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 — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...