Newt ain’t on the right. And he will cut the throat of anyone who steps up to challenge his bona fides when he displays his ignorance.

Please change the description of your bio from libertarian conservative to statist neoconservative. This more closely describes your views and allows for the readers of your articles to add you to the list of chicken hawks that try to push aggressive agendas without actually considering that the majority of us are just plain tired of bombing people because they are not like us.
Sent from my iPad

Wow Yazmin! Such intelligent drivel!

What upset you most darling?  Was it me pointing out how Congressman Ron Paul is not the constitutional libertarian you were conned into believing he was?  Or was it when I showed how Ron Paul has very, very few members of the military that actually like him using the standard of the Paulbots themselves to claim he has huge military support?  Or is it that I dare to post the anti-Jew rants of your fellow lunatics?

As for changing the description of myself, why?  Because you are insane and think it should be so?  My readers voted on this issue and the majority call me either libertarian or conservative or constitutionalist (see poll in bottom right hand corner of site).  I mean really, since when do “statist neoconservative”s support smaller government, the constitution and holding actual corrupt statists to count like I do.

And something else.  Were you too stupid to follow directions?  Because on the contact information page it clearly says, “Pointless, vile filled hate mail can be sent to: hatemail@libertyreborn.com”.  Yet you sent this to the other email address anyway.  Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Hey, do me a favor would you?  When you write back make sure to sign your email appropriately as “Dumbass” ok?  That way I will know it is you.

I honestly cannot believe you were able to figure out how to use an iPad.  Probably had a Kindergartner help you.

Santorum and Christie both have conservative tendencies, but both are overall moderates who will sell out basic conservative principles when they decide to.

A conservative on the other hand wants currently illicit drugs to be legal because we understand how shallow and pathetic the life of a liberal is and do not want to deny them their ability to escape into La La Land. So long as their drug use infringes on no one else’s rights, we don’t believe there should be any interference. But when they steal, assault, murder or do other illegal things either to get their fix or while under the influence of their drug of choice we already have a plethora of laws on the books to deal with them.

It is so simple a caveman could understand it. Apparently however there are some of you out there who feel the need to email me on this issue who are not as smart as a caveman.

By way of demonstration I would like to present this email from Lydia in Wyoming:

I think you are right when you say that Ron Paul is just too out there to be President. As a conservative I agree with a lot of his economic philosophy but his foreign policy is just well NUTS. And then there is his stance on legalizing drugs? Is this man serious? Drugs destroy lives and families and everyone should be prevented from taking them but Paul wants to let people get high if they want to? That’s just dumb.

Actually Lydia, it’s not “dumb”. It’s conservative. I know, common, but wrong, wisdom is that supporting the decriminalization of drug use is a liberal position. It is not. Supporting the legalizing of drugs so that one can them self can take them to escape from a reality that is unpalatable is a liberal position. On the other hand, believing that currently illegal drugs should be legalized so that poor, pathetic souls who want to take them to escape from reality because they cannot cope, i.e. liberty, is right in line with conservative/libertarian ideology and the belief in limited government intrusion into the lives of others.

Now, as I and other conservatives have said before that if someone steals money to do drugs or commits other crimes while under the influence of these drugs, i.e. harming others, then that should be punished. But if they are doing no such thing they should be allowed to light or shoot up any drug they choose which makes them feel better. And “destroying a family” is not a crime. Other crimes such as assault, battery and neglect may be committed during the course of that destruction and those should be prosecuted if they happen.

But, J.J. you whine, such acts alone harms families and society as a whole and must be prevented. Well, they certainly can. But that is not a carte blanche statement of fact. Consider this. A man and his wife opt not to work. They and their with three children live in poverty while they tool around the countryside in a dilapidated van and panhandle for just enough money to scrape by. They are certainly causing harm to others and society. Their sloth drains resources while they produce nothing in return and their children, while fed and clothed are certainly not in what would normally be considered a standard and stable home that is what is best for them. But should this man and this woman be forced to work because of this? No. That is not the government’s role. You cannot force them to get up every morning and go do “something” other than what they are already doing. The state may intercede on the behalf of the children if they are found to be harmed but only in limited ways, such as allowing relatives who are actually responsible to adopt the children and get them away from these lazy souls.

Conservatism means letting people making their bed and then allowing them to lie in it. That is a lesson many “conservatives” need to learn. Otherwise, when they try to engage in social engineering of society such as on the issue of drug use they show themselves to be the big government liberals that they are on such issues. Because true conservatives, unlike what Newt Gingrich believes, do not engage in social engineering.

Of course, whether or not Ron Paul, with his wacko isolationist ideology, blame America first for the problems of the world mentality and his hypocrisy on earmarks would be a “good” President would be another matter all together.  It is a shame that a man who has a great many good ideas both fails to practice those good ideas and is so out in left field on a great many others thus, in my mind, making his wholly unfit for the office he seeks.

Libertarian philosophy is often summarized as the rights of one person ending when they smack another person in the nose. But such a summary overlooks the fact that the person in danger of being struck in the nose has the indisputable right to prevent himself or herself being so harmed. Libertarian philosophy prohibits even the threat, even if only implied, of one person striking another. At its core it adheres to the basic tenant that upon the threat being uncovered of such an action the citizen who is in danger has the utmost right to defend his or her person with all available force against this threat and the person making this threat indeed loses many rights upon the very issuance of said threat.

By properly defining libertarianism in this manner it casts it in its full light which is that of a belief that rights are able to be forcibly rather than passively defended.

The payroll tax, paid half by the worker and half by the worker’s employer, funds unconstitutional spending; Social Security and Medicare.  The Tea Party formed based on a hate for the unconstitutional actions coming out of Washington.  Thus, we are certainly not against the cut.  In fact, any true Tea Partier would be for a complete cut in the tax down to 0% rather than just a 2% cut.  That would put 6.2% back in the paychecks of workers and 6.2% back in the accounts of businesses per worker which would be a win/win for the economy.

But what about Social Security and Medicare and those who foolishly believed the government should take care of them in their old age?  Well, I hope they were nice to their children.  That would be the first line of responsibility.  If not there are thousands of charities and there is always GASP the church to turn to.  Sound mean?  It’s called freedom and restoring our government to its constitutional bounds.

Hey, reality sucks.  And if you ignore it long enough it jumps up and smacks you in the nose.  Ignore that punch in the nose and you become just like the ex-Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, Greece, Italy or one of the many failed socialist “utopias” around the world.