If you’re a conservative or libertarian who is active on social media, you have likely heard of the latest personality to sweep through the youth culture on the right, Milo Yiannopoulos. Milo, the self-described “Dangerous Faggot”, has made quite a name for himself with his campus tour bearing the “Dangerous Faggot Tour” moniker. His talks generally consist of Milo going to a college, reciting facts and delivering analysis on a variety of topics (whether it be Islam, feminism, immigration, “social justice” or a number of others which are big on campus) and watching the leftists on that campus go absolutely insane trying to shut him down. Whether it was social justice warriors smearing themselves with blood at Rutgers, assaulting Milo at DePaul, blowing air horns at him at Minnesota, interrupting him at colleges such as American University, UCLA and UMass-Amherst, and even blocking the entrance to his talk at UCLA, the left rarely disappoints to prove the exact point Milo is trying to make with their reaction to his talks. University administrators have also tried many times to shut Milo down. In one particularly disturbing case at DePaul, administrators actually ordered the police to not protect Milo from protestors who rushed the stage. This has been the story of his tour and by far the largest consequence of it.

One might consider these interruptions and the attempted silencing of Milo to be some sort of inconvenience or problem, but they are the entire reason Milo is out there doing what he is doing. Milo has been explicit as to how the left can defeat him; simply allow him to speak, and he will lose most of the notoriety he has gained almost over night. The left, as intellectually bankrupt as they are, can be counted on so thoroughly to act as they always have, to think in predictable and exploitable patterns and to prioritize feeling over fact. Milo’s recognition of this has allowed him to create a style which exploits their thinking patterns in a way which is tailor-made to drive home his major point.

That point is that the left has created a truly disgusting culture on American college campuses today, and they are trying to expand that culture nationwide. It is a culture of intimidation and silencing, a culture of virtue signaling taking priority over fact, and a culture of intellectual diversity (particularly in the political arena) being seen as an impediment to their end goal of “social justice”. This cultural Marxism has made our society less free and less intellectually diverse, particularly on our college campuses and in the cities which house them. The culture of intimidating those who hold opinions which the left wrongfully perceives as racist, of intimidating those who hold opinions which the left wrongly perceives as homophobic, of intimidating those who hold opinions which the left wrongly perceives as sexist, is a culture which is designed to take as many political issues as possible and make it socially stigmatizing to hold an opinion that is contrary to the leftist point of view. Ultimately this plan is about turning conservatism into a socially unacceptable ideology which is unwelcome in polite society. It is a sort of cultural terrorism which has infected communities across the nation, including my hometown.

Being a former GOP town Chair in a small liberal county which houses three colleges, I can tell you first hand that businesses in our area are afraid to contribute to the Republican Party for fear of being targeted. The best and brightest Republicans in our county can often be found sitting on the sidelines, attempting to lay low and not draw attention to their political ideas. It is actually somewhat perilous for me to engage in the sort of activism I do considering my own family has a business in this town. This has led to a situation where I will engage in national politics but am very hesitant to engage in local politics, a situation where I can be an editor of The Liberty Conservative, yet I feel threatened to write a letter to the editor of my local paper. I tell you this because this is what the campus left wants to turn your communities into – places where your ideas are taboo and something to be hidden instead of places where free exchange of ideas are openly celebrated. They want to take the range of allowable opinion in our society and narrow it radically, essentially attempting to intimidate society into holding uniformly leftist opinions.

The response among students on campuses who face similar social pressures has been to champion the cultural libertarianism of Milo Yiannopolous, whose persona represents the greatest attack on this culture of intimidation and fear that has been seen in the 21st century. Milo goes out and champions the very opinions that the left seeks to ban; concern over immigration, fear of Islam’s influence on our society, ridiculing the idea of rape culture and the gender pay gap, and most prominently of all support for Donald Trump. These are, frankly, mostly ideas which I largely disagree with (to varying degrees). I don’t support Donald Trump, I believe in largely open borders and I think Islam’s negative effects on our society pale in comparison to the effects of big government. Even still, I appreciate that Milo uses these specific issues because they are the most prominent examples of perfectly legitimate opinions which the left has already made it socially unacceptable to hold. We should have a culture where people have a right to hold opinions which are contrary to the opinions of the majority of the people around them without being socially ostracized for it. We should have a culture which encourages the free exchange of ideas, not pigeon holing everybody into one or two ways of thinking.

One would think this approach would be embraced by the leaders of the liberty movement, who should appreciate a culture of free exchange and should appreciate Milo’s contribution to the idea that we should be allowed to discuss our opinions without being socially ostracized.

Unfortunately, to this point, it appears they would be wrong.

The most prominent example of libertarian tone deafness on the subject of Milo has to be the completely unnecessary and unprovoked hit piece on Milo that was written by Jack Hunter. Jack is probably my greatest personal influence as a writer; he is a true liberty movement guy and has almost always framed things in a way that is beneficial to movement building, which makes this move all the more puzzling. Jack accuses Milo of being the face of the alt-right, an accusation which is flatly false. As Milo pointed out in his response piece, alt-right hardliners hate him because he’s a race mixing gay Jew and thus he is no alt-right ringleader by any stretch of the imagination. This accusation towards Milo reveals a lack of serious examination of what he is doing and why, and what the libertarian implications of his message will be. You can only come to Jack’s conclusion if you’re really not drilling down very deep into the issue. Libertarians should care more that he is defending their right to free expression than about his support of Donald Trump. Libertarians should care more that he is looking to create a more free culture through discussion of issues like immigration and Islam rather than focusing so narrowly on the merits of his ideas on those issues themselves. Libertarians should care more that he is attacking cultural Marxism than they do about some good-natured jokes at our expense in his act. His fight is our fight, and if we don’t think the culture he is fighting against will be turned on libertarians the minute the left attempts to encroach on our liberty along racial or gender grounds, we are truly an ignorant bunch.

