Functional Fillmore Frugal: Our Movement Starts Now, part one

functional fillmore frugal

Concerned Citizens,

Functional Fillmore Frugal

Our Movement Starts Now….

The following is Part I of the four part treatise of the Functional Fillmore Frugal Movement (FFFM)

I. FUNCTIONAL

Stereotype

During a walk in the park, I encountered a hobo named Bob. Bob appeared to be in his mid to late-50s and wore an unkempt grey beard. He slept on the park bench, where I often ate lunch; so I approached him and asked why he was there.

He explained that he was in town for some important business, but now he was stuck. Though he lived in a trailer on the other side of the river, he could not afford the bus fare back. The government had stolen his wallet, and he was too distraught to even think of going back. His clothes were filthy, and he smelled as though he hadn’t showered in weeks.

I asked why the government had targeted him. He reasoned that they felt threatened. In his mind, he was an Independent candidate for President, with a chance to win the election. The government also knew he could win, and so they stole his wallet to hurt his campaign.

I asked if he ever had a job or position that qualified him for the presidency. He said that he had always been unemployed and earned money off disability checks from the government.

This man puzzled me. Here he sat with no job and no ambition to even return home, and yet he sought the nation’s highest and most ambitious office, and actually believed he could win it. Here he accused the government of stealing his wallet, and yet the government gave him all the money he had.

As I left, I realized that Bob was nothing more than a stereotype. Of course, there have been many great Independent candidates, but unfortunately, when American voters think of Independent and Third Party candidates, they often think of people not much different than Bob.

Reality

There is a problem when someone very much like Bob or Ted, with very little business experience and no governmental experience, can win 25 percent at the Libertarian National Convention against a former Governor. An attitude exists in many third parties that it is better to be ideologically pure than to have the experience to be functional. This attitude stalls the implementation of better policies.

If a party nominates a candidate who is not functional, that party will not spread its message. The media will not report on the candidate, and the voters will have only minimal information about him. No movement will result, and so there will be no policy implications for the run. It will simply be a wasted effort, though it may stroke a few egos.

That is the path the Libertarian Party took in 2004. Despite ballot access in 48 states plus DC, the party nominated a computer programmer named Michael Badnarik. It didn’t matter what he said. He was not functional, and so was not a credible candidate for voters. As a result, he won only 0.32 percent of the vote in an environment ideal for Libertarians.

Badnarik

On the other hand, in 2008, despite the excitement over Senator Barack Obama, Congressman Bob Barr, a functional candidate, won 0.40 percent of the total, even though he appeared on only 45 state ballots. Another functional candidate, Governor Gary Johnson, did even better four years later, receiving 0.99 percent of the vote.

Though both Barr and Johnson were functional candidates who did relatively well, as will be discussed further in Part IV, neither was able to inspire a movement to affect policy to get this nation back on track. Barr suffered a significant blow when Ron Paul refused to support his candidacy. Johnson could not meet his potential because the Republicans nominated a candidate who shared many of the same views on the budget, spending, and scope of government.

Nevertheless, third party successes from functional candidates can impact and have impacted national policy at least twice in recent memory.

First, in 1992, businessman Ross Perot, an exceptionally functional Independent candidate, was on path to win the presidential election with the clear and simple message: Balance the Budget. Unfortunately, the campaign was sabotaged when operatives threatened to disrupt his daughter’s wedding, forcing Perot to withdraw. Though he re-entered, he could not reach his potential, but delivered with the largest third party showing in 80 years.

Ross Perot

Perot’s impressive popular vote percentage of 18.91 led to actual policy changes in Washington. His campaign infomercials and debate performances spawned a movement, which forced Republicans to change their message. The result was Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America , promising a balanced budget. It swept Republicans into Congress in 1994, and eventually, President Bill Clinton came together with Gingrich, and achieved Perot’s goal of a balanced budget.

Next, in 2007, a functional candidate who represented the Libertarian Party in 1988, Congressman Ron Paul, brought forth a message of liberty that inspired millions. His performances during the GOP debates and presence of his supporters online turned Paul into one of the most admired men in the nation. He raised millions of dollars, and changed many hearts and minds.

During the 2008 general election, supporters placed Paul on ballots in Montana and Louisiana. He did respectable in both, most notably garnering 2.17 percent in Montana, the most a third party candidate received in any single state that election. His run spawned the TEA Party movement, which made significant gains for Republicans in the 2010 mid-term election. This allowed Republicans to block much of President Obama’s anti-liberty agenda.

Unfortunately, there is still much more to accomplish, as will be discussed further in Parts II and III. Spending remains out of control and the budget has not been balanced in thirteen years. President Obama did great damage in his two years of free reign; most disgustingly, imposing Obamacare on the American people.

