Featured

Former Libertarian Party of Michigan Vice-Chair Kim McCurry’s Criticism of My Sincere Defense of Libertarian National Committee Vice-Chair Arvin Vohra

Former Libertarian Party of Michigan Vice-Chair Kim McCurry (maiden name being Moore) recently criticized my post defending Libertarian National Committee Vice-Chair Arvin Vohra. She took issue with the fact that I wrote a Facebook post on May 16 of this year, which was tied to her FB post which was about the following:

 

Bill Denton continues:

Of course, this next screenshot says it all about what McCurry and her allies have said months ago:

Notice Kim’s statement in which she comes off demanding to her readers and admits she’s a “conservative libertarian” who wants “social issues out of the LP”:

In the same week, I wrote my Facebook post in the following manner:

I ended up changing the first part of my post to assuage McCurry, but now I realize it was a waste of my time because she backstabbed me on there by having a discussion targetting me behind my back as well as every principled purist in the Libertarian Party.

I think you get the point anyway.

I also had a brief response to Kim as well. This is what the exchange on Facebook went:

It’s sad when you have the former state vice chair of a political party shit on you for the reasons outlined in the screenshots. But then that’s politics for you, especially Libertarian politics.

CONCLUSION

The painfully, ugly reality is this: Kim McCurry was doing her very best to minimize the attacks made against Arvin Vohra over his anti-military comments. She kept telling me that I was in the wrong, that Arvin’s comments had nothing to do with various members who were leaving the Libertarian Party when that was *TRULY* the case. She kept justifying their reasons for their departure by stating that my comments and Arvin’s statements had nothing to do with their leaving and that their decision to say “sayonara” to the Party was due to issues that allegedly had nothing to do with Arvin at all – an argument that I don’t buy and never have bought at all. Moreover, it’s an argument that I WILL NEVER BUY!!!

The problem is this: when you have conservatarians in the Party, they will water down its principles. When conservatarians try to inject social conservatism into the Party’s own political tent, they almost immediately turn the Party into a near carbon copy of their original political organization – in this case, the Republican Party.

Libertarians who want to win elections need to win them and preserve their principles – a lesson that even Ron Paul‘s very own Penny Langford Freedom told Adam Kokesh on his radio show Adam vs. the Man. Libertarian political campaigns are not, should not, and must never be organized and launched to educate the masses about liberty and its spectacular benefits. If people wanted to be educated about liberty and libertarianism, they would read a book on it or take courses in it at, say, the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Libertarian campaigns function for one purpose – and one purpose – only: to win and to enact policies from a strong Libertarian standpoint. They’re not set up to entertain the masses and tell people what the candidates and their supporters want to hear.

That doesn’t mean we reject the nonaggression principle. On the contrary, the NAP should be followed to the letter. To do that you can join the Libertarian and sign the pledge (which is the heart and soul of that principle) and pay your $25. That’s what it was designed for. But when it comes to winning elections you must tailor your message to placate the masses and, if you win and if elected, enact legislation and other policies that would bring about that Libertarian spirit.

That’s what Arvin had in mind. That’s what I had in mind. It’s too bad, however, that Kim McCurry and her legions of followers don’t have that in mind.

 

 

Featured

The Libertarian Party of Illinois’s Letter to the Libertarian National Committee Calling for the Ouster of Vice-Chair Arvin Vohra

 

After Libertarian National Committee Vice-Chair Arvin Vohra made the comments about why young men are tricked into joining the military and who have made the decision to do it especially for the wrong reasons, the Libertarian Party of Illinois has done something that no state party has done within the last number of years. That “done something” is this: that state party has officially called for the booting of Vohra from the LNC immediately. This is in light of Vohra’s statements on the military and war establishment which were posted on this blog and the continuous showcasing of what the pro-war crowd has tried to do to Vohra since then.

Here’s the letter from the state party calling for throwing him out of the National Committee:

By taking Arvin’s statement out of context, that entire state-run affiliate has been invaded, pervaded, and infiltrated by a bunch of warmongers. None of them love libertarianism and liberty by the way.

This is another sign of the ultra-moderates and the conservatives collaborating to destroy the Party from within and to throw out of our organization good men like Vohra. This is sad, heartbreaking, and full of fear now that my colleagues and I will fight for the soul of the Party in New Orleans, Louisiana in 2018.

Tsk, tsk, tsk…..

Update #1: Here are three comments made to the letter and Vohra personally and politically so far.

Let me show you the screenshot for that.

 

Featured

The Various Members of the Libertarian Party Pushing for Persecution of Libertarian National Committee Vice-Chair Arvin Vohra Over His Anti-Military and Anti-War Establishment Comments Part 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two weeks ago Libertarian National Committee Vice-Chair Arvin Vohra wrote and posted a commentary on his Facebook wall in which he made a highly contentious, uproarious statement saying that young men join the U.S. military for a variety of wrong reasons. It is estimated that half the party base sides with Arvin on the military and foreign policy of non-interventionism, and the other half of the same base wants him to either resign, be removed from his vice-chair position, and/or removed from the Libertarian Party as a whole.

Here are more screenshots for people who want to see how belligerent, volatile, and juvenile many in the Party are:

To be specific, Indiana James (not to be confused with Indiana Jones!) stated the following:

That’s exactly what he wrote in his comments. Now onto the other screenshots:

What strikes me as a curious statement is from Libby Randi who says specifically here:

Really, Libby? Really?

Furthermore, here are more screenshots:

Here’s the second line from Dani White which is highly fundamental:

 

 

Here are the rest of the screenshots:

Here’s more into depth with Judd Weiss’s weigh-in on the ruckus:

Anyhow, here are the last remaining screenshots:

Here’s more on what Roy Britton Scherer said to Steve Toffanelli as well. They both go back and forth with each other, all the while both men are right and wrong regarding their viewpoints:

Alex Biro goes further on this, all the while spewing his invective and a modicum of hate towards Vohra and the entire national leadership:

The final screenshots on Arvin’s wall are here for everyone to peruse:

Ok, let’s get to the bottom of some of the posts that I find confusing with some screenshots to them.

On screenshot #6, this is what Chris Silver wrote completely:

On screenshot #15, this is what asshole party member Andrew Helmstetter wrote to Arvin, attacking him because he told the truth and Helmstetter didn’t like the truth coming about the military:

And Anthony fucking Dlugos is the ultra-moderate who loves to marginalize the purists – including Yours Truly – when it comes to strong, solid issues regarding our party positions, our party base, and the future of the Party. Honestly, he needs to fucking get out of the LP and head for the Republicans….or maybe the Democrats.

Either way, I don’t fucking care.

Also on the same screenshot (as I label it “Screenshot 15(B),” a party member by the name of Rich Turvey – and I have no idea why he’s in the Party because he doesn’t believe in Liberty 100% – attacks our chairman in response to his commentary with the following:

When you have fucking idiots like these people, you know the Party itself is in serious trouble and on a death spiral. Hugh McDonnell can go fuck himself.

Here is some of the hilarious stuff between butthurt asshole fuckwad Zach Garretson and some of the most respected people who are standing up for truth. The truth hurts, doesn’t it, Zachy Boy?

As for Italian stallion Anthony Dlugos, he wouldn’t know what a war was if his ass were strapped to a SCUD missile. He’s a delusional freak and a pro-war monster. He never accepted our Party philosophy, but yet we welcomed him anyway. Fucking sick and pathetic.

Here’s the rest of Garretson’s statement from the LP Veterans Caucus:

On screenshot #20, LP members Cathy Smith, Will Smith (not to be confused with good-looking actor Will Smith), and Christopher Hicks, in their assholish, insulting, condescending, and marginalizing way, called for Vohra to resign. Michael Sanchez, a party member and a dipshit, says nothing of great and paramount value here.  It’s the same with asshole Michael Lawrence. At least Bob Broda has the moxie, the chutzpah, and the balls to tell things like they are:

Specifically, Bob said in part that brings the point closer to home:

On screenshot #23, Justin O’Donnell spoke out of two sides of his mouth when he addressed his gripe to Arvin:

On screenshot #25, Edward L. Garrett, a prick-for-a-party-member, decided to deride Vohra over his comments:

On screenshot #27, another backstabber Craig Bowden turns on Arvin as if Bowden is truly and gravely in the right here.

Donny Henry is also another fucking backstabber. I know the principles of the Party inside and out, and this putz doesn’t know shit from shinola:

On screenshot #30, Michael Coombs and Donny Henry might as well have been a tag team with the way that they behaved on Facebook that night:

On screenshot #32, at the end of the pic, Marc Montoni finishes his statement with the last line that ends up on at the beginning of screenshot #34. Of course Craig Bowden wasted no time to point out the problems that he had with Arvin’s statement, which makes him a fucking dickhead in my opinion:

More from Bowden himself:

I wish Sarah Daggers hadn’t legitimize his points, but the damage is done. So much for party unity. PUMA!*

Conclusion

Arvin Vohra isn’t the enemy here. The enemy here are the people who believe that war is necessary, that military service is necessary, that combat is good, that government is “great” at “national defense” (which is really national offense, but we can’t say that when we’re fighting four or more wars right now). The Libertarian Party has been fighting a war within itself – the conservatarians versus the purists, the purists versus the ultra-moderates, and the ultra-moderates versus the conservatarians, and so on.

