Many modern thinkers whom I respect – most specifically historian Tom Woods, Antiwar.com’s Scott Horton, comedian Dave Smith, and the venerable Ron Paul – are rallying behind Jacob Hornberger for the Libertarian Party’s nomination for president. The Future of Freedom Foundation founder and former trial attorney told Woods on a recent podcast that his theme is to bring “liberty back to America” and to stop the “welfare-warfare state bureaucracy that is strangling our lives.”
That sounds pretty darn good in theory. And considering that Hornberger has edited powerhouse books like “The Failure of America’s Foreign Wars,” “The Tyranny of Gun Control,” and “The Dangers of Socialized Medicine,” as well as written scathing treatises about the national-security state and the JFK assassination (and their relationship to one another), a red-pilled liberty-lover like myself could certainly find herself excited about his candidacy.
Hornberger, whose friends call him “Bumper,” opposes the Drug War and government schools. He’s against socialized medicine, saying boldly that we’ve got to ditch both Medicare and Medicaid. He’s non-interventionist, calling for an end to the “forever wars.” He believes life begins at conception. He has even fairly sympathetic views toward Dixie and the War for Southern Independence.
But what is it that’s at the top of Hornberger’s seemingly anti-establishment platform? “The war on immigrants,” he told Woods. It’s an “evil, immoral, destructive, deadly war that has produced a police state,” Hornberger commented, adding that he’d take his case straight to “Hispanic Americans.” Oh, how very woke of him.
What could be more establishment than cheering on state-sponsored demographic replacement and the division and disconnectedness it breeds? What could be more status-quo than using the hyperbolic “war” euphemism that big-government types always employ?
Maybe Hornberger believes in “magic soil” – that Murica and all its awesomeness and with all its industry, commercialism, and materialism can somehow transform foreigners from socialist and historically non-Christian lands into Constitutional scholars and rugged individualists just by virtue of stepping upon red-white-and-blue dirt. I mean, all that “economic liberty” will surely bring about social cohesion and foster peace, right?
Wrong. Capitalism (which most certainly is not the practiced economic system of US businesses and corporations and their globalist cohorts) cannot save “a nation” which has no “national” attributes. Without shared borders, language, customs, and faith, there is no “country” to which liberty can be brought back. Culture is the most essential matter (both currently and historically), which is precisely why I say it’s the illegal and legal immigration juggernaut that is “strangling our lives.” Everything else is secondary.
I don’t quote Yankee John Adams often, but I think he was correct when he wrote, “A Constitution of government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” And how was it lost? Deculturation.
The leader of the Austrian School of economic thought, Ludwig von Mises, “maintains that the creation of mixed-nation-states, resulting from the immigration of workers of a foreign nationality, ‘gives rise once again to all those conflicts that generally develop in polyglot territories’ and ‘to particularly characteristic conflicts between peoples,'” explains economist Joseph T. Salerno.
My Southron homeland has already been invaded, conquered, and reconstructed into a generic, polyglot blob of consumerism and immediacy. As far as the eye can see, there are Costcos, Dollar Generals, supermercados, ethnic restaurants, and microbreweries for the lulled-into-submission natives and transplants, both foreign and domestic. Meanwhile, community withers on the vine.
We’ve got plenty of stuff in every shape, size, color, and quality, and lots of cheap pricing, but it’s a pathetic non-neighborly existence where people still pine for fellowship and kinship. We have citizens who bond over products and stuff, not shared history. Governments and their state-protected mobs tear down ancestral symbols, and replace them with meaningless platitudes. Families splinter and spread out as to follow the highest-paying job and the next big promotion, moving to places where they know nothing of the traditions and history struggling not to be erased. But hey, at least they have a Trader Joe’s.
We’re already awash in carpet-bagging capitalism which decimates small towns and close-knit communities, and further balkanizes our processed and genetically modified nation-state. You wanna talk about war? This is the war.
It’s a cultural genocide that demolishes localism and roots, and replaces it with a counterfeit “culture” that quells the masses through “Popeye’s and porn” (what I call the profuse bread-and-circuses stupor). Meanwhile, Rome burns as the elites tweak their stock portfolios, foreigners displace natives, quislings celebrate their own demise, and the empire grows. Now Hornberger wants to throw gas on the fire. Yippee.
“I bring a campaign of principle to the party of principle,” he asserts. Libertarianism “really is the practical solution to the problems that besiege our society that both Democrats and Republicans have forced upon our nation.” Well, I guess that depends upon what are your principles and your understanding of history.
