Live Traffic Feed


Invitation: Central L.A. Mixer/Meeting (Region 64)

New Meetup
Greater Los Angeles Libertarian Party Meetup Group
Added by Jonathan Jaech
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
7:30 PM
Gill’s Indian Restaurant
838 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90017
MEET THE JW Volunteers! Join us as we meet, greet and get to know some of the very large number of people in Central LA who have volunteered for the Johnson/Weld campaign. This demographic skews younger and educated, so look for lots of fresh faces, …
Learn more

Thursday: Can you make “South Bay Libertarians Monthly Dinner/Meeting”?

Greater Los Angeles Libertarian Party Meetup Group
Thursday, August 18, 2016
6:30 PM
Raffaello Ristorante
400 South Pacific Avenue
San Pedro, CA 90731
6:30 pm:Social Hour & Dinner
8:00 pm: Meeting, Speakers, Discussions
Our featured guest this month is…
Here is a link to our website:
Learn more

Want to make an impact for liberty? Make sure your state representative knows you


Like many of you, I want to see our representatives move in the direction of liberty in our government. We are looking for representatives to stop making unnecessary laws, repeal bad laws and to stop spending so many taxpayers dollars.

One way that you can make an impact is by talking directly to your representative and letting them know where you stand on the issues.

Most people do not know who their representative is let alone have talked to them about issues. While this is not a good thing, it does make your impact with your representative bigger and will give you a greater impact.

Remember that politics is about who shows up.

If you want to make this kind of impact here is what you can do.

1. Find out who your current representative is. You can click on the link below to find yours.

2. Find out where they stand on the issues that matter to you and how they voted on the issues that matter to you.

3. Subscribe to their newsletter and social networks and keep up to date on what they are putting out. You can tell what their priorities are by watching their emails and their social media.

4. Put their office contact information in your contacts list on your phone. Having that information handy will help you in communicating where you stand on the issues.

5. Call their office and schedule a meeting. This is a great way to begin to influence your representative.

6. Sit down and talk to them about where you stand and where they stand on the issues. You will not get agreement on everything but go in with the mindset that you want them to understand where you stand and why you believe that way.

7. Continue to contact them on the issues that matter to you. You want to develop a relationship with your representative. That relationship will help you in influencing them to make the kind of votes you will agree with.

If you have any questions on how to do this please let me know.

In Liberty
Alexander Snitker
(813) 315-0513

Snitker Daily Journal by Alexander Snitker
9851 State Road 54 New Port Richey, Florida 34655 USA

Donald Trump Is A Villain, Not An Anti-Hero

Feb 25, 2016 @ 12:00 PM

The GOP nomination now appears to hinge upon whether Ted Cruz, anti-hero, and Marco Rubio, hero, rewrite the election narrative redefining Donald Trump as the villain.


While most of my fellow pundits have focused on things like momentum and delegate counts there is a more important factor: the Narrative. As I also wrote, “Politics also is very much about telling stories that people yearn to hear.”


Cruz and Rubio each, and both, have a potentially Trump-destroying counternarrative… complementary ones, as it happens… if only they can find it in time. That means Cruz, as anti-hero, or Rubio, as hero, redefining Trump from anti-hero to villain. Even… just remotely possibly… they, like Darth and Luke collaborating to defeat the Emperor, could end up making common cause, at least in the battle for the narrative.

Donald Trump, villain? As noted recently in the New York Times, Trump is the epitome of crony capitalism.


The glaring vulnerability in the Trump Narrative — Trump’s Achilles’ heel — is that Trump can be painted as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It is an even more apt metaphor to say that the leonine Trump is a lion in sheep’s clothing. And Scar, not Simba.


Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are not embodying their respective, powerful, own narratives with proficiency. If they do, separately or together, they still could demolish Donald Trump.

Protecting us from Trump is a job for an anti-hero!

If Cruz presents himself as the protagonist of his core narrative, “Lion Tamer,” he is well positioned to reframe Donald Trump as exactly the kind of predatory lion, Scar, that Cruz has proven himself proficient at taming.

The methods and persona of a lion tamer are irrelevant to the crowd. They just want the lions tamed. In shutting down the federal government Cruz has shown himself steely enough to do just that.


Or … maybe protecting us from Trump is a job for a hero!

Rubio — to up the ante from my former casting him as a Horatio Alger hero — is Sir Galahad, “renowned,” says the Wikipedia, “for his gallantry and purity. … Galahad for the most part travels alone, smiting his enemies, rescuing Sir Percival from twenty knights and saving maidens in distress….”


The GOP establishment, the center right, and many Republican rank and file voters are embracing Rubio as an inspirational figure. A hero. While he may not bring the same drama as an anti-hero it is believable, and many believe, that he can usher us townspeople to relative safety from predatory lions.

Trump’s own persona as a Politics Noir anti-hero (rather than a villain) is especially vulnerable for his recently having been summoned as a witness (not defendant) in an action for fraud against his eponymous, now defunct, “Trump ‘University.’”


This litigation is not here referenced to litigate that matter, on which I take no position, in the court of public opinion. It’s a matter of the political narrative. Will these allegations, among others, become instrumental in an effort to define Donald Trump as a villain not an anti-hero? If so, it could be a game changer.

The outcome of the 2016 Republican nominating contest well may hinge upon whether Sen. Ted Cruz, anti-hero Lion Tamer, or Sen. Marco Rubio, hero Sir Galahad — or both — weave a strong enough narrative to persuade the voters that Trump is not an anti-hero but a villain, a predatory lion in sheep’s clothing.

Will Trump’s rivals cast him as a predator preparing to make chumps out of the voters rather than intent upon, and capable of, Making America Great Again? Will they even try?


It’s a cliffhanger but it is not yet Game Over. Will the real anti-hero, Cruz, and the true hero, Rubio, get locked in mortal combat with one another and let the villain crush them both and seize power? Or will one or both, alone or together, redefine Trump as the villain of this drama … and defeat him? The GOP nomination likely shall hinge upon this.

To read the full column click here.

The 2016 Liberty First Network Legislative Scorecard is out



As we approach the 2016 election, the Liberty First Network has compiled its analysis of the last two sessions from 2015 and 2016 and present our scorecard of Florida legislators. The Liberty First Network believes in educating the voters of Florida on the legislative process and we feel it is important that you know how legislators voted on key issues of liberty.


The biggest disappointments over the last two sessions include the failure to pass pro-gun bills and repealing red light cameras. The fight also continues to eliminate Common Core from our education system. The good news is that we are making headway in those battles.

There were several major legislative victories which included stopping corporate welfare, with the legislature not funding the “quick action closing fund.” Also, there was no additional funding for sports teams and the film industry. Attempts to expand Medicaid were stopped in both sessions and Amendment One funding was used for maintaining our current inventory of conservation land with a minimal amount used for buying more land. Civil liberty protections were passed with reforms to asset forfeiture and the use of drones. We successfully fought back attempts to add more regulations to craft breweries and passed legislation to allow the sale of the 64 oz. growlers to enable craft breweries to increase their business.


As we saw in 2014, the State House as a whole scored better than the State Senate, both of which have a fair mix of Republicans and Democrats in the ranks, although both chambers are majority Republican.

Collectively, Republicans scored on average slightly better than Democrats did as a whole. We noticed that Republicans generally voted cohesively on most issues, whereas Democrats tended to break ranks more often. In all, our scorecard identifies a noticeable streak of individualism on the part of a few legislators. It is also clear that, while some speak well on issues, their voting records do not always substantiate their rhetoric. Others have exceedingly taken on pro-liberty issues despite their positions being unpopular among their colleagues.


The key takeaway from the last two sessions is that we are making major strides in advancing liberty in Tallahassee. Much of the progress is due to your hard work. Making phone calls and sending emails to legislators is making a difference. The bottom line is, because of your dedication, we are moving the agenda in Tallahassee and they are hearing us: “we want liberty first!”


Alexander Snitker
Liberty First Network


Liberty First Network · 9851 State Road 54, New Port Richey, FL 34655, United States
You can also keep up with Florida Action Alerts on Twitter or Facebook.

You are invited to a picnic


Bring the family to mingle and network with your liberty friends on August 13th from 11am-2pm at Eagle Lake Park in Clearwater.

