*Written by Rob Rimes.

I am certainly not happy with the results of the Florida primary. My home state and current place of residence was a big disappointment for those of us that are educated enough to understand what true freedom really entails. For those living in a black hole, Mitt Romney won with almost a majority vote, Gingrich came in second with Santorum in third and Paul in fourth. It just goes to show where the heads of most Floridians are at, which isn’t a good place. Luckily for me, I was at a friend’s house watching this on CNN because if I had been watching Fox News, I probably would’ve broke my TV due to all the blatant Romney love going on over there. At least the mostly liberal CNN crew didn’t seem to have much of an emotional investment in this nickel ‘n dime kabuki theater. So with Romney running through Florida like Wilt Chamberlain’s cock, we’re all left with a little something sticky on our faces – if you know what I mean?

The problem with this godforsaken state is that to the victor go the spoils and in this case, ALL the spoils. Second place doesn’t get you dick in Florida. Shit, I’m talking an awful lot about male genitalia. Anyway, there are 50 delegates in the State of Florida. If you win the primary, you get them all. In other states, delegates are handed out based off of a candidate’s performance. So second, third and even fourth place can walk away with some delegates and make out okay. This fucked up way of doing business is a major problem and it also gives the winner, in this case Mr. Romney, an unfair advantage. Let me give you the rundown of how this has worked out in other states compared to Florida.

In Iowa, Rick Santorum won with Romney in a very close second and Paul in a fairly close third. All three men got 7 delegates and Newt Gingrich walked away with 2. There are also 3 undeclared delegates based off of Rick Perry dropping out of the race. You see, even though Santorum won, he has the same amount as Romney and Paul. In reality, Iowa was virtually a three-way tie. Now New Hampshire was won by Romney who walked away with 7 delegates followed by Paul with 3. There are 2 undeclared delegates due to Huntsman finishing third and dropping out right after. South Carolina is almost as stupid as Florida, as Gingrich won and got 23 delegates while Romney, who was in second, only got 2. Santorum and Paul didn’t get crap for their efforts. In Florida however, Romney got 50 delegates and that’s all she wrote; everyone else got dicked. So after Florida, the delegate tally is as follows: Romney has 85, Gingrich has 27, Paul has 10 and Santorum has 7. Essentially, any of the candidates could’ve ignored the three previous states and pushed hard in Florida over the last month and walked away being first place nationally just by winning this one state. Florida, at this stage of the game, takes every candidate but the winner out of the hunt, at least that’s what it looks like to the casual viewer.

There are 46 more states and even though the Florida winner is light-years ahead of the competition at this point, the road is still going to be a long one. I don’t think that anyone can really be written off until Super Tuesday comes and goes. Besides that, some of the biggest states haven’t even voted yet. The guy that is able to capture either California or Texas or both, is going to be the big kahuna in this race, as far as I’m concerned. Considering Paul is loved in Cali, where he wins straw poll after straw poll, and that he is from Texas, he could very well earn a fuckload of delegates from these two states. With him getting the jump on the competition by campaigning everywhere that isn’t Florida, Paul may pull some power moves that shift this thing in his favor.

The reason Paul wasn’t campaigning in Florida is because of their “winner takes all” delegate system. Since he was pretty sure he wouldn’t get first place, he decided to go elsewhere, where he could actually walk away with delegates. This is unfortunate, as I, a Paul supporter and Floridian, wanted nothing more than to go to an event, see my guy and yell “End the Fed!” at the top of lungs. I never got the opportunity to do this though because my state has a stupid fucking rule that needs to be abolished immediately. I mean, how can Florida expect candidates to give a shit about the state if you aren’t going to throw them a bone even if they don’t come in first in this demographically diverse melting pot of sheep who vote for the candidate with the best hair and fanciest lapel pin?

