The Liberty Pen Blogger Interviews

New Site Update

2010-01-04T23:34:00.001-08:00

I know that you have not heard from me in some time, but I wanted to inform you that the new Liberty Pen site has been updated. There is a new blog post, as well as a new blogger interview, The Independent Bloghorn. I hope you stop by.

Blog Interviews: Liberty Belle

2009-09-22T11:33:00.000-07:00

The Liberty Pen is back after a short Labor Day vacation, and we are starting the week off with a Blog Interview. We had the pleasure of recently interviewing the Liberty Belle; and as you proceed through the interview you will glean the Liberty Belle's vernal nature is balanced with a mental acuity that is aged and incisive. I would fear less for the future of our Republic if individuals such as Liberty Belle were allowed to developed individualistically, free from socialistic indoctrination and a hive mentality. We hope you enjoy the interview, and when you are finished please stop over at the Liberty Belle for more great postings. Without further ado, the Liberty Belle.

tLP: In our brief discussions you have talked about yourself being a recent college graduate. You graduated with a degree in Art, but you state that you have a passion for writing, specifically opinion writing. What subjects would you like to write about and why?

LB: I like to write about all my passions (art, style, music, politics), and writing has always been a release for me. I am much better at expressing myself in writing than verbally. Political writing hadn't been on my radar until just this year, when I finally decided to cut my losses and "come out" as a conservative. The things that are happening in this country are too important to sit on the sidelines and ignore while watching reality TV. I know that I will probably make far more enemies by speaking my mind, but the most important things in life are rarely easy. I like the quote," One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up," by Arthur Koestler. I prefer to write ruthlessly.

tLP: Some writers believe that they convey a little bit of their personality into every article. What would your articles say about your personality?

LB: I feel like I'm a pretty level headed lass. I like to see both sides of an issue, but I never let this compromise my values. I think in a lot of political blogs people get really mean-spirited about their opponents or those who don't see the same way. I hate it when liberals statists call conservative federalists names like; racist, bigot, homophobe, etc. - so I try to avoid the same kind of rude (and really pointless) tactics in my writings. At the same time, I'm pretty sarcastic and occasionally snarky. I try to only let those parts of my writings show when I think it is appropriate and will work in an article.

tLP: You have a blog called the Liberty Belle, how would you describe your blog to our readers?

LB: Well, Liberty Belle is my take on America as we know it in this age of turmoil. I think a lot of conservative blogs are from older people, middle aged folks - which is perfectly fine. But I like people to know that I'm a young twenty something conservative. That we DO exist, contrary to popular belief. My blog isn't one which has five posts per day commenting on all political happenings of the day. I write about issues which ignite me, which I am passionate about, and about which I have something to say.

tLP: There seems to be a surge in personal blogs that center around political thought, how would you differentiate your blog from other blogs?

LB: When I write I like to make sure my writing isn't just generic political vomit. I know there are thousands of political blogs out there, and thousands of conservatives all talking about the most recent political outrage, so I like to bring my unique point of view, my unique experiences and share those. Especially since I'm young, I think it's more interesting for the older readers to see conservatism from a young point of view. I'm also an Alaskan, so the Sarah Palin controversy is very close to home. It's one of the issues that first sparked me to come out as a conservative. Let me tell you, Palin-bashing was my liberal college friend's favorite activity last year.

tLP: That is an excellent point, and one that is very pervasive within the academic milieu. How would you describe your school environment as it pertains to political thought?

LB: Oh, you know, like all colleges. Leftist. Ironically I went to a Christian university. The liberal kids would hiss and moan about how the Christians were so intolerant and stupid. For a college, I'm sure it was a relatively safe place for a conservative and I'm so glad I didn't have to go to a liberal-indoctrination type school. I was an Art major and Art majors are pretty typically liberal. All my best friends were raving liberals. I loved them, but at times it did get frustrating to sit through tirades about Sarah Palin and such. The school itself was not into liberal indoctrination, though. I found it to be a great place where differing viewpoints actually got to be debated. It was safe to be conservative because you had a place at the table to debate in class, instead of being shouted down or branded a conservative moron by faculty.

tLP: What type of people have you met while blogging online?

LB: I think the most amusing thing about political blogging is the anonymous commenters who have left mean comments on my blog. Sometimes I just can't believe they are serious!

tLP: That seems to be quite common, and I would be disingenuous if I didn't say both sides of the issue engage in this activity. Do you have any long term goals for your blog? What would you consider to be your best piece to date?

LB: I would like to acquire more readers. For now, I don't have the time to devote to marketing, reading, writing, etc., which would expand my readership. It's mainly just a place for me to record my thoughts and arguments for or against what is happening in the country. I am going to grad school for journalism, so I do have goals for writing in general. I have had some of my writing published in newspapers, but blogging is more time consuming than a lot of people think!

I don't know if it's my best piece, but one of the most meaningful pieces that I've written is about my brother in reference to Obama's health care "reform." The Slippery Slope of Obamacare. My brother has spent more time in hospitals in his 20 years than most people will in their entire lives.

tLP: How would you describe your political persuasion?

LB: I describe myself, first and foremost, as Federalist. I like to be precise in my terms and aware of their connotations. "Conservative" often carries a negative, intolerant connotation (though I still somewhat consider myself one). In the same way "Christian" seems to carry a similar connotation (you know, those 'crazy right wing conservative Christians') . But Federalist is my main view. States rights are very important and were fundamental to the Constitution's success. The reason I don't like to say I'm conservative as much as a federalist is that the term itself can be misleading - similar to the referent; "liberal." Conservative seems to mean, "I want things to stay the way they are, I want to conserve what is." And in the case of civil rights and suffrage for women, this is not true. I'm also not anti-gay, although I do believe the term "marriage" specifically means a union between a man and a woman. So the word conservative just gets muddy in its meaning. I guess you could call me a Quasi-conservative Federalist? Something like that.

tLP: There are individuals who prefer limited government, and those who prefer a paternalistic state; as a Federalist how would you describe your position and why?

LB: I want government to get out of my way and let me live my life. That's basically it. I don't want them to tell me I don't owe as much taxes as rich people because rich people are too rich. And if I become what someone deems as rich, I don't want them to tell me I can't keep the money I've made because it's not fair. I don't want them to tell me I can't have the health care I want. I don't want them to tell me my kids can't pray in a public school. I don't want them to tell my children they should accept gay marriage, or that white people are evil because 100 years ago black people didn't have civil rights. I think Federalism protects a lot of these kinds of rights. When the states themselves are allowed to decide on things like gay marriage, health care or education, there is a lot more variety and democracy. Don't like California's law? Move to Utah. When the federal government extends its overarching hand over all U.S. citizens it really infringes on their individual liberties. I think the federal government removing individual rights has really created the culture of government dependence. It's caused so many people to lose the ability to think critically and decide what's best for themselves.

tLP: A most excellent response. Do you think the two party system is a failure, or is the system just broken?

LB: I don't think the Founders intended for the system to be limited to two parties, but it inevitably must be so. It's naive to think that everyone's beliefs fit into two distinct parties, but we must rally behind that party which most represents our beliefs. The third party always results in a loss for both the third party and the party most closely related to it. I hesitate to say the system is broken. I think people lost a lot of faith in Republicans and were all hyped up on hope and change and decided to flood the legislature with Democrats. I think people now see the threat to democracy which occurs when a single party is in control in Washington.

tLP: How would you describe the current state of our Republic? Will it ever be the same after the Obama administration?

LB: I hope it will be the same old America after the Obama administration, but I'm not naive to think that if his policies get enacted that it will be. We are at a cusp, I think. The left has been working on implementing its utopian ideas for decades, and conservatives ceded too much ground thinking the ramifications of such utopian policies weren't as dire as they in fact are. Of course health care for all is a wonderful idea. Of course a healthy planet is a great thing. Of course getting people out of poverty is noble. The beauty of the government the Founders created is that it is one that most understands human nature. Humans do not function under totalitarian or utopian governments. Humans ultimately yearn for liberty, and the sacrifice of liberty for utopianism is always a mistake.

tLP: Who is your favorite political leader and why?

LB: Of all time, I would have to say George Washington. Having learned about the man and his hand in our nation's birth, I am very awed to live in a country with such incredible Founders. I would be thrilled to meet any of the Founders, but it is certainly a special place to have occupied the first presidency of this great nation.

Of more recent times, I am of course a fan of Ronald Reagan. I think right now Sarah Palin is my favorite political leader. She understands corruption that occurs in government and is unafraid to remove it at the root. She says what she believes, doesn't coat it in syrupy rhetoric, and loves this country (which is more than I think I can say about some political leaders...). I am glad that she doesn't do things the conventional way. The conventional way is straight corruption.

tLP: More people are becoming active in the political arena and claiming their right to be heard. Depending upon how the next 6 to 12 months go, do you think they will continue to stay involved (as desired by our Founding Fathers), or do you think they will return to an apathetic state?

