Wilkes-Barre-- Late Wednesday the Libertarian Party submitted election paperwork naming Mike Lacey as the Party’s replacement for Betsy Summers as one of its candidates for Luzerne County Council. Lacey, a local businessman Republican and co-founder of the NEPA Tea Party, is throwing his hat into the ring as a Libertarian in an unprecedented move according to Lou Jasikoff, Chair for the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania. The opening came about as Ms. Summers recently qualified to run for both Luzerne County Council and Mayor of Wilkes-Barre. Ms. Summers is running to become the Mayor of Wilkes-Barre which left an opening on the Libertarian ticket for Luzerne County Council.
“Having served on the 2001 home rule study commission, and currently serving on the transition sub-committee for ethics, I looked for a replacement candidate that I could trust to serve the citizens of Luzerne County as I would. Mike Lacey is exactly the kind of individual needed to help make the new Home Rule Charter work. I am secure in the knowledge he will be a watchdog for the community and am honored to have such a principled individual as my replacement. Mike Lacey has my full endorsement,” said Betsy Summers.
“This race is not about party, it is a race about principle. I intend to be a true voice for the people, not the establishment. The time has come for all of us to put party politics aside and do what is best for our communities and country. I want to thank the Libertarian Party for this opportunity to help bring an end to the “good old boy” network that has become so pervasive in our local political system. It is imperative that we stop the corruption, nepotism and cronyism,” added Lacey.
Jasikoff added, “Libertarians have been running as Republicans and Democrats throughout the country for years. This might be the first time in history that a Republican is running as a Libertarian and times are truly changing. I am reminded of a Mark Twain quote, “In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.”
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Libertarians Nominate Mike Lacey
The NEPA Libertarian Party has nominated Mike Lacey, leader of the NEPA Tea Party, to fill a ballot spot vacated by Betsy Summers who has opted to run for Wilkes-Barre Mayor instead. Lacey will join Tim Mullen, another Libertarian candidate for Luzerne County Council. (Press Release Below.)
Saturday, August 20, 2011
The Conservative Case Against "The Conservative Case Against Ron Paul"
Here are the problems with the tired, old and nonsensical article being propagated by a phony conservative newsletter called Cowboy or Conservative Byte.
1) Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative. The writer thinks the two are mutually exclusive. I beg to differ. Ron Paul is a conservative libertarian because he voted for the defense of marriage act and wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. He also errs on preventing people from entering the country illegally. These are things many libertarians disagree with. Within Libertarianism, there are people who are socially conservative like Ron Paul and Tom Woods, and there are those who are more socially liberal, who say, for instance, that abortion is alright.
Moreover, the term conservative is subjective. For example, the writer probably believes drug prohibition and small government are both conservative. Yet, at a certain level they mutually exclusive since government must grow to enforce prohibition. The wiggle room within conservatism means that some prioritize drug prohibition while others will prioritize small prudent, constitutional government. Oddly enough, Republicans of the 19th century did not concern themselves much with drug prohibition, so according to writer they might be called "liberals".
Suffice it to say that unless the writer has a copyright of the word conservatism, then his commentary is fundamentally meaningless. Those who put the least amount of effort into reading something are probably the most likely to be influenced by use of labels such as "libertarian" or "conservative" without actually considering the issues and values in depth. Hence, this labeling critique is placed at the beginning to try to make the simple-minded reader believe that Ron Paul is not in the conservative camp, thus attempting to make the rest of the critiques more biting.
2) ? [Will address this later]
3) Ron Paul encourages "truther" conspiracy nuts. Ron Paul openly states on page 120 of his book End the Fed that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job, and in so doing he has actually drawn ire from many truthers. It is a logical fallacy to say that because he does not try harder to discourage truthers, he therefore encourages them somehow. Attack dogs like Hawkins who write haphazard smear jobs fail to realize that Dr Paul got into politics long before 9/11, primarily because of his belief in Austrian Economics, desire to legalize owning gold, and desire to advance liberty. Yet connivers like Hawkins want to cast him as a truther fad.
4) Ron Paul's [alleged] racial views Ron Paul denies having anything to do with the racist article Hawkins cites. This is believable since many Ron Paul Newsletters--being of a deregulated, grassroots sprouting--were published without his knowledge. Ron Paul has never been known to say anything racist, so the racist "quotes" would seem totally out of character. Regardless, the evidence would fail in a court of law, especially since the writer of the "interview" has never attested to its veracity. Moreover, Ron Paul has condemned the comments and whoever it was that tried to say he said them.
5) A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are incredibly irritating. This is subjective nonsense.