I shouldn’t be surprised by the shitty Florida result. Our Tea Parties are full of Romney and Gingrich supporters who scream about liberty and hand out free pocket Constitutions. Truth is, they have never apparently read one or tried to really understand it. If they took that leap and really grasped what was written within the pages of those little books they give away like Halloween candy, Ron Paul would’ve crushed Florida. As I have stated before, too many people treat the Constitution like the Holy Bible and only pay attention to the parts that benefit them. Conservatism is like Christianity, as it is just jam packed with so many denominations that you can’t even define what it truly is anymore. I guess in Florida, the most common form of conservatism is the kind that is weak, scared and full of shit. I guess my fellow Floridians support war and wasteful spending; that’s what their votes are telling me.

In the end, if this trend continues into the other states, Obama will win the race and be re-elected for four more years. Ultimately, as much as it pains me to say, I don’t see this going any other way. There is that part of me though that refuses to give up and will continue to support Ron Paul till my last breath, even if the people continue to vote the other way. The establishment status quo just isn’t working folks but you sure as hell keep voting for it. Just do us all a favor and stop complaining, especially since you are the root of the fucking problem.

Critics say it proves Senator wasn’t being detained

Security video of Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s run in with the TSA earlier this week has been leaked to a newspaper, and critics say it proves that Paul was not detained by the federal agency.

The footage, obtained by The Tennessean shows the Senator seated in a chair within a glass walled cubicle in the security area of Nashville airport after refusing to undergo a pat down.

As Paul talks on the phone, presumably to his office as he had stated in interviews, three TSA officials stand guard, along with police officers standing outside the cubicle.

The video then shows Paul later being escorted through the airport by an official. The footage represents about one minute of the incident which Paul said lasted over an hour.

The Senator is partially obscured by a column blocking part of the cubicle for some portions of the video. When asked why the camera would be set up only to be obscured by a column, airport spokeswoman Emily Richard told The Tennessean that cameras are “placed for the widest view possible, not a specific area.”

The airport authority and the TSA have declined to comment on the footage.

Watch the video below:

Although the report in The Tennessean points out that the footage contradicts a police report that claimed Paul was “irate”, critics jumped on the footage to suggest Paul over reacted and exaggerated the incident.

Max Read of blog site Gawker said he believes the video proves the Republican was “totally full of sh-t” when he called his spokesperson.

“I got a lot of mail, some of it syntactically and orthographically correct, disputing my account of Rand Paul’s full-of-sh-tness by referring to the dictionary definition of the word ‘detained.’” Read wrote.

“Here is my feeling: when your argument centers around ‘the dictionary definition’ of anything and involves the adverb ‘technically,’ you are full of sh-t. When you tell someone you are being ‘detained by the TSA,’ you don’t mean ‘sitting in a chair while they decide what to do.’”

Another blogger suggested that “the way Paul was treated (not a finger laid on him) doesn’t quite illustrate the harshness that word [detainment'] usually suggests.”

In response Paul supporters pointed out that just because Paul wasn’t shackled and pushed around doesn’t mean he wasn’t being detained by the TSA.

“‘Detained’ is a legal term that very much applies to this situation. It does not matter that he is not in handcuffs or behind bars; when a peace officer restricts your freedom to vacate an area through verbal instruction (the consequence of disobedience being immediate arrest for disorderly conduct), you are detained.” one commenter noted.

Following the incident Monday, Rand Paul told reporters “I tried to leave the cubicle to speak to one of the TSA people and I was barked at: ‘Do not leave the cubicle! So, that, to me sounds like I’m being asked not to leave the cubicle. It sounds a little bit like I’m being detained.”

——————————————————————

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, andPrisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

Source: Prison Planet.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

Santorum: 1. The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. 2. Senator Rick Santorum. – Definition take from the Urban Dictionary.