LB: People, especially Americans, are always prone to an apathetic state. It's far more comfortable and easy than activism, which is why so many young people are the picketing protesters out in the street. Young people have the energy and idealism to go out and fight like that. It is very exciting to see middle aged people getting out and fighting for the cause of conservatism. I think people realize that they will always be on guard with this administration, and it's not just going to end with the health care bill, or the cap and trade bill, or the stimulus bill. I sincerely hope people don't lose interest. It is very important for citizens to be involved.

tLP: What, if any, civil liberties are we in danger of losing? If your position is as such, why do you think they are being assaulted?

LB: I think I am most concerned with education and journalism. I have been concerned about education for a long time. As far as civil liberties go, I think that public education is trying to take the place of parents, in order to teach children what school teachers think they should believe. When people think of civil liberties being taken away, I don't think they immediately go to schools and newspapers because both seem relatively innocuous, but I think they have enormous power to affect our future. While we are retaining most of our civil liberties right now, the future is very uncertain.

tLP: Another fantastic answer, is there anything else you would like our readers to know?

LB: Anything else I'd like to discuss, or that your readers should know is all on my blog. I will my own words speak for themselves.

The Liberty Pen hopes you enjoyed this installment of Blog Interviews with the Liberty Belle. If I may borrow the author stated by the interviewee, Arthur Koestler;

"Courage is never to let your actions be influenced by your fears."

I find the mind of the Liberty Belle to be a rumination in labored thought, ungoverned by the chains of conformity or the vacuous soullessness of forsworn principles. Sadly, at her age she is among the few who have recognized that independent thought is the precursor to an epiphanic reality. Truly, nothing can be more precious than a mind unpolluted by indoctrination and idealistic pedagogy.

"Omnia mea mecum porto." All that is mine, I carry with me. (My wisdom is my greatest wealth.) Cicero

To conclude I would like to direct you to the Liberty Belle's published piece in the Anchorage Daily News. It is a fantastic piece and it is the same one she eluded to earlier in the article. I wish to extend my sincerest congratulations on a well written article.

In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer,
The Conservative Hideout 2.0. Take some time and look at this blog, read
some articles, and post some comments. Thank you

Blog Interviews: The Obamination of America

2009-08-28T11:26:00.000-07:00

It is that time again for the Liberty Pen to do another Blog Interview. In this installment we will be interviewing Jordan, the author of the blog, "The Obamination of America." I firmly believe that you will observe this young man's adoration for Liberty and his keen understanding that true individual prosperity can only be facilitated without governmental intrusion. We hope you enjoy this interview, and if in the event you find yourself aligned with the interviewee, we urge you to stop by his blog for a visit.

tLP: To begin, I want to thank you for taking the time to participate in this interview. Let's start by giving our readers some insight into your political orientation.

tOA: I am a conservative at heart that champions the idea of state's rights. Instead of having the federal government run everything, it makes more sense to me to let each state govern themselves. It simplifies the government because everyone knows their place and the government doesn't have to worry about all 50 states.

tLP: Tell us what Liberty means to you and why it is so important to keep.

tOA: Liberty to me means that each person can live their life the way they wish without restrictions from a higher power. When liberty is taken away from us, we in turn lose our freedom to live the way we want. Now more than ever our liberties are being stripped away from us and are being given to a higher power known as the federal government.

tLP: If our current administration could change our Constitution for their benefit, what, in your opinion, would they change and why?

tOA: Our administration would cut states rights out of the constitution if they had the chance. Without states rights, the governor and the people of each state would virtually be pawns of the federal government.

tLP: That was a good answer, and I agree with you. As you know there are people out there who think big government is a good idea, what is your position and why?

tOA: Big government in no way is a good thing. With big government there comes mass amounts of corruption, and with corruption, democracy and freedom ultimately fail.

tLP: What are the perceptions our current political machine have regarding the American public?

tOA: The government obviously views its people as idiots, and rightfully so for the Democratic party. However, the Townhall meetings show the resiliency of the American people to question their government and ask questions regarding what will be implemented on them. What a great way to show who is boss!!

tLP: With all of the heated debates within the arena of health care, where do you think it will end up? Do you think we will end up with some sort of government health care option?

tOA: Taking into account the recent news of Obama dropping the public option, I believe that we will end up just working on the insurance aspect of health care. The costs are just too high and so something has to be done. As far as the quality of health care is concerned, I believe we are fine. To answer the second question, I believe that we won't see government run health care. The people are just too scared of it and most people don't want a politician running their life.

tLP: I am of the position that the government cannot run anything efficiently, much less make a profit. To prove my point I only need to reference our President's statement regarding UPS, Fedex, and the Post Office. He stated that the two private companies are flourishing while the "government" run Post Office is in serious trouble. With that in mind, why do think people still believe the government can provide the answers to our health care?

tOA: I don't think the majority of the American people believe that the government can run health care correctly. I mean, just look at the cash for clunkers program - they cannot even run that correctly and the people are taking full notice of that. The people that believe the government can run health care are the ones who have no concept of reality. They believe in a concept called the "public good," and that others should pay for their health insurance. What it boils down to is laziness and a mentality of "what can someone else do for me?" Just plain sad if you ask me.

tLP: Another great answer. Do you have political debates with your friends? If so, how would you describe them?

tOA: Yes, but you have to keep in mind that most of my friends are ignorant college students who voted for Obama. I am sure you can imagine the debates that we have.

Jordan: "What do you think about care?"

Friend: "I wish they could implement a system that could be free for everyone."

tLP: We see that you are a blogger, what is the name of your blog and what do you write about? Why did you decide to start writing? Are there certain topics you specifically concentrate on?

tOA: My blog is called "The Obamination of America." It is located at www.obaminationblog.blogspot.com, and discusses topics that have to do with Obama, Congress, the media, and usually just whatever I can think of. I started writing last August when the 2008 Presidential race was well under way. I felt like I could make some sort of a difference in my area and so I just started writing.

tLP: What message, if any, do you try to convey to your readers?

tOA: I mainly just try to convey conservative values that are consistent with what the Founding Fathers wanted.

tLP: How is your blog received? What are some of the comments you receive? Do you stay in contact with other bloggers?

tOA: My blog is slowly gaining popularity and usually averages 40 hits a day. The comments I receive are probably 90% positive. I have a little trouble with my grammar so every once in a while that gives me some trouble, but people generally enjoy reading my posts. Lately I have stayed in contact with my blogger friends, especially ones from blogcatalog.com. Having a solid friend base is crucial to having a great blog.

tLP: Where do you see your blog going from here?

tOA: I see my blog gaining popularity and eventually leveling off to around 100 visitors a day. I am a little skeptical at the moment, but I just recently bought some advertising to help things out. I am hoping for the best at this point in time.

tLP: I understand that you joined a Tea Party recently, tell us about it and why you joined the Tea Party movement.

tOA: The Tea Part movement is located in Roanoke, Virginia, and is basically just getting organized. This was my first meeting so I don't have much to talk about, but we had someone explain the objectives for the tea party and divided us into teams. I joined the organization and funds committee and I am going to probably be assigned with writing blog entries for the site, and promoting the tea party at my university.

I would like to reiterate my thanks to Jordan and The Obamination of America blog for agreeing to do this interview. I have known Jordan for only a little while, initially meeting him over at blogcatalog's forums. He is a passionate individual who cares deeply about liberty and our Republic, and this is plainly expressed within this interview.
As a side note, on Jordan's site you will observe an Akt Now! campaign logo. His campaign pertains to Citizens Against Cap and Trade and is explicated as such;

"All of those in favor of keeping your energy costs the way they are and not raising them as much as 3000 dollars say I!!!! With your support and numbers we will send a statement to Senator Webb and Senator Warner in the state of Virginia to not vote for Cap and Trade. Even if you don't live in Virginia this is a very important issue that should receive your support so PLEASE sign the petition. A little bit of activism can go a long way!!! Thanks."

I would like to urge you to sign this petition while you are reading some of his posts, thank you very much.

In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer,
The Conservative Hideout 2.0. Take some time and look at this blog, read
some articles, and post some comments. Thank you.

Blog Interviews: Conservative Scalawag

2009-08-17T10:05:00.000-07:00

For this installment of Blog Interviews the Liberty Pen had the distinct pleasure of interviewing the Conservative Scalawag. I must be particularly honest with you and state that I take great pleasure in interviewing other bloggers. For me, appreciable facets of mental competency and the principled rectitude of character are externalized on every individual blog. The perception of such leaves me with the desire to share this with individuals whom I consider to be of exceptional constitution. I hope you enjoy the following interview, and I can honestly say that I have a new admiration for the Conservative Scalawag.

tLP: Good afternoon Conservative Scalawag, I want to thank you for taking the time to do this interview. Let us start off with the basic question, what is your blog about?

CS: My blog is mostly about guns and gun rights. However, I also post political opinions and the occasional humor.

tLP: If not already answered in the first question, why did you start your blog?