Liberty groups from around the Tampa Bay Metro area are coming together for a Liberty Picnic. KD’s Catering & Events will be bringing out the grill for fresh hamburgers and hot dogs with all the fixings. They will also be serving coleslaw, potato salad and baked beans PLUS some fun backyard games.

Bring the whole family and a dessert or side dish for everyone to share. Let’s relax, eat some great food and enjoy our liberty network in the Tampa Bay area!


I hope to see you there.

In Liberty
Alexander Snitker
(813) 315-0513

Snitker Daily Journal by Alexander Snitker
9851 State Road 54 New Port Richey, Florida 34655 USA

A potent persuasion tool for you


An initiative of the Downsize DC Foundation

Can you induce people to reject statism? Yes! Retweet

A naval depth charges is a bomb that must sink to a certain level before it detonates. Do some kinds of ideas do something similar? Check out our latest Mental Lever mini-article to find out…

What is a Mental Depth Charge and how can you deploy one?
By Perry Willis & Jim Babka

The Zero Aggression Project’s budget is only $4,500 per month. We’re adding Mental Levers each week and, behind the scenes, building new tools to (eventually) assemble millions into a “post-statist” movement. Please join us.



Our Copyright Policy

Our mailing address is:

Zero Aggression Project

872 Mark Drive

Akron, OH 44313

Add us to your address book

Maybe we should get our guns out of Saudi Arabia first!‏



Politicians talk about Orlando; ignore Mastaba. Congress should have “gun control.” Retweet

It’s an error repeatedly made by politicians. They think every conflict has a good guy and a bad guy. But that’s rarely true. And believing it leads to another miscalculation…

Alliances with bad guys are justified. From Stalin during WW2 to Saudi Arabia today, the United States has a long sordid history of partnering with monsters.  

The newest example of this comes in form of the U.S. alliance with Saudi Arabia, and that country’s meddling in Yemen’s civil war. This inspired us to send a letter to Congress using the Downsize DC campaign to have the U.S. “stop policing the world.” The hardwired message for that campaign reads…

Defend America only. Do not manipulate or police the world.

You should send a letter to your so-called “representatives.” You can copy or edit our sample letter below…

I specifically want you to oppose Saudi Arabia’s use of American weapons to intervene in Yemen’s civil war.

First, the groups fighting to control Yemen are all bad. They are radical Islamists. There are no good guys with whom we must side.

Second, Saudi Arabia is an evil dictatorship. It’s also a major source of world terrorism. Our government should not be allied with those monsters. We MUST stop selling them weapons.

Third, the ONLY innocent people in Yemen’s civil war are the women and children being killed by our rockets and bombs. Specifically, you should be aware that…

Our evil Saudi allies recently bombed a marketplace in Mastaba, Yemen. The attack killed 95 civilians, including 25 children. This is more people than died in the recent Orlando mass shooting. So, if you’re concerned about the Orlando crime you should be even more concerned about this.

These are murders committed by a U.S. ally using U.S. weapons. Do not write these human deaths off with some shameful euphemism like “collateral damage.” Since there is no good side in Yemen, there is no “good cause” these deaths can be collateral to. They are pure murder, committed in our name with our resources.

Understand, when the people of Yemen see F-16s flying overhead, they do not just see Saudi Arabia as the culprit. They also see America as the culprit. This creates unnecessary enemies for us.

Your interventionist policy makes us less secure. It also makes a mess of the world. I deny consent. End our participation in this criminality.


Thank you for being an ACTIVE DC Downsizer,

Jim Babka & Perry Willis
Downsize DC


Our copyright policy

Our mailing address is:

872 Mark Drive

Akron, OH 44313

Add us to your address book

Has the Public Finally Had Enough of Clinton Cleverness? by Robert Ringer‏



Some of my readers are absolutely convinced that no matter what happens, no matter what the real vote count is, the criminal left (a.k.a. the radical left) will anoint Horrid Hillary president of the United States. And they could be right, since Obama and his hacks have made it clear that the Constitution and U.S. law are now irrelevant.

Even so, I’m sticking with my long-held belief that the Face of Evil will never become president. While there’s no question that much of the citizenry resides in Watters’ World, I guess I’m still naïve enough to believe that when the People of the Lie go beyond a certain point, the average low-information voter feels like they’re insulting his intelligence.

Whenever I start feeling discouraged by what the clever knaves in Washington get away with, I remind myself of something Thomas Sowell once said. To paraphrase, Sowell opined that the problem with clever people is that there is a tendency to try to continue to be clever long past the point where what they have to lose is much greater than what they have to gain.

Of course, Bubba got caught by his own sperm when Monica Lewinsky brought her infamous blue dress out of the closet. But even after lying to the public by insisting that “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” when the dress emerged shortly thereafter, he simply put the whole matter to bed (pun intended) with, “Indeed, I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate.”

End of story. Nothing else to see here. Let’s move on folks. And, indeed, most of the anesthetized public cheered Bubba when he insisted that he intended to serve out every minute of his second term — and, by golly, he did.

But we are now in a new era where even the cleverest scoundrels are no longer believed by a majority of the public when they cross over a subjective moral line in the Washington muck, and that line was clearly crossed when:

  • Obama announced that he was endorsing Hillary and would be campaigning with her.
  • Bubba then quickly had a private meeting with Lyin’ Loretta Lynch that stunned even loopy liberals.
  • James Comey then listed Hillary’s crimes on national television, but shocked the world when he recommended that she not be prosecuted!
  • Sultan Barackus then flew the Face of Evil to a campaign event in North Carolina on your dime (Air Force One). That in-your-face antic on his part may have been one thumb in the eye too many.
  • Lyin’ Loretta then refused to answer any of Congress’s questions. In effect, the Attorney General of the United States took the Fifth Amendment.
  • Finally, the Face of Evil went right back into her high-gear lying mode when asked about James Comey’s revelations about her email crimes. And to this day, she is still repeating the same lies.

Call me gullible, but I believe that if Manafort & Co. keep a tight leash on The Donald, especially now that he has the ultra-creditable Mike Pence as his running mate, he will leap far ahead of Horrid Hillary in the polls following the Republican Convention — and stay far ahead of her throughout the final months of the race.

As I’ve said before, only Donald Trump can defeat Donald Trump. Not to be immodest here, but I truly believe even I could beat Hillary if I were running against her. In fact, I believe you could beat Hillary — and I’ve never even met you! Why? Because she not only is the most flawed and despised candidate in my lifetime, she is, unlike Bubba, also the worst liar on the planet. She’s still trying to be clever and, a la Thomas Sowell, the more she tries, the more it’s working against her.

Of course, the real problem for the Face of Evil is that vast right-wing conspiracy that just won’t stop picking on her. Poor little thing … just can’t seem to catch a break.



this article originally appeared here:

After Brexit, what’s N(H)ex(i)t?‏



In the wake of the so-called Brexit vote – in which British voters narrowly voted to split from the European Union – many have been wondering if the UK’s exit from the EU will spark further exits. Could Scotland, which voted overwhelmingly to remain part of the EU break away from Britain to join the EU as an independent nation? What about Northern Ireland? Questions abound in the US as well.

Most eyes are on Texas, where a petition on the White House petitioning website gathered over 100,000 signatures in 2012, and a possible Texit. NBC News reports, “For many Texans, secession is a long-held dream. Just two months ago, at the Texas Republican Convention, state delegates had a tense floor debate around a motion to secede that had passed through a special committee. It failed, but represented how far the idea had come from the fringe. The latest secessionist calls have just stirred up more buzz. The Texas Nationalist Movement, a 12-year-old group that wants the Lone Star State to be politically, culturally and economically independent, is now calling on Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to support a British-style vote there.”

Some activists in New Hampshire are calling for an NHexit, with the first rally for the cause being held on June 26 – just 4 days after the Brexit vote. Other NHexit rallies are planned for Independence Day across the state. With NHexit gaining momentum, it seems rather fitting for the Startup Societies Summit, hosted the International Coalition for Human Action, to be held in Portsmouth, NH over Independence Weekend. The Summit featured speakers advocating for everything from intentional community and economic development zones to using decentralized alternatives to government issued currency and regulations. Between speakers, the conversations were on the various ways to achieve more freedom and independence from larger more oppressive governments.

That really is the overarching theme of discussion among most advocates of liberty, though the question is asked and answered in a variety of ways. Can liberty be achieved via ballot initiative? Must there be a constitutional amendment to declare independence? Must one work within the political sphere to achieve more freedom? If so, must one get elected in order to be effective? If you ignore government agents, will they ignore you?

