A couple of weeks ago, Brian Doherty over at Reason published an article about the recent gubernatorial election in Virginia. He included a few links to Virginia political blogs, and interviewed Chuck Moulton, the chair of the Libertarian Party of Virginia (and someone I consider a friend), Chris Stearns, the pro-liberty chair of the Republican Party of Virginia’s 3rd Congressional District Committee, Rob Sarvis, the Libertarian gubernatorial candidate, and Arthur DiBianca, co-founder of Libertarian Booster PAC.
Libertarian Booster PAC is the PAC that assisted Sarvis’ campaign and has taken donations from Joe Liemandt, a major Democratic donor. This led a lot of pro-liberty Republicans to accuse Rob Sarvis of being a Democratic plant, a somewhat ridiculous allegation given his previous membership in the Fairfax Young Republicans (he signed up to be a delegate at the 2013 Young Republican Federation of Virginia convention) and ties to the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia (he came and spoke to our 2011 state convention about his race against Dick Saslaw for the Senate of Virginia that year), but by that point many Republicans were unfortunately susceptible to this sort of thing. I can personally tell you this PAC also assisted Laura Delhomme’s campaign here in the 47th HoD race, and they supported LP candidates in 2012. So allegations that this PAC came into being to support Sarvis are patently ridiculous. Having said that, I will take serious issue with Mr. DiBianca’s quote to Brian Doherty:
…it also helped Sarvis that the Virginia race was one of the only big political shows of the year and he was the most interesting thing about that race, which got him big free press coverage, very unusual for a Libertarian. He was also helped by the fact that McAuliffe and Cuccinelli were both assholes.
Oh, really? I’ve been critical of the horrible campaign that Dave Rexrode and Chris LaCivita ran for Ken Cuccinelli; they should never work in Virginia politics again. That said, what does THIS guy know about Ken Cuccinelli, or Virginia politics? NOTHING. That much is obvious by his characterization of Ken. I’ve met Ken around 8-10 times at events since 2005 or so. I’m just an activist, just a guy. not trying to get into politicians’ good graces or anything like that, or build a career through my activism. I’m simply one guy motivated by ideology, working within the Republican party, to advance my ideals, and I just happened to end up the chair of RLCVA. There’s no reason he’d remember who I am, but the man has never blown me off, always actually listened what I had to say (I encounter a LOT of politicians and I can tell when they’re not), and is generally a good guy. Nobody I know that actually KNOWS him thinks anything less. Mr. DiBianca is typical of the LP types who think EVERYONE in politics not associated with the LP is evil. Ed Crane, who long ago publicly renounced support for the LP, funneled a lot of money into the race through his Purple PAC, specifically to oppose Ken Cuccinelli. All of this is because purist libertarians have a narrow set of social issues that they disagree with Ken on, namely abortion, marriage equality, and the existence of the state’s sodomy law (which Ken has little to do with either way, the General Assembly tried to replace that law a few years ago, but couldn’t come to an agreement), so they recruited a gubernatorial candidate to run against him, and oriented their messaging and campaign to reflect that. To assert anything else is dishonest.
I spoke with Rob Sarvis himself, in early April, after I heard he was running. Despite having been complimentary of Ken in 2011, he told me directly that his run was motivated by Ken’s social conservatism, and that the LPVA had recruited him, not the reverse. As Nicki pointed out earlier, no candidate or party is entitled to the votes of pro-liberty activists or anyone else. So Rob didn’t ‘take’ votes away from either Ken or McAuliffe. That said, he, his supporters, and LPVA all jumped right onto the same dishonest message that Ken wanted to require transvaginal ultrasounds for every abortion (that was McDonnell’s bright idea; Ken opposed it), that he was not only looking to use the sodomy statute to regulate the sexual behavior of consenting adults, but that he was responsible for the law’s existence (both blatant lies), and that he would somehow use the office of the governor to move against legal abortion (something Ken directly addressed and denied). This was repeated by Rob’s campaign manager and volunteers every chance they got on social media and everywhere else. The secretary of LPVA actually (seemingly) seriously posited several times on social media and blogs that Ken was ‘taking’ votes from Rob because the LPVA convention happened a month before the RPV convention! Considering Ken had been in the race for close to a year before Rob even considered getting in, that’s utterly ridiculous and speaks to the level that LPVA was operating at.