This disturbing, unnecessary, unproductive fight between two great writers who should be teaming up in defense of liberty was only compounded days later by the controversy surrounding Young Americans for Liberty’s relationship with Milo. Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) hosted Milo on several campuses, including American University, Rutgers and UC Santa Barbara. That being said, after the UC Santa Barbara event there was much confusion as to whether or not YAL had blacklisted Milo from speaking at their events. As The College Fix reported, a YAL employee apparently posted a message to the YAL Chapter President’s Facebook group stating that “YAL National does not support hosting Milo Yiannopoulos events, and any event featuring him must be disassociated with the YAL brand entirely”, and after that a social media firestorm ensued. YAL Executive Director Cliff Maloney later clarified that the organization’s relationship with Milo remains unchanged. I know Cliff to be a good and honest man – I believe this is YAL’s policy moving forward, but given the evidence presented in The College Fix it does appear that either a decision was made and then reversed or a very high level YAL employee stepped way out of line by posting his personal opinion as a representation of official policy. Either one brings up the sort of questions about YAL’s effectiveness in fighting this battle for free speech on campus going forward that I never thought I would have to ask. If you are hesitant to associate yourself with the greatest champion of this movement in the country how can you be effective in fighting it? I was thrilled to see Milo at so many YAL events and I hope that going forward they will continue to host Milo and fully fund Milo events as they have in the past.

I believe at the core of this hesitance to embrace Milo is that it represents a sharp departure from the strategy that the majority of campus libertarians have taken over the past several years, which has been to market libertarianism as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and therefore more tolerable to call yourself than conservative on campus. This approach plays into the cultural Marxist reality of campuses today and attempts to grow liberty within that framework. The approach was personified by Students for Liberty president Alex McCobin’s embarrassing performance at a CPAC youth outreach panel, calling conservative a “dirty word” and attempting to essentially play into the social stigma argument which the left has so successfully created. When Milo attacks that paradigm he renders that method of recruiting ineffective, so it’s somewhat understandable that there is pushback. That being said, this pushback is completely unwarranted when such amazing gains for the perception of liberty on campus are being made; when we are actually beginning to turn the narrative around and expose to the people that today’s students live under a cultural tyranny. Milo shouldn’t have to adjust his rhetoric to placate these groups – he is fighting this fight more effectively than they are, and they need to learn from what he is doing and adjust accordingly.

To say the response of the liberty movement’s leadership to the Milo phenomenon is disheartening would be a major understatement. It is a response that, unless rapidly corrected, threatens to limit our effectiveness in the fight for liberty on campus and in college towns. It threatens to limit our effectiveness in stopping the spread of the cancer of cultural Marxism, an issue which libertarians need to start becoming far more concerned about going forward. We are libertarians, that means we have a moral obligation to defend liberty. Defending liberty doesn’t stop at the legislative level; in order to have a truly free society, you must also defend a culture of free expression. In order to truly claim the mantle of liberty, you must defend one’s right to state their opinion without being personally harmed for doing so. Campus libertarians have been presented with a choice: attack the cultural Marxism of the left in what’s been proven to be a highly effective manner, or continue to play into their paradigm and try to satisfy qualifications which are fundamentally anti liberty. The choice we must make is clear – the liberty movement must stand steadfast against cultural Marxism and the cultural rot that it brings. I have confidence that we will choose liberty and continue to attack this rancid culture that has permeated our campuses until we have eradicated it for good.

For a few years now, there has been an ongoing debate in the political mainstream about the personal property rights of businesses and whether they can restrict their customer base by banning those they disagree with. Those opposed to restricting business note examples like bakers refusing to do business with homosexual couples, calling them homophobic and wrong. Historical examples include segregation, looking back at a time when businesses had separate water fountains and bathrooms for African-Americans. Some businesses even refused to do business with those of a different skin color.

Now a Maine restaurant has taken a stand against guns, specifically the AR-15. Anne Verrill, who owns the Foreside Tavern in Maine, took to Facebook to rip ownership of the weapon. Local news outlet WMTW 8 quoted the now deleted Facebook post, “Let me be clear, this is not a political issue. This is a human rights issue. If you own this gun, or you condone the ownership of this gun for private use, you may no longer enter either of my restaurants, because the only thing I want to teach my children is love.”

Now it is Verrill’s right as the property owner to limit access to those she does not want to do business with. The problem here is that this is a political issue and she also is completely misinformed.

In a followup post on the Foreside Tavern’s Facebook page, she stated “I want our government to be able to deny someone they can put on the “no fly” lists to not buy a semi-automatic weapon.”

Does the Foreside Tavern now endorse restricting the Bill of Rights? A “no fly” list isn’t the result of due process, where a judge presides over a case and a verdict is dropped that someone broke the law. Instead, it’s a government bureaucracy operating on suspicion and working outside of the justice system. No judge or jury decides to put someone on a “no fly” list, which implies someone is guilty of a crime.

In 2010, the New York Times discussed the case of 8-year-old Mikey Hicks. Because the Department of Human Security had been monitoring an individual named Michael Hicks, the child was treated like a criminal and