesn't want you to have a choice when it comes to honest money and commodity based currencies.
Jack Hunter points out, “House Minority Leader John Boehner thundered, “Can you say it was done openly with transparency and accountability, without backroom deals and struck behind closed doors, hidden from the people? Hell no you can’t!”
Boehner’s right, but it was the House Minority Leader and his Republican Party that helped push through Bush’s Medicare expansion, a piece of legislation passed by cutting backroom deals behind closed doors and hidden from the people. Beginning with a national debt of a little over $5 trillion in 2000, the debt doubled in eight years, rising to over $10 trillion when Bush left office. Said Boehner in the wake of the passage of Democrats healthcare scheme Sunday night, “shame on us.” He was right to use the word “us.”...What the healthcare vote proved was that Republicans now have an issue to run on in 2010 and 2012 and they know it. What it does not prove is that if victorious, Republicans would behave any different than when they were expanding government healthcare and doubling the national debt while Bush was in office.”

British Actor Jude Law's Gaffe on The Daily Show

British actor Jude Law recently appeared on the Daily Show, inadvertenely pulling a gaffe in front of Obama troglodyte Jon Stewart. He let slip the fact that England's health care system is not what it's cracked up to be because of its long lines, waiting lists, overworked and underpaid doctors, and the well-to-do opting out of the government system in favor of private health care.

He leaks this out to Stewart at 2:40:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Jude Law
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform

John Dingell: ObamaCare Was Put Together "To Control The People"

Congressman John Dingell of my home state of Michigan discussed the vile health care law that was passed by Congress and signed into law by Obama, specifically in a recent interview with conservative talk show host Paul W. Smith on WJR 760AM in Detroit. Apparently, he let slip the real goal of ObamaCare and its provisions:

Here's an excerpt of his scathing yet honest answers regarding the hidden agenda of the new law:

The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.

How nice of him, Obama, and the statist Democrats in power! In their eyes, we're all just a bunch of Pinocchios with strings attached to our arms and legs like hand-made puppets.

How quaint.

The True Prescription for Medical-Care Reform Is A Freed Market

The recently-passed medical-care bill a.k.a. ObamaCare, which Barack Obama signed into law on Tuesday and which will be challenged in the form of lawsuits in federal court by many state attorney generals on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, has opened a Pandora's Box in the political, legal, constitutional, moral, and anti-liberty scheme of things.

It's political, because the bill, which was supposed to be brought to the Senate for reconciliation before Obama signed it, ended up being bypassed to Obama's desk for his signature, without the "fixes" (which are actually amendments) being applied to the document. After all, the Voice of America news site reported on March 22 just before the bill reached the Oval Office: "[T]he Senate must still sign-off on a series of changes approved by the House." (After Obama signed the bill into law, the Senate had just passed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.)

The law's conservative critics argue that it's both unconstitutional and illegal, because there's nothing in the Constitution that says that the U.S. federal government must coerce uninsured individuals into purchasing health-care insurance. I'm not much of a fan of the current document as established by our Founding Fathers, but the conservatives' argument is entirely flimsy. While it may be true that any constitutional scholar or historian worth his or her salt will say that this medical-care "reform" does not fall within the constitutional purview of the federal government, the Constitution is pretty cryptic in this area. So what if it is unconstitutional? Conservatives are wrongheaded to make this point. They should be arguing that the bill is wrong and unethical, because it initiates force against those who choose not to pay for other people's medical care, whether they are insured or not, and subsidizes those who would otherwise not need the insurance for a variety of reasons. Congressional Democrats, such as John Conyers of Michigan, say that the "general welfare" clause (found in the Preamble and Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution) grants the federal government the power to establish dominion of the U.S. medical-care system. But what were the conservatives expecting? That Obama would just not sign the bill into law? Democrats have historically been hostile to human liberty across the board. Republicans are the same. Face it; if George W. Bush had proposed a similar law and lobbied hard to pass it, would the GOP and its cronies have argued against it then? Of course not! They would be all for it, because they would have been getting the credit for it, and they would financially and politically benefit from it like former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney did when he imposed RomneyCare in his state.

Finally, it's immoral and anti-liberty, because it is an assault on individual liberty while both protecting and expanding the parasitic medical welfare state (including the entitlement programs of Medicaid [which is universal medical care for the uninsured poor and needy] and Medicare [which is universal care for mostly wealthy retirees and the elderly collecting Social Security). (Medicare recipients will not be pleased to learn that this new law, which begins to take effect in its entirety by 2018, will undercut, undermine, or eliminate their coverage or see a significant rise in their premiums.) Individuals, who are already not allowed and had never been allowed to make that many decisions on their medical-care options, will find that their insurance premium costs will rise, the quality of health care to plummet, and the pool of available doctors shrinking at a much substantially higher rate than ever. The new law, which for months had been widely touted as a "reform" of the system, will not allow wiggle room for doctors to make medical decisions on their patients' health and patients to make medical choices on their health and what insurance plans work best for them. ObamaCare does not and will not address the state's intervention in the medical-care market, research, and the system in its entirety. It does not even allow patients to shop for insurance plans from insurers across state lines.

The medical care system certainly requires reforms -- true radical reforms. ObamaCare, on the other hand, is just too expensive, and powerful medical and insurance interests are prospering and will prosper even more at the expense of all of us. The status quo will merely profit from it, which hardly leaves any legitimate reason for any sane and rational individual to admire it. With that in mind, we have no sound reason to tolerate it.

The idea that a highly-bureaucratized, highly-socialized state-propped medical-care model such as ObamaCare costing only $940 billion is nothing more than a piece of fiction. Medicare, which was launched in 1966, actually cost $3 billion. Congress projected the costs of the program at about $12 billion by 1990 (an alleged conservative estimate). By the time that year came, the actual cost was $107 billion (if inflation is included in the costs). In 2003, the CATO Institute issued a report indicating that the program was going to be price-tagged at a projected $244 billion. Moreover, the Medicare system is rife with massive fraud and abuse. Fewer than 5 percent of the medical claims filed with the agency are audited. Cost overruns, rising deficits, lower payments to physicians and hospitals coupled with payment delays, medical services and procedures rationed by doctors, hospitals, and the state coupled with treatment delays, payroll taxes paid by employers and levied on employees, and HMO-style "assembly line" medicine have plagued Medicare for the longest time.

Thanks to the imposition of the Medicare Drug Prescription Benefit Act of 2003 (a Bush-era edict that was price-tagged at $400 billion) and a month after then-President Bush issued that decree, Medicare Plan D's price-tag went up to $534 billion. According to the 2009 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, the projected costs from 2009 to 2018 are $727.3 billion. But the economic reality is that the costs for that program are going to be higher -- much higher -- than deemed. Even James Bovard, a policy analyst for the Future of Freedom Foundation and author of The Bush Betrayal, noted in 2005 that the Medicare trustees would cost up to $7 trillion over the next 75 years (assuming the federal government and all of its various programs, including Medicare and its prescription drug program, still exist).

Obama, his progressive supporters who are behind the new model, and his medical and insurance cronies are misguided to believe that the new doomed medical-care system will be accepted by the American people, including their opponents and critics. But they are gravely mistaken. Critics of the law, for months before Congress passed it, have pointed out the obvious problems that the new system will create. Even more than 60 percent of the American people, according to many online polls, were overwhelmingly opposed (and still are) to the bill. This "reform" is nothing more of a repackaging of the current system, with the exception that it coerces more coverage and more people into the system.

Focus on the fact that the majority of the attention of nearly all the "reformers" centered on the health-insurance industry. The common denominator in the entire medical-care "debate" had been, still is, and will continue to be that health-insurance firms have been under-regulated. For months, what became a discussion on "health-insurance reform" soon morphed into "health insurance regulation." Of course, health insurers have been massively and obscenely over-regulated, but the "reformers" don't want to ruin the fun of their crusade against the companies because of that fact. The bulk of the "over-regulation" is imposed by the biggest insurance players such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Blue Care Network, and Aetna against the smallest insurers. More insurance firms will go under ObamaCare, which was the plan all along. The claim that Obama & Co. touted (saying that patients will get to keep their current insurance plans) is just bogus. Expect to see more insurance firms going under because of the massive mandates.