There are a variety of ways to advocate for freedom, not everyone is going to agree on which manner is best, and real freedom allows people the ability to pursue liberty in the manners they choose so long as they do not aggress against another person. Real freedom sometimes requires people to think outside of the box; after all when Thomas Jefferson and the other members of the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence 240 years ago, no colony had ever attempted to declare independence from the British crown!

In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry

Darryl has spent most of his adult life as an advocate & activist for peace and liberty. Darryl is an award winning author, publisher & radio/TV host. He is a regular contributor to several weekly and monthly newspapers. He hosts the daily newscast FPPradioNews, , the podcast Peace, Love, Liberty Radio, the weekly news podcast FPP Freedom Minute, and is a regular co-host on Free Talk Live.
Darryl is a co-founder and co-chair of the NH Liberty Party.
Darryl is the Owner/Managing Editor of Free Press Publications.

To schedule an interview with Darryl please send an email to or call 202 709 4377

Why Tony Blair Must be Destroyed: A Conservative Case‏



Why Tony Blair Must be Destroyed:
A Conservative Case

by Sean Gabb
(7th April 2003)

The Friday before this war started, I had dinner with some friends, where I was forced to defend my bitter dislike of Tony Blair. At the moment, nothing could be easier. The front page of my newspaper today carries one of the most disgusting photographs I have ever seen. It is of Ali Ismael Abbas, a 12 year old boy in Baghdad who had his arms blown off in a rocket attack at the weekend. His lower body appears to have been burned all over, and the smile on his face is probably the effect of the opiate he was given to block the pain. The rocket that did this may have been fired by the Americans – or even, though I doubt if they now have the means, by the Iraqis. But thanks to Mr Blair, we share in the corporate responsibility. Because of his joining us in the “coalition of the willing”, it is partly in our name that this boy has had his life destroyed. Killing and maiming are always bad. I doubt at present if they can ever be right. Certainly, unless absolutely necessary, they are wrong. For me, that is reason enough for the most envenomed hatred.

However, the question was asked of me before the war started, when my opinion of Mr Blair was already fixed. This beastly war aside, what do I so dislike about him?

I will begin by conceding that my usual complaints about his domestic policies do not in themselves justify such positive loathing. Yes, he has integrated this country further into the European Union since he came to power. Yes, his other domestic policies have been directed to the creation of a sinister police state. He has done all this and is to be blamed for it. Even so, is there anyone to replace him who would not have done, or would not continue to do, very much the same?

Forget their claims, unconvincing as they are. The Conservatives are just as committed in reality to the European project. They got us into it, and have said nothing to indicate they would get us out. If possible, they are even more committed to the American alliance than Labour. Indeed, I suspect they would have us pressing on with the Americans to Damascus and Teheran, whereas many of the present Ministers seem to want this horror over for us as quickly as the soldiers can be marched out of Basra.

As for all the police state laws, these the Conservatives have failed efficiently to oppose during the past six years, or have even supported. Nor let it be forgotten that it was the Conservatives who began to demolish the Constitution when they were last in power. Can we hope for any better from them? I rather think not.

How, then, about the most likely Labour replacements of Mr Blair – Gordon Brown and David Blunkett? Would they be any better? Again, not. Mr Blunkett is hard at work outdoing both Michael Howard and Jack Straw in the attack on due process. Mr Brown might be slightly less friendly to European integration, but this cannot be taken for granted; and he seems to lack Mr Blair’s belief in the marketising of public services, which is about his only worthwhile achievement.

So why hate the man? What is there to justify wanting him replaced by people who might only differ for the worse, if they differed at all?

The answer is that Mr Blair is so bad because he is so effective in the work of destruction. Let us compare England with America. The United States has a written constitution. Plainly, this has not preserved American freedom so well as its framers hoped. But at least it draws a visible boundary between what is constitutional and what is not. Everyone can see when a law crosses that boundary; and its clear wording provides a point around which libertarians and conservatives can rally—and can sometimes rally with success. Our own constitution is different. Though it has restrained power for longer than any other, it is not written. We have fundamental laws, but they are not easily perceived, and their breach is hardly ever obvious to those without a detailed legal and historical understanding.

We are free in this country because freedom is part of our constitution as conceived in the wider, old-fashioned sense of the word. It resides in our habits of thought and action. Now, this sort of constitution derives its stability not from the wording of a written document, but from a mass of conservative prejudice. Freedom is generally an administrative inconvenience. It stands in the way of privilege for wealthy business interests. The lack of detailed policing that it requires gives offence to the various moral entrepreneurs who make their way into politics and the media. Considered alone, trial by jury is an expensive and often inaccurate means of deciding guilt. Freedom of the press allows people to say hateful things. Unlike any specific disadvantages, their benefits are hardly ever understood by the mass of people. What keeps them, and all the other freedoms and protections of freedom, reasonably safe is that they are parts of an ancient and general order of things. They are legitimised in the main less by their rightness than by the appearance that they have always existed in this country.

There can be no doubt of the many benefits that have flowed over the centuries from our Constitution. Those Americans who dismiss it as a fraud should bear in mind that their own is barely a quarter as old, and that it is already falling apart. Even so, it is peculiarly open to attack at the margins. The restraints in power in this country are largely customary. They derive their force form the fact that they exist within a web of associations that tie the present to the past. Let these associations be removed, and with them will go the old restraints on power.

That is, for example, why compulsory metrication is so objectionable. Metres are more rational than yards, and probably more useful for most purposes. Compulsion aside, it is the break with the past that is objectionable—especially when the benefits, though undeniable, are not that great. It is the same with renaming writs as claim forms and bailiffs as enforcement agents, with changing the old forms of public address, with rearranging museum displays to make the English past shameful or incomprehensible, and with much more. Individually, these changes may be of no importance. It is their conjunction that is important. Let there be a sufficient conjunction of changes, and the setting within which freedom resides is destroyed. Disconnected from the web of associations in which they have come down to us, valuable protections like trial by jury and habeas corpus can be presented as more rubbish form the past to be cleared away—especially when they can be presented as hindrances to a cheaper and more efficient system of criminal justice. Unlike in America, where the Constitution must first be abolished or plainly turned on its head, we can be led into tyranny along a route where every step can be presented as of no great consequence, and where objectors can be dismissed as pedants or cranks. As Lord Eldon said against the claims for parliamentary reform—and, I am now inclined to think, rightly—”Touch one atom, and the whole is lost”.

What makes Mr Blair so dangerous is that he has been able, as no other politician could, to combine systematic destruction of the old order of things with reasonable economic policies in the short term, and to persuade large numbers of people for most of the time that his is not a very radical government. It is a radical government at the cultural level, but his genius has been to conceal this. I had lunch last month with a highly intelligent friend from my university days who announced as if it were an incontestable truth that “Tony Blair is the best Tory Prime Minister this country has ever had”. Not so. He is the least Tory. His most honest statement of intent was his speech to the 1999 Labour Conference, in which he attacked “the forces of conservatism”. It was so honest that it was soon removed from the Labour Party website. One of my friends at dinner the other week tried to claim that this was really an attack on resistance to change within the public sector. But he is wrong. I looked out the speech on The Guardian website –,2763,202189,00.html. It is a manifesto for destroying every ancient association, so that any conservative defence of freedom—and this is the best one we have, I repeat—becomes impossible. The New Labour project has little to do with overturning the economic settlement imposed by Margaret Thatcher. It is, much rather, a cultural revolution. But his charm—his ability to make radicalism look other than it is—has cast almost a magic spell over much of the English middle class.

That is why I so long for his destruction. No one else in politics would be so able to do what he has done. Take him away, and the spell would be at least weakened. The problem of who should replace him is not, on this analysis, a problem. Anyone will do. Gordon Brown might be more socialist in his economic policies—but he would not so easily seduce the middle class formers of opinion. Iain Duncan Smith might be even less friendly to our remaining civil liberties. Anyone else might be worse is some other respect. But there is no one else in British politics with the same lethal blend of qualities to hide the work of destruction, or to make it seem an improvement on the past.