CS: I started my blog because my constant ranting was getting on my wife’s last nerve. Banishing me to the computer room, she suggested that I focus my rants on the internet via a blog, and Conservative Scalawag was created in 2006. Heck, she even bought me a TV to watch Fox News on, just so I could stay back there.

tLP: Could you explain a little more about your political philosophy? What made you choose this type of philosophy?

CS: My political philosophy is very simple - freedom and liberty, no compromise and not up for negotiation.

tLP: What message, if any, do you try to convey in every post?

CS: Huh, good question. I’m not sure if there is any “message” I try to convey, other than that this is your God-given natural right - fight for it or it will be lost to you.

tLP: Where would you like to see your blog in a year from now, or two years?

CS: Can’t say I honestly thought that far ahead. For me, Conservative Scalawag is day by day adventure. I see something that either annoys me or peaks my interest, then give my opinion on it. If anything, I’d like to see that my reporting on events improves and even broadens.

tLP: Has creating a blog changed you as a person? What kind of people have you met along the way?

CS: Yes, it has. It has pushed me to peel back the layers and see the truth, digging deeper into issues I’d otherwise not give a second thought to, such as economics or certain social issues. As to the folks I’ve met, most have been great.. Sure, you get the occasional moon-bats, but for the most part great folks.

tLP: Great answer. Given your political persuasion, what criticisms have you received with regards to your posts?

CS: One thing I’ve learned is that the left are anything but tolerant and inclusive. I’ve received everything from out and out death threats, to folks telling me to kill myself. As to the substance of the post; very little, just pure hate for those who oppose their misguided views of America.

tLP: I see that you are an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment; can you tell us why it is important to you?

CS: If you don’t mind, I would like to have one of our Founding Fathers explain that one:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson

Now, I didn’t always see it that way, but it is true nonetheless. The sole reason for us to keep and bear arms is to keep the government in check. Sure, hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense are nice benefits, but it's not the purpose of the 2^nd Amendment. This is why it is important to me.

tLP: That is one of my favorite quotes from Jefferson. What, in your opinion, are the reasons the Democrats are so intent on dissolving gun ownership and all associated rights?

CS: Simply put, it is about control. Control over what we eat, drive, what doctor we see, how much we earn, who we hire, or even live by. Absolute control over our lives. This is why I don’t think of them as Democrats anymore, but as socialist fascists. Some might find that a bit radical, but then again, the Brits said the same about some of our Founding Fathers - Thomas Payne and Patrick Henry also come to mind.

tLP: If you had one hour with Obama what would you discuss?

CS: Wow, I don’t think an hour would be long enough. It would have to be the over-reach of government into the private sector, and how he sees this as constitutional (him being a scholar of it).

tLP: If you have a favorite person that is in the field of politics (past and or present), and you had the same amount of time as you had with Obama, what would you ask him or her?

CS: Wow, again, not enough time and too many great people to choose from. Thomas Jefferson, Edmund Burke, Churchill or Thatcher, and of my generation Reagan definitely comes to mind. But if it had to be one, it would be Benjamin Franklin. While the aforementioned were great speakers, had great fortitude, or were great in stature - Franklin was reserved, yet as radical as Jefferson; as well spoken as Reagan; as witty as Churchill and as pragmatic as Thatcher. And to top that off, he was just a brilliant man of multiple fields ranging from science and diplomacy to philosophy. He was even a man’s man, if you know what I mean.

tLP: Where do you see our Republic by the end of the year? Where do you see it by the end of Obama's term?

CS: Weaker, and by the end of his term weaker yet. It would be hard pressed, if Obama keeps going at the rate he has been, to even call it a Republic anymore.

tLP: When the Republicans return to a position of power what should they do to get our country back on track?

CS: I am not sure that I’d even want the Republicans back, for they have, to their own extent, become part of the problem as well. Perhaps give Independents or Libertarians a try at it. But, if it is the Republicans, they need to walk very carefully and represent the folks that put them there.

tLP: Are there any other areas of interest you would like to talk about? Any future posts you want us to know about?

CS: I would say being self-reliant, problem solving, and free thinking. I translate this into my preparedness. This way I will not be like those poor sheepish souls in New Orleans during Katrina. Now, I don’t want this to be mistaken with survivalism, like some folks do out in Idaho or Montana. What I am talking about is having just enough to get through a short to medium crisis. Say like a Katrina; the worst parts lasted a month or so, or a short-term emergency, like a few days to week long power outage. That is the sort of thing most people are not prepared for. Better yet, doing it in an suburban setting. Say like an apartment or town house. This is one area I’d like to venture more into.

I would to take this opportunity to reiterate my thanks to the Conservative Scalawag. I would also like to assure the members of the political left that I did not pay the Conservative Scalawag for taking part in this interview. If any of you want to know more about the 2nd Amendment please stop by the Conservative Scalawag's blog, he would be happy to hear from you. His knowledge pertaining to this issue will prove to be insightful.

In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer,
The Conservative Hideout 2.0. Take some time and look at this blog, read
some articles, and post some comments. Thank you.

Blog Interviews: Greg R. Lawson

2009-08-12T11:58:00.000-07:00

For this edition of Blog Interviews the Liberty Pen is providing a conservative Republican perspective. As you remember, the last interview was centered around a Libertarian viewpoint from Mr. David Colborne. Therefore, it would only be fair to purvey a position that is different with regards to political philosophy. I hope you enjoy the interview.

tLP: Please describe for us your political orientation and why is it important to you?

Mr. Lawson: I consider myself a conservative Republican. That said, I do not believe I must adhere to a standard order litmus test in order to carry that label. I am pro-second amendment, pro-life, pro vouchers and charter schools, and for the most part a Friedman like supply sider, though my concerns over the deficit have become more pronounced for obvious reasons. Additionally, I believe in the entrepreneurial spirit and cannot abide the notion that it must be crushed by a weighty governmental apparatus made up of an interminable bureaucracy.

However, I also believe that tradition is extremely important and believe that the constant turmoil and “creative destruction” brought about through the free market can bring its own set of ills, in particular, reckless consumerism that denies man the opportunity to engage in his higher virtues. Consequently, I am open to the use of limited governmental regulation to establish a framework within which those activities can thrive without becoming the sine qua non of all human endeavors. I am definitely not a libertarian in that respect.

Additionally, I am in no way an isolationist. I believe in robust global engagement. I think we have gone too far down the road with technology and communications to ever be able to bottle up the need for intensive interaction. This is especially true given what I now perceive to be the imminent danger of nuclear proliferation run amok.

With that in mind, I believe the United States by virtue of its power position in the world is the “grand stabilizer.” This does not mean it never errs and does not, in fact, create a certain degree of instability on a case by case basis ( Vietnam , Iraq as examples), but that our presence around the world does mitigate the tendencies of other nations to seek to become overtly militaristic as has historically been the norm.

I am a big believer that large causes are important. I believe strongly that we must conserve our “humanity” which I sometimes think is being assaulted on all sides by a blind allegiance to technology and “progress” for nothing more than progress’ sake.

I suppose I am a “national greatness conservative” without some of the over simplifications that have so tarnished it with the sobriquet of naïve neoconservatism.

tLP: When did you become active within the field of politics, and what precipitated said action?

Mr. Lawson: I became active in politics during the 2000 presidential race. At the time I was still in college and trying to determine what I would do with life. I recall watching the early GOP debates and becoming mesmerized by the discussions. Amazingly, those early debates seemed much more substantive to me than the later debates between Bush and Gore.

I was further entranced by politics when I attended a McCain rally. At the time I supported his patriotic message and call to a “higher cause” and thought it much more poetic and ennobling than then Governor Bush’s message. I subsequently became an intern in the Ohio statehouse and began volunteering on local political campaigns.

tLP: Is there a certain area of politics that you like most? Could you explain why?

Mr. Lawson: Foreign policy is my favorite political arena. I love world history and find the interactions between states exciting and increasingly important to us on a domestic level as well.

I even have taken the US Foreign Service exam and passed the written section three times, though I could never quite get through Foggy Bottom’s “oral interview.”

At that McCain rally I actually asked him, mind you it was February of 2000, about the Russian concerns over our plans for ballistic missile defense.

tLP: What are some of the most important things you have learned while being active within the political arena? Did it teach you anything new about yourself?

Mr. Lawson: I believe politics is both the best and worst thing there is. I do believe politics can be a noble enterprise and I admire figures like Lincoln, Churchill, and Reagan, as well as classical historical figures like Pericles, Augustus Caesar, and even Cicero.

However, it is also inherently a corrupting occupation. Power, the scramble for power and its actual usage tend to distort one’s views and can often make even the great come off as petty and angry little people seeking to control the uncontrollable.

As for me, I have learned that it has actually expanded my horizons. It has forced me to look outside simply myself, but to look towards the perennial problems of mankind. While politics per se is not the solution to fundamental issues, it becomes a necessary battlefield in which one must be engaged if they wish to leave behind something better in the world than that which they first stumbled upon.

tLP: What activities are you currently engaged in?

