Connecticut Congressional Candidate Phil Maymin

Libertarian candidate for Connecticut’s fourth Congressional district, Phil Maymin, was not only included in the debates, but his performance has been quite impressive. Here is a clip of some highlights from one of the six debates he has attended so far:

Maymin is currently ranked #2 on the Libertarian Party’s Candidate Tracker and is running in a four-way race against a Green and two mega-party candidates.

UPDATE: Phil Maymin’s closing statement after the jump.

For more videos, click here.

  1. I take it back. He’s a very good debator. But check this BS out from his web site:

    “I would seal every inch of our borders.”

    “I would vote to deport illegal aliens.”

    “Once an illegal alien is deported, he is never allowed to enter American soil again. His DNA and fingerprints are recorded and he is permanently banned from our country for all purposes.”

    “Is that a Libertarian position? You bet it is! Libertarians believe in freedom. But isn’t sealing borders restricting freedom? Again, you bet it is! But whose freedom?”

    According to Mr. Maymin, only Americans deserve freedom. According to him, the rights of Americans are derived from our benevolent government. Also according to Mr. Maymin, my freedom to contract the labor of another is not a valid freedom.

    Mr. Maymin would also have the government keep a DNA database on individuals.

    I went to his site to donate $100. Glad I had a look around first. Isn’t there a CP affiliate in CT?

  2. undercover_anarchist incorrectly wrote:

    “According to Mr. Maymin, only Americans deserve freedom. According to him, the rights of Americans are derived from our benevolent government. Also according to Mr. Maymin, my freedom to contract the labor of another is not a valid freedom.”

    None of those statements are true.

    1) Everyone deserves freedom. But Americans formed an American government to secure the freedoms of Americans. It is not the duty of American government to secure the freedoms of billions of non-Ameriacns.

    2) Rights exist before government. Government is created to secure rights.

    3) Your freedom to contract for labor with another is indeed a valid freedom. You should not have to check whether the person you contract with is legal or not. You can outsource to another country. But you cannot import people like goods because people have rights.

    I would drastically increase legal immigration. But illegal immigration must stop.

    Best regards,
    Phil Maymin

  3. Thank you for the response, Mr. Maymin. But why not call for an increase in legal immigration? Why not call for limitless legal immigration for all individuals who come here for work and opportunity? Individuals should be able to apply for legal resident status and should be granted that status so long as they are not criminals. I have no desire to import people like goods. I have a strong belief that people come here, as your family did, for freedom and opportunity. The state should not seek to limit or infringe upon this natural right. Borders are a legal fiction, decided by tyrants and militarists throughout history.

  4. Dear undercover_anarchist,

    I agree with much of former Libertarian presidential candidate and current Texas Congressman Ron Paul’s assessment on this issue: “The immigration problem fundamentally is a welfare state problem.”

    Thomas Jefferson also expressed reservations about limitless immigration, even in a libertarian country.

    Borders are more than just legal fictions. They mark the extent of the government we’ve collectively formed to protect our rights.

    I think we can all agree that the smaller we can make government, the more legal immigration we can allow. And of course I want to make federal government much smaller. Say, Constitutionally-sized? :)

    Thanks for writing,
    Phil Maymin

    p.s. There is more in-depth discussion of this and other issues on the forum on the website. It’s at, then click “Forum” on the left.

  5. Well, Phil, I disagree with you on slightly on the illegal immigration issue but if that’s the only place I have an issue with such a credible candidate, big whoop. Hopefully the rest of the movement feels the same way if they disagree.

    Go kick some ass!

  6. I really appreciate the utter contempt you showed for the stupidity of your mega-party opponents. You really exposed them as the shallow hucksters that they are, and if every LP candidate were as credible as you, then perhaps the whiny wing of the party would have something to complain about, RE: debate exclusion, lack of media attention, etc. The fact is that most (but not all) LP candidates who don’t get media attention DESERVE not to get any. Take a look at Mr. Maynin. He’s getting his share because he is the most credible LP candidate in the nation. Smither only outranks him in the candidate tracker because he lucked in to the DeLay implosion.

    Holy crap. Read Maymin’s biography. Unbelievable.