Of course, the war may have changed this. It has wiped that boyish smile from Mr Blair’s face. He has aged ten years in the past six months, and the result is not pretty. From now on, his every appearance in public will be attended by passionate demonstrations. Combine this with the unconcealable effects of his economic policies, and he may have lost his hold over the national mind. Until last year, perhaps, he could be compared to the Lloyd George of 1910—the man of the people standing up to the forces of conservatism. He may now be compared to the Lloyd George of 1922—the dangerous adventurer surrounding himself with all that is corrupt and all that blocks the way back to a gentler and safer and greatly more attractive past. Nothing may ever be easy for him again. Never again may his good intentions be so readily trusted. Perhaps, therefore, we have him where we want him—as the weak leader of a weak government, able to do little more that is bad while we wait for the Conservatives or some other party of replacement to pull itself together.

On the other hand, this is not certain. A Prime Minister in being is still a Prime Minister; and events may always bring a recovery of his standing and power. And though I am not often given to explosions of moral outrage, that photograph will not quickly fade from my memory. I cannot think of it, and of our vicarious role in its production, without wanting to shout obscenities. Let him be replaced, I say, and soon. It matters not who replaces him. His continued residence in Downing Street dirties this country. He is trash, and all I really want at this moment is to know that I shall live long enough to dance on his grave.


Recent Posts

Johnson trending up; new campaign ad; LP on ballot in Maine; and more

Libertarian Party letterhead with torch eagle logo: slogan "Shrinking Big Government - Advancing Liberty"; address 1444 Duke St. Alexandria, VA 22314; 1-800-ELECT-US; 


News from the Libertarian Party:

Gary Johnson trends upward to 12 percent, in new national poll


Morning Consult company logo (graphic image)

A Morning Consult poll of 2001 voters nationwide from July 8–10 showed that “Gary Johnson [is] gaining support; he is up to 12 percent” in a hypothetical three-way race against the presumptive Democratic and Republican nominees.

These results show support for Johnson increasing consistently, from 10 percent in a June 15–20 poll, followed by 11 percent in two subsequent polls in June and July.

Read the poll results (scroll down).

Jesse Ventura: Why I’m voting for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson for president


CNBC logo with peacock (graphic image)

Gov. Jesse Ventura of Minnesota, writing for CNBC on July 13, explained why he’ll be voting for Gov. Gary Johnson in November:
“I’ve always had the belief that you vote for someone you believe in. When you cast your vote, you want that person to be president. You don’t vote for one politician so that another doesn’t become president. And yet here you have an instance where people don’t want either the Democrat or Republican nominee as president! People are going to vote for Donald Trump because they don’t want Hillary Clinton — and people are going to vote for Clinton because they don’t want Trump. That’s a horrible way to pick the next commander-in-chief.

“What astounds me is that the American public willingly accepts that these are the two choices the political gangs that run our country are offering us. And until this country wakes up and realizes that there are in fact more than two choices, despite what mainstream media [shove] down our throats, then this is what we’re going to get.”

Read the full article.

LP now recognized party in Maine

Libertarian Party of Maine logo, silhouette of the state with lady of liberty torch logo (graphic image)The Libertarian Party is now a recognized party in Maine, as the Secretary of State’s office announced that more than enough Libertarian voters had been registered.

The law was changed in 2014 so that a new party would need at least 5,000 registered members by December 1 in the year prior to a general election to become recognized. Maine Libertarians submitted more than 6,300 registered voter forms by the deadline last year, but almost 2,000 were thrown out, so that the party would not appear on the 2016 ballot. A judge later ruled that 4,513 registrations were valid, and that the Maine Libertarians would have until July 12 to submit the remaining 487 registrations to become a party.

To retain party status, the party will have to have at least 10,000 registered voters participate in the November election.

The LP presidential and vice presidential nominees are now on the ballot in 35 states (as of July 13).

View the LP ballot access map.

Are #YouIn?

Check out the Johnson–Weld ad
everyone* is talking about

Graphic image from Johnson-Weld campaign ad; with just this text: "Credible. Proven. Capable. Honest."

Watch the ad on YouTube.

* Reason, Townhall, Fox 43, Independent Voter Project,
Washington Examiner, The Hay Ride, Rally Point, PJ Media…

Gary Johnson compares Libertarian ticket to ‘comet’ hitting ‘two-party dinosaur’



From Politico on July 7:
“The two-party system is teetering on the brink of extinction, and Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson said his party’s ticket could be the one to knock it out.

“‘This is a two-party dinosaur,’ Johnson said Thursday [July 7] during a National Press Club luncheon. ‘We think we’re going to be the comet in this equation.’

“Appearing with his running mate, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, Johnson said this year’s Libertarian ticket is in the campaign to win it. Their chances are helped, the former New Mexico governor said, by the historically unpopular Republican and Democratic candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.”

Read the full article.

Survey results suggest Libertarian Party votes will be highest in party history

We recently asked LP members:

How many non-Libertarians do you know who are
voting for Gary Johnson for President?

Here’s what 1,931 of you reported:


Paid for by the Libertarian National Committee
1444 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314
Content not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

Vote Yes on 4 August 30th


Personally, I am in favor of all tax decreases all the time no matter what.


On August 30, VOTE YES on 4 to help bring down the cost of solar!

Amendment 4 would exempt solar panels and other renewable energy equipment from the real property tax and the onerous tangible property tax – currently huge barriers to installing solar in Florida. This policy will lower the cost of solar, increase clean energy jobs, and greatly expand solar development across the state! Read more about Amendment 4 by clicking the link below.

In Liberty

Alexander Snitker
(813) 315-0513

Snitker Daily Journal by Alexander Snitker
9851 State Road 54 New Port Richey, Florida 34655 USA

Libertarian ticket of Johnson-Weld needs help to appear on the Alabama ballot on Nov.8



August 2016 Petition Deadline Looming!

If you would like to help ensure the Johnson/Weld ticket appears on the November 8, 2016 Alabama ballot, please print out the 2016 Independent Presidential Ballot Access Petition, have Alabama registered voters sign and return to us as soon as possible at:

Libertarian Party of Alabama
PO Box 101043
Birmingham, Alabama 35210

The biggest help we can get right now is assisting in the collection of the 5,000 signatures from Alabama voters.  If you can, please donate to our ballot access fund.

We’ll do the rest to ensure that the Libertarian Presidential candidate appears on the Alabama ballot this November!  The campaign materials are trickling in, click here to donate and help us afford additional yard signs and other related merchandise.

Sign the petition and see us in Gadsden on August 3, 2016

Sign the petition and see us in Anniston on August 10, 2016

Please consider becoming a member. Additionally, please like our Facebook page or follow us on Twitter.

Live Free,
Paid for by the Libertarian Party of Alabama. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.




Copyright © 2016 Libertarian Party of Alabama, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:

Libertarian Party of Alabama

PO Box 101043

Birmingham, AL 35210

Add us to your address book

Another sitting senator switches parties, endorses Johnson





Another sitting senator changes parties, endorses Johnson

Salt Lake City  Utah State Senator Mark Madsen has announced his switch to the Libertarian Party and his endorsement of Gary Johnson for president.
Sen. Madsen held a press conference at 1:30 Monday afternoon in Salt Lake City, stating, “Today I announce that I am joining the Libertarian party and will support the Libertarian presidential ticket of Governor’s Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.”
Madsen detailed his reasons in his remarks:
“Both parties use the government to pick winners and losers, in business, in healthcare, in the environment, in education, in every aspect of life. Both parties expand existing programs, create new programs and expand programs set to sunset even if the purpose is no longer needed. Differences among us are accentuated, and our core rights, enshrined in our constitution, rather than being upheld as inviolate, are too often seen as impediments to the expansion of the state.”
Senator Madsen was joined by Nebraska State Senator Laura Ebke and Libertarian National Committee Chair, Nicholas Sarwark.
Senator Mark Madsen is now one of several elected officials to register Libertarian and/or endorse the ticket including:
Max Abramson – State Representative (NH)
Tom Campbell – Representative (CA)
Laura Ebke – State Senator (NE)
Dawson Hodgson – State Senator (RI)
Danny Jones – Mayor (Charleston, WV)
Jeff Kraus – Mayor (Bozeman, MT)
Nicholas Schwaderer – State Representative (MT)
Lisa Torraco – State Senator (NM)
Jesse Ventura – Governor (MN)
Daniel Zolnikov – State Representative (MT)

Senator Madsen is a sitting two term state senator and former city council member from Eagle Mountain. His legislative record bears out his dedication to individual liberty. He has observed that the interests of bureaucratic agencies and the people rarely align. He believes in choice in health care and education. He is a champion of free trade and free market solutions.