Politics are amazing. I mean, with certain candidates people are so quick to jump on every potential fault they come across but with other candidates, people are blind as fuck and only see what it is that they want to see. In the case of Rick Santorum, who is now technically a frontrunner, people are either blind or just absolutely fucking insane! I mean, how has this guy come from out of near obscurity to become a GOP frontrunner in just a couple of weeks? Those goddamned Iowans and their stupid caucuses have unleashed a beast on us and if this beast isn’t stopped dead in his tracks now, we will all pay greatly for this Iowan insanity.

Rick Santorum is the worst choice for president out of all the GOP candidates that have come and gone this election cycle and that’s a hard feat to pull off, as most of them are severely flawed. Santorum is a bigoted prick that wants to force us all to live within his corrupt Christian vision. His perfect America would be a Catholic dictatorship with him as de facto ruler. Abortions for rape victims would be outlawed, gays would be in prison or most likely slaughtered and we’d all be forced to stay married to assholes and raise our children as Bible-loving zombies who have to bow to Santorum first and God second. Maybe this seems extreme but after reading through a huge list of quotes from the man, this most assuredly would be his perfect version of the United States.

Hell, Santorum wants to force his brand of Christianity on the world. In fact, he is ready to go to war with pretty much every Islamic nation in an effort to prove his point. It’s actually better if I just let his words do the talking here:

“The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American Left who hates Christendom. … What I’m talking about is onward American soldiers. What we’re talking about are core American values.”

First of all “core American values” aren’t violence and aggression, his stance on that is “anti-historical”. Secondly, you can look at this and analyze it a few different ways but the point is, he does hold a lot of resentment towards Islam. In almost every single debate where any nation that is primarily a Muslim one has come up, he has preached for aggression towards them. He is so eager to go to war and drop bombs and throw sanctions on everything in an effort to perpetuate a religious war that should have died centuries ago. Rick is of the belief that these people simply want to kill us because we are a free white Christian nation. Santorum, like anyone else that shares this incredibly flawed and dangerous logic, is a fucking idiot that could benefit from picking up a book other than the Bible.

Now I am not trying to attack his Christian views, as I have no beef with any religion, but I am attacking the fact that if he actually read his sacred book and believed the words written across its pages, he would realize that his actions and his motivations are very unchristian. Anyone who believes that Santorum is right and that we should just aimlessly bomb all these “threats” is an accessory to murder. When looking at the bigger picture, the actions Santorum and several of his colleagues want this country to take aren’t that different than the cowardly actions of Al-Qaeda. One nation’s freedom fighters are another nation’s terrorists. Rick and those with his school of thought could benefit from actually listening to the words of Osama bin Laden and other terrorists who have explained over and over why they attack us. Apparently no one is getting the message because the actions that have caused these groups to take up arms against us are still being committed by our government everyday all over the world.

Stateside, his religious intolerance of things he doesn’t understand and doesn’t want to learn about have dug him into some pretty deep holes throughout the years. He has bashed homosexuality and has probably been the most anti-gay candidate since the horse and buggy days. As I did with the last subject, I’ll let Santorum’s idiot mouth spell it out for you:

“Is anyone saying same-sex couples can’t love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?”

He also said this:

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. … That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.”

And:

“A lesbian woman came up to me and said, ‘why are you denying me my right?’ I said, ‘well, because it’s not a right.’ It’s a privilege that society recognizes because society sees intrinsic value to that relationship over any other relationship.”

God this guy is a fucking moron. I’m sorry and maybe it is my libertarian stance but I just can’t stand people, especially politicians, that are this vehemently opposed to gays. I could argue that this is modern times and not the 1700′s but fuck, everyone was gay back then. Dudes would marry their wives, not because they loved them but because it was a business transaction, and then they would go off with their friends and fuck young boys all night. As twisted as that may sound to some, this was common amongst the aristocracy of the day back then. Hell, the ancient Greeks who gave us democracy as well as major advancements in philosophy, maths, science, astronomy, law and language were some of the gayest people ever. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of pieces of art from that era that depict gay sex. It’s not some new freak thing that just happened in the last few decades. If Santorum had his way however, they’d all be sent to concentration camps or killed and used for dog food.