    But for god’s sake, Mr. Maymin. If anyone would be a prime candidate to advocate a genuinely libertarian position on immigration, you’d think it’d be you. As a hedge fund manager, you must recognize the beneifts immigration has on our economy. (to be cont’d)

  7. (cont’d) and furthermore, how would you have liked it if your family was turned away? You left Communist Russia with $100 and your suitcases. The United States government, by your own admission, was under no “obligation” to let your family in. Don’t you think we should have an open door policy to people who come here like your family, for freedom and opportunity? You cannot use the existence of the welfare state to justify other unlibertarian practices. I mean, why don’t we just forcibly sterilize all ghetto denizens so that they’re offspring do not become welfare recipients? That’s just as logical as barring hardworking immigrants from coming here. In fact, it is more logical, since immigrants are more entreprenuerial than native born Americans.

    I am through taking you to task. I seriously admire your campaign and your willingness to respond to my questions. I have one more for you, if you don’t mind: What is your impression of the Constitution Party? Thank you.

  8. Hi undercover_anarchist,

    I believe securing our borders *is* the genuinely libertarian position. The American government exists to protect the rights of Americans, not everyone else on earth.

    I’m sorry, I don’t know much about the Constitution Party.

    Thank you for all your kind words.

    All the best,

  9. I actually think Maymin has found about the only genuinely libertarian immigration position that calls for deportation. I disagree with him there, but otherwise think he’s pretty much awesome.

  10. I vehemently disagree with his immigration stance. I can give him a pass because he is an immigrant himself. Native born white people base their opposition to free immigration on propositions that are ultimately racist in root. A sense of entitlement for (white) natives. “Our” jobs. “Our” borders. Mr. Maymin, on the other hand, probably feels it is “unfair” that he and his family did things the right way. The problem is that the US government shows racial preference to certain groups in terms of allowing them in here. Historically, that has been the policy even more so. My ancestors were allowed in, no questions asked, because they were white.

    I never thought I could say anything positive about an anit-immigrant candidate. But this guy is the best the LP has to offer.

  11. Phil has leveled credible attacks on his opponents who only differ in name, not philosophy. I may in fact disagree with Phil on many issues, but whole heartedly support his effort as a member of MY party. He’s young, intelligent and passionate about freedom. His campaign should be a model for future efforts.

    Every candidate needs a little wiggle room with an electorate accustom to state solutions and policies. Phil advocates free market ideas and immediate withdrawal from Iraq. As his opponents ignore him on the podium, his audience has not. People are looking for this fresh and honest approach. No pledges, platforms or pandering is moderating this effort. He’s his own man and doing what he needs to in order to compete. At every turn Phil is advocating drastic reduction of government and free market solutions.

  12. Excellent! I also disagree with the America only protects Americans stance, but the rest of what he said was excellent. If people like him were in more debates this country might be a much better place!

  13. Haha, I watching clips from the first debate. He supports the Fair Tax too apparently. Oh well. :)

    This guy is a brilliant debator however. CSPAN might have his next debate on at 7:30 tonight. I’ll be watching that for sure!

  14. For those interested, I’ve been following Phil’s campaign and blogging about the debates over at To the People. My last report, on last Wednesday night’s debate, is here. I’ll be posting on Sunday’s and Monday’s debates later today.

    Phil’s campaign is extremely notable because it is a well-funded, well-organized effort featuring an articulate, charismatic libertarian who is — and I can’t stress this enough — not crazy. I make a lot of predictions in my coverage and here’s another one: be prepared to stick signs saying “Maymin, Libertarian for President” on your lawn in 2012.

  15. The United States government, by your own admission, was under no “obligation” to let your family in.

    It was to their propaganda advantage during the cold war. I also came here from Russia with my parents during the 1970s. They counted us as “refugees”…yet I have been to Mexico many times (every state in Mexico, every country in Central America and every major island in the Caribbean) and I don’t believe we deserved preference over folks there. In fact, I think we were if anything less deserving of being considered refugees.

    Watch America: From Freedom to Fascism and you will understand that Soviet style totalitarianism is a very real possibility in America, and may be coming very soon. If we end up building the wall Mr. Maymin proposes, I believe it will soon be used not just to keep people from coming in, but to keep Americans from leaving. Once it’s up, it’s easy to turn the guns around. I’d hate to see the LP be part of making that happen.

  16. Halliburton has already built the future gulags. Congress has already passed legislation which allows the white house resident to declare anyone an enemy of the state for any reason, and put us in these camps, with no rights whatsoever.

    They’ve already put American citizens in secret prisons with no trials or charges and tortured people.

    And legislation has already been passed which will require a RFID-chipped passport (government permission) to leave the country by 2008, including to Mexico and Canada.