Another problem is that the Congressional Budget Office says that the new law will reduce the deficit in ten years. Anyone with a modicum of comprehension of economics knows that the CBO's report is nonsense. Lawmakers have been relaying dubious information to the agency with cooked figures on the issue. Conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, in his latest op-ed titled "An Off-Budget Office?," debunked this lunacy by noting with respect to the San Francisco Chronicle's article on the matter entitled "Costly Bill Seen as Saving Money":

It's not hard to understand at all. It is a lie.

What makes this particular lie pass muster with many people, who might otherwise use their common sense, is that the Congressional Budget Office vouched for the consistency of the budget numbers that say you can add millions of people to a government-run system and yet save money.

The Congressional Budget Office does honest work. But it can only use the numbers that Congress supplies-- and Congress does dishonest work. It is not the CBO's job to give their opinion as to whether any of the marvelous things that Congress says it will do in the future are either likely or possible.

Sowell even further notes:

[N]one of this money is in the official federal budget that the Congressional Budget Office sees. There are many other financial liabilities of the government that are 'off-budget,' which means that they do not show up in the official numbers.

Even research analysts find the CBO's findings apocryphal. As Marc Goldwein, the policy director of the the Washington budget watchdog group Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, points out:

CBO is the most trusted analysis out there, but everything they say, you should take with a humongous grain of salt.

Is health insurance the most lucrative and most profitable commodity in the industry? Not quite. Such insurance on average generates a profit margin that amounts to about 3-4 cents on the dollar. These firms do welcome a guaranteed clientele, even if it's foisted upon the public, because it ensures their profitability. Although Obama & Co. will appear as an populist opponent to the industry, he's actually its best ally. Why? Because Big Insurance will accept the onerous new regulations to decimate its much smaller competitors, leaving insurance consumers with fewer insurance options to purchase. Considering they are not incentivized to innovate and compete thanks to their politically-connected, politically-protected mandates, young healthy people will find that the individual mandates are compulsory and that they must purchase highly expensive products and services from these protected government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), thanks to the state. It's intriguing that the progressive critics of the insurance enterprises, who routinely bash their practices and support Obama's "reform," neglect to mention that the new model coerces everyone to transact with these entities.

The only objection that these GSEs have with the plan is that the penalties for not complying with or refusing to comply with the individual and employer mandates are not high enough. Most young people will likely choose to pay the penalties out of their pockets rather than purchase the insurance because of the cheap savings for them. Hence, a problem arises out of that mess: if and when the uninsured become sick and then apply for coverage, they can't and won't be denied because the new law prohibits it. Expect to see future changes (in the form of stricter penalties) in the federal law to avert more gaming of the system in the not-too-distant future. Thus, this is another victory for the already-protected insurance establishment.

Finally, the critics of the old government-created public-private hybrid of the medical-care system have been spewing ad nauseum for months that the system was the result of the free market, and that it has failed the American people. But that is a baldfaced lie. A free market medical-care system hasn't existed, nor has it ever existed over the last 100 years. The "reformers" continue to miss this paramount point every single time: what exists now, and will continue to exist, is the current system has been the result of an uncompetitive medical and insurance cartel system that has been codified by the state and thrives and exists entirely and purely, thanks to state privilege. This privilege has come into existence because of its extension of state governments through state-approved and state-sanctioned monopolistic licensing. Congress, if it wanted to, could end this nightmare by repealing the prohibition on interstate insurance sales and the horrendous tax favoritism for employer-provided medical insurance coverage. But don't let those points enter the mind of the vile, greedy, and pernicious Democrats, who stand to financially profit from the system at the expense of the poor (whom the ruling party claims to care about).

And to make matters worse, before the bill passed in both chambers of the House and were signed into law, many physicians across the country threatened to bolt from the system and give up their practices. Many of them have exited from the profession because of the low reimbursements and payments from Medicare and to avoid legal malpractice liability. Expect to see a much larger mass exodus from the system in the months and years to come.

The only good news coming out of this mess is that most Americans (if not, many) are seeing for the first time the fraudulent "reform" this law really is. It only secures and protects the government-created cartels, punishes the well-off, and merely postures as a friend of the uninsured who are largely impoverished.

At the end of the day, the true prescription for medical-care reform is a freed market. Two illusions need to be shattered. First, the idea that this is a matter between the status quo and this "reform" is preposterous. The "reform" IS the status quo in drag. Second, for generations, the state has bedded the medical profession and the insurance industry to ram down our throats the evil system we have today. A freed market is the only way out of this mess.

Medical Statism a.k.a. ObamaCare Passes in the House

ObamaCare, which is officially known as Patient Protection and Affordability Act of 2010 (H.R. 3950), has just passed in the House. The vote tally comes at 219-212.

It's now expected that Herr Obama will sign it on his desk this upcoming Tuesday. But how can he sign a bill into law if the Senate hasn't applied the "fixes" that the Democrats made to the House-passed version of the bill hours ago? Because those "fixes" aren't REAL fixes. Those are just last-minute amendments to the bill AFTER it was passed, and they are heading to the Senate. The bill has already cleared the halls of Congress. According to the Voice of America news website, "[T]he Senate must still sign-off on a series of changes approved by the House."

Obviously, so many backroom dealings had occurred on the House floor. The key provisions of the legislation that the medical lobbyists and Big Insurance (like Blue Cross Blue Shield) are backing include:

1. Coercing individuals to buy insurance or be faced with a penalty of 2.5 percent of income. That penalty would come to an annual amount of $695 if individuals refuse to accept that coverage.


2. Coercing employers to offer insurance to their workers or face a penalty of $2,000 per worker. Specifically, employers will be coerced to cover 65% of family premiums or fork over a penalty based on payroll. Small businesses with less than $500,000 on payroll will be exempt and payrolls up to $750,000 will have a reduced contribution.


3. Banning private insurance firms (that don't have the political clout like Big Insurance does) that want new business from denying coverage to policyholders having preexisting medical conditions.


4. Coercing above-mentioned firms to accept new government regulations and mandates.


5. Coercing parents to keep their children on their medical plans until they reach the age of 26.

The most laughable aspect of this "debate" on the House floor is that Democratic Congresscritter Bart Stupak from my home state of Michigan, who was originally against the bill because of a provision in the bill that would allow taxpayer financing of abortions, flip flopped on it because of a meaningless deal that Obama cut with him by saying that he would issue an executive order to prohibit the funding. Stupak wasn't against the bill because it would solidify the state's entrenchment in the medical care system; he was against it because of his pro-life views. If that provision had not been written in the bill in the first place, does anyone really think he would have voted against it? Not in a New York minute!

(Interestingly and hilariously enough, the congressman was branded a "baby killer" by a Republican colleague in the House, although he has an idea of who said it.)

Once the bill is signed into law and goes into effect, one can be certain that millions of Americans will not obey the law. This is what happens when the state furthers itself into the medical care system much more than it has in decades. Any chance of restoring a true free market medical care system went up in smoke the second the bill passed.

It's time for all Liberty activists to start practicing civil disobedience and educate the masses in a clear, concise, and innovative way. No more the state! More freedom than ever!

Say "No" to Capitalism: In Defense of Sheldon Richman and the Libertarians Against Capitalism Facebook Group

Walter Block, a good friend of mine who's also a fan of my show Liberty Cap Talk Live on Blog Talk Radio, a prominent blogger and writer at LewRockwell.com, a well-noted economics professor at Loyola University New Orleans, and a prominent senior fellow at the right-libertarian educational/academic organization Ludwig von Mises Institute, has penned a piece for LRC.com, in which he criticized my good friend and left-libertarian/agorist/anarchist mentor Sheldon Richman for having recently started his group Libertarians Against Capitalism on Facebook and positing his contention that the word capitalism lacks any value to and is a problem in the eyes of many purist free-market ideologues. (Here's Sheldon's rejoinder to Block on his Free Association blog.]