Hornberger references Mises’ repudiation of “planned chaos,” yet calls for the very plan that would double-down on the chaotic system of our already disunified and decaying “mixed-nation-state” (read: multiculturalism). Instead of supporting systems in which central planners coerce people into “economic lives contrary to their own choosing, central planning destroys the capital base and creates economic randomness that eventually ends in killing prosperity.” These are the death knells of culture and the middle class.
Mises said that prosperity and liberty must work in concert with what he called the “nationality principle,” which “includes only the rejection of every overlordship; it demands self-determination, autonomy.” In other words, not a political mixed-nation-state that has “aggravate[d] artificially the friction” that comes from different groups living together. Not an interventionist unitary state based upon “democratic subjugation,” where there is aggrieved minority rule over a national majority (a la anti-whiteness and the Victim Pyramid, Inc.) within inorganic borders.
The polyglot of peoples “involuntarily bound together by arbitrary political ties,” as described by Salerno, already now fosters a “bitter struggle for control of the state apparatus, and the creation of mutual and deep-seated distrust and hatred,” as well as “state-sanctioned physical violence,” and the demographic replacement hasn’t even yet reached its zenith. Buckle up, folks.
Hornberger continues, “The only system that is consistent with religious principles and free-market principles is an open-border, free-trade, open-immigration system.” Even though Hornberger is a Christian, I don’t think I’ll be taking faith advice or laissez-faire talking points from a dude who claims America has a “heritage of open borders.”
Hornberger simply doesn’t take into account human nature. As Mises rightly wrote, “The worker and the consumer are the same person. … Descent, language, education, religion, mentality, family bonds, and social environment tie the worker in such a way that he does not choose the place and the branch of his work merely with regard to height of wage rates.” People simply have allegiances that transcend the economy.
Moreover, Hornberger relies on historical revisionism. His “heritage” remark is steeped in the “nation of immigrants” mythos, which is “an ingenious narrative crafted in the last 50 years to undermine traditional American political institutions,” states historian Brion McClanahan.
Maybe, just maybe, Hornberger would have a wobbly leg to stand on if self-determination and decentralization hadn’t lost in 1865. And then just 10 years later, the US Supreme Court hadn’t ruled that immigration would be a federal (not a state) issue, opening the door for the polyglot to eventually propagate.
But remember, up until recently America has always had varying degrees of limited immigration and quotas for particular peoples coming from particular places and with a particular faith and with particular skills. Even for the 20 million who entered through Ellis Island from 1880 to 1920, there were restrictions, exclusions, requirements, tests, and impassioned native reaction to every foot that stepped upon US soil. That is our heritage.
Even the early British colonists had to obtain a charter from the British Crown before setting sail across the great pond, and of course, if they couldn’t cut it, they left (as did many of the immigrants who came through Ellis Island). And as paloeolibertarian Ilana Mercer points out, “Not even the woke Wikipedia denies that, ‘Nearly all colonies and, later, states in the United States, were settled by migration from’ one colony to another, with ‘foreign immigration’ generally playing ‘a minor role after the first initial settlements.'”
“In other words, population growth was organic, a result of the settlers themselves multiplying and being fruitful, not of a flood of immigrants.” Huh, turns out Murica’s not supposed to be the doormat of the world after all. This should be obvious to anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of human history, which continually hammers home the fact that homogeneity promotes peace and order.
“Contemporary libertarians often assume, mistakenly, that individuals are bound to each other by the nexus of the market exchange,” wrote the “Godfather of Libertarianism” Murray Rothbard in 1994. “They forget that everyone is necessarily born into a family, a language, and a culture.”
“In contrast to many modern libertarians who view individuals as atomistic beings who lack emotional affinities and spiritual bonds with selected fellow humans,” Salerno explains, “Mises affirms the reality of the nation as ‘an organic entity.'” In GDP We Trust does not a nation make.
Although, Mises did observe that political and cultural immersion can sometimes occur “if the immigrants come not all at once but little by little, so that the assimilation process among the early immigrants is already completed or at least already under way when the newcomers arrive.” In fact, Mises said that Chinese immigrants would’ve “achieve[d] domination in their new home” in the Western states of America “if legislation had not restricted their immigration in time.”
But assimilation and any residual chance at unity all went out the window with the progressive 1952 Immigration Act, the even more identity-crushing 1965 Immigration Act, and the nail in the coffin Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Oh yeah, let’s not forget H1B visas, DACA, and other assorted polyglot schemes. Demographics are destiny, as they say.
