Democrats Funded Libertarian In MT Senate Race As They Did In AZ For Rep. Giffords

The m/o in AZ in 2010 was Democrats spending money to portray a libertarian as the true conservative in order to bleed-off votes from the Republican candidate and Iraq War veteran Jesse Kelly and thus re-elect the Democrat, Rep. Gabby Giffords, who went on to get shot by a lunatic with libertarian ideas named Jared Loughner. To add insult to injury, liberals nationwide then went on to blame her shooting on Republicans and the Tea Party.

I reported on this in early January 2011, here, showing a mailer for the libertarian paid for by the Arizona Democrat Party.

Now it turns out the same strategy was used in Montana in 2012 to boost the libertarian candidate as the real conservative, funded by liberal money, in order to bleed-off votes from the Republican Rehberg and re-elect the Democrat Senator Tester.

Propublica has the in-depth story, here.

Everyone thinks the Republicans are the stupid party when in two recent elections it's the libertarians who got played for fools and tools. But the Republicans really are the stupid ones for thinking an alliance with libertarians isn't just possible but natural when far more often than not libertarians view themselves as successful when they prevent Republicans from getting elected, as they themselves say here (h/t Chris).

We know whose side they are on. Libertarians are natural liberals, not conservatives.

Arizona Democrats Stirred the Libertarian Pot Loughner Drank From

Was Jared Loughner moved to kill because he thought fellow Jew Gabrielle Giffords' political tactics were manipulative?

He certainly thought the US government was manipulating people through language, through math, through fiat money, even through religion, the message of which is represented on coin and currency. That's why Loughner said he wouldn't use money not backed by gold and silver to pay debts, and why he wouldn't trust in God. The entire structure of reality was manipulated as far as Loughner was concerned, including 911, a conspiracy of lies orchestrated by the government.

So did Loughner discover that Giffords, too, had manipulated the election in their own district? Is that why he waited to buy his gun until almost a month after Giffords won?

Consider that Giffords' fellow Democrats barraged her district late in October 2010 with a mailing promoting the third party Libertarian candidate, who ended up bleeding off over 10,000 votes in the race, which Giffords won by less than 3,700 votes over Republican challenger Jesse Kelly.

The Arizona Daily Star broke the story here, reporting on it just days before the November 2010 election. In it, it quoted Jennifer Johnson, spokeswoman for Arizona's Democratic Party, as saying:

“It’s about letting voters know their choices, and when it comes to tea party ideals and knowing the Constitution, Jesse Kelly doesn’t hold a candle to Steve Stoltz. So we are simply letting voters know about their choices in this race.”

The strategy obviously worked . . . a little too well, for Giffords and her fellow victims.

WBZ-TV Claims Blogger Who Wrote "1 Down, 534 to Go" is a Libertarian

First we have Bush-hater and truther-inspired son of a Jewess Jared Loughner spouting atheism and hard money, ideas commonly conjoined only in Libertarian circles, and now we get a self-described Libertarian applauding the shooting of Jewish Congresswoman Giffords in a blog post entitled "1 Down, 534 to Go."

And still no one is calling attention to the Libertarian connection, because the left wants to paint the whole right with that broad brush, and because the right knows that the Tea Party is half Libertarian but needs its support.

Libertarianism is soulless, and neither left nor right should make a pact with that devil.

Read the WBZ-TV story and watch the video here.

NY Times Paints Loughner and Hard Money Libertarianism as Right Wing Extreme

The leftist ridicule offensive continues, designed to preoccupy the opposition and get the right fighting amongst themselves over who belongs and who doesn't, while the left presses on for new gun control measures and suppression of free speech.

Notice the elision going on in the first passage here:

He became an echo chamber for stray ideas, amplifying, for example, certain grandiose tenets of a number of extremist right-wing groups — including the need for a new money system and the government’s mind-manipulation of the masses through language.