Curiously, Block writes in his piece in part:

If U.S. Presidents such as George Bush (41st or 43rd), Dwight D. Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan are widely considered capitalist supporters, and they are, then I, along with Libertarians Against Capitalism, want no part of this moniker. (Ronald Reagan magnificently utilized free market rhetoric; but budgets and regulations increased when he was governor of California and President of the U.S.) And the same goes for the likes of Vice Presidents Spiro Agnew, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle and Nelson Rockefeller, along with talk show hosts Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly. I will not say that there is a 180 divergence between what they mean by 'capitalism' and how I use this word, but the differences are very stark. This includes other politicians of the following ilk: John Boehner, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Tim Pawlenty, Michael Steele, and Fred Thompson. Their 'capitalism' and mine are very, very different.

Intriguingly enough, Block fails to distinguish his so-called term free-market capitalism (in its purported context) from the commonly-used term state capitalism at the end of his paragraph. But then again why ruin the fun when you can attempt to make a good although unconvincing case against the critics of the term capitalism because of its purported pro-freedom/anti-state roots when actually its true anti-liberty/pro-state baggage predates the 20th century and further extends to France's National French Assembly after the French Revolution of 1789, which was populated by the original leftists (laissez-faire advocates) on the Left (where Frederick Bastiat and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon sat) and the fascistic and mercantilistic aristocrats on the Right? Not only that, what about this term and its concepts' deep-seated ties to corrupted, seedy, and shady interventionistic state influence? Apparently, he refuses to acknowledge all and any of those historically factual points.

Then, after listing the names of many conservatives in the above paragraph, Block further writes:

Nor can we afford to ignore a large group of neoconservatives, who are also linked with 'capitalism' in the public mind, for example: Elliott Abrams, John R. Bolton, Dick Cheney, Douglas Feith, Carl Gershman, Christopher Hitchens, David Horowitz, Robert Kagan, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, Norman Podhoretz, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Stephen Schwartz, Leo Strauss, Ben Wattenberg, Paul Wolfowitz and James Woolsey. Irving Kristol, the father of neo-conservatism, wrote a book called 'Two cheers for capitalism.' As for me, I want no part of this sort of 'capitalism.' It is three cheers for me, all the way.

Additionally, he writes:

And the same goes for conservatives such as Roger Ailes, David Brooks, William F. Buckley, John Derbyshire, David Frum, Robert Gates, Jim Geraghty, Jonah Goldberg, Lawrence Kudlow, Rich Lowry, Jay Nordlinger, Ramesh Ponnuru, Karl Rove, Mark Stein, John Yoo and Byron York. If they support capitalism, and they are widely seen to do so, then I, too, along with called Libertarians Against Capitalism, oppose it. For the "capitalism" of these people includes as a central tenet war, militarism and imperialism. They may call it 'American Greatness,' but what it amounts to is the U.S. tossing its military weight all around the world, in a totally unjustified manner.

Also, there are foreign dictators who have been, willy nilly, linked with capitalism, and I wouldn’t want to be linked, politically, with them either. For example, Pinochet, Franco, and even, help us please, Hitler.

And, finally, he says:

Reading the above, one might infer that I am as good a candidate as any other libertarian to join Libertarians Against Capitalism.

Ah, but, according to Block, "Not so, not so." Why is that the case, you ask?

As convoluted as his logic is, here's the following kicker coming from him:

My main reason is not etymological but rather linguistic. I readily admit that 'capitalism' has a bad press, and its historical use is none too salutary either. But, the enemies of libertarianism are always trying to take words away from us.

The "enemies of libertarianism" are "always trying to take words away from us"?

As much I love Walter personally (and I don't mean to get my digs in him as well), it's not that the "enemies of libertarianism" have been co-opting our terms for years. They have taken back the term libertarian, considering we took it from them. We did so as a response to the state socialists in the progressive camp having taken the word liberal from us! Look at "libertarians" like Neal Boortz, Mancow Muller, Wayne Allyn, and Bob Barr (who, although successfully had secured the Libertarian Party nomination in 2008, failed to win the presidential election). They have been acting as though they have been in favor of Liberty, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. And they even employ terms such as capitalism and libertarian that are in their vocabularies.

Furthermore, Block says:

They have already long ago stolen 'liberal.' We must now call ourselves 'classical liberals' if we want to use that appellation at all. Some have recently had the audacity to try to take away the word 'libertarian.' I refer, here, to Noam Chomsky, who has the temerity to characterize himself as a libertarian.

(Of course, his "attempted theft" charge against Chomsky doesn't holds any water whatsoever, considering that Chomsky has been using that term to describe his brand of state socialism [statism] for decades. Block's "evidence" against him is indicated here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Thus, Block's case is very weak and implausible and appears to be on shaky grounds.)

It's pleasant to know that Walter tries to differentiate himself from the capitalists he noted in the above paragraph. My question to him would be: why would you even want to associate yourself with a word that has historically been employed by state socialists (statists) such as progressive Bill Maher (who called himself a "capitalist" on his Real Time show last night) and conservative economist Ben Stein across the political spectrum? Right-libertarians like Block, Stephan Kinsella, and Brad Edmonds continue to embrace the term willingly and without question, despite their inherent incongruities and flawed, convoluted logic. John Stossel of Fox Business even qualifies as an example of this, especially when one considers his vulgar libertarian framing of the libertarian philosophy on his show Stossel and his libertarian and capitalist guests whom he often interviews in front of his live studio audience.

Free market capitalists apologizing for vulgar libertarianism and shilling for the conservative and corporatist shills by protecting the term capitalism, even with the best of intentions and in a vociferous manner, merely create the perceived impression that all voluntaryists and many other advocates of Liberty are in bed with the establishment. These moves land free-market radicals in trouble across the board, regardless of what many right-libertarians claim. These stooges set themselves up for disdain and alignment with the Republicans and their Wall Street-worshipping statist cronies. Should we, including Americans in general, be surprised with this type of behavior that has been an endemic (although embarrassing) part of our society, our culture, and the parasitic political establishment?

As for the word libertarian, Sheldon Richman posits:

Libertarian was used by left-wing Spanish anarchists during the 1930s civil war; they were no friends of private property and free trade. Going back further, the word was used by anarcho-socialists after the fall of the Paris Commune in 1871 because the word anarchist could land them in a heap of trouble. I doubt Block would regard those libertarians as comrades. The French word Libertaire appears to be the origin of our word libertarian, and it seems to have had nothing to do with what Block wants to call capitalism. Quite the opposite.

Sheldon is correct. The word capitalism has always had a twisted, dark, and vile history with the Liberty movement, thanks to and despite the efforts of Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand. Block's attempt to save the term is an exercise in futility, because the word has really never been ours to begin with. Trying to resuscitate it, putting new life into it, and cleanse it from its sins are nothing but ideological and historical revisionism. No amount of spinmeistering from the hacks in our movement will change that talking point.

Block finally concludes his piece by writing:

So, I beseech Sheldon Richman and the other members of Libertarians Against Capitalism to disband their group, and, instead, work with the rest of us to save as many words as we can for our own use.

I doubt Sheldon has any interest in saving the word simply by disbanding his group. No left-libertarian/agorist/voluntaryist worth his salt believes that such an endeavor is, as Sheldon correctly noted at the end of his blog post, "worth the candle." Capitalism, like the word libertarian, is not an ally - but rather an enemy - of laissez-faire. They do not truly go together like popcorn and butter. Laissez-faire capitalism is an artificial construct, not to mention a clever redundancy. Not only that, it is an oxymoron. One who calls oneself a laissez-faire capitalist is akin to one calling oneself a Christian Satanist. One cannot be a Christian and a Satanist simultaneously. Either one is a Christian or a Satanist; there is no such thing as "between one and other other" or "both." Besides, there are plenty of terms that advocates of Liberty can use such as market anarchist, voluntaryist, laissez-faire, and free market. Besides, capitalism is a word that free-market radicals have now rejected.