In the case of Virginia, the once-great state in which I was born and raised, the New York Times admits that it was demographics that turned the Old Dominion from red to blue. Hell, even California used to be a “conservative” stronghold and immigration put an end to that, and that’s according to the LA Times. Organic it is not.
Hornberger told Woods that his strategy is to win the primary here in North Carolina – my home of 20 years, the birthplace of my three sons, and from where my paternal grandfather and five out of six of his Confederate ancestors hailed. Hornberger plans to target the Tar Heel State’s pathetically large immigrant population (both Yankee and beyond), but not me. My roots and my ancestors’ sacrifice for self-determination and home mean nothing to him.
My children are already political and social refugees in their own damn home by virtue of demographic replacement and the statist and crony-capitalist structures that undergird it. It’s despotic. With ever-vanishing freedoms and an increasing majority rule by the increasingly angry aggrieved minorities, my sons are already marginalized.
As Mises remarked, even if a member of a national minority “be a citizen with full rights … in truth he is politically without rights, a second-class citizen, a pariah.” What would be the point of all this unfettered trade and movement in a subsequent “polyglot” territory if my children are pariahs? How is that liberty?
Hornberger plays the emotivism game, taking the illogical leap that America’s immigration quotas actually contributed to the Jewish holocaust – a favorite guilt-inducing, self-censorship ploy of the open-borders crowd. Predictably, he also cites Emma Lazarus’ progressive poem engraved upon the Statue of Liberty as part of his defense.
Odd that a libertarian like Hornberger would be touting the collectivist rants of a Georgist like Lazarus. Yet, he promulgates the refugee racket and its thousands upon thousands of “asylum seekers” who take NGO-funded and sometimes even government-subsidized international flights and continually pour into the land of statist milk and honey and social-justice suckers. It’s all a freedom-crushing scam of displacement, plunder, and power.
If this is what Hornberger’s selling as “liberty,” I want absolutely no part of it. Zilch. Zero. Nihil. Or maybe I should say, “Nada.”
I have taken to heart his article entitled “A Lesson In Dissent.” So, this is my leaflet of resistance. I am the “Other” America, and I say “No!” to Bumper’s open-borders blueprint for disaster.
Be sure to check out my followup, “Broken bumper.”
Comments
I have known Bumper since he announced the launching of Freedom Daily at a Colorado Libertarian Party convention in Fort Collins, Colorado in the late 1980s.
Those who plainly do not understand libertarian political foundations are not in any position to challenge that about which they are ignorant.
You sound a lot like those ignorants who supported Gary Johnson, who spouted equally non-libertarian premises during his campaign, which served the sole useful purpose of exposing him as the LINO that he has always been.
Liberals think that libertarians are conservatives.
Conservatives think that libertarians are liberals.
Libertarians think that liberal and conservatives are authoritarians.
Southern conservatives can be just as fascist as northern liberals can be communistic. Both ignorant ideologies are fraught with the danger of making their true believers look silly when they hold out imaginary expertise on that which they have no experience.
I didn’t know that Bumper was pro-life, that being a libertarian position I have eschewed in favor of respecting the right of the unborn fetus to life over the right of its mother to kill it.
Now that you are on Disqus, you can make your case in the court of public opinion, but you should come to understand your evidence better before you launch a doomed prosecution based on ignorance.
You must be new to this blog. Assuming DM has no experience with the concepts of libertarianism is not an argument. If you have a specific critique of a point made in this post you should make it rather than just engaging in ad hominems.
The libertarian platform has always been in favor of open borders, something that she must have missed in her contact with libertarians, most of which have never spent the warm part of a year as I did, circulating petitions in four states to get Dr. Ron Paul on the ballot as the LP’s candidate for president. Did she bother to ask any of the specific people that she named about their positions on open borders?
I’m so new to this blog that you didn’t know that she’d given me credit for getting her husband to get it on Disqus.
You don’t know much about ad hominem, do you?
Insinuating that a person is stupid and/or a fascist without providing evidence is most certainly an ad hominem. And there are plenty of libertarians who don’t believe in open borders. Hoppe is the first that comes to mind. In fact, I think that’s the point she’s making. Why don’t you try refuting a specific claim made in the article?
I refuted several of the claims in the article, but you can’t get past the premise that democracy has a philosophy. Very few people have ever read Hoppe, and now you’ve proven you are among them.
