1. Not my Libertarian party, that’s for sure. Nor the Libertarian party of major Libertarian leaders like the late SF writer L. Neil Smith. And indeed, he dumped the LP because he saw that it had been taken over by people with seriously broken (or non-existent) principles.
   For example, Neil wrote two novels with Aaron Zelman (“The Mitzvah” and “Hope”) — highly recommended. And he canceled a comic strip serial he wrote on his website with illustrator Rex May, when Rex went off the rails into an antisemitic black hole. No waffling, no second chances: zap, Rex was toast.

   1

   1. gpkoning, and J.Kb, I do understand the main point of this post, and I have come across very few antisemitic libertarians but I know they do exist. For instance I am an avid reader of all thing Mises.org and learned economic from the Austrian viewpoint and my man Thomas Sowell. My question to both of you is, are you familiar with the writer’s and contributors of Mises.org and if so, what is your take on this source?

      1. I’m a big fan of Thomas Sowell. I don’t know all the writers at Mises. I do think it’s a generational issue. So many current Libertarians, the zenith of the New Hampshire Libertarian, want their off the grid homestead pot farm where they drop out of society and adopt the attitude, “I got mine, fuck you.”
         –
         I deal with this all the time up here.
         Me: “Housing is too expensive.”
         NHL: “Not for me, not my problem.”
         Me: “You live way up north in no man’s land. My job is in the seacoast, it’s expensive.”
         NHL: “That’s your fault for taking a job there. Quit, move.”
         –
         They don’t want to help because their land is cheap and fuck you. They enjoy the benefits the rest of us provide, but they have no interest in society beyond their homestead and what they can buy.

         1

      2. Mises.org is a wonderful resource. I have downloaded, and read, a bunch of books from there. By the Man himself: Human Action, The theory of money and credit (heavy reading), Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, and Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War. Plus a bunch of books by other writers published there.
         I thought “View of the Constitution of the United States” by St. George Tucker came from there, but maybe not. In any case, that too is a wonderful resource, especially since it was written in 1803 and things have only gotten worse since then.

         1

         1. I just have a brief moment, saw that you addressed my post, here’s one of my favorite lines from Tucker, “All men being by nature equal, in respect to their rights, no man nor set of men, can have any natural, or inherent right, to rule over the rest.”
            .
            Mises.org is a rich resource for learning History and The Truth. Its content will expand a person.

2. [Note: Apologies in advance for this very long comment. I’ve tried to edit it for brevity, but I feel it loses too much clarity and meaning if I do. Sorry.]
   .
   Free speech is crucial; there are very few individual rights that are more important.
   .
   On the other hand, as the saying goes: Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.
   .
   I’m all for letting the pro-Palestinian groups demonstrate and protest in the streets, on the Capitol steps, and on college and university campuses.
   .
   But the second — the very INSTANT — ANY group creates a hostile, threatening environment for students and staff who believe otherwise, or prevents them from similarly demonstrating or protesting, they’ve overstepped and are trampling on other people’s rights. And history shows, it’s pretty much ALWAYS the pro-Palestinian groups who overstep and create a hostile and threatening environment for ANYONE who disagrees with them. The pro-Israel groups, not so much.
   .
   It’s long past time for the First Amendment to be enforced for EVERYONE.
   .
   As much as I hate that there’s a need for legislation that singles out pro-Palestinian groups for censure and Jews for protection, there IS a need, and so it must be passed to protect the rights of those Jewish students and staff. To be clear, I’m viewing it through the same lens as the PLCAA: I hate that there was a need for legislation singling out the firearms industry for liability protection, but anti-gun groups created that need through endless litigation singling out the firearms industry and intended to bankrupt and shut down lawful commerce in a legal product, so it was necessary to protect those companies’ rights. And the “unique protections” the PLCAA affords lawful gun companies are the same protections that are assumed for any other industry; the protections are not “unique” at all, but the threat to the industry was (and to some extent still is).
   .
   I do have one minor quibble, in that the bill does clearly condemn support for Hamas and Hezbollah at colleges and universities; it condemns one side’s speech on an issue in which both sides have a right to speak. (Please note: I said both sides have a right to SPEAK — neither side has the right to intimidate, terrorize, or threaten.) I’d much rather it condemn demonstrations that create a hostile environment and direct the Sec. of Ed. to investigate and take action on those, regardless of which side the demonstrations support. (We all know that only one side is doing it, so the end result of such a bill should be the same.)
   .
   Is that little nit-pick Massie’s problem with it? I don’t know, we’d have to ask him. Is it enough of a problem to vote against it? Only if you would have voted against the PLCAA on the grounds that singling out one group facing unique hostility and legislating the exact same protections that every other group is assumed to enjoy goes against “equal protection”. For me, that’s a resounding NO; I’d have voted for it.
   .
   Enforcing equal protections for a specified group facing a unique threat is not the same as granting special protections for that group.
   .
   Bottom line: Jewish and pro-Israel students and staff are at this moment uniquely facing specific hostility and threats that other groups aren’t. If specific — not general — language is necessary to stop it and enforce equal protections, so be it; it’s that important. And in the extraordinarily unlikely event that, someday far in the future, Jewish and pro-Israel groups start harassing, intimidating, and openly threatening Muslim and pro-Palestinian students and staff, we can revisit the issue and pass legislation protecting their rights, too.