Will Coley was right on in this following video:

And all because of what Arvin said was the following:

He didn’t make that statement on his Facebook post. Yes, he did make it in a private post to Michael Sanchez (who has gone on record admitting that he was the one who released that screenshot of that conversation!) on the site’s server, but he did to make a point: as long as we pay taxes into the system and fund the wars, we are “accessories to murder.” As long as you voluntarily sign up for the military – that is, no one forced you to do it or talked you into it or made you do it – you are an accessory to murder. Soldiers kill. They are there in the deep, uncharted terrains of the Middle East to terminate anyone with equal precision and indiscriminately. It could be a man, a woman, a little boy or girl, or perhaps a baby they kill. Perhaps a cat or a dog. It doesn’t matter. They kill without remorse or fear. They are programmed to kill, and it doesn’t matter what anyone says or does. They kill.

What do these LP members who object to Vohra’s commentary think that they were doing when they were in the service? Serving Venti Starbucks Lattes to the people in the villages, especially on the streets of many cities? Selling electronics to customers who needed them badly? What did they think they were doing?

As Jesse Ventura once said, “That’s doing your job.” [Time Index 4:40]

I can hear the LP members foaming at the mouth at me calling me all sorts of disgusting and vulgar names.

[*Note: PUMA means (P)arty (U)nity (M)y (A)ss.]

The Various Members of the Libertarian Party Pushing for the Persecution of Libertarian National Committee Vice-Chair Arvin Vohra Over His Anti-Military and Anti-War Establishment Part 1

Featured

The Various Members of the Libertarian Party Pushing for Persecution of Libertarian National Committee Vice-Chair Arvin Vohra Over His Anti-Military and Anti-War Establishment Comments Part 1

The latest Libertarian Party fallout over Arvin Vohra has become a public relations quagmire, although writer and Libertarian activist, member, and supporter Jill Pyeatt and many commenters on the Independent Political Report‘s post about the ruckus defend Vohra to the hilt. (The fortunate fact is that many of the commenters on IPR disagree with those who are calling for Arvin’s resignation from the Libertarian National Committee, which has been rather silent on the matter the entire time.) The sad reality is that, while many members don’t object to Arvin’s statements, there are many other members – that is, many other various members who object to statements – are the bulk of the Party’s veterans base. The fact that they are offended by Vohra’s statement is that, while it is not surprising, it certainly speaks volumes about their collective character, especially when it seems like they want to tar Vohra and many Libertarians who agree with him with the same political brush.

Here’s what Arvin said on his Facebook account, dated  May 10, 2017 at 9:17 a.m. EST:

To be more descriptive of what Cole Ebel said to Corbin Brown on the same post, the following was said:

Here are the rest of the comments as they have been presented from May 11 to the 14th:

      

Of course, there are more screenshots of the post, but it’s clear that half the member base want to oust Vohra and the other half* are defending him to the hilt.

I will post more of this nonsense in Part 2 either tomorrow night or sometime Monday.

[*Note: I’m one of the “other half” defending Arvin with everything I can muster. These neoconservatives a.k.a. pro-war fucks who have invaded the Party cannot and must not win. They are wrong all the way, and I don’t care. They are paid hit men whether they like it or not. I defend Arvin’s right to free speech as specified under the First Amendment. While he must take full responsibility for his statement, that doesn’t change the fact that he’s fucking spot-on, and, if that pisses off the LP veterans, so fucking be it.

While I value their military service and their desire and willingness to defend this country, let’s not forget one thing: no one forced them to sign up for the service, whether it’s the Air Force, the Army, the Marine Corp., or the Navy. No one strongarmed them. No one even told or ordered them to join either one of those military organizations. They joined out of their own volition.

And, while I’m on a rant here, they weren’t even drafted to fight foreign wars. They made that choice on their own. That’s on them. That’s the point Arvin was getting at. These men and women who were in the service – and many others still are – knew what they were signing up the second they signed on the dotted line at their military recruiters’ offices. A few people in the comments say that, if they didn’t shoot to kill or follow orders, they would either be jailed or dead. I will say it again: no one forced them to join the service. They made that conscious choice. Guess what? They must live with it.

And if their lives were going to be in jeopardy, that’s understandable. They would have to defend themselves. But they didn’t have to join. No one has to. There’s no draft, only voluntary military service.

It’s that simple.]

The Various Members of the Libertarian Party Pushing for Persecution of Libertarian National Committee Vice-Chair Arvin Vohra Over His Anti-Military and Anti-War Establishment Comments Part 2

Featured

Star Wars: The Last Jedi Teaser Trailer Has Been Released (Released: April 14, 2017)

Star Wars‘ teaser trailer of its upcoming installment titled Star Wars: The Last Jedi (a.k.a. Star Wars: Episode VIII – The Last Jedi) is officially out. It was released April 14.

Here’s the YouTube of the trailer:

I can’t wait to see the movie. It comes out in December of this year.

*Update: Here’s a 1920×1080 updated format of the video, which also doesn’t contain the StarWars.com YouTube Channel’s video links as well:

The film comes out on December 15. I’m gonna see it. The question is – are you?

Featured

Immigration Activist and Define America Founder Jose Antonio Vargas on Real Time with Bill Maher on March 31, 2017

Bill Maher with immigration activist and Define American founder Jose Antonio Vargas on March 31 broadcast of Real Time with Bill Maher

Immigration activist and founder of Define American Jose Antonio Vargas appeared on Friday, March 30, 2017’s 10 p.m. EST broadcast of HBO‘s Real Time with Bill Maher to discuss his views on the fact that he is, according to Bill Maher himself, “risking deportation” because he “is not completely legal” (which means he’s “illegal“) and he’s “one of the 2.5 million undocumented residents of California – 800,000 of whom live in L.A. County.”

Here’s a transcript of what Vargas told Maher during the interview segment on Real Time:

Bill Maher: All right, he is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and founder of Define American. Please welcome Jose Antonio Vargas!

Jose!  How are you, sir? How are you doing? Great to see you!

[Jose walks onto the set and sees Maher and his panelists  Gen. Michael Hayden, Fmr. Sen. Rick Santorum, and Neera Tandem sitting across from Bill. He shakes Maher’s hand and immediately begins to sit next to Maher.]

Jose Antonio Vargas: Great to see you!

Maher: Ok, first of all, I have to thank you here. I know you are literally risking deportation because you are not, uh, completely legal. Is that correct?

Vargas: Yes, uh, so I am one of the 2.5 million undocumented residents of California. 800,000 of whom live in L.A. County, so thank you for inviting me. [audience claps for him]

Maher:  Well, we hope, uh….we hope that this is….

Vargas: I don’t know…I thought I’d talk to Roger Stone. I guess we’ll try to figure this out.

Maher: Yeah. Hahaha. Not a bad guy to have on your side.  Um, so what about the, the fact that Jeff Sessions is going after sanctuary cities? This is a sanctuary state pretty much. And, first of all, please tell us what means: “sanctuary.”

Vargas: Well, actually I think…[snickers]…we have so politicized this issue that I think it’s really important that we define our terms, right?

Maher: [interrupting Vargas saying “right”] Yes.

Vargas: So it is safer, right?, for all of us – documented and undocumented U.S. citizens – if undocumented people who live here can feel comfortable reporting, talking to the cops, right?, saying, “Hey, something’s happening! Something..!” Right now in L.A. the LAPD —

Maher: [interrupting Vargas] And they’re not.

Vargas: [picking up where Maher interrupted him] — reported 25% decrease in, um, reporting rapes in the, in the Latino community because there is fair that, once you report somebody, ICE might come get you. Right? And, and for me to like – the bigger issue is here, and you know Jeff Sessions the former Governor of Alabama, who believes in states’…

Maher: [interrupting Vargas who said “who believes in states'”] The former Senator of Alabama.

Vargas: [standing corrected] Ah, the former Senator of Alabama who believes in states’ rights when he was Governor…I mean, when he was Senator of Alabama. The fact this overreach telling the federal government telling – for the federal government to tell the states how they can protect the residents [stammering here] is hypocritical at worst, but to me [stammering here] I actually think it’s important. You mentioned this. Right now there’s gonna be this bill in front of Governor Jerry Brown’s desk, asking him to sign the California Values Act that would declare California a sanctuary state. I think that, given that this state is home to a fourth of the country’s undocumented population, and in this state, nearly half of all children are have at least one immigrant parent, right?

I hope Jerry Brown signs that into law.

Maher: So… [audience claps]

Maher: [immediately after applause dies down] But how many people can come here? I mean, I often think of America like a lifeboat and a lot of the world is a raging ocean. So everybody wants to get into the lifeboat, and certainly, um, everybody has a right to be happy in the world. But, if too many people get into the lifeboat, then the lifeboat goes down.

Vargas: Having traveled to Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, it’s not like we don’t have, I mean, immigrants come to this country and build businesses. There’s actually room. When immigrants come here documented or undocumented, they start businesses. I, for example, I’m a business owner. I employ 15 U.S. citizens. I mean, 15 people are here, um, as U.S. citizens, and I provide jobs as an undocumented person. So, I think it’s for me a matter of the fact that there is no path. You know, someone right now on Twitter is saying, “Why can’t this guy just get legal?” [chuckles a bit] Probably, right?

The fact that there is no path for people like me to actually fix this, get in line wherever the line is, and try to get legal and do right by the law….the fact that there is no way to do that.

Maher: Also [interrupting], also there’s the hypocrisy angle.

Vargas: [interrupting quickly] Yeah.

Maher: You mentioned this, but this was in paper in the L.A. Times. [reading his blue card]Wages rise on California farms.” [looking up and at Jose, comments while looking at his blue card] Listen to this. There’s a labor shortage.

