by Alex Fidel

Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Santorum have signed a National Organization for Marriage pledge. Here’s the dirty details:

In the NOM pledge, signers are committing to five points:

• Sending a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman to the states for ratification.
• Defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which includes the traditional definition of marriage and bans states from recognizing gay marriage, in court.
• Appointing federal judges and an attorney general who are opposed to a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
• Appointing a commission to investigate claims of harassment against those people who support marriage as being only between a man and a woman.
• Supporting legislation that would give people living in the District of Columbia the right to vote on marriage.

The federal government’s involvement in the definition of marriage is unconstitutional at best, bondage at worst. In 2012, let’s be mindful to choose a candidate who unequivocally supports individual rights …or bust.

by Alex Fidel

“I’m Gary Johnson-entrepreneur, athlete, former 2 term gov. Of NM, veto king” – Gary Johnson on Twitter responding to the Tampa, FL debate hosted by CNN/The Tea Party. The only kind of king that results in liberty.

by Alex Fidel

Get a first peek at the interview I did with Gov. Gary Johnson that I did for a GJ Grassroots Podcast I hosted that has yet to be released by the campaign, on my radio show-turned-podcast Freethought. Click here to download the podcast. This would be the third time Gov. Johnson has appeared on my program, the first time talking to him since he announced his presidential bid.

Via Gary Johnson Grassroots Forums:

by Alex Fidel

Click here to download the new episode of my radio show-turned-podcast, Freethought. Guests are John Stahl, candidate for U.S. Congress (R, CA-50) and DuelingBarstools.com publician-in-chief Ryan Nohea Garcia. Plenty of good music, too. Your feedback is greatly appreciated!

by Alex Fidel

Rahm Emmanuel won the Chicago mayoral race by a slim margin above 50%. Nothin’ fishy there…

Which reminds me of the line from Zappa’s “Strictly Genteel”-
‘may the lord have mercy for the people of Chicago,
for the terrible food
these people must eat’

I’ll try and keep an eye out for what Mr. Doesn’t Let a Crisis Go to Waste is doing in Chicago, as [fairly] elected mayor.

(Side note: should I fear for my life for writing this article?)

by Alex Fidel

Jimmy McMillan at the New York Governor's race debate, 2010

The very vocal and eccentric founder of the Rent Is Too Damn High Party, Jimmy McMillan, joins KSUN’s own Freethought Radio this Wednesday, Feb. 23rd at 8PM PST.

Now to my surprise, he did not advocate rent controls. Usually people with little knowledge of economics with throw in the idea of rent/price controls, without knowing the unintended consequences of such policies. Maybe Jimmy is just ideologically all over the place. But let me explain as to why the rent is too damn high (fuck yes, that rhymes!).

I’m self-educated on economics. My mentors (who are probably dead) are Frederic Bastiat, Henry Hazlitt, F.A. Hayek, and Milton Friedman. Naturally, I think the crop of SSU economics professors are sub par, but then again, I can’t think of a single college besides George Mason University that aren’t shills for John Maynard Keynes.

Rent prices are meant to show the most productive use of that land, whether it be residential, commercial office space, or torn down to make a farm. Prices are there to make the risk of investment worthwhile. No one is going to invest in real estate if they aren’t going to get a return, although this principle was overturned thanks to Congress, Fannie, Freddie, and the Federal Reserve completely absolving all risk in the real estate market through regulations, diminishing lending standards, and artificially low interest rates, causing the housing bubble that precipitated in the 2008 recession (more on why the housing bubble was caused by the unintended consequences of government policy in our interview with Peter Schiff on March 16th).

The consequences of artificially lowering the price of rent leads to added fees, such as the ability to charge for use of the key, to various other regulate-and-evade cat and mouse games. The lack of financial reward to the landlords’ risk/investment leads to taking away the incentive to provide for basic upkeep; they therefore choose the renter who would accept the most meager accommodations.

There is a sad, yet tragically ironic, quiz put forth by some professor (someone who writes for the Mises Institute) as to whether his students could tell whether a picture of an apartment complex has either been bombed or subjected to rent controls. The similarity is stunning. That leads to the question, which is worse for a country- war, or the bad consequences of good intentions?

As we see in all areas of commerce with little government “help,” competition improves quality and lowers price. As small-businessman and former NM Governor Gary Johnson puts it- ‘best product, best service, lowest price.’

What people often don’t realize is that regulations are often supported by big businesses- they can bare the costs of meeting these requirements, while their competitors, both big & small, cannot. This ends up placing a huge burden on small businesses.

