Let’s Get A Little Practical: Free Speech Cuts Both Ways

Another of the late Mr. Shearer’s reprints, from February of last year.

This is also for Chris Fluharty, the current Vice Chair of the Missouri Constitution Party, who was kicked out of The American View discussion forums recently when he defended the Constitution Party.
Chris also had his posts removed so no one could view them.

Free Speech Cuts Both Ways

by William K. Shearer

As I understand the First Amendment to the Constitution, the right of free speech runs in more then one direction. The right extends to views with which one disagrees, as well as expressions which conform to one’s own opinions.

Thus it seems strangely inconsistent for a few radicals in the Constitution Party to attempt to dictatorially silence all expression within the party by those with whom the extremists disagree.

Following publication of my recent editorial, “Don’t Be Broadcasting When You Should Be Tuning In,” the California American Independent Party included the piece on its web site. I don’t control the web site, and I have never asked anyone in the party—state or national—to run anything I wrote on a web site.
When my editorial appeared on the California web site, however, two gentlemen of the extreme persuasion contacted the State Chairman and requested that the editorial be removed.

My editorial was written in response to a rash of vituperative tripe which had been run on another web site, attacking the Constitution Party’s founder, Howard Phillips, for some innocuous remarks he had made about the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Phillips’ remarks had been placed on the national party web site with an appropriate disclaimer of endorsement by the party.

Both Phillips and the party were viciously attacked by a handful of fanatics who unjustly accused the party and its founder, of “flagrant hypocrisy on abortion”.
In my editorial, I responded to the unjust charges. When the extremists found out that free speech was a two way street, they tried to have my editorial suppressed.

No one is kidding anyone about the desire of a few fanatics in the party to close down the voices of all who have views different from their own. For instance, I wrote an article on education (which did not contradict the party platform), which was placed on the Constitution Party web site with the usual disclaimer. Scott Whiteman of Maryland wrote to the national chairman saying that “Mr. Shearer ought not be permitted to speak, or appear to speak, on behalf of the party in these matters.”

Last September, Howard Phillips invited me to speak on the history of the U.S. tariff laws at his 2005 Constitution Day function. Cal Zastrow, with whom I differ on Zastrow’s crusade to run the Nevada Independent American Party out of the national party, notified Phillips that it was “offensive” to him that Phillips had invited me “to give a speech at the Columbus meeting” on a subject which had nothing to do with the Nevada controversy.

He wanted me silenced on all subjects!

Free speech is a two way street, but the Zastrows and Whitemans of the world want to choke off every voice with which they are in disagreement. I can’t help but be amused when they accuse me of having a “big tent” philosophy as far as participation in the party is concerned. Who ever built a viable political party in a pup tent? Or by limiting freedom of expression only to a few shrill voices howling in the little tent?
Wonders never cease!

79 Responses to “Let’s Get A Little Practical: Free Speech Cuts Both Ways”

  1. Joe Says:

    I remember Howard endorsing Alito. I strongly disagreed with him and wrote to him to tell him so. I never contacted the Constitution Party to ask them to remove Howard’s article. If it had even occurred to me I doubt I would have, figuring that it would never happen. However, I am not surprised that some prolife members did contact the Constitution Party and asked them to remove an article that endorsed a pro-abort judge for Supreme Court. I do recall that I contacted the Constitution Party and complained about an article that William Shearer about an article about education that appeared on their website:
    http://www.constitutionparty.org/news.php?aid=211 because it did not reflect my views as a member of the Constitution Party at that time. I figure, if you don’t object to something people will figure you are okay with it.

  2. Cody Quirk Says:


    =”...Because so many conservatives - a large number of whom had previously been uncritical of the Bush presidency - took a stand in the Miers case, we now have a much better choice to sit on the court, Samuel Alito.”

    Howard never endorsed Alito, he just said it is better he’s on the bench rather then Harriet Miers.

    This article is not a endorsement.

    I myself agree with Howard on this.

    If this counts as a official endorsement, then we should all wear tin-foil hats whenever we hear the word “UFO”.

  3. Cody Quirk Says:

    Bill also is right on the mark about public schools in America.

  4. Joe Says:

    I disagree with you and Bill about government schools. Howard’s article certainly reads like an endorsement to me. I do not agree with him that Alito is better than Meiers. Neither meet the biblical qualifications for civil magistrates.

  5. Sean Scallon Says:

    Calvinists are not the most democratic of persons. No surprise they wish to suppress people’s views.

  6. matt Says:

    Can it. I’m sure that whatever religious group you do (or don’t) belong to has some examples of intolerance in their history as well. Calvinists and Catholics both laid heavy religious persecution on my forefathers, but you don’t see my trotting that out to make a political point, since doing so would be childish and irrelavent.

    Intolerance is universal. We all refuse to tolerate certain things. No one should feel any obligation to post something they disagree with on their website. It’s not about censorship, it’s about property rights.

    None of this is intended as a broadbased criticism of the CP. It’s one of the better things we have going in this country right now.

  7. Anthony Distler Says:

    I just find it sad. But everyone on this blog knows my objection to the Constitution Party, so I’m not diving into this one.

  8. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Alito over Miers was not a victory of conservatism over “liberalism” or moderatism. It was a victory of legitimacy and competence over the grossest example of wanton nepotism and childishness in an administration full of nepotism and childishness.

    At least with Hillary the adults will be back in charge.

  9. Cody Quirk Says:

    Neither meet the biblical qualifications for civil magistrates.

    =A unconstitutional religious test, basically.

  10. matt Says:

    And a misinterpretation of scripture. The intended audience of the passage is the Christian church. Paul wants to ensure that those Christians who want to become magistrates examine themselves and retain the fear of the Lord rather than getting drunk with power.

    You know as well as we do that Hillary is a cancer. You just like to rile people up.

  11. Joe Says:


    Do you think the Constitution Party should retain an article on their website supporting Alito when Alito is pro-abort?