Vargas: Yup.

Maher:[reading his blue card] They’re “giving laborers benefits normally reserved for white-collar professionals, 401(k) plans, health insurance, subsidized housing, profit-sharing bonuses.” [Looking up at Jose] Still not tempting white people to do yard work. [Looks at his audience] White people do not want to do yard work. [Looks back at his card] That’s what it comes down to.

[Looks at his card and comments] The president of Titan Farms, a peach grower. He [reading his card] “advertised 2,000 jobs from 2010 through 2012. He hired 483, 109 didn’t show up, 321 quit in the first two days. Only 1, only 31 lasted the whole season.” He said, “We’ve never had one come back after lunch.”

Vargas: So…can you imagine..?

Maher: This is the issue here.

Vargas: [interrupting] Can you imag?

Maher: [interrupting back] Really, to me, is that they don’t want these people here,

Vargas:[interrupting quickly] Yes

Maher:[continues] but they won’t do the job, and they will not admit it. [pounds on table]

Vargas: And we put out….and we put out a sign outside the U.S.-Mexico border, saying, “KEEP OUT!,” and 10 yards in, what do we say? “HELP WANTED!”  Right? Right?

Maher: [chuckling] Right. Yeah.

Vargas: Can you imagine? Look at L.A.! Look, this city cannot function without undocumented workers. That’s the state…

Maher: [interrupts] No.

Vargas:…[continues] of Texas. 1.8 undocumented million in the State of Texas. Can you imagine undocumented people not working in the State of Texas? Half of the construction industry depends upon that. [some people in the audience claps]

This is why I think the opportunity to be here. I ever tell you… I cannot….I cannot overstate the level of fear, the level of confusion that our families.. My grandmother is probably watching right now, going like, “Why is he on television? He should be in hiding!” [audience laughing] So I can’t overstate that enough. Actually, my, my being here is my form of resistance. I will not be scared! [audience cheering] I will not be scared to be public and out in a county that is my own.

The question now is, all of you here – all of you now watching, how are you going to provide sanctuary to us in your churches, at your schools, at work? 11 million people. 11 million undocumented people live within the 43 million immigrants –

Maher: [interrupting] You think the churches should do it?

Vargas: – in this country [answers Maher’s question] Well, actually right now there’s this woman Jenette Visgarin in Denver. She has taken sanctuaryata Unitarian Church because the Catholic Church that she belongs to, um, did not want to help her out. She’s gone through all these churches, and she’s like…

Maher: [interrupted him] They’re, they’re providing sanctuary to the priests. [audience laughs, and Maher turns to and looks at Rick Santorum] Sorry, Rick. So sorry.

Vargas: [laughs] I’d love your thought on that.

Here’s the show’s Overtime segment:

Here’s the YouTube channel video of that segment:

Here is the March 17th L.A. Times in the form of 15-part pics:

The arguments contained in the article and the Maher interview with Vargas should give anyone a good reason why there should be open immigration and that immigration, not the State, should be the steward of free market labor.

Featured

My Own April Fools’ Day Joke Today

Here’s my own April Fools’ Day joke which I wrote on Facebook today. It got some attention from commenters, and I’m very certain my readers found some great humor in it (Hehehehe!).

You have to admit that it was a funny joke. Hehehe. 😀

Featured

Statist Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters Attacks Fox Business’s Kennedy for Her Righteously Scathing Commentary on the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

Hot Fox Business property Lisa Kennedy Montgomery, the head host of Kennedy on Fox News‘ sister network, recently endured a heated exchange between her and neoconservative statist United States Army (U.S. Army) Lieutenant Colonel (Lt. Col.) Ralph Peters regarding the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)‘s spying on Americans, especially when Peters took her to task over her opening monolog which was saturated with criticism of the agency’s spy tactics on every innocent American who isn’t regarded as a terrorist suspect. Kennedy, of course, stood her ground all the while the retired lieutenant colonel tried to talk over her on the issue at hand.

Here’s a transcript of the entire discussion that has ignited an interest in their solidly-heated exchange that aired on March 9, 2016:

Lisa Kennedy Montgomery: WikiLeaks is painting the CIA to be a vast domestic spying agency. What a shock! The [Department of] Defense now is reportedly opening an investigation into how WikiLeaks got that CIA data. But is all the government snooping truly necessary to keep us safe? Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters joins me. He’s Fox News’ strategist analyst and former Army Intelligence officer.

Welcome back, Lieutenant Colonel!

Lieutenant Colonel (Lt. Col.) Ralph Peters: Hi, Kennedy.

Kennedy: Hello… darling! (smirking for a moment) Okay, so let’s talk about this ’cause the timing is very curious. Do you think that this dump of WikiLeaks-CIA information, uh, coincides perfectly for some reason with Donald Trump’s claims that the Obama administration was wiretapping his phones at Trump Towers?

Peters: Of course it does. And this is Russian intelligence working through its…its cutout WikiLeaks, uh, trying to cover up for the blooper when the President said, without any substantiation whatsoever, that President Obama was wiretapping him.

Kennedy, what you said in your monolog just isn’t true. Nothing in this release says that the CIA was spying on the American people. Nothing. These techniques are techniques we use against our enemies. Would you like – libertarian or not.

Kennedy: Yeah.

Peters: Do you want the CIA and the NSA to stop spying on terrorists, to stop spying on the Russians, to stop keeping us safe? That it would be a dereliction of duty had the CIA not develop programs. I mean, we – Hello? Terrorists use smartphones, terrorists use computers. And terrorists [interrupted by Kennedy]

Kennedy: So do Americans, and there’s, there’s, there’s nothing in the information

Peters: No….

Kennedy: [Disagreeing with him] that we have been given that reassures us that they are not spying on American citizens, and this technology is so accessible

Peters: [interrupting] You’re dealing with due diligence….

Kennedy: [interrupting Peters] …. and so broadly used that we know from a number of sources that, that

Peters: [interrupting]  No, we don’t. Which sources? Which sources?

Kennedy: [interrupting] Yes, the government has, in fact without warrants, went-

Peters: [interrupting] Kennedy, ok.

Kennedy: [interrupting] -spying on American citizens

Peters: [interrupting] Give me one instance….give me one instance of the CIA.

Kennedy: [interrupting] I don’t give the CIA the benefit of the doubt.

Peters: [interrupting angrily] Well, then ok, you don’t have to, but I’m a patriot. I worked in intelligence. The CIA is too busy to spy on people’s lives. It’s not, their lives aren’t interesting. I’ll tell you, when the American people are being spied on

Kennedy: [gently interrupting] Yes.

Peters: [again interrupting] – not by CIA, not by NSA, but by Google, by Facebook, by [unintelligible]

Kennedy: [interrupting quickly] Ok, but here is, here is what I understand, and that’s one of the things that I said in my monolog.

Peters: [interrupting rudely] So that doesn’t matter. Why doesn’t it matter? If Google spies on us, that’s okay, right?

Kennedy: [interrupting again] Let me respond to that.

Peters: [interrupting] The CIA….

Kennedy: [interrupting again] Let me respond to that.

Peters: [interrupting] Will you let me respond?

Kennedy: [interrupting incessantly] Well, no…

Peters: [interrupting] All right.

Kennedy: [interrupting] You just made a statement, and I’m saying to you what I said in my monolog. Everyone is spying on you. They’re all spying on each other. But…

Peters: [interrupting] But not enough. The CIA is not on the American people.

Kennedy: [interrupting] Yes, they are. Uh, I have to enter into [interrupted by Peters]

Peters: [interrupt] Give me proof. Give me proof that the CIA is spying on the American people. Ain’t happening!

Kennedy: [interrupting, talking over Peters] I have to enter into a relationship when…. Give me proof that they are not.

Peters [interrupting again] Well, how about the Constitution? Give me a case. Give me a case that they’re spying on any of your friends or you.

Kennedy: [interrupting, talking over him] Well, you know, Lieutenant Colonel, I would love to access some of those cases, but because of the FISA courts, it is impossible because they operate in utter opacity. So we cannot know who is being spied on and who is being wiretapped and who is under surveillance by the federal government because it operates because of Section 702 of the Patriot Act under complete darkness.

Peters: [interrupting softly] You don’t know.

Kennedy: [interrupting] There are many things we don’t know. There are some things we don’t have to know. But we don’t know the exact CIA budget is. Uh, we are now learning that they have tools beyond what Edward Snowden could have imagined in 2013.

Peters: Actually the tools revealed in, in this WikiLeaks dump are pretty basic. They’re common sense tools. Again, we need these tools to work against our enemies. Now if you can cite a single case of you or your friends or acquaintances being spied on by the CIA, please let me know, but I actually worked in that world. And people on the outside keep saying, “Ooooh boogeyman, CIA spying on us.” The CIA is really, really busy protecting us.

Kennedy, you are a libertarian. How can you possibly in any way come to the defense of Vladimir Putin who kills his opposition….

Kennedy: [interrupting] I don’t come to the defense. If, if you’ve ever watched the show….

Peters: [interrupting, talking over her] who’s subverted democracy….

Kennedy: [interrupting] I don’t come to the defense of Vladimir Putin.

Peters: [overriding her] You’re playing into Putin’s hands.

Kennedy: [interrupting] No.

Peters: [interrupting] You’re playing into Putin’s hands.

Kennedy: [interrupting] No, and I also won’t give into the new cold war hysteria.