You could benefit from some comparative political study. One need not go very deeply into Hitler v Trump to see copious similarities. One need not be stupid to be ignorant, and I never called anyone stupid, knowing the difference.
Ad hominem requires the designation of a specific person, and I’m the only one you have specified, so one more ad hominem and you are out.
You’ve refuted nothing. You stated that libertarianism is universally open borders, which is not true. You also insinuated the writer of this article doesn’t know anything about libertarianism, which is an ad hominem. And now you’re apparently bringing Hitler into the discussion as a straw man. Ok, boomer. Get back to me when you actually want to make a coherent argument.
You are blocked.
Rothbard, the libertarian gold standard, was for open borders initially until he became aware of how the Soviets weaponized immigration. He then, like any principled and honest person does when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary of his position, promptly changed his views on the subject.
Now that the Soviets are gone, why haven’t we gone back to the way it originally was?
Exactly what is a libertarian gold standard?
By “gold standard” I meant ‘exemplar par excellence’ or quintessential. More than any other person, he defined what libertarianism is.
As to your first question, huh? Why haven’t we gone back to the way what originally was?
Oh my, did it get hot in here between you and Billy Ray. Yowza!
First let me say that there is a huge difference between the libertarian philosophy and the LP. Pro-abortion has been on the LP’s platform since day 1, but that doesn’t mean that a person who adheres to the principles of private property and non-aggression can’t disagree with it, and on those very ideological grounds no less. After all, you said you eschewed the position, but that doesn’t make you any less of a libertarian philosophically. I think the same goes for open borders. Being a huge Tom Woods fan, I do know that he is not for wide open borders, which is why his support for Hornberger surprised me. He also has five daughters and I know he worries about much of the same insane secular-humanist deculturation that I do.
Second, I agree with Billy Ray that there are other important libertarians who dissent to open borders. As I cite in this blog from early 2017, libertarian economist Hans-Herman Hoppe is not only for borders as a mechanism to protect private property, but also as a repellent to forced integration. Unfettered immigration, he says, is not a quality of the free market, but rather a tool of the state meant to externalize the cost to the taxpayer and perpetuate cultural destruction. “Mr. Libertarian” Murray Rothbard came to similar conclusions later in his life. Would you call Rothbard or Woods or Hoppe ignorant? I don’t think so.
Speaking of “ignorant,” that was a word you used in one form or another 4 times in your OP and in reference to me. I can see why Billy Ray said it was an ad hom. What was ignorant about my position? Is it that I put culture above the economy? Is it that family and traditions matter more to me than GDP? You can disagree with those positions, of course, but to say they’re ignorant is silly, since I’ve pretty much dedicated this entire blog to fighting against the division-inducing scourge of diversity by force and for the peace-promoting idea of decentralization. Why would I want to grow an already tyrannical empire with people who have little or nothing in common with me? Makes no sense. Seems to me that anyone who doesn’t see this is the one ignoring facts, human nature, history, and current reality.
Also, I am Southern without apology. I will scream from the highest rooftop that I wish the Confederacy had won, or ever better, had never been invaded! I base that upon research and study, reading, listening, growing, and digging into “nonconformist” historians and philosophers and other thinkers (as their tag as dissidence is wholly by design) but that still doesn’t make it imaginary expertise. And I will never dishonor my ancestors’ sacrifices for self-determination and against central authority. If that’s fascistic, I shall wear that badge with honor.
Lastly, I really wish you hadn’t blocked Billy Ray. And other than Billy Ray’s “Ok Boomer” quip, I don’t think he was being mean in any way. Honestly, I think y’all were talking past each other. And maybe you took his white-knighting for me as a slight, but I do think he was trying to get you to cite specifically something from the post that was factually wrong, not just a difference of opinion. If LP folks wanna grow the party, you’ll get way more with open communication than with sweeping pronouncements that denigrate a good challenge. After all, a stalwart libertarian like Woods (who has a huge following and influences a lot of people) has joined the LP for the first time in his life simply to support Hornberger. You wouldn’t want to chase him off by saying he doesn’t understand “libertarian political foundations” since he’s not pro-open border, would you? Of course not. I say let’s debate. Let’s hash it out. Let’s dialog.
Here’s to more fiery discourse, but with hopefully fewer dead ends. 🙂
I am an anarcho-capitalist. I’d be happiest if there were no countries.
Tell me about how any borders would exist without countries?