It would be wise of our pro-Liberty allies to wash themselves of the label and stay away from it permanently. After all, it can't be saved.

Besides, we have no need and use of that poisonous word we call capitalism. But we do have a need of the Libertarians Against Capitalism group on Facebook. Let's educate the masses about the true vile nature of capitalism as it stands today.

Ladies of Lying Intelligent Tyrants Alliance (LOLITA) Versus PuZzLeD's Brooke Kelley

The recent fallout over the excommunication of freedom activist, devout Ron Paul supporter, and YouTube's PuZzLeD reality TV show star Brooke Kelley from the Ladies of Liberty Alliance (LOLA), which is an alleged pro-Liberty organization that has billed and sold itself as an advocate for women (who are already) in the libertarian movement and bringing the said gender into both the movement and the group, has already generated a lot of controversy -- not to mention a paramount amount of noise -- on and out of Facebook and among many activists and members in their respective cliques -- and circles -- in an already-fractured political wing of the movement. The group, which was founded in 2009 by relative political newcomer Allison Gibbs (who is a 27-year-old former government scientist and AIDS researcher employed by the U.S. Department of Defense [which lasted for 8 years] and is the current Outreach Director for the Campaign for Liberty), has been a long-time talked-about staple in the Ron Paul wing of the political movement, garnering support from a number of pro-Liberty activists because of its goal to boost the female numbers of activists who, in the past, have been inadequate in the eyes of many of the movement's finest men and women longing for new blood. If anything, these individuals' desire to keep the grass-roots networking and projects on the Liberty train on the move by pushing for more inclusion of liberty-loving women in the ranks. What they didn't count on was that it was going to crumble before it could achieve anything to begin with, especially from a pro-freedom standpoint.

The ruckus erupted when Kelley, the darling of the Ron Paul movement (who recently spoke out in defense of Paul over his call to support Lamar Smith), went public with LOLA's decision to kick her out on Facebook because of the group's claim that she "frightened" Ron Paul with a question as to how important the "truth" regarding 9/11 was to the people (in reference to the 9/11 Truthers' desire to know why Paul hasn't been asking why the government has been withholding information about what transpired on that day). That angered the powers-that-be at C4L at the recent CPAC event over her questions, even though she even heckled Glenn Beck for "stealing the Tea Party movement" and John Ashcroft for pushing to make "raves illegal" and his casual contempt for the Constitution, and attempted to confront conservative hit woman Ann Coulter with a question as well (her security stopped Kelley before she could even ask such a question). Kelley (and many others on Facebook) points out in her latest PuZzLeD video that a C4L employee met with her and told her that there was a group planning to "heckle" Glenn Beck. The problem was that, just prior to Beck's speech, word was coming down the pike (from Ron Paul himself) that anyone who is discovered to have heckled him would be denounced by the group. That didn't stop Kelley from doing just that.

Just after she did it, she was subsequently kicked out of C4L. (The details as to how and what the procedures were for kicking her out are rather unclear at this point, but more information will be available.) LOLA Core, which consists of Allison Gibbs and only several members of the the entire LOLA Board (including long-time freedom activist and Antiwar.com employee Angela Keaton), had a meeting and voted on whether to dismiss Kelley from the group. The vote was largely unanimous: Brooke was to be shown the door*.

Brooke came public with the following on Friday, 10:57 AM:

Brooke Kelley So let me get this straight. Im kicked out of Campaign for Liberty, for asking Glenn Beck a question, and kicked out of LOLA for asking Ron Paul a question. Reminds me of getting cuffed at the border for asking that cop a question. Hmmm. I still love you, but seriously--let's not just Talk about freedom--let's LIVE Fre...e!! Let's RISE ABOVE our enemies and UNIFY--not exclude truth-telling, liberty loving ACTIVISTs."

Immediately, pro-freedom activists across the aisle jumped on the bandwagon, trying to find out what happened. Here are some of the comments that were made:

Chris Tolliver Ⓐ
What the hell happened!!??
Fri at 10:59am

Brooke Kelley
I asked Glenn Beck a question, after Ron Paul explicitly said if anyone heckles Beck, they are no longer in the C4L community. So I asked Ron Paul a question too, and apparently that was offensive to LOLA, and they voted me off the island.

Don't Live free. Come pay for Liberty! ...B.
Fri at 11:02am

Lille Ørn
Stay strong freedomfighter! Listen to this program , lots of stuff going on http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Jack-Blood-32k-022410.mp3
Fri at 11:03am

Chris Tolliver Ⓐ
Wow. This is why I stay away from any organization that supports politicians.
Fri at 11:04am

Debra Dedmon
they friggin kicked you out ?? r u effin kidding me / Um that just makes me justa little more suspicious of them all, and i was already suspicious of C4L, but why the hell shouldthey care u asked Neocon Beck a question , crazy!! but LOLA , that is surprising. doyou mean they kicked u out of an event or out f the group?? i distrust anyone who takes unkindly to the power of questions
Fri at 11:04am

Aj Arias
Unity!
Fri at 11:05am

Lille Ørn
TRUTH will allways win. No matter what!
Fri at 11:06am

Jay Doobie
Wait, they kicked you out for asking questions? I think I'm no longer going to support LOLA or CfL.
Fri at 11:07am

Diana Isabel Miranda
What were the questions anyways?
Fri at 11:07am

Aaron Proctor
What did you ask? Sounds like it's weird you'd be randomly kicked out.
Fri at 11:09am

Jennapher Frankie Lawson
It's horrifyingly common to use "unify" and be ostracized. :-s
Fri at 11:11am

Joanna Reed
Brooke, I've known Ron Paul personally since college (over 12 yrs now) and he is a gentleman. There has to be more to this story than you're presenting. Ron Paul is, and always will be, someone I support. Do you think there's a common denominator here? You'll catch more flies with honey.
Fri at 11:13am

Greg Jent
I would really like to know the details and to see the Ron Paul comment on not being allowed to ask Beck questions. I'm so confused :)
Fri at 11:13am

Danzilla Green
Not to be a dick but it's with in an organization's right to boot you...

That being said, screw CFL, they're all minarchist knuckle heads anyways.
Fri at 11:14am

Alexander Benjamin Ramiresonty
*echoes request for details*
Fri at 11:17am

Matt D. Harris
Who kicked you out of LOLA? What questions did you ask Beck and Paul specifically? What were the answers?
Fri at 11:20am

Matt D. Harris
By the way, anyone with the balls to get kicked out of (so-called) liberty orgs is hot by my standards. ;)
Fri at 11:21am

Joe Ringling
Do you think your sudden exclusion stems from your past criticism of Debra Medina?
Fri at 11:23am

Michael Caulfield
again, what question did you ask that idiot Beck?
Fri at 11:23am

Carolyn Taratuta
What's that all about... Makes one wonder.
Fri at 11:27am

Chris Cooley
wow , totally disassociating myself with those two groups ..
Fri at 11:33am

Reagen Dandridge Desilets
the constitution allows for questions to be asked. any 'liberty' group that boots someone for that raises eyebrows. i'm glad i've backed off lola and c4l. i love my freedom but do not dedicate myself to any one group or politician. i've always said if ron paul is the man i hope he is, he would welcome our vigilance!!!
Fri at 11:33am

Bobbie Dee Anderson
<> Thanks Brooke.
Fri at 11:39am

Danielle Kays
I was thinking the same thing, Joe.
Fri at 11:44am

Reagen Dandridge Desilets
details would be nice for curiosity's sake alone. again, the constitution allows for us to talk, even when we disagree... anyone that claims to protect the constitution but also censors is breaking the thin ice they r walking on.
Fri at 11:45am

Amber Danelle, co-host of Truth A to Z on BoldVoices.tv, responded to Brooke with the following:

Amber Danelle
You are totally misrepresenting what happened in the above statement. No one kicked you out of anything for ASKING QUESTIONS. Nothing is wrong with asking questions.