Peters: [interrupting] The CIA is not the enemy.

Kennedy: [interrupting] Uh, those flames that people are fanning for their own political convenience. I think the truth is somewhere else and not on either of these extreme sides, which are using hysteria and emotion to try and control people, their movement, and their actions. And I’m

Peters: [interrupting] So the bottom line is….

Kennedy: [interrupting] glad that Silicon Valley is going to stand up for itself, its customers, and for privacy, and defend some of these egregious steps that the government

Peters: [interrupting] They are defending their profits. They’re greedy pigs. I mean, come on. I mean, they won’t even help law enforcement. I mean, Kennedy, do you, do you trust Putin more than the CIA?

Kennedy: [interrupting] They, they help law enforcement all the time, and, and, by the way, they, they grant access to over 80% of the requests that they get. Eh, not with warrants. These are without warrants that they get from law enforcement, so they, they actually do. But, you know, they have to appear at least as though they are using this technology to keep people safe and their information private, which is what consumers rightfully want. And that’s okay. Just because you can hack doesn’t mean you should.

Peters: [interrupting] And the CIA is interested in your consumer habits.

Kennedy: [interrupting] And, and to your, to your….

Peters: [interrupting] I love, I love, I love billionaire libertarians. [Something else unintelligible]

Kennedy: [interrupting] I know.  Amen. I’d rather have them on my side. Uh, but, but here’s the last thing. You know, I agree with you when you say that the CIA is very busy. All of these agencies are busy. The FBI is busy. The problem is they’re too busy because they’re looking at and spying on too many people, and they oftentimes….Kennedy: [interrupting]

Peters: [interrupting] Just not true, Kennedy.

Kennedy: [interrupting]….don’t get the bad guys [unintelligible].

Peters: [interrupting] This wild claim is just not true.

Kennedy: [interrupting] Really?

Peters: [interrupting quickly] The CIA and the NSA – they are made of decent people, –

Kennedy: [interrupting once again] I don’t doubt that they are made up of decent people.

Peters [interrupting] – military people, patriots.

Kennedy: [interrupting] But I also know that the CIA…

Peters: [interrupting] They don’t spy on the average American.

Kennedy: [interrupting]….created a hacking apparatus so it can operate independently of the NSA so it didn’t have a right agency looking over its true.

Peters: [interrupting] That’s not true. That’s absolutely nutcake stuff.

Kennedy: [interrupting, talking over Peters]  That’s absolutely true. No, that’s true.

Peters: [interrupting] They are needed because things move very fast today, and some specific CIA programs have to happen in a closed loop.

Kennedy: [interrupting] I wish, I wish I could have blind trust.

Peters: [interrupting]  Do you not know your enemy of the  American people?

Kennedy: [interrupting] I love my country right now. Especially I do *NOT* trust-

Kennedy: [talking over him] Of course, I don’t love Vladimir Putin. And I think Julian Assange is a kook. It’s not, they’re not mutually exclusive.

Peters: An alleged rapist.

Kennedy: What? There was, yeah.

Peters: Our government….do you wanna – are you a true libertarian? Do you not believe in a world without government, without police, without military, without intelligence agencies?

Kennedy: [interrupting] No, that’s a false dichotomy, and you know it. You absolutely –

Peters: [interrupting quickly] No, I don’t.

Kennedy: [interrupting] – know it. Yes, you actually do.

Peters: [interrupting] Intelligence agencies get a bad rap.

Kennedy: [interrupting] And do you think it’s impossible for the CIA to overstep their bounds?

Peters: [interrupting] Of course they’re human beings. They could, but show the evidence that they had. They were doing what they can. Look, in….when I was in intelligence, we got ethics training. Unlike the people in the Trump administration by the way, we got it, and we got it over and over again. We were strict in our obedience through the law.

And, by the way, no president can order surveillance. It does go through the FISA courts, and the standards were very high and very rigorous. And when I as an officer took an oath, it wasn’t to a regime; it was to the Constitution of the United States, and everyone –

Kennedy: [interrupting] Amen. You and I both agree on that.

Peters: [interrupting] – I know in intelligence believes that.

Kennedy: [interrupting, moving on] Okay.

Peters: [interrupting] Well, yes. Do you think the CIA is subverting the Constitution? Do you really think that? Isn’t that enough?

Kennedy: [interrupting] I think that, that the, the potential for abuse is so stark –

Peters: [interrupting] Ah, potential.

Kennedy: [interrupting] – and astounding that to assume that it’s not happening is, uh, doing a great disservice to individual liberty.

Peters: [interrupting for the last time] I’m not assuming. I’m telling you I’ve been there.

Kennedy: [interrupting for one final time] Lieutenant Colonel, thank you. Unfortunately, I , I have to move on and talk to party panel. You know, I always enjoy talking to you. I think you’re an incredible author. I love your books, and I love your brain even when we disagree. Thank you.

Peters: Thank you.

 

So who won this retarded argument – Lisa Kennedy Montgomery or Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters? I know the answer to that one. Do you?

Featured

Todd Andrew Barnett’s Facebook Livestream Show: Season Two, Episode 11

Here’s my newest video that I posted on Facebook.

It’s labeled as the following:

S2, Episode 11: The Successes and Failures of the Gary Johnson-Bill Weld Presidential Ticket and the Libertarian Party, Andrew Lea’s Unpopular Opinion on Planned Parenthood and Abortions, Leah Remini’s Scientology and The Aftermath And More

 

Featured

The Journey of My Life and Its Future: An Open Plea to My Fellow Libertarians and My Friends

todd-andrew-barnett-3May 1993. Who thought it would have been so long ago and how long it took for me to evolve into the human being that I am today? Who thought it would take 23 years for me to reach a state where I am a different person than I was in the spring of 1993 when I graduated from Anchor Bay High School on Sugarbush Road.* (*Note: It’s now Anchor Bay Middle School South on that road.) And no, I’m not talking about the Anchor Bay High School that’s on County Line – the one that was built in 1999 when Chesterfield Township voters – who have always been the school district’s electorate – passed a $116 million bond proposal to build a new high school and upgrade the old building so that it could become a middle school. I’m talking about my old high school, which I began attending in the fall of 1989 and graduated in early 1993.

For the most part, except for a skin disease with which I struggled throughout the rest of my childhood up though my young adult years and my weight problems, I was (and still am) an obese man. I had developed some minor health issues over the years, but nothing life threatening…….up until now.

From after February 11, 2011 (the day my father James M. Barnett passed away from cirrhosis of the liver, which predated 20 years before) up until November 22, 2016 today, I had developed a number of health issues such as Type 2 diabetes, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpora (ITP, which is a blood clotting disorder, resulting in a significant loss of platelets in my blood needed to clot my blood normally), neuropathy, hepatic encephalopathy and encephalopathy (both of which is caused by non-alcoholic stage 4 cirrhosis of the liver, which is what I have), high blood pressure, an open leg wound which is nearly healed and a number of other problems that would take a while to explain. That needs to be treated with a pharmaceutical called Lactulose which removes toxic ammonia from my bloodstream; otherwise, I’d be in a hepatic coma. Stage 4 is the final stage in which liver failure results, which means I have constant fatigue, diarrhea, and at times vomiting, although the good news for me is that at my young age, if I lose enough weight and eat very healthy constantly, I improve my chances to receive a healthy new liver. Yes, I can have a liver transplant…..but only if I act fast and lose this weight.

Why? It’s simple. I’m going to say this once and *ONLY* once: I have two years to live. That’s right. I only have two years to live, according to my gastroenterologist Dr. Gurpreet Singh who’s a resident in the Henry Ford Health System.

It scares me a lot. I’ve tried many diets and many things to lose weight, and none of them seem to work. I am, however, open to dietary and nutritious suggestions for extremely healthy eating that will re-energize my wellness and my ability to live far, far longer than I ever thought possible.

I am not afraid to die, but I am afraid of how I’m dying.

I am reaching out to my colleagues in the libertarian movement. I need help with suggestions. I don’t want my life to end like this. I need all the support I can get. If any of you have any suggestions, please tell me. Liver healthy and weight loss recipes and exercise suggestions would make all the difference in the world.

To my fellow libertarian Wiccans and Pagans: please cast some healing, energy, and life-saving spells for me. Herbs and homeopathic remedies to aid in the healing of my mind, body, and spirit…..as well as my liver…..would be most welcome. I’ve never asked anyone for anything, because I don’t like to beg for welfare and help, but I don’t know exactly how much time I have. I want to live. I want to find love. I want to be successful.

My journey faces an epilogue the likes of which I never pondered. I’m not expecting sympathy and empathy, but I am expecting some compassion….or at least some morsel of it.

Please help me. I don’t mean to beg, but I must. I need all the support that I can muster. I need all the support.

When my father passed away on February 11, 2016, it made me face my own mortality. Now my mortality faces me, and I’m staring right back at it. If I die, and I hope one day I will face that time, it will be on my own terms, not on Death’s terms and not on the gods and goddesses. It will be my own.

Help me find the new meaning of my life. I’m not asking for money, but if you see me, hug me, laugh with me, pray for me, cast spells for me, and be there for me and with me. That’s all that I can expect from you. It’s all anyone can expect.

Most of all, be my friend, because I feel alone, and in my own darkest hour, I face it.

Dr. Singh says that there are presently 70,000 livers in the U.S. alone. Out of that stock only 7,000 are granted to new liver transplant patients. If I need a liver transplant, I need it sooner rather than later.