Santorum’s bigotry doesn’t just end with gays and lesbians, he actually said this about black people:

“I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.”

Why did he single out black people? Aren’t whites, latinos and all other races on welfare? I guess Ricky Boy just sees this as a black thing. It doesn’t stop there, on President Obama’s race and pro-choice beliefs, Santorum said:

“I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people’.”

Jesus dude, this guy can’t be serious, right? Well, it doesn’t just stop with black people, gays, lesbians and Muslims. He said this about Mormons:

“Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?”

Mormonism a dangerous cult? Funny, they’re not the ones wanting to bomb the everliving shit out of the world! They just want to have mad wives and lots of kids. If it is all consensual between the adults, what is wrong with that? Who the fuck is Rick Santorum to say what is and is not acceptable? What gives him that authority? Well, where he sits, it’s his complete misunderstanding of the Bible that gives him that authority.

You know, fuck all this social madness. I think it is pretty clear that this bastard is full of hate and intolerance and would just rather kill you than look at you if you aren’t living up to his moral code. So how does this piece of shit hold up as far as being a politician? Well, several watchdog groups throughout the years have added Rick Santorum’s name to the list of “Most Corrupt Members of Congress”. You see, Santorum is a big government asshole that shows no concern over our country’s economic woes. Truth is, he is a big reason why we are dealing with these economic woes right now.

Rick Santorum’s own book “It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good” really spelled out his philosophy on government and our daily lives. Basically, the book goes on to argue for more government intrusion into our lives at home. Santorum believes that it is the government’s role to dictate to parents and families how they should live. Of course, Rick wants the government to push a Christian agenda on everyone, which completely goes against everything that the Founding Fathers wanted for America. In his book, he supported several big government programs, such as national service, publicly financed trust funds for children, community investment incentives and economic literacy programs to be put in every school in America. That’s kind of funny though considering that Santorum had this to say about our education system:

“It’s amazing that so many kids turn out to be fairly normal, considering the weird socialization they get in public schools.”

Right, is what he is proposing not a form of socialization? This guy is a classic doublethinker or he just doesn’t think the rules apply to him because he is in the service of a higher power. Yep, that same higher power that told Michele Bachmann to run for president. Maybe people should stop talking to that higher power, he gives shitty advice. Then again, these are idiots trying to decipher something greater than themselves.

Rick Santorum also supported No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit and other very costly pieces of legislation that were all a form of socialization and a contributor to our budget being out of control. He has always been a big supporter of earmarks and not just in his own state. Santorum was one of the idiots that was heavily in favor of the now infamous “Bridge to Nowhere”. The truth is, Rick Santorum is one of the biggest benefactors of earmarks in congressional history! According to a Rick Perry attack ad against Santorum and verified by Taxpayers For Common Sense, Santorum has received over a billion dollars in earmarks during his time in office!

In 2005 alone, Santorum received $483 million dollars in earmarks for 872 different projects! Defending himself on Fox News, Santorum said:

“I’m proud of the money that I did set aside for things that were priorities in my state instead of having bureaucrats do that.”

Santorum worked closely with Tim DeLay in developing the K-Street Project which was an effort by the GOP to put pressure on lobbyists to hire Republicans in their top positions as well as to reward loyal GOP lobbyists with special access to influential officials. Hell, Rick Santorum is a crony capitalist at his fucking core. This corporatist really needs to have his front lawn “occupied” by protestors. Santorum, like many others, used this as a tool to get free money to flow into his state. Of course there is no such thing as free money as it is us, the American citizens, who are paying for it now.