Brooke.... You are a serious trip, and I was totally thrown off last night after hearing from you what had happened.
Thought the drama was OVER.
... See More
:-/

And Joe: It is definitely NOT over anything having to do with Medina. And this isn't "sudden", either.

Brooke: You talk a lot about unifying and unity and rising above the enemy... but here you are talking SHITE about other freedom activists. Seriously... I hadn't seen you do this for a while (and, honestly, I hadn't been paying attention to your page) and I thought it was done with. If something bothers you you spread rumors and discontent about LOLA & C4L.... this is totally going against people working together. And nothing is wrong with whistle-blowing a group or person... but you are doing so without cause, woman. Nobody really know what happened this past weekend. And this whole silly situation could have been way more relaxed if you didn't like to blow things out of proportion.

I had hoped I could work with you in the future.
I had hoped to get to know a good side of you, as I think you are a beautiful person. ♥ Truly.
After meeting you last year I'd only really experienced drama and outbursts (and I'm not saying you were always loud or uber-obnoxious) from you... silly things that I had no idea about, you saying that LOLA is talking poo about you WHEN THAT ISN'T TRUE!!
We don't sit around talking about you, Brooke.
We don't care... we just want to get shit DONE.
Seriously!

And now, here you are again, telling people that LOLA is bad in some way... and people are FOLLOWING YOU and believing what you say!!
We work hard within our group to get stuff done and to enjoy each other as good freedom friends and confidantes! It is so WONDERFUL to be a part of LOLA... but you are sharing way-off information with people and telling people we are nutters. Wow. I have never MET anyone like you, girl. I believed that we could start to work together again. But, I guess that can't be.

Normally I would have sent this to you in a message. Unlike you, I tend to not want to air my grievances in public (unless it's some politician JACKING with my life, etc.) because sometimes one can be overly-passionate or mis-informed about a situation. And those who are listening to your aired grievances only know YOUR SIDE of the story and, therefore, cannot make a smart judgement of the situation.
But, today, I'm going to post this on your status because I want everyone to know that YOU are causing this disruption, this silly-ness.

I won't be surprised if you delete my comment. At least you, and the good people above, will have read something from the "other side".

Honestly, who cares about all this dang drama anyways!? I just wanna bring freedom back to the people of this country!! I thought I was out of high school.
Okay, I'm done on this subject.

Hope you have a great day... ♥
Love & Light & Liberty to you, Brooke.
Fri at 11:46am

Matt D. Harris, a Libertarian Party member, responded to Amber by saying:

Matt D. Harris
Amber, I didn't see Brooke claim that LOLA were nutters, just that she got kicked out of the group for asking Ron Paul a question. I'm reserving judgment until I hear what the question is. Obviously asking him something political but a bit pushy is one thing (and OK, imho) whereas something like "when did you stop beating your wife?" might be a little less appropriate. :P
Fri at 11:56am

Amber responded with this remark:

Amber Danelle
Hey Matt: Brooke didn't technically say that LOLA was a group of "nutters" (those are my own words)... but she says we kicked her out and alludes to the idea that it was because she asked questions of figureheads. Whatever she is saying: it's got some people thinking that they don't want to associate with us.

Again, nothing is wrong with asking questions. That is one of the most important things we can do as good citizens, obviously. And I never heard any of Brooke's questions this weekend. In fact, I had no idea about any of this until last night when some silly stuff went down (thanks for that, Brooke).

I only heard her say one thing @ CPAC, and it was a badass moment when she called out Ashcroft (he was all discombobulated after she barked out something at him - HILARIOUS!) ~ When I found out it was her I was excited and wanted to congratulate her on a job well done. But my tipsyness at after-parties prevented me from remembering it.... See More

As far as what she asked Glenn & Dr. Paul - I have no idea what she asked. Again, it wasn't about what she asked.

♥

Glenn Beck for Vice Prez?? UGH. :-P
HAHHAAAAAAAA!!! (sorry, Todd)
Fri at 12:15pm

Matt Harris asks her:

Matt D. Harris
Amber, so how does someone get kicked out of LOLA? I know some people involved but I'm not familiar with the organization's inner workings. Was Brooke in a board or committee position or something?
Fri at 12:24pm

Amber Danelle responds with the following (yet nonsensical quip):

Amber Danelle
Matt: I had no idea about the kicking out and what was done to get kicked out. As far as the technical process, I'm not sure either. We LOLAs don't like to let drama cloud our projects or discussion... so we don't make it a priority to talk about this type of stuff when we're trying to do work (at least I never hear about it - until the end). It's super freakin' cool to work with women who aren't all about yakkin' about drama-crap all day. THANK GOD! Women can be weird, as we all know. :-)

It's also not kosher for me to talk about specifics, because I would prefer to squelch the drama. I barely know specifics anyway. But what I heard from Brooke last night is enough for me to form at least a minor opinion. And whatever I've typed here is from ME to HER .... and not from LOLA to HER. ... See More

LOLA is freakin' awesome, in fact!!! These chicas seriously inspire me to keep on with what I'm doing! It's like having a family. I love working with cool women in situations like this.
Some people work better on their own... and that is cool, too. Nothing is wrong with distrusting orgs or wanting to not work with them. But, for me, I love this group!! ♥
Fri at 12:39pm

Basically, the claim that LOLA has been positing is that Brooke Kelley "stole" freedom activist Tennyson McCalla's cell phone (committing theft), "trashed" his hotel room (hence, destroying praivate property), and trying to get into LOLA's suite at the hotel when they didn't want her in there (trespassing onto private property). Interestingly enough, Tennyson McCalla, who contacted Angela Keaton and told her that Brooke didn't steal his phone, did note that Brooke was "irresponsible" for leaving her "dogs in the hotel room." That is definitely a far cry from theft, not to mention destroying and trespassing onto private property in its entirety.

I did not know about this incident until Mariana Evica, with whom I am good friends, told me about it on the phone on Friday morning, which led me to contacting Angela Keaton and Brooke Kelley to gather more information on the incident (so I could blog about it).

McCalla told Amber Danelle and the others this:

Brooke and Chris *did not* steal my phone. As best as I can determine they were trying to return it to me after they thought that I had left it behind and went off to CPAC. But they did leave the dog in the hotel room that I had invited them to stay in.

The news now is that LOLA is going to shut down. That troubles me.
Fri at 2:33pm

Then Kelley's next status says the following:

Brooke Kelley dear LOLA: thanx for the good times. you'll always hava special place in my heart. i love you dearly, but i'm off like a prom dress.
Thu at 4:54pm · Comment · Like

Other comments on the thread appear as the following:

Steve Bell
damnit now i got that image in my head thanks lol
Thu at 5:01pm

Ian Freeman
What happened?
Thu at 5:12pm

Brooke Kelley
The top officials of Campaign for Liberty put out a message right before Glenn Beck's speech at CPAC (a neocon convention) saying that Ron Paul would denounce and disown any person affiliated with C4L, if they heckle or "harass" Beck at all.

Well, turns out I don't listen very well. There was gonna be a whole big group of us, but everyone backed out, last minute. I called him out at the end of his speech, and not only did C4L turn their backs on me, LOLA dropped me like yesterday's news. ...B.
Thu at 5:40pm

Ian Freeman
Welcome to politics. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Perhaps you should consider giving up on restoring the republic and join us up in NH as we get the hell out of the republic? ;)
Thu at 5:50pm

James Freelander
That's awful. For what it's worth, I'm proud of you and I'll back you up. LOLA, I'm disappointed =(
Thu at 5:53pm

Steve Bell
beck need to be heckled as much as possible he a shill and the perfect example of a Benedict arnold if anyone dosen't know who he is ill post link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Arnold
Thu at 5:54pm

Ian Freeman
Did you ever post video of the heckling?
Thu at 5:57pm

Brooke Kelley
no shit, eh. there is no restoring the republic, and i've been workin on independent projects lately-like PuZzLeD (Reality Show about Liberty Kids Fighting for Freedom) and Operation Defuse. At what point is C4L gonna stop sittin around talkin about freedom, and actually start being free, and letting others around them BE Free!?
Thu at 5:58pm

Ian Freeman
When they stop believing in politics? Which as a political organization, isn't very likely. Especially since it pays their bills.
Thu at 6:00pm

Brooke Kelley
Come Pay for Liberty!!