    This meets the technical definition of a jail. The whole country will be a giant jail, which you can only leave with the warden’s permission.

    What better than to build a wall on the border to keep the inmates in?

    Don’t think it can’t happen here. It’s already starting, and it’s going to get a lot worse. The next terrorist attack will probably give dubai-ya all the excuse he needs to declare anyone who opposes his regime and his war domestic enemies.

  17. Holy crap. Read Maymin’s biography. Unbelievable.

    Indeed. I liked this part:

    When my mom drove me to school, we would go past a huge, fenced IRS building and each time she would say, matter-of-factly, “bloodsuckers.”.

    Yet the IRS is the agency that will be collecting funds to build this wall, guard it, round people up, deport them, etc.

  18. Phil,

    Don’t mind the nay-sayers on here. They most likely don’t live in your district, and they complain about any candidate that doesn’t think 100% like they do. What you are doing is very respectable.

    Keep doing what you are doing and good luck!!

  19. I wasn’t aware there were any naysayers.

    I guess according to Mike, we can only “question” things so long as they involve elaborate, “retarded” conspiracy theories.

    Not one person here has said anything other than Mr. Maymin is a great candidate. It’s just that some of us take the issue of immigration very seriously. I believe it is THE libertarian issue. The LP has always taken a pro-immigration stance. What the fuck does someone have to advocate in order for it to be legit to call them into question?

    Oh, I know. They have to advocate some imaginary infringement on so-called “economic liberty.” Personal freedoms, be damned.

    And then we wonder why the term “libertarian” is synonymous with “far right Republican” in the vernacular.

    Mike, you were once my favorite poster. Get ready to cry, because I am revoking my membership from your fan club. You have been behaving like a little bitch ever since posting that video of the racist conspiracy nut.

  20. It’s just that some of us take the issue of immigration very seriously. I believe it is THE libertarian issue.

    Well good for you! Would you like a cookie? He doesn’t believe that, so quit crying about it.

  21. Mike, you were once my favorite poster. Get ready to cry, because I am revoking my membership from your fan club. You have been behaving like a little bitch ever since posting that video of the racist conspiracy nut.


    I’m not laughing because I agree or disagree, I’m laughing because the line “I am revoking my membership from your fan club” is pretty much something that could only be said with a straight face on a libertarian blog.

  22. Congrats on getting into the debates, Phil. I’m sorry to hear about your stance on immigration. I hope someday you’ll support the freedom to travel.

  23. I guess according to Mike, we can only “question” things so long as they involve elaborate, “retarded” conspiracy theories.

    I don’t think so, since Mike is one of the people on here who is not a fan of the regime’s official 9/11 conspiracy theory.

    As far as questioning candidates: why not?

    We each have our core issues and ones we consider peripheral. We can’t reasonably expect all our candidates to agree on every issue, or we would be too small to even be noticed (never mind win).

    For instance, I can overlook disagreements I have with John Murphy and Kevin Zeese on issues such as universal health care.

    I like how they make issues such as the war and the patriot act the center of the debate. On these issues, which I consider to be the most important ones, we agree and so I can live with a certain amount of disagreement.

    On other issues such as immigration and the “fair tax” (better known as the fraud tax) ..

  24. Also, don’t take questioning candidates so hard.

    I personally don’t care if Steve Van Dyke or the South Park guys think I’m a retard for questioning the regime’s silly fable about the 19 Arabs with boxcutters.

    Should I roll up in a ball, suck my thumb, and keen back and forth because some people think my view is silly?

    Well, OK, I’m not a candidate.

    But then, many candidates have been criticized here.

    Some people are calling Stan Jones a “conspiracy nut” and worse. So what?

    Criticism is healthy. Only dictators have a problem with it.

    Without the correct fundamentals, everything built on top is error built on error. For example:

    Americans formed an American government to secure the freedoms of Americans.

    No we didn’t. It’s just the latest excuse used by coercive government to justify its unjustifiable existence, just like the divine right of kings in more ancient times (and again in the Bush regime).

    The constitution can’t restrain government, only abolition works.

  25. Maymin is utterly amazing for a Libertarian candidate. From his mental powers to his background. Watching him debate, if he was running for congress as a Republican(I’m glad he’s with us) in a more libertarian leaning district, he’d be a sure-win.

    Not sure if this was a slip-up but Just one public speaking tip: Alwayls keep your hands above the table, kinda bothersome when they aren’t.