If you are a free trade person, good for you – that’s awesome. Unfortunately, Rick Santorum has been a long time opponent of free trade and true capitalism. He has spent his entire career backing higher tariffs on goods from other countries. He always has and still supports government intervention in the manufacturing industry. Rick Santorum feels that it is the government’s job to pick the winners and losers. Apparently this guy has never read anything from an Austrian economist or watched Milton Friedman’s series “Free To Choose”. If he had, Mr. Santorum would be very well aware of how his policies damage American interests stateside and abroad and how this just adds to our economic peril and rampant joblessness.

I could honestly go on and on about this worthless piece of shit but I don’t really think it’s all that necessary. Truth is, one could write a book about Rick Santorum and all the bullshit shenanigans this hate-mogering scumfuck was a part of. He is not what this country needs now or ever. He is a big reason why this country is in the shitter and electing him to be president would be the biggest mistake this country could make right now. In all honesty, I don’t see how this guy could be any better than Obama. In fact, I guaran-damn-tee that Rick Santorum would be much worse. You know how you see those signs with George W. Bush that say “Miss Me Yet?” on them? Well if Santorum became president, you’d see the same slogan attached to a picture of Barack Obama. Then again, being caught with such pictures in Santorum’s America would end with you being sent off to be a guinea pig in his Jesus indoctrination camps.

Hell, when your own nephew writes and publishes a piece urging people not to vote for you and instead to vote for Ron Paul, that’s saying a lot. When your own campaign staff is caught at a rally supporting Ron Paul, that should also tell you something. Rick Santorum is a statist shitcock that isn’t above turning the United States into a religious fascist dictatorship that will spend itself into oblivion. Those closest to him have warned us, yet people keep sending this douchebag money. The fact that he has made over two million dollars in the last two days is absolutely frightening.

It’s time to pay attention America!

Here’s a video showing how statist and liberal, yes liberal, this guy is. I didn’t even touch on his love of the Federal Reserve and dislike of the gold standard but this video hits it:

The definition of “rape” was expanded this week by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI)Criminal Justice Advisory Policy Board, following a barrage of emails from feminist activists who demanded change. The old definition was too narrow, many women argued, and needed to be updated. For one thing, it didn’t cover rape by women against women, or men against men, and we’ve all seen just how much of that goes on these days thanks to organizations like Penn State and the Catholic Church.

So in October, the FBI’s UCR subcommitteeAdvisory Policy Boardvoted to recommend the definition be expanded. The new definition of rape, which looks set to be “officially” adopted by the FBI in 2012, is as follows:

“Rape” is:…penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

FBI’s definition ensnares TSA agents as serial rapists:

Here’s the kicker in all this: According to this definition of rape, the federal government’s TSA agents areserial rapists.

That’s because, in the course of carrying out their lewd, improper and entirely illegal strip-searches and “enhanced pat-downs,” they are engaged in precisely the acts covered in the FBI’s definition of rape. Namely, entering the vagina and anus with their fingerswithout consent of the victim.

This means the next time you are fingered by a TSA agent in an airport you should seriously call the FBI and report a sex crime. In fact, it is illegal for you to not report a sex offender committing a crime of which you are directly aware. Failure to do so could make you an accomplice in that person’s next sex crime, legally speaking.

CONTINUED at Natural News.

*Written by Jared Grifoni of the Libertarian Party of Collier County. Who also has his own blog at Self-Govern. Please check out and support Jared’s blog for his collection of other stellar articles.

The other day I was faced with a unique opportunity at the conclusion of a political get together and speaking event. I was approached by a gentleman and he asked me to explain to him what Libertarianism was and given that it was getting late in the evening, to do so in as few words and as quickly as possible as he was walking out the door. It was a unique question in the sense that when I am usually asked to explain something about libertarian politics or philosophy it is generally expected that the answer given will be as full and as enlightening as possible, a difficult balance between enough to satisfy the person seeking the information but making sure not to give too much as to overload the listener so that he tunes out. It was a challenging question in the sense that I needed to make a strong enough intellectual impact for this guy to not forget what I said as soon as he gets in the car and turns on FoxNews radio or NPR.