Chuck Moulton had a few things to say about RLCVA, as it turns out In addition to a few comments he made on social media, Brian Doherty quoted him:
Moulton remembers attending meetings of the state’s Republican Liberty Caucus back then and “my impression was that they are misnamed; they are more like the Republican Fiscally Conservative Caucus, because they didn’t seem to care so much about social issues. I asked each candidate in a Q and A about those issues and Sarvis stood out as the only truly libertarian candidate there.”
No, Chuck, you are quite wrong. The difference between RLCVA and LPVA (and the LP in a broader sense) is that we understand that we have to ally with people we mostly agree with to achieve anything at all politically. You basically helped scupper a largely pro-liberty candidate in Ken Cuccinelli because of abortion and marriage issues. The LP is like the Goth children from South Park… if you’re not EXACTLY like them, they won’t hang out with you. This is why the LP is simply not serious about politics, and perhaps not even about policy. What about gun rights? Property rights? Marijuana legalization, where Ken has come our way significantly over the past four years? Plenty of other issues other than fiscal issues where Ken is great. The guy who’s with you 80% of the time is your ally, not your enemy.
Since this fight has been picked, let me address the LP in general. It is a WASTE OF TIME. LP activists are actually celebrating the fact they got 6.6% in a statewide election. I’m not kidding. In the American political system, from the local level on up to how Presidents are elected, it’s set up for two major parties, whoever they might be. The last time a major party collapsed was in the mid-19th century, when the Whig party collapsed. The American, Free Soil, and Republican parties struggled to the be the replacement; the Republicans won that struggle. The other two disappeared shortly thereafter. The LP has won some local races, and has even elected some state legislators in a few states. Good for them. But they cannot be taken seriously in Virginia until they at least elect ONE member of the House of Delegates, and their statewide candidates have no chance of winning. In U.S. politics, minor parties do nothing except help the major party they are further away from ideologically. In the case of the Libertarian Party, despite some agreement on social issues, that party is the Democratic Party. That is all the LP accomplishes, and both the genesis and tactics of the Sarvis campaign bear out that they understand that, despite their protestations to the contrary.
If pro-liberty activists in Virginia want to be effective politically, their best course of action is join the Republican Party and help us advance liberty within it. They can join local unit committees, and they can join the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia.
One of these men was a brutal dictator, responsible for the murder, torture, starvation and general misery of his people. The other is a scandal-ridden leader of the sole world superpower. Both were (are) men – mortal human beings. One was a mass murderer; the other one… well… a politician elected in the United States.
The image on the left is a propaganda piece from North Korea, glorifying Dear Leader. The image on the left is the cover of a book by author Nikki Grimes, glorifying the President of the United States.
Both are nauseating examples of vomitous, blind, sick worship. The only difference is that while Americans look upon propaganda imagery of North Korea and shake their heads in disbelief and disgust, a good portion of them, at the very least, seem to think it’s perfectly fine to exhibit analogous worship when it comes to the President.
That’s right. The image on the right is from a book that’s being purchased and taught to school children. Barack Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope. I’m not even kidding about the title! “A double rainbow and a glowing new star appeared in the heavens to herald the birth of Kim Jong Il” Does the tone sound remotely familiar?
Even as a boy, Barack knew he wasn’t quite like anybody else, but through his journeys he found the ability to listen to Hope and become what he was meant to be: a bridge to bring people together.
Kim Jong Il is the most prominent statesman in the present world, and people in countries the whole planet over celebrate his birthday with films and festivals.
A self-proclaimed kindergarten teacher named Ellen Ginsberg writes on Amazon: I purchased this book for my kindergarten class. They really enjoyed listening to the story, talking abnut it, and pick it up to read and look at the pictures independently. A very interesting non fiction book.
Let’s ignore for a moment that this barely literate assmonkey has a job educating young children! The last time I saw writing this poor was when I edited my ex husband’s college term papers!
But to teach this sycophantic worship to a bunch of impressionable kindergartners? Genuflection and drooling, messianic devotion to a man… a politician, no less!