  26. Chuck: thanks for the tip. Will do.

    Everybody, thank you for your kind words and for your questions and comments.

    Sorry for the late notice but I just found out:
    Last night’s debate is being televised today:
    C-SPAN 2 at 1:45pm today, 10/17.

    All the best,
    Phil Maymin

  27. Man, would it not be simply amazing if you can eek it out, Mr. Maymin. A Libertarian like you in U.S. Congress. The huge media attention that would generate.

    Personally I say any and all of us anywhere in the libertarian area should put our fullest support behind Phil Maymin here. Whatever we can do. Differences we have may be important in terms of that difference, of that issue or issues specifically, but think of it on the whole. Think of it in the full perspective of what he would do in Congress. Of what he would say. And teach. And exemplify as the first Libertarian.

    We’ve got to do whatever we possibly can to help this candidate to win over either of those other two.

  28. Phil, great job as always… so far, all of your debates, you’ve been the voice of reason. Keep it up!

  29. I donated to Phil’s campaign. I hope more people send him money… he is a really quality candidate and we need to attract more superstars like him to run with the LP.

  30. It’s a shame they didn’t let the Green guy in the last few debates. He makes us look good too. Nice job again Phil.
    I might have used the example of East & West Germany with regard to the Korean question, rather than Vietnam. Point taken none the less.

    If any audience was ready for the general LP message, hopefully it’s this one.

  31. I’ve been watching on CSPAN2 now, and as much as I disagree with the Green Party candidate on various things, he’s clearly the second best candidate. He actually has somewhat cohesive viewpoints.

    Shays comes across as such a double-talking scumbag, Farrell sounds like so many Democratic politicians I’ve heard speak before- lots of emotional play.

  32. I was just watching the debate on c-span. I think Phil is doing a decent job, but I am actually a little disappointed. On a few questions he obviously shines above the others. On education he seemed to drop the ball some. Talking about guns instead of saying that the federal education dept doesn’t teach any students and just adds another layer of bureacracy and that he would rather decsions be made by parents and local communities than by federal burecrats would have made a lot more sense. He was asked about vouchers and he could of came back with tax credits as an answer. He could of came back with how choice and competition in every other aspect of our lives has benefitted us more than monoplies but is not allowed in education. He did however, kick everyones butt on the gambling issue. Shays is not a bad debater and he has definetly taken on the role of a long time politician, emblishing the fact that they are getting so many fed govt grants because of him. (con’t)

  33. Farrell plays well to her base but nothing more. The Green did alright, but doesn’t set him apart much from his counterparts. Phil ended well distingushing himself from the other candidates by basically saying that if you are for smaller gov’t then he is the only choice. For larger gov’t you get to choose among the other three. My biggest concern is that some of his answers are pretty far out of the comfort zone for most people. While the answers may be correct and possibly framed better they would come across easier to take for the average voter. My suggestion would be to temper his answers some in the future so that the average voter could relate a little better to him and libertarianism. (ex. in an interview you listen to the interviewer for clues as to what are their priorities and then your answers to questions mainly address those priorities with your experience/solutions in terms they can relate to.) You get to far away from this comfort level and you lose the voter.

  34. One example of what I am talking about would be the question about education and money from vouchers taking money away from public schools. The first response should be to agree with her that education is vitally important to our children and our society. (with that you have everyone on your side). Then you may say that were my competitors and I disagree is that a gov’t monopoly is the best way in providing that education. I believe that when we have alternatives, competition and choice it leads to better products, services, and in this case better educational options. In response to vouchers you may say that you are more in favor of tax credits where a person is able to use their own money or money from other taxpayers that they designate can be used for school choice. By a child choosing to go to a private school with a tax credit that is likely for half or less than the public school cost the actual per child funding in public schools will actually go up not down.

  35. By doing this you have addressed that you believe education is important not just public education. You addressed there concern about funding going down in public schools, you addressed the fact that competition is preferable to a monopoly in everything else, why not education. You didn’t compromise your principle of giving parents more say and letting the free market work, you allowed taxpayers to direct their money towards this rather than be used for something they don’t agree with at a point of a gun (granted they are still forced to pay taxes but they are at least directing where it goes). You didn’t come across as a public school hater, even though you may feel that way. This I believe would be in most voters comfort zone and hard to argue from the other side, yet you didn’t compromise your principles, you come across as someone who believes education for all is vitally important, yet you will get what you want out of the process.