Mr. Lawson: I still engage in local political events and I am on my county GOP executive committee. I recently managed a city council campaign and was involved with the 2006 gubernatorial campaign in Ohio where I traveled with the Lt. Governor candidate statewide. I also serve on two local charter school boards as I believe they are a piece of a solution to getting our education system back on track.

tLP: Name one book that you have read that has influenced your political views. What are the key elements of the book and why are they important?

Mr. Lawson: There are many books that have influenced me. I would say the first book that left a large influence, even though I would say I am now fully cognizant of its limitations, was Machiavelli’s the Prince. While the goals of political action are not so much described in his book, I am hard pressed to find a better distillation of how the real world of politics unfolds. The insights are universal because he acknowledges human nature. I also always tell folks that Machiavelli’s central insight that it is “better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both” is often taken out of context. He clearly prefers that a good leader be both. I think most politicians try too hard to be either one or the other and neglect the need to determine the right synthesis between the two. I don't think anyone involved in modern politics can understand it without Machiavelli, even if one looks to other thinkers, be they classical, or more "liberal" to guide them.

tLP: If you have two hours to speak with any person in politics, alive or dead, what person would you choose and what would you ask them?

Mr. Lawson: As a fan of history, this is a difficult question, so I confess I’m going to cheat just a bit and pick two. I would say that for a historical person- I would want to meet Augustus Caesar and from the current time period, Henry Kissinger.

Augustus Caesar I believe dealt with times that are analogous to what we are facing today. He ended a series of civil wars that had consumed much of the Roman Republic and even lead to its practical elimination by his uncle, Julius Caesar. Augustus recognized that the cleavages within Roman society were vast and that there needed to be a healing. A healing that could, in his estimation, best be brought into effect by acknowledging the power of tradition and the wisdom it brought with it.

I would ask him if he sees any parallels to our time and what he would do to forestall any such parallels before we reach the breaking point the Roman Republic came to.

As for Kissinger, I admire his nuance and intelligence. He is, in my estimation, deeply conservative as he recognizes the fact that stability avoids the excesses of dangerous revolution, whether those revolutions are Jacobin/Napoleonic or Hitlerian. For all the criticism of Kissinger’s amorality and realpolitik, I am empathetic to his view that there are untold dangers that are let loose when the passions become unmoored from reality and fly away into utopian daydreaming. Indeed, while he was much different from Burke, I think he maintained a Burkean insight.

I would ask him how we deal with the social structure of America in a way that prevents us from continuing to daydream and becoming increasingly derelict in our handling of the responsibility we have on the global stage.

tLP: Name 3 political issues/problems that we as a people need to be concerned with. How would you fix these problems?

Mr. Lawson: 1) The ever present cult of technology and the worshiping of the individual as the epitome of existence has created a malaise or nihilism that is difficult to confront. While this is a social and philosophical issue; its political ramifications are legion.

It has led to a decline in fertility as individuals divorce themselves from the responsibility of raising future generations. Indeed, I believe we have become a thoroughly materialist and nearly hedonistic society. Sadly, throwing away the family has been a major disaster for America in the social field. It has led to abortion, decayed urban culture, a remorseless and ceaseless need for economic growth that leads to further commodification of humans, the radical growth of our welfare state, and, finally, a postmodern existential angst that saps the willingness of people to commit to anything beyond transient “causes” that are simply distractions.

We have become technologically sophisticated while philosophically and spiritually malnourished. I am not against technology by any means, but I believe the mind itself requires much more cultivation than we now give it. The classical education of past generations, especially our founding fathers’ generation, is almost nothing more than a dream that occasionally, but rarely impacts our day to day living. This is a tragedy. As is said in the book of Mark (8:36), “For what doth it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?” I fear we are soon going to learn.

To remedy this requires a clarion call by leadership to look beyond the transience of the moment and embrace our western tradition, including our faith based tradition. This naturally requires us to revive discussions of faith. Not in the superficial way so much has been done over the past couple of decades, but in a deep and intellectual way. We must force humanity to confront the limits of materialism and begin to rediscover the joys of deeper reflection. In many ways, I find much of the dialog at www.firstthings.com to be an example of what is needed. There, the discussions bring people in rather than exclude people based on ossified doctrine. They challenge the conventional materialist wisdom and ask us to examine what we long for in the deepest recesses of our souls. The fact that we rarely do this anymore in public life simply illustrates how far we’ve traveled down the path of destroying the very things that historically have made us human.

I understand this in itself is reaching extraordinarily high and may be nearly as utopian as any social engineer’s dream. However, I think until the spiritual malaise and nihilism of our era is directly confronted, all other solutions to problems are “technical” and at best represent band aids.

2) The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As North Korea and Iran continue their march to nuclearization, the cascading impact of this will be felt for years to come. The Middle East will explode with aspiring nuclear powers and East Asia might as well, especially if America turns inward and nations like South Korea , and especially Japan , fear for their security in our absence. The threat of accidents, theft, and terrorism will only grow as more and more nations acquire the technical skills to develop these weapons.

While we do not face the almost apocalyptic scenario we confronted during the Cold War, we do face an increasing likelihood of the loss of a major American city. The psychological blow to this nation such an event would administer cannot and should not be underestimated. I believe we need to begin to consider a new method of deterrence, one that may require us to explore options we thought we had filed away years ago with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

3) Immigration. While I think the fundamental problem of the day in America is the nihilism I referred to above, I think immigration is of intense, if tangential importance. Obviously, the more immigrants we allow to enter this country, the more our profile changes.

Historically, we were a melting pot, imperfect to be sure, but definitely a society that imposed assimilation upon new arrivals. I think we no longer do this. Our worship of “diversity” has blinded us to the fact that too much diversity means cleavages. It introduced competing interests that begin to erode national unity and purpose.

I believe immigration can and should continue, but with the all important caveat that assimilation be a non-negotiable part of any so-called deal. English only is one mandate that should be clear. A rudimentary understanding of American history is another.

I know many would criticize this as “ethno-centric” and, probably chauvinistic, however, if we are to not eventually balkanize, especially along the Mexican border, we have to take this seriously.

We’re a nation founded by immigrants, but it is also a nation founded on political ideals as opposed to blood and soil ties. Adherence to those ideals must supersede any other allegiances. Teddy Roosevelt best expressed my view when he stated,

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

tLP: What will our nation look like in 5 years? The in 10 years?

Mr. Lawson: As I write these responses, the hours to the birth of my first child are rapidly ticking away and I admit that I am very afraid of what the country will look like in 5 years and almost petrified at what it will be in 10. If President Obama is successful with his ruinous health care and cap and trade plans, America will never get off the mat again.

We cannot become a nation where government is the solution to our problems. By contrast, it must always remain a necessary evil that can do good, but only in certain ways and under certain circumstances. Obama disagrees. His belief in the nebulous concept of “social justice” actually tears the very communal fabric we should seek to reinforce. I suspect he doesn’t see it this way, but I am firmly convinced this is so.

I further fear that we will not be respected abroad. I fear that we will ultimately face the same problems Rome once did as a thousand pinpricks from abroad accelerate and reinforce the internal nihilism. Respect is different from popularity, especially the kind so touted by President Obama and his supporters. Respect will make a nation that may seek to test your mettle recalibrate such plans when they realize the steeliness of your resolve. Popularity is ultimately meaningless when it runs up against the cold, hard realities of other nations’ interests.

I am optimistic that these negative trends can be ameliorated and/or reversed by a determined effort at cultural renewal at home and a pragmatic, yet forceful projection of strength abroad. I do not envision that my feared scenarios are preordained to happen. America, and by extension our population, has ample opportunity to rectify these downward trends.

In summation, I believe we will either be a bigger “Europe” sliding into a kind of global obsolescence or a newly reinvigorated superpower that can instill true, unashamed pride. Obviously either of those alternatives will come about slowly, but I think the general direction will be clearly discernible by the end of the next decade.

tLP: I would like to point out that you have a blog called, "Greg R. Lawon's Blog," tell us a little more about it and what sort of articles do you like to write about?

Mr. Lawson: I generally focus on two areas, foreign policy, which I think is an area where mainstream media coverage is woefully inept, and philosophy. I tend to shy away from a lot of domestic issues, however, there are some that pop up that are necessary to confront.

I think it’s important to understand the “why” behind what occurs as opposed to just what occurred. Partisan sniping does not interest me for the most part. I find it tedious and more a part of the “game” and theatricality of politics rather than the beating heart of what is meaningful.

tLP: Why did you decide to create a blog?

Mr. Lawson: I had too many thoughts and not enough time to verbalize them, so I committed it to paper so to speak.

tLP: What type of reactions have you received from your readers? Have you had any that were completely rude or spiteful?

Mr. Lawson: I’m still looking to broaden my readership, however, those who have left comments have generally been very supportive and thoughtful. Even those comments that disagree with a view of mine have not degenerated into a vapid mess of name calling.

tLP: What sort of future does your blog have? Do you have any long term goals for it?