Cruz, Rubio, Bush: Why The Missing Prosperity Crusade?

To read the full column, click here:

It’s a mystery worthy of Sherlock Holmes.

Most of the Republican presidential aspirants, mysteriously, are not focusing on the issue that all of the polling shows at the top of voter concern: restoring prosperity. This, not Donald Trump (who hits the theme rather brilliantly although his proposals to restore prosperity are pure Jabberwocky), is the real wrecking ball of this election cycle.

What’s going on? Elementary, Watson.

In the Sherlock Holmes story The Adventure of Silver Blaze Conan Doyle presented a conversation between a Scotland Yard detective and Holmes:

Gregory: ‘The dog did nothing in the night-time.’
Holmes: ‘That was the curious incident.”

Why aren’t the Republican candidates crusading for prosperity? Holmes: “Obviously the midnight visitor was someone whom the dog knew well.” So too do the candidates know, or believe they know, the “midnight visitor” behind our “sclerotic growth.”

And the candidates cannot bear to criticize that midnight visitor, their presidential predecessors. Follow along.

A handful of supply-side thinkers have been calling persistently for the presidential candidates to do the apparently obvious: crusade for equitable prosperity. One would think that an across-the-board prosperity theme would be immensely popular with candidates. All the polling, plus the outcomes of the early nominating contests, confirms it is immensely popular with the voters.

Elementary! And yet… crickets. Why?

Recently, in The Weekly Standard, veteran Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan advisor Jeffrey Bell (a professional colleague of mine) wrote Sanders, Trump Get Votes Because They Have Answers to Economic Stagnation. The headline doesn’t quite catch Bell’s point, which was not that Sanders and Trump “have answers” but rather because they are asking the right questions.


Bell’s observations about the absence of economic growth policy are dead on. His proposed resolution of the mystery, that the candidates lack confidence in their prosperity formulas or in the voters, is plausible yet not quite compelling. There is a stronger explanation.

Meanwhile, more protests from the Supply-Side! Reagan administration economic policy veteran Lawrence Kudlow, in National Review, writes A Growth Message, Not Catfights, Will Propel the GOP to November Victory:


The Wall Street Journal’s Bill McGurn, writes Grow, Baby, Grow! 

Why can’t Republicans talk about economic growth the way Bernie Sanders talks about his potted socialism or Donald Trump about making America great again: with an enthusiasm that connects with ordinary Americans?


I too have written, repeatedly, on the “curious incident” of the candidates’ failure to crusade for prosperity, noting recently:

Shrewd candidates would make prosperity the keynote of every speech and every comment and every commercial between now and the end of the primaries. And, then, in the general election.

What is unfathomable about Cruz is that he has dealt himself a royal flush while Donald Trump is holding, at best, a pair of deuces. Cruz has presented the most impressive proposal in the field for creating a roaring Reaganesque recovery. Yet Cruz is not materially campaigning on it.

All of these counsels of prosperity seem to have fallen on deaf campaign ears. Odd.

What’s really going on?

There is a deeply tribal quality within both political parties.


It is considered unseemly, and deeply so, to criticize one’s Tribal Elders.


The sense of unseemliness about criticizing the (respectively disappointing and catastrophic) economic records of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush (and, on the Democratic side, Barack Obama’s worst recovery since World War II) has been paralyzing the candidates’ growth narrative.

There may be a way out of the paralysis-by-unseemliness for the candidates. As I elsewhere have written:

A feckless Fed torpedoed the economy under both Presidents Bush and Obama. As The Washington Post’s Ylan Q. Mui noted in Why nobody believes the Federal Reserve’s forecasts the Fed has gotten 50 out of 50 of its last economic forecasts badly wrong. If the National Weather Service had a track record that bad heads already would have rolled. The Fed enjoys a strange impunity.

Reagan and Clinton’s robust job growth occurred under the Volcker-Greenspan “Great Moderation.” That policy was abandoned around the year 2000 thrusting America into a miserable “boom-and-bust” cycle.

The sign on President Truman’s desk, “The Buck Stops Here,” in a very literal sense applies. Still, the buck — Federal Reserve Notes — starts at the Fed. The candidates’ tax plans also are relevant to economic growth. But monetary policy is paramount.

Criticizing the tribal elders — past (or incumbent) presidents of one’s party — is unbearable for Homo Politicus. Yet there is another clear way for the candidates to crusade for economic growth that avoids the unseemliness.

Lay the blame where it belongs: on the feckless Fed that torpedoed their predecessors’ economies. Ted Cruz has established poll position by advocating making the dollar as good as gold. That said, holding the Fed to account for economic stagnation is an open option for all candidates, Democratic as well as Republican.

The Fed even now is causing an implosion of commodities prices and, with that, the threat of a recession (or worse). Putting the blame where it belongs, on the Fed, does not impugn the reputation of either former Republican, or the incumbent Democratic, president.

Candidates, eyes to the Fed.

The buck starts there.


To read the full column, click here.

Why your political policy won’t work‏



An initiative of the Downsize DC Foundation

Even if you were the Dictator, your policy wouldn’t work. Retweet

What is the one thinking mistake that every statist makes? The late great Harry Browne identified this problem and gave a name to it back in the 1990s. We’ve turned it into our latest Mental Lever. Check it out…

Can initiated force be harnessed for good?
By Jim Babka & Perry Willis

AFTER you check out this new Mental Lever, here’s how YOU can create a Post-statist society…

The new Zero Aggression Project has three important yet overlooked objectives…

  1. Share the Zero Aggression Principle with every person on planet Earth.
  2. Locate and activate those who already self-identify as libertarians.
  3. Move everyone in a voluntaryist direction.

In our most recent count, the new Zero Aggression Project has 1,899 engaged subscribers. You can help increase this number and have a large marginal impact in this launching stage with these simple steps…

  • Help us do #2 by forwarding this email to two friends who range from voluntaryist to “libertarian-leaning.” Ask them to subscribe, because they’re far more likely to join if you actually ask them!
  • Join 3,817 others and Like our Facebook page. Click today, and you’ll see this blog post there. Please SHARE it on your timeline!
  • The Zero Aggression Project monthly budget is merely $4,350. Please consider making a tax-deductible contribution.


Our Copyright Policy

Our mailing address is:

Zero Aggression Project

872 Mark Drive

Akron, OH 44313

Add us to your address book

How murder is the logical end of state policies‏



An initiative of the Downsize DC Foundation

Statist policies require murder. Tiny infractions can get a man killed. Retweet

Statists claim they can limit their use of initiated force to cause more good than harm. We say this is impossible. We say murder is inherent in every policy that initiates force. Can we make our case? Check out our latest Mental Lever, mini-article.

Can statist policies be enforced without murder?
By Perry Willis & Jim Babka

AFTER you check out this new Mental Lever, see how you can help create a Post-statist society…

The new Zero Aggression Project has three important yet overlooked objectives…

  1. Share the Zero Aggression Principle with every person on planet Earth.
  2. Locate and activate those who already self-identify as libertarians.
  3. Move everyone in a voluntaryist direction.

We first need to build a base of 100,000 engaged subscribers. In our most recent count, the new Zero Aggression Project has 1,742 engaged subscribers. You can help increase this number and have a large marginal impact in this launching stage with these simple steps…

  • Help us do #2 by forwarding this email to two friends who range from voluntaryist to “libertarian-leaning.” Ask them to subscribe, because they’re far more likely to join if you actually ask them!
  • Join 3,690 others and Like our Facebook page. Click today, and you’ll see this blog post there. Please SHARE it on your timeline!
  • The Zero Aggression Project monthly budget is merely $4,350. Please consider making a tax-deductible contribution.


Our Copyright Policy

Our mailing address is:

Zero Aggression Project

872 Mark Drive

Akron, OH 44313

Add us to your address book

The Effectiveness of Stealth Marxism by Robert Ringer‏



Do you remember when Pastor Rick Warren asked Barack Obama in a 2008 interview what his position was on same-sex marriage? Obama, with a straight face, answered, “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. For me, as a Christian, it is also a sacred union — God is in the mix.”