My mom once helped rebuild a burnt down building in exchange for a reserved apartment, where the rent was very low. Today, you would have to do a ton of meaningless paperwork and probably have to pay a fee to some government agency. These have very little effect on the quality of apartments; it only scares away entrepreneurs, causing shortages and raising prices.

A very prominent member of Congress (House or Senate I’m not sure) Jim McGovern left his position to go home and start an inn. However, the cost of meeting fire safety regulation requirements (which he argued had little to no effect on real fire safety, but were just lobbied to be passed by established businesses to keep out people like him) caused him to close up shop. He then returned to the Congress, and warned his fellow liberals about the dangers of over-regulation. While they have the best of intentions, their lack of economic knowledge and obligation to their special interest buddies have many perverse consequences.

The answer is not to get rid of lobbying so that regulations are “pure” and without steering from established businesses/labor unions, because the problem still lies in the absence of economics 101 in the minds of politicians. The answer is to get rid of regulations so that big business/labor never get a chance to get their hands on the direction of regulations in the first place. “Evil” Wal-Mart was in favor of ObamaCare, and now they’re trying to please the Obama administration with their selling of healthier foods as a quid pro-quo for not coming after their non-unionized labor practices. That’s not capitalism. Big businesses would not have to rely on their political connections and subsidies, but rather if they provide the “best product, best service, at the lowest price.” Anyone can emerge from there. Even today, with our heavily regulated, small-business crushing economic environment, boutique shops in all industries can survive, but unfortunately, as Bastiat’s principle of the unseen states, we cannot see all the businesses that haven’t formed because the regulatory framework is so burdensome, it is an ultimate protection of big businesses.

So, if you don’t like big business, support free markets. Now I’m not sure if Jimmy “Rent” McMillan would like to hear that or not… no, really. I don’t know where he stands, because he’s so out there, that he’s not very consistent and is a really tough character to talk to because he blathers on about nothing. But once you’re done, and you listen back to the conversation, it is definitely entertaining to listen to. Tune in this Wendesday at 8PM PST at www.ksunradio.com to hear the man himself. If only someone would tell him that the rent is too damn high because the government is too damn big… I tried, but he just keeps talking and talking and talking and talking…

by Alex Fidel

Gary Johnson placed 3rd in the CPAC 2011 straw poll. That may seem like the short end of the stick, but think of the little recognition Johnson got, and how little in advance he scored the speaking position. This just goes to show that people are ready for bold spending cuts, which Gary made sure to mention amounted to $1.5 TRILLION; a balanced budget tomorrow.

I’m glad Ron Paul won, I’d obviously support with full effort a Ron Paul 2012 campaign. But I have to think in real terms. I know it’s hard to say this, I’m just as big of a Ron Paul fan as all of you are, but Ron Paul is not immortal. He’s going to be around 77 in 2012, and has to lead for 8 years. I’m sure he’d rather live stress free with his family rather than the tremendous job of president. Gary Johnson is younger, an extremely fit athlete, and has held a similar position on the state level as governor of New Mexico. That’s just my 2 cents on why I think Ron Paul should not run for president again, even though I’d support him 110% if he did. Now, I’d love to see him really do a lot of significant spreading of the “brushfires of liberty” in the minds of men. R3VOLution of the mind is where it’s at. And even though Gov. Johnson isn’t as philosophical as Ron Paul, you know that he’d go further than just a balanced budget. He’s said time and time again that he supports ending the Fed, and it’s not like he’s 100% cost/benefit. In one of his State of the State speeches, he said “Man is superior to government, not the other way around.” Definitely a consistent belief in the philosophy of liberty, just he also prefers to take it from a business standpoint. It’s easier to sell vetoes to the public when it’s in terms of cost/benefit rather than just pure philosophical. That’ll beget the idea that government can do better with much less, which will lead to an increase in limited government philosophy throughout the nation. Gov. Johnson did shift public opinion on school choice in NM significantly.

If the 3rd place is an indication of anything, it is to not underestimate Gary Johnson one bit. He could’ve been down in the percentage ranks with Donald Trump for saying “legalize marijuana” at a conservative conference. Think about it… Johnson ‘12.

by Alex Fidel

Found this video on C-SPAN of the New Mexico’s Governor debate from 1998. Should give all you Dueling Barstools readers a preview of what Johnson vs. Obama might look like.

by Alex Fidel

Although this will probably never happen, I think John Dennis should be Gary Johnson’s VP choice if he wins the primary.