Mr. Lawson: As a believer that the fundamental issues are not about race, health care, or even taxation, I think conservatives must reconnect and reformulate our message, and perhaps, our very goals.

Our goal should be to make America live up to its legacy and its nobility. We should not deny individuality, as that is the well trod road towards Hayekian serfdom and worse. However, we also must preserve that which is greater than the individual, otherwise, what really is the purpose of life, besides the feeding of animalistic desires?

I hope that in some small way, my blog can begin this very needed discussion and reformulation.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Lawson for doing this interview, as you will agree, I think he provided his position in an intelligent and cohesive manner. I have asked Mr. Lawson if he would participate in debate style article; a question would be proposed and then each of us would give our answer from our own political, philosophical viewpoints. Look for that article by the end of the month. Until then, please drop by Greg R. Lawson's Blog for a penetrating read and leave some comments.

As of this writing Mr. and Mrs. Lawson had their first child. I would like to extend my congratulations and best wishes to his family, I hope everyone will extend their own felicitations.

In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer,
The Conservative Hideout 2.0. Take some time and look at this blog,
read some articles, and post some comments. Thank you.

Blog Interviews: Mr. David Colborne

2009-08-03T13:28:00.000-07:00

For this round of Blog Interviews the Liberty Pen is going local. I have had the pleasure of interviewing Mr. David Colborne, Secretary for the Nevada Capital Libertarian Party. It is my contention that the impressions of Libertarianism are artificial and carefully effected manipulation, and I state this position because of the multiple conversations I have had via person-to-person and on blogging forums. A carefully scripted depiction that conveys the fundamental character of a thing, without the infusion of nescience and personal bias (both cognitive factors), could be called an explicit definition. If you want specificity the example would be; libertarianism is a political philosophy that advocates limited government; personal responsibility; free markets; and individual sovereignty. As a corollary I would like to add the following as a supplementation;

"...disparate reciprocity is a key element of individualism; the acknowlegement that fundamental distinctions exist between dissimilar elements, and to ensure social equilibrium a consonance must be afforded to the protean aspects of individual sovereignty."

In other words; if we except as the normative that all individual beings are different, we must also accept that the pursuance of one's self-interests will also vary. During the advancement of our cause we must remain cognizant not to infringe upon the rights of others. Respect for this form of individuality will effect the inferred element of disparate reciprocity. I sumit that any real social balance will only manifest when we disengage ourselves from other people's lives.

But, I will concede that this is my viewpoint and I do not speak for the bulk of Libertarians. Therefore, for your reading pleasure we would like to present the following interview. We hope you enjoy it.

tLP: To begin, please tell our readers what a Libertarian is, and what does Libertarianism mean to you?

Mr. Coborne: Do you like telling people what to do? Do you enjoy it when people tell you what to do? If your answer to both of those questions is "no", you're a Libertarian. Libertarianism, at least to me, means taking the same attitude and same instinct that we use on our friends, coworkers, and neighbors, and applying it on a local, state, and national level.

tLP: Why did you decide to become politically active?

Mr. Colborne: Part of it was upbringing - my mom was rather politically active in her younger years and she made it a point to pass that on to me. Part of it was that, as I grew up, I noticed that politicians seemed to hew to two basic paths: Either they were willing to let me do whatever I wanted with my life but wanted to reach for my wallet, or they were happy to let me keep my wallet but wanted to tell me what to do in the privacy of my own home. I wasn't terribly excited about either prospect, so I decided to do something about it.

tLP: Do you have friends that are Democrat or Republican? If so, what are your political conversations like?

Mr. Colborne: You bet! My best friend is a Republican and my wife's best friend is a Green. Believe it or not, we each have quite a bit in common politically, though we may not necessarily realize it. My Republican friend and I, of course, agree on issues like gun control, taxes, and most government regulation. However, he's a little more reluctant to approve of things like gay marriage and, amusingly enough, people forgetting to use their turn signals. My wife's friend, meanwhile, is about as interested in government control in the bedroom as I am - on the other hand, she's not convinced that corporations can be made to behave responsibly without serious government intervention. Personally, I just try to avoid arguing with them and instead focus on coming up with compromises that both can live with. Libertarianism makes this surprisingly easy.

For example, on the issue of gay marriage, many Libertarians will tell you they're not in favor of government-sponsored gay marriage - in their view, the government shouldn't have their nose in marriage at all! I think that might be a little extreme, at least for now, but I do think there's some value in the spirit behind this idea. For my Republican friend, he's upset that a group of people with no religious affiliation are attempting to take over the institution of marriage via government fiat. For my wife's Green friend, she just wants to see gay people receive equal treatment under the law. From her viewpoint, if we call a contractual union between two straight people a "marriage" and a contractual union between two gay people something else, it will be far too easy for some opportunistic legislator to declare that the union between the two gay people no longer shares the same rights as the union between the two straight people. I think both are valid concerns. One possible solution, which both of them found reasonably acceptable, was to simply pull government out of the "marriage" business entirely and declare that, as far as the government was concerned, straight or gay, everybody just had a civil union. If two people wanted to get "married", they could either just decide they're "married" or take it up with a religious figure of their choice.

Interestingly, there already is some precedent for this idea. Mormons, for example, recognize both regular marriages and "temple marriages". According to the Latter-Day Saint faith, temple marriages have a very different and far more restrictive set of rules than regular civil marriages; as far as the government is concerned, however, there is absolutely no distinction between the two. Whether two people choose to follow the government's rules or the more restrictive LDS rules is a voluntary choice between those two people, one which the government is completely indifferent to.

tLP: What are some misconceptions about Libertarians?

Mr. Colborne: Probably the biggest misconception is that we're a bunch of gun-toting, drug using hedonists. Personally, I don't have a gun - to be honest, if you gave me a gun, I'd have a very limited understanding of what to do with one. I don't use drugs; I've tried marijuana but, frankly, didn't like it. I barely even drink - honestly, you could count the number of times I drink anything alcoholic in a year on two hands. As for wanton hedonism, well, my wife and I are very happy with each other and neither of us are particularly interested in sharing.

tLP: How would Libertarian principles benefit our country?

Mr. Colborne: Libertarian principles are based around the concept that, ultimately, people are motivated by self-interest. Contrary to what people think, we don't think that people are incorruptible - on the contrary, we simply assume that people in government are just as corruptible as any capitalist and vice-versa. When you have power, it's in your best interest to exercise it. All Libertarians want is to make sure that people can pick and choose who they're dealing with voluntarily and, just as importantly, choose to stop dealing with them if they're dissatisfied. For example, if people really wanted GM to continue doing business, they would have bought GM products.

tLP: If not already answered in the previous question, how would a Libertarian limit the size of government?

Mr. Colborne: The answer, of course, is depressingly simple: Slowly.

Ultimately, Libertarians are going to be constrained in how they can limit the size of government by the mandate given to them by the voters. Consequently, in order for a Libertarian to meaningfully decrease the size of government, they will need to prove - through action, when and where possible - that less government really does provide more for everyone. However, we have to remember that many people rely on the government for food, shelter, health care, education, and retirement. If we're going to meaningfully reduce the size of government, we will need to provide better alternatives, and that will take some time and some imagination.

Remember, it took generations for our government to reach its current size. It's not going away in four years, no matter who gets elected. The Libertarian goal is a long-term goal.

tLP: Do you feel that there is an assault on fundamentalist principles, as they pertain to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, individualism, self-reliance and self-responsibility, and limited government?

Mr. Colborne: Hanlon's Razor states, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." For this question, I'd like to replace "stupidity" with "indifference", though the end result is the same.

I think that most people think they believe in the country's fundamental principles. I think that most people in this country think they believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, individualism, self-reliance, and self-responsibility. If you ask most people in this country about their government, they'll tell you (regardless of party affiliation) that our government is a gigantic and intrusive waste of oxygen. However, if you ask them about individual principles, there will be a "but".

People believe in free speech... BUT they believe that, y'know, maybe people shouldn't be allowed to say hateful things about minorities. That sounds reasonable, right?
People believe in the right to defend themselves... BUT there are a lot of people killing each other in our cities with guns! We should do something about that!
People believe in search warrants, that we should be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures... BUT you can flush drugs down a toilet awfully fast, and do we really believe that terrorists won't cover their tracks if a police officer has to knock first?
People believe that cruel and unusual punishments shouldn't be inflicted... BUT, man, child molesters sure do seem to re-offend a lot, don't they? We should do something about that!