But Ian, GET THIS-the LOLA girls were planning to get the whole group together, to heckle Beck too, and "bring down the neocons". But when C4L nationals said no, their plan shifted quite dramatically.
Thu at 6:03pm

Ian Freeman
Does LOLA get money from C4L?
Thu at 6:11pm

Brooke Kelley
no. C4L makes LOLA pay them (for booths and stuff) but allison and the board wants LOLA girls to PAY them to have chapters. report to the top and stuff. it's too bad too, cuz LOLA has the potential to be so much better than the average sorority. ...B.
Thu at 6:14pm

Catherine Cointelpro Bleish
Yeah girl. Let's go be activists and let the socialites be socialites ;) proud to still be an austin lola, disenfranchized as I may be from national lol ♥
Thu at 6:17pm

Ian Freeman
lol @ the sorority comment
Thu at 6:19pm

Dan Tucker
Hmmm, I was there and I remember being told to stop heckling everyone... but you must have got the word pretty late. It started with the panel of students and it seemed many of the YAF students were in training for Fox News comentators... with a Rhupert Murdock Mushroom Cloud Foreign Policy. I think they are all "Twelvers".
Thu at 6:37pm

Scott Geyer Ⓥ
FYI Liberty on the Rocks doesnt make people pay to set up chapters.

Ian, I do see a voluntaryist in the making in Brooke. I told her Keene's where she needs to go to find the serious activism.
Thu at 6:48pm

Ian Freeman
Brooke already made a splash here once:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyCcQZ3coMQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy_hjwbaE7Y
Thu at 7:00pm

Ian Freeman
:30 and :60 versions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIm6Uu41lGo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwxa8k0VxsA
Thu at 7:01pm

Scott Geyer Ⓥ
Yeah, I have a habit of telling her things she already knows. Like the message I sent her about the left right paradigm, divide and conquer ideologue.

Oh and thanks for doing that show on it.
Thu at 7:19pm

Scott Geyer Ⓥ
Oh I remember watching that. I didnt realize it was Brooke. That was awesome. She also did a video with Anarcho-Jesse about gardening.
Thu at 7:22pm

Mariana Evica
Ohhhh Brooke, you rock. I support you 100%.
Thu at 7:27pm

Tracy Ward Ⓥ
The more I hear, the less I agree. Sounds less like liberty and more like democracy. Not good.
Thu at 7:27pm

Angela Aronoff
LOLA has chapters all over the country that dont pay to LOLA National. They don't really have much to do with C4L other than being at the same conferences.

I think the way LOLA intended to call out neo cons was with the anti-war panel (great event btw).

Surely they wouldn't drop you just for calling out Glenbeck?
Thu at 7:29pm

Ryan Hopkins
We cannot enter into alliances until we are acquainted with the designs of our neighbors.
- Sun Tzu
Thu at 7:34pm

Brooke Kelley
Angela Keaton writes: "You scared the bejeebus out of an old guy (Ron Paul for frig's sake is someone's grampa-what the hell is wrong with you?)"
Thu at 7:39pm

Ryan Hopkins
Watch them label you as an extremist in the media now...such bullshit.
Thu at 7:50pm

Brooke Kelley
And no, Angela, there was talk in the Atlanta meeting, of LOLAs agreeing to group heckle Glenn Beck.

Me and Catherine Bleish were very vocal AGAINST paying "to use the name" (you know, the one we ALL helped to create) and then the subject of payment was dropped. I have a feeling it'll come back up again, but if enuf people become unhappy with it, they may drop it just in realization of how it makes them look bad. ...B.
Thu at 7:53pm

Brooke Kelley
I am an extremist, Ryan. I love Liberty, and I'll DO ANYTHING--shy of violence--I will Stop at NOTHING to accomplish that goal. That's pretty extreme in this society.

LIVE FREE or Get Kicked Outa Ron Paul Circle tryin!! ...B.
Thu at 7:57pm

Jim Davidson
Brooke, I was waiting to buy a case of LOLA calendars. So now I'll be buying from you an Catherine, looks like. I've been seeing a lot wrong from an activist standpoint with C4L - hierarchy, decisions made from on high, activists, including activist candidates being kicked in the teeth. Wrote a long note about it, which TLE published. I'm with you for freedom, Brooke. And to hell with the stupid old men.
Thu at 8:13pm

Jim Davidson
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle557-20100214-03.html
Thu at 8:14pm

Brooke Kelley
buy LOLA calendars from catherine bleish or tracy ward. i have a few that someone gave to me, but i don't sell them. ...B.
Thu at 8:21pm

Jim Davidson
Reminds me of that David Bowie song lyric, "These children that you spit on as they try to change their world, are immune to your consultations, they're well aware what they're goin' thru"
Thu at 8:28pm

Brooke Kelley
LOVE that song you posted regarding this, Jim! THANK YOU!! So sweet. ...B.
Thu at 8:40pm

Jim Davidson
Doin' my part. You are important. The hierarchy and the leaders from on high can be real jerks. Freedom isn't obtained by kicking our friends under the bus.
Thu at 8:44pm

Adam Tilsley
Sorry for what happened to you. Always remember..when one door closes, another one opens. Continue to fight the good fight! :)
Thu at 8:44pm

Brooke Kelley
no worries, adam. no worries. had they come to me before and said that not only will ron paul denounce me--but LOLA too--if i dare stand up and actually LIVE FREE--i still woulda done it.

i went there with a job to do, and i did it.

it's too bad a chunk of the movement turned their backs on me for holding the media accountable for their disgusting actions. i'm not sad tho. i'm motivated. now more than EVER. catherine has been going thru a very similar situation with them too. ... See More

just wait and see how we bounce back. Liberty Kids don't stop--and they are not stoppable. ....B.
Thu at 8:55pm

Buddy Guthrie
Yeah it really is a shame the game of politics gets played, the game of politics makes us all forget what we are all about, to an extent you have to do that to get to the winners circle, and I do get that, but if you sell your soul to win, even if you do win, do you ever win anything?
Thu at 9:03pm

Jim Davidson
The corruption and brutality which result from excessive politics are not going to be resolved by the application of more politics.
Thu at 9:05pm

Molli Skye
Brooke, you will definitely be missed.
But all the power to you, woman!

LOLA has not been turning out at all as I'd anticipated. The idea of a central organization trying to "control" everything goes against the very grain of most of us in this movement. If there's corruption in a small organization, then how can we expect people in much larger and higher institutions to not be corrupt? That makes us no better than those we are fighting.
... See More
Hopefully the chapters continue to work out.
Thu at 11:27pm

Jim Davidson
In my experience, women who want to make something of a modelling career are better off working with professionals. My friend Cyan Banister has started Zivity.com with excellent results.
Thu at 11:29pm

John Delano
We need more people to get out and get attention. Too many of us (like me) are too shy about starting things like this. Brooke seems to push things a bit, but those people tend to make things happen.

When you get PuZzLeD up and going with it's new site, you should get some ads for it on some of the podcasts where thre would be friendly listeners.
Fri at 1:36am

John Delano
http://www.facebook.com/antiwarradio?v=feed&story_fbid=327169319068
Fri at 1:38am

Jim Davidson
That's hilarious, John. I was just having a conversation with Scott Horton on that very FB page about Brooke Kelley and Stephen Schoppe being thrown under the bus by C4L. Horton was vicious and hateful, so I removed him as a friend. He just lost a major contributor to Antiwar. I wrote him a message inquiring what he was doing with C4L as the "Featured Cause" on his FB page, and he called me a douche. Seriously angry guy that Scott Horton.
Fri at 1:45am

John Delano
Re:Scott
can somebody follow as Many wars as closely as he does without becoming an angry person?