What, exactly, is the difference between the absurd North Korean propaganda and the deification of the President exhibited by the likes of the author and the teachers who shovel this manure into the minds of young people?
I just got news that Evie Hudak has decided to quit the Colorado Senate rather than face a recall. You remember Evie Hudak, don’t you? She’s the same petty, tyrannical twatmold that told a rape victim who testified that had she had a gun for personal protection at the time of her rape, she might have been able to defend herself and avoid the traumatic, humiliating and agonizing experience, that the odds weren’t in her favor anyway – that statistics weren’t in her favor, so she might as well lie back and take it.
The outcry against Hudak’s heartlessness, ignorance and outright callousness was huge. I will admit to having used some pretty strong language to describe this… well… it’s difficult to call her a woman. More like a sideshow freak or a rodeo clown. Because when you are a woman, listening to another woman’s heartwrenching story of physical and mental violation, if you’re a decent human being with a heart, you would not be quoting statistics from a gun control group, while telling the victim that she wouldn’t have had a chance anyway, so why bother even trying?
Well, Hudak’s callous comments have come back to bite her in the ass.
Democrats in Colorado have been dropping like flies after passing odious gun control laws in that state, and Hudak, faced with a recall herself, has decided to toss herself under the bus (we can only wish it was in the literal sense!) rather than give the GOP the majority and the ability to get rid of the damaging, noxious, tyrannical bills passed by the leftards there.
“By resigning I am protecting these important new laws for the good of Colorado and ensuring that we can continue looking forward,” Hudak wrote in her resignation letter in regard to her gun votes.
Hudak’s move ends the recall process, as now a Democratic vacancy committee can appoint someone to fill her seat until 2014.
Her announcement comes as proponents of the recall were wrapping up a petition drive in which they needed to submit about 18,900 valid signatures to the secretary of state’s office. If enough signatures had been ruled valid, Hudak would have been the third Colorado lawmaker to face a recall election this year because of her support for tougher gun laws.
Don’t worry, you fetid boil on the ass of society. The Demtarded appointment who will replace you will likely not last real long, so the results of your oh-so-selfless act of tyranny will be short-lived when your party’s pathetic, razor thin majority in the Senate is deleted.
The good news about all this is that despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars Michael Bloomberg spent trying to prevent two other Democrap petty tyrants in suits from being recalled, his efforts were a FAIL.
Good riddance, Evie Hudak. Don’t let the door hit you in that appallingly large ass of yours! You won’t be missed, you repugnant, coldhearted sow.
In 2011, Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi were arrested by the FBI for terror-related activities, including planning to attack targets in the United States and sending weapons to extremists in Iraq. Alwan was apparently allowed in the United States as a refugee of the Iraq war. How did he get here? Apparently, he wasn’t the only one.
Several dozen suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some believed to have targeted American troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the United States as war refugees, according to FBI agents investigating the remnants of roadside bombs recovered from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The discovery in 2009 of two al Qaeda-Iraq terrorists living as refugees in Bowling Green, Kentucky — who later admitted in court that they’d attacked U.S. soldiers in Iraq — prompted the bureau to assign hundreds of specialists to an around-the-clock effort aimed at checking its archive of 100,000 improvised explosive devices collected in the war zones, known as IEDs, for other suspected terrorists’ fingerprints.
An ABC News investigation of the flawed U.S. refugee screening system, which was overhauled two years ago, showed that Alwan was mistakenly allowed into the U.S. and resettled in the leafy southern town of Bowling Green, Kentucky, a city of 60,000 which is home to Western Kentucky University and near the Army’s Fort Knox and Fort Campbell. Alwan and another Iraqi refugee, Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, 26, were resettled in Bowling Green even though both had been detained during the war by Iraqi authorities, according to federal prosecutors.
The story goes on to assure us that the majority of Iraqi war refugees living here today are harmless, law abiding citizens. OK, let’s say I believe it. How many more are still here who are extremists and potential terrorists? The FBI got two. Two. Worse yet, Alwan lived on the taxpayer dime, in public housing and on public assistance. All while planning attacks on Americans. How many more are here, living on public assistance, playing on the sympathies of the authorities, making up horror stories about their lives to gain entry to the United States?