  12. matt Says:


    [strokes beard thoughtfully and draws from his deep fountain of insight about the CP and it’s ex-members (sarc)]

    Probably not.

    If however, they want to say that Alito is better than Miers, then I suppose that’s alright. If I say that influenza is bad, but not as bad as ebola, is that tantamount to supporting influenza?

    I think it’s a shame that that one CP affilliate decided not to enforce a complete pro-life stance, but I don’t see how this is relevant to that. Ask any CPer whether or not they’re pro-life, and tehy will answer you. When they answer yes, they will be more sincere than any republican who says the same.

    I wish there were as many LPers that were pro-life.

    Being pro-life means being against abortion. It doesn’t mean maintaining a uniform sneer at all judges.

  13. Joe Says:


    Is ebola worse than the flu to the person who dies from the flu? To me they are equally bad. I don’t see the point of an alternate party bothering to argue that one Republican nominee is better than another. If any attention were to be paid to Alito’s nomination, I thought it should be in pointing out his pro-abort track record, not comparing him favorably to Meiers.

    I’m not sure how Constitution Party affiliation is relevant either, since you are the one who brought it up - seemingly out of the blue. Alito may consider himself pro-life, but considering his record, I don’t. He may be sincere, but if so he is sincerely wrong. Since he is pro-abort, he fails to meet the scriptural criteria for civil magistrates, and since the Constitution Party claims their objective is “restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations,” I don’t think they should have an article supporting Alito on their website.

  14. timothy west Says:

    screw all extremists. political or religious. I dont care what their motivation is - liberty, abortion, islam. whatever.

    the failure of a dogmatic and unlearning mind is to assume that truth only rests with them and them alone - and that all others must assume their version of events.

    way too many people are scared to death to question their innermost guiding instincts, and I’ve never understood why. It’s healthy to question onesself.

  15. Trent Hill Says:


    Ebola is most certainly worse than the flu. See, this is your problem. You just argued tha the freaking FLU was worse than EBOLA. Ebola has a higher death rate, worse symptoms, worse track record, its stronger. You argue that if the Flu kills someone its just as bad. That is retarded…these absolutionist views are hardly worth argueing against. For you it is black and white. But guess what, for the majority of americans, there is a large grey area in there. Which is why the CPNY will garner 10 votes in every election. I hope your group changes it’s name soon so you can stop defiling our good name.

  16. Joe Says:


    I disagree with you that the ebola is worse than the flu. I admit that I sometimes fall into the gray, but I try to avoid it and stay with black and white. I would not mind our state party changing our name, but I am in the distinct minority concerning that. Every member I have heard from about it is determined to keep our current name so I would not look for that to change in the near future. Our candidates have received more than ten votes. We have one candidate serving the second year of his three year term. I am not sure how many votes he got, but I am sure he needed more than ten to win. I know that Michael Peroutka received more than 200 votes for president in our state in ‘04. I forget the exact number, but I think it was close to 300. My recollection is that are candidate for US Senate received close to 4000 votes in 2000. So you are wrong when you say that we will garner ten votes in every election.

  17. Trent Hill Says:

    Well,in Louisiana Peroutka got 5200 votes and we didnt have a formally organized group. So,your numbers dont speak loudly.

    Wether or not you agree that ebola is worse than the flu,that doesnt change the fact that you are wrong.

  18. Joe Says:

    Trent, 5200 is more than 10. Your said “the CPNY will garner 10 votes in every election.” There is no gray, only black and white. Either we will garner 10 votes in every election, or, in some elections, we have garnered some number of votes other than ten. 200+ does not equal ten, so it seems to me that you have no high horse to ride concerning other people being wrong.

  19. matt Says:

    Who are you to decide who is or is not extreme? As you question yourself, perhaps it would be wise to start with that question. Saying that slavery is totally wrong was once extreme. People of principle let public opinion come to them, rather than vice versa.

    Again, varying levels of disapproval don’t neccessarily denote endorsement. This is clear in English. Is it clear to you?

  20. Joe Says:


    No, it is not clear to me. I understand it is English. I still disagree with you.

  21. Trent Hill Says:


    Perhaps you misunderstood. The “10 votes” phrase was just that,a euphamism. I did not actually mean you would only get ten votes. But rather it was indicative of how little votes your candidates will get (unlike Nevada, who makes up 4% of their electorate).

  22. Joe Says:


    I don’t get your point at all. Our state party will never receive enough votes to win an election (even though we already have) because we are too extreme, yet because IAP Nevada is more moderate, they are able to get 4% of the vote?

    I am not interested in taking a position on an issue just to get votes. I want to take certain positions on issues and then try to convince voters of the righteousness of those positions to gain their votes. Our state party is doing what we believe to be right and we will let God take care of the results. I believe that IAP Nevada and you and yours are also doing what you think is right, even if we don’t always agree with you about what is right.

  23. globalist_elitist Says:

    Hillary is a cancer who will make me richer. Let’s deal with reality; she’s going to be the nominee, and if she is, she’s going to be better than whoever the Republican nominee is. I am, of course, assuming that she will govern like her husband, who deregualted more and grew the government less than any president in the modern era… And also presided over a the greatest economic boom in history - a boom that left behind all of these angry, uneducated Bible-fucking redneck losers with no education or financial savvy. That’s why they hate her.

    And before someone accuses me of being a “Democrat” again; fuck off. I am a capitalist. Bill Richardson is the best candidate in the running. Every other candidate from any and all parties has a plan to destroy the economy in as little time as possible. Hillary’s economic rhetoric is on the intellectual level of the average idiot Christian here, but I can only assume that she will install a Rubin-like treasury secretary and implement pro-growth policies like her husband. She probably won’t get my vote, but I’ll be glad to be rid of Bush.

  24. globalist_elitist Says:

    By the way, William Shrearer seems way too moderate, intelligent, and un-evil to be associated with the CP.