Listen to some of his first shows to see how angry he has become. Somebody needs to do what Scott does.
Fri at 3:22am

Jim Davidson
Now that Brooke has her prom dress off, maybe we can get her to do some of that stuff. -smile- I'd rather support Brooke's activism and enthusiasm, which has a sincerity in which I believe. Scott, in addition to acting like a dick toward me (and no condom on his head) seems hypocritical.
Fri at 3:30am

Brooke Kelley
Scott has every right to be mad. But name calling and slander? If he can't handle his job, he needs to maybe check into janitorial work or something. ...B.
Fri at 10:36am

Brooke Kelley
So okay. I talked to Angela Keaton last nite who further bitched me out, but informed me that the MAIN reason why I was kicked out of LOLA was not because of the Glenn Beck thing so much as me asking Ron Paul if he thinks it's important that people know the truth about 9-11. Apparently that's offensive to LOLA to poke around askin valid questions.

I know RP's stance on 9-11. He wants to pretend like it never happened. That's his deal. I'm not tryin to bust him out. I sincerely wanted to know if he was expecting his people to hush about it, because that's EXACTLY the kind of affect his silence is having on this movement!!

His answer--and Angela's exact words to me .. in a vid to follow .. PuZzLeD ep. 4 COMING SOON!!... See More

So I was confused. C4L kicked me out, because I asked Glenn Beck a question, and LOLA kicked me out, because I asked Ron Paul a question. Sorry for the confusion, y'all! Hope that clears it all up. ....B.
Fri at 10:44am

-Rita Quinn
Brooke, I know you're not too happy with me because I've defended LOLA in the past. I want you to know that I am done doing that... like Cat, I'm not happy with the way things are being run at the national level of LOLA and have tried to appeal to the "board" repeatedly to deaf ears. I feel that until Allison no longer has ties to C4L she can NOT ... See Morebe the ED LOLA needs because she is controlled by C4L since they, not LOLA, pay her salary. I've always been upset at their lack of transparency and strategic plans and have watched for months as most "official" LOLA activity has centered around how to make money, without any real plans or vision of what to do with it to forward the cause of liberty. As for this decision to "vote" you out, I can tell you that there was never a public vote among the LOLAs (I certainly wasn't asked to vote and I've talked to others who weren't either) so I can only assume that you were lied to if you were told you were "voted" out. It's more likely that it was actually just discussed among the 4 board members, who I personally feel sadly lean toward tyrannically tactics when faced with difficult situations and people they don't like (such as how this situation with you played out). Making this public statement will probably get me, now, kicked out of LOLA but I've been a thorn in their side the last few months too. I've just done it more privately and have tried to really give them time to change course. I don't know the specifics around your particular situation, but the bottom line for me is that you have the RIGHT to free speech and if the reason given for you being kicked out was for using it, then LOLA is a travesty to freedom and that makes me both angry and sad, because as you know, I've been one of it's biggest cheerleaders since day one. Even to the point of hurting you. I'm really sorry for everything and will continue to support you in your own activities. LOLA Austin will continue to do the work we're doing... and if you're ever in the 'hood' you're welcome to join us. :)
Fri at 11:30am

But the problem is far from over. Amber Danelle and I got into a tiff over the matter yesterday. Our responses to each other (including Jim Davidson's) pretty much say it all:

Amber Danelle
Wow. :-)
Todd & Brooke.... you two have a lot of angry people as friends/fans... they have no real idea what my real position on this is. Yet they are balls out angry about it.
Yesterday at 10:27am ·

Todd Andrew Barnett Ⓥ
If they're angry about this entire incident involving Brooke, good. I hope they are angry about it. I am not a happy camper about it too.

If they're angry that I brought this matter to the public and talked about the lack of transparency that goes on in LOLA and the refusal of the organization to take responsibility for its own fuck-ups, then they... See More're barking up the wrong tree. They should be pissed at LOLA for how it handled this mess, not cast aspersions or attack people in the movement who refuse to bow down to and kowtow to their demands.

If they're angry that LOLA has been pulling this crap, good. I hope they are angry about it. And I hope they're angry enough to demand that LOLA wises up and change for the better.
Yesterday at 11:12am ·

Jim Davidson
If we have no idea what evil, vicious, tyrannical positions you are taking in "this" it is because you, Amber, are not open and transparent about your positions. It is all some game to you to get listeners to your stupid online "radio" show. Screw you and your "friend" request. You aren't my friend, and you know it. You aren't for transparency ... See Moreand openness in government, you are for secret trials and water boarding, as your own actions clearly illustrate. If you were dying in a fire, I wouldn't piss on you.
Yesterday at 7:19pm ·

Todd Andrew Barnett Ⓥ
Ouch! That hoits, Jim! Heh
Yesterday at 7:22pm ·

Amber Danelle
Jim: It's all good. If you want to listen to how Zaira & I feel about this incident tomorrow, then please tune in. Some other LOLAs may be calling in to let their position be known, as well. If you don't wanna hear it, I'm not too concerned. I just don't feel that it's necessary to disrupt people's lives with constant negative FB posts. Evil, vicious, tyrannical positions?

Were you loved as a child?

Todd: How is LOLA refusing to take responsibility for it's feck-ups? Are you saying that because the board may want to move past the drama by NOT AIRING DIRTY LAUNDRY... because maybe they feel it is ineffective to speak ill of a former member of LOLA... YOU feel dissatisfied with that? Who runs this organization?? Not you. Not Jim.... See More

Again... if either of you, or any other person who has, like me, wasted time debating-reading-typing-THINKING about this boloney, wants to hear our "side" because you think that you are entitled to it... then tune in to the show tomorrow night. Zaira & I will discuss our side one time and one time only. After that, we move on.
LOLA is NOT a government. And you really have no right to demand transparency from us.
Soon the core group will be told what happened.
Transparency in our group of core ladies (which is NOT small) is important to us.
It's not important for us to share drama or unfavorable information about others.
Yesterday at 8:18pm ·

Todd Andrew Barnett Ⓥ
If lack of communication, Allison unwilling to come forward and offer an explanation for the crap that's been transpiring in the group, making baseless accusations against a former member sans evidence and documentation, and resorting to high school drama tactics and antics to shut up many in the movement who have concerns about what's been going ... See Moreon in LOLA for months "taking responsibility for its fuck-ups," then it has an uncanny way of showing it.

Your response amounts to deliberate intellectual dishonesty. In other words, you're purposely full of shit.

I'll comment further shortly, but I am in the middle of a phone call.
Yesterday at 9:30pm ·

What's very disappointing about this is that Amber and her co-host Zaira of Truth A to Z kept posting the following notice under various threads (including mine):

Amber Danelle
Fellow humans,

We at “Truth A to Z” appreciate freedom of speech and are therefore exercising it to say we wholeheartedly agree with the statements made by Kim Johnson and Amber Danelle. We stand firmly behind the principles of liberty and demand that others stop to think about current events in light of truth. Our show format derives from our understanding that truth is in fact varied and that people hold different truths. However, we believe freedom is our one common bond. We all know that situations arise, precisely because people see the truth differently. In those cases, we should still judge people based on their actions.

Sunday, at 7 p.m. Pacific time on Boldvoices.tv Channel 40, we will be discussing the said matter on our show as we engage in our liberty activism. We should always keep in mind the non-aggression principle (avoiding a needlessly confrontational approach) and that we stand behind the idea that activists should be professional and civilized, unless it becomes necessary to be aggressive towards an enemy, as in military or police. We feel strongly that there’s a nefarious desire out there, by those who keep us bound, to thrive on our infighting. We want to extend to all of you a warm invitation to hear our truths about the difference between what's effective and what's wasting our time.... See More

If you're interested, tune in this Sunday at 7 p.m. Pacific time at www.boldvoices.tv Channel 40.