... and so on. They're all legitimate objections - they really are! Who wants to speak out for racist idiots, or gun-toting gangbangers, or drug dealers, or sex offenders? Nobody with sense, that's who, and I'm not about to start. However, people need to realize that freedom isn't really freedom if the only choices we can make are right ones. If we want to be free to openly criticize our government, to say that Bush is a chimp or that Obama is a socialist, we have to accept that some people will be free to say some incredibly stupid and hateful things. If we want to be free to defend ourselves, we have to accept that the reason we need that freedom in the first place is because some people out there wish to harm us. If we want the freedom to avoid random invasions of our homes by the police, we have to accept that some people will get away with a few things they wouldn't otherwise get away with. If we want the freedom to serve our time after a crime and try to live a normal life afterward, we have to accept that some people will exercise that opportunity better than others. Otherwise, we're going to live in a world where political speech is controlled by whomever is in power, a world where it's against the law to protect yourself from someone who values your wallet more than your life, a world where SWAT teams can barge in anytime, and a world where 17 year olds can ruin their rest of their lives, unable to live in certain neighborhoods or hold certain jobs, simply by attending the same party as their 14-year-old classmate.

tLP: How would you describe the Nevada Libertarian Party? Please name some of the members and describe your function within the party.

Mr. Colborne: We're a small but growing minor party, full of a healthy mix of old guards and new blood. Personally, I'm the secretary for both the Libertarian Party of Nevada and for the Nevada Capital Libertarian Party, which is the regional affiliate for Washoe County (Reno/Sparks), Carson City, and Douglas County - considering how I only became active in the state party in January, I'm not complaining with my current position in the party. Our State Chairman is Joe Silvestri, who has been active in Clark County for a number of years. Of course, Wayne Allyn Root lives in Las Vegas, so he's been moderately active in the Party as well - he spoke at our convention last March, and we're working on securing him for our next convention in February. In northern Nevada, Nik York was undoubtedly the one that got the ball rolling, which would explain why he's now the Chair for the regional affiliate. Dave Thomas and Vicki Hargrove have both been active in the Tea Party movement in northern Nevada, Isabel Isherwood has been working to organize another affiliate in Nye County, Kris McKinster has been working on updating our web site... honestly, I could go on like this, but I'm afraid I'll forget someone!

tLP: What are some of the goals of the Nevada Libertarian Party?

Mr. Colborne: We're a political party, so I'd say goal #1 always has been and always shall be to win elections! Unfortunately, we haven't had much success on that front, so our focus has been on getting our name and our platform out there and doing what we can when and where we can to ensure that Libertarian-minded people in Nevada realize that somebody is speaking for them. For us, that means going local. We need local organizations that reflect and speak to the local needs and desires of the electorate throughout Nevada. Needless to say, Libertarians in Elko might disagree with Libertarians in Las Vegas on what issues are most important in a given moment and we need to be flexible and local enough to work with that.

tLP: What are the chances that Senator Harry Reid will loose his re-election bid? How would it benefit Nevada to have a new representative in the Senate?

Mr. Colborne: The chances are better than zero - to be honest, Reid isn't terribly popular in Nevada, especially in many of the more rural portions of the state where his public land use policies have done an excellent job of strangling the mining industry and killed off numerous jobs, especially in Ely. Of course, what he lacks in popularity, he makes up for with strong political and financial connections, which will make it difficult, albeit not impossible, to push him out of there.

Though you would think that having the Senate Majority Leader would be a boon to Nevada, Reid's results for Nevada have been, to put it diplomatically, mixed. As Senate Majority Leader, his attention is drawn to a more national focus, frequently at the expense of Nevada's interests (hence why over 66% of our state is still owned by the federal government). A freshman Senator would be far better motivated to focus on their local constituents and their needs.

With that, I think I've pontificated enough for one night. Let me know if you need anything else or wish to go into any further detail on any of the points I've touched on.

There are fundamental differences between Libertarians and Conservatives, and this has led to divisiveness and an irrational animus against divergent political orientation. This fracturing has detracted our attention from the commonalities we do share, and if we persist in manifesting ideological dissimilarities our Republic will fall. What would your opinion be?

The Liberty Pen would like to thank Mr. David Colborne for taking the time to do this interview. We hope that he will visit us again and provide some keen insight into the relevant issues of the day. Until next time.....

In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer,
The Conservative Hideout 2.0. Take some time and look at this blog,
read some articles, and post some comments. Thank you.

Blog Interviews: Feed Your ADHD

2009-07-25T10:56:00.000-07:00

Ladies and gentlemen it is time again for another installment of Blog Interviews from the Liberty Pen. This week we have Dr. Dave from Feed Your ADHD, but before we commence I must make the following statement to those of you who do not know Dr. Dave or his blog, - "No, he is not a real Doctor in the medical sense." By my own stipulative definition Dr. Dave is an educated individual with a self-conferred doctorate in the field of caustic wit and snark. As with the other individuals I have interviewed, Dr. Dave is unique in his approach at constructing social and political annotaions. At times he is compendious, on other occasions he is more extensive in his examination of socio-political dynamics. But if you truly want to know the derivation of his work I shall let Dr. Dave purvey his intro;

"Creating a foreseeable risk of substantial disruption."

I have told Dr. Dave before that he has a rapier wit, and when you peruse his blog you will inevitably perceive it to be an incisive extension of his acumen. His posts are not for the faint of heart, but if you open your mind and become receptive you will definitely learn something. Now, for your reading pleasure I offer you a substantial disruption, Dr. Dave's FEED YOUR ADHD.

tLP: Good evening Dr. Dave how are you?

Feed Your ADHD: I am faaaantastic, thank you for asking. I am ready to go so tell everybody to put their mental cups on!

tLP: Excellent my friend, let's start with the basic question. What is your blog about?

Feed Your ADHD: Feed Your ADHD is a satirical, sometimes humorous, always hyperbolic, blog that tosses friggin’ EMPs at the stupidity that goes on in Washington, D.C., and equally morally bankrupt and corrupt governments around the world. William Faulkner once said writing brings order to chaos. My blog attempts to bring chaos in an entertaining way to what the thieves in power pass off as order. As it says in my blog profile, I’m creating a “foreseeable risk of substantial disruption,” to quote Sonia Sotomayor [http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Critics-unhappy-with-Sotomayors-role-in-CT-free-speech-case.html], putting myself on Janet Napolitano's domestic terror list for the reader.

tLP: Why did you start your blog?

Feed Your ADHD: It started off as a release from the daily monotony of corporate life (which is why I go by the pseudonym, “Dr. Dave”). When I was younger, I spent 5 years writing for newspapers and then a couple more writing for magazines. When my wife and I had children, I stopped chasing the dream of trying to become a poor man’s Conservative Hunter S. Thompson, entrenching myself in the corporate world to bring home half a dollar while my wife stayed home with the kids. Last fall I started to get the itch again, and a writer friend suggested I start a blog. My first few posts were little puerile attempts at sarcasm…about the NFL and the Wall Street bailout and blogging…and then I began to pay attention to what was going to happen in the presidential election. Once I started looking into who Barack Hussein Obama (or as he’s known around my place, Obugger) is, there was no going back. The night he was elected I wrote a piece about how all his hope and change b.s. was smoke and mirrors. But punditry hasn’t always been my strongest form, and I stumbled around between sarcasm and punditry until, about a month or so before Obugger was about to accept his crown, I discovered satire over at Iowahawk [http://iowahawk.typepad.com/]. What David Burge was doing over there, and had been doing for 5 years, seemed, to me, the perfect way to go about commenting on all of the insanity around us, in a funny and critical and poignant way. Since then I’ve been posting a mixture of satire and sarcasm with regularity about a group of imbeciles, the Obama administration and Congress, who truly deserve my twisted attention.

tLP: What are you hoping to accomplish with your blog?

Feed Your ADHD: It keeps me out of the bars and from taking up with a mistress in Argentina and getting myself into trouble for being a hypocrite. Really, I’m just trying to comment on the daily news cycle in an entertaining way while amusing myself. I figure if you come to my blog and laugh a little bit, you might see the steady stream of impending doom that blares from your TV, newspaper, and Obugger’s house every night with a little less anxiety in your heart. I have no idea if we’re about to either fall off the far edge of the Earth or begin to wake up to the power and freedom grabs going on in D.C., but I just can’t chronicle what’s happening in any other way. They say sarcasm masks one’s inadequacies, but I believe it helps us deflect the ineptitudes of those with power and bad intent, and peer through their smokescreen to see what’s really going on.

tLP: How are your posts received by people, good, fair, or against?

Feed Your ADHD: I have a regular group of readers who seem to enjoy themselves when they come to my place. Once in a while I’ll get spammed by some liberal calling himself “anonymous.” I used to get into long drawn out debates with them, but then I realized the stupidity, both mine and theirs, of debating satire, that is FICTION. Please. A blogger friend of mine likes to call in other bloggers to help gang up on a liberal spammer, and I think that’s an adequate tactic. I think I’ll follow suit in the future. Rather than exhausting my energy debating policy with someone who’s clearly not going to see, or even acknowledge, my side at all, I’ll go on to my next insane post and let my friends gang up on the Zombiecrat. Or I could just do what Hunter Thompson would do…track the bastard down and spray his eyes with mace. Either way works just fine for me.

tLP: How important is your blog in today's economic and political climates?