If I need to smoke marijuana, and I’m not desperate to break the law regarding that but I’m desperate to try anything including that, then I will pursue it. No government, no doctor, no bureaucracy, no insurance company – that is, *NO ONE* – has the right to decide whether I live or die. I decide that, and I choose to live. And I will fight this illness to the very end, no matter what it takes.

Will anyone do this for me? I hope so, and I’m relying on you to help me no matter the cost.

Leave the light on. We’re gonna need to use it to see it. It’s better to see where we are than to be blind in a room which we can’t see with our own eyes.

I’m in this all the way. Are you?

Featured

Highlights of The November 11, 2016 Broadcast of Real Time with Bill Maher

Real Time with Bill Maher host Bill Maher Interviews Liberal Redneck and Stand-Up Comic Trae Crowder 1-11-11-2016
Real Time with Bill Maher host Bill Maher Interviews Liberal Redneck and Stand-Up Comic Trae Crowder

Here are highlights of the November 11, 2016 broadcast of HBO‘s Real Time with Bill Maher featuring host Bill Maher, first interview guest former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, panelists former Senior Advisor to President Obama David Axelrod, New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman, and Senior MTV News Correspondent Ana Marie Cox, second interview guest liberal redneck   and stand-up comic Trae Crowder, and special guest musician (and liberal Democrat) John Legend.

Here’s Maher interviewing Trae Crowder on President-elect Donald Trump and the failure of the Democratic Party:

Real Time with Bill Maher host Bill Maher Interviews Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder - Pic 2 - 11-11-2016
Real Time with Bill Maher host Bill Maher Interviews Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder

Real Time host Bill Maher, David Axelrod, Ana Marie Cox, and Thomas L. Friedman on President-elect Trump and the 2016 Election.

Real Time host Bill Maher, David Axelrod, Ana Marie Cox, and Thomas L. Friedman on President-elect Trump and the 2016 Election.

Real Time with Bill Maher - Bill Maher Interviews Musician (and liberal Democrat) John Legend - Part 4 - 11-11-2016
Real Time with Bill Maher – Bill Maher Interviews Musician (and liberal Democrat) John Legend

That’s the season finale of Real Time. Everything else is self-explanatory.

Featured

Bill Weld Not Only Shills for Hillary Clinton, But He Also Betrays Libertarians and The Libertarian Party

bill-weld-pic-1

Libertarian vice-presidential candidate Bill Weld, a running mate for Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson and the better half of the Johnson-Weld presidential campaign, ignited a scathing ruckus within the Libertarian Party by stating that he “vouches” for Hillary Clinton, given the fact that he has held a great deal of respect, admiration, and love for Hillary, and all those things have been absolutely apparent. This was on the heels of last week’s campaign statement by Weld in which he stated the following:

bill-welds-october-25th-statement-part-1-clip-1-10-25-2016-11-03-2016 bill-welds-october-25th-statement-part-2-clip-2-10-25-2016-11-03-2016 bill-welds-october-25th-statement-part-3-clip-3-10-25-2016-11-03-2016

Of course this was met with disgust by a number of Libertarians, including Jill Pyeatt of the Independent Political Report who was disgusted with his tone which according to her sounded like he was “giving up” and he was “kind of” endorsing Clinton.

iprs-comments-on-bill-weld-part-1-clip-1-10-25-2016-11-03-2016

After that Jill wrote the next following statement:

iprs-comments-on-bill-weld-part-2-clip-2-10-25-2016-11-03-2016

Of course, blogger and longtime on-again, off-again Libertarian activist Thomas L. Knapp of KN@PPSTER and founder of The William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism, as exemplified in the first screenshot above, took Pyeatt to task for her comments on her disillusionment with, dismissal of, and turning her back on the campaign because of Weld’s ludicrous statements. Pyeatt and Tom responded back and forth to each other, with other commenters including George Phillies, a longtime Libertarian member and activist, commenting in the thread as well.

Here are the following screenshots to prove them:

iprs-comments-on-bill-weld-part-3-clip-3-10-25-2016-11-03-2016 iprs-comments-on-bill-weld-part-4-clip-4-10-25-2016-11-03-2016 iprs-comments-on-bill-weld-part-5-clip-5-10-25-2016-11-03-2016 iprs-comments-on-bill-weld-part-6-clip-6-10-25-2016-11-03-2016 iprs-comments-on-bill-weld-part-7-clip-7-10-25-2016-11-03-2016 iprs-comments-on-bill-weld-part-8-clip-8-10-25-2016-11-03-2016 iprs-comments-on-bill-weld-part-9-clip-9-10-25-2016-11-03-2016

Of course, the campaign went to correct the media’s attention on this as they believed that the mainstream liberal statist media was spinning Weld’s statements to make them sound like he was rooting for Clinton to win.

johnson-weld-campaign-attacks-democratic-media-machine-part-1-clip-1-10-26-2016-11-04-2016 johnson-weld-campaign-attacks-democratic-media-machine-part-2-clip-2-10-26-2016-11-04-2016

The Libertarian Republic, which happens to be Libertarian activist and former Libertarian presidential candidate Austin Petersen‘s hottest libertarian news and commentary site, went on the defensive as well with the following:

the-libertarian-republic-initially-defends-bill-welds-statements-intro-clip-0-10-26-2016-11-04-2016 the-libertarian-republic-initially-defends-bill-welds-statements-clip-10-26-2016-11-04-2016

Sadly but truthfully the “statist liberal Democratic media machine” was right. Why were they right? Because, as opined by Brett Chandrashekhar on TLR, Weld is campaigning for Hillary.


the-libertarian-republics-brett-chandrasekhar-says-weld-is-campaigning-for-clinton-part-1-clip-1-11-01-2016-11-04-2016 the-libertarian-republics-brett-chandrasekhar-says-weld-is-campaigning-for-clinton-part-2-clip-2-11-01-2016-11-04-2016 the-libertarian-republics-brett-chandrasekhar-says-weld-is-campaigning-for-clinton-part-3-clip-3-11-01-2016-11-04-2016This was also reported by Liberty Viral (a sister site to TLR that is run by Liberty Laura a.k.a. Laura Meyers):

the-liberty-virals-liberty-laura-reports-on-welds-statements-to-cnns-alisyn-camerota-and-msnbcs-rachel-maddow-part-1-clip-1-11-02-2016-11-04-2016 the-liberty-virals-liberty-laura-reports-on-welds-statements-to-cnns-alisyn-camerota-and-msnbcs-rachel-maddow-part-2-clip-2-11-02-2016-11-04-2016

Soon after that a notice on Facebook by Carlos Sierra in the AZ for Gary Johnson Facebook Discussion Group appeared as the following:

gary-johnsons-campaign-manager-ron-nielson-defends-bill-welds-pro-hillary-statements-clip-only-11-02-2016-11-04-2016I took the liberty of dialing that number and the access, and, with my phone muted, the following discussion was made. The entire time Johnson campaign manager Ron Nielson and his motley crew of cronies didn’t waste any time making excuses for Weld, as he urged everyone to “see the big picture” and the ruckus was “a miscalculation.”



Johnson appears on Fox Business’ Kennedy to justify Weld’s demeanor on the talk show circuit:

Here are the interview appearances of Johnson on Fox Business‘ Kennedy show, in which he tries to portray a positive picture of what happened on CNN‘s New Day with Alisyn Cameroa and MSNBC‘s The Rachel Maddow Show:

Because of what Bill Weld said on the TV circuit, any chance of the LP getting 5% from the national ticket at the state level will never come to pass. This incident has proved one thing: Weld is a disgrace to the Party. He’s shilling for Clinton. He doesn’t give a damn about the Libertarian Party and/or even any of the members who are a part of the activist base in there. He’s the reason why the Party will never get anywhere – not today and not tomorrow, not even in the far future. As long as we as members of the Party keep churning out candidates like this, it will always be doomed to fail.

The Libertarian Party, because of what happened, might as well drop the ‘Party of Principle’ moniker because that principle is rather pretty homeless these days. The Party that was the home of radicals, purists, and David Nolan is now a shadow of its former self.

Weld is a turncoat in the eyes of many Libertarians. And that’s the sad, unfortunate reality that has become endemic of this political organization. It’s hard *NOT* to notice this fact, and it’s maddening to think otherwise.

The Party needs to decide what kind of a Party it wants to be. Does it want to be a Party so that it will house the hearts, minds, and souls of the member base that is ideologically pure libertarian, or does it want to be a Party so that it will operate as a statist, collectivistic entity to dilute and eviscerate its own principles, not to mention its rules, so that it can and will become a corrupt third major party?

We all might as well be tyrants, and I mean the Raspin and Ghengis Khan kind.

Leave a light on for tyranny, social engineering, and an autocratic society, right? Yup, yup, yup.

This blog piece is dedicated to Michelle “Shelly” Gregoire who has just left the Libertarian Party due to what William Weld has done and how many of  his apologists have treated her and what they said to her. This piece is a hat tip to her.

Featured

Gay Cultural Libertarian and Trump Supporter Milo Yiannopoulos Finally Admits to The Nation That He Isn’t Really A Libertarian

milo-yiannopoulos-on-cnbc

Gay “cultural libertarian” and Donald Trump backer Milo Yiannopoulos, who has been a very controversial figure in many prominent leftist and limousine liberal circles as well as many Democratic-supporting groups that champion political correctness, gender feminism, and the lethal social justice warrior movement, has come out to The Nation‘s D.D. Guttanplan that he isn’t really a libertarian at all. Libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, and anarchists have suspected this all along, and for someone like Yiannopoulos to cop to this is surprising, because up until now he has finally confessed to something that has been an albatross around his neck.