I had a wonderful opportunity to engage a politically active individual who was genuinely interested in what it meant to be a libertarian and I didn’t want it to go to waste. Maybe the only thing preventing this gentleman from donating to the Libertarian Party, getting involved in libertarianism, or volunteering for a Libertarian’s campaign team was the need for quick reassurance, the need to make a connection with a real person (rather than through a computer screen). I remember what it felt like as I was intellectually working my way into a better and more complete understanding of libertarian thought. Having been a member of a major political party my entire life up to that point while having virtually no knowledge of the vast amount of libertarian literature that was out there, making the switch was not something to be taken lightly. I would imagine that for some there was no such thing as “becoming a libertarian,” perhaps to them libertarian-leanings were as simple and inconsequential as flicking on a light switch. For others though, the switch can represent a sea-change in thinking, analyzing, and viewing the world around them. It extends beyond politics into their daily lives. Libertarianism can be an awakening. Just think of that for a moment. Imagine you’re that person where your whole life you were a Republican or a Democrat, your family was Republican or Democrat, your friends were Republicans or Democrats and now you have just been awakened. You read the Mises blog and subscribe to the Lew Rockwell daily email so you figure there must be others like you out there but for the time being you may be the only one in your day to day life. Perhaps you were lucky enough to stumble across Isaiah’s Job by Albert Jay Nock and you get to Part IV and Nock writes:

What chiefly makes it so, I think, is that in any given society the Remnant are always so largely an unknown quantity. You do not know, and will never know, more than two things about them. You can be sure of those – dead sure, as our phrase is – but you will never be able to make even a respectable guess at anything else. You do not know, and will never know, who the Remnant are, nor what they are doing or will do. Two things you do know, and no more: First, that they exist; second, that they will find you. Except for these two certainties, working for the Remnant means working in impenetrable darkness…“

Right. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely love Nock’s writings but if this is your first foray in libertarianism you might be worried that the reason libertarians so strongly support individual freedom and sovereignty is because they think they are the only ones out there anyway. Further on in Part IV you get to this passage:

One of the most suggestive episodes recounted in the Bible is that of a prophet’s attempt – the only attempt of the kind on the record, I believe – to count up the Remnant. Elijah had fled from persecution into the desert, where the Lord presently overhauled him and asked what he was doing so far away from his job. He said that he was running away, not because he was a coward, but because all the Remnant had been killed off except himself. He had got away only by the skin of his teeth, and, he being now all the Remnant there was, if he were killed the True Faith would go flat.“

Now you may begin to wonder like Elijah if you are the only member of the Remnant remaining on Earth. How lonely that can feel! Luckily for Elijiah, he didn’t have to continue wondering as he had a pretty good source tell him that he was not alone (“and as for your figures on the Remnant,” He (God) said, “I don’t mind telling you that there are seven thousand of them back there in Israel whom it seems you have not heard of, but you may take My word for it that there they are.”) For the rest of us, we have to continue searching on our own and we learn later on that we are not alone and that there are many of us out there (and that our numbers are growing every day) going about our business and being active in our own ways.

Given the above, as he asked me the question you can imagine my mind starting to race. Do I tell him about our non-interventionist foreign policy? What about our support of free markets? How can I leave out our support for as limited a government as possible or lower taxes and less government spending? Maybe I should tell him about our position on sound money and why I support ending the Federal Reserve? I wonder if this guy is a Republican and I can make the connection easier for him by discussing Ron Paul?

All of those are wonderful ideas and positions to discuss with someone who wants to learn more about libertarianism but how could I possibly explain Austrian economics, the history of the Federal Reserve, or the merits of a non-interventionist foreign policy in such a short period of time as he was readying to walk out the door? I supposed I could have given him one of any number of libertarian leaning websites out there that he would have been able to go home and spend as much time as he needed reading up on it all but making an effective face-to-face case on the benefits of liberty will surely make far more of an impact. Just as we got to the doorway to say our goodbyes it hit me. The four words I was about to give him as an answer to his question encompassed everything we believe as libertarians. These four words explain the reasoning behind free market principles, behind non-interventionism, behind sound money, behind respect for individual freedom and sovereignty…

So, what is libertarianism all about in five seconds or less?

