The Guardian: 'Ron Paul Suspends Presidential Campaign – But Supporters Stay Loyal'

Source:The Guardian- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) and 2012 presidential candidate.

"After building a political campaign that was long on passion and grassroots support, if ultimately short of votes, Texas congressman Paul announced today that he is suspending his hunt for the presidency.

The candidate urged supporters to continue their efforts to amass delegates at state conventions, however, as part of a strategy to gain a voice at the Republican National Convention – and influence over the direction of the party.

"We will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted," the Paul campaign said in a statement sent to reporters. "Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have." 

From The Guardian

"Ron Paul Has Not Suspended His Campaign"

Source:The Southern Avenger- conservative talk radio show host and blogger Jack Hunter.

From Jack Hunter

Whether Representative Ron Paul suspends his presidential campaign or not, the facts are clear: a Libertarian will not win the presidential nomination in a right-wing, fascist, fundamentalist, religious, populist party, that calls itself the Republican Party. I know that sounds like I'm stating the obvious here, but even Representative Paul knows this. 

Ron Paul's presidential campaigns was about spreading his Libertarian message, not winning a presidential nomination in a party that sees Libertarians as Liberals/Satan worshippers. He only ran for President a a Republican technically, because he's more inline with the modern Republican Party on economic and foreign policy, then he's with the Democratic Party. Not because he has some marijuana high fantasy about ever winning the Republican nomination for President, let alone actually ever becoming President of the United States. 

Liberty Pen: Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Governor Jerry Brown (1975)

Source:Liberty Pen- Governor Jerry Brown (Democrat, California) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1975.

"Jerry Brown, 1975. An innovative free thinker before party politics ground him into a garden-variety statist. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen 

Governor Jerry Brown making the case for limited government, on PBS's Firing Line With William F. Buckley in 1975. That there's only so much a government in any country can do for simple reasons that it only has so much money and personal it can work with either because the economy is somewhat limited, or there's only so much money that's it taxpayers are willing to pay government, or there's only so much money that government can borrow, either from the private sector or from other countries, or from the U.S. Government. But that most countries, even in the developed world like in America can have unlimited problems and issues. So government has to make choices with the limited resources that it has. 

Jerry Brown doesn't sound look like the radical, lefty, hippie, from the 1960s and 70s that he generally gets stereotyped as, at least before he became Governor of California again in 2011. And I think this is because as a governor of a state you are forced to prioritize and become pragmatic, because the buck literally stops with you (to paraphrase President Harry S. Truman) and you have to deliver for your state. And are forced to save the partisan, extreme, political rhetoric, for the campaign trail. 

Liberty Pen: John Stossel- 'Free People Vs Government'

Source:Liberty Pen- Reason Magazine reporter Lisa Kennedy.

"Who is more efficient at performing a task? Government or free people acting in their own self-interest? Liberty Pen." 

A Libertarian is supposed to be someone who believes that free adults should be left alone to live their own lives, as long as they are not hurting innocent people with what they are doing. Liberals believe in the same thing, which is one reason why I'm a Liberal. They also believe government should only do, what the private sector can't do for themselves, or can't do as well for themselves. Liberals believe in the same thing. Again why I'm a Liberal, but we differ on what government can and should do. 

An Anarchist essentially believes in no law, no government that people can do whatever they want to and that they should be held accountable for what they are doing by the people, but not by government. But if you listen to so-called Libertarians lately, like John Stossel who I do respect, or Peter Schiff who I respect less, you would think that all government is incompetent and that it can't do anything well. They haven't been sounding like they are pro-limited government, or pro-small government, which is different. But they've been sounding like they are anti-government all together. 

In this video John Stossel said there's no evidence that government can do anything better than the private sector and he posed that question to his audience. And someone said that the government military is better than a private military. And Stossel said: "There's no evidence that the military is more efficient than private contractors. But he's not sure if he wants a private military." Well, if private contractors aren't more efficient than the military, then why not privatize the military as well? 