In a perfect world, both the Libertarian and Constitution Parties would have endorsed Governor Mitt Romney for president in 2012. Had they focused on building him up, rather than tearing him down, better policies would have resulted. Spending would be cut, taxes would not rise, and Obamacare would be history.

We can only be optimistic that in 2016, the Libertarian Party will nominate a functional candidate that will spawn a movement to change these policies.

Future

The obvious functional choice for Libertarians in 2016 is Senator Rand Paul, the son of Ron Paul. He may be the Republican Party’s 2016 presidential nominee, and would likely accept the Libertarian Party’s cross-nomination. Paul will lead the movement his father started and promote policies favorable to Libertarians, including: limited Constitutional government, a balanced budget, reversal of Obamacare, audit of the Federal Reserve, end to the war on drugs, and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

If the Republican Party selects someone else, Paul will likely not run against them, keeping 2020 in mind. For such a scenario, there are functional alternatives.

Supposing Republicans nominate an establishment candidate like Governor Chris Christie, Libertarians will have a great opportunity to make a difference at the polls if they nominate a functional candidate. Christie is a “big” government Republican and political animal, who shares many views with President Barack Obama and presumptive 2016 Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. A Christie presidency, though an upgrade from Obama, will not be much different than a Hillary presidency.

In such a situation, the Libertarian Party could again nominate the functional Governor Gary Johnson. He would likely improve on his 2012 performance. But there’s something missing in Johnson. He lacks the fire of a Perot or Paul that inspires people and spawns movements. He is not an exceptional speaker, and so, even if he participates in the national debates like Perot, he is unlikely to make the same impression necessary to change the direction of the nation.

Personally, I prefer former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, the most functional option available. There were hints in 2012 that he would not oppose a move to a third party, and, according to the functional 2008 Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, Gingrich was the best candidate for Libertarians in 2012 . That is even truer in 2016.

800px-Newt_&_Callista_Gingrich

Like many Libertarians, Gingrich supports: gun rights, low taxes, deregulation, term limits, social security opt-out, school choice, and free trade. He opposes bailouts, Obamacare, McCain-Feingold, the UN, and military interventions in Libya and Syria. Like Perot, Gingrich has credibility on national budget issues. In fact, Gingrich can speak to it better since he’s actually balanced the national budget before (four times in fact).

Gingrich can run with this issue like no other, and use it to get into the debates. He is one of the greatest debaters around today (see video below) and would destroy both Hillary and Christie on the issues. He would then either win election as president or win a substantial amount of the vote, forcing President Hillary to be fiscally responsible like her husband.

However, if Libertarians do not accept Gingrich, there are other functional options that may be able to replicate the potential success of Gingrich. My second personal choice is billionaire Ross Perot, Jr., a great speaker and businessman (see video below), who has the money and credibility to mount a campaign resembling his father’s ’92 run.

Other potential choices include: the 2008 running mate of Ron Paul in Louisiana, former Congressman Barry Goldwater, Jr.; Congressman Jimmy Duncan of the Liberty Caucus; and former Congressman and soon-to-be Governor Tom Tancredo, also of the Liberty Caucus.

If Bob or Ted is nominated instead, and no functional candidate campaigns for limited government, we will continue on our current path, and lose both freedom and prosperity.

This was sent to me by the person we know as “Concerned Citizen” on IPR.  He (or she) wrote to me and asked that I post this, and I have done so.  I don’t know much more about the article or the author than that.  Perhaps he/she can give us more info in the comments.

74 thoughts on “Functional Fillmore Frugal: Our Movement Starts Now, part one

  1. Concerned Citizen

    YouTube removed the King of the Hill excerpt about Independent presidential candidate Ted T. Ganaway. I will provide a link to the relevant content later today.

  2. Be Rational

    Ross Perot was a truly dysfunctional candidate – a wacko not qualified to be President of the United States, despite holding a few reasonable positions on some issues.

    The people were so disgusted with the two party system that they were happy to embrace what looked like a chance to elect an Independent, a fresh face with reasonable views.

    Ross Perot was ahead in the polls in the summer of 1992. He was pulling ahead, over 40% in the polls, and on track to win over 50% of the vote in the fall election.

    Perot’s money, his homey outspoken nature, his position as CEO of a major corporation and his success at making $3 billion made him seem credible initally. He was subsquently discredited and exposed as the “first welfare billionare” having essentially bought his business from the US government with massive campaign donations to Nixon.

    Despite having spent tens of millions of dollars of his own money, Perot was a gadfly intending to send a message. He embarrassed himself regularly in interviews because he was so unprepared.

    There was no “threat” issued against him or his family that caused him to drop out of the race.

    Perot dropped out of the race because he was suddenly aware that he was actually going to win. He knew he couldn’t actually handle the Preisdency, and he had never expected, intended nor wanted to actually win or hold the job of POTUS.