Feed Your ADHD: Feed Your ADHD is about as important as yesterday’s post. By that I mean, it’s not important at all. It’s just something that I do to take the edge off my day and give a few readers a laugh or two, while hopefully being a mite bite in the side of the idiots in D.C. This is a terrible moment in time and history, and I’m just trying to put my own little bizarre stamp on it. That’s all the blog really is. And that’s all I should really expect from it, given that every microsecond someone with far more talent and far more interesting things to say starts another blog.

Thanks for the opportunity, LP. Please tell others they can find me at Feed Your AD HD [http://feedyouradhd.blogspot.com] most every day.

I would like to thank Dr. Dave from Feed Your ADHD for supplying his time and giving a great interview. My intent, as I have explicated in previous posts, is to provide a medium for other bloggers to get together and learn from each other. In dangerous times such as these an aggregation of liberty-minded individuals is paramount for our Republic's survivability. But I also understand that blogs such as Dr. Dave's may not be to everyone's liking, or that his approach to satire is too vituperative (as surmised by the Daily Kos). If you feel so inclined please consider the following quote from Eric Idle;

"At least one way of measuring the freedom of any society is the amount of comedy that is permitted, and clearly a healthy society permits more satirical comment than a repressive, so that if comedy is to function in some way as a safety release then it must obviously deal with these taboo areas. This is part of the responsibility we accord our licensed jesters, that nothing be excused the searching light of comedy. If anything can survive the probe of humour it is clearly of value, and conversely all groups who claim immunity from laughter are claiming special privileges which should not be granted." Eric Idle

theLibertyPen

In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer,
The Conservative Hideout 2.0. Take some time and look at this blog,
read some articles, and post some comments. Thank you.

Blog Interviews: Present Discontent

2009-07-16T20:17:00.000-07:00

It is that time again for Liberty Pen's Blogger Interviews, and this week we will be speaking to Don, the author and site owner of Present Discontent. I have only known Don, as much as a person could via the internet, a few short months. But he, as with the others I have (and yet to) interviewed, embodies a quote from the United States Air Force Academy;

"We define character as the sum of those qualities of moral excellence that stimulates a person to do the right thing, which is manifested through right and proper actions despite internal or external pressures to the contrary."

We find ourselves in troubling times, and by the severest measure of misfortune they are being dismissed by people whose constitutional venalities are leading our Republic to moral and intellectual degeneracy. That is why it is so important for the sanctity of one's own probity to manifest an affinity with like-minded patriots, so this is my part. As with any relationship the differences define the components, affording reciprocal respect within a given dynamic will preclude enmity from presenting itself. You will find such respect among these men, and I am better off for it. Now, for your reading pleasure I am pleased to introduce, Present Discontent.

tLP: Good afternoon Don, how are you doing today?

Present Discontent: I am fine Tom, thank you for asking.

tLP: Outstanding, so tell us, what is your blog about?

Present Discontent: My blog is called Present Discontent. I named it after an essay by Edmund Burke. He of course, is thought to be the father of modern conservatism. Burke was in favor of limiting the executive powers of the King of England. He argued very strongly against unlimited royal power. His thoughts on checks and balances are very similar to our present system of government. He was for a political party or parties having a role in limiting the monarch’s ability to abuse its power. Widely held as his most important essay about this was his Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents of May 1770. I feel that this is apropos to what is going on in Washington with nearly one party rule.

tLP: Why did you start your blog

Present Discontent: I read Mark Levin’s book, Liberty and Tyranny, A Conservative Manifesto. A magnificent book and I recommend it to all conservatives, and their teenagers. In it he says that the conservative nature is “…to live and let live, to attend to his family, to volunteer time with his church and synagogue, and to quietly assist a friend, a neighbor, or even a stranger.” He goes on to say that these are admirable qualities, but that it is no longer enough. In order to contain, and then reverse the far-left’s creep towards socialism, we must become a new generation of conservative activists. We have to be “shrewder and more articulate” than ever before. I started my blog to do just that. It has been in small steps, this creep towards socialism in America, so it will be in small steps the measure to reclaim personal liberty and freedoms once again. My blog is but one small step.

tLP: What are you hoping to accomplish with your blog?

Present Discontent: I want to make my feelings and views known and to see if they strike a chord with others out there. Not only those in agreement with me, but also I want to reach out to those who disagree with me. If I can change the mind of one liberal, then I will have succeeded.

tLP: How are your posts received by people, good, fair, or against?

Present Discontent: The reception to my blogs have run the gamut from agreement to disagreement to some very hostile reactions.

tLP: How important is your blog in today's economic and political climates?

Present Discontent: Well since sliced bread, it is of course the biggest thing to come down the pike! Okay, enough. It really doesn’t mean much by itself, as I said it is but a small step in our march back to what our Founding Fathers envisioned for our country. When taken into context with all the other conservative blogs, then the question of importance rises to a different level altogether.

tLP: Feel free to add any information you like.

Present Discontent: I just want to add that in the past, it has been enough for the conservative to go to church, pay his taxes and mow his lawn. But now that time of passive contribution is over. We need to be vigilant in protecting our freedoms, for once lost, they are hard to regain.

I would like to use this opportunity and thank Don for taking the time to do this interview, we all have busy lives so his efforts are most appreciated. The latest post from Present Discontent is, "Health Rationing in Our Future?" Stop by and leave a comment.

To end this post I would like to purvey a few quotations from Edmund Burke;

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

"No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."

We should not presume to think that the simple act of blogging will not produce the requisite results needed for the preservation of freedom. A singular action, however small, creates energy once it is in motion. As we connect with other individuals the energy augments, and eventually, it will manifest into an overwhelming force of emancipation. So continue to fight, continue to be heard, connect with other people, and know that no action is too little.

theLibertyPen

In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer,
The Conservative Hideout 2.0. Take some time and look at this blog,
read some articles, and post some comments. Thank you.

The Classic Liberal Interview

2009-07-02T22:49:00.000-07:00

Since the July, 4th holiday is coming up this weekend I have decided to post the weekly Blog Interview a little early. This week I had the pleasure of interviewing, Mike, from the The Classic Liberal. As with the previous interview I asked a series of questions and received some fantastic answers. I hope you will find this interview interesting, and if you would like to participate in the Blog Interviews please feel free to contact me.

tLP: Good afternoon Mike, how are you today?

The Classic Liberal: I'm fine Tom, and how are you?

tLP: Fantastic, and thank you for participating. Let's begin, what is your blog about?

The Classic Liberal: Well, obviously politics. :-) More specifically, it's about
liberty and freedom. The two major political parties have steered our country
so far off course from what it was, it disgusts me. My personal views don't
seem to fit into a given political philosophy these days either, and I think that's
in large part due to philosophies being turned into labels. If we're to get down to the truth,
I'm a liberal. But in today's world, a liberal is my polar extreme!

The conservative movement started in the early 20th century, mostly in opposition to
increasing federal governmental powers, and the New Deal. Senator Robert A. Taft,
known to all as “Mr. Republican,” was the same type of guy as Rep. Ron Paul is today.
Even up into the sixties, when Goldwater was the standard-bearer of the movement,
conservatives advocated repealing laws, were anti-draft, and even anti-war. Goldwater
was not the neocon some like to paint him as today. He was much closer to being a
Taft-conservative, than to being a neocon (whose movement was just starting to blossom).

For example, today I hear and read so-called conservatives, claiming that Ron Paul isn't a
conservative, or that one is not a real conservative, if they don't support legislating morality
or blindly supporting any given war effort. In other words, so-called conservatives today,
believe in an active role for the State. But outside of the (left-leaning) neocon movement,
there's nothing for them historically, to back these arbitrary claims up.

The libertarian movement is just as bad too! For example, they've become vehemently
anti-religious and more than happy to attack those of religious faith. To me, this position
contradicts libertarianism. As long as someone isn't infringing on your rights, it's none
of your business how they live, what they believe, or what they worship. I also see a
move towards “civil rights,” and away from “natural rights” in the libertarian movement.
They're becoming every bit as Statist as the conservatives have become. My blog
comes in somewhere in between libertarian and conservative. To be more specific,
somewhere in between paleo-conservative and paleo-libertarian. The “modern” versions
of the movements have lost their way IMHO, and I hope to help people find their way
back.

tLP: Why did you start your blog?

The Classic Liberal: I'm a political junkie! I first became interested in politics
in the 6th grade, in 1980. I attended parochial school at the time, and they
gave us each a book (made for kids) that detailed the 3 platforms of Carter,
Reagan, and Anderson. The teachers genuinely did not give us any input.
We made up our own minds, and at the end of the week the school held a mock election.

The Revolution was already a big deal to me. It was Independence Day in 1976 that got
me stoked about America and the message of our Founder's against the tyranny of government.
So when I read about Reagan's passion for liberty and freedom, I got hooked and have been
so ever since. Also, I love arguing politics, so writing a blog eventually become the next logical
step.

tLP: What are you hoping to accomplish with your blog?

The Classic Liberal: It may be futile, but I'm trying to get today's conservatives to
broaden their horizons and think outside the box. I believe Team Politics
(Red Team vs. Blue Team) is a serious problem, that only causes too many people
to vote Republican and/or Democrat despite their heart telling them something
else. I also think the 2-party monopoly can be broken easier than people realize. You (as in
each of us as individuals) just have to commit to it, then support and vote for someone else.
It's a simple one-person decision for each of us. This also may be a futile attempt, but I'd like
libertarians to see that their core market is the average conservative voter. In their everyday
lives, most of the the conservative electorate isn't as Statist as the Republican Party. Not even
close. I tailor my message towards conservatives, but focus liberty and freedom, not
party-politic talking points.

Politics have become so compartmentalized these days, it's a shame. With some 310 million
people living in this country, while philosophical purity is an important long-term goal, to
get there, you need others on your side. I hope I'm showing (at least a little) that we all
have a lot more to agree on, than we have to fight over. Right now, “we the people” must
stop the spending train! We'd have a majority to accomplish that if libertarians would quit
seeing conservatives as their #1 enemy and vice-versa.

tLP: How are your posts received by people, good fair, or against?

The Classic Liberal: That's a tough question. I need to work on engaging people
more. I say some pretty bold things that go without comment. Traffic has been
up and down since my start, but that's due in large part to things I didn't know
about SEO and what-not when I started. I think however, my message is catching
on! Traffic has been growing steadily, I got listed in a Top 100 Libertarian Blogs list, and a lot
of conservative bloggers are linking to me. It's exciting!

tLP: How important is your blog in today's economic and political climates?

The Classic Liberal: I think it's vital. I talk about things that very few others will.
I have a degree in finance, was a stockbroker for more than a decade (eventually
owning my own practice), and served as a senior officer at a large publicly-traded
bank. So happily, the posts I've written about the economy have really been
picking taking off (despite their dire outlook). I'm no perma-bear, but our economy is doomed.
And those posts seem to be opening more people up to my views on the other topics as well.

tLP: Where do you think the country will be in 2 years, and then in 4 years?

The Classic Liberal: Great Depression circumstances, a very restless populace, and
the possibility of Marshall Law and/or civil war. What's taking place in Washington
today, is a coup. Make no mistake about it! With all of the policy changes, as well
as those yet to come, do you think we will ever get back to limited government?

It's possible, and could even happen peacefully … but it'll take a large part of the populace
waking-up out of their slumber, and accepting the reality of our situation for what it is. I haven't
talked about this yet (because there's no reason at this point), but my gut tells me Ron Paul
could take the White House in 2012 … if we make it that far … and his age doesn't turn into a
major issue.

Economically, things are going to get very bad for us. These circumstances will change political
discourse in ways none of us can accurately predict. But he's having great success with his bill
to audit the Fed, getting more and more press coverage, and people are slowly catching on to
the fact he's not the loon people claim him to be. He's the only guy in Washington who's been
right all along, and when the crap hits the fan, voters will take notice.

tLP: Well, Mike, I want to take this opportunity and thank you again for participating.
As with the previous interviewee you gave some great answers. Can you give us the
address to your website?

The Classic Liberal: I would be happy to, please go The Classic Liberal. You can
also get The Classic Liberal by RSS. Thank you for having me on The Liberty Pen.

As with the previous Blog Interview I did check to see if Mike and his blog were on Janet
Napolitano's watch list. They were not, so we can all breath easier. I find it somewhat comforting
that more people are becoming politically active and asserting their rights to liberty and
freedom. In my previous interview I ended with the statement that these are "interesting
times," I would like to amend those words to state these are "dangerous times." There is nothing
so frail as liberty, but in the same vein there is nothing so resolute as humankind's desire to
be free from tyranny. Here is a quote from Jean-Jacques Rousseau;

"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."

In my opinion the veracity of this statement permeates beyond the grasp of technocratic
disputation. One could disagree, but I could prove you wrong. The question remains, will
you break your chains and claim your liberty once more, or allow the government to tell
you what liberties you shall have?

theLibertyPen

In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer,
The Conservative Hideout 2.0. Take some time and look at this blog,
read some articles, and post some comments. Thank you.

Conservative Hideout 2.0 Interview

2009-06-27T11:36:00.000-07:00

I am creating a series of blogger interviews that spotlight the blogs, the people, and the reasoning for taking to the information highway. My motives are not to illustrate my excessive regard for personal advantage, or to somehow enact subversive interests to benefit myself. I'll leave those forms of insidious mechanisms to members of the body politic. I have always tried to avoid circuitous explications on all matters relating to economic and political import. The construct of individual sovereignty intrinsically carries a sober obligation and a reminder of how frail and ethereal it can be. We have seen effluent despite emit from community activists, statists, and progressives, who regard the aforementioned as selfishness and pure rapaciousness. They have chosen, either by choice or some subnormal intellectual capacity, to disrealize individual sovereignty and follow the current cult of personality. The ensuing interviews are with people that have perspectives similar to my own, a passion for liberty and freedom, and the implicit understanding that one's own providence is a compact beyond the grasp of intrusive government. This is not to say that we completely agree on all issues, for I am sure that we do not. We do, however, agree on the important ones.

Over the past few months I have witnessed strangers come together under a common cause hoping to solicit some form of advertency from a malfeasant government. The emotive aspects are fueled by cogent arguments that seem to be too easily dismissed by sections of the media (and government), who overtly respond splenetically to all methods of discord. I am fortunate to have met people who are kind, intelligent, concerned, family oriented, funny, and above all, disturbed and frustrated at a government who has devalued its citizenry. They understand that individual sovereignty is an exercise in personal responsibility, self-actuation, and a need to manifest a destiny without governmental interference. These people are not the bogeymen the media wants us to believe.

I have asked a series of questions and the following are their responses. Up first in the series is the Conservative Hideout 2.0 blog, the proprietor of this blog is Matt and he has recently re-designed his site and has included a forum to help his fellow readers engage in intelligent debate. After reading this post please drop by and peruse his site, give his writings careful consideration and leave a comment to let him know what you think.

tLP: Hello Matt, how are you doing today?

CH2.0: I am fine Tom, how are you doing?

tLP: Great, let's begin, shall we? What is your blog about?

CH2.0: My blog is about anything Conservative, or liberal, as the case may be. Since I've decided to be very sarcastic with my content, I tend to pick stories that are "easily exploitable" in terms if humor. Fortunately for me, the left throws an abundance of soft balls. No shortage there. Also, I try to do stories that I do not see on other blogs. There are so many bloggers, it doesn't make much sense if we're all covering the story "du jour." I try to cover some different stuff, like the recent HS graduation where 400 kids defied the ACLU.

tLP: Why did you start your blog?

CH2.0: Ironically, my blog was almost an afterthought. I had been a member of the Conservative HQ forum for about a year. At one time it was great place, but eventually, it became over-run with trolls. I decided to start a site and a forum that would keep out trolls, let Conservative define our ideas, and come up with solutions to the problems we face.

That plan failed miserably.

One of my friends from college (Dr. Dave at Feed Your ADHD) was blogging so I talked to him about it, and I decided to give it a try. I wrote my first post about the stimulus, and it reminded me of a story about my wife. It was kinda funny, and I got hooked on the idea of venting my sarcasm.

tLP: What are you hoping to accomplish with your blog?

CH2.0: Several things: I hope to give people a laugh. These days, we need that. At the same time, I want to introduce people to issues in a way that is not the typical "here are the facts" format. There are people that, quite frankly, do that far better than I can. My shortfall is that I was once a fair writer (as confirmed by my English Degree holding wife), however, my 16 year career has required me to condense as much data into the fewest words possible. That has made writing long, serious posts difficult at best. Also, the blog has also become my therapy. I think my head might explode if I didn't vent my anger at the current administration, and liberalism/"progressivism" as a whole.

tLP: How are your posts received by people; good, fair, or against?

CH2.0: I have a "quirky" sense of humor. I typically have three reactions to my humor as a whole.

1. You're so funny, you should do stand up comedy!
2. I don't get it.
3. You must die!

Though some of my personal favorites have received few comments, I tend to look at the total number of comments as an indicator of how well I'm doing.

tLP: How important is your blog in today's economic and political climates?

CH2.0: There are thousands of Conservative bloggers out there. I have to be honest and say that if I quit tomorrow, the world will go on just fine without me. My blog is my little niche in the world, and I'll continue until I have a reason to quit, or the government bans it. I would like to have thousands or readers, but if that doesn't happen, I'll appreciate all the ones I do have.

tLP: Can you give us the addresses to your blog and your forum?

CH2.0: Absolutely! They are as follows; Conservative Hideout 2.0, Conservative Hideout 2.0 Blog, Conservative Hideout Forum.

I want to state that I did my due diligence and checked to see if Matt, and the Conservative Hideout 2.0 site, were on the new watch list from the government. As of today's date, he and his site are not. Next week we will have another interview ready for your enjoyment, until then, enjoy Matt's site and participate whenever you can. These truly are interesting times, and I am meeting interesting people. Thank you to Matt and Conservative Hideout 2.0 for letting me pry, it was a great experience. Until next time.

theLibertyPen