I recently wrote on my blog that Libertarians should not support Democrats. Ever.

The post generated a tremendous response and produced an invitation from BIG Government Editor Michael Flynn to expand on my thoughts here. I’m honored to do so.

In an election for city council, congress, president or local dog catcher, I believe a Libertarian’s realistic choices are to vote Republican, Libertarian, Independent, or write-in.

There is nothing Libertarian about the Democratic Party and Obama is a perfect example of my point.

Barack Obama ran against the wars – then expanded them.
Barack Obama ran against federal wiretapping programs – then expanded them.
Barack Obama ran against Bush’s faith based initiatives – then expanded them.
Barack Obama ran against Bush’s debts – then expanded them.

In the Democratic Party of yesteryear, there was a school of political philosophy called Classical Liberalism which offered Libertarians an option to vote for Democrats.

Those days are over.

The Democratic Party is now the party of ACORN, corrupt unions, communists, socialists, anarchists and complicit media allies who have conveniently ignored every violation of American liberty committed by the Obama Administration since the day he was sworn in as president.

Libertarians believe in the maximum amount of freedom for individuals. Libertarians believe in limited government. Libertarians reject ineffective big government policies. Libertarians are fiscal conservatives.

How have Libertarians benefited under Obama?

(more…)

What’s the real definition of socialism? How is it distinct from regulation and a social welfare state? Why are intellectuals still enamored of a system that brought us Stalin, Hitler, and more recently Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong-Il? And what can the United States learn from Sweden about free enterprise and capitalism?

Reason.tv’s Nick Gillespie sat down with Kevin Williamson, who is deputy managing editor of National Review and author of a new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, to discuss the meaning of socialism in history and the current moment.

(more…)

There are—of course—the Grammys, the Emmys, and the Oscars, but the Sammies? You won’t see Kanye, Rosie, or Bragelina at this year’s Sammies, rather  you’ll see Omid Malekan, Rob Port, and Michelle Minton—all finalists for what our keynote speaker, John Stossel, describes as “an award that matters.”

No one knows the Sammies better than Andrew Breitbart, who rallied the crowd with his keynote address last year, and returns next Friday, April 8th as a judge and presenter.

Andrew Breitbart with Sammie winner John Papola and John’s wife Lisa at the 2010 Sammies reception.

But while those other awards shows are by the industry and for the industry, the Sammies are a breath of fresh air compared to those musty rooms of punch-drunk self-congratulators. The Sammies recognizes citizens who effectively stand up in defense of freedom—the very idea that makes Hollywood cringe and the rest of those awards shows even possible.

This year the Sammies is “redrawing the lines”—better yet, the Sammies is honoring those who redrew the lines on the American political landscape in 2010. These great Americans erased the “Rs” and the “Ds,” challenged the traditional left-right trap, and took on the political establishment who has been running the show for too long.

In the mold of other awards shows, the Sammies offers prizes in several categories, including the “Watchdog,” the “Reformer,” and the “Modern Day Sam Adams.” Among the finalists this year is Tim Eyman who successfully used initiatives in Washington to challenge tax increases and Toby Marie Walker whose Tea Party propelled her from local grassroots activist to national pundit.

(more…)

Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana has triggered a spat among policy wonks with his recent comments expressing sympathy for a value-added tax (VAT). Kevin Williamson of National Review is arguing that a VAT will probably be necessary because there is no hope of restraining spending. Ryan Ellis of Americans for Tax Reform jumped on Williamson for his “apostasy,” arguing that a VAT would be bad news for taxpayers. From a policy perspective, I’m very much against a VAT because it will finance bigger government, as explained in this video.

That being said, Kevin Williamson makes a good point when he says that some supply-siders have neglected the spending side of the fiscal ledger. And it certainly is true that Republicans don’t seem very interested in curtailing the growth of government. But does this mean, as Williamson argues, but that our choices are limited to 1) a 36 percent spending cut, 2) catastrophic deficits and debt, or 3) a European-style value-added tax.