Libertarians generally hold to hard money ideas, but that hardly makes them right wing, witness the long war of traditionalists like Russell Kirk against what he called "the chirping sectaries." The hard money idea is subtly paired with mind-manipulation conspiracy theory by the Times, whatever that means, without support and simply by assertion. Having been a fairly well-informed conservative since the late 70s, one is hard-pressed to know what the Times is even talking about. There you go again, one of our own might say now. We've had our Truthers and our Birthers. Now we've got our Minders, I guess.

One suspects the Times knows full well its only plausible case is in the Libertarian hard money ideology, as here:

A few days later, during a meeting with a school administrator, Mr. Loughner said that he had paid for his courses illegally because, “I did not pay with gold and silver” — a standard position among right-wing extremist groups. With Mr. Loughner’s consent, that same administrator then arranged to meet with the student and his mother to discuss the creation of a “behavioral contract” for him, after which the official noted: “Throughout the meeting, Jared held himself very rigidly and smiled overtly at inappropriate times.”

Notice the effort to paint gold and silver backed money as "a standard position" on the right. It isn't, and it hasn't been as long as conservatism has been resurgent since the 60s and Milton Friedman style monetarism and devotion to a strong dollar captured people's imaginations.

Clear-headed thinkers on the right, like George Will, have well noted the Federal Reserve's failure to maintain a sound currency partly because its mandate was divided in 1978 to include maintaining full employment. Instead, hard money ideology has been an enthusiasm prevalent on the fringe, among Libertarians, in the post-war era in view of the fact that the monetarist consensus has been breaking down due to its failures, and because the gold standard used to be, well, the law of the land, all the way up until . . . FDR.

The dishonesty of the presentation coheres with the view of the Times that, for most of its history, America has been a veritable right-wing nuthouse. They ought to know.

Tucson Shooting Survivor Detained for Yelling "You're Dead!" at Tea Party Spokesman

Story here.

Messiah Visits Wounded Gabrielle Giffords, Spontaneously Opens Eye

"And I want to tell you … right after we went to visit, a few minutes after we left her room and some of her colleagues in Congress were in the room, Gabby opened her eyes for the first time," Obama told the crowd, which reacted with emotional cheers. "Gabby opened her eyes for the first time."

As reported here.

Tucson Politicians Criticize Sheriff Dupnik

According to The Arizona Daily Sun here, a Republican state representative from Surprise and a Republican state senator from Tucson both think Sheriff Clarence Dupnik has demonstrated some serious shortcomings.

Full coverage at the link.

"Rage is Encoded in Conservative DNA"

So says commie pinko Michael Tomasky here in the pinko commie rag for which he writes, The UK Guardian.

And he's right.

But not completely.

It's in his DNA, too.

And the only real difference between us is that he and his ilk will never admit it, which is why you should fear people like him. Their delusional sense of superiority over their fellows has led some of them to murder far more people than one nut with Glock in Arizona ever dreamed of, but to do that they first have to destroy the institutions we've erected to keep human evil in check. 

"A man's got to know his limitations," Harry Callahan once reminded us. And Michael Tomasky doesn't.

Ugliest Political Rhetoric Coming From Those Trying To Exploit A Crime

James Taranto for The Wall Street Journal (at this link) covers all the bases for the last 48 hours on the politicization of the Tucson shooting massacre, with excerpts and links to all the stories, and comes down hardest on those trying to exploit the crime for political gain:

There is no denying that "relentlessly hostile rhetoric" can be found on the right, and also on the left. (On the center, too, for that matter.) Opinions will vary as to where the problem is worst, and it is human nature to find fault with the other side more readily than with one's own.

That said, it seems to us there is a very strong case to be made that the ugliest political rhetoric of the past 48 hours has been that coming from the side whose leading voices are attempting to make sense of a senseless crime by blaming their opponents for it.

Or perhaps we should say from the side that is attempting to exploit the crime in this manner.

Dick Morris, are you listening?