They are both entrepreneurs; they are both very down-to-earth and humble; they both get much support from independents and Democrats (I was phonebanking for John Dennis’ congressional bid, and one person said they supported him because Pelosi wasn’t left enough, that they voted for Cindy Sheehan in ‘08 and now Dennis in ‘10); they both got massive support from Ron Paul; they both were nationally recognized; they have a great understanding of the philosophy of liberty and are not zombies; and it would break the mold of the image of a typical Republican being a square with a stick up their butt (they have grey hair, but aren’t your typical ‘old geezers’).

How that would work practically against Obama beats me. It could suck away a lot of his disenfranchised constituency who want real anti-war and socially tolerant candidates, but the whole capitalism thing might hinder that effect. What ever the result, I think that they would be a good ticket because of their similarities, which hopefully amounts to less argumentation in the White House.

by Alex Fidel

I am working on putting together a long needed Republican Liberty Caucus chapter in San Diego county. Despite Prop 14 killing primaries, hopefully we can bring up an opponent to Brian Bilbray next election cycle. We’ll try to attend Republican Party meetings and bring up the fact that we are hacking off the youth vote as well as the potentiality of losing the Tea Party vote as they read more and become more aware and less tolerant of fiscal indiscipline, and therefore should seek an alternate candidate to Brian Bilbray; to nominate someone who is [truly] fiscally conservative and socially tolerant.

Here’s a link to the Facebook page.

by Alex Fidel

Some House Democrats are coming out saying that they will not support her in becoming House minority leader:

Several Democrats have said they would not support Pelosi during the public roll call vote when the new Congress organizes on Jan. 5. And earlier this week, two liberals — Reps. Peter DeFazio and Marcy Kaptur — wrote to colleagues, urging them to postpone the closed-door caucus election until next month.

Could this spell out the retirement that she is rumored to take if she loses both speaker positions? We’ll see. I think John Dennis is watching this closely, too.

by Alex Fidel

According to this CNBC article, Ron Paul is about to become chairman of the House Subcommittee for Domestic Monetary Policy:

And Congressman Paul has some big plans.“I will approach that committee like no one has ever approached it because we’re living in times like no one has ever seen,” Paul said in an interview with NetNet Thursday.

Paul said his first priority will be to open up the books of the Federal Reserve to the American people.

“We need to create transparency there. To see what it is they are buying and lending, and who it is they are dealing with,” Paul said.

Paul mentioned that he hoped to use subcommittee hearings to educate the public about the causes of business cycles—which he believes are mainly attributable to monetary manipulation by central bankers.

Monetary reform is also on the agenda. Paul is a noted advocate of the gold standard.

This is great news. Hopefully this allows him to pull more weight when he drafts another Audit the Fed bill, along with his son in the Senate and people like Justin Amash, who had Dr. Paul’s endorsement in this election. Hopefully it comes soon, as this CNBC article notes that the dollar is at risk of crashing due to Federal Reserve policies.

by Alex Fidel

My congressman, Brian Bilbray, has been sending me mailers throughout the election ever since I re-registered Republican so I can vote in the presidential primaries. He talks about reigning in reckless borrowing and spending. Uh-huh, sure. On his Facebook page, we have 4 likes in common! Wow! The US Constitution, Fox News, Fox Business, and Glenn Beck. It’s like he understands me! He’s a true fiscal conservative and we need to keep him in Congress… right?

Well not so much. I’m guessing that he liked Glenn Beck and the Constitution on Facebook just to pander to this strange, new-fangled Tea Party thing, but I’m guessing he doesn’t know that Glenn Beck espouses for defense spending cuts (and if you watch YouTube videos, people will splice videos out of context and with no chronological progression that it makes Beck seem like he flip-flops on the issue, which is not so. We both started progressing out of neoconservatism at about the same time, around late 2008, so I don’t consider him a ‘fake’ libertarian. It’s Sarah Palin that’s the real phony here), and I’m also guessing he doesn’t know that the Congress has to declare a war, not give the president a blank check for power. And that Fox News has been hiring more libertarians lately, like Stossel and the Judge.

So what else might show the contrary to his ‘fiscal conservatism’? Well, welcome to the first installment of BilbrayWatch!