Live and let live.

*Written by Alex Herbert.

Elizabeth Warren, the architect behind the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), was on the April 26^th episode of The Daily Show to discuss what the show described as “Congress’ fight to kill the consumer agency before it helps middle-class families.” Increasingly Elizabeth Warren has resorted to the age-old political tactic of demagoguery.

Warren’s message is clear, you are with me or you are against the middle class. While talking with Jon Stewart, she described proposals from FSC Republicans as a “knife in the ribs” of consumer protection. She went on to state, “It really is, who are you here for? Are you here for moneyed interests? Are you here for the powerful and the political? Or are you here for these working families who get up every day and have a million things to worry about, to think about, to try to get done before they go to bed at night. Are you here to say that they are entitled, they have a right, to a system just a little more fare – just a little more secure.”

Strong words. After listening to Professor Warren it is difficult to suppress the urge to invest in tar and feathers and defend her honor against the first the person who dare utter an ill word about her or her bureau.

So allow us to evaluate the severity of these “knives” she talks about. One of the bills Warren refers to, proposed by Congresswoman Shelley Capito (WV), seeks to “postpone the date for the transfer of functions to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection if the Bureau does not yet have a Director in place.” Is Ms. Capito a champion for “the powerful and the political” by daring to question whether a new government agency should be allowed to start regulating financial servicers without a confirmed director? It is not as if there has not been plenty of time for the Senate to confirm such an appointee. The Dodd-Frank Act, the piece of legislation authorizing the CFPB, was enacted on July 21^st, 2010 and the President has been free since that date to name a director so they may be confirmed. A cynic may wonder if Professor Warren has her own self-interest at work here. The Huffington Post points out that, without Congresswoman Capito’s bill, Warren could serve as Director of the CFPB without a Senate Confirmation some on the left fear she could not receive.

Elizabeth Warren is passionate and charismatic. She is easy to like and, I believe, genuinely has the best interests of American consumers at heart. Unfortunately she is guilty of either misunderstanding the position of many of her skeptics, or is intentionally demonizing her opponents in order for populism to triumph over reason.

Dictionary.com defines demagoguery as “to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.” I can think of no better way to describe Professor Warren’s Daily Show performance.

*Written by Tho Bishop.

Some concepts are so commonplace that we rarely spend any time evaluating them, taking them for granted. Human beings spent centuries converting carbon dioxide into oxygen without ever understanding the complexities of their respiratory system. How many apples were seen falling from trees before Sir Isaac Newton discovered gravity? Why is water unquestionably more important than diamonds, yet unquestionably less expensive (if you are curious it’s because of the economic law of diminishing marginal utility.)

An example of this phenomenon in political science is the concept of a political “right” and a political “left”. Fascism, we are told, is a “far-right ideology” while socialism and communism are “far-left”. George W. Bush is “right-wing” while Barack Obama is “left wing”. If Sarah Palin is a “far right” politician, what does that make Ron Paul? Is prohibition “left-wing” or “right-wing”? What is the “right-wing” position on civil rights? The clarity of definition is needed.

Where did the notion of a political right and left come from? The French Revolution. It was first during the National Assembly where those in favor of conserving the monarchy arranged themselves on the physical right while those in favor of revolution were moved to the left. This division would remain as the Legislative Assembly replaced the National Assembly in 1791.  This alignment of French politicians established the political spectrum: reactionaries on the right, revolutionaries on the left, moderates in the center.

While France and her European neighbors were countries founded upon monarchy, state-religion and nationalism, America was founded on liberalism (of the classical variety, today referred to as libertarianism) – it is important to understand the consequences of this difference. By changing the political foundation of a country, you change the political spectrum of the country. George Washington is a revolutionary figure in Europe, but a reactionary figure in American history.  Therefore an American conservative and a European conservative are of two very different ideologies.