  25. timothy west Says:

    Who are you to decide who is or is not extreme?

    i make judgments on others based on what they say or do or conduct themselves, a gift of reasoning ability given by the Creator.

    You’re not principled in the slightest. What you have is faith, not principle. it’s not possible for you to question yourself. You would have to confront the notion that you might be wrong, and based on your past postings, I don’t see any ability from you to do that.

  26. Trent Hill Says:

    UA, Clinton behind the biggest economic boom? Um, you wish.

    Joe, whatever local guy you have elected is not a state candidate. We both know that. However, I will congratulate you on having an elected official. However, Nevada did not get 4% in an ELECTION. They have 4% of registered VOTERS. That is a MAJOR difference.
    Also, Nevada did not take a popular stand to get more vote. They took an unpopular stand amongst their own party and stuck by it. Furthermore, not all of Nevada did this…only Chris Hanson.

  27. Joe Says:


    You were the one that said that we would always get ten votes in every election because we are too extreme. And you compared us to IAP Nevada who you claim are more successful because, according to you, they are more moderate. Even if IAP elected candidates filled the statehouse and the legislature, that would still be no excuse for us to go along with what we know to be wrong. I am not knocking 4%, but it is silly to criticize us as marginal while holding up the 4% IAP Nevada as a model. Like I said, we will continue to do what we believe to be right and you and yours do the same. I am not really interested in keeping score; I do not view it as a competition. But when people tell me we can’t win, I just point to our winners. I’m not saying that it is easy to win, but I doubt many Constitution Party affiliates would claim winning elections is easy either.

  28. globalist_elitist Says:

    I didn’t say “behind” I said “presided over.” I know you mulefucking types are always thinking of “behinds” and blank out when they see “big words.”

    Clinton’s economic policies - i.e. welfare reform, deregulation, balancing the budget, etc. - were integral to the economic boom of the 90s. Sorry if the truth hurts. The boom could have been bigger if more spending were cut and taxes were lowered, yes.

    And for any ignorant asshole who says that Clinton was dragged “kicking and screaming” by the Nazi GOP Congress, well, I’m sorry, but that isn’t the case. Look at Clinton’s 1992 campaign literature - he promised to do those things. And Robert Rubin was the one who wanted to balance the budget, not Newt the utlimate hypocrite Gingrich.

    Facts hurt. So we just ignore them. Like for example, there is no God, but you still pretend that there is. Grow up.

  29. Trent Hill Says:


    I never used the words extreme or moderate. You assumed that.
    I dont have a problem with your party. I have a problem with its views of theocratic government.


    Clinton’s “economic boom” was the last vestiges of Reagan’s work. Reagan’s supply-side economics and destruction of the USSR. Bush carried over that hard work with tax cuts. Clinton balanced the budget,THAT ill give him. And he would have spent VASTLY more money than he did if he could,but the GOP congress didnt let him, wether you accept that or not.
    And I dont like Newt Gingrich.
    As for assaulting God in a political arena. Who needs to grow up?
    Very ad hominem.

  30. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Not true, and very indictative of your elementary understanding of economics. Do you even know what supply side is? It’s all about increasing the money supply - i.e. fueling inflation. It is a discredited economic philosophy.

    Read Reagan’s 1976 and 1980 campaign literature. He is a liar. He said he would balance the budget, cut taxes, and cut spending. He did none of the above. He ran up deficits higher than all other presidents in the 200+ year history of the country, passed the biggest tax hike on working people in the history of civilization, and expanded the size of government more than any other president since LBJ. The 1980s recovery was due to Paul Volker’s courageous actions at the Fed - actions that corrected the previously misguided Keynsian policies of the prior several administrations, AND actions for which Reagan wanted to ILLEGALLY force out Volcker for political reasons.

    Clinton said he would deregulate, balance the budget, and reform welfare. He did.

    Sorry. That’s the truth.

  31. timothy west Says:

    “People of principle let public opinion come to them, rather than vice versa.”

    no, people of leadership form public opinion by building consensus to form public policy.

    I would rather have one principled leader than 1000 principled followers.

    the most overused word in both the LP and the CP is principle. It’s been used to the point where it means nothing anymore. It’s just filler.

    Very ad hominess. We gotta stop all this ad hominess. You cant let yer homies ad like that, homie.

  32. Trent Hill Says:


    You’re right,reagan didnt balance the budget. He did bring down the USSR tho didnt he?

  33. matt Says:

    It’s true that Clinton’s economic policy could have been much worse. I think his presidency was a civil liberties disaster on a GWB level or worse, but that doesn’t change the fact that he did some good things. Joe will probably read this as an endorsement, but that apparently can’t be helped. I’m just as tired of your rhetoric as the rest of them, but when you’re right, you’re right.

    What am I even supposed to say to that? I’m pretty happy with my decision-making process, and I’m pretty pleased with what I come up with, even though some of it changes from year to year.

    Perhaps you’re questioning my process because you dislike the output. Dare I suggest that this is closed-minded of you? Maybe it is, maybe not.

  34. globalist_elitist Says:

    Only a Communist would think that a politician brought down the USSR. Reagan didn’t do shit in that regard. The USSR collapsed on itself, just like all Communist dictatorships inevitably collapse - just like China will, eventually. But if we adopt elitist trade policies like the idiots in the CP, GP, and the fringes of the major parties want to adopt, then it will only embolden the Chinese dictators. If you have faith in capitalism then you want uninhibted free trade with all nations.

    Elect me president and here is my economic policy: Make government smaller. Install a flat tax with a generous standard exemption. Abolish taxes on dividends, capital gains, and interest income. Reform social security and weflare. Deregulate as much as possible. Cut spending and taxes.

    Did Clinton do all of that? No. Did he do more of that then GWB or Reagan did? Yes.

    We have a lot of shitty presidents in our history. The fact is that Bill Clinton is one of the best - probably the best in the 20th century. I give him a C. Most others get varying degrees of F.