    Although he was talked back into running again by his advisors, Perot had revealed himself to be a wacko to the general public. His silly excuse for dropping out and dropping back in didn’t pass the crazy test. Only a small segment of Amercan conspiracy nuts and fellow wackos bought his nonsense.

    Time and exposure revealed that he was none too bright. The curtain was drawn back to reveal that there was little substance to back up the hoped-for, hyped-up, public persona of Ross Perot.

    Perot’s choice for VP fared even worse in the public arena. There was no longer any danger of Perot winning.

    Earning 18% of the vote shows what a bundle of money and a good media campaign can do – and that significant segment of the American people are willing to vote 3rd party or Independent any time there is well directed media and PR campaign for a 3rd choice – even a wacko.

    A credible candidate who is not a nut job, with enough money and a clever media strategy to win a large amount of free “earned” media can be elected President.

    The LP has run several candidates who were were good enough to win (including Clark and Johnson) – but they all lacked the funds, and they all lacked a campaign and media strategy designed to gain free media and attract the funds. Of course some of the LP POTUS choices have been clearly unelectable mistakes (Bergland for example).

    In some cases, the campaign management looted the campaign from the inside and no attempt was made to make a serious attempt at a media campaign. In others the campaign staff was so incompetent that there was no hope from the outset.

  3. Deran

    A “hobo” named Bob, who lives in a trailer, the government stole his wallet and he was an independent candaite for POTUS who had a chance to win? Robert Milnes.

    I think if “Concerned Citizen” were not some already outed on IPR as a troll they would be much more forth coming. My money is on this being Comrade Brother Leader Ogle. Is Ogle socially reactionary? Otherwise CC would not be “launching” a “movement” anonymously.

    And I swear I have read someone else (or the same person using another anonymous name) on IPR promoting Gingrich as a potential LP candidate?

    And by using a mobile device (as they stated they do) are they able to avoid detection of an IP that is linked to Ogle?

  4. Concerned Citizen

    In a nutshell, to bring about better public policies, the Libertarian Party should:

    1. Nominate Rand Paul for President if the Republicans do so, if not
    2. Nominate either Newt Gingrich, Ross Perot Jr., Barry Goldwater Jr., Jimmy Duncan, Tom Tancredo, or another functional Libertarian with the potential to spawn a movement

  5. Be Rational

    Perot, like Trump and Palin, saw their initial charismatic charms fade away as the public learned enough about them to realize that they are just wackos.

    By the time Perot was in the debates in 1992 he was already seen as a nut job by the overwhelming majority of Americans. He did not perform well after dropping out and back in to the POTUS race.

  6. Be Rational

    Not correct.

    The American people are more than willing to elect a 3rd Party or Independent POTUS – in fact, if a credible candidate came along with some money, advertising and free media coverage, they would elect him or her overwhelmingly. So, giving a wacko that they’d heard of was still perferable to the Ds and Rs for 18% of the public.

    If Ed Clark or Gary Johnson had had $50 million to spend on TV ads and the free media that would have come with it, they’d have been elected.

  7. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I haven’t weighed in here yet because I want to post some links supporting my view, but I haven’t had time for that and probably won’t today, either. But , I will say this: Newt Gingrich as as the LP candidate??? No way! Not even remotely a possibility!

  8. Concerned Citizen

    @9 What is the basis for your assertions?

    I don’t know much about Ed Clark, but Johnson was in the GOP debates and did not make the same impact as Ron Paul who expressed virtually the same views. Johnson lacks charisma and persuasive ability. If he made the national debates, I doubt he would get 10%.

  9. Concerned Citizen

    That’s fine Paulie. You can support the ideologically pure hobo and make no impact. I support functional candidates.

    Just because the men I listed disagree with you on a few issues does not mean they are not libertarians.

  10. Mark Jones

    You are confused on many levels. The name is Mark, and they don’t “disagree with me on a few issues” – they disagree with me on numerous issues, including the ones I think are most important. Their cumulative libertarian ratings are right around the same, or lower, than prominent Democrats. As for making no impact, wrong again. Many third parties have made a big impact – usually without electing very many people to top offices.

  11. Andy

    Jill Pyeatt said: “Newt Gingrich as as the LP candidate??? No way! Not even remotely a possibility!”

    Why not? Remember, the great Libertarian Bob Barr endorsed Newt Gingrich in the last election, and said that Libertarians should vote for Newt Gingrich because Newt knows how to get things done. Are you telling me that good ole Bob Barr would lead his fellows Libertarians in the wrong direction? Come on, say it ain’t so.