Guttanplan showcases Yiannopoulos’ answer on Libertarians and my political movement and party’s ideology by stating questions to Yiannopoulos who in return replied to him in the following:

What about the Libertarians?

What about them?

Are they not an acceptable alternative?

No. They’re a joke.

Why?

Libertarians are children. Libertarians are people who have given up looking for an answer. This whole “everybody do what they want” is code for “leave me to do what I want.” It’s selfish and childish. It’s an admission that you have given up trying to work out what a good society would look like, how the world should be ordered and instead just retreated back into selfishness. That’s why they’re so obsessed with weed, Bitcoin, and hacking.

I always thought those were the most attractive things about them.

Maybe so, but that’s why you can’t take them seriously. It’s all introspective and insular and selfish.

Here’s the entire Nation interview with Yiannopoulos:

the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-1-clip-1-10-16-2016

the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-2-clip-2-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-3-clip-3-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-4-clip-4-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-5-clip-5-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-6-clip-6-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-7-clip-7-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-8-clip-8-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-9-clip-9-10-16-2016

the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-10-clip-10-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-11-clip-11-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-12-clip-12-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-13-clip-13-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-14-clip-14-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-15-clip-15-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-16-clip-16-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-17-clip-17-10-16-2016 the-nations-interview-with-milo-yiannopoulos-part-18-clip-18-10-16-2016

Let me address Yiannopoulos’s objectionable point he raised at one point during his interview, specifically the part where he claims Libertarians, and that would put me into the same column along with many of my fabulous and wonderful capital (L) Libertarians and lower-case (l) libertarians, that we are “a joke”:

Libertarians are children. Libertarians are people who have given up looking for an answer. This whole “everybody do what they want” is code for “leave me to do what I want.” It’s selfish and childish. It’s an admission that you have given up trying to work out what a good society would look like, how the world should be ordered and instead just retreated back into selfishness. That’s why they’re so obsessed with weed, Bitcoin, and hacking.

Really, Yiannopoulos? So we’re “a joke” to you, all because we’re “selfish and childish,” right? We’re all just, according to your nihilistic and narcissistic British gay ass, “obsessed with weed, Bitcoin, and hacking”? Yes, we do want to legalize weed, and no, not all Libertarians and libertarians are into Bitcoin, although many of my ilk do like that digital currency.

Hacking? No, that’s wrong, because that would principally and cardinally be the equivalent of stealing someone’s set of keys and unlocking and going into that individual’s car and driving off into the sunset (a la stealing it) without telling the car owner what you plan to do with his or her property.

Another good analogy would be is this: that would be like taking that same set of keys and using one of the unused keys and unlocking and entering that individual’s home and stealing his or her TVs, his or her Blu-Ray players, and his or her kitchen plates. That would also include his or her Corona Light beer, most of his or her recent grocery store-bought limes, his or her clothes found in one of the bedroom closets, and his or her credit cards, checks, and cash. Then that thief would put ’em all in his or her car and driving off into the sunset after leaving the house unlocked and without bothering to tell the original owners that you were at their home.

No, we don’t hack into other people’s computers. That’s a violation of private property rights. The government’s property? That might be a different story, because the State can hack into our computers and record and listen to us all the time. But we don’t do that to people who are undeserving of that. We are better than that.

It’s an admission that you have given up trying to work out what a good society would look like, how the world should be ordered and instead just retreated back into selfishness.

No, it’s not “an admission” of anything. We “haven’t given up trying to work out what a good society would look like” because that’s tantamount to social engineering, and we are not trying to engineer – meaning mold or model society – into whatever we want it to be. We want to free individuals from the State, and live and let live. We want people to be free – free of tyranny, free of control, free of taxation, free of regulation, free of central planning, free of the State’s never-ending spending sprees, free of state-imposed debt and deficits, and free of Keynesian economics.

It is about returning to true autonomy of the individual, true free(d) markets,  true minimal government, repeal of state-imposed taxation and spending, true market regulations, true market mechanisms, and Austrian economics. It’s about allowing the individual to pursue his dreams and endeavors without the permission of the State and enabling entrepreneurs and free enterprises to flourish without their need to look over their own shoulders and see whether the guns of the State will thwart their very own-self interests. That’s what *REAL* individualism and liberty are all about, not the other way around.

In our world we don’t need order. The State leaving us alone to our own devices and allowing us to learn from our own failures and our mistakes are what make us all human in the end. It’s not our job to ensure “what a good society would look like.” Human beings are not cattle to be herded, not robots to be controlled with a remote control, and so on. We are not automatons. We are human beings with our own interests and desires to seek our own individual and own sovereign dreams, wishes, and desires.

So what if we are “selfish”? Yes, we are selfish. Human beings by their own nature are selfish organic entities. So what’s your point? You are selfish too, Milo, and you know it. You are selfish because, rather than carrying on with your life to further your own individual desires without the sheer brute power of force, you want to use coercion on other people to get and have your own way. That’s your brand of selfish. You are vain, narcissistic, and a nihilist, and that makes you more dangerous than political correctness and social justice warriors combined.

I oppose political correctness, and I despise social justice warriors. But I oppose and despise narcissistic, nihilistic, and vain people who love themselves so much that they must forcefully impose that need for adulation onto other people to get what they want. Libertarians like me are not interested in that, and we shouldn’t be interested at all. That’s not what attracts me to libertarianism.

What attracts me to that movement and to the Libertarian Party….is liberty.

T.J. Brown a.k.a. That Guy T of FEE furnishes his report on his friend Yiannopoulos with the following piece:

taleed-t-j-brown-of-fee-org-on-milo-yiannopoulos-comments-on-libertarians-part-1-clip-1-10-20-2016 taleed-t-j-brown-of-fee-org-on-milo-yiannopoulos-comments-on-libertarians-part-2-clip-2-10-20-2016 taleed-t-j-brown-of-fee-org-on-milo-yiannopoulos-comments-on-libertarians-part-3-clip-3-10-20-2016 taleed-t-j-brown-of-fee-org-on-milo-yiannopoulos-comments-on-libertarians-part-4-clip-4-10-20-2016Taleed is right, and Milo is wrong. We do “want to do what we want” because, as Taleed correctly notes, it’s “within the bounds of respecting individual and property rights.” Absolutely the government “should have little to no authority to dictate what person does with their own person or property.” And absolutely Brexit vote to abandon the European Union (EU) was a resounding success!

Yiannopoulos is still stuck in that quaint old British new world order school of thought which suggests that a hodgepodge of nationalism. jingoism, xenophobia, mercantilism (which also signifies protectionism), feudalism, and a vibrant, euphemistic fetishism for a blending of militarism and economic fascism are the central core of a regimented economy and society, because enterprises and individuals of all stripes must be conditioned to worship the State the Donald Trump way. If everyone subscribes to his mindset, which is just as lethal and politically correct as the left that he claims about, he would command a great deal of power of the minds of every individual than he would deserve at the very least.

The fact that he is a renowned public speaker, journalist, entrepreneur, and an uproariously offensive social media darling in the alt-right world is an understatement. It is also an understatement to say that he employs his conservesque brand of political correctness so that all individuals would exemplify the “ordered society” for which he terribly craves.

Yiannopoulos’ Ban from Twitter and the Reasons Why It Happened

What is not an understatement is the fact that he has had his  Twitter account @Nero’s blue badge confiscated by the company and has been banned on Twitter because he harassed Ghostbusters actress Leslie Jones by calling her “a black dude” and that she was “barely literate.”

Here are some of the screen shots that chronicle what followed:

milo-yiannopoulos-attacks-leslie-jones-part-1-07-20-2016 milo-yiannopoulos-attacks-leslie-jones-part-2-07-20-2016 milo-yiannopoulos-attacks-leslie-jones-part-3-07-20-2016 milo-yiannopoulos-attacks-leslie-jones-part-4-07-20-2016Of course Jones responded:

What people don’t know is that Yiannopoulos either employed a fake Twitter generator and used Jones account handle @Lesdoggg to create fake tweet or shared them with everyone on the site, making it look like she was employing a homophobic tweet against Milo.

Here’s one of the tweets in question:

One other tweet that Milo had faked was this one (which was actually a collection of two tweets rolled into one):

milos-tweet-clip-1

Here’s another fact to point out here: after Yiannopoulos was banned from the site, conservatives and many members of the alt-right community on the site feed crafted a new hashtag: #FreeMilo.

Here are a slew of conservative and libertarian Twitter users who acted out against the company for its censorship tactics:

and finally,

The reason for Milo’s Twitter ban is obviously: he did harass Jones, especially while he resorted to name-calling. While Jones herself isn’t exactly a Girl Scout herself given that she’s had a racist history evidenced on her account, she didn’t deserve the trolling and the fake account using her name bullshit which she was forced to endure.Yiannopoulos *INDEED* violated the site’s policies. How, you ask? Well, there are three rules of free speech that no one with a pulse worth their salt should *EVER* break:

  1. Never directly threat someone via Twitter or any social media platform as it is not protected by the First Amendment.
  2. Never slander someone on Twitter or any social media platform as it is not protected by the First Amendment.
  3. Never libel someone via Twitter or any social media platform as it is not protected by the First Amendment.

Did Milo directly threaten Jones on Twitter? No, he did not.

