Right, and they broadcast a Nazi radio show to the middle east in Turkish, Farsi, and Arabic. But you’re basically describing the origins of the founding of the Baathist party too by Michel Aflaq. And as we all know, Baathism (real Islamo-fascism) totally goes against both moderate Islamism and violent radical fundamentalists like Al-Qaeda.

Dr. Gonzo: Costa Rica doesn’t have a standing military. Other countries don’t have a standing military. I’m a firm believer in the private sector being able to solve many of our defense needs when we’re not being invaded or rebelled against, so I think mercenaries/”private military contractors” commissioned by the government would work just fine. I know Blackwater has caught some heat lately for acting corrupt in Iraq, but I believe our government has basically given them a blank check and hasn’t created a truly competitive environment in which various security companies can compete for contracts. Plus, they shouldn’t be in Iraq in the first place.

“If we want to win over the hearts and minds of the Arab peoples we need to project strength and fortitude, not weakness.”

If it were that simple, Saddam Hussein would have been universally loved and respected in Iraq.

I seriously doubt that our unpopularity in the Arab world comes from killing too few Iraqis. Many Arabs resent our foreign policy for its bellicosity.

It is not weakness to treat Arab-Americans as citizens of their adopted country, instead of enemies. Should we treat people who have fled tyrannies in the Middle East as enemies even after they have embraced America? If most Arab-Americans were sympathetic to terrorists, we would have suffered far more attacks than the WTC.

It is not weakness to treat the vast majority of Arabs who have not attacked us as “camel jockeys”. Why go out of our way to make enemies of people who don’t support Al-Qaeda?

“Your approach of weakness and pacifism will only lead to more attacks upon the United States.”

You haven’t answered my question: Are Arabs terrorists who deserve to be killed because market forces have driven the price of oil up in recent years? What about other producers of other commodities?

Hey, Ms. Miller, I’m not a Hillbilly, but I am a bit of a Southern boy. I do know that one of the central tenats of Southerness, particularly for Males, is bravado and machismo.

And Southerners like myself don’t consider 5 people pounding on 1 person to be manly.

Let’s not forget that many of these people you are defending attacked our country on September 11, 2001, killing 3000 of our fellow countrymen.

Actually, 23 of them did. There are millions of Arabs in the Middle East, and most of them weren’t on those four flights. Was there not enough room for all of them? Or were they all hiding in the Muslim Superpower Country that you believe exists that’s not on any of the maps but is capable of conquering the USA?

Really. Do you want someone like this in power, making decisions for the country?

Let me tell you something about the Arab people. The one thing they understand and respect is STRENGTH. They completely disrespect weakness. Bin Laden said himself that the reason they went ahead with the 9/11 attacks was because of the pull-out of US Troops from Somalia, and watching the US Troops under Clinton, cower away in fear.

If we want to win over the hearts and minds of the Arab peoples we need to project strength and fortitude, not weakness.

Look at the success of the Surge. Our early crack-downs in the Anbar Province with the full might of the US Military impressed the other Arab leaders in other Iraq Provinces, and they eventually turned on Al Qaeda and joined with the US.

Your approach of weakness and pacifism will only lead to more attacks upon the United States.

If Sonny is now removed as the candidate, do those petitioners who spent their time, and hard-earned dollars in gas money, ect… get any recourse if Sonny is removed?

Not too mention the non-Libertarian petitioners, who were just pure Sonny supporters, who assisted the LP with petitioning in order to get Sonny on the ballot. How do you think they are going to feel?

But this is now a Kentucky voter matter.

6,000 KY voters signed a petition to place the name of Sonny Landham on the ballot for United States Senate on the Libertarian Party ticket.

Removing him now from the ballot would be against the wishes of those 6,000 KY voters. That could prove very hurtful to the reputation of the KY LP for years to come.

Does the Libertarian Party really want to go against the wishes of so many Kentucky voters?

How ironic, that a bunch of San Francisco Bay Area Radicals are trying to impose their views on the State of Kentucky.

Wonder how they would feel if a bunch of Louisville residents collected petition signatures from 3,000 miles away, to kick a flamboyant California petition off the ballot.

Talk about tyrrany from abroad.

http://lancebrown.org/libertarians-against-landham-petition

This just came out a few hours ago, not many signatures yet but you can sign if you agree.

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.

But modern conservatives are completely compromised and beholden to the the military police state—on a mass psychological and economic level.

But it’s “progressives” who are dishonest on the 2nd Amendment. They say they want a holistic interpretation, but they don’t.

You see, the 1st half of the 2nd Amendment doesn’t restrict the right to keep and bear arms; it expands it.

The 2nd Amendment says that “the right of the people” to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Not the right of the militia, nor the right of the national guard, nor the right of the states. But the right of the people.

The right belongs to the people. It’s a personal right.

Why does this right exist? In order to form well-regulated militias!

The 2nd Amendment doesn’t just protect the people’s right to keep and bear arms—it protects their right to form private, organized militias, without government control.

That’s the only interpretation that makes sense, considering that it’s the “right of the people” and not the right of the militia. Forming a militia, like bearing arms, is the people’s right. The militia itself has no rights. At least none mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.

But you’re right—I do wish liberals would recognize the people’s right to form independent, private militias, without govt control.

How about when they demand that liberals literally interpret the 2nd half of the 2nd Amendment (right to keep and bear arms), but treat the 1st half of the 2nd Amendment which says that a militia should provide the security necessary in a free state as though its a mere ceremonial suggestion that we may freely disregard as outdated?

When Ayn Rand appeared on The Phil Donahue Show some 28 years ago (give or take), a guest asked “What should be done about ‘price gouging’ by the oil companies? And about the high price of oil?”

This was about the time, or soon after, the Carter gas shortage.

Regarding high oil and gasoline prices, Ayn Rand replied, “You must pay their price, and say thank you.”

“To the oil companies!”, a shocked Donahue responded.

What I find most hypocritical is how some “libertarians” (and many Objectivists) demand a free market when it comes to US companies, and who spout “A need is not a claim!” whenever an American says that free health care is a need and a right, but who then deny Arabs the same property rights to set their price for oil.

If we believe in property rights, and we believe that a need is not a claim, then mustn’t we support the Arabs’ moral right to sell oil at any price, or even refuse to sell oil, should that be their wish?

Dr.Gonzo,

Many of the founders understood the immutable principle that giving guns to government goons = “being taken over” (to use your phrase)

Do I expect that a significant number of you and the military-mind controlled public will ever rid yourselves of the fantasy that you were not “taken over” (as you call it) long ago? No, that would indeed be fantasy.

But its fun to poke fun at the most infantile of y’all—shakin’ in your boots that the Military Neo-con Complex will be “taken over” and things would change radically at your Miitary Neo-con jobs as though y’all would have to speak Jap or Kraut if you didn’t lick the military’s boots and thank them for “serving” you up the ass.

And why does it always have to be psycho-sexual violence? Have you seen this montage of self-video taped war crimes including the clips where your military servants taunt the newly “liberated” Iraqis and tell them they want to “giz on their faces” as they hand them water and candy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq5_vG3cYGM

It should make you wonder that maybe standing armies are indeed “the bane of liberty.” Did you ever reflect that maybe the prohibitions against standing government armies in our bills of rights are not merely some nice ceremonial idea meant only for a perfect world, but represent an immutable principle that when violated must necessarily result in the banishment of liberty?