  12. Concerned Citizen

    According to OnTheIssues,

    Rand Paul falls under the Libertarian grid section but for some reason is classified as a Libertarian Conservative.
    Ross Perot, Jr. and Barry Goldwater, Jr. are not classified. According to the site’s own definitions, the others should be libertarian-leaning at least.

    However, the definitions on the site are one dimensional and not indicative of the emphasis placed on certain issues. There are libertarian reasons to hold different positions. For example, one can be pro-life to protect the individual freedom of fetuses, but the site says only the pro-choice position is libertarian.

    You must look at what it truly means to be libertarian: believe in and support limited government.

  13. Be Rational

    @11 It is packaging through advertising and Public Relations that has the greatest impact on the voting of the general public.

    Johnson had no advertising and very little PR. Very few knew he existed and there was no packaging – so the public could never buy the product. His 1% of the vote is a very impressive result based on the reality of how Americans choose who to vote for.

    Clark also got 1%. He had a bit of advertising, coming in 4th at 1% also being very impressive since John Anderson was better known, finishing 3rd with 7%.

    Johns Anderson could have won in 1980 as well – again, it was the lack of sufficient funds that stopped him – his money was chewed up for ballot access.

    Perot had his own money, so he bought the best possible packaging. He was winning, but he proved to the world that he was crazy by quitting and rejoining the race. This public perception of him was spread by the media and word of mouth and he was no longer electable. He could no longer buy enough ads to overcome the fact that he had revealed his true nature to the world.

    Negatives can make candidates unpalatable to the public. Too many negatives make a candidate unelectable. This is why negative advertising works so well. Perot provided his own negative narrative. He talked about the “crazy aunt locked in the attic” and then he became her husband.

  14. Concerned Citizen

    In 2000 Ralph Nader won a little under 3% with just as much exposure as Johnson in 2012. With the explosion of the internet, you’d think Johnson could reach out to voters easier than Nader. I believe he did. People just did not connect with him.

    Regardless of the baseless allegations you make against Ross Perot, it is indisputable that he connected with the people and so won nearly 20% of the popular vote. If Johnson had the same amount of money, he would not even come close to Perot’s total. He showed himself in the GOP debates as a poor speaker with an inability to connect with an audience, the same audience that embraced Ron Paul.

    Has a former governor ever done as poorly as Johnson in a general presidential election? I’m not sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the answer is no.

  15. Be Rational

    @24 I think you are clueless.

    Nader is much better known than Governor Gary Johnson. Nader is a nationwide public figure. However, he has huge negatives that hold him down. He’s at least as well known as Perot. However, his campaign was underfunded, so coupled with his negatives, he did as well as could be expected.

    Even after the 2012 campaign, Gary Johnson is still essentially an unknown. Being a former governor counts for almost nothing outside of your home state. And many former governors have been essentially ignored in later POTUS attempts – Buddy Roemer in 2012 for example.

    The internet reaches a very small slice of the public. Sure, you noticed Gary Johnson and others – because you are tuned in to sites like this one. The overwhelming majority of internet users see none of the political minutiae that you see.

    TV advertising is still King – in fact, it’s the whole deck when it comes to Presidential politics.

    Can you name the 50 individuals currently serving as governor in the US? Can you name the 50 most recent past governors in the 50 states?

    I didn’t think so.

  16. Concerned Citizen

    @25 Gary Johnson 2012 had just as much opportunity as Ron Paul 2008 to become well known. All it took was one GOP debate and Ron Paul’s popularity exploded. Johnson did appear in the first 2011 GOP debate, but was less than spectacular.

    As for money, its always a plus, which is why Ross Perot, Jr. should be given strong consideration. However, it’s not always necessary. Ron Paul didn’t have more money than Johnson, but he raised more because he connected with voters with just as much opportunity.

  17. Concerned Citizen

    I am proud to announce that CNN is bringing back Crossfire. Newt Gingrich will represent the Libertarian perspective, S.E. Cupp will represent the Conservative perspective, Stephanie Cutter will represent the Socialist perspective and Van Jones will represent the Communist perspective.

  18. Jake_Witmer

    Be Rational @2 is right. The article state “Unfortunately, the campaign was sabotaged when operatives threatened to disrupt his daughter’s wedding, forcing Perot to withdraw.”
    Russel Verney staged this sabotage as a ploy to win media sympathy, when it wasn’t needed, but continued grassroots movement-building was (if Perot wanted to win, which he didn’t).

    Then, somehow Russell Verney, the most venomous, stupid person I have ever met in my life, gets installed as Bob Barr’s “campaign manager.” After what Verney did to Perot’s campaign, he should have never been allowed near another presidential campaign of any kind.