Did Milo slander Jones on Twitter? No, he did not.

Did Milo libel Jones on Twitter? Yes, he did *JUST* that.

He broke one of the three cardinal tenets of free speech: you never slander anyone by falsely attributing statements that the other writer didn’t write. If anything, it’s unethical, immoral, and it’s not even protected by the First Amendment. And it’s antithetical to everything that we hold dear in our hearts.

If anything, Leslie Jones has a legal case that she can pursue against Yiannopoulos, and with that evidence available, it’s very likely that she’ll win, and Milos would have no choice but to agree to a hefty settlement. That would be a grand price to pay.

Although I initially defended Milo over his right to free speech, I should’ve realized then that he would never defend your right to free speech as he is politically correct himself and he must be defending Trump who promises to open up the libel laws against anyone who makes a truthful claim about him, right or wrong.

It’s about time Milo states that he is *NOT* a libertarian. After all, we are talking about someone who refers to Trump as “Daddy.” He is a conservative statist who wants liberty for himself but no one else.

As libertarian and Libertarian activist Avens O’Brien recently noted on Milo due to the release of the Libertarian Republic‘s published article on him:

avens-obrien-on-milo-yiannopoulos-clip-1-10-23-2016

And, as Gary Johnson and Libertarian activist supporter Krystle Berger quips:

krystal-bergers-comment-on-milo-on-my-facebook-wall-clip-1-10-24-2016

I just wish other libertarians and conservatives who flock to and love him would see that clearly for once.

 

Featured

Former Libertarian National Committee At-Large Representative Wayne Allyn Root To Being Libertarian’s Mike Brokamp: Voting Libertarian “Is A Wasted Vote”

Wayne Allyn Root's February 22nd Trump Rally Opening Speech
Wayne Allyn Root’s February 22nd Trump Rally Opening Speech

Former 2008 Libertarian vice presidential contender, former Libertarian National Committee At-Large Representative, and current Republican crony backing Donald Trump Wayne Allyn Root was interviewed by  “libertarian” blog site Being Libertarian‘s Mike Brokamp to talk about why a vote for a Libertarian presidential candidate (such as Gary Johnson) and/or any other Libertarian candidate “is a wasted vote” and his support for Trump.

It’s not a surprise that Root is on the air spewing this nonsense. After all, he began supporting the Mitt Romney for President 2012 campaign while serving in his capacity as an LNC At-Large Representative and founded and headed the Libertarian National Campaign Committee (which was previously launched as the Libertarian National Congressional Committee with the national elections-registered entity Federal Elections Commission). Party insiders and leaders including Mike Blessing. then-state chair (but now currently District 1 Representative of the Libertarian Party of New Mexico, were concerned that Root at the time had been working for then-GOP presidential candidate Romney to fight Obama’s re-election bid for his second term as POTUS in 2012. (Root had left the LP later to ally himself with the Romney campaign and also run as a U.S. Senate contender and return to the GOP as a Republican. He never did run for that seat, but he left the LP, the LNC, and the LNCC to pledge his fealty to the GOP and to Romney.)

Here’s what Blessing wrote in his exclusive letter to the Independent Political Report (IPR) website:

ipr-regarding-wayne-allyn-root-part-1-clip-1-08-31-2012 ipr-regarding-wayne-allyn-root-part-2-clip-2-08-31-2012ipr-regarding-wayne-allyn-root-part-3-clip-3-08-31-2012-alternative-and-a-bit-shorter

Here’s the video for the interview:

Here’s the YouTube video with Root cheering for Donald Trump:

Root ought to keep his mouth shut. *sighs*

Featured

Politically Correct Feminist/Social Justice Warrior Named Susan D’Angelo and the Impersonality of Texting: The Demonization of Calling People on Facebook Messenger

Politically Correct Feminist/Social Justice Warrior Susan D'Angelo and Facebook Sucks Pic
Politically Correct Feminist/Social Justice Warrior Susan D’Angelo and Facebook Sucks Pic

I’m going to come out and just say it. I don’t like texting. I’ve come to that conclusion about a while back, perhaps months ago or perhaps a year ago. Does it really matter when I’ve reached this forgone conclusion? I guess I’m old-fashioned when it comes to speaking with people, even people whom I don’t know. Not that I’m trying to be their collective best friend in the world, but I do enjoy some small talk and some decent conversation in the real world.

My hatred of texting occurs mainly on Facebook and Twitter, considering it’s the only way to communicate with people who live thousands of miles away. It’s become the next step-up from email, which debuted in the mid 1990s. First, the old-fashioned way of writing a letter with a pen and scribbling your thoughts on a sheet of paper was the standard way back when I was a child up to 1995, two years after I graduated from high school. Then it was email and going on America Online. Before you know it, Yahoo! Chat, and writing on forums. Before you know it, Facebook, MySpace (which only lasted in popularity for a few years), and later Twitter debuted. (MySpace as of today is now a shadow of its former self, but that’s not the point, is it?)

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t mind technology. But technology isn’t the point. Facebook is my focus for a legitimate reason. It has its uses. It allows us to evolve into a place that no one has ever had done before, and efficiency in society and in our lives runs rampant and without absolute question.

As for Facebook, yes, you get to meet new people online, get to know them, and establish some kind of cyber-based rapport with them. You get to create pages and groups, and you get to discuss all kinds of things – from religion to politics to your favorite drinks and foods. You get to show your cute dog and cat and kids photos, make movie and restaurant recommendations to friends, and things of that sort. There was a time when Faceboo was primarily about making great connections with all sorts of people, and those were the good old days when Facebook started out in its early years.

Thus those are the top advantages of it.

However, it also has its drawbacks (which I will detail adequately on here), and yet no one wants to point them out. Some of the drawbacks of that technology, especially when you also have Facebook Messenger, can include the following (social media can either be your best friend or your worst nightmare!).

  1. Auto-correct. I hate auto-correct. When you’re typing out a word on Facebook, your phone thinks you might mean this one other word that you don’t intend to use. It uses it in place of the word you were striving to use, thus making your message nonsensical, illogical, and downright moronic. Your sentence “This fruit is organic, not conventional” might be changed to something like “This fruit is orgy, not conventional” or some stupid crap like that. Anytime you use a word on your phone, some other word your phone chooses for you especially on Facebook throws off your intended statement, transforming into a message that you didn’t want to convey.
  2. The Impersonality of Speaking with Users. One of my pet peeves on Facebook, whether people like it or not, is the impersonality of the users who convey their messages to other people. To be honest, Facebook sucks. It’s like high school on the site, and people take sides all the time with every debate team fired up and acting very combative, confrontational, belligerent, condescending, and insulting along the way. That’s the problem with texting on Facebook, even on Messenger – people *ONLY* want to talk on Facebook via texting and *NOT* getting to know other people in a personal, friendly, and face-to-face way. It doesn’t allow you to speak to people in person. Political correctness and social justice warriors go everywhere and frequent groups and wall threads to the point where even the most innocent and most innocuous forms of conversations and off-color jokes will be taken as racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, bigoted, misogynistic, and intolerant. And then those groups of predatory individuals begin to shut you down, report you to Facebook, and more often than not, Facebook will side with them. In most cases, these people have the cops and the law on their side, not yours. Sucks, doesn’t it?
  3. Rude and Puerile Tenor of Its Users Take Place There. Very often you encounter people who are rude and very childish. Their tenor – that is, their tone – as well as their demeanor towards you online is sickening and gross. In lieu of friendly and sweet friendships, you find arguments and idle threats aimed at people, not to mention talking and gossiping about people behind their backs, thus revealing your true colors. You see people becoming obnoxious, egotistical, narcissistic, and smug attitudes by people who don’t act their age, which also reflects their maturity levels that can be measured by the digits of their own hands.
  4. Self-Absorbed and Sociopathic Behaviors. People have become narcissistic to a fault. They look at what you say and do and then pick on you and reduce you to a level of irrelevance because their beliefs, ideas, and values are more paramount than yours. It’s the “me-me, I-I” culture we live in.  All bets are off when their own vanity and intolerance of your sentiments take precedence over your concerns and values. They think that their excrement don’t stink, that they are better than you, and then they laugh about you at your expense. And let’s not forget about their abusive and threatening behaviors when they think that they are so perfect and are madly in love with themselves. That’s narcissism for you.and
  5. Cyber-bullying. Many Facebook users I’ve encountered think that they can treat you like crap, walk all over you, use you as a doormat, and be mentally and verbally abusive to you, while becoming extremely angry and negative about your activities on the site as well as your intentions. They can make fun of you, put you down, and say a lot of mean-spirited and nasty things to and about you that you normally wouldn’t put up with if you and all those same people were in the same room with one another. That’s cyber-bullying – that is, the schoolyard bully’s use of name-calling, smearing, and sandbagging to get his or her rocks off at your expense.

All of these things came to a head when a Facebook user – a feminist/social justice warrior – named Susan D’Angelo with whom I became friends because she apparently was associated with people in the libertarian movement including Victor Bozzo (an anarchist whom I associate with but am not close with at all), responded to me after I called her last night.

The following chat that transpired is the following:

susan-dangelo-becoming-belligerent-with-me-after-i-called-her-on-facebook-messenger-10-22-2016

susan-dangelo-becoming-belligerent-with-me-after-i-called-her-on-facebook-messenger-part-2-clip-2-10-22-2016

Hours – nearly 24 hours – later I found this via my other Facebook account when I went to check out her profile wall:

susan-dangelo-talking-about-me-part-1-clip-1-10-22-2016

That’s when I immediately noticed that she was talking about me. And I became completely incensed about the matter. This is what you get for hating Facebook Messenger calls and rely *ONLY* on texting. But I’ll talk more about that later.

