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.

 

 

Advertisements

Judge Andrew Napolitano and the Conservatarian Crowd on Planned Parenthood Allegedly “Selling” Fetal Body Parts Are Wrong

[This is a Facebook post of mine in which I explained in great detail of my view on the wrongheaded take by Judge Napolitano and the pro-Lew Rockwell and pro-Republican crowds that support him.]

As much as I passionately love Judge Andrew Napolitano, he’s wrong on the Planned Parenthood ruckus. What PP has inarguably done is donating fetal tissue for medical research. The price points would be higher if they were truly illegal.

It is, however, illegal for the organization to make a profit off of it. The revenue collected as a result of the transactions is mostly used for shipping and handling costs.

I love it when righteously indignant conservatives, most of whom are Christian and who claim to be pro-life and pro-“it’s-for-the-children” (when they are truly pro-death, meaning pro-dead men, women, and children in war-torn countries, especially in the Middle East and pro-capital punishment), claim that this isn’t a pro-life/choice matter, and yet it *IS* exactly that. They are clearly lying when they say that this has nothing to do with abortion, which is clearly about that issue, considering they are colossally obsessed with it. More to the point, they are just as obsessed with it as they are obsessed with Big Business, organized religion, and guns. (I can’t object to the latter because I’m pro-Second Amendment/pro-gun, but I used that to illustrate a paramount point of mine.)

Besides, if it weren’t about abortion or about being pro-life or pro-choice, then why even care about these transactions in the first place? I can explain that. They’re doing so to score points on the political meter and to bolster their chances of securing the White House in 2016 on Election Day, because it is a convenient campaign issue for them.

It’s funny that conservatives and, sadly enough, even some libertarians like some of the bloggers on Lew Rockwell are making an issue out of this matter when I don’t hear a peep from them constantly about how the Red Cross donates blood for blood transfusions at hospitals and other medical facilities and uses its transacted revenues to cover the costs of shipping and handling. And yet somehow that is all fine and dandy when it serves some political purpose for them entirely.

That part of the matter falls into taxpayer subsidies for these organizations and charities. Conservatives wail about the use of taxpayer funding for abortion and other services that could be completely covered by private donors. Fine, they have a point there. One third of federal funding goes to PP for its operations, and that funding should be yanked completely. So I concur with the Right that people shouldn’t be forced – at gunpoint – to fund an organization that goes against their beliefs, whether those convictions are secular-based or religious-based.

Yet only 2 percent of the American Red Cross‘s funding is subsidized by the government via federal grants. I realize that is minuscule compared to PP’s contributions, but the percent of federal grants really doesn’t matter. Why is it wrong when the PP gets a third of federal funding, and yet it’s ok that the American Red Cross gets roughly 2 percent of taxpayer funding at taxpayers’ expense. It doesn’t matter if it gets less funding than PP or what have you. Taxpayer funding shouldn’t be used for any organization, domestic or international. And yet the wing nuts turn a blind eye to that mess.

What about Catholic Charities? According to LRC blogger Laurence Vance, 65 percent of federal funding goes to that charity. Where’s the conservative outrage over that bullshit? Why are federal tax dollars being allocated to that organization which gets more money than PP does?

It’s funny how hypocrisy and demagoguery supplant ethics and morality for the needs and wishes of right-wingers who think they have cornered the market on family values and the moral fibers of communities when they really don’t.

Sadly even Rand Paul and his father Ron Paul act like they are taking the moral high ground on this uproar when they are just grandstanding and showboating in order to prove their need for relevancy.

I still say “Fuck You!” to the Democrats, but I would like to extend that sentiment to the Republicans, including the so-called “libertarian” crowd like Christopher Cantwell and all the conservatarians whose phony outrage over this issue is enough to bring about real climate change.

*Update 08-01-2015: Self-proclaimed libertarian author and talk radio talking head Tom Woods messaged me yesterday at 12:47 a.m. EST in which he was butt-hurt over the fact that I initially listed him in the final paragraph of my Facebook post and linked him as well.

Here are the following posts I took from my phone screenshots:

Tom Woods1

Tom Woods2

 

Tom Woods3

I admit I made a mistake when I had no evidence that he took the anti-Planned Parenthood/anti-donating fetal tissue side. Thus, I was wrong. And, because I admitted to him I was wrong, I did apologize to him. That being said, at the end of the day, when all is said and done, still he didn’t have to come off as belligerent and combative about it in my opinion.

But that’s me.

*Update #2 8-01-2015: Hours after I blogged my Facebook post on here including what I wrote about Tom Woods, Woods himself, who seems to have a colossal chip on his shoulder and a massive axe to grind, messaged me on Facebook nearly two hours ago at 9:01 a.m. EST today, in which he was upset that I referred to him being “a self-proclaimed libertarian” who was “butt-hurt” that I listed him initially in my FB post in the final paragraph.

Here are the first three pics:

TomWoodsFollowUpPic1 TomWoodsFollowUpPic2 TomWoodsFollowUpPic3

As I was responding to his complaint, I noticed the following:

TomWoodsFollowUpPic4 TomWoodsFollowUpPic5
As soon as I responded in a pissed-off fashion, he then blocks me, never letting me finish my points. I was going to say the following to him:

As for your snarky response to me, in which you sarcastically and untruthfully labeled me “a classy guy,” you want to talk about who’s truly a “classy guy”? Were you being a “classy guy” when you smeared Julie Borowski‘s critics who rightfully called her out on her “slut-shaming” of women for casual sex in her infamous  “Addressing the Lack of Female Libertarians” video in your book Real Dissent? (Yes, I’m referring to Token Libertarian Girl who gave herself that name, and nobody twisted her arm and made her do it.) I suppose in your world that it’s fine and dandy to toss morality around when it becomes convenient for you and Julie to do so, but when someone calls her out on it, you have to write a ridiculous chapter about it in the form of a “pro-Julie defense” that you mounted in your book.