Let me take you to his Facebook page, where he supports subsidies for scientific research. He uses the ‘general welfare’ quote from the Constitution to make an exception to his ‘fiscal conservatism’ (the videos are there on his wall… go look!). Sounds like bringing home the bacon to me. If he really cared about biomedical research, he would end all subsidies, and limit the power of the FDA (such as making it a voluntary program). Subsidies take money from the private sector and shift it to government cronies and scam artists (like T. Boone Pickins… who got called a scam artist on Stossel), who lobby for the bacon. It artificially picks winners and losers in the marketplace, instead of letting the marketplace pick the winners and losers. It also creates moral hazard. The subsidies really don’t depend on success of research, they just keep getting more government cheese, so they have no incentive to create safe and effective treatment in a timely manner and at a low cost. They can just milk their time and not care about safety or efficacy, because if the product fails and their profits go belly-up, there’s still the bacon to fall back on.

So Brian Bilbray is not a fiscal conservative, and is also not a free-marketeer.

I am also calling on you, DuelingBarstools readers, to help me find a Republican opponent to Bilbray in 2012. Someone like Gary Johnson or John Dennis: knows their philosophies inside an out (as opposed to a zombie… and there are plenty of those in every viewpoint, even libertarians), is 100% honest and that shows in their character and how they present themselves, and actually puts forth effort into their campaigns (especially with the whole Prop 14 deal). Now I am never ashamed to vote for the Libertarian ticket, but it seems like half of these guys don’t even try to campaign, even with lack of financial resources, and frankly, when they speak, they don’t address the issues fluently, namely, they sound like zombies a lot of the time who have never challenged their ways of thought. I used to be a huge neoconservative, and I had to challenge myself every which way as libertarianism resonated so much more with me. In that sense, I can thoroughly explain to a Tea Party crowd who are still soul-searching as to why we need to cut defense spending, legalize drugs, and repeal marriage licenses, and I would go at it from their perspective. Unfortunately, there is no Republican Liberty Caucus to tap, and I don’t want to try and sift through the San Diego Tea Party, because, like I said, they’re still soul-searching. It was easy for me because I’m naturally a rational skeptic, and I’m young. It’s a much longer process for people who have been used to the social conservative dogma for so long, that they don’t really realize that a balanced budget won’t be a reality until we abolish Social Security/Medicaid/Medicare, abolish the Dept. of Education, abolish the Dept. of Homeland Security, abolish the Dept. of Energy, cut defense spending, decriminalize all drug use at the federal level, stop the pork, stop the bailouts, and reject Keynesianism. But I am hopeful, I see Ron Paul books on the same list as Glenn Beck books on Tea Party groups’ reading lists on Amazon (Glenn’s new book, Broke, has an entire chapter on defense cuts). Hopefully they get around in time for Gary Johnson’s presidential primary. And they need to stop picking crazy social conservatives like O’Donnell, Paladino, etc. Other Tea Parties picked Rand Paul and Peter Schiff. Anyways, aside from convincing someone to oppose Bilbray as a Republican and maybe giving policy advice, I’m not gonna be a huge activist for this, because frankly, I want to focus on my music and also save my political energy for Gary Johnson and another Prop 19 in 2012.

Maybe they should also watch this video from time to time:

by Alex Fidel

http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/02/gary-johnson-for-president-in-2012-listen-for-an-announcement-in-february/

Get excited people, let’s make this happen! Not only is Gary principled, but he is also honest and has great character. You can read my previous article about Gary Johnson’s Seven Principles of Good Government to find out more about Gary Johnson, the person.

by Alex Fidel

John Dennis interview

by Alex Fidel

My representative Brian Bilbray (R, CA-50) and his staff have been calling my house ever since I re-registered as a Republican so I can vote for Gary Johnson or Ron Paul in 2012. I got a mailer too:

“Bigger government and higher taxes out of Washington aren’t the answer … Cut reckless Washington borrowing and spending.”

Really? Does he really think that is believable? My intelligence has been deeply insulted. If he wants to stop reckless borrowing and spending, maybe try ending all current wars, reducing our military presence around the world, ending the war on drugs, and eliminating needless and wasteful agencies and departments. Well that’s too bad, because it seems as if he’s in favor of all those things.

Since I am so offended (I generally mean that in a pompous, sarcastic way…), I am going to personally see to it that he has a Tea Party opponent in the 2012 Republican primary (from the Ron Paul/libertarian side of the Tea Party, not the Palin/Gingrich side). I was surprised he was unopposed this year.