  36. Actually even a possibly better way to answer the education question is to just say that I am running to be a US congressman. I believe that education is a state and local issue, but even more importantly an individual parent issue. What I can do at the federal level is get rid of the federal education department. They teach no children and just add another level of bureacracy and associated costs. They force schools to do what they want through legislation such as the no child left behind with threats of funding from the federal gov’t being cut if they don’t. The money the schoold get from the federal gov’t is actually money that the taxpayers of Conneticut sent in the form of taxes to the federal gov’t and the federal bureacrats are sending it back with strings attached. They believe that they know more about teaching our kids then we do. I disagree. I believe that money would be far better put to use by the people of Conneticut without it ever going to Washington.

  37. Maymin is indeed an excellent, well-spoken, sane candidate. We could use a few more like him.

    I agree with TerryP that some of his answers are just a slight bit outside of the average citizen’s comfort zone. But, I think he makes enough sense overall, and based on the applause he gets I suspect that he is being given serious consideration by the media, debate hosts, and public.

    Is Maymin getting any media coverage, other than stories about the debates? Is he running many ads?

  38. Continue to work to try to improve his views.

    Or, if you already find them adequate or don’t care, pursue the “volunteer” and “contribute” sections of his website.

  39. I actually think his views are pretty solid in most but areas, but the way he represents some of them leaves a little to be desired. To really have a chance at winning you have to come to the voter in their territory and bring your ideas into an area that they are comfortable with. Some of his answers to questions were very brash and probably alienated many would be voters as it is outside their comfort zone. You could tell in the debate, however, that he did have a good following and he will get a fair number of votes. With the R and the D being about as “political” of candidates as you could get, there is a huge group of potential voters that could swing his way. The way he comes across, however, as well-spoken as he is, IMO may be a little to radical or brash for many voters to consider voting for him. I am not from Conn. so I may be way off base here, but a little milder tone with the same ideas IMO could really sell. All in all, though, I would vote for him in a heartbeat

  40. Michelle,

    He ended the latest debate on CSPAN in a very similar manner. It is a excellent closing and he does try to end by saying, look some of my ideas may be out of your comfort zone, but don’t be scared, give freedom a try and I think you will like it and you will want more. I really do like his closing a lot and it does help transition some of his more harsh answers during the debate. If people haven’t turned off to him prior to his closing, his closing could easily win them over. IMO more libertarian candidates need to look at his closing statements and use similar tactics as it really brings libertarianism to a voter in a way that is very appealing.

    Good job Phil, keep up the good work, and as I just said I think your closing statement is excellent. Try to take some of that tone from the closing statement and use it more while you debate. I think it will help win over more voters. Good luck.

  41. Continue to work to try to improve his views.

    Or, if you already find them adequate or don’t care, pursue the “volunteer” and “contribute” sections of his website.

    Well said.

  42. Hi all,

    Thanks for all your comments and suggestions.

    Of course money contributions always help, and thanks to everybody here who’s already contributed.

    If anybody knows anybody in national media, or contacts, that would be great. If you can get me on O’Reilly, the Daily Show, Colbert Report, SNL, Hannity, Lou Dobbs, etc., anything. Or at least put me in contact with the decision makers. That would be helpful both for the campaign and for libertarianism in general. Or even if you don’t know them, if you contact the shows and make a case for them to have me on, they will bow to the overwhelming pressure.


    p.s. I just finished uploading my closing statement from debate #6 in Fairfield University, the one that was on C-SPAN yesterday. This is from our own videocamera so it’s a different angle:

    For a list of all videos, go to and click “Videos” on the left.

  43. As a non-libertarian, I think I have a somewhat different take on the whole libertarian “purity” test. I’m more of a social liberal/fiscal moderate than a libertarian, but I tend to vote libertarian due to my aversion to the two major parties and my strong support for civil liberties.

    Quite a few small (L) libertarians at this blog and many other blog have argued that the libertarian message needs to be “moderated” to some extent in order to attract non libertarians. As a non-libertarian, I used to think this way but don’t any more. As much as I might disagree with the “purist” libertarians, I find them more honest and credible on the whole than the libertarians who are constantly calling for the Libertarian Party to “moderate” their views. Too often, these “moderate” or “reform the LP” libertarians end up coming across as pseudolibertarians such as Glenn Reynolds, Neil Boortz, and the bloggers over at QandO.

  44. The Libertarian Party doesn’t need to “reform” its views. It’s the Republican and Democratic parties that need to reform theirs.