6) Ron Paul is an isolationist As Sheldon Richman has pointed out, Ron Paul supports free trade and is anything but an "isolationist." Ron Paul opposes neo-con government intervention abroad and in so doing, he embodies the conservative virtue of prudence and restraint. The writer wants you to think that being "conservative" means wanting to bomb people who haven't attacked you at all and supporting lingering occupation in their homelands--as was the case in Iraq and as is the case in Libya. Ron Paul actually did vote to go into Afghanistan to eradicate the perpetrators of 9/11 in retaliation; so even if Paul is not hawkish enough for Hawkins's taste, he cannot be accused of pacifism.
7) Ron Paul wants to immediately cut and run in Iraq. The writer says Al-Qaeda would have taken over if the US had left Iraq. I doubt this was even true back in 2007 when it was written. Moreover, the writer worries that civil war and "genocide" will ensue following troop withdrawal--forget the fact that 100,000 Iraqi civilians were murdered by US bombs in the Iraq War. Apparently the writer had no problem with that genocide. Ron Paul did not vote for the Iraq War--so shouldn't our genocide-averse writer give him credit for that? Hence the sophist nature of Hawkins's post. Moreover, the overthrow of Saddam ultimately would be to blame for whatever power vacuum may result in lieu of US occupation, and it seems Hawkins is exaggerating the danger Iraqis might face in lieu of US occupation and is taking for granted the idea that we ought to be their military defense.
8) In the single most repulsive moment of the entire Presidential race so far, Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attack on America with this comment about 9/11. "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." This was not an "excuse" to anyone who scored above nil on the SAT reading comprehension test; rather, it was the reason given by the CIA itself, whose intel revealed that terrorists were primarily mad about the US bombing their lands and its agents' efforts to manipulate their politics. There's even video of Osama on youtube in which he complains of US predator drone strikes killing mohammedan civilians. That terrorists "hate us for our freedoms" was concerted propaganda on the part of the Bush administration; (Osama was a porn addict, and enjoyed that freedom). Moreover, most would-be terrorists probably could care less about our freedoms, just as most of we Americans could probably care less about people living far away. Regardless, if Ron Paul really meant to "excuse" 9/11, then he wouldn't have voted to go after the terrorists and kill them in Afghanistan.
9) Ron Paul is the single, least electable major candidate running for the presidency in either party Hawkins says Ron Paul's Libertarianism is too out of the mainstream, but he neglects to mention that many conservatives, moderates, and Democrats support Ron Paul. In fact, many Democrats have changed their way of thinking to become more fiscally conservative and more open to other conservative ideas in general because of their respect for Ron Paul.
Paul offers troop withdrawals, which most Americans favor and which no other candidate offers. He wants to audit our monetary overlords at the Fed, which is something the average person hit by inflation wants. Although Ron Paul may be libertarian in his ideals and may not share everyone's ideal political philosophy, many non-libertarians have found enough about him to like in him and respect him for being a stand-alone statesman who always keeps his promises. They like that is not a sophist politician like Mitt Romney or Obama who tries to promote himself at the expense of the nation.
Others simply want someone who is anti-Washington and anti-establishment who won't fit into the Bush, Obama, Clinton mold. So although not everyone shares Ron Paul's ideals, they like his policies.
Finally, to say that because third party candidates do poorly that it somehow confers unelectability upon Paul is meaningless because Ron Paul is running as a Republican...
The sad part about "The Conservative Case Against Ron Paul" is that on the surface it is effective propaganda which will deceive many and turn others away from Ron Paul, especially those who have been conditioned by years of Sean Hannity, FOX News and other phony conservative outlets to have an unnatural, unwarranted aversion to him.
1) Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative. The writer thinks the two are mutually exclusive. I beg to differ. Ron Paul is a conservative libertarian because he voted for the defense of marriage act and wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. He also errs on preventing people from entering the country illegally. These are things many libertarians disagree with. Within Libertarianism, there are people who are socially conservative like Ron Paul and Tom Woods, and there are those who are more socially liberal, who say, for instance, that abortion is alright.
Moreover, the term conservative is subjective. For example, the writer probably believes drug prohibition and small government are both conservative. Yet, at a certain level they mutually exclusive since government must grow to enforce prohibition. The wiggle room within conservatism means that some prioritize drug prohibition while others will prioritize small prudent, constitutional government. Oddly enough, Republicans of the 19th century did not concern themselves much with drug prohibition, so according to writer they might be called "liberals".
Suffice it to say that unless the writer has a copyright of the word conservatism, then his commentary is fundamentally meaningless. Those who put the least amount of effort into reading something are probably the most likely to be influenced by use of labels such as "libertarian" or "conservative" without actually considering the issues and values in depth. Hence, this labeling critique is placed at the beginning to try to make the simple-minded reader believe that Ron Paul is not in the conservative camp, thus attempting to make the rest of the critiques more biting.