OH WAIT! I forgot, thanks to Prop 14, there are no more primaries…

John Dennis with Ron Paul

By Alex Fidel

John Dennis is the Republican candidate for congress in California’s 8th congressional district, who’s incumbent is none other than Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Nancy Pelosi usually rakes in 70% of the vote in San Fransisco, with Green Party candidate Cindy Sheehan winning more votes than the Republican in 2008. Shockingly, Cindy Sheehan is one of the many prominent anti-war activists to endorse John Dennis.

You’re probably scratching your head at the idea of a Republican getting the support of Cindy Sheehan, who said, “[John Dennis is] a good person who is truly antiwar and truly wants to make the world a better place.” Well maybe I should introduce you to John Dennis and his roots.

John has never run for public office. The most activism he has been involved in was campaigning for Ron Paul in 2008. He is a principled libertarian, being against both wars when they were Bush’s wars. He voted No on California Proposition 8 of 2008, supports government getting out of the marriage business completely, and wants to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ He supports the legalization of marijuana, and the complete repeal of the Patriot Act. So from this, you can gather he is not coming to his anti-war, pro-gay positions just to pander to San Fransisco voters. He really believes these things in a very principled way.

He decided to run in the Republican primary against Dana Walsh, who was the candidate in 2008, who got less votes than Cindy Sheehan. He won by a pretty big margin, and the race began to defeat Pelosi.

He has garnered endorsements from Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater Jr., the pro-gay activist group Log Cabin Republicans, and has had a puff piece written about him in the prominent LGBT publication The Bay Area Reporter.

But recently, he has begun to gather support from people outside the libertarian and Republican circles.

In September, he, Ron Paul, and former San Fransisco City Supervisor and Ralph Nader’s VP running mate Matt Gonzalez held an anti-war/anti-drug war/pro-liberty/pro-integrity rally called “Principles Over Politics” outside San Fransisco city hall to bring together the left and right on the issues of war and debt/defecit. To paraphrase, John Dennis pointed out that the left/right fight is counterproductive; that the real fight is between Washington and us.

All three speakers were quick to point out Nancy Pelosi’s flip flops on the wars and the Patriot Act, and her lack of commitment to gay rights. They also pointed out her arrogance and seeming lack of care for her district.

This eventually culminated in Matt Gonzalez’s shocking endorsement of John Dennis, in an open letter to Pelosi. “I write you because a large number of your constituents, myself included, are tired of your leadership,” Gonzalez writes, “Although you may want to dismiss your congressional opponent John Dennis because he is a Republican, I assure you that he is a serious candidate with views worthy of consideration. In addition to being firmly anti-war and committed to defending civil liberties, Dennis is pro-gay rights, opposed the Wall Street bailouts and has joined in the populist call challenging the legitimacy of the Federal Reserve … I intend to vote for John Dennis and I will encourage everyone I know to do the same.”

The Huffington Post even wrote an article saying that liberals should vote for John Dennis. This is true, while liberals may not be able to agree with him on economic issues, John Dennis’s integrity insures voters that he will be principled on the wars. Nancy Pelosi has no shred of integrity in her, and the most SF voters get out of her is an arrogant and condescending tone.

That is why I keep stressing that integrity is the most important thing to look for in a politician. John Dennis is a very cool, down-to-earth, laid back, honest guy. You can tell that by the way he talks; he doesn’t talk in circles, but rather says what he means and means what he says. Can you say the same about Nancy Pelosi? Probably not, that’s why under Barack Obama, she suddenly has a complete policy reversal on the wars and the Patriot Act. That is why liberals should choose John Dennis, because at least they can trust him, rather than leave it up to a game of chance in the hands of Pelosi.

John Dennis is proving to be a formidable opponent to Pelosi. He is gathering support from Democrats, Independents, and others who would normally never dream of supporting a Republican. People are even disgusted by Pelosi’s refusal to debate him, in fact, there is a video of Nancy Pelosi very arrogantly telling off a reporter asking her if she intends to debate John Dennis, which was featured on Drudge Report. That was the second time she has refused a debate, and there is a timer on John Dennis’s website indicating the amount of time Nancy Pelosi has not responded to a debate.

I can sense your skepticism, you’re probably thinking ‘OK, he has a big chance of winning. But he’s just one congressman, what can he possibly do?’ True, he is just running for Congress. But when he enters Congress, he will be entering with a lot of political capital, because he will be pulling the biggest political upset in recent history, which will send a shockwave through the entire political establishment.