Yes, the vast majority may be peaceful, but even one terrorist is too much. Two is too much. How many more?
The FBI acted on a tip when it began pursuing Alwan and Hammadi, and the nation lucked out. The article assures us that our screening techniques are being continuously improved. But again, I ask: how many more are already here?
And what about the civil war in Syria? Refugees are already pouring into neighboring nations from Syria, bringing diseases such as polio into nations that allow them to escape the crisis in their homeland. More than 2.2 million Syrians have already registered as refugees, according to the United Nations. So far, they’re headed to Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan. But the numbers are growing. How long before they begin to seek asylum in the West? In the United States? Al Jazeera reports that the United States has taken in only about 90 Syrian refugees so far. And the pressure is mounting for us to take in more.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has an answer.
“About six months ago I organized a letter to the secretary of the Department of Homeland security – to grant humanitarian parole to about 6,000 Syrians who are trying to be reunited with their families here in the United States.” He says it’s something we can do to help with the refugee problem, “obviously just a small piece, given there are millions of refugees. But here’s an opportunity for us to do our part.”
With the humanitarian crisis mounting in Syria, do we honestly believe that there are no extremists and terrorists in the refugees’ midst? With all the suffering and confusion, would it really be so difficult for a terrorist to meld in with the thousands of people leaving their country? How long before pressure on the State Department results in a flood of refugees entering this country?
And what about the mounting pressure to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens living in this country? How many of them could be just waiting to attack this nation?
Probably not a lot. But it wouldn’t take a lot, now would it?
Military.com recently published an entitled, whining, self-aggrandizing, sniveling post by a military spouse, who has decided that she’s just not getting enough recognition for her petty little satisfaction, because, you see, military spouses support their veterans, and that entitles them to the same recognition as those who take an oath to protect this nation, and dammit, they’re not getting a three-day weekend!
I had to re-read this yammering grievance several times just to make sure I wasn’t misreading what this self-entitled twit was saying. Nope. I’m not. Apparently a Military Spouse Appreciation Day is just not satisfactory!
…did anyone get a three-day weekend on Military Spouse Appreciation Day?
No, Cupcake. Maybe when you spend some time dodging bullets, patrolling a perimeter, defending this nation and risking your worthless life, someone will give you a three-day weekend too. Until then, shut your entitled yap!
Does anyone outside of military spouses know when Military Spouse Appreciation Day is? I didn’t think so.
Is the gratitude of your spouse, your community and the veterans you support just not sufficient? Let me give you a clue, Cupcake. If you do it for the recognition, it makes you a self-serving brat, not someone who sacrifices anything for her loved one! And we don’t honor self-serving brats in this country, so stick that up your self-absorbed orifice!
There is a reason why at every re-enlistment, change of command or retirement ceremony I’ve ever been to that the spouse receives recognition and, sometimes, flowers. There is a reason why servicemembers always thank their spouse when they reflect back on their careers. Being in the military affects the entire family.
Gratitude is not enough. Recognition is not enough. Must you also belittle your spouse’s work by appropriating the gratitude this nation gives him and others like him who do the job you haven’t volunteered or expended the effort to do?
When you see a veteran, you can be sure there is a “veteran” spouse, family and/or children supporting him or her. These spouse veterans don’t get a nationally recognized three-day weekend, but they serve just the same.
They SERVE? Lemme give you a clue, Cupcake! You made the commitment to stand by your spouse when you took your vows. You love him and support him, because that is the promise and commitment you made when you married him. While we appreciate your support, it certainly cannot compare to risking your life every day in the world’s shitholes. And your claim that your keeping your marriage vows is somehow equivalent to military service is downright offensive!
Most of us are aware of what servicemember veterans have given for our country, but the sacrifices of their spouses — sacrifices that contribute to the servicemember being able to carry out their duties — sometimes go unnoticed.
That doesn’t make you entitled to a three-day weekend, Cupcake.
So today, on Veterans Day, and despite my husband’s better judgment, I want to thank the person behind the veteran: the military-spouse veteran.
Well, aren’t you sweet to appropriate part of the gratitude your husband receives – against his advice, no less! – for your own!
Military-spouse veterans have given up careers. It’s not complaining or being sour when military spouses point out that they have put their careers or higher education on hold due to frequent moves. It’s just the truth.