Today, of course, he says simply that he’s “evolved on the issue” — again, with a straight face. But his longtime aide David Axelrod explains it quite differently in his book, Believer: My Forty Years in Politics, when he writes that Obama “misled Americans for his own political benefit when he claimed in the 2008 election to oppose same sex marriage for religious reasons.”

Then, alluding to another interview in which Obama reiterated his opposition to same-sex marriage, Axelrod says that “Obama … admitted privately that he was not very good at bullshitting.” It’s hard to believe that the most egomaniacal person ever to occupy the Oval Office underestimated his own ability to deceive people, given that today he is the undisputed bullshit champion of the world.

This kind of lying and deception is the key to the stealth approach to revolution. Self-proclaimed communist Van Jones explained the stealth approach to revolution candidly when he said, in a 2005 interview, that he made the decision to stop openly pursuing his Marxist agenda and pursue it by being “willing to forego the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.”

Jones’s choice was a rational one, because lying about your true beliefs and intentions is much easier and much more efficient than scaring people with talk of violent revolution. Vladimir Lenin was clear about this when he said, “To tell the truth is a petty bourgeois habit, whereas for us to lie is justified by our objectives.” In other words, if your objectives are noble (by your standards), then any and all methods are morally justified — including violence.

Night after night we hear dolts like Bill O’Reilly and Greta Van Susteren appear totally perplexed when they ask questions like, “Why in the world would President Obama do something like that if it’s so obvious to everyone that it’s harmful to America?” or “Is he clueless, or does he simply believe that Americans can’t handle the truth?” or “What in the world was the president thinking?”

The reason for such dopey comments is that they do not understand that lies and deception are normal, everyday tools for those on the radical left. Violence, of course, is their number-one tool of choice, but they realize that too much overt violence can blow their stealth cover.

Dr. John Drew, who taught political science and economics at Williams College, was a classmate of Barack Obama’s during his years at Occidental College. Drew has written and spoken extensively about Obama from a firsthand perspective, though the media has virtually ignored his words.

In a 2012 interview, Drew told columnist Leon Puissegur, “I perceive Obama as being an out and out liar, hiding his real views from the American people. I think those views are deeply objectionable to most people and I am shocked that more media attention hasn’t been focused on vetting Obama and getting down to brass tacks about how he really is.”

Drew, who himself belonged to a Marxist organization at Occidental College, a group that included Barack Obama, has said that Obama made it clear that he was looking forward to “an imminent social revolution, literally a movement where the working classes would overthrow the ruling class and institute a socialist utopia in the United States.”

When others in the group concluded that a stealth approach was more likely to succeed, Obama became angry and continued to insist that violent revolution was necessary. Sorry about that Bill … Greta … Geraldo … and a majority of other media people, even at Fox News.

Clearly, at some juncture along his angry path, Obama finally became convinced, as Van Jones did, that the most practical approach to fundamentally changing the United States of America was a stealth revolution. Where and how this conversion to “forego the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends” came about I have no way of knowing, because Obama’s past is so well hidden.

But in his autobiography, Obama makes his conversion clear when he says that he “felt like a spy behind enemy lines” when he worked a low-level corporate job for a short time. Since then, by developing a remarkable ability to turn white guilt to his advantage, Obama has managed to go from community organizer (i.e., unemployed rabble-rouser) to Illinois state senator, to United States senator, to president of the United States.

The result is that after seven-and-a-half years in office, 99 percent of the media continue to ignore his nonstop anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-white, anti-constitutional, anti-police, anti-military, anti-Christian, pro-Muslim, pro-Marxist words and actions — both past and present. It is truly a phenomenon never before seen in American politics.

The reason I’ve brought all this to the forefront once again is because Obama’s third term (euphemistically referred to as Hillary Clinton’s first term) is rapidly going down the drain. That was made even more evident by the electricity in the air at the Republican National Convention.

Is Obama so egomaniacally delusional that he does not realize this (just as he was not able to see that his campaigning for many Democratic candidates in 2014 would cause them to lose), or is he going to pull another rabbit out of his Marxist hat in an effort to derail Trump’s inevitable victory?

I thought about this when, for the first time I can recall, he gave an unequivocal condolence speech about the Baton Rouge police killings. It’s worth noting that Hillary gave pretty much the same speech to the NAACP, but pivoted after a few minutes and, flinging her grimy little fists in the air, shrieked pandering remarks to the audience about blacks being victims … victims … victims.

If Obama and Hillary can mask their hatred and drop the radical pose — if they can B.S. the public into believing they are, at heart, American flag-pin wearers, that they love the police, that they intend to crack down on radical Islamic terrorism (yes, actually say the words), that they intend to finally put a stop to illegal immigration, that they are pro-life (sort of), and more — they could conceivably stealth their way into an Obama third term.

It’s a scary thought, but I’m counting on Obama’s incredible hubris, which makes it almost impossible for him to admit that he’s ever been wrong about anything. But even if Obama and Hillary did the most masterful job imaginable in lying to, and deceiving, much of the American public, the polls would probably still show they are going to lose the election.

In which case my one concern would be that Obama might, in desperation, resort to the number-one weapon of the radical left: violence. Let’s hope it doesn’t happen, but with all the violent upheaval already taking place cities throughout America, it’s certainly something to think about.

Article originally appeared here:

Does the FDA work for Big Tobacco?‏



How the FDA is a cronyistic, cartel-creating machine. Here’s a wrench to jam it Retweet

The FDA is about to kill again. This deadly bureaucracy has created new regulations that will outlaw any nicotine vaping products created after 2007. That means most of them. The vaping industry will simply disappear except…

To the extent that it’s taken over by Big Tobacco.

Please understand, this is how most regulation works. Statist regulation…

  • Hurts small producers for the benefit of large financial interests
  • Harms consumers in the name of protecting consumers

We think this example argues for passing Downsize DC’s “Write the Laws Act (WTLA),” which has been introduced in the Senate by Rand Paul (S.1575). Remember…

WTLA requires Congress to vote on any rule created by Executive Branch agencies such as the FDA.

In other words — it restores the constitutional “separation of powers” by denying the Executive Branch the power to legislate.

You can send a letter, about WTLA, using Downsize DC’s Educate the Powerful System. The hardwired message to Congress reads…

I want my Representative to introduce and my Senators to co-sponsor the “Write the Laws Act” (S. 1575).

You can copy or edit this sample letter for your personal comments to Congress…

The recently released FDA vaping regulations are a perfect example of why we need the WTLA. You are allowing the FDA to wipeout the vaping industry, in spite of the fact that most medical professionals see benefits to vaping. Vaping helps people to stop smoking, or to never even start.

FDA regulations will require vaping companies to run every product they create through something called a Premarket Tobacco Application Process (PMTA). This bureaucratic nonsense will cost $1 million per product. This will destroy countless small businesses while allowing Big Tobacco to take over the vaping market.

The FDA is a cronyistic, cartel-creating machine. It’s politically-incorrect to point out this fact, but the FDA does tremendous damage to America’s health. WTLA would throw a wrench in this machine. I want to see you sponsor this bill.


Thank you for being an ACTIVE DC Downsizer.

Perry Willis
Downsize DC


Our copyright policy

Our mailing address is:

872 Mark Drive

Akron, OH 44313

Add us to your address book

2016: the new 1969‏



In July 1969 John Lennon released a song titled “Give Peace a Chance” that quickly became an anthem for the anti-war and counterculture movements. “And on Nov. 15, [1969],” The Nation reported, “half a million people gathered on the Mall in Washington, D.C. Pete Seeger led them in singing John Lennon’s new song, ‘Give Peace a Chance.’”

There are many similarities between 1969 and today, with racial tension and a seemingly endless military conflict. Though unlike 1969, protests are primarily in opposition to what appears to be systemic racism within the so-called criminal justice system. Since May 1, 2013 police have killed over 3700 people with some of those deaths gaining more notoriety than others, most notably: Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Sandra Bland, Freddie Gray, Alton Sterling & Philando Castile. While the circumstances surrounding each of these deaths are different, there is one unifying factor: all of them were black and have been the catalyst for protests by the group Black Lives Matter. Note: just because someone says “Black Lives Matter” does not mean they believe other lives don’t matter, any more than someone at a rally against cancer could be construed as believing there shouldn’t also be a cure for hepatitis.