If Galt’s Gulch existed, I’d be part of the screen team.
There are two meanings for ignorant, and you are moving to the second one quickly.
My only libertarian idol is Doug Casey.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/37bff67dad9f2961a2f9d05b315800b492df3c7a8548b62f895806bc38983aff.png
This is more about democracy than it is about open borders, which it doesn’t even mention.
That’s the point! There is no difference when you live in a mixed-nation-state. https://media1.giphy.com/media/ce1x5VblkD69i/giphy.gif
1) Private property necessarily means a border.
2) Anarcho-capitalism holds peacefully acquired private property as inviolable.
3) In an anarcho-capitalist society, collections of contiguous private property owners could enforce a border running along the edges of their owned properties.
Tell us about all the private property owners and their border patrol agents.
Tell us about all the private property owners and their border patrol agents.
I don’t see anything wrong with enforcing property boundaries from a libertarian perspective.
Is he married? Does he have kids? Since you know him personally, perhaps you can answer this for me.
Disqus is starting to show signs of schizophrenia, creating two posts from one,
I’d delete it if I could, but I can’t, so I’ll simply out it.
Very well said DM. For years I thought open immigration was the only libertarian position. But this from HHHoppe really got me thinking: “What would immigration policies be like if the State would, as it is supposed to do, act as a trustee of the taxpayer-owners’ public property? What about immigration if the State acted like the manager of the community property jointly owned and funded by the members of a housing association or gated community?”-Excerpt From Getting Libertarianism Right
In this imperfect world, the State should be acting as trustee and wise steward of tax payer property. These questions along with much intellectual nourishment from Brion McClanahan’s great podcasts on the local, on community, on cohesion, on shared culture and values, have flipped me on this issue.
Again, much thanks.
Thank you for your kind words, SB. I am a Hoppe fan myself, as he points out that in a libertarian utopia, there’d be borders (fences, walls, etc.) as far as the eye could see since the foundational principles of libertarianism are private property and non-aggression, the latter squelching the idea of forced integration a la open borders.
And just like you, I have been greatly influenced by Dr. McClanahan. It’s like I said in the most recent blog posts, people intuitively know that community and culture matter, but it is often modernized out of them, kinda like women who sleep around but secretly hope every guy is going to fall in love with them; the femmes know deep down they want a good manly husband and to have babies, but society has convinced them otherwise. Suicide and nihilism are definitely fashionable these days. So I’m thankful good folks like you and other dissidents can see the forest for the trees.
I appreciate you commenting and hope to hear from you again soon!
As a Rothbardian/Hoppean, I have not been convinced by the Hornberger Steamroller. I’m too Rockwellian to believe in the redemptive power of politics. This was very good.
Some more reading from the great Bionic Mosquito:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/p/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html
As a Rothbardian/Hoppean, I have not been convinced by the Hornberger Steamroller. I’m too Rockwellian to believe in the redemptive power of politics. This was very good.
Some more reading from the great Bionic Mosquito:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/p/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html
Dr. Weezil, I typically like Bionic Mosquito, so I’ll be sure to check it out.
I’m not opposed to voting, but I sure don’t wanna ever vote for anyone who doesn’t have my children’s best interest at heart. Gimme some secession or decentralization first, and then we can start talking about open borders. My state wouldn’t have ’em, while Hornberger’s would. See, problem solved!
Thanks for your kind words, too. Hope to hear from you again soon!
Kudos to you Dissident Mama!
It takes a lot of “brass” to go against the intellectual tide of Tom Woods, Scott Horton, Dave Smith, and Ron Paul.
I too am not thrilled about Hornberger. Bionic Mosquito and I have each had conversations with him via email or via the comment section on the blog, in which he did not leave a very good impression of himself. Avoiding arguments or writing 1000s of words to hem and haw around a simple challenge he did not want to face (“advocate open borders for Israel”).
For one thing, I’m not even sure he has a family. Has he been married? Any children? If not, why not? He certainly does not mention them in his bio at jacobforliberty.com. Did he have plans to become a Catholic priest? Was he just too busy writing free market related articles? Or is he gay? I don’t condone treating gay folks with poor manners, but I’m not looking to one of these fellows as my leader. We are all sinners, but there is something different when you openly and deliberately embrace it as many gay guys (and gals) do. It is certainly a demerit in my old fashioned eyes.