    And who recruited CIA-goon and former prosecutor (and anti-jury-independence “legal philosopher”) Bob Barr to represent the Libertarian Party? (At the time he was elected to be the LP’s candidate in 2008, Bob Barr was in favor of military intervention in Colombia, for the purpose of exporting the US drug war to Colombia. When questioned about his public statements opposing jury nullification, Barr indicated a complete lack of comprehension of the subject by replying to Roger Roots of FIJA “You favor jury nullification in murder cases?” And Barr’s track record in congress was abysmal and so tyrannical that former Libertarian Party Political Director Ron Crickenberger ran a philosophically and strategically legitimate and successful campaign to oust him from congress in 2003.)

    Hmmmm. Bill Redpath was a big early promoter of Barr’s.

    Simon Wiesenthal had a big problem with former Nazi SS operative Kurt Waldheim serving as the president of Austria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Waldheim I had a very similar big problem with Barr representing the LP. Because I was at the convention to support Wayne Root, I stupidly let myself get talked into voting for Barr-Root as a means of “damage control.” This was a good lesson to never vote “pragmatically” when there’s no good choice. My vote should have been “NOTA” the instant Wayne lost. I supported Wayne partly because I couldn’t support anyone else, given the incredible strategic apathy of the other candidates (and no, I’m not talking about the “radioactive” comments of Mary Ruwart, although her failure to profile the campaign field in that regard plays into it).

    The problems with the LP are far more than could be revealed here, but they are numerous, deep, and far-reaching. Either Bill Redpath is corrupt, a plant, or his actions are as damaging as if he was both of the prior. The rest of the LNC has mindlessly handed Redpath control of the LP, and there’s nothing to suggest they even know how bad an error they’ve made.

    The LP is clueless and worthless. It knows nothing of strategy, and it knows nothing of basic rationality. The LP, as run by the current and past LNCs, cannot comprehend the basics of political reality, and is thus non-functional.

    The LP’s most recent petitioning attempts have all been run by non-libertarian and non-Libertarian mercenaries. This is the first contact the average voter has with us, and they then assume that we lack enough people who agree with us to have libertarians circulate our petitions. Or, they assume we actually do want to “raise the minimum wage,” “keep the jobs in America,” or “put Edward Snowden in prison.”

    Yep, that’s who Bill Redpath pays boatloads of money to (in advance!) to represent the Libertarian Party. Actual LP members Andy Jacobs and Paul Frankel? No money advanced. Andy was arbitrarily fired when he complained that Redpath was dropping more mercenaries on top of them for an already tiny job (10K signatures, in a state completed entirely by Andy, Paul, Trent, and myself in 2011).

    The mercenaries hand out ZERO literature, and collect ZERO interested names (people cannot be contacted from just having signed the petitions themselves). Also: the LP would not have run a congressional candidate in ND in 2012, if it were not for us, because the mercenaries he advanced 100% of the money for the job to, didn’t gather a single signature before the deadline. —Which meant that we had to predict that he would try to rip us off, we had to call our competition’s signature gatherers and predict that they were lying about having collected a round number of signatures without an exact count (they were), and we had to gamble that the LP would eventually pay us in order to prevent themselves from looking like the malevolent, stupid criminals that they are. Had Bill’s ploy succeeded, noone would have ever known about this, because his mercenaries had another chance to put the LP Presidential candidate on the ballot as an “Independent,” later in the year –which would have prevented Eric Olson from accessing the ballot as a big-L Libertarian.

    The LP is worthless. It is made worthless by its strategic indifference, and strategic ignorance. The LNC doesn’t know, and doesn’t want to know, how to make the LP into a political powerhouse.

    I regret having wasted the prior 13 years of my life working for a political party that does not want individual freedom enough to reach out and grab it. I regret being loyal to a disloyal, very likely infiltrated political party.

    But such regrets taught me a lot about human nature, and I’d rather have such regrets than a lack of knowledge about the political reality of the USA. The political reality of the USA is that all political parties now existing offer the same thing: fascism, and motion toward real totalitarianism.

    In that regard, maybe we can slouch toward the grotesque and murdering standard of Singapore, where drug mules are actually murdered by the police state. That’s what fascist slime like Bob Barr and Newt Gingrich want. And hey, they’re “libertarians.” LOL!

    Big-L Libertarians must be abject idiots to have their name associated with the current LP!