2) ? [Will address this later]
3) Ron Paul encourages "truther" conspiracy nuts. Ron Paul openly states on page 120 of his book End the Fed that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job, and in so doing he has actually drawn ire from many truthers. It is a logical fallacy to say that because he does not try harder to discourage truthers, he therefore encourages them somehow. Attack dogs like Hawkins who write haphazard smear jobs fail to realize that Dr Paul got into politics long before 9/11, primarily because of his belief in Austrian Economics, desire to legalize owning gold, and desire to advance liberty. Yet connivers like Hawkins want to cast him as a truther fad.
4) Ron Paul's [alleged] racial views Ron Paul denies having anything to do with the racist article Hawkins cites. This is believable since many Ron Paul Newsletters--being of a deregulated, grassroots sprouting--were published without his knowledge. Ron Paul has never been known to say anything racist, so the racist "quotes" would seem totally out of character. Regardless, the evidence would fail in a court of law, especially since the writer of the "interview" has never attested to its veracity. Moreover, Ron Paul has condemned the comments and whoever it was that tried to say he said them.
5) A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are incredibly irritating. This is subjective nonsense.
6) Ron Paul is an isolationist As Sheldon Richman has pointed out, Ron Paul supports free trade and is anything but an "isolationist." Ron Paul opposes neo-con government intervention abroad and in so doing, he embodies the conservative virtue of prudence and restraint. The writer wants you to think that being "conservative" means wanting to bomb people who haven't attacked you at all and supporting lingering occupation in their homelands--as was the case in Iraq and as is the case in Libya. Ron Paul actually did vote to go into Afghanistan to eradicate the perpetrators of 9/11 in retaliation; so even if Paul is not hawkish enough for Hawkins's taste, he cannot be accused of pacifism.
7) Ron Paul wants to immediately cut and run in Iraq. The writer says Al-Qaeda would have taken over if the US had left Iraq. I doubt this was even true back in 2007 when it was written. Moreover, the writer worries that civil war and "genocide" will ensue following troop withdrawal--forget the fact that 100,000 Iraqi civilians were murdered by US bombs in the Iraq War. Apparently the writer had no problem with that genocide. Ron Paul did not vote for the Iraq War--so shouldn't our genocide-averse writer give him credit for that? Hence the sophist nature of Hawkins's post. Moreover, the overthrow of Saddam ultimately would be to blame for whatever power vacuum may result in lieu of US occupation, and it seems Hawkins is exaggerating the danger Iraqis might face in lieu of US occupation and is taking for granted the idea that we ought to be their military defense.
8) In the single most repulsive moment of the entire Presidential race so far, Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attack on America with this comment about 9/11. "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." This was not an "excuse" to anyone who scored above nil on the SAT reading comprehension test; rather, it was the reason given by the CIA itself, whose intel revealed that terrorists were primarily mad about the US bombing their lands and its agents' efforts to manipulate their politics. There's even video of Osama on youtube in which he complains of US predator drone strikes killing mohammedan civilians. That terrorists "hate us for our freedoms" was concerted propaganda on the part of the Bush administration; (Osama was a porn addict, and enjoyed that freedom). Moreover, most would-be terrorists probably could care less about our freedoms, just as most of we Americans could probably care less about people living far away. Regardless, if Ron Paul really meant to "excuse" 9/11, then he wouldn't have voted to go after the terrorists and kill them in Afghanistan.
9) Ron Paul is the single, least electable major candidate running for the presidency in either party Hawkins says Ron Paul's Libertarianism is too out of the mainstream, but he neglects to mention that many conservatives, moderates, and Democrats support Ron Paul. In fact, many Democrats have changed their way of thinking to become more fiscally conservative and more open to other conservative ideas in general because of their respect for Ron Paul.
Paul offers troop withdrawals, which most Americans favor and which no other candidate offers. He wants to audit our monetary overlords at the Fed, which is something the average person hit by inflation wants. Although Ron Paul may be libertarian in his ideals and may not share everyone's ideal political philosophy, many non-libertarians have found enough about him to like in him and respect him for being a stand-alone statesman who always keeps his promises. They like that is not a sophist politician like Mitt Romney or Obama who tries to promote himself at the expense of the nation.
Others simply want someone who is anti-Washington and anti-establishment who won't fit into the Bush, Obama, Clinton mold. So although not everyone shares Ron Paul's ideals, they like his policies.
Finally, to say that because third party candidates do poorly that it somehow confers unelectability upon Paul is meaningless because Ron Paul is running as a Republican...