    Civil liberties violations on a GWB scale? Come on, now. That’s hyperbole, big time.

    The fact of the matter is that people hate Clinton because he didn’t keep up the war on the poor, he didn’t validate racist hatemongers and homophobes, and he expanded the economy by expanding global trade - which is a threat to antiquated Christian superstitions. Assuming Hillary is as good as Bill, then we will have the 1st or 2nd best president in the past 100+ years. It could be a lot worse. i.e. Ron Paul could theoretically get elected and send us back to the stone age. Do you know by how much teh stock market would crash if Ron Paul somehow got elected? It’s unimaginable. The market will dip when (if) Hillary wins, but that will be a great buying opportunity. A Ron Paul victory would pretty much wipe out the economy.

  35. Cody Quirk Says:

    I admit that I sometimes fall into the gray, but I try to avoid it and stay with black and white.

    =Which is why people like you can never win a major office.

  36. Cody Quirk Says:

    The Nevada IAP is not ‘more moderate’, they’re just more practical and realistic. They don’t try to portray themselves in black/white dogmatic fashion. And the reason why they do so well in election is because they do well in getting media attention.

    4%? Try 6% of the vote in statewide races, or 5% to 28% in legislative races. And in the races that the IAP won last November, both candidates received a majority of votes, one of them was even running against both a GOP’er and a Libertarian, and still got over 50%!

  37. Cody Quirk Says:


    Politics isn’t black or white, neither is it gray.

    No matter what part of the spectrum, politics takes on the colors of the rainbow, and in different varieties too.


  38. timothy west Says:

    Perhaps you’re questioning my process because you dislike the output. Dare I suggest that this is closed-minded of you? Maybe it is, maybe not.

    no, I’m questioning your process because 35 yrs of history has pretty well documented that it’s ass backwards.

    “People of principle let public opinion come to them, rather than vice versa.”

    It’s exactly the opposite. People of principle lead public opinion, not follow it. When you follow public opinion, you have not a principle in you. All you are doing is being safe.

    Thats what I mean. A true man of principle follows his own advice and needs no others to guide him, now does he wait for the tide of public opinion to turn his way.

  39. timothy west Says:

    Timothy West wrote a blast from the past: my post on liberty for sale on June 1st 2005….

    I just read a report on the newly examined mass graves found in Iraq of thousands of Kurds, helping the new government build a case against Saddam and Chemical Ali for crimes against humanity. I think that’s great. What I dont think is great is such things being used as justification for the war itself after the fact.

    The Iraqi war is a lie, from start to finish. It was based on lies, justified with lies, and the entire U.S. government is complicit in it’s failure to abide by The Constitution in the matter. ( I know, it sounds rather quaint and old fashioned to say, does’nt it? ) Now that the war’s history is being written by the victors, no one dares say that somehow the world is not better off for this war. Look at all the bad stuff we found - look at Lebanon, Syria - etc, etc. Why, if it were not for our great adventure, the world would be a worse place!

    Bush’s version of manifest destiny in the new century is no more justifiable than the old version was in the last. Wars fought for any other reason besides DEFENSE OF THE NATION, which it can be proven, and has been proven many time over to my satisfaction, is NOT the case in Iraq, are morally bankrupt and legally indefensable. The Congress’ refusal to accept it’s mandate to be the sole declarer of war is a direct result of the lack of political will, a tyranny of corporation induced apathy towards government. Not only to people not give a damn if government is small, they dont even care if that government lies through it’s teeth and kills thousands of Americans as a result. The disconnect between Americans and their government policies is, more than ever in my lifetime, ASTOUNDING in it’s breadth.

    I believe this is becuase Americans rightly know that their government no longer either represents them or their concerns, and have taken the position of the ostrich, with it’s head buried deep, in order not to consider fundamental truths about themselves that they really dont want to consider. Like how they enjoy cheap consumer goods made with slave labor in the third world, and dont want to know about the system that makes this possible. Or how the goverment they elected can use a mass market campaign made

    out of smears, allegations, half truths, and outright lies to justify a foreign invasion and takeover of a country that, while run by a mass murderer, represented no threat to America.

    Between the corporation-induced “free trade” agreements that have produced this state of affairs, and the mass abandonment of the guiding documents and the principals behind them ( which are not the same principals as a large portion of the current LP enshrines ) , the United States now is a mere enabler for the global corporate mafia to expand everywhere in the world. Remember, the globalist’s version of “freedom” is the “freedom to spend until you are broke” model, where you cant actually ever afford to save enough money to buy anything more expensive than your roof and food unless it is on CREDIT. This makes freedom impossible, and citizen control over government very unlikely.

    People that are DEBTORS are never actually FREE. We have set ourselves up to be permanent debtors, both as citizens and as a nation. If the LP ever actually wants reverse this trend, it can engage the public in this truth - both about the Iraq war and the multiple behind the scenes motivations and the lies that accompanied the drumbeat to it. Even if you consider the world a better place today becuase of the war, it’s not separable from the fact that the government you elected lied through it’s teeth to you in order to do it.

    Thats why using government policy as a moral compass for humanity sucks. Which was more immoral, a Saddam led Iraq, or the lies we told the world and ourselves to go get him and conquer the country?

    The war was still very popular in the summer of 2005. should I have waited until now to speak out about it and Bush?

  40. Trent Hill Says:

    “it will only embolden” Chinese Dictators/Terrorists?
    You sound like GWB!

    These people are so emboldenable.

    Um,no the USSR did not collapse on its’ own. It WOULD have eventually, but Reagan made it collapse sooner. By putting our economy into overdrive against theirs, he actually killed them with competition (ironic eh?). This is well documented. Im not a big fan of Republicans, but sometimes you have to give credit where it’s due.

    As for Clinton, he balanced the budget…ill give him that.

  41. globalist_elitist Says:

    Only a Communist would think that a government could defeat Communism.