In your chapter “The Central Committee Has Handed Down Its Denunciation” (Really, Tom? Really? What “central committee?”), you wrote of the author of a piece on the left-libertarian blog Bleeding Heart Libertarians titled “No Girls Allowed,” “I won’t go through the whole dreary, predictable thing, which you can for yourself.” (The author of the blog piece is Sarah Skwire, and I know that you know that, so let’s drop this “the author” business, because it’s condescending and insulting to the Nth degree. I even relayed to her what was written by you on my blog on my Facebook wall at the time on December 7, 2014. She even called you “actively rude,” Tom, which is true; you were exactly that.) Classy guy, huh?

And then you wrote, “Among other things, Julie’s critics say she ‘slut shames women who engage in casual sex.’ (Shows how sheltered I am; evidently there are people in the world who use the phrase ‘slut shames.’) Doesn’t Julie know that such behavior, far from being a ’cause for shame,’ is just one of the ‘complex choices that smart, thoughtful women can and do make.’?” That’s something you would expect to hear from conservatives like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and Dana Loesch, Tom, and not a true-blue dye-in-the-wool libertarian. Classy guy, huh?

You even wrote, “Julie’s critics can’t conclude their attack without unbosoming the lasting trauma of the whole episode for them; today, because of Julie’s video, they’re ‘a little too embarrassed to admit” they’re libertarians. Poor babies. To my knowledge, they have not expressed any embarrassment when libertarians have (for example) gratuitously insulted the religious beliefs of tens of millions of Americans in crude and ignorant ways. I suppose that’s designed to bring people into the fold?” Wow, you “sure are a class guy,” Tom.

No, Tom, that’s where you’re wrong on this. The reason that Julie’s critics like Sarah are ‘a little too embarrassed to admit’ they’re libertarians is not because of their inability to “conclude their attack without unbosoming the lasting trauma of the whole episode for them” or, “because of Julie’s video, they’re just ‘a little too embarrassed to admit’ they’re libertarians.” They’re a little embarrassed to be libertarians because of people in the right-libertarian world like you are politically correct just like many of the left-libertarian, mutualist, and limousine liberals happen to be politically correct. They’re tired of the unadulterated bullshit that your side pulls on women who didn’t set out to judge every heterosexual male in the real world and the entire marketplace as well as the marketplace of ideas. They’re ashamed of being associated with guys like you who sit in judgment of people, who, in your worldview, must be controlled and told what to believe, think, say, and do, because their true libertarian spirit of independence is a clear-cut threat to your brutalist libertarian ways. Still a classy guy, aren’t you Tom?

This malarkey that you spewed about libertarians “insulting the religious beliefs of tens of millions of Americans in crude and ignorant ways” is deplorable, condescending, arrogant, and pathetic. I say this because you never provided links and examples to buttress your talking points there, Tom. I don’t know that many libertarians who have “insulted the religious beliefs of tens of millions of Americans in crude and ignorant ways.” How were the “religious beliefs of tens of millions of Americans” demonized and vilified “in crude and ignorant ways,” Tom? You just made a smear against thousands of libertarians by accusing them of such things – a statement of yours which is false, because you have *ZERO* evidence to prove at your disposal. Therefore, you just wrote a baseless lie in your book, which you never exemplified and demonstrated in great detail in that damn chapter of your book.

Even if it were true that many libertarians have done such a thing, and I’ve seen no evidence in recent years on Facebook, Twitter, in books put out by many top libertarian authors, bloggers, et cetera that libertarians have committed these transgressions against “tens of millions of Americans in crude and ignorant ways,” most of the statements have been made (which have been made by a few libertarians and limousine liberals) about many religious conservatives, especially when it comes to true libertarian matters of marriage equality, the War on Drugs, and the War on Poverty. They even include conservative matters like nationalism, jingoism, anti-immigration populism, imposition of religious morality by the Religious Right (for decades), and the neoconservative foreign policy of interventionism and outright colonialism, which those “tens of millions” of “religious Americans” do support all the way. Those “tens of millions of Americans” for whom you’re sticking up, Tom, are against true freedom of religion. They favor freedom of Christianity. Any other religion, or lack thereof, does not apply.

How about Buddhists, Tom? Zen Buddhists? Druids? Wiccans and other Pagans who follow polytheism and a libertarian belief in free markets, private charity, the rule of law, and environmental protection via private property rights? Has it ever occurred to you that your side has insulted our side as well? I can think of hundreds of thousands, even millions, of Americans, on the other hand, who follow those belief systems who have been insulted, demonized, and vilified in “crude and ignorant ways,” but somehow that becomes conveniently overlooked by righteously indignant and judgmental cronies in your team who must think that it is perfectly, morally, and ethically acceptable to do such things. As a practicing Wiccan myself, I’ve seen Wiccans judged, assaulted, harmed, and threatened by religious fundamentalist Christians, one of whom was a 12-year-old girl, a practicing Wiccan herself, who committed suicide in 2001 because she was bullied by her classmates in one of the government schools which she was coerced to attend. Where were the Christians on your team when it came to that? I thought so.

Still a classy guy, Tom?

I thought so.