   1

   1. Several things:
      –
      The PLCAA was made necessary BECAUSE an industry was targeted. If the beer brewing industry was being sued by the victims of drunk drivers, I would agree they need protection. No other industry was targeted in the courts for the criminal misuse of their legal products. Because the gun industry was being targeted with lawfare intended to be gun control by other means, the PLCAA was required to fix a problem.
      –
      These students have the 1A right to cheer Hamas. A condemnation doesn’t punish them. They’re not going to jail, they’re not losing rights. It’s simply congress saying in formal language, “what you are doing is morally wrong.” That’s not a 1A violation. That’s why I think Massie is a cunt. He refuses to take a stance that people cheerleaders the mass slaughter of innocent Jews is morally wrong, without imposing punishment on them. That’s despicable.

      1

      1

      1. 100% agreed on the PLCAA (maybe I didn’t explain well enough). The firearms industry didn’t get “special protections”; they got legislation specifically providing the same protections every other industry enjoys, because they were facing a unique threat.
         .
         A condemnation doesn’t punish them, true, but the bill “urges the Secretary of Education” to investigate and take action against schools that allow pro-Hamas demonstrations, because they “may lead to the creation of a hostile environment for Jewish students, faculty, and staff”.
         .
         “may”
         .
         The strong implication is that the Sec. of Ed. should investigate all pro-Hamas demonstration activities, and take action if Jewish students and staff feel threatened. I agree, but it’s a one-sided implication; the possibility that a pro-Israel demonstration “may” make Muslim and pro-Palestine students and staff feel threatened is never mentioned.
         .
         That one-sidedness is what I disagree with.
         .
         Like I said, it’s a minor nit-pick, but “equal protection” is important, too.

         1. Did you see my post on the mid-level pogrom at Harvard. Harvard allowed Hamas supporting students to physical assault a Jewish student and Harvard did nothing. That is a civil rights violation. They have the use the word may the same reason the media has to use the word alleged when talking about someone that was caught on video committing a crime. If congress has to remind colleges that Jewish students get civil rights protections too, we’re way passed fucked.