  45. The LP is a right-wing party. It will never have broad appeal so long as it remains such. The party platform, prior to reform, was a wonderful and (nearly) perfect philosophy – but not practical (or necessarily even desirable) public policy.

    That said, the party not only tolerates but EMBRACES those who oppose civil liberties, while shunning even the most moderate critic of a truly unfettered free market. This is the right-wing bias. Ovarian Marxists and Border Nazis are held up high. But if you don’t want to bomb the Federal Reserve and return to trading clams instead of fiat currency, you are a socialist and unwelcome in the LP.

    This is the way that the LP needs to moderate. It should not tolerate any deviation from personal and civil liberties. But it needs to open up more and embrace candidates and members who accept the basic legal and financial framework of this nation that have provided so much prosperity. This is the only way that the party can grow.

  46. undercover,

    I’m not arguing that the LP shouldn’t try to attract more moderate libertarians. I’m just saying that given the choice between “purist” libertarians and “reform the LP” types, I find the “purists” to come across as far more principled and honest.

    When I write “reform the LP” types, I’m specifically referring to the pro-war “libertarians” who have served as apologists for the Iraq War. Libertarianism, at its very core, rests upon the “non agression principle”–the idea that force should not be initiated on any person, no matter how laudable the goal. All government programs involve the initiation/threat of force, but war is the use of government force at its most extreme.

    Many of the people in the “Reform the LP” and “Mainstream Libertarian” movements are nothing more than pro-war Republican apologists. Mr. Dondero, who comments fairly often at this blog, is a good example of this.

  47. And in case anyone’s wondering why I’m taking Mr. Dondero to task, I harken back to an interview Mr. Dondero had on the Harry Browne show about a year ago. During the interview, Mr. Dondero pretty much rehearsed the GOP talking points in support of the Iraq War. In fact, the only criticism he seemed to have regarding the war was that the GOP was not prosecuting it hard enough. Mr. Dondero claimed to be a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus until the Bill Westmiller (chairman of the RLC) phoned in to say that Mr. Dondero did not represent the views of the RLC.

    Mr. Westmiller also informed the radio audience that Mr. Dondero had written an email in which he advocated that the United States nuke Mecca.

    I’m all for inclusiveness, but Mr. Dondero is exactly the kind of “libertarian” the LP does NOT need.

  48. You are right nicrivera, Dondero, is not the type of person we need to be going after, but if we stay in the purist area of the Nolan chart, we have no chance of bringing in enough libertarian leaning people to make a difference. Think of it this way. If we are in a circle we can go after all sides outside of the circle to get voters. However, if we are at the top of the chart (purist), we can really only move out about a third of a circle to get voters. Why hamstring yourself in such a way? We need to be centering ourselves in the libertarian half of the chart and reaching out in all directions to get voters. Up towards the purists, down, left, and right. If we are stuck in one corner we cannot do that and we limit our ability to attract voters that believe in liberty.

  49. nicrivera – I’m suggesting we go in the opposite direction. Instead of tolerating neo-fascist warmongers and anti-immigrant militiamen, I say we open our arms to people like me. Former “liberals” who have awakened as liberals (without the quotes). Liberals who are 100% with the LP on civil liberties, but accept the Federal Reserve, the Civil Rights Act, and the existence of public schools. Currently, these people are disdained while their right-wing equivalents are welcomed with open arms. It has been my impression, though it may be inaccurate, that the Reform the LP people were slightly more to the liberal side of things.

  50. A little off topic but FYI:
    on Friday I called on my opponents Shays/Farrell to withdraw from the race because of their inability to cite Constitutional authority for their scheme to regulate gun ownership.

    Links to the press release, videos, transcript, and more info are on the campaign home page:


  51. nicrivera – I’m suggesting we go in the opposite direction. Instead of tolerating neo-fascist warmongers and anti-immigrant militiamen, I say we open our arms to people like me. Former “liberals” who have awakened as liberals (without the quotes). Liberals who are 100% with the LP on civil liberties, but accept the Federal Reserve, the Civil Rights Act, and the existence of public schools. Currently, these people are disdained while their right-wing equivalents are welcomed with open arms. It has been my impression, though it may be inaccurate, that the Reform the LP people were slightly more to the liberal side of things.

    It’s true that many of the Reform Caucus leaders are left-leaning, but has that been the practical effect of their reforms?

    So far it seems that the new crop of libertarian-lite candidates are anti-immigration, pro-“fair tax”, and many are pro-war and anti-gay marriage.