While the French Right would go on to support reactionary causes such as a return to monarchy and re-establishment of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be nonsensical to connect these beliefs to the American Right. Likewise it would be similarly nonsensical to arbitrarily connect the position of a certain modern political party to a side on this timeless political spectrum; it is the position an individual or party takes that places them to the left or right. If the Republican Party tomorrow advocated the establishment of Christianity as a state religion, this would be a revolutionary act and a violent rejection of the wishes of America’s Founders.

While Marxist socialism has failed when implemented, Karl Marx is still arguably the most influential philosopher of modern academia. This point is made quite clear whenever one finds an intellectual who views political or economic matters in terms of “class”. Sociologist Robert Maclver in his book The Web of Government wrote:

The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the center that of the middle classes. Historically this criterion seems acceptable. The conservative right has defended entrenched prerogatives, privileges and powers; the left has attacked them. The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to the hierarchy of birth or of wealth; the left has fought for the equalization of advantage or of opportunity, for the claims of the less advantaged.

It is quite easy to point out the failure of this position. Constitutionalist Ron Paul, for example, has been the most vocal critic of the Federal Reserve in modern American politics; one of his major criticisms of the reserve is its providing unchecked power to bankers and politicians in American fiscal policy. Deregulation of industry, considered a “far-right” position, empowers consumers at the expense of politicians, bureaucrats and corporations. Unless one wishes to attempt to label the Tea Party as a “far-left movement”, this is an indefensible definition of the spectrum.

So is President Bush, a man who bailed out the banks, advocated for an increased Federal role in education, and a large advocate of international welfare a right-wing President? Is fascism a right-wing ideology, in the American sense? (National Socialism was a return to the policies of Otto von Bismark, which is why it was even considered right-wing in a German sense.)  Is it reactionary to kill abortion doctors?

I think the issue of Gay Marriage provides an interesting view of the right-left spectrum. Are progressives, who are advocating against a Christian bias in government, on the right of this issue? No. Progressives don’t simply want equal treatment, but want to use government to elevate a homosexual relationship to the same level as a heterosexual relationship – an attempt at social engineering. Conservatives (and I use the term in it’s modern usage), similarly want to use government to keep homosexual relationships lower than their heterosexual counterparts, typically grounded on a religious position. This too, I contend, is not a right-wing approach.

The problem, a true American classical liberal would say, is the role of the State in the process.

The reactionary position would be for the government to get out of the institution of marriage entirely. Instead of marriages, which should be between a couple and God, a civil union would be a contract between two sovereign individuals and their government. What’s the difference? To illustrate I will point to the Golden Girls. The sit-com placed three widows and a divorce into a house that became a pseudo-family. The relationships were all platonic, and neither of them would have had interest in marrying another. What they would have had interest in, however, is securing similar familiar rights for occasions such as hospital visitation and financial matters. Blanche should have been able to have a civil union with Rose, with all the benefits and liabilities a contract like that would secure.

This solution retains the philosophy of self-governance advocated by the Fathers, is religiously value-free, and serves to eliminate any attempt (be it progressive or Christian) at social engineering.

I have come to consider the 20th Century to be a Dark Age of Western Civilization; a return to the statist collectivism champions of liberty thought the Enlightenment destroyed. The 1900’s saw the perversion of such key concepts as liberalism and individual rights, best demonstrated with FDR’s Second Bill of Rights. The irony of today’s divide between conservatives and liberals is that neither side is conservative or liberal – it is only a libertarian (not to be confused with a Libertarian) that can intellectually claim to be either an American conservative or a classical liberal. For most of the 20th Century, America has had the choice, not between right and left, but of a traditionalist progressive or a secular progressive. Let’s not allow the same to be said of this century.