I actually think it would be a great idea to reduce the budget by 36 percent. That would bring the burden of federal spending back down to where it was in 2003. Notwithstanding the screams from various interest groups that this would generate, nobody was starving in the streets when the budget was $2.3 trillion rather than today’s $3.5 trillion. But Kevin is unfortunately correct in noting that this type of fiscal reform won’t happen.

Kevin is wrong, however, in saying that we therefore have to choose between either Greek-style deficits or a VAT.

(more…)

Click to Play

Big brains on the big show this week as Rob Long and Peter Robinson are joined by New York Times columnist David Brooks and National Review Editor-In-Chief Rich Lowry. They think big thoughts about entitlements, the Bush tax cuts, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Bob Gates for president, potential democratic challengers, and whether infidelity is the root of all social evil.

For links or to comment on this podcast, please visit us at Ricochet.com

As anyone who has any recollection of the aftermath of the 2008 election cycle knows, the GOP is hopelessly behind on the internet, cannot possibly marshal any web resources on its behalf because it’s stuck in the 19th century politically and will be eclipsed by the forces of Web 2.0 as surely as Democrats were eclipsed by talk radio.

Or at least, that’s what the Mainstream Media force-fed to people after the 2008 election cycle. Naturally, like most Mainstream Media memes, it was an abject lie, but still, somehow the fear worked its way around establishment GOP circles to the point that a veritable avalanche of hysteria crashed down on party activists. “Why, if the internet swings to the Left,” many supposedly “concerned conservative” commentators opined, “then surely our restrictive, overly ideological makeup will make it impossible for us to attract anyone!”

One can’t blame them for buying an argument which was made with such nauseating frequency. Yet, as recent events since the Obama election have shown, the idea that conservatism cannot capture the internet is not at all accurate. What few people may realize, however, is why this argument was so inaccurate, and more importantly, why it took a Messianic bumbler like Obama to expose its falsehood. With respect, therefore, I must disagree with my fellow contributor’s rejection of youth culture as something irrevocably tainted by liberalism, though I understand his frustration entirely.

However, as I mean to prove, the current youth ethos embodied by internet subculture is fundamentally conservative in character, even if its denizens have not yet caught on to that fact. In order to prove this, I will draw on knowledge that I have gained both as an avid internet user and as a member of a generation for whom digital communication is a second language – knowledge which would require investigating not only the harmless environs of Youtube, Facebook and Twitter, but also the darkest, least talked about nether-regions of the internet – websites which produce 90% of the internet’s cultural references, and yet are so riddled with perversity that their own patrons take it as an unspoken rule never to talk about them.

(more…)

Whenever reading Politico, everything should be washed through this filter. You must always keep in the front of your mind that this supposed “news” organization took the time to dig up and publicize dirt on a private citizen whose only sin was asking a perfectly reasonable question of a public figure. Politico’s warning to the everyday American was clear: get in the way of our guy and we will summon all our resources to publicly humiliate you. This all goes to prove that Politico is nothing more than a digital version of the Dinosaur Media — and just as clueless and dishonest as their unholy brethren, especially when it comes to explaining why their counterparts are drowning in the tar pits of obsolescence.

To hear Politico tell it, CNN’s stuck in humiliating fourth place behind FOX, MSNBC and their own Headline News because they’ve made the mistake of not appealing to the great unwashed who prefer partisan bickering and echo chambers:

With the proliferation of media across platforms these days, there’s less shared knowledge among people, who are increasingly heading to niche outlets for information. At the same time, there’s a large appetite for the new media world where the MSM gatekeepers no longer hold as much clout, and “he said, she said” journalism gives way to strong point of view. …

There’s no doubt that the over-the-top, and politically partisan, hosts are having more success attracting viewers on nights when there’s no major news event. (more…)