Sec. of State Hillary Clinton Likens Half of America to Tucson Shooter and to Islamic Extremists

Speaking in the United Arab Emirates, as reported here by Reuters:

"The extremists and their voices, the crazy voices that sometimes get on the TV, that's not who we are, that's not who you are, and what we have to do is get through that and make it clear that that doesn't represent either American or Arab ideas or opinions," she said.

Did Jared Lee Loughner yell "Allahu Akbar!" before he opened fire?

Gabrielle Giffords' Democrats Promoted Libertarian as True Conservative to Divide Vote on her Right

The following excerpts come from the website of the Libertarian Party candidate, Steve Stoltz, whom the Democrat Party (yes you read that right) promoted in its literature as the true conservative running against the Democrat incumbent Gabrielle Giffords, shot in Tucson on Saturday, to bleed off votes on the right from the Republican challenger Jesse Kelly:

As a Libertarian, I am socially liberal, compassionate and humanitarian, but I am also fiscally conservative and principled.

The United States should have sound money that is backed by gold not the “monopoly money” of a fiat currency that is essentially counterfeited by the printing presses of the Federal Reserve which causes massive inflation.

As a Libertarian I believe that everyone owns their own body and can do ANYTHING they want with it, so long as they do not infringe upon someone else’s life/health, liberty or property (the 4rth amendment of the constitution says that people have a right to be secure in their person).

Government has no authority over the nature of a person’s consensual sexual relationships - even if they desire to engage in promiscuity and immorality.

The government has no right to tell a person what food they can eat, has no right to restrict their access to vitamin and mineral supplements, has no right to prevent a person from taking experimental drugs or getting medical treatments they feel will cure them of disease.

It is ironic that laws limit access to drugs, while the FDA has permitted poisonous/toxic substance like aspartame to be introduced into beverages.

Drugs like marijuana should be legalized, with increasing amounts of regulation and taxation applied to the more addictive drugs.

Society should lift prohibitions, but should regulate drugs the way alcohol currently is.

Lifting some drug prohibition could have a positive impact on national security.

Marriage is a legal contract protecting the rights of two individuals who decide that they want to live together and share property.

The state’s sole role is to enforce the property rights of the union, without placing stipulations on the nature of the union, whether it is between heterosexuals or homosexuals.    

The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment says that every US citizen shall enjoy the equal protection of the law.

Since no group should be given special treatment relative to over another, the military’s current policy of “Don’t ask don’t tell” is un-Constitutional, and should simply be reduced to “Don’t ask”.

The military should not expel a member who has already proven they can do the job merely because that person has identified himself/herself as homosexual.

I believe the government must respect the 2nd amendment, and place absolutely no restrictions on gun rights.

Although I am totally opposed to violence, I find it amazing that those who would place restrictions over a private citizen’s access to guns also seem to place blind faith in the integrity of the police, merely because they are agents of government.

Social security ... The system should be restructured so that younger persons invest in a privately held account, the way the government originally sold it.

I do not believe that it is moral for a wealthy person to hoard their wealth without trying to use it to help people.

[I]t doesn’t make sense for the government to document illegal aliens.

I do not believe that illegal aliens who give birth in the United States should instantly be granted citizenship (i.e. “anchor babies”).

I don’t believe illegal aliens should enjoy special access to entitlements relative to US citizens.

[W]hile it might be unfair for the children of illegal aliens who don’t pay property tax to receive a free education in US school systems, they nonetheless fall under the same category as the children of US citizens who receive a free education because their parents rent and don’t pay property tax.

The illegal alien problem is a multi-faceted social problem that can’t be solved merely by erecting a fence.     

Female reproductive rights/abortion – I am pro-choice.    

The focus of the military should be primarily to defend the nation’s borders against invasion.

As a Libertarian, I believe that in order for anything to be regarded as a crime, there must be a victim.  Civil fines for traffic violations that do not result in an accident or property damage or personal injury, and merely raise money for the state represent victimless crimes.