Our success means freedom,

Amber D and Zaira D
TruthAtoZ.net

FB invite: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=363477811292&index=1
Fri at 11:54pm

Incidentally, Kimberly Johnson, who is now the Interim Vice Chair (why Angela Keaton is no longer a Vice Chair is a mystery at this time), posted this letter as a Facebook note:

Dear Activists and Allies:

The Board of Directors of the Ladies of Liberty Alliance upheld the decision of the interim chairwoman to remove Brooke Kelley from the LOLA roster due to trespass, theft and physical destruction of private property at a political event. Such actions are in violation of the non aggression principle which binds all libertarians in a spirit of non-violence including aversion to force and fraud.

No further comment will be made.

In Liberty,

Kimberly Johnson
Interim Vice Chair
Ladies of Liberty Alliance

(The comments on this thread can be read at the link above, provided that one has a Facebook account.)

Interestingly enough, a Facebooker by the name of Corey Cizzle Moore wrote in defense of LOLA and blasted both Brooke and her defenders in a Facebook note that was tagged to a number of Facebookers (he claims to be a neutral, but that's bogus to begin with if one reads the comments in this note):

Upon following the outcome of the events of this past week, I have to say that this bickering between friends and allies is absolutely discouraging and wrong. Brooke, I understand that you are upset that the reasons you were asked to leave LOLA may have not been based on 100% truth, but going around and trying to drive division within this important liberty organization appears to be more of a personal vendetta rather than trying to hold them accountable for a mistake.

I have watched you trash the entire organization for the past few days, while LOLA has released one press release on the issue. If you could have resolved this issue in private rather than airing dirty laundry everywhere, we would all be better off. Sometimes we must stand up as men and women of liberty, admit that some of the blame falls upon oneself, and move on. Don't get me wrong Brooke; I think you do great work and I have been watching a lot of what you do. But the reaction you took regarding the incident seriously made me question whether or not you care more about liberty or your own ego.

To my fellow activists that have taken sides in this issue: I understand standing up for your friends when they are being attacked. However I have seen multiple people not only side with Brooke (which is not wrong), but trash LOLA without even considering that you were collectively trashing a lot of activists that have been in the struggle for a long time. If I were to make a mistake, or even been accused of making a mistake, I would hope that my friends would stick up for me. That does not give you carte blanche to attack and slander simply because you disagree with a decision that was collectively made within an organization! I commend anyone that reacted appropriately, asked questions, and came to a factual conclusion before jumping on a side; you are a true free thinking individual.

Brooke, please consider the words I have written above for the sake of peace, love and liberty.

Corey Moore
Activist
Host of "Voice of Radical Dissent"
Co-founder of Kent State Libertarians

Here's my take on this entire matter: it's nothing but pure high school drama that is highly unneeded and unnecessary in the libertarian movement. But, more importantly, what LOLA has done to Brooke was wrong. If she were guilty of anything, then where's the evidence and documentation that proves that she's guilty as sin for committing the charges as given?

She may not be a saint, and she may be a "radical," but we need radicals like her in the movement. I took issue with Brooke for her unwise defense of Ron Paul who called for his supporters to throw in their weight behind Neo-Con Republican congressional candidate Lamar Smith. However, I never had a problem with her in the movement.

I don't buy into the argument that Brooke has lied to the members of LOLA or has acted against the interests of the movement. If she did, where's the evidence? And why the need for the histrionics over this tawdry and absurd matter? More than that, what has LOLA done for liberty? How many women has the group brought into the movement? I have not seen such evidence of this kind.

Plus, it does not help that LOLA has been cozy with C4L, considering that Gibbs works for that organization and earns a sweet salary. Considering she is on their payroll, that brings up another point: isn't collecting a salary and being the ED of a pro-Liberty women's group a clear-cut conflict of interest? I would assume so, considering LOLA was organized to promote the interests of the libertarian -- and not the conservative -- movement, yet she is working for an organization that is promoting the interests of the conservative -- and not the libertarian -- movement at all. And while we're on that topic, how about the fact that Nena Bartlett, a former LOLA Core member**, has gone on from working as the Development Director at the CATO Institute to working for the Rand Paul for Senate campaign. Oh, and let's remember that Sarah Palin endorsed Rand Paul, and Paul accepted her endorsement.

Thus, it's funny that Angela Keaton, whose own employer Antiwar.com has gotten financial support from C4L and is still getting it, accuses Kelley of violating the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) when her employer is doing it by siding with an organization that supports pro-war candidates. It's also funny that, in a screaming voice in my ear on my phone, she will "destroy" anyone who sides with Kelley and declare that they do not support the NAP simply by making deals with people like David Boaz and Tom Palmer of CATO, the Libertarian National Committee's Aaron Starr and Bill Redpath, yet she will not criticize LOLA for having a former board member Barlett for her Neo-Con connections to CATO. THAT is a direct violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. But, then again, try telling her that.

Another ridiculous aspect to LOLA is that its calendars, when they were first launched in the fall of 2009, were priced at $20. Since then, the calendars have been priced at $9.95, which is the price that should have been the entire time. But, according to several sources in the know, Gibbs wanted them at the price of $20, which has led to the calendars becoming a dismal failure sales-wise. Why would anyone honestly pay $20 for a calendar when someone can go to their local pharmacy or grocer and find calendars in stock that sell for under $10?

And, based on the claims posited by Keaton, Gibbs, Dynia, and Danelle, I find the allegations to be quite apocryphal.

Not only that, I believe that these recent tactics are designed to shut up dissenters and opponents of the decisions made by the organization itself. There are now plans for Austin LOLA to rename itself***, and, according to a couple of the group's activists, the organization is on the verge of shutting down.

As of this writing, Keaton has cut me out of the circle. This is her private message to me, Jim Davidson, and Tennyson McCalla on Facebook regarding this, along with her claim that Jim does not support the NAP:

Jim,

You don't support the NAP. Sorry, babe, but I have to cut you all out of the loop. I made my statement clear. Have documented evidence.

Please refer all further correspondence to our attorney. Any further contact form any of you is unwelcome.

Peace,
Angela

LOLA might want to change its name to Ladies of Lying Intelligent Tyrants Alliance (LOLITA). It fits the authoritarian mindset of the powers-that-be who run the operation, which appears to be a Mickey Mouse front for the GOP.

As Executive Director John Bush of Texans of Accountable Government pointed out last night on Brooke's Facebook account:

Be advised. There is a purge of radicals occuring right now in the tea party and freedom movement alike. Stay pure. Do not worry. Consistency is difficult at first, but pays off in the long run. Stay strong. Choose freedom

I don't think the radicals are being purged from the movement, but they are being silenced for speaking out against the Neo-Cons who have taken over C4L and, as it appears, LOLA, not to mention the entire movement.

Other than that, I agree with John. Pro-Liberty activists, as ideologically pure as they are, must remain vigilante and strong. Stand up to the statists. LOLA and C4L are all about statism and tyranny now and not about liberty.

That must count for something, no matter how insane it seems to the non-purists.

[H/T to Brooke Kelley for the great title she came up for this post last night.]

[Note: I want to point out that I have no qualms with the other good ladies of LOLA, including Rita Quinn, Catherine Bleish, and Molli Skye. These are fine ladies who are radicals (a.k.a. purists) in the movement, and we need more people like them.]

[*Correction: According to one source, there was no meeting by the LOLA Core to boot Kelley, what was widely believed notwithstanding. LOLA decided to boot her from the roster on the spot.]

[**Correction: Nena Bartlett is actually still on the LOLA Core board. I erroneously thought that she was no longer on the board because her picture was not on the group's website. Apologies are given to the readers because of the inaccuracy of this information.]

[***Correction: Austin LOLA is actually reviewing its relationship with LOLA and has yet to decide what it will do. It has not immediately decided to rename itself as a different group. Apologies are given to the readers because of the unverified and unconfirmed veracity of this information.]