    Here are a few other “anti-government” groups that were infiltrated by the federal government:
    The American Indian Movement, infiltrated by FBI Agent Provocateur Douglas Durham. You can read all about it in “In the Spirit of Crazy Horse” by Peter Matthiessen
    http://archives.nbclearn.com/portal/site/k-12/flatview?cuecard=36293
    http://www.dickshovel.com/dur.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jancita_Eagle_Deer

    The radical environmental anarchist movement of the pacific northwest was infiltrated by the FBI:
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/brandon-darby-anarchist-fbi-terrorism
    to the extent that they paid a young woman to sleep with young men, convince them to commit crimes, and entrap them on federal charges:
    http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/Honey-Stinger.html
    http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/wp-content/Images/elle_anna.pdf
    Aaaaand so much for “the right to remain silent”:
    http://jerryresists.net/

    Former governor of Minnesota (and 80% or so philosophically-consistent small-L libertarian) Jesse Ventura talks about how he was interrogated by the CIA (yeah, he knew and I know that they’re not supposed to operate within the borders of the USA, that’s the point) after being elected governor. The upshot of this is that there’s an unelected, permanent CIA agent in the government of every State that reports directly to the governor. So much for “by the people.”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIzfXOfpFcA

    The funniest thing about the current incarnation of the Libertarian Party is that the ___?___ think the LP is worth infiltrating and subverting. It doesn’t really matter if it’s Republicans, like Eric Dondero, or just amoral servants of the prison industrial complex, like Eric Dondero, who are doing so. It doesn’t matter if it’s simply paid agents provocateurs like Darryl Bonner who are doing so. The LP was pre-emptively destroyed, simply because it dared to put forth a fairly consistently libertarian platform in 1994.

    Good for those fine people, and good for them choosing Harry Browne in 1996 and 2000. Too bad America wasn’t yet willing to even consider (a la Ron Paul 2008) giving up its bigotry at that point.

    More power to the well-meaning small-L libertarians here, I hope you figure it out someday. When you finally fight your way out of the wet paper bag that surrounds you, give me a call.

  19. Jake_Witmer

    For a second I thought Jill Pyeatt was both insane, and completely fascist. Then I realized that she did not write this piece, even though it says “written by Jill Pyeatt” at the top of the page. If this is an automated feature, it should be changed to say “posted by.” The explanation should come both before and after the article, when the piece is as insane and sociopathic and anti-liberty as this one is.

    “This was sent to me by the person we know as “Concerned Citizen” on IPR. He (or she) wrote to me and asked that I post this, and I have done so. I don’t know much more about the article or the author than that. Perhaps he/she can give us more info in the comments.”

    Concerned Citizen can’t possibly be concerned with anything other than speeding America toward fascism as fast as humanly possible. Everyone with any brains at all knows that Newt Gingrich is the absolute worst in terms of social tolerance, from the has-beens in the 2012 GOP field of washed-up fascist losers.

    Does anyone remember how Newt had to pay petitioners $8/signature in Virginia in 2012, and still managed to fail to get enough signatures to get his delegates on the ballot there? LOL! They couldn’t pay mercenary scum enough to circulate his petition, and the few who did the work couldn’t find cross-eyed members of the GOP public who were fascist enough to sign it. LOL!

    Gingrich is one of the few politicians singled out by name in Vin Suprynowicz’s “Send in the Waco Killers” as being exceptionally fascist and worthless. As in: So fascist, execrable, and sociopathic that he deserved special mention, from the ranks of America’s worthless criminal class.

    Now, Newter Gingrich is a finger-to-the-wind sociopath. He lacks principles of any kind. To that extent, he would probably respond to any kind of pressure from the public, good or bad, so long as it didn’t threaten the central bankers, the drug warriors (a group he belongs to), or the prison industrial complex. But the actions of people who think coercive government is the solution are all bad-by-default.

    Knowing that, here are some hideous comments from the sociopath named Newt Gingrich:
    http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/28/newt-gingrich-wants-to-escalate-the-drug

    and right from the horse’s ass itself:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDSNausjpTM

    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!

    MURDER IS LIFE!

    CONCERNED CITIZEN IS A LIBERTARIAN!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_JSBVsL_s

    So yeah, I don’t think that the Libertarian Party should be transformed into (yet another) Party of prohibitionist murder.

    I prefer Hayek’s vision of a Party that connects itself to the long history of incremental LIBERAL progress. I also note that in the United States, that proud liberal tradition has been misnamed “Libertarian,” because socialist sociopaths began calling themselves “liberals.” However, like Hayek, I also note that conservatism has never had anything to do with the consistent defense of individual freedom.
    http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf

    Much love going out to those who are capable of thinking for themselves. “If there is any hope it lies in the proles.”

  20. Jake_Witmer

    Then again, maybe it’s the mission of “Concerned Citizen” to drive a stake through the heart of the Libertarian Party, and have it universally rejected by all sane individuals, so they can refocus on a more viable strategy toward individual liberty. Without a national political party, this would mean a host of localized uprisings, with all different names, and little possibility of being united under one banner.

    If so, well played.

  21. Jake_Witmer

    Newt Gingrich also thinks this http://collateralmurder.com/ is acceptable.

    Newt Gingrich:
    “He (Julian Assange) is in fact an enemy combatant who is engaged in information warfare against the United States..”