    Sorry, not true.

    You don’t beat Communism with more Communism.

    Reagan did not put our economy into overdrive. Our economy got reset by the Fed. Reagan just happened to be around at the time. In fact, the recovery would have been stronger without Reagan’s disasterous tax hikes and deficits. How the hell could you possibly think he did something good for the economy???

    So you’re only going to give Clinton the balanced budget? What about more deregulation than any president since…. ever? What about growing the government more slowly than any president since the New Deal? What about welfare reform? And again, if you think the Nazi-GOP Congress did these things, then they were strangely acting out Clinton’s promises from his 1992 campaign literature. I implore you to read Reagan’s from 1976 and 1980 - ALL LIES.


  42. globalist_elitist Says:

    Communism can only exist in isolation. If you believe in capitalism, then you know that it will sweep over everything it touches. EVEN MARX BELIEVED THIS! People here are so ignorant and uneducated - which is to be expected since the right-wing proliferation of recent months. But anyway, Communism thrives in isolation - see Cuba. See North Korea. The only pure Communist nations left on Earth ARE THE TWO MOST ISOLATED ONES. China will eventually need to reform or it will fall apart. THAT IS A FACT. It’s not a theory. Anyone who knows anything about capitalism can connect the dots.

    China is growing at 9-10% per year. Standards of living are being greatly increased. But at some level, marginal income will not be able to provide the benefit for citizens that it would in a free country. Improving your living from $1 a day to $10,000 per year is incentivized. But by the time you’re making maybe $25,000 or $30,000, you begin to see that you are not allowed to enjoy the fruits of your labor. Your life may be improved by earning $50,000, but not to the extent that it makes the work worth it. Take it to an unrealistic level, that everyone in China were making $60,000+. Would there be incentive to make the $60,001st dollar when they can’t even enjoy freedom? No. They would rather make $20,000 in the U.S. Productivity will plummet unless reform comes.

    THE SAME HAPPENED IN THE USSR. It lasted from the 1920s through the 80s (a pitiful reign) ONLY because it was not engaged like China. China is effectively no longer Communist, but it is a dictatorship. You can’t have a market-based dictatorship - THE DEGENERATES OF THE AMERICAN SOUTH ALREADY TRIED IT. That’s why the capitalists in the North fought the Civil War. Productivity was lagging, national output was stunted by slavery. Capitalism is the great liberator, and people with STATIST views like yourself - that a pitiful president/ washed-up actor politican was needed to defeat Communism - only perpetuate the big-government myth. Markets work. Command and control does not.

    End sermon.

  43. Trent Hill Says:

    UA, you lost me when you said the Souh had a Market-based dictatorship? How exactly was the Confederacy a dictatorship? It was more small-government and pro-trade than the North….(or any other country on earth).

    Furthermore, I do believe Capitalism sweeps over everything it touches. However,this is not always to the benefit of the people. For example, if we open up to free trade. How does the American nation benefit from Pakistani’s being able to make sweaters for half the price? We MIGHT be able to buy them cheaper, but we’ll never be able to make them cheaper. Why? Because we play by different rules. Our factories have to maintain a high level of safety and we HAVE to pay everyone minimum wage (well,we dont HAVE to, but we certainly do. And v heard you argue for minimum wage before). So when we are playing with different rules, it doesnt work. If you could convince every country on earth to play by the same rules that we do, I would give in to free trade. It works on paper,afterall. However, in the real world…its not that easy.
    Furthermore, why would I WANT to help a Pakistani (or Frenchman or whatever) get lower priced goods from the United States? I feel no kindred spirit with him unless he is American. He is from an opposing country. One which we compete with on an international level, and one which does not habor friendship for us.

    As for Reagan collapsing the USSR, I already admitted Communism will naturally collapse in upon itself (a well known fact). But,it is well-known that Reagan quickened this. I am by no means a Reagan fan, but this—ill give him.
    Meanwhile,you continue cheerleading for Hillary. Socialism-YAY

  44. globalist_elitist Says:

    How completely and totally racist. Ask Kunta Kinte whether the South was a dictatorship. And it was not truly market-based, it was only partially so. That’s why racist apologists for the South labeled economics “the dismal science,” because economics cannot be measured without the underlying assumption that all human beings are equal and their individual desires are all equal. The Southern slaveocracy was based on certain “cultural values” - the ones of which ignorant Southerners continue to be proud - i.e. white supremacy. That is not a market-based value. Eventually, capitalism sweeps over culture, destroys religion, destroys all values that do not respect the inherit equality and freedom of individuals. Why? Because capitalism works best when all people are free and uninhibited by age-old superstitions and false gods.

    YOU CALL ME A SOCIALIST and then you say “Capitalism sweeps over everything it touches. However,this is not always to the benefit of the people.”

    Spoken like a true Commie.

    “I feel no kindred spirit with him unless he is American. He is from an opposing country. One which ‘WE(!)’ compete with on an international level, and one which does not harbor friendship for ‘US()!’”

    Spoken like a true racist, socialist, and nationalist. Hey, a racist national-socialist? A Nazi!

    There is no “we” and there is no “us.” There is only “me” and “you.” Trust me, I am not part of any “we” with your ignorant, anticapitalist, racist self.

    Why do I want to “help” the Pakistani? Out of my own rational self interest. I work independently to get the best value for my dollar, and when we all act in such a manner, the economy grows to everyone’s benefit. THAT IS CAPITALISM. It is impeded by religious, racist, nationalist (is there a difference?) values. These are the barriers, impediments, and roadblocks to true capitalism, and there would be no hunger, no poverty, no war, if they were all eliminated.

    And you want to call ME the socialist because I refuse to demonize the candidate who is most likely to be the better choice of two? Because I deal with rational reality? I do not like Hillary Clinton; I do not plan to vote for her. And I especially do not like her mercantalist rhetoric as of late. She is a dishonest, disingenuous person - and that’s what I’m counting on. Her China-bashing, Chuck Baldwin parroting, CP stumping, is all lies. If she is telling the truth, then YOU should vote for her.

  45. SovereignMN Says:

    I have to give this guy credit. He can completely take over every thread on this site and what’s worse, people keep replying to him. Now I see that Hillary Clinton is really no different than the average CPer. And people are responding to him as if his opinion should actually matter why?

  46. SovereignMN Says:

    Excuse me. He’s saying Hillary is making herself SOUND like the average CPer. As if that is any less ridiculous.

  47. matt Says:

    Oh, I might give him credit for doing his thing on a messge board, but I’d certianly watch his hands if he came into my place of business.

  48. Trent Hill Says:


    Its like shouting at a brick wall. He just doesnt get it. He is very much like communist in that his little ideas work in his head and perhaps on paper, but he ignores reality.
    Also, you are racist for agreeing with me. We are all racists.

  49. Cody Quirk Says:

    Even if my wife is part-Filipino, and having in-laws came to America from the Phillipines, I’m racist?

    Sounds like UA, or GE now, is using McCarthyism here.

  50. globalist_elitist Says:

    Maybe I will change my name to capitalist_brick_wall.

    Cody: I’m not saying you are a racist, but just because you have a wife of a different ethnicity does not exclude the possibility that you are. John Wayne had Latina wives, but he was racist nonetheless. How about Strom Thurmond? Was he not racist? But not too racist to dip his dick in the black maide.

    As for your Phillipino in-laws, what of the people who would like to deny their ability to come here? Are they not racist? Where is the line between racism and nationalism? The line is irrelavent. It’s all collectivism.

    McCarthyism? No. My aim is to show the strain of collectivist thinking among people who claim to be the enemies of collectivism, but in reality, they are just right-wing equivalents of the Green Party.

  51. matt Says:

    (Please make a point of bringing this up whenever another Deliverance crack about the South is made.)————————————————————————————————————What, you think this will dissuade UA over at TPW?

    Couldn’t hurt, I suppose…

  52. globalist_elitist Says:


  53. Cody Quirk Says:

    My in-laws came here legally with nothing and through hard-work are quite wealthy. They basically assimiliated with American culture and society, and therefore were successful in life. And they do oppose illegal immigration; they see illegals as a disgusting insult to the hardships they overcame. So they do share my opinions on that aspect.

    I oppose the idea of “one race” especially a ‘Master Race in America’. Which is utter bullcrap.
    America is a melting pot of many people and ethnicities, the problem is that bad and harmful elements (foreign criminals, pedophiles, extremists (racial, religious, and political) and free-loaders) are getting into the mix, ruining that concoction we have, or had. And also the idea about hopping a fence into the land of freedom and getting away with it promotes lawlessness, since immigration laws ‘don’t seem to matter’ anymore, what’s the point in obeying the law period?

    And collectivism is wrong and unrealistic. No mind thinks alike, whether in a church or a political party or a clubhouse. Collectivism is also against individual thought and action.
    It seems in rhetoric, you almost sound like the ex-CP nutjobs I debate on TPW.

  54. Cody Quirk Says:

    I also reccomend you lose a little weight Jason.

  55. globalist_elitist Says:

    Hmm.. I’ve posted two comments that haven’t worked.


  56. matt Says:

    My bad, I posted my previous quote in the wrong window. We were talking about bestiality over @ last free voice and your name just naturally came up.

  57. General Lee Says:

    Right you are Matt!


    your comments are urgently needed


  58. Trent Hill Says:

    UA, just becasue we are anti-illegal immigration doesnt mean we’re anti-immigration.

    Hell, if I had my way, I’d send the Coast Gaurd out to pick up any Cubans who got more than a few miles off the coast. They are oppressed,and being an opponent of communism, i’d like to welcome them to the MORE capitalist America.

    Unlike alot of people in the CP,id also expand immigration allowances from alot of other countries.

  59. globalist_elitist Says:

    Expand them to infinite and then anyone who circumvented the legal channels would be a legitimate criminal, obviously up to no good.

  60. Eric Donfascist Says:

    I think it’s OK to bring in as many Mexican chicks as we want and then hold their visas hostage. We can keep Mexico poor through classical imperialist-colonialist measures to make sure they have plenty of incentive to come over here. Then we can pretty much do whatever we want with them, because they will be indentured servants to their employers, or they can get shipped home to starve.

    We’ll also make sure they keep having lots of babies by doing everything possible to keep them from getting birth control and family planning. That will give them more reasons to come over here, but they have to leave their kids and husbands and boyfriends back home. Plue having more kids will make them more obedient to their American bosses, because they sure will have a lot of starving kids if they get fired and deported.

    I think this is the essence of a Global Elitist Mainstream Libertarian position.

    What do you guys think: Global Elitist Mainstream Libertarian Party, Republican Global Elitist Mainstream Libertarian Caucus, or both?

  61. Trent Hill Says:

    GE, and destroy our economy and national security as well as sovereignty? No thanks.

  62. globalist_elitist Says:

    Security isn’t threatened if we keep out criminals and terrorists. And destroy the economy? Through immigration? That is severe European thinking, friend. Immigration benefits economies. It is not the government’s job to decide how many doctors, businessmen, or tomato pickers we need. It is the market’s job. The free flow of capital and labor is essential to free market economics. Are you a capitalist or not? Oh yeah, you’re not. You’re an admitted anticapitalist mercantalist, which is the moral and intellectual equivalent of a Communist.

  63. Cody Quirk Says:

    “Immigration benefits economies.”

    Yeah, Like Wal-Mart and other large corporations that can save a buck in their pocket by hiring cheaper labor and moving their companies overseas.

    What about Americans, the kind that like working with their hands instead of seaking out white-collar jobs? What about all those workers the American car makers (the Big 3) are laying off?

    Also look at how immigration is effecting Europe, how come right-wing political parties have become so popular all of a sudden? Especially in liberal Europe.

    If I was a communist, then I’d be a member of the Communist Party or a socialist group, not the AIP.

    I am a protectionist and national capitalist, I still favor free-enterprise in the small business sector, communists don’t favor any free enterprise at all.

    Go take a Political Science class Paul, you’re a outright dumbass that knows more about demagoge tactics then politics. And lose some weight, that picture of you with David Cobb shows that you either have a personal issue(s) that makes you fat, or are simply a fat pig yourself.

    And you are the one that’s a bigot.
    I see why Austin never made you a writer for TPW.

  64. Eric Donfascist Says:

    Jason and Paul are the same person? I always kinda suspected that was the case.

    They’re two peas in a pod, a couple of America-hating leftist Jihadists. Besides, they are both fat, which is a moral failing as we all know. I think under national capitalism (which is very mainstream libertarian) fatsos like Jason/Paul/whateverhisnameis should be sent to fat camps (part of the Freedom Through Work TM Halliburton-Corrections Corporation of America Joint Venture) and made to work that fat off for the greater national good. All that human blubber can be harvested and used to lessen our dependence on Jihadist petroleum, too.

    That’s the very essence of a mainstream libertarian proposal!

  65. globalist_elitist Says:

    Cody - If you work with your hands, you deserve the price for your labor that the market dictates. Not the price that the government dictates.

    A rising tide lifts all boats. I want a market of 7 billion for my products. As wealth rises, our wants increase. As more is produced, we are allowed to consume more.

    You are not a capitalist if you do not believe in free trade. Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations evangalizes free trade. Saying you’re a capitalist against free trade is like saying you’re a Communist against state ownership of property.

    If globalization only benefits Wal-Mart (not true), then I have a simple solution: BE WAL-MART.

    You have a typical lazy liberal victim mentality.

    My purpose has been to expose you CP/AIP types as the anticapitalists you are. I think I have succeeded.

  66. matt Says:

    Mocking people for being fatter than you isn’t particularly classy, and exposing their real names when they don’t want them exposed is downright inexcusable.

    You do a good thing, you’re a really good writer, and I agree with most of what you say, but until you learn that people who disagree with you (and in some cases insult you) deserve just as much respect as you do, you’ll run the risk of being a hindrance rather than a help to your particular third party and the movement as a whole.

    I’m not trying to be a jerk, just calling it like I see it.

  67. Trent Hill Says:


    GE has given us the information to find his name before. He doesnt seem ot care TOO much. That being said, I agree on a certain level. Cody is starting to resemble John Lofton’s attack stance. Cody, that isnt a reputation you want.

    We arent anti-capitalist. We’re protectionist capitalist. You are as radically stupid as can be.

  68. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    March 23rd, 2007 at 12:54 pm
    Cody - If you work with your hands, you deserve the price for your labor that the market dictates. Not the price that the government dictates.”

    This from a guy who has promoted minimum wage laws in other threads.

    “If globalization only benefits Wal-Mart (not true), then I have a simple solution: BE WAL-MART.”

    If you want to be Wal-Mart you’d better get in good with the politicians since you’ll need plenty of corporate welfare and land confiscated through eminent domain.

  69. Andy Says:

    We arent anti-capitalist. We’re protectionist capitalist. You are as radically stupid as can be.”

    I don’t consider protectionism to be in line with free market capitalism.

    However, I will say that in spite of this the Constitution Party is more free market than the typical Democrat, Republican, and Green. Of course, the Libertarian Party is the most free market party of all.

  70. globalist_elitist Says:

    Hey, I can take it as well as dish it out. The fat cracks don’t bother me. But yes, please dont’ use my real name. I was asked to give my identity and I did, but I don’t want to come up in Google searches. I’m not hiding behind a screen name - I don’t care if you know who I am, it’s just that there’s others who I don’t want to know who I am.

    Andy - There are always rules that go along with any economic system. I don’t think the minimum wage should guarantee a middle class income like the left says it should. I think it should protect people - i.e. the mentally slow - from exploitation. I don’t think any sane person would contract to work for less than $5.15 an hour.

    The CP is against any minimum wage, and yet they want to be more coercive and create wage protection through immigration controls. This not only ensures lower wages for everyone in the end, but also a lower standard of living.

    Speaking of how non-free-market the Republicans have become, I just saw an interview with Alfonso Jackson, the president’s secretary of HUD, bragging about how the budget calls for $50 million in “housing counseling.” How can this be a good idea???

  71. matt Says:

    The Dems have always had a protectionist streak, since they’re backed by unions.

    [At this point, I could divert from the subject at hand even more wildly by pointing out that unions are one of the major forces sapping the US economy and the number one engine driving jobs overseas, but that would be more relevant somewhere else.]

    In the past, this has been tempered by the influence of the big business donors they share with the GOP, but that might be changing.

    The freshman Democrats, especially (the otherwise awesome) Jim Webb got elected on protectionist rhetoric. I hope they don’t have enough power to push that agenda through congress.

  72. globalist_elitist Says:

    Yeah, I like how the media likes to call these new Democrats “moderate Democrats” or even “conservative Democrats,” when in reality they are radical mercantalist Democrats.

    The Democratic Party has not always been protectionist. In the early part of this century, that was not the case. But yes, their alignment with the labor movement has confused the natural order.

    A couple things about unions:

    1. Unions have never done anything without management agreeing to it.

    2. “Unions” aren’t the problem - it’s the government’s protection and codification of unionism into law that’s the problem. For example, did you know it is illegal for me to start a union with my fellow employees unless I involve the damn NRLB and a big union like the AFL? I can’t just start the “Bob’s Markethouse Employees Union” - it’s against the law. Who does this benefit? The big unions, of course.

  73. matt Says:

    I agree, GE.
    When I say ‘unions’ are a big problem, I mean unions as they function today under our system. Workers have just as much right to freely assemble in that context as in any other.