            1

            1. I did, and I agree. Harvard is 100% in the wrong for allowing it, and by allowing it tacitly approving of it.
               .
               But if — and it’s a big IF — if it had gone the other way — if pro-Israel students had physically blocked, cornered, and assaulted a Muslim student, or even just poured glitter on them and did the “But I’m not touching him” thing — it would also be a civil rights violation.
               .
               Again, my issue isn’t that Jewish and pro-Israel students need civil rights protections; they do, and the reality on the ground is that the rights violations are only going one way. My issue is that Congress’ bill singles out Jewish students for protections to which all students and staff members are entitled.
               .
               And again, it’s a minor nit-pick; if I were in the House, I’d have voted for it as it is because the need is there — Jewish and pro-Israel students DO need protections, and the harassment IS going one way, and the legislation doesn’t grant “special” rights; it just affirms the existing rights for the uniquely-attacked group. The benefit far outweighs the nit-pick.
               .
               Just like the PLCAA analogy, the need drives the legislation, and if someone is going to vote against affirming Jewish and pro-Israel students’ civil rights against attacks only Jewish and pro-Israel students are facing, that person would have voted against affirming firearms companies’ legal liability protections against frivolous lawsuits only firearms companies were facing.
               .
               But still, I can’t deny that the “equal protections for all” alarms in my head are going off.

   2. Is there a right to support groups that commit war crimes? That’s a hard one for me.

      1. Are we talking moral support, or material support?
         .
         The Supreme Court says there is a free speech right to show support for such groups; the Neo-Nazis have the right to march through Skokie, Illinois, and yell “Heil Hitler” if they want. I’d classify that as “moral support”, but it is support.
         .
         Sending money/guns/rockets/grenades/girls/etc. to such groups might be another matter; material support to groups that have declared themselves mortal enemies to America … well, if it’s not blatantly treason, it skirts dangerously close.
         .
         But if we’re talking a protest/demonstration on a university campus, that’s a free speech issue. Yes, they have the right to show support to whoever and whatever they want, no matter how heinous or despicable.
         .
         (And corporations and firms that might have hired these people after graduation are free to blacklist them for employment purposes. Other students have a right to avoid associating, helping, tutoring, mentoring, etc., them, too. Just because the students have a right to show support doesn’t completely absolve them of the consequences; it merely means the government cannot punish them for it.)

3. Similarly, all those wars of the last twenty years which America participated in didn’t occur, because Congress didn’t declare war. Go read the executive order which was said to justify the Japanese-American internment camps, and notice how it doesn’t say anything clear and obvious like ‘lock up all the Americans ethnically related to the new enemy’. HR 798 will be said to be congressional agreement to supply money and weapons to a foreign war, until it escalates to supplying troops.

   The way politics actually works is the mainstream media sells the average voter on bad ideas contrary to his interests, whether it be paying taxes to build Egyptian pyramids or to crusade in the holy land for Christ. But one group is overrepresented in the mainstream media these days, and that overrepresents the presentation of their interests.

   http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/speech.asp

   2

   1

   1. You might want to read some more on the site.

      http://www.charleslindbergh.com/ny/105.asp

      1

   2. > Lindbergh Said to Regret Misperceptions Over Jews
      > April 20, 1980 By HERBER MITGANG

      I don’t read americanfirst/speech.asp as being anti-Jew. Lindbergh could regret being systematically misrepresented by the mainstream media, but regret at media lies says nothing about whether he reconsidered his isolationist strategy after learning new facts about the Hitler administration. Approving the idea of an independent homeland for the Jewish people doesn’t mean America should stop being isolationist.

      1. Your sentence before the link strongly suggests your position, and I think it’s one we’ve all heard too often.

         1

      2. > Your sentence before the link strongly suggests your position, and I think it’s one we’ve all heard too often.

         Please explain how the USA taking a position in a foreign military/political/religious contest for territory which has been going for a thousand years is a good idea?

4. “I’m calling it: Massie is a Jew-hating cunt.”

   Don’t be shy, J, tell us how you _really_ feel. ;~)

   1

5. There is a huge difference between using your official capacity as the government of the united stated to condemn protected speech and you as a government functionary saying you personally condemn certain speech. If that really is the heart of the issue, i wouldn’t vote yes on it either. That isn’t supposed to be the government’s job and no one should want that, it just breeds more unequal treatment.

Comments are closed.