The sad part about "The Conservative Case Against Ron Paul" is that on the surface it is effective propaganda which will deceive many and turn others away from Ron Paul, especially those who have been conditioned by years of Sean Hannity, FOX News and other phony conservative outlets to have an unnatural, unwarranted aversion to him.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Obama Loves Private Jet Owners
Many falsely claim that Obama is jealous of private jet owners because of some of his recent rhetoric. But the policies he enforces couldn't be more antithetical to this view.
Consider this: If one us regular people wants to board an airplane, we will likely have to choose between being groped or seen naked by a TSA minion. Yet, if a billionaire wants to board a private jet, he need not worry about any such molestation.
The reason the TSA gives for groping everyone, including children, is that in the past there have been a few sparse incidents--likely all of them in the middle east--in which children were used as suicide bombers. In somewhat of a non sequitur fashion, the TSA extrapolates from this that all American children need to be groped or looked at naked.
But, the underwear bomber reportedly came from a wealthy family. Indeed, many people from upscale families have been recruited as terrorists. Even people who fly private jets might be terrorists. So according to the TSA's logic, shouldn't people who board private jets be groped too--to make sure that one of them isn't a terrorist set to hijack the jet and fly it into the white house?
We are not advocating more groping--be it of private jet passengers or anyone else. We merely mean to point out that Obama's actual policies, those overseen by his DHS appointee Janet Napolitano, undermine his very rhetoric. Obama loves private jet owners so much that he trusts them to fly ungroped.
In the words of Jesse Ventura: political rhetoric today is like pro wrestling; it's show biz.
MMXI
Consider this: If one us regular people wants to board an airplane, we will likely have to choose between being groped or seen naked by a TSA minion. Yet, if a billionaire wants to board a private jet, he need not worry about any such molestation.
The reason the TSA gives for groping everyone, including children, is that in the past there have been a few sparse incidents--likely all of them in the middle east--in which children were used as suicide bombers. In somewhat of a non sequitur fashion, the TSA extrapolates from this that all American children need to be groped or looked at naked.
But, the underwear bomber reportedly came from a wealthy family. Indeed, many people from upscale families have been recruited as terrorists. Even people who fly private jets might be terrorists. So according to the TSA's logic, shouldn't people who board private jets be groped too--to make sure that one of them isn't a terrorist set to hijack the jet and fly it into the white house?
We are not advocating more groping--be it of private jet passengers or anyone else. We merely mean to point out that Obama's actual policies, those overseen by his DHS appointee Janet Napolitano, undermine his very rhetoric. Obama loves private jet owners so much that he trusts them to fly ungroped.
In the words of Jesse Ventura: political rhetoric today is like pro wrestling; it's show biz.
MMXI
Friday, August 12, 2011
Fred Pierantoni: a High-Ranking Freemason
This is a pic was taken from a past issue of the "Irem News".
According to Pierantoni's website, he is a member of St John's Lodge 233. The issue from which we got the pic has expired and thus been pulled down from the Irem Temple Website. However, the homepage still depicts that:
The Irem Temple Club is a branch of Freemasonry known as the "Shriners". Although this may be seen by most as a harmless civic organization, we believe it champions among its ranks the politically-connected, especially given our previous story that Lou Barletta was posing for a photo in front of the Irem Temple Mosque building in Wilkes-Barre. We must concede, however, that Pierantoni doesn't appear to have benefited vote-wise at the poll where the Masonic Living residents vote in Dallas, PA.
Pierantoni apparently belongs to the Holy Mother of Sorrows parish, and is thus a Catholic. But it is well known that Catholics have long been discouraged, and in times past outright forbidden*, from joining freemasonic lodges. Interestingly, there is a long history of enmity between Catholics and freemasons because the latter believed the former to be superstitious and the former believed the latter to be evil perpetrators of modernism and non-Catholic beliefs; the Knights of Columbus was sponsored as a Catholic alternative.
However, this enmity had vanished by the mid 20th century, and some even believe John XXIII, the pope who called Vatican II, was a freemason; others allege that Cardinal Bugnini, the primary architect of the Novus Ordo Mass, was a freemason. No longer would we expect a Freemason to try to blow up the Our Lady of Guadaloupe shrine. The Knights of Columbus would probably even take in someone who was a freemason in order to maintain their dwindling numbers. Today, the Catholic Church probably would shy away from banning freemasonic membership.
We still believe, however, that being a freemason, especially a high-ranking one, is not a very Catholic thing to do.
______________________________
Actually, the ban on Catholics joining Freemasonic lodges is still in effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_ban_of_Freemasonry
Here's an explanation of why Shriners like Pierantoni where the fez hat, as told by a staunchly anti-freemasonic Catholic.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)