    It is the regulation and strongarm tactics that create the problem, and there again, much of the impetus for these them can be traced back to vicious (and shortsighted) bosses.

    The US is about 2 or 3 changes in labor law away from being a manufacturing mecca again, but the entrenched labor community will have none of it.

  74. Jason Says:

    To Cody:

    Somone had to do it, rather I agree with calling one out on a public forum or not. UA/GE through his actions and slander towards many including the CP (ie, mule fuckers, rednecks, Nazi’s, racist, daughter fuckers, elitist, slave owners, inbread idiots, religous bigots, ect, ect) more than warrants a personal defamation on such a “soft” and easy target such as GE.

    And this is a public forum and GE ran for a public office, so if he apprehensive to the thought of certain comments that he has publicaly stated may somehow come back to bight him, well I’m sure that is why a man so long ago once said, “Be careful not to put your foot in your own mouth”. Good luck you slanderous dipshit, you reep what you sow.


  75. Trent Hill Says:


    Tag you’re it. You really seem to be swaying public opinion.

    Oh,and as for the CP being anti-free market. You are PRO-MINIMUM WAGE!!
    I thought the market had final say?

    “The CP is against any minimum wage, and yet they want to be more coercive and create wage protection through immigration controls. This not only ensures lower wages for everyone in the end, but also a lower standard of living.”
    Also, the CP says NOTHING about immigration controls, but rather about reforming ILLEGAL immigration. This is so innocent aliens wont be exploited or hurt (i.e. earn NO money or be robbed while crossing the border), and so not-so-innocent Aliens wont be able to wreak havoc on our community.

  76. globalist_elitist Says:

    Jason - I have said here that the only “racist” was that one legit Nazi. I’m just messing around, having fun. I don’t think I have slandered anyone.

    I thought it was pretty well understood that I am being extreme and vitriolic for my own entertainment and the potential entertainment of others.

    Matt - Why would we want this country to be a manufacturing mecca? Let China do the manufacturing. We have better things to do.

  77. Cody Quirk Says:

    “Cody - If you work with your hands, you deserve the price for your labor that the market dictates.”

    =Damn straight I work with my hands, especially if you are making parts that go into the human body, I always have to wear a smock and a hair net, plus a beard net, for the stuff I do. I make little over 1600 dollars a month, before deductions. You’ll say that’s better then working as a construction worker, or a janitor, or a laborer. But I’ve done all those jobs, I’ve worked the same jobs as illegals have, and received s**t pay for it, but I still made money nevertheless, and despite my politics, I keep my month shut when I go to work, especially if you’re working alongside not just people that may not have a green-card, but ex-convicts and gangsters. I can tolerate working with them, eating lunch with them, giving them a few dollars for the venting machine, even became friends with them. But I remain unshaken about my views. In fact the temp jobs I did, I didn’t hold them for long either because my skin just was a little too white, or I didn’t speak another language, but I took it and moved up to where I am today. My current job is way better then any other I had. But still I have issues, since my job’s Human Resources Dept. are run by completely incompetant people, or my Med. Insurance gives us the runaround every so often on our bills, especially when you are raising a child.
    So don’t say I’m just a stupid white boy from upper OC suburbia that doesn’t know jack about the world. My parents never spoiled me or bought me a car, I had to do everything on my own. And I’ve worked as cheap labor with cheap labor. In fact if it paid good and had good benifits I would be more then happy to work as a gardener, and janitor, a construction worker, a warehouse worker- anything where you are a human work-horse I would do it and not complain. Blue-Collar work is wired in my blood, as my dad was a Truckdriver, my grand-dad was a steel-worker and a welder, my great grampa was a lumberjack and I can go on and on.
    But even if I have mexican, black, Salvadorian, Puerto-Rican friends or co-workers, I will always be a committeed nationalist/populist and a economic Protectionist.

    Yet you’ve probably never done the work I have in your life, so you have no right to tell me otherwise.

    “As wealth rises, our wants increase. As more is produced, we are allowed to consume more.”

    =Usually you can contribute that to greed and financial over-confidence.
    Yet I remain a penny-pincher, I’m not like most Americans on money.

    “You are not a capitalist if you do not believe in free trade.”

    =I have no problem with free-trade within my country, and I still believe in free trade with other countries, as long as we have strict tariffs and regulations that won’t let alien elements warp the American economy and businesses as it’s already doing.

    “If globalization only benefits Wal-Mart (not true), then I have a simple solution: BE WAL-MART.”

    =It’s bad enough we shop there since it’s in our buget.
    And that South Park episode on Wal-Mart really freaked me out (sarcasm).

    Yet I do support the towns and communities that are resisting Wal-Marts being built to ruin the local businesses already there.
    And FYI, there is no mom-and-pop stores that I could shop at in my town at all.

    “You have a typical lazy liberal victim mentality.”

    =I should say the same about you, especially since you ran for Congress as a Green.

    “My purpose has been to expose you CP/AIP types as the anticapitalists you are. I think I have succeeded.”

    =Nope, nobody thinks us as ‘economic communists’ -except you.

  78. Cody Quirk Says:

    I am somewhat of a Reverse John Lofton. I can be just as vicious if provoked. But I’m not as ignorant as that Cavinist weener.

    No apologees.

  79. Cody Quirk Says:

    Matt - Why would we want this country to be a manufacturing mecca? Let China do the manufacturing. We have better things to do.

    =One word: JOBS!
    You can say Americans are better doing white-collar work or simply being the economic icing on the cake of the world.
    But I don’t think so.

    Unless it’s a political office, I’d rather work in the fields instead of sitting on my butt in a cubical playing paper football.

    Maybe if we stop getting into the businesses of other nations, including their economy, then maybe they’ll stop hating us and we wouldn’t have to worry about anyone holding us by the balls on oil and natural resources.

Leave a Reply