The Militant Libertarian

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

Friday, June 13, 2008

My Take on Ron Paul Leaving the Presidential Race

OK, you asked for it. Well, at least a couple of you did. I got the emails. Yes, I know Ron Paul left the race officially in his announcement last night. Yep, I have an opinion about it. I have an opinion on everything!

In my opinion, which isn't very humble, I don't think he should have quit the race for President. Not until after the national GOP convention. Why? Because I think like a guerrilla warfare, anti-government, hit-em-where-it-hurts kinda guy. Not a "save face and use our resources to do something else" kinda guy.

I'll admit that his leaving makes sense when you consider the broader picture of what Dr. Paul seems to be planning: the creation of a new political party, of sorts, or at least a coalition of freedom-loving candidates and elected politicians. I'll even admit that in the long term, this is probably a good idea - assuming the global elitist takeover Illuminati chumps (use whatever name you like, I prefer "the bungholes that run the world") allow free elections to continue. The evidence says they aren't gonna do this, since they're already rigging and messing with election results almost globally now. Oh, ya, your vote matters. At least, if you watch MTV it probably does.

In my opinion, the only vote you have that really matters is your fist in the air, your ass on the street making noise, and your personal collection of doomsday articles (guns, ammo, food storage, and the like: I still want to start a Guns, Ammo, and Food Storage Party (GAFS Party)...). If you want to throw gold and silver in there, go ahead, but I don't put a lot of stock in that - buy shovels and seeds instead, they'll be worth more than that gold is if the shit hits the fan.

Back on topic.

My point is this: I think Ron Paul should have stayed in it until the national GOP convention in Minnesota. Why? Because his presence in the GOP makes them very nervous and the crowds of fans that he brings makes them even more nervous. The news media has a hard time ignoring Dr. Paul and his entourage of freedom-loving, sign waving, screaming fans - at least, they have a hard time doing it without looking the fool.

Second, you know they planned to shut him out or at least press him to the sidelines and marginalize him at the convention. Right? Had they done that, his thousands of militant supporters (me probably included) would have made a huge fuss, a giant nuisance of ourselves and generally got ourselves filmed and photoed making it obvious that we aren't happy with them ignoring Dr. Paul.

Not to mention McCain probably would have lost or at least looked the fool. Especially if they were stupid enough to let Congressman Paul speak in front of any kind of audience during the proceedings...

At any rate, I'm more interested in making the Republican Party look like the lying, snivveling, asswipe neo-cons they are than I am in preserving the unity of the blah blah blah. I figure if we hit the GOP this year, we can target the Democrats and their moronity1 in 2012. They're not as easy a target, but after four years of "it's changing to be the same" Obama, I'm sure they'd be ripe for the slaying.

That's my opinion on this whole thing. Hey, they don't call me "Militant" for nothing. :)

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

Thursday, June 12, 2008

U.S. Government Sought Customer Book Purchasing Records from
by David Gutierrez

(NaturalNews) Recently unsealed court records shed more light on the federal government's attempts to secure the online book purchase records of 24,000 customers.

In 2006, federal prosecutors investigating Robert D'Angelo, a Madison, WI official accused of fraud and tax evasion, subpoenaed online book retailer for transaction records on anyone who had purchased books from him through Amazon Marketplace since 1999. Prosecutors said they were hoping to find witnesses to testify against D'Angelo.

Amazon agreed to tell prosecutors what books D'Angelo had sold, but refused to turn over information on the buyers, citing its customers' First Amendment rights to privacy. The government came back with a request for only 120 customers, but Amazon still refused. The case went before U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker, who ruled in June to strike down the subpoena on First Amendment grounds.

"The subpoena is troubling because it permits the government to peek into the reading habits of specific individuals without their knowledge or permission," Crocker wrote in his ruling. "It is an unsettling and un-American scenario to envision federal agents nosing through the reading lists of law-abiding citizens while hunting for evidence against somebody else."

Crocker also expressed concerns that allowing the government to pry into people's reading habits could function as intimidation, thereby depriving them of their right to read what they wish.

"The chilling effect on expressive e-commerce would frost keyboards across America," he wrote.

