Paul Ryan and the Pony Party

Vermin Supreme**************

I’ve noticed I’m still getting some hits on this story but fewer on my follow-up apology. For those who read this make sure to note the comments. I made a major mistake here and an alert reader spotted it for me. The link to my apology is below. Thanks!



Now I’m mad.

Congressman Paul Ryan, you disgust me. I’ll post the quote from this story.

For those of us who would have voted in the primaries for, say, Ron Paul, why should we vote for you and not, say, libertarians or Vermin Supreme and the Pony Party or something like that?

Paul Ryan thinks Libertarians like myself, people who respect the integrity of Congressman Paul, are comparable to people who think this man should be president.

I’m going to clue in you Congressman Ryan. I’m Libertarian because I love my country. I’m a Libertarian because I believe in personal rights and limited government. I love the Constitution of the United States. I love the freedom on which the country grew and became strong. But to you I’m someone who votes for the Pony Party?

Die Congressman Ryan. Seriously. Die and make this country a better place. Hang your head in shame. You miserable excuse for a human. How dare you? How dare you!

In your disgusting desperation to win an election you stoop to claiming I think the United States of America is a joke? That elections are fun and games? That voting for Gary Johnson is equivalent to voting for a gag candidate? You know nothing of Libertarianism, of real conservatism. Nothing!

I will never vote for you. Never! I hope no one votes for a disgusting piece of garbage like you. I hope you lose your seat in Congress. I hope your cronies refuse to give you a million dollar a year job after you lose the election.

If you want to know why I’m a Libertarian Congressman Ryan, look in the mirror.

You think I care if Obama wins compared to Romney? You’re a fool. I vote for Gary Johnson not to prevent Romney from winning but because I love my country. Would that everyone felt the same.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Hammer of Fire
New Release: The Sword of Water

Republican Convention Ron Paul Tribute – Without Ron Paul

Ron PaulI couldn’t let this one pass without comment. The Republicans are planning on having a Ron Paul tribute at their upcoming National Convention but would only allow Congressman Paul to speak if he agreed to have his speech vetted by the Romney campaign team and only if he fully endorsed Romney. Congressman Paul, of course, said no thanks.

A tribute to a man and he’s not allowed to speak? Seriously? Congressman Paul will be giving a speech nearby.

Meanwhile, the Romney campaign continues to do everything it can to keep properly appointed Paul delegates off the floor and away from the campaign. It is shocking hypocrisy but nothing I find unusual, sadly.

I only wish Paul, and his son Senator Rand Paul, would just leave the Republican Party once and for all and join the Libertarian Party. Their thinking, not wrongly, is of a practical aspect. They believe they can do more to influence the country from within the ranks of one of the two major parties than they can from outside of them. I think they’re wrong but it’s certainly their decision.

The two parties both are tied irrevocably to moneyed interests and have little to nothing in common with Libertarian ideals. Both parties try to talk about the principles of real men like Barry Goldwater and John F. Kennedy, of small, less intrusive government, of noble government, but both parties support massive, corrupt, and intrusive government in virtually all of their policies.

A Ron Paul tribute in which the honoree is only allowed to attend if he bows down and betrays his principles. That’s the current condition of the United States of America. What a shame. What a terrible, terrible shame.

Only you can change it. Don’t vote Democrat or Republican. Vote Independent.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Non-interference versus Isolationism


Much of the criticism I hear about my Libertarian politics concerns the idea of non-interference and often it is because there is confusion between that concept and isolationism.

What Ron Paul and other Libertarians like myself are talking about is non-interference. This dates back to George Washington in his Farewell Address when he suggests avoiding foreign entanglements. The United States long avoided such alliances.

What does Non-Interference Mean

It’s a broad definition and it means different things to different people. Largely non-interference means not having alliances with foreign nations. Not interfering in their internal politics, and not going to war on foreign soil. It is important to consider that times have changed as far as the ability of a nation to extend their force. When Washington was president the United States was physically isolated from Europe and its bickering. It was difficult for European powers to extend their influence into the American region. This has changed with the advent  of intercontinental ballistic missiles and connected economies.

What non-interference does not mean, in my opinion, is that we should stay completely out of the affairs of the world. This is isolationism and in the modern world is a dangerous policy. Newt Gingrich is correct when he talks about the dangers of an air burst nuclear weapon and the modern communication grid. We cannot isolate ourselves from the world because the world has the ability to touch us both militarily and economically. We must engage the powers of the world but that doesn’t mean we need to police them or dictate to them.


If we look back on American history I think our worst moments came from meddling in the affairs of foreign nation, in regime change policies, in propping up totalitarian regimes that supported us, at least in words if not deeds.

There are Libertarians who support a stricter version of non-interference that borders on isolationism. They might well quibble with some of my characterizations here. I don’t think the United States should disengage completely from countries like Pakistan. Such policies in regard to Cuba are a mistake. I think we should always attempt to talk with other nations, supply them with help if they ask for it, but we should minimize our attempts to influence their policy decisions.

It is in our interest if Pakistan helps hunt down people trying to hurt the United States but I don’t think we should be trying to purchase that cooperation with what amounts to bribery. If Pakistan wants to cooperate we should engage with them but cautiously. George Washington warned us to be wary not only of our international enemies but of our allies as well and with good reason. They are interested, rightly so, in what is best for their nation.


The waters of international politics are rife with danger and caution is a good ally. Engage but don’t interfere. A fine line.

Tom Liberman