Some have decided instead of peacefully protesting, they would become a vigilante. Micah Xavier Johnson, a US Army veteran, was among those who in recent days decided to take matters into his own hands and opened fire at police in Dallas. After shooting 12 police officers and 2 bystanders – and a lengthy negotiation – Johnson was killed by a police robot.

Micah Xavier Johnson wanted to send a message to police, and he did. However, he – and others who have decided to shoot police – have sent the wrong message. Matt Agorist of The Free Thought Project writes, “Those who initiate and support such violence will be complicit in creating the hellish police state that will inevitably ensue as a consequence of their actions.” Adding, “If a group of people rise up and claim to be freedom fighters and they do not have the support of the citizens, well, that ‘revolution’ was over before it started.
If anyone thinks that killing cops and/or praising the death of innocent people will amass public opinion in their favor… they are seriously delusional.”

I for one do not celebrate when anyone is killed, and believe all loss of life is tragic. There’s an old saying, “if you live by the sword, you die by the sword.” If we are to achieve a a more peaceful society, it will not be achieved by violence, for violence is antithetical to peace. I ask you to look back at the words of John Lennon from 47 years ago as more than words in a song, and if you – like me – want a more peaceful society: give peace a chance!

In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry

Darryl has spent most of his adult life as an advocate & activist for peace and liberty. Darryl is an award winning author, publisher & radio/TV host. He is a regular contributor to several weekly and monthly newspapers. He hosts the daily newscast FPPradioNews, , the podcast Peace, Love, Liberty Radio, the weekly news podcast FPP Freedom Minute, and is a regular co-host on Free Talk Live.
Darryl is a co-founder and co-chair of the NH Liberty Party.
Darryl is the Owner/Managing Editor of Free Press Publications.

To schedule an interview with Darryl please send an email to or call 202 709 4377

How to talk with your Republican friend‏



How to talk with your Republican friend

Dear Libertarian,

Many of us have Republican friends who are pretty frustrated right now. I bet you know someone who is. Maybe a close friend, a family member, a Facebook friend…

They are not bad people, and they aren’t blind either. They see that Trump is a bully, that he’s unqualified. They agree he should not become President.  Our country deserves better, and they expected better from their party. They feel betrayed and maybe just a little bit…politically homeless right now. Remember that feeling?


Let’s try to welcome them – and their votes. We NEED to if we want our candidates to succeed!

We need to be diplomatic about it and resist the urge to gloat about the difficulties their party has been facing. We also need to understand where they are coming from and meet them where they are right now, politically.

Our Republican friends may not see every issue the way we do – and that is ok. We can persuade them on various issues over time. (Congeniality and diplomacy in our Libertarian debate circles is another topic for another time! Right now, we need for a lot of people who are searching for political options to feel comfortable enough with us to vote for Gary Johnson this fall!)
Here are a few strategies that I have personally found most effective when reaching out to displaced Republicans:


- Acknowledge their frustration. It is real. It is painful and it is personal to them. Respect it. Resist the urge to gloat or taunt. Most won’t take that well right now. If we want our party to grow long term, it won’t be through insulting or alienating people who mostly agree with us!


- Keep reminding your friends that there are options beyond Trump and Clinton, and that Governor Johnson will be on the ballot in all 50 states.


- Share points of interest about Governor Johnson. He was a two-term Republican governor of New Mexico. He’s a successful entrepreneur. He’s an athlete. He’s ethical, candid, honest, likable, trustworthy, and highly qualified. He cut taxes and balanced the budget in his state. Really, there is so much for Republicans to like about him!


- Encourage other mutual Libertarian-leaning friends to talk with your friend. Let them see that other people they know are voting Libertarian. Some people need to see this before they will do it themselves.


- Encourage them to be true to themselves when they vote. You don’t get a prize for picking the winner, and if we all voted for who we really thought the best candidate was, this country would be better for it. Also, a strong showing in this election will put libertarian values front and center in the next, even if we don’t win. We can register our support for liberty by voting our beliefs.

- Show them the beautiful diversity of the Libertarian Party. No matter who they are, where they come from, what they look like, what they enjoy, what they believe, there are Libertarians like them. There is not a more diverse organization in America. We respect each other and continually strive to peacefully coexist. Believe it or not, Republicans do care about this!


Be welcoming. Be kind. Be encouraging. Be respectful.


Let’s show America the beauty of liberty and the merit of our candidates. If we diligently and diplomatically share this message, Governor Johnson might just end up in the White House come January! But even if he doesn’t, our party will be bigger and stronger for your efforts.


Towards liberty,


Nicholas Sarwark

Chair, Libertarian National Committee



Is There a God?‏


Is There a God?
Richard Blake

One of my readers has asked whether I believe in God and whether I regard myself as a Christian. This is a highly personal question, and I might feel at liberty not to reply. However, since my novels all deal in various ways with religious matters, I feel I have lost the right to silence. So the short answer to both parts of the question is yes. This being said, I pass to what may be seen as the less than satisfactory details.

When I look at the world, I see what appears to be great complexity in its structure and great regularity in its motions. There are others, I have no doubt, but I can think of three main hypotheses for why this should be so.

First, nothing exists but atoms moving at random through a void. They have always existed and always will exist. Given enough time, there is no reason why these random movements should not result in collisions and the growth of large clusters of atoms. These may form complex structures that move with each other in an appearance of regularity. Our minds are as much a part of this random process as a speck of dust that floats between two galaxies. Perhaps this will all dissolve again before I have finished this article. Perhaps it will continue for millions of death after the atoms of my own mind and body have separated and rejoined into other structures. I do not know.

Second, there is a Supreme Being who created the universe and populated one or more parts of it with sentient beings, all with some ability to perceive their origin.

Third, I am God, and, for reasons I cannot presently explain, have created at least the appearance of a universe that may continue to exist even when I am not looking at it.

Each of these hypotheses is a full if different explanation of everything that is perceived. None implies a contradiction, and so is equally possible. I am not aware of any external criterion for judging one over the other. None can be proved or disproved. I could suspend judgement and get on with the rest of my life. Instead, I choose to believe the second, that there is a God. You are welcome to choose otherwise.

Now, belief in a Supreme Being is one thing. Belief in a specific revelation is another. Did God speak to Moses on Mount Sinai? Did he send his only son to redeem us of our sins? Did he send a final prophet to clear up such misunderstandings as may have attended earlier efforts to enlighten us? Is Christ made or begotten? Has he one nature or two? Has he one will or two? Is the whole of revelation confined to a single text? Or is it supplemented by several thousand years of tradition? I have no idea, and see no value in trying to form one.

All I will say is that God may be like the Internet. Some of us access it with a Windows-Intel computer, others with an Android telephone. There are many other means of access. Once there, we have the same choice of data. All that really counts is bandwidth and stability of the connection. So it may be with God.

Or perhaps there is some standard of judgement between religions. Bearing in mind that God has gone to the trouble of creating us as social beings, and bearing in mind that, if there are natural differences between every individual, there is no evidence of supernatural differences, and bearing in mind that we all have a propensity for preferring happiness to unhappiness, it seems reasonable that our conduct while we are alive is watched, and that there is some reckoning once we are dead. This being so, it may be that we are expected to avoid making others unhappy, which entails a general respect for their autonomy. This being so, things like human sacrifice, inquisitions, systematic indifference to the well-being of other groups, and suicide bombing, all indicate a misunderstanding of the divine mind.

Therefore, I am a broad church Anglican. This is the historic religion of my country. It is part of a web of customs and institutions that I find comforting and that I believe do conform to the mind of God. It is a faith that does not spread or maintain itself by persecution, and it has sustained the English liberal tradition.

But this is not to state any doctrine of exclusive salvation. In other circumstances, I might easily be a humanist Catholic, or a liberal Jew, or a Sufi Moslem. We have a right to our own happiness, and a duty to promote the happiness of those round us. Whatever religion is congruent with this right and duty has a claim to be true.

Such, for what it may be worth, is the faith of Richard Blake.

Richard Blake’s new novels, The Break and Crown of Empire, both came out in April 2016.


Recent Posts

Withur We By Matthew Alexander

Ever wonder what a Libertarian World would look like?

Ever wonder how to answer objections to creating a Libertarian World?

Ever wonder if a Libertarian World could truly exist?

Here’s the thing: creating a Libertarian World is hard.

It was a lot easier centuries ago. People used to think back then AND they acted on their thoughts. Now-a-days, that does not happen not so much. For lack of a better term, people are lazy.