Under Crocker's urging, prosecutors reached a compromise with Amazon in which the company would send letters to the 24,000 customers sought in the initial subpoena, inviting them to contact prosecutors if they wished to testify.

Crocker also criticized prosecutors for seeking to force Amazon's hand rather than seeking a compromise on their own.

"If the government had been more diligent in looking for workarounds instead of baring its teeth when Amazon balked, it's probable that this entire First Amendment showdown could have been avoided," he said.

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

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Ron Paul plans his own convention

According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Ron Paul has planned a convention at a convention center in Minneapolis to coincide with the GOP's national convention in the same city. You can read the article at this link: s_571996.html

Since this information is not corroborated on Ron Paul's own website (, I am taking it with a grain of salt.

Regardless, if it is true, I responded to a posting of this article on (you'll find me there as "MilitantLibertarian") with the following:

I think it would be much better and get much more notice and publicity if we were to swamp the actual convention instead of one in another arena. Having the event separate means the national press can more or less pretend it's not going on and ignore it. Ruining (or disrupting) the regular GOP convention, however, will cause an uproar and get a lot of press.

I'm thinking along the lines of the 9/11 Truthers who infiltrate events as "normal" goers and then start asking poignant questions that get them removed because the people running the show get scared.

A couple thousand people in the convention who begin doing this sort of thing, coupled with several thousand more outside protesting Ron Paul's exclusion itself, would make a great highlight to how the GOP has been usurped and is under the control of the neo-cons and powers-that-be.

Ruin it for the Republicans and let the Democrats have it this time. The GOP has proven it's worthlessness and needs to be removed like the weed it is. Then maybe we can do the same to the Dems next...

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

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Happy Earth Day

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

Monday, June 09, 2008

Big Pharma Not In The Business of Healing...

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

Now That Hillary's Gone

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

Sunday, June 08, 2008

FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.[1] (See bottom of this web page for Most Wanted page) In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

Next is the Bin Laden “confession” video that was released by the U.S. government on December 13, 2001. Most Americans remember this video. It was the video showing Bin Laden with a few of his comrades recounting with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. The Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered.”[2] What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the “confession video” and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

In a BBC News article[3] reporting on the “9/11 confession video” release, President Bush is said to have been hesitant to release the tape because he knew it would be a vivid reminder to many people of their loss. But, he also knew it would be “a devastating declaration” of Bin Laden’s guilt. “Were going to get him,” said President Bush. “Dead or alive, it doesn’t matter to me.”

In a CNN article[4] regarding the Bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that “the tape removes any doubt that the U.S. military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.” Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, “The tape’s release is central to informing people in the outside world who don’t believe bin Laden was involved in the September 11 attacks.” Shelby went on to say “I don’t know how they can be in denial after they see this tape.” Well Senator Shelby, apparently the Federal Bureau of Investigation isn’t convinced by the taped confession, so why are you?

The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government authenticating the Bin Laden “confession video”, to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After all, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel openly talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The identified participants of the video would be indicted, and if captured, the video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why is the Bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI?

Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the U.S. media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government’s account? And on those few rare occasions when a 9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why has the mainstream media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather than listen to the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the government’s 9/11 account? Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly content with the government’s 9/11 story when so much verifiable information to the contrary is available with a few clicks of a computer mouse?

Who is it that is controlling the media message, and how is it that the U.S. media has indicted Usama Bin Laden for the events of September 11, 2001, but the U.S. government has not? How is it that the FBI has no “hard evidence” connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?

...No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11... Think about it.

[1] Federal Bureau of Investigation, Most Wanted Terrorists, Usama Bin Laden,, [Accessed May 31, 2006]

[2] United States Department of Defense, News Release, U.S. Releases Videotape of Osama bin Laden, December 13, 2001,, [Accessed June 5, 2006]

[3] BBC News, Bin Laden video angers New Yorkers, December 14, 2001, Peter Gould,, [Accessed June 5, 2006]

[4] CNN, Bin Laden on tape: Attacks ‘benefited Islam greatly”, December 14, 2001,, [Accessed June 5, 2006]

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