My chat with her (which I posted in this blog) speaks for itself.

Here’s more of the discussions that she’s had with people who have no idea that they’re talking about me, and they’re snake-in-the-grass pieces of shit:

susan-dangelo-talking-about-me-part-1-clip-1-10-22-2016susan-dangelo-talking-about-me-part-2-clip-2-10-22-2016-alternativesusan-dangelo-talking-about-me-part-2-5-clip-2-5-10-22-2016susan-dangelo-talking-about-me-part-3-clip-3-10-22-2016 susan-dangelo-talking-about-me-part-4-clip-4-10-22-2016

Well, you now can see what kind of a bitch she is!

She is a feminist, thinking that any guy who calls her just wants to “rape” her or commit some “sexual assault” against her. Therefore, she’s a social justice warrior (SJW), which is a pejorative term referring to an advocate for feminism, civil rights, multiculturalism, political correctness, and identity (or sexual identity) politics. That even includes gender politics as well. She seems to think that any guy who calls her, such as Yours Truly, is someone who wants to harass – or sexually harass – her because she happens to be a woman.

She also seems to think that anyone who calls her, especially Yours Truly, is a “crazy person” or wants to “scam” her out of her money. I’m neither crazy nor do I intend to scam her. I don’t even intend to sexually harass her, let alone harass her for any reason. I told her that I hated texting, and I wanted to be pals.

She stated the following:

And it doesn’t give you the right to call me.

Let’s get something straight here, Susan. The thing is this: of course I do have a right to call you. I am perfectly and legally well-within my rights to call you. You are well-within your rights not to accept my call. She could have put it on her profile that she didn’t want people like me to call her, or she could have politely asked me not to call her again. I would have honored her request if she had done either one of those two things. But those things were epic fails on her part.

You act like I committed some heinous and egregious act of microaggression, which is by far the most laughable and most ludicrous mindset that you could possibly have as an adult woman your age, size, and height. This type of mindset you just directed at me is what conservative talk radio show host Larry Elder describes as a “victicratic” one, in which microaggression and large scales of dismissals of blatant prejudice, sexism, chauvinism, etc. are directed towards minorities and women at large. Thus it creates a “culture of victimhood,” enabling people to espouse politically-correct, alien values and lethal ideas that quash free speech and the marketplace of ideas. This “culture of victimhood” enables politically-correct opportunists to act like they are “victims” of repressed society and individuals as a whole and not having decent work, moral, and pro-freedom ethics that will enable an individual to survive in life and in perpetuity.

Sorry, but I don’t buy into that logic at all. I never have, and I never will.

After all, what are you, nine-years-old?

I Don’t know you

So what if you don’t know me? Talking and getting to know someone on the phone and figuring out why they think the way they do is what verbal communication is. That’s a value that your parents passed down to you. Or did you just happen to fall asleep on them while they were trying to deliver that precious fact to you?

What do you want

As I told you, I wanted “to be pals.” I’m not exclusively looking to have you as my girlfriend, and I’m not obsessed with you. I always talk to my friends via Messenger, and out of the ones I speak with, I call very few people to discuss what’s going on with them and so on.

Besides, if I wanted a girlfriend, I’d employ eHarmony.com or possibly Match.com. I don’t like Tinder, and I’m not on Kik (although I’m not too fond of that as well). Oh, and honey, you’re not that beautiful.  Yes, I do love Italian-American women, and I’ve met nicer ones than you who are down-to-earth. Don’t try to pull that “Italian-American women are not nice, ok?” bullshit. Just so we’re clear, I don’t fall for that cockamamie shit.

That’s not an open invitation to call.

Bitch, it’s not my problem that you didn’t tell me before that you didn’t want anyone, including me, to call you. If you didn’t, you should’ve said so. Because you failed at your job to do that, that’s on you. That’s your screw-up, not mine. And, if I come off like an insensitive and intolerant jerk to you, not my problem; it’s yours.

The fact that she flippantly responded to me, even to the point of being grossly obnoxious, is undeniable in the way that she treated me. I wasn’t being a jerk to her. But even if I were, which I really wasn’t, but let’s just say I was exactly a jerk. I shouldn’t have to apologize for calling her. That’s what the Facebook Messenger feature is there for. It keeps your cell phone number anonymous so you don’t have to give it out to people.

The call icon is represented by the following:
call-button-on-facebook-messenger-clip-1

You can even video call someone and talk to them like you are Facetiming your family, friends, relatives, boyfriends/girlfriends, husbands/wives, or work colleagues. The video call icon is represented by the following:
video-button-on-facebook-messenger-clip-1

Overuse of Facebook and smartphone and laptop technology, thanks to the company, makes verbal communications between people unneeded and unnecessary. There’s no closeness, no humanity, and no personality whatsoever. Nada.

Society has demonized people for calling people on cell phones and via social media applications, and that alone has destroyed the fun, coolness, and creativity of public discussions in person. That should *NEVER* have happened, but it has.

And you know who are the usual suspects that have made it worse than ever? The millennials. Yes, that demographic alright. And they are the reason why political correctness has resurfaced in recent years. Not only that, they are also the reason why the social justice warrior movement is alive and well in all its glory.

But that goes without saying, doesn’t it?

[Note (4:49 p.m. EST, 10/22/2016): I made some tense and mild-to-medium corrections on this piece as well as some proofreading corrections on my part. It was late last night, and now that I’m fully rested, I decided to devote some time to make these corrections as they are. Otherwise, the integrity and composition of my blog piece remain immutably intact.]

[Update (5:28 p.m. EST, 10/22/2016): I went back to my other Facebook account to check on Susan’s account, considering she has blocked my primary “Todd Andrew Barnett” account on Facebook, and I discovered the additional comments she and her amazing not-so-amazing friends made that were stated on her wall post:

susan-dangelo-talking-about-me-part-5-clip-5-10-22-2016Wow! LOL! This is getting freakier, yet better and better each time she and her pals open their mouths, particularly when their discussions continue to reference me.

Since she never asked for my permission to bitch about me on her wall post, perhaps I should consult an attorney and sue her for libel. If I want to, I can pull a Donald Trump libel suit against her faster than she can say, “Holy fucking shit!”

Yup. That’s what I thought too.

[Update (12:08 A.M. EST, 10/23/2016): More comments from D’Angelo and her freaky pals on Facebook Messenger and why they hate it so much:

susan-dangelo-talking-about-me-part-6-clip-6-10-23-2016

And the massive, never-ending insanity continues unabatedly.

Featured

Libertarian Party Member and Activist Will Coley Calls Out Former LNC Chair Candidate Charles Peralo for Being A Republican

Will Coley, former Libertarian vice presidential candidate 2016 and Charles Peralo, former LNC Chair candidate 2016.
Will Coley, former Libertarian vice presidential candidate 2016 and Charles Peralo, former LNC Chair candidate 2016.

Libertarian Party member and activist – not to mention former Libertarian Vice-President candidate and Muslims for Liberty founder  and current M4L National Director Will Coley has called out former Libertarian National Committee Chair candidate Charles Peralo for being a Republican, not a Libertarian, because he has pledged his “vote for 80% of Republican elections.” Coley has been a thorn on Peralo’s side ever since Peralo publicly accused him of allegedly encouraging a Libertarian activist named Mark Matthew Herd to instigate a temper tantrum because he was highly inebriated in the hallway of the Rosen Centre in Orlando, Florida on May 28 that weekend.

Keep in mind that the following video that Peralo references comes from talk radio show host Jason Stapleton of The Jason Stapleton Program posted on his Facebook wall, dated May 28, 2016.

Here are the Facebook posts chronicling what took place on May 29, 2016:

charles-peralo-on-will-coley-instigating-mark-herd-clip-1-05-29-2016-10-21-2016
charles-peralo-on-will-coley-instigating-mark-herd-part-2-clip-2-05-29-2016-10-21-2016

Here are Coley’s posts which came out the night before:

will-coley-calling-out-charles-peralo-as-the-republican-mole-that-he-is-part-1-clip-1-10-21-2016 will-coley-calling-out-charles-peralo-as-the-republican-mole-that-he-is-part-2-clip-2-10-21-2016 will-coley-calling-out-charles-peralo-as-the-republican-mole-that-he-is-part-3-clip-3-10-21-2016 will-coley-calling-out-charles-peralo-as-the-republican-mole-that-he-is-part-4-clip-4-10-21-2016 will-coley-calling-out-charles-peralo-as-the-republican-mole-that-he-is-part-5-clip-5-10-21-2016 will-coley-calling-out-charles-peralo-as-the-republican-mole-that-he-is-part-6-clip-6-10-21-2016 will-coley-calling-out-charles-peralo-as-the-republican-mole-that-he-is-part-7-clip-7-10-21-2016 will-coley-calling-out-charles-peralo-as-the-republican-mole-that-he-is-part-8-clip-8-10-21-2016 will-coley-calling-out-charles-peralo-as-the-republican-mole-that-he-is-part-9-clip-9-10-21-2016

Jason Scheurer responded to this as well, including Zach Patman:

will-coley-calling-out-charles-peralo-as-the-republican-mole-that-he-is-part-10-clip-10-10-21-2016

This is Scheurer’s post zoomed in from Facebook as a photo: