Why Liberals Love Obama
Even as he betrays them on civil liberties and foreign policy
If I were a liberal Democrat – and, as my regular readers know, this is very far from being the case – I’d be mad as heck over the way President Barack Obama has reversed himself on key foreign policy and civil liberties issues. I’d be positively furious about his "reconsideration" of preventive detention, the revival of military commissions, rendition, JSOC-style assassinations, denial of habeas corpus, etc., etc., ad nauseam. Not to mention the general direction of his foreign policy, which rationalizes escalating the fighting in Afghanistan – and its extension into Pakistan – under the general exculpatory rubric of fighting the "war on terrorism."
As Glenn Greenwald trenchantly makes the point, what appears to have happened is that:
"Obama’s political skills, combined with his status as a Democrat, is strengthening Bush/Cheney terrorism policies and solidifying them further. For the last eight years, roughly half the country – Republicans, Bush followers – was trained to cheer for indefinite detention, presidential secrecy, military commissions, warrantless eavesdropping, denial of due process, a blind acceptance of any presidential assertion that these policies are necessary to Keep Us Safe, and the claim that only fringe Far Leftist Purists – civil liberties extremists – could possibly object to any of that.
"Now, much of the other half of the country, the one that once opposed those policies – Democrats, Obama supporters – are now reciting the same lines, adopting the same mentality, because doing so is necessary to justify what Obama is doing. It’s hard to dispute the Right’s claim that Bush’s terrorism approach is being vindicated by Obama’s embrace of its ‘essential elements.’”
Jack Goldsmith, who headed up the Bush-era Office of Legal Counsel, has written a comprehensive overview of how the Obamaites have given us Cheneyism without Cheney, in 11 key instances, and I won’t repeat them here. Instead, I will ask: why has the liberal-progressive community given Obama a pass on all these vitally important issues?
There are several possible answers to this query, including the obvious: he’s a "centrist," as Greenwald avers, and not a true progressive. This is what Obama’s critics on the Left – and they are few and far between – would claim. Now, I am hardly the best judge of who is and is not sufficiently progressive, but it seems to me that if this standard is applied consistently to modern occupants of the White House, none – not even FDR, or the sainted JFK, both of whom Obama is often likened to – qualify as true-blue liberals. FDR interned tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans, spied on his domestic political enemies, and manipulated us into war. JFK tried to have Fidel Castro assassinated and escalated the Vietnam War. Woodrow Wilson had his opponents jailed, and he dragged us into World War I. And as for Abe Lincoln – his record of shutting down opposition newspapers and assuming dictatorial powers is too well known to require much elucidation here.
From this we are forced to conclude that the very nature of the office is inherently illiberal, that it conjures, in its occupants, a willful exercise of power too seductive to be resisted. The old adage about how power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely comes to mind here – and certainly the Bush crowd claimed absolute power in the person of the "wartime president," who, according to their legal doctrine, was granted monarchical power. That Obama has found these claims irresistible comes as no surprise – except to those who ascribe to our freshly minted president the fortitude of a saint.
This explains, at least in part, why Obama has reversed course on so many occasions. Once power is attained, the temptation to wield it is overwhelming, at least to mortal men. However, what explains the passive acceptance of this transformation by the Obamaites – or, at least, a great many of them?
The truth is that most liberals could care less about foreign policy and are willing to make concessions on civil liberties, especially now, in the post-9/11 era. A quick look at history confirms this.
The Vietnam War went on for over a decade before liberals had had enough and turned against it. JFK’s Bay of Pigs disaster provoked little backlash among liberal Democrats, and it was prominent liberals such as Hubert Humphrey who steadfastly supported LBJ’s escalation of the conflict he’d inherited from his predecessor – just as Obama is ramping up the war on the so-called Af-Pak front, to cheers from the Center for American Progress and the Center for a New American Security.
Even those liberals who are uneasy about Obama’s foreign policy course and disappointed by his reversals on civil liberties issues are keeping silent, or at least tempering their criticism with the allegation that Obama doesn’t really want to do these things but is forced to compromise by politics and circumstances beyond his control. Yet this feat of mind-reading is just a pretext for unleashing the real passions of American progressives, which they have embodied in the person of the president.
What really excites the liberal-progressive community is the prospect of seizing economic power in this country. They want Obama to slap down Wall Street and create WPA-style "work brigades" to keep the growing army of unemployed off the streets. Most of all, they want to centralize all power in Washington – where the Dear Leader, in his wisdom, will personally direct a militant campaign on behalf of the ultimate progressive ideal, which is the concept of equality.
Peace, individual liberty, and the inalienable right of self-expression used to be the hallmarks of the old, classical liberalism. Such liberal stalwarts as Oswald Garrison Villard, first editor of The Nation, and Randolph Bourne, the namesake of the nonprofit foundation that runs this Web site, carried the banner of an anti-imperialist, pro-freedom "Left" through World War I, fighting Prohibition, government repression, and the Wilsonian policy of global intervention overseas. With the advent of the New Deal, however, and the agitation for U.S. intervention in the European war, the old liberalism was murdered in its sickbed and a new – and decidedly illiberal – "liberalism" took its place.
Previously, liberalism had been a disposition, an attitude, a generalized way of looking at the world, but in the 1930s it was transformed into a "science." The Marxist influence was evident here: the intellectuals of the presidential "Brain Trust" had certainly absorbed its lessons, and – careful to Americanize their rhetoric – were eager to apply them. Yet even before the rise of the Popular Front and the outsized prominence of the Communist Party and its fellow travelers in American intellectual life, American progressivism had already taken up a similar fascination with science, corroded the integrity of the old liberalism, and consigned its advocates to the margins.
Mesmerized by the idea that society could and should be scientifically organized along egalitarian lines, the liberal-progressives of the New Deal era looked the other way as the president tried to pack the Supreme Court and ceaselessly agitated for U.S. intervention in the European war – a cause that was taken up with alacrity by the Left the moment the USSR came under attack from Hitler’s legions.
Yet it wasn’t just rescuing the "workers’ fatherland" that motivated the Left to abandon its traditional antiwar stance in favor of relentless warmongering. It was also the wartime atmosphere – which allowed the centralization of economic and social power in the hands of the federal government – that unleashed their worst instincts.
The "modernization" of liberalism effected a remarkable transformation: what had been a doctrine that championed the individual against the state was inverted to mean its exact opposite.
Of course this did not happen all at once, nor did it occur uniformly, in all instances: the evolution of noted liberal writer John T. Flynn exemplifies the trajectory of those archaic types who insisted on clinging to the old prescriptions. Unfortunately, Flynn and his cohorts were a distinct – and distinctly persecuted – minority. For the most part, liberals went along with the new dispensation, abandoning their old ideological baggage as "outdated." The Constitution was derided as the product of the "horse and buggy" era, and FDR’s fervent followers looked forward to the dawning of a new day, when the slate would be swept clean and the world remade. As Rex Tugwell, poet-laureate of the New Deal, put it:
"I have gathered my tools and my charts,
My plans are finished and practical.
I shall roll up my sleeves – make America over."
And not only America, but the world.
It was inevitable that this crusading spirit would be transferred to the international arena: the doctrine of liberal internationalism was conveniently revived just in time for World War II. Harry Truman had no trouble extending it into the Cold War era. The Marshall Plan, the Korean War, and the anti-Communist witch-hunts that culminated in the virtual outlawing of the Communist Party – ironically, once the valued ally of the Democrats and the ideological spearhead of the War Party – were all embraced by the mandarins of what became known as the "liberal establishment."
The Vietnam era saw a rising rebellion against this managerial and manifestly illiberal liberalism – on the Right as well as the Left. The latter objected not only to the war, but also the bureaucratic colossus that had sterilized the educational system and turned society into something to be managed by a committee of "experts." The Goldwaterite Right rebelled against the federal supremacism that located all power in Washington, and they fought for economic and personal liberty as they understood it. In the "center" stood the liberal defenders of the status quo, who were soon crushed by the two-sided assault and undermined by their own arrogant assumption that their rule could not be credibly questioned.
Far from returning to its classical roots, however, liberalism took another wrong turn in the 1970s and ’80s, with the rise of identity politics and the dominance of "social issues" in American political discourse. Culture replaced abstract ideology as the core motivator of liberals, who applied all sorts of litmus tests to candidates and other public figures, involving such issues as abortion, gay rights, affirmative action, and the like. In an age in which self-absorption was the leitmotif of American culture, politics became a method of self-identification: instead of being about how to run society, politics became a debate about who we are, or, rather, who we should be.
This preoccupation with self – not egoism, in any sense that, say, Ayn Rand would recognize, but a neurotic obsession with self-image – was a reflection of the narcissism that infected American culture in the 1980s, and it only got worse as the we entered the 1990s and the new millennium. The growing predominance of social issues, over and above all else, was not limited to the Left, by any means; it was reflected on the Right, as well, with the growing influence of the Religious Right and the anti-abortion movement on the GOP. More recently, the question of whether government should recognize gay unions as legitimate has taken center stage.
In short, these are the issues that liberals really, really care about: abortion, gay rights, and economic equality – and they are quite willing to throw overboard whatever remains of their old classical liberal baggage in order to achieve these goals.
So – at last! – we return to the question asked at the beginning of this inordinately long column: why has the liberal-progressive community given Obama a pass on such vital issues as foreign policy and civil liberties?
The answer, given the above, is staring us in the face: because the old liberalism is largely dead. No one remembers Randolph Bourne’s very apt aphorism that "war is the health of the state" – heck, almost no one remembers Bourne, whose contributions to the history of liberal thought are buried in the graveyard of lost causes.
Obama will be given a pass by progressives as long as he holds out the promise of power and the means to reward his followers with perks, prestige, and the novelty of popularity. A few, like Greenwald, resist, but, alas, they are the valiant few – who will soon either desert the ranks of "progressivism" or be expelled.
Read more by Justin Raimondo
- A Realist Breakthrough? – May 2nd, 2010
- The Battle of Britain – April 29th, 2010
- South of the Border – April 27th, 2010
- The Alien Menace! – April 25th, 2010
- Clegg! – April 22nd, 2010
rjgarfunkel
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I just read this rambling inconsistent silly piece on "Why the Liberals Love Obama." If any one can explain what the author is driving at I would be amazed. First of all, no one ever said that JFK was a liberal in the first place. As to FDR, regarding Japanese Internment, domestic spying or certainly WWII, the author is way off base. The internment of the Japanese was a war-time exigency that emanated, though probably not justified, from many sources. In most cases, the Japanese residents, some citizens some not, faced greater threats from Californians if they would have remained there.
Part I
Richard J. Garfunkel
Host of The Advocates
Devoted to Public Policy
WVOX 1460 AM Radio in NY
http://www.wvox.com
website http://advocates-wvox.com
rjgarfunkel
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:18 pm
California officials, including Earl Warren pressed for their evacuation, and considering the climate after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese sweep through the Philippines and the inherent and traditional anti-Japanese feeling that Americans and Californians harbored, evacuation for their own protection could have almost been justified. It certainly, in the context of 60 million lives lost during WWII, is a minor incident. In fact, only one Japanese person died while in the internment camps. Let us not forget the scale of Jim Crow laws, traditions, and public attitudes that dominated the South, and the anti-Semitism that was still very virulent all over America. Also, thousands of German and Italians citizens and aliens were interned and even the singer Mario Lanza was held in a detention area.
Part II
Richard J. Garfunkel
Host of The Advocates
rjgarfunkel
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:19 pm
This is what FDR had to contend with. Reality is reality, and to be liberal one doesn't have to be impractical. As to FDR manipulating us into war, that is a bogus issue. Thank G-d FDR prepared us for war. There were many liberals who opposed our involvement in WWII, though they were a lot smarter than the conservatives of the Liberty Lobby and the American First movement. When FDR gave his Quarantine Speech in 1937, he was excoriated by both ideological extremes. History showed he was right, and 400 newspapers called for his impeachment. In truth, many liberals were split, but great leadership by FDR articulated the argument for support of the Allies. The destroyer deal, Lend-Lease and the end to the Neutrality Laws and our active defense of our age-old policy of "freedom of the seas" supported our national interests. Foreign policy and liberalism are not incompatible.
Part III
Richard J. Garfunkel
Host of The Advocates
rjgarfunkel
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
FDR was our greatest liberal because he got things done. Unlike Wilson and his stubbornness, FDR knew what was practical and attainable. The Wagner Act, housing, job creation, the GI Bill, "wages and hours, 'The "Four Freedoms," and scores of over New Deal and progressive actions and legislation made FDR the "liberal" success he was. Beating the drum over Japanese internment is tantamount to criticizing Lincoln over "hideous corpus." The rest of the author's claptrap takes too much time to engage. Obama is a practical politician, who will work to move us forward in a progressive direction. I would worry less about Gitmo and other minor abuses, and be more concerned whether we have housing, jobs, affordable healthcare and education. Those are the real "liberal” issues. Civil rights and civil liberties are pretty well protected here, but as Harry Hopkins said in a Senate hearing, "Senator, people need to eat every day, they don't eat in the long run!"
Part IV
Richard J. Garfunkel
Host of The Advocates
GradyWilson
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Ya Raimondo frequently goes on self indulgent Randian rants against the evils of liberalism – decietfully pretending that Democrats are the sole manifestation of liberalism while hypocritically maintaining that Republicans do not represent conservatism. Raimondo offers no hand to anti-war liberals – he spits in their face.
Eddie_Willers
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Oh my…Grady Wilson and rjgarfunkel have really stepped in it. And here I thought the Friday before Memorial Day would be boring…
Obviously, I disagree with both of your comments.
What I get out of garfunkel’s comments is the classic utilitarian approach to history and modern issues; namely, that the ends justified the means…end of story.
Excusing FDR’s actions as “expedient” and “saving lives” is subjective – it’s a convenient ploy used by those who fail to understand the depth of Raimondo’s arguments. FDR got things done alright…to the tune of killing millions of people across the globe. If that’s what makes a great liberal, well, I think they deserve the “spit in the face” that Grady Wilson bemoans.
Neither of you can possibly be serious.
Neither of you can possibly be serious.
nevyui
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:28 am
VPf53G klaflyvvujbg, [url=http://gvazyyyoyuso.com/]gvazyyyoyuso[/url], [link=http://afbinfwdrgfe.com/]afbinfwdrgfe[/link], http://ljvgmoevrerj.com/
Liberaltarian
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Justin, you make a lot of good points, as usual. I too am appalled at the indifference of the so-called left to war and civil rights. And from you I have learned to be distrustful of any government or politicians. However, I still think that one could, say, support some kind of universal health care without 'growing' the power of politicians. It would take intelligent checks and balances, and independent regulation to prevent favoritism, but it could be done. Or at least, we could have single-payer without favoritism or abuse of power. It is conceivable, not mathematically impossible. The real problem is that too many people are selfish, uninformed and lacking in curiosity and skepticism. It is tragic and shocking that only a few hundred out of millions support this site!
mxmprune
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:06 am
Cmnatu vrbqcqvpgdsc, [url=http://xmijwthivjjd.com/]xmijwthivjjd[/url], [link=http://mhbrvfsgwqdj.com/]mhbrvfsgwqdj[/link], http://qbzthzpskuaa.com/
independently23
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Sir, I can assure you that FDR manipulating us into war with Japan is indeed fact. By seizing Japan's assets and embargoing the nation due to their invasion of China (something Western nations, including the USA, at the time would have called "business as usual", but only for the West, not the "yellowman") the Japanese were forced into Dutch Indo-China to seize rubber, tin and oil to replace the goods they could not acquire due to the embargo. Earlier in 1940, the Dutch Crown was evacuated and sought asylum in the UK after the Netherlands were overrun by Germany, making any action against Dutch Indo-China an act against the UK vis-a-vis the asylum given to the Dutch Crown. Knowing that this move would in effect be a declaration of war against the UK and their ally the US, Japan had no choice but to attack Pearl Harbor in order to have some chance of survival due to strength of the US Navy. It is also fact sir, that FDR had prior knowledge of this attack through the interception and decoding of Japanese naval communications and allowed it to be carried out. "The United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act.", FDR's transmission relayed to all US Military commanders via Secretary of War Stimson. So much for his 1940 campaign platform of "Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars".
RickR30
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:48 pm
American politics has degenerated into a sort of caudillism where we'll take whatever scraps our leader will throw at us. In turn we grant the "leader" the freedom to do whatever he's told by the new mafia even against the will of the people- as long as he appears on screen confident and reassuring us with his words.
But we have to be wary of granting these puppets any more power that they really have. Bush didn't do half of the things we think he did. By now we know very well who did what. He had good instincts, just like Obama does. And both of them go first with their instincts. Then they get "talked to" and the next thing you know, they are happily trying to convince the world that the worst argument is the best. Odd, how they aren't able to surround themselves with people who support their vision.
May 22, 2009 « Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:56 pm
[...] http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/05/21/why-liberals-love-obama/ [...]
GradyWilson
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I'm serious eddie. I don't see FDR, JFK, or Obama as representatives of liberalism. I see them as establisment Democrats who advance the US empire in the interests of the financial elite who control the country and government. Anti-war, anti-empire liberals are a small group and have been highly critical of Obama and many are disgusted with his Presidency. It is dishonest to pretend that anti-war liberals are not being critical of Obama. They are. The fact is that most Dems are not anti-war, anti-empire, or even self described liberals for that matter. Just as Republicans do not represent all of conservatives – Dems do not represent all of liberals. It is deceitful to imply otherwise. It is further more deceitful of Raimondo to claim to know the motives of all liberals.
dolvgyxthn
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:42 pm
5zxtkZ zajkqpxcuhnm, [url=http://yaanxsotryoj.com/]yaanxsotryoj[/url], [link=http://qvznqbbtysyd.com/]qvznqbbtysyd[/link], http://anvbwngbcduk.com/
Why Liberals Love Obama — will to truth
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
[...] source [...]
BobRoddis
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Another great piece, Justin. However, perhaps the liberals' indifference is even more profound. For liberals, progressive politics is their religion, their faith, their entire reason for being. Therefore, they will always be impervious to economic arguments proving that their economic vision invariably leads to economic misery, the gulag and Rwanda. Having the STATE bossing around the unwashed and unenlightened is the whole point. Obama has spent his entire life learning to be the perfect liberal messiah. And he is. Now that he is in charge of the U.S. government, it too is now cloaked in the religious aura of Obama and the progressive faith. Because the government is now progressive and therefore HOLY in all its missions, its military can authentically teach the evil Taliban and Muslims how to live their lives, something the military of the evil Republican Christian Dubya could never do. This situation is exactly the same as the progressives’ indifference to poor black kids stuck in inner city public schools. The whole point of all of the religious progressive's programs is the never-ending war on the unenlightened from whence the progressive obtains personal salvation.
woodlandsguy
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Justin Raimondo's explanation of why liberals love Obama is confusing and convoluted. There is a much simpler explanation. The Democratic Party is fundamentally a cult. For minorities, intellectuals, academicians, and people throughout the Northeast generally, the Democratic Party is a substitute church. These people will support anything the Democratic Party does, no matter how destructive. They are like the Guyana followers of Jim Jones, who, by the way, had an important position in the Democratic Party in California.
Treg
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Justin, could you think about and perhaps reflect on the tie-in (if any) between the 3 remaining liberal causes that you mention: Gay Marriage, Abortion, and Economic Equality. Perhaps there is a common thread between all three, but I only see maybe two: Gay Marriage & Abortion. First let me say I am an old married libertarian guy and take the standard libertarian position, "can't we keep the state out of both?". But I have noticed among my circles and experiences near Arizona State University, socially speaking, there seems to be a "cultural-industry" if you will, whereby older woman lesbians get state jobs in women’s studies and its spin offs, and focus lots of attention on the minds of young woman (ages 14-34). Socio-biologically speaking, this is a very valuable group and competition for these young women is intense. From the point of view of the nubile 19 year old, she is wanted, not only males of her own age range(14-34), but males much older. Adding to that competition enter Lesbians of all ages. So the competition is intense. Thus from a sociobiology point of view (see Edward O Wilson) perhaps it is not surprising that not only is State sanction and licensure of gay marriage is very important, but so is abortion. Young (14-34) Hetro-males, especially when "accidents" happen, are famous for suddenly becoming believers in abortion, if not "just this one time". So it is not surprising that the Lesbian Left (is there a lesbian Right?) is fervently for abortion for simple perhaps unconscious reason that Abortion keeps the pool of available woman "on the market" and "available". A good compare and contrast between Lesbians and Gay Males attitudes and strength of attitude towards both those issues, gay marriage & abortion should be enlightening. Whereby the competition is very intense for young gay males, we would expect mate protecting stratagems and so emotional feelings for gay marriage strong. But as for abortion (either pro or against) among gay males, I would expect the fervor to be less than half of what it is for Lesbians. You may use hetro-woman as a control group on their fervor over abortion and the difference, if any, could be telling and very informative as to what is going on "underneath". Now as for "economic equality" I think the failure of libertarians is to explain & demonstrate exactly and clearly that the best path to massive economic equality is a free and unfettered market. Would you support it otherwise? I would not. If I believed that a free market results in extreme massive poverty with a few greedy monopolists on top, I would NOT be for free markets. Yet contrary to all evidence, this is exactly what the left FEELS the Free market does. And there-in lays our problem, not theirs, ours as advocates for the Free market.
In Peace & Liberty,
Treg
joeycz
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:18 am
Hmmm. This article seems to take for granted that Obama is slavishly attempting to appease modern "progressives." I don't see that at all. He seems like a true centrist to me. He does some things that please progressives, but his decision-making process does not appear overly calculated to please specific groups. Instead he seems to have a real gift of being able to bring all different viewpoints together and broker a compromise. Both the extreme left and the extreme right are never satisfied with "compromise," but the majority of the people are closer to the center, and even if they disagree with him frequently, they respect his ability to listen broker solutions to the country's problems.
Why Liberals Love Obama : Josiah Garber
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:06 am
[...] terrorism approach is being vindicated by Obama’s embrace of its ‘essential elements.’” Continue Reading [...]
DanCfL
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:35 am
Wow! "Centrism" Glenn Greenwald, hardly an extreme leftist, remarks on the absurdity of this term for policies that not only sanction and endorse the lawlessness of the Cheney Shogunate, but will establish "a new regime of law" to give preventive detention, the denial of due process and habeas corpus, torture, thought crime, the status of law. This vast expansion of policy at the expense of the Constitution and the rule of law is called "centrism." Wow!
Raimondo is right of course: the left is completely illiberal, mired in its sanctimonious cultural political wars for abortion, gay marriage, and equality. As he has often averred, there is one party: the War and Money Party and the rest is sports politics.
"Obama-Cheney 2012"!
EvanRavitz
May 24th, 2009 at 4:43 am
Justin, you're WAY off base. Most people would call me liberal (tho I'm a fiscal conservative, a mixed bag like most people) and MOST of us ARE very angry at Obama's 180s (though we knew we were voting for the lesser evil.) Trying to cubbyhole people is a waste of your supporters man! Of course some "liberals" are just party hacks.
Left and right are words often used to divide people. Remember when the Communists were trying to retake Russia in 1991. The media universally called them "right-wingers"!
cphgnmmq
May 24th, 2009 at 12:42 am
MppkvH amanghwwxsjv, [url=http://zmcxzecbyhli.com/]zmcxzecbyhli[/url], [link=http://lfkylfldrfzr.com/]lfkylfldrfzr[/link], http://ippsvovkmbbr.com/
kazjyxzfwlv
May 24th, 2009 at 12:48 am
WxCjTc pghvnropftae, [url=http://wulmvhgchnmq.com/]wulmvhgchnmq[/url], [link=http://wrmabeysccqr.com/]wrmabeysccqr[/link], http://vnvcxwfpfreo.com/
yiuqflhaxkd
May 24th, 2009 at 12:48 am
mzSGjA oldtfqcdatqm, [url=http://bzkupfyfhhzi.com/]bzkupfyfhhzi[/url], [link=http://sbvlwuidetrd.com/]sbvlwuidetrd[/link], http://izbofqkischr.com/
Answers for Larry | Political Class Dismissed
May 24th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
[...] was the first great American libertarian. Others along the time line are Lysander Spooner, Mencken, Flynn, Mises, Hayek, Rand, Rothbard, Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell. There is an evolving cultural and [...]
ykbvhhkf
May 24th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
lp4say bjnyicsbqnhh, [url=http://sqhwbmcpjydd.com/]sqhwbmcpjydd[/url], [link=http://ravxyxuniovi.com/]ravxyxuniovi[/link], http://pvypyagyczbk.com/
TF News, Action and Analysis » Blog Archive » Why Liberals Love Obama - Even as he betrays them on civil liberties & foreign policy
June 1st, 2009 at 12:48 pm
[...] Continue reading [...]