The government knows this is a sacrifice, and that’s why divorced spouses are entitled to a portion of the servicemember’s retirement if they were married for at least 10 years of that member’s service.
No one is denying military spouses don’t have it easy, but this bitch’s sense of entitlement is absolutely beyond offensive and unreal! Loving your spouse is not akin to sacrifice. Living up to your vows is not sacrifice. Making a choice to support his career over yours is not sacrifice. Loving and caring for your family while your spouse is deployed is not a damn sacrifice! And if you think it is, maybe you shouldn’t be in this marriage, you twit.
Ten years of military marriage is 10 years that a spouse probably lost in building his or her own career and retirement. Ten years of military marriage is a commitment beyond matrimony; it’s a commitment to understanding that your spouse’s obligations are sometimes to our country first, and then to your family. It’s hard to be selfish when you’re married to the military.
Oh, it’s a commitment beyond matrimony? If you consider being married to your service member such a burden, what the hell are you doing married to him? You’re upset it’s hard to be selfish when you’re married to the military? This is your problem? You don’t get a chance to be selfish? You’re a disgusting pig!
Military-spouse veterans have done a lot of waiting. By the time my parents had been married for 23 years, my dad had accumulated 11 years of active-duty sea time. That’s basically half their marriage. It means that my mom did a lot of single-parenting and waiting.
With deployments increasing in frequency and length, today’s military spouses are spending even more time without their loved one. And the most difficult part about this process is that military spouses have no choice in it (outside of the fact that they fell in love with someone who happens to work for Uncle Sam).
Military spouses make the choice to remain. They make the choice to marry a service member. They take the oath to support and stand by them, and it is their responsibility to run the family while the service member is gone. But single-parenting and waiting are certainly not equivalent to being shot at, being blown up, being attacked, dodging IEDs, sleeping in tents, eating MREs and watching your buddies bleed to death in front of your eyes. Your attempt to steal credit that couldn’t match that suffering and to appropriate that honor is truly offensive.
Uncle Sam does not ask for any spouse’s approval to deploy a ship or unit. Furthermore, Uncle Sam has notoriously bad timing, and he doesn’t send people home when their spouse is in labor or their kids have pneumonia. Military spouses accept this, and (here’s the best part), they carry on anyway.
Yes, military spouses do their jobs. They take care of their families. They do so even when their spouse is not home. And because it’s apparently inconvenient, they deserve their glory on Veterans’ Day? You think it’s bad timing to be in labor or have a kid with pneumonia while your spouse deploys? How inconvenient do you think it is for your spouse to know that his baby is sick or his wife is in the hospital while he’s focusing on defending this nation, dodging bullets or getting attacked by insurgents, you ungrateful, whining narcissist?
Military-spouse veterans take care of the sick and injured. More and more servicemembers are returning home wounded. Their injuries are physical and emotional, and no one knows this better than the spouses.
The military has a commitment to care for our wounded veterans, but it is the spouse who shoulders most of the responsibility. They are the ones who are waiting in hospital and rehab hallways or relocating their families to be closer to better care.
Ever heard of “for better, or for worse,” Cupcake? Yes, military spouses have shouldered an enormous amount of stress or responsibility. They take care of their loved ones, and they stand by as their husbands and wives come back from deployment maimed and traumatized. But really… does this compare to the loss of a limb? To traumatic brain injuries? To Post-Traumatic Stress? Yes, it’s difficult, but is it as difficult as learning to function with one or no limbs?
You know what? This shouldn’t be a comparison of suffering, but that’s what it turns out to be, when someone as pathetically entitled and self-aggrandizing as this ignorant, blibbering twit grabs the center stage for herself!
The rest of this essay is much of the same pompous mantra about how military spouses are not getting their due by not being recognized as veterans, who ostensibly should receive a ton of free crap on Veterans’ Day.
Until this arrogant, presumptuous imbecile puts on a uniform, goes through basic training, deploys several times to a dangerous place, far away from her loved ones, lives under constant attack for months at a time, sees her friends bleed and die in front of her or comes home maimed, both physically and emotionally, she is NOT a veteran. She’s merely a dependapottamus seeking glory she didn’t earn.