    I guess negligent murder during war is OK, but exposing it is criminal, according to the great “libertarian” Newt.

    To believe that Newt is libertarian is to be criminally stupid. Ray Kurzweil defines stupid as “unwittingly self-destructive.” If Newt became the LP’s nominee, it’s very likely that “Concerned Citizen” (if he is a libertarian of any kind) would be put to death or imprisoned by Newt’s policies. After all, he’d be guilty of “information warfare” (AKA “speech” AKA “reporting” AKA “crimethink”) against the USA.

    How treasonous!

    Newt Gingrich is as “libertarian” as Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama, but from a political position of opposing social tolerance slightly more than he opposes financial freedom. Those who believe that either he or Boob Barr are libertarians are either purely malevolent, or stupid dilettantes of the worst kind.

  22. Concerned Libertarian Citizen

    The movement is open to alternatives. But, regardless of the rhetoric he uses to build support from conservatives, Gingrich will govern to decrease government. He did it before, he’ll do it again. As Libertarian nominee, he will be an advocate for Libertarian causes.

    Do you want to decrease government or do you want to keep nominating hobos like Badnarik, who reinforce the stereotype?

    The movement is flexible in technique, but maintains one goal: decrease government. As this article affirms, for the Libertarian Party to achieve this goal, it must nominate a functional candidate.

  23. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    CLC@ 31: “As this article affirms, for the Libertarian Party to achieve this goal, it must nominate a functional candidate.”

    I can’t disagree with that statement, but you haven’t proven to me that Newt Gingrich is that 0person. We need to keep looking.

  24. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    JW @ 30: ” For a second I thought Jill Pyeatt was both insane” There are many people here at IPR that won’t argue that, for sure.

    I agree with you that the automated “written by” is confusing. I have thought the title with the author’s name in it made it clear who actually wrote the piece, but posting the explanation at the beginning of the article makes sense.

    Also, you had several comments caught in the spam filter. Often comments with several links do get trapped. If you don’t see your comment after a few minutes, you might want to email or message via Facebook one of the writers here to remove it for you. I think most of us keep an eye on the filter, though.

  25. NewFederalist

    I used to believe that Catholic Trotskyist was a “just for fun” poster. He or she has now gone on to prove me wrong. I also used to think that Concerned Citizen (now Concerned Libertarian Citizen) is a “joke poster”. With all the absolute nonsense about big time big government lovers having the makings for serious Libertarian presidential nominees… well, he or she is STILL a “joke poster”! Gingrich for president on the LP line (or even the CP line) is just outrageous and over the top. I say Functional Fillmore Feels Fucking Fists Fantastic! What a jerk off!

  26. Concerned Libertarian Citizen

    I hear the people and that is Democracy. The effort to draft Newt Gingrich for the 2016 Libertarian Party presidential nomination is over. I now redirect my efforts to drafting Ross Perot Jr. for Governor of Texas in 2014 and for President in 2016.

  27. NewFederalist

    Well, good for you! I still believe you are just having fun with us but have a ball. I don’t know enough about Perot, Jr. to comment but what the hell. Have fun!

  28. Concerned Libertarian Citizen

    I do enjoy a good laugh as evidenced by the music videos I placed on two recent articles. But this movement is serious. I am very concerned about our children living in a bankrupt and declining nation.

  29. NewFederalist

    I am concerned as well but I would never consider one of the architects of our bankruptcy and decline as a presidential nominee of a party which could be our salvation.

  30. NewFederalist

    Wow! I now know you truly are a joke poster! A Speaker of the House of Representatives CANNOT balance the budget!

  31. Jake_Witmer

    CLC @41 “Newt Gingrich balanced the budget four times. He was not a part of the problem.”

    If you don’t have a problem with fascism, this is true.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/when-newt-gingrich-wanted-to-execute-non-violent-pot-smugglers/251871/

    Let me pretend I share Newt Gingrich’s philosophy, for a moment: I hereby propose that a law be made that Libertarians who support Newt Gingrich running as a Libertarian be put to death.

    For a little background, in case you don’t know what the word “fascism” means:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8fBbH3K18s -American Drug War: The Last White Hope

    Who is this “concerned libertarian citizen”? Is it Bill Fedpath? Or is it the next agent provocateur who will take his place if he steps down? Or is it some other simple-minded schmuck standing in the way of the LP’s success?

    Not like it really matters, since the LP is a nonstarter and a joke as it stands. I wish I could say it was fun.

  32. Concerned Libertarian Citizen

    Jack Witmar, you are full of anger. The movement to draft Gingrich is over and yet you harp on and attack me. I bet Newt Gingrich did a whole lot more to decrease government (welfare reform, capital gains tax cut, four balanced budgets) than you. What are you doing other than bitching?