————————————–

Visit JohnDennis2010.com for more info, and tune in to Freethought Radio this Tuesday, October 26th at 8PM PST, for our interview with John Dennis, only on ksunradio.com

A few days ago I basically pledged to “throw my political advocacy and support behind Republican candidates whose limiting principles are consistent with the Constitution and freedom” in order to reform the Republican party’s limiting principles to being consistent with freedom. Enter Massachusetts congressional hopeful Sam Meas, an American of Cambodian ancestry. He doesn’t know how old he is, exactly, because after Pol Pot re-educated Meas’ father to death, he was separated from his mother during the mad scramble to get to refugee camps in Thailand, and never saw her again. Read the whole article for more info about his extraordinary personal story.

As far as Meas’ politics, he self-identifies as a Reagan Republican, because (in his words) “I owe my life to him; he allowed me to come here and he fought Communism.” Fair enough. He’s not a fan of government involvement in health care, appears to hate socialism only slightly less than communism, and thinks America is “heaven on Earth.” From his campaign page:

I am not a career politician or country club candidate. I believe that America is the greatest country on earth. I am Sam Meas and I am running for Congress. I ask for your vote on September 14th. I approve of this message and I approve of the American Dream.

Gosh, I like this guy (and typically I don’t care for Boston fans – I’m assuming he cheers for Red Sox / Patriots). Yet, the Reason article mentions – but doesn’t go into specifics about – Meas’ tendency towards standard Republican social conservatism (you know, legislating morals, mores, and traditions, that are inconsistent with individual liberty). Since Meas also self-describes as the new face of the GOP, I hope he realizes that social conservatism is inconsistent with the individual liberty we all cherish, himself perhaps most of all since he “lived under a totalitarian regime . . . [and] knows what it is like to have lost all of your freedom.” After looking Meas up on the Internet and reading his website, I don’t see any social issues discussed on his “home,” “values & pledge,” or “issue,” pages. In fact, he provides the motto “live and let live.” I’m down with that.

What I’m not down for is Newt Gingrich, whose definition of freedom of expression (particularly religious liberty) is inconsistent with individual liberty. Reason sums it up well:

Jews, Christians, or Hindus are free to build whatever they want at 51 Park Place. But not Muslims. Why? Because the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks were Muslims. Once you strip away the Orwellian rhetoric equating peaceful religious activity with violence, Gingrich’s position really is as simple, and appalling, as that.

But Gingrich doesn’t limit expression only for Muslims, Nazi’s too: “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington.” Here’s the problem with Newt Gingrich and individual liberty: the very criticism I have for the Democrat Party is true about Gingrich. Consider what I wrote about Democrats:

“My issue with the Democratic Party is its lack of concrete limiting principles.  Democrat party values are issue and identity group specific, waxing or waning with the polls.  They are insufficiently rigid.  This is inconsistent with equal treatment and incapable of conserving individual freedom.

Rewritten for Gingrich:

“My issue with the Democratic Party Newt Gingrich is its his lack of concrete limiting principles.  Democrat party Gingrich’s values are issue and identity group specific, waxing or waning with the polls.  They His values are insufficiently rigid.  This is inconsistent with equal treatment and incapable of conserving individual freedom.

Basically, individual freedom serves as Newt Gingrich’s limiting principle only to the extent that he agrees with you. That’s not freedom, Newt, and I won’t vote for you.

By the way, I haven’t written about the NYC Mosque yet. I was busy studying for the bar, then taking it, then traveling, and I’ve been at the bar (Stout) basically ever since. Here’s my view. There is absolutely no room for the force of government to deprive any member of the American community of freedom of expression or religion, no matter how rude their expression may be. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether the Mosque is or isn’t rude, in light of the people building the mosque, the money behind it, the selection of the location, the name Cordoba center, etc.. Personally, I think it’s pretty damn rude. I have my doubts as to the sincerity of the people building it, the intentions of the sources of money for it, and the symbolism of the name Cordoba. And if the intent truly is to build bridges with the American people, they should consider relocating since nearly 70% of the country (including Harry Reid) thinks it’s rude (inappropriate is the term the poll used), and building it there will likely prove counterproductive to their professed intentions.

The bottom line, however, is that this is America and we shouldn’t even be discussing using the immutable force of government to suppress anyone’s religion no matter how rude or inappropriate we may individually perceive it. Shit, Newt, even Palin gets that. If you profess to believe in individual freedom – economic, civil, and political liberty – then you must accept the consequences of freedom, one of which is that we often may be offended by one another. There is no right not to be offended. Your recourse to being offended is not suppression of another’s expression but exercise of your right to expression. Wtf is so hard about this?