I'm not a mindreader, obviously (hopefully that's not a newsflash for anyone) but it sounds like even John Stossel believes that government should be doing things instead of the private sector, even if he argues the opposite publicly. 

Liberty Pen: CATO Institute- Harry Browne: 'Smaller Government (1996)'

Source:Liberty Pen- 1996 Libertarian Party nominee Harry Browne speaking at CATO Institute in Washington.

"Would you give up your favorite federal programs if it meant you never had to pay income tax again? Presidential candidate Harry Browne lectured on returning government to its Constitutional size.  (1996)  Liberty Pen

Source:CSPAN" 

From Liberty Pen 

"Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Harry Browne spoke about the need for a smaller federal government. After his prepared remarks, he took questions from the audience at the Cato Institute in Washington DC,." 

Source:CSPAN- 1996 Libertarian Party presidential candidate Harry Browne speaking at CATO Institute in 1996.

From CSPAN

Harry Browne speaking at CATO Institute in Washington saying that he was arguing in favor of smaller government. Well, even with smaller government you still have a government. Granted smaller government is still government. 

Harry Browne also went onto say that government doesn't work and doesn't anything do anything right and talked about abolishing the Federal income tax. So is he really in favor of smaller government, or no government? 

If Harry Browne wants smaller government, then he should be talking about what that smaller government would look like, what would that smaller government be doing, and how would it be financed. You don't hear him talking about that in this video.

Reason Magazine: 'The Real Breaking Bad: How the Drug War Creates Collateral Damage'

Source:Reason Magazine- meet Bob and Marj. 

"88-year-old Bob Wallace, and his 85-year-old girlfriend, Marjorie Ottenberg fell in love 35 years ago backpacking to the tops of the highest peaks in the world.

Wallace is a Stanford educated engineer and Ottenberg is a former chemist and decades ago they came up with a water purification product for backpackers like themselves called Polar Pure out of their garage in Saratoga, Calif.

"For an old guy with nothing else to do, this is something that keeps us occupied," says Wallace.

Today, Wallace and Ottenberg are fighting the Drug Enforcement Administration and state officials to continue to operate their business. Why? The DEA says that drug dealers are using their product to make methamphetamine... 

From Reason Magazine 

What this couple is going through represents exactly what's wrong with the War On Drugs where you not just treat addicts the same as dealers, but you treat developers as the same as hard core criminals. 

What Bob Wallace and Marjorie Ottenberg are doing here is not even illegal under the U.S. Controlled Substance Act. What the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency has hold them is that they can continue to produce their product, but just under Uncle Sam's control and rules that make it so expensive and hard for private developers to do any business in this country. 

Narcotic laws if you are going to have them at all, should target predators to prey on addicts and juveniles. Not developers who make a legal, legitimate product. 

Townhall: Andrew Klavan- 'Liberalism Exposed: Beyond the Elitist, Preening America-Hating Stereotypes'

Source:Townhall- if definition of asshole is someone who speaks out of their ass, then Andrew Klavan uses the toilet face first. And that's as clean as I can make that.

"Have you ever wondered how liberals think? PJTV's Andrew Klavan takes you inside the mind of a liberal ... and it ain't brain surgery." 

From Townhall 

Before anyone accuses me of talking about something that I haven't even seen and heard before, I watched and listened to the entire Andrew Klavan video for Townhall magazine (the right-wing version of The Onion) and kept hearing him say the word liberal. But for the life of me I'm still trying to figure who he was talking about. 

Someone could keep using the word hamburger or hot dog when they're talking about lettuce, but unless you are blind and have never even tasted a hot dog or hamburger, why would someone who is sane, sober, intelligent, not currently confined at a mental institution, or an escaped mental patient who forgot to take their medicine with them. take that person seriously. 

And then my third response is maybe Andrew Klavan is just a comedian and trying to be funny when talking about Liberals. Except where's the punchlines in anything that he was talking about? 

In case Andrew Klavan was talking about someone else and a different political faction instead, but forgot to take his medicine and the word liberal kept coming out when he meant to use another label instead, here's a definition of a political faction that he might have been talking about instead, but instead kept saying Liberal: 

Socialist: "In 1990, the São Paulo Forum was launched by the Workers' Party (Brazil), linking left-wing socialist parties in Latin America. Its members were associated with the Pink tide of left-wing governments on the continent in the early 21st century. Member parties ruling countries included the Front for Victory in Argentina, the PAIS Alliance in Ecuador, Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front in El Salvador, Peru Wins in Peru, and the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, whose leader Hugo Chávez initiated what he called "Socialism of the 21st century".

Many mainstream democratic socialist and social democratic parties continued to drift right-wards. On the right of the socialist movement, the Progressive Alliance was in 2013 by current or former members of the Socialist International. The organisation states the aim of becoming the global network of "the progressive, democratic, social-democratic, socialist and labour movement".[293][294] Mainstream social democratic and socialist parties are also networked in Europe in the Party of European Socialists formed in 1992. Many of these parties lost large parts of their electoral base in the early 21st century. This phenomenon is known as Pasokification[295][296] from the Greek party PASOK, which saw a declining share of the vote in national elections — from 43.9% in 2009 to 13.2% in May 2012, to 12.3% in June 2012 and 4.7% in 2015 — due to its poor handling of the Greek government-debt crisis and implementation of harsh austerity measures.[297][298] In Europe, the share of votes for such parties was at its 70-year lowest in 2015.[299] For example, the French Socialist Party, after winning the 2012 presidential election, rapidly lost its vote share; the Social Democratic Party of Germany's fortunes declined rapidly from 2005 to 2019; and outside Europe the Israeli Labor Party fell from being the dominant force in Israeli politics to 4.43% of the vote in the April 2019 Israeli legislative election, and the Peruvian Aprista Party went from ruling party in 2011 to a minor party. The decline of these mainstream parties opened space for more radical and populist left parties in some countries, such as Spain's Podemos, Greece's Syriza (which was in government 2015–19), Germany's Die Linke and France's La France Insoumise. In other countries, left-wing revivals have taken place within mainstream democratic socialist and centrist parties, as with Jeremy Corbyn in the UK and Bernie Sanders in the US. However, few of these radical left parties have won national government in Europe, while some more mainstream social democratic parties have managed to, such as Portugal's Socialist Party." 

From Wikipedia 

Again just in case when Andrew Klavan had a different label in mind when he kept saying Liberal, because again perhaps he was off his meds and or had one too many before shooting the video, here's the definition of the people he might have actually been talking about instead of liberal: 

Communist: "Walter Scheidel stated that despite wide-reaching government actions, Communist states failed to achieve long-term economic, social and political success.[129] The experience of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the North Korean famine, and alleged economic underperformance when compared to developed free market systems are cited as examples of Communist states failing to build a successful state while relying entirely on what they view as orthodox Marxism.[130][131][page needed] Despite those shortcomings, Philipp Ther [de] stated that there was a general increase in the standard of living throughout Eastern Bloc countries as the result of modernization programs under Communist governments.[132] Branko Milanović wrote that following the end of the Cold War many of those countries economies declined to such an extent during the transition to capitalism that they have yet to return to the point they were prior to the collapse of communism.[133] According to anthropologist Kristen Ghodsee and philosopher Scott Sehon, there is a "victims of Communism" narrative which seeks to equate communism with murder, for instance by erecting billboards in Times Square which declare "100 years, 100 million killed" and "Communism kills";[114] for Ghodsee, conservative and anti-communist organizations seek to institutionalize the "victims of Communism" narrative as a double genocide theory, or the moral equivalence between the Nazi Holocaust (race murder) and those killed by Communist states (class murder). According to this view, these are suspect efforts to distract from the global financial crisis and the failures of neoliberalism.[134]

As of 2022, states controlled by Marxist–Leninist parties under a single-party system include the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Cuba, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.[nb 5] Communist parties, or their descendant parties, remain politically important in several other countries. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Fall of Communism, there was a split between those hardline Communists, sometimes referred to in the media as neo-Stalinists, who remained committed to orthodox Marxism–Leninism, and those, such as The Left in Germany, who work within the liberal-democratic process for a democratic road to socialism,[140] while other ruling Communist parties became closer to democratic socialist and social-democratic parties.[141] Outside Communist states, reformed Communist parties have led or been part of left-leaning government or regional coalitions, including in the former Eastern Bloc. In Nepal, Communists (CPN UML and Nepal Communist Party) were part of the 1st Nepalese Constituent Assembly, which abolished the monarchy in 2008 and turned the country into a federal liberal-democratic republic, and have democratically shared power with other communists, Marxist–Leninists, and Maoists (CPN Maoist), social democrats (Nepali Congress), and others as part of their People's Multiparty Democracy.[142][143]

China has reassessed many aspects of the Maoist legacy, and along with Laos, Vietnam, and to a lesser degree Cuba, has decentralized state control of the economy in order to stimulate growth. These reforms are sometimes described by outside commentators as a progression to, and by some left-wing critics as a regression to capitalism, or as state capitalism, but the ruling parties describe it as a necessary adjustment to existing realities in the post-Soviet world in order to maximize industrial productive capacity. In these countries, the land is a universal public monopoly administered by the state, and so are natural resources and vital industries and services. The public sector is the dominant sector in these economies and the state plays a central role in coordinating economic development.[citation needed] Chinese economic reforms were started in 1978 under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, and since then China has managed to bring down the poverty rate from 53% in the Mao era to just 6% in 2001." 

From Wikipedia 

Just in case there's anyone who actually wants to know what Liberals believe in and what liberalism actually is, including the Andrew Klavan's of the world (when they're not drunk, high, insane, or suffering from brain damage) here's the actual definition of what it means to be a Liberal: 

Liberal: "Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and a market economy.[11] Yellow is the political colour most commonly associated with liberalism." 

From Wikipedia 

And there's another school of thought here that Andrew Klavan is nothing but a right-wing, hyper-partisan, professional bullshit artist, similar to Anne Coulter, who makes his living bullshitting about Liberals and liberalism, because he's afraid of too many Americans finding out what Liberals truly believe and liberalism actually is. Which is where a lot of Americans tend to be ideologically, as freedom-loving Americans who simply want the freedom to be able to live their own lives and not be harassed by big government. 

Americans tend not want big government that comes from Washington elitists who think they know best what everyone needs to be able to live well and that individuals are too stupid to manage their own affairs for themselves. Or right-wing populists who believe that their religious and cultural and even at times ethnic and racial values are far superior to everyone else's and therefor they believe that big government should be able to force their cultural and religious values on everyone else. 

I think my last theory is the correct one here, because it's hard to believe that anyone can actually be this politically stupid in America and get paid well to be a political analyst. Of course I've been wrong about the intelligence of political pundits before. 

Liberty Pen: Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Thomas Sowell: 'Poverty & Dependence (1981)'

Source:Liberty Pen- Conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1981.

"Professor Sowell discusses realities of income disparities, poverty and dependence. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

Thomas Sowell on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, essentially arguing that Americans and the immigrants who've done well in America, have done well in America because they're well-educated and because of that have marketable skills that allow for them to be successful in this country. And he used the examples of the Germans, Irish, and Jews, as Americans who came to America already having the skills that they need to be successful in this country. 

Mr. Sowell then went onto say that African-Americans (who he calls Blacks) haven't been as successful as their European-American counterparts, because of lack of education and opportunity in America. And pointed out that slavery was a big cause for that. During slavery, the African slaves weren't even allowed to get an education in America, other than learning English so they would be able to communicate with their slave masters. 

No offense to Tom Sowell, but I believe he's stating the obvious here. Unless you are a great athlete or entertainer, you inherited a lot of money or have wealthy parents who are simply willing to bankroll indefinitely, you are not going to make it in America. Everyday for you once you are an adult, at least, is going to be very hard for you, regardless of your ethnicity or race. 

The real debate and discussion here is how we as a country educate and empower as many Americans as possible, to get themselves the skills and education that they need to make it in America and live in freedom on their own.