Apart from the question of his family, his leftist roots give me strong caution as well. His focus is on appealing to minorities, not white people, who, let’s face it, are generally more apt to support a libertarian program. So that’s just bad strategy for one. And two, it makes me question what side of the battle with cultural Marxists he’s on, if he’s so focused on the supposed victims of society. He smacks strongly of the social justice warrior type (though to be fair without the statist mindset).
He’s a Catholic, and I consider that a big plus. He’s pro-life, so he’s on the right side of this very important issue as well.
There’s no getting around the immigration issue (Scott Horton is also suffering from the ‘open borders’ delusion). This is one he feels very strongly about, and it does not seem to be one he, as President, would leave up to the states to decide like he would with abortion. Apparently it’s okay to let the states decide whether or not to terminate the lives of defenseless unborn children, but we must stop the injustice of punishing grown adults for breaking immigration laws with the Federal government! Lol
Having said all that, I’d still vote for him, because he’s just so much better than the competition on everything else. But I’m not excited. He’s certainly no Ron Paul.
Lots of good fodder here, TL … as usual.
I agree about his website bio. I had to do a little digging to figure out that he was a Christian. It wasn’t super-easy to find. I thought at first he was Jewish since he had written that “dissent” screed for Jewish Learning Library, but then I eventually stumbled upon the interview I cited in the blog. Weird, though, that a Christian wouldn’t have the words “Jesus,” or “God” or “faith” anywhere on his site. If they are there, I stand corrected, but I looked hard and couldn’t find ’em.
As far as Horton goes, yeah, I’m just hoping that he’ll eventually come around on the futility of open borders. He’s such a smart guy, so I’m confident. Certainly he’ll see a difference in the ridiculousness of Israel banning Gaza Christians from visiting Bethlehem and these United States somehow, some way controlling mass immigration and its subsequent liberty-crushing welfare state … God willing.
Having said all that, the election is a long way off still. Hell, my husband wants me to run for US Congress (as our incumbent isn’t seeking reelection) and the application deadline is pending, so a lot can happen between now and November 2020. But still, SJWs – including Hornberger and his POC pandering, and Trump and his newest stupidity: the Title IX executive order – just aren’t this mama’s cup of tea.
Hope you have a bless Christmas, sir. And tell Bionic Mosquito hello for me, won’t you?! 🙂
I’m fairly certain he’s ethnically Jewish, so your instincts were on point there. That’s also why Bionic challenged him to write the open borders for Israel article (and Walter Block and any other ethnically Jewish libertarian who’s pro-Israel).
I read back through my personal correspondence with Mr. Hornberger, and I have to say that he was very generous with his time and did respond to a lot that I said, and I wrote probably 8000 words or so over 7 or 8 emails. So that, in my opinion, is no small thing, and it speaks to his good character.
But in the end, he didn’t address a lot of what I felt were obviously my best arguments, he laid out an unrealistic cherry picked hypothetical scenario to prove his case (which is a hallmark of leftist thought patterns), and his overall conclusion was that I had a policy in mind and was only trying to rationalize it ex post, even though I told him honestly that I started out as a ‘live and let live’, ‘good little multi-culturalist’, ‘can’t we all just get along’ kinda guy and only went to the dark side after being utterly convinced through a lifetime of experience and years of listening to arguments on both sides. Seriously, who wants to take an unpopular position on a topic that alienates you from millions of people without good evidence or solid logic?
If you’re going to take a stand against the tide, you better find something solid to hang on to. Anytime I see someone doing this, I take note and listen. I often don’t agree and I move on, but the act, when I see it, causes me to pause and question whether I’ve missed something: do my principles require me to forego the stream and hold on to this branch as well?
You’ve certainly done this to me in regards to Bumper, but for now, I cannot stand with you against him, despite the fact that what you hang on to is what I consider the most solid thing imaginable. I’ll probably end up supporting him because the alternatives are so much worse, and because I’m confident that even if he got elected (which he won’t), there’s no way Texas would allow the Federal government to open its southern border completely.
Also there is a larger issue at stake, and that is the Misesian revolution of the Libertarian Party occurring coincident with Hornberger’s campaign, which I consider a wonderful turn of events. As always, I respect your opinions and cultural commentary which I consider second almost to none.
As to your husband wanting you to run for congress, I have to question his sanity and whether he really loves you! Lol I kid. Have a wonderful Christmas and blessed new year.
Thank you to y’all who led with ad hominem to save me from wasting any time reading them all.
Anyone who mistakes Hillsdale’s federalism for neoconservatism deserves to be mislead.