I used to recommend that folks stand up to their government. However, most people now are under the impression you cannot fight city hall. So, a tyrannical government rises from being the servant to be being the master.

This, of course, is due to a lack of education on what government really needs to be if it exists. Government does NOT want its people educated enough to realize that the citizens are slaves. They want to hide the sheep by allowing them to think they are the wolf because so long as people live in ignorance, they are living in bliss and will not stop someone else from controlling their life.

As I now see it, the problem is that there are thousands, if not million, of people kowtow under peer pressure instead of thinking on their own.

And over the years, the constant lies and new laws forced upon us from via government and its propaganda makes it harder, and harder, and harder, to live as a free person.

The big boys of business and government collude to hide the Master/Slave relationships they’ve developed over years in our society. They hide it all under the guise of “helping” the people and “making a better society”. When, in fact, they are manipulating and controlling the citizenry through deceit.

Learning to recognize the truth on your own, through trial and error, takes LONG time to see and understand. Most books only give you theory. Most of that theory is twisted with arguments. Simple truths are turned on their head and no longer give you a clear image of right and wrong.

If you are just getting into libertarianism, you will want to learn what it is all about fast. You will not want to wait until you are at some meeting somewhere to begin learning and understanding. Clearly, googling things will not suffice because you don’t know what you are really looking for. You want to see practical application NOW in order to make sense of the arguments that will surely come your way.

If that’s the case, you are going to love this:

I have found ONE book, to date, that makes that happen fast for beginners.

It’s Withur We written by Matthew Alexander.

Withur We is written in a story format that walks through the steps of how to handle an overbearing government. Including all the trials and tribulations that occur as well as all the steps necessary to set up a Libertarian World, it answers all the naysayer’s questions.

Withur We is written so well that it makes it easy to understand Libertarianism and the problems presented in today’s society.

Matthew Alexander presents the world of Alistair Ashley 3nn in a fashion comparable to Ayn Rand’s John Galt. His work is destined to become a classic among freedom loving individuals like Atlas Shrugged did among business people.

See how Alistair’s world resembles our own. Learn what he does to solve the problems. Understand the frustrations and witness the resolve. Transform your life by living the same principles and stop living as a “slave”.

Withur We is a great Libertarian story that covers the facets of creating a Libertarian society. It is far greater than the single topic visions of authors like L Neil Smith. In the book Alexander’s prose is carefully constructed to lead the reader from one point to the next. Considering that he is a first time author I was amazed at the fluidity of the story and look forward to reading his next book.

Clearly, Alexander took the thinking man’s approach to his story. He starts with the introduction of a Libertarian (anarcho-capitalist) society with a Rothbardian flavor. The story surely is fairer in its presentation than the dialects of “one way only” Libertarian books that exist thus far. There is no utopian world, not everything works out as being perfect as some Libertarians like to present.

As a Libertarian myself, I might wish to see happier results with the situations presented. However, Alexander is showing a world of reality. Not everything is perfect in the world, not even our current societies. He uses those realities to present his theme of market driven economies along with the meaning and inner workings of the non-aggression principle.

I have been waiting a long time for someone to put together a book of this caliber. The wait is over. Now everyone can enjoy a good story that shows both the advantages of a Libertarian society as well as the problems surrounding us in order to create one. It is not a utopia where everyone sings kumbaya to each other. Here, the story revolves around how people interact with each other during times of peace and violence. The contrast between the two is illustrated perfectly with everyday situations that we can recognize in our own society. The conclusion that peace is the better is not shoved in your face by some zealot but is smoothly presented through what can be viewed as real life experiences.

Matthew Alexander did a masterful job of creating the world in terms that everyone can relate too. Now it is your turn to do your part and learn from his efforts. See how a single individual can make a difference. Witness how Libertarianism in action can bring about a whole new concept on life. Learn how to be free.

After New Hampshire, Donald Trump + Bernie Sanders = Michael Bloomberg For President

Feb 10, 2016 @ 05:00 PM

The Trump and Sanders landslide victory in the New Hampshire primary — Trump winning with a decisive 35% plurality, Sanders by a towering 60% majority — well could pave the way, next month, for former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg to enter the presidential race as a third party candidate.

If he enters Bloomberg will prove formidable indeed. He could win.

In 1992 H. Ross Perot, on a third party line, initially led both incumbent president George H.W. Bush and Democratic nominee Bill Clinton. Perot proved rather too headstrong, too thin-skinned, and unwilling to spend on the scale requisite for victory, dropping out, then reentering, but never regaining his lead. Bloomberg is not handicapped by Perot’s political foibles. A third party victory is viable.

I have written much here in praise and criticism both of Trump and Sanders. I have praised both of their personal charms, which are vivid. I, more pertinently, have praised their admirable focus on the economic distress of the electorate.


I also severely have criticized their proposed plans to restore equitable prosperity.

The Tax Foundation has assessed Donald Trump’s tax plan as a $10 trillion deficit bomb. Trump also has criticized the Fed for not raising interest rates, in the next breath saying that doing so would cause a “recession-slash-depression.” His proposed tariffs surely would cause not merely another Great Depression but, in Trumpian terms, “The Greatest! Depression! Ever!” (No, thanks Donald!)

The Tax Foundation has assessed Bernie Sanders’s tax plan as a $10 trillion tax increase (admittedly without offsets for savings, outside the tax system, on health insurance premiums) that would provide a severe tax increase on median families. Its assessment is that Sanders’s shot of Democratic Socialism would collapse, over ten years, the American economy by 10%, turning our “Little Dark Age” into an even “Longer and Darker Age.” (No, thanks Bernie!)


How could Bloomberg win? As Jesse “Big Daddy” Unruh once said, “Money is the mother’s milk of politics.” Bloomberg has the mother lode of mother’s milk.

Forbes scores Michael Bloomberg with a net worth of $38.6 billion. Forbes scores Trump at $4.5 billion. Bloomberg’s ability and willingness to self-fund at the three-comma level are indisputable.

I already have pointed out that Trump is likely to be bluffing about his willingness to spend. He blustered that he would spend a billion dollars. Then $100 million. He has spent around $10 million. Or a lot less.


Whereas there is every reason to believe that Bloomberg would spend a billion — or more — from his personal fortune to propel a campaign. (And barely feel it.) Bloomberg has an ocean of such mother’s milk and a demonstrated willingness to spend it. He spent, according to the New York Times, $102 Million to win his third term as New York City mayor. Bloomberg has shown himself serious in a way that Trump has not.


March is not yet upon us. Neither Trump nor Sanders have their party’s nomination sewed up. That said, even if Hillary remains the presumptive nominee her viability is questionable.

The post-New Hampshire media about Hillary Clinton has been pretty dire. The Washington Post: “Sanders embarrasses Clinton in New Hampshire.” The New York Times: “After New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton Struggles to Find Her Footing.” The Boston Globe: How Bernie Sanders made Hillary Clinton look old. “Newsday: Hillary Clinton is in trouble.The Daily Beast: Did Bernie Just Poison Hillary 2016?

This may be overdone. We in the media love to dramatize and to overdramatize. Still, if Clinton continues to flounder it may remove Bloomberg’s chief inhibition from running.

As for the GOP, presumably, now that the train-running Jeb Bush appears out of contention, its nominee is not a major factor in Bloomberg’s calculus.


Mayor Bloomberg, while economically pretty conservative, is too socially liberal to gain my personal support. That said he fits the profile of American voter sentiment pretty well. According to an analysis by the Gallup Organization published last May

Thirty-one percent of Americans describe their views on social issues as generally liberal, matching the percentage who identify as social conservatives for the first time in Gallup records dating back to 1999. … Americans … still by a wide margin, 39% to 19%, describe their views on economic issues as conservative rather than liberal.

However socially liberal, Bloomberg gets prosperity. Under the regime he established in New York City that city’s aggregate property values surpassed $1 trillion, making it, according to one expert, the most valuable city in America.

Impressive wealth creation. Impressive credentials. And for the general election: “It’s the economy, stupid!”


The Progressive infatuation with “democratic socialism” might end up pushing the Democratic Party into its very own “Little Dark Age” for a generation or more. Better them than us.

Trump + Sanders = Michael Bloomberg for president.

Michael Bloomberg will let us know next month.

To read the full column, click here.