  33. Reality Watch

    I’m having trouble understanding what makes this a thesis, much less a “movement.” So, somebody wants a minor party to nominate a functional person with a relevant resume’ as the Presidential candidate?

    I agree, but that’s an Internet comment, not a “movement.”

  34. Reality Watch

    The BEST functional candidate would be Gov. Ventura, who has won statewide election as a third-party candidate.

    Ventura might be able to pull some support from the hobo wing of the party as well.

  35. Delusionaltarian

    “Barr suffered a significant blow when Ron Paul refused to support his candidacy. ”

    Should read:

    “Barr suffered a significant blow when Ron Paul, and every other ‘small-L’ libertarian, refused to support his candidacy. ”

    If Barr had wanted to be supported by libertarians, he could have adopted libertarian positions at some point in his life. However, he did not adopt positions that were any more libertarian than any other run-of-the-mill totalitarian, and therefore, ‘small-L’ libertarians did not support him. The purpose he served was to keep the central bank, military adventurism and military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex and drug war, and social intolerance safe from attack by the Libertarian Party.

    Aside from being an anti-libertarian, Barr ensured that Paul’s camp would never support him by throwing a temper tantrum after Paul “endorsed all third parties.” Paul had already partially endorsed him, but then withdrew that partial endorsement, and endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. (Baldwin had taken great pains to adopt all of Ron Paul’s political positions, in spite of his party’s anti-libertarian and anti-liberty platform. Among the anti-liberty portions of the CP platform are calls to outlaw gay marriage, ban speech labeled as “obscenity,” and wage a war on drugs).

    Bob Barr remains an ardent supporter of military interventionism to this day. He opposes jury nullification of law to this day. He is an “ex” prosecutor and CIA agent. He hired the guy who purposefully sabotaged Ross Perot’s 1992 campaign to be his “campaign manager.”

    If you’re fooled by this, you have no business getting anywhere near any political contest of any kind.

    The author of this article has oversimplified politics to the extent that I have to say he or she is a complete asset to the status quo. To harp on things that are obvious (we should run candidates capable of mounting a serious threat to the system, we should run candidates who have a great deal of money and competence, etc.) is to make things that are non-obvious inaccessible to those who are not yet aware. As such, this article is helping to keep libertarians safely asleep, safely neutralized. Also, this post names itself in a silly, goofy manner.

    …Because we all know how supporters of the status quo want to associate themselves with a silly, goofy-sounding marginal political program.

    Libertarians: A bunch of silly, ineffectual bitches who occasionally bleat about individual freedom but will never do anything to obtain it. Look to freedom from the proles, but not “the Libertarians.”

    The very worst are silly dilettantes like “Concerned Libertarian Citizen” who wouldn’t know “libertarian ideas” if they were trampled by them. Newt Gingrich =/= libertarian. Bob Barr =/= libertarian. Ron Crickenberger = libertarian.

  36. Concerned Libertarian Citizen

    Lee Wrights lost all his campaign money in a crooked poker game, so he can’t run for governor. I was right.

  37. Concerned Libertarian Citizen

    Dear Nazi troll,

    You tried to alter my comment but you failed. You tried to silence me but you failed. You tried to destroy my movement but you failed. You are a failure. You are worse than Lee Wrights and Tom Stevens. You will spend the rest of your life as a prison janitor. You will not receive a promotion.

  38. Concerned Citizen

    Nazi troll altered my posts. Paulie admits to altering posts. God bless.

  39. paulie

    Nazi troll altered my posts.

    Do you have any evidence for this or for that matter for your allegation against Lee Wrights?

  40. Concerned Citizen

    Nazi troll accused me of incest. Then my post was altered to suggest I made incest comments.

  41. paulie

    The comment where he said he said he presumed that a candidate’s wife is his sister was way, way over the line and was improved by adding the only plausible reason why he may have assumed something that stupid and crazy. It has since been removed completely.

  42. paulie

    The “theme song” crap is bad enough, but accusing him of losing all his campaign money in a card game is a different matter altogether unless you have proof that this allegation is true.

  43. Antirevolutionary

    The Socialist Christian Antirevolutionary Movement also endorses Marianne Williamson.

  44. Antirevolutionary

    It occurs to me that I promised a treatise back in August when I dissolved the Catholic Trotskyist Party. Real life events and other interests have gotten in the way, but I plan to finish this treatise by August. I or one of my party members are hoping to run for Congress somewhere in the United States in 2020 as an independent; hopefully in California or Washington where we can take advantage of the opportunity to possibly get into a two-way race through the Top Two primary system.

  45. Concerned Libertarian Citizen

    Goodbye everybody. My second run was fun. My third will be epic. See you soon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *