The Militant Libertarian

I'm pissed off and I'm a libertarian. What else you wanna know?

Saturday, December 15, 2007


Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Friday, December 14, 2007

Estulin: Elitists Consider Assassinating Ron Paul

Best-selling author and Bilderberg sleuth says intelligence sources told him highest levels of U.S. government discussing what result would be if Congressman was killed

Best-selling author and Bilderberg sleuth Daniel Estulin says he has received information from sources inside the U.S. intelligence community which suggests that people from the highest levels of the U.S. government are considering an assassination attempt against Congressman Ron Paul because they are threatened by his burgeoning popularity.

Estulin, whose information has unfortunately proven very accurate in the past, went public with the bombshell news during an appearance on The Alex Jones Show today.

"I am getting information from my sources that there are people involved from a higher level of the American establishment who are seriously considering - this has not been confirmed - but assassination is definitely on the agenda and I pray to God that this is not the case," said Estulin.
Estulin, an award winning investigative journalist, said that he was given the information from a source that has been reliable for over a decade in providing accurate projections of future events based on what the elite were discussing in their own circles and that assassination was a serious option should the Ron Paul Revolution continue to pick up steam.

Estulin, author of the global bestseller The True Story of the Bilderberg Group described the concept as a "trial balloon from the inner core within the inner core - it hasn't gone beyond that but it is obviously on the table because I think needless to say they are very much concerned," he added.

Ron Paul himself has stated on a previous occasion that he is aware of the dangers of being such a bold icon for freedom and understands that political assassinations have occured in the past.

In a June appearance on The Alex Jones Show, Congressman Paul acknowledged that such a threat is "real," agreeing with a number of historical examples where leaders were killed or attacked for successfully standing up to the system. "That's right. They'll do it," Paul said, making reference with Alex Jones to upstarts like Andrew Jackson, "The Kingfish" Huey Long, Bobby Kennedy, George Washington and even George Wallace.

Estulin pointed out that his past predictions about global events were very accurate because of the solid information provided to him from within Bilderberg and the elite. Over 18 months ago Estulin correctly made the call that the Iran war had been delayed and was probably off the table, which is looking to be exactly the case after the release of the recent National Intelligence Estimate. Estulin in featured at length in Alex Jones' film Endgame, in which he is also filmed making the prediction based on his sources.

Estulin said his sources were from within the intelligence community and they were telling him that "the people of the highest levels of government - not related in any way at least visually to George W. Bush - the first initial conversation of what might happen if we were to do this," has taken place.

"The Ron Paul phenomenon has galvanized an entire nation," said Estulin, adding that both the people who discovered the plot and its potential protagonists are terrified at the consequences of what such an action will be because of the difficulty in judging just how severely the general public will react.

Estulin said that the conspirators, which he described as a "small circle of intimates," were discussing what the effect would be if Congressman Paul was "removed" - they are being very careful to use the word "remove" rather than more volatile terms, but Estulin was told directly that "remove" was a euphemism for assassinate.

Estulin said he may be able to be more specific on exactly who is discussing such an action in future, but warned that Ron Paul's staff should be aware of the issue.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Huckabee Broke, Romney Borrows, Giuliani Ducks Terrorist Ties

by Devvy
© 2007 - (

"Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth." George Washington, letter to James Madison, March 2, 1788

Something is very strange about the GOP presidential race. Mike Huckabee, kissed and blessed by the treasonous Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is in Iowa begging with a new slogan: Tanks for Huck. According to reports, Brother Huckabee has a skimpy $650,000 in the till and needs gas money to campaign. Flip Romney, on the other hand as reported on December 11, 2007, has loaned his campaign some $17 MILLION dollars from his own personal stash of bling. That's not to say Romney hasn't raised other funds, because he has and most likely will continue to do so.

Recently, war monger and staunch supporter of illegal aliens, John McCain, was in the process of borrowing $3 million dollars to prop up his monotonous bid for the Oval Office. Of course, since McCain is part and parcel to the U.S. Congress writing hot checks and sacking the people's purse, what's a little more debt to him? Cross-dressing, serial adulterer, pro-sodomy, pro-abortion, pro-war, Rudy Julie Annie, has taken in a considerable chunk of cash and is still considered by polls the front runner. His big money and support is coming from liberal Republicans and big business. Rudy Julie Annie has filled his pockets by playing 911 hero; a trashy and untrue concoction. But, his cozy relationships with certain countries and business dealings are beginning to stink up his carefully crafted image. This column is long, but you will find it is accurate and this one could sink the 911 caped crusader.

But what about the "maverick," "obscure," congressman from Texas, Ron Paul?

Ron Paul not only broke the record for one day donations in the fourth quarter, $4.2 million in one day last month, it appears he will raise more than any other "Republican" candidate before the quarter ends. As I write this, donations to his campaign for this quarter are now at $11,380,325.69; watch the screen, it changes by the minute. His web site gets more hits than anyone hands down. This candidate continues to dominate in all these GOP straw polls over the so-called "top tier" candidates. Why, even people around the world want this man elected! The National Review just anointed Flip Romney. I watched one of their mouthpieces on FAUX (FOX) yesterday explain to the devoid of all brain wave activity anchor, John Gibson, one of the reasons. Willard represents their warped definition of conservative and that he will "hold together the national security hawks." That's right: Endless wars for the bankers.

It is no secret Ron Paul has been blacked out by the corrupted "mainstream" media with FAUX (FOX) News leading the way. The amount of air time given to anything about Ron Paul's run for the White House by other than the Internet is unlike anything I've ever seen in my adult life. What all network channels have done to this decent man has really been shameful to their profession. These pitiful moderators at the debates have shown anyone with the ability to see, a cut and slash job each and every time, deliberately cutting Ron Paul off and squashing his rseponse time down to mere minutes for the entire debate. Is it any wonder Americans call it the "lame stream" media and have no respect for the whole stinkin' bunch of them?

Every day on the FOX News web site for political articles, they list the "top tier" candidates, Giuliani, Huckabee, Thompson and some days, McCain. Day before yesterday, they finally listed Ron Paul at the bottom of the heap from poll numbers. Almost every poll number coverage one sees on any network channel omits Ron Paul, which begs some questions:

What other candidate has this kind of grassroots support, raising this kind of money - The blimp will fly!

If Huckabee is so well loved, why is no one donating to his campaign? People know these candidates need money to run an effective campaign. I guess Brother Huck's supporters will pray on it!

If Romney is so popular, why does he have to reach into his deep pockets and loan his own campaign $17 MILLION bux? Where are the donations from the little people?

How is it John McCain shows higher in polls than Ron Paul, but no one will support him with the cash a candidate needs?

If Fred Thompson is so popular as to be right up there with Rudy Julie Annie and Huckabee, why is it Ron Paul beats him in straw polls 32-15? Remember: These are Republican voters.

How can Ron Paul continue to win all these straw polls by Republican voters, yet polls show no one would vote for him?

How is it Ron Paul continues to raise so much money if no one except the "fringe" element out there supports him?

Why does Ron Paul's web site and his campaign show such popularity and numbers?

"Paul, 71, enjoys about 160,000 mentions on, more than the next four most popular candidates combined.'s statistics show Paul's Web site with a narrow lead over all the Democratic candidates and a sizable one over his fellow Republicans. Similarly, a report by Hitwise puts Paul's Web site ahead of other GOP candidates in terms of popularity.

"The libertarian-minded Republican enjoys a hefty lead in two unscientific online polls: 56.3 percent in one hosted by the conservative group, and 56 percent in a poll created by, with undeclared candidate Fred Thompson coming in second at 18.7 percent. Paul is Technorati's most searched-for term, in front of stalwart contenders such as "iPhone" and "Paris Hilton," and recently reclaimed the spot after briefly falling behind a Puerto Rican singer with the undeniable advantage of having a sex tape on the loose. He's a close second to Barack Obama (and far outpaces Hillary Clinton) on's list of in-demand politicians, and, as The New York Times notes, is the most "friended" Republican on"

How about those all important "meet-ups" that define grassroots politics? Click here and scroll down for a map of the number per candidate. It's a real eye opener and the numbers grow by the day. These meet up groups are the foot soldiers of the candidates. A picture is worth a thousand words. One thing Congressman Paul won't be lacking is media attacks on him, eventually dragging out the no longer tried and true, "anti-semitic." That one isn't washing anymore, especially when it applies to a man of such principled beliefs and convictions, the way he has led his life and his statesman legacy in Congress. Americans are tired of these labels tossed around for "scorched earth politics" which don't benefit we the people, only the money brokers behind the scenes.

How is it this fringe candidate won this one:

National Presidential Caucus Announces Results From First-Ever National Caucus

Barack Obama Wins Democrat Caucuses; Ron Paul Dominates Both GOP And "Open" Caucuses --

"Washington, DC (December 12, 2007) -- On December 7, 2007 in cities and small towns across the country, Democrat, Republican and "Open" Caucus groups formed independently online and Caucused face-to-face on National Caucus Day. The first-ever National Presidential Caucus is now history and the results are in.

"Barack Obama wins over Democrat voters generating 40% of Democrat Caucus voter preferences. Obama was followed by a three-way tie for second, with John Edwards, Bill Richardson and "Undecided" each generating 20% of Democratic Caucus preferences.

"On the Republican side, Ron Paul obliterated the field for the GOP generating the preference of 50% of GOP Caucuses. Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson follow, generating 33.3% and 16.6% of Republican Caucus preferences, respectively. Among votes in Open Caucuses, Ron Paul wins with 62.5% of Open Caucus votes, followed by Barack Obama (18.75%), Fred Thompson (12.5%), and Hilary Clinton (6.25%).

"Results were tallied from 19 independently formed Caucus groups (Republican, Democrat, and Open) that met on Friday, December 7th, 2007 in Dallas, TX (2D); Sarcoxie, MO (O); Boise, ID (R); Needham, MA (D); Carthage, MO (O); Manhattan, KS (D & R); Pineville, MO (O); Richmond, MO (O); Costa Mesa, CA (O); Springfield MO (R); Winston-Salem, NC (O); Overland Park, KS (R); New York City, NY (O); and Joplin, MO (R), Warrensburg, MO (R), Roselle Park, NK (D), and Philadelphia, PA (O).

"Issue results reflected opposition to Iraq involvement, foreign intervention in general, and health care, immigration and erosion of civil liberties rounding out the top concerns of all caucusers."

If Dr. Paul is such a "fringe" candidate, a "maverick" candidate that no one is interested in, how come he continues to lead in all these areas? Are all Ron Paul supporters, you know, doctors, lawyers, scientists, bank tellers, farmers, ranchers, homemakers, fire fighters, school teachers, brick layers, nurses, - Americans from all walks of life - "fringe element" voters? How about one American, Lawrence Lepard, who put up $100,000 bux in cold, hard cash to buy a full page ad for Congressman Ron Paul, which appeared November 21, 2007, in USA TODAY? (A fabulous ad; check your library for back issues of that paper.) Is he also a fringe element, "disenfranchised" voter? Why are Democrats, independents and voters of other parties rushing to change their voter registrations so they can vote for Congressman Paul in the primaries - which is not happening for any Democrat candidate? Are they all part of this fringe element of voters who don't understand the issues? Are they all "dangerous" as gab fest CNN News network anchor, Glen Beck honks on his show?

The polls say no one wants Congressman Paul. If one goes to this web site, Ron Paul isn't even mentioned. How many voters were contacted for these polls? Well, the first one, CNN, says 1,002, described as 'likely' would 'support' a candidate. You have to scroll way, way down on the ABC/Washington Post poll to find 1,136 polled. Close to 100 MILLION Americans vote in the presidential elections, yet we're to believe that a 'random' sampling of a little over 1,000 voters from who knows where represents the choices of a nation the size of America? Do these companies who make big mullah with this polling really believe people like me care how the people in Iowa or New Hampshire vote? Their vote is theirs and mine is mine.

Despite the putrid attempt by what passes itself off as fair and balanced or a free press, the Ron Paul run for the White House is making history and it is being done, not by special interest groups, but by we the people. Would it fair to say that Dr. Paul is truly the people's candidate? While he might not be the high gloss, buffed up peacock staying in five star hotels paid for by campaign donations, his message is resonating because he talks to the people with respect and knowledge of the issues. Those who research his life and terms in Congress know he is not for sale. In the end, your vote is yours and yours alone. I hope you will make it for America first.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Mike Huckabee: Murderer and Rapist by Proxy?

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

More Tasering

I don't think a full minute has even passed before the taser is deployed and used on this driver. Watch the video and see if you can see justification. I sure can't.

Driver Gets Tazed For Being Slow - Watch more free videos
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Loose Change: Final Cut

I finally got the chance to watch the latest and last edition of the Loose Change video series. These are probably the most popular of the documentaries involving the mysteries of the 9/11 attacks. To start off, I really like the first couple of installments and think that Loose Change is probably the best produced of the documentaries I've seen about 9/11.

Sadly, this last edition leaves a lot to be desired. The filmmakers have been gaining in knowledge and skill with their technical abilities (not to mention their budget has vastly increased), but their other skills are not improving.

The documentary has some great footage, awesome interviews, and really hard-hitting evidence (and evidence destroying info), but lacks in other ways.

First off, the background music during most of the film is downright annoying and gets in the way of the speakers and narrator. It becomes distracting and overly repetitive much of the time and the movie would be much better off without it.

Besides that, though, a lot of the great info in the first movie was left out of this one, though the new info nearly makes up for it. The film's makers have publicly stated that if they had included everything they could substantiate, evidence-wise, in this movie, it would be four or five hours long.

Personally, I think that should be done anyway. This "final cut" could serve as the two hour "nutshell" version and the four plus hour version could be the real "final cut." I think a lot of us would be happier, though the audience for such a long documentary would undoubtedly be smaller. Hollywood does this kind of thing fairly often, though, and I think there would be enough of a market for it to make it worthwhile.

At any rate, this final installment is cleaner, more high-tech with graphics and illustrations, but in the end less hard-hitting than the earlier version. Also, this commercial version of the film is not available on or any other regular retailer than I can see. Only the Loose Change website itself and from Alex Jones on Oh well.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Sunday, December 09, 2007

Remarks on Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

5 December 2007
by Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.

Madame Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably out of town on October 23, 2007, when a vote was taken on HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted against this misguided and dangerous piece of legislation. This legislation focuses the weight of the US government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against �violent radicalization.�

I would like to note that this legislation was brought to the floor for a vote under suspension of regular order. These so-called �suspension� bills are meant to be non-controversial, thereby negating the need for the more complete and open debate allowed under regular order. It is difficult for me to believe that none of my colleagues in Congress view HR 1955, with its troubling civil liberties implications, as �non-controversial.�

There are many causes for concern in HR 1955. The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for �facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process� in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward US government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies? This bill certainly sets us on that course.

This seems to be an unwise and dangerous solution in search of a real problem. Previous acts of ideologically-motivated violence, though rare, have been resolved successfully using law enforcement techniques, existing laws against violence, and our court system. Even if there were a surge of �violent radicalization� -- a claim for which there is no evidence -- there is no reason to believe that our criminal justice system is so flawed and weak as to be incapable of trying and punishing those who perpetrate violent acts.

This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding. But it may do so at great further expense to our civil liberties. What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes �radicalization.� Could otherwise non-violent anti-tax, antiwar, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing.

In addition, this legislation will create a Department of Homeland Security-established university-based body to further study radicalization and to �contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.� I wonder whether this is really a legitimate role for institutes of higher learning in a free society.

Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally-protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website: