Skip to main content

Libertarian Republican blog calls for armed insurrection if Obama wins!?

Certainly seems like the language is pretty unequivocal:
Obama's approval ratings are in the 40s. not in the 30's. The fundamentals favor Romney, but not by much. Besides, Carter was merely a buffoon, Obama is a neo-Marxist, formerly a card-carrying member of the New Party (a socialist party). In 1980, our goal was simply to restore order to an economy deeply troubled by stagflation. This year, the country faces an existential choice. 
The bottom line is that you better have already bought a gun and some ammo BEFORE the election, because Obama need not wait until January to declare martial law. And, you better start thinking about which other country in the world to live, if you want to live free, because there is no guarantee that we will win. And, if we go down, let it be that we go down fighting, do not let it be written that we broke and ran in the face of the enemy. 
It beggars the imagination that there are folks out there who believe that civil liberties will expand, that government surveillance will decrease, that the DHS and TSA will have less power over our bodies and our individual security under a Mitt Romney administration.  In fact, for a president so (justly) reviled for his trampling of the US Constitution, Obama and Romney seem to be fighting to see who can shred the remnants of that document faster.

The reality, as Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson reminds us, is that under either Obama or Romney you get more military spending, more war, fewer civil liberties.  Yes, under Obama the government might not be interested in controlling women's vaginas or the gender of those getting married, and under Romney there might be few small business regulations and the government intrusions in the private sector will then be channeled away from the industries the GOP favors, but . . .

There's very little other difference between two post-modern candidates who value narrative over fact, and for whom there is nothing that occurs in American life that is not an excuse to raise PAC money for the next election.

All of which makes this talk of getting your guns before President Obama declares martial law in November or December 2012 exactly what it sounds like:  the paranoid delusions (or perhaps survivalist fantasies) of extreme right-wing nutcase.

Who damn sure are not Libertarians under any sane definition of the word.

Comments

tom said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
tom said…
You better be careful Steve. Eric will throw another tantrum and end his friendship with you.

imagine the consequences!

you won't have to buy him lunch next time he's in Delaware, and ...
Chris W said…
Steve

Whatever you do, don't call Mittens "Obama-lite".

Just sayin'
tom said…
Why? Is Obama Mittens-lite?

or are they basically the same?

the only difference i see is that we can only be stuck w/ Obama for 4 more years instead of 8.
anonone said…
Eric Dumbdero is a walking time bomb. Why you keep promoting his bigotry and hate is beyond my understanding, Steve.
Thomas L. Knapp said…
It's a natural side effect of the usual hyperbole (THE MOST LEFT-WING ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY! A THOUSAND YEARS OF DARKNESS!).

Obama is the MOST LEFT-WING PRESIDENT IN HISTORY, see, because on health care he implemented the proposal (the "individual mandate") that conservative Republicans offered up in 1993, at the end of 12 years of Reagan-Bush and a year before taking power in Congress for the first time in 40 years.

So remember, until Obama, Reagan/Bush/Gingrich/Heritage were THE MOST LEFT-WING POLITICAL ERA IN HISTORY! Bwahaha!
Unknown said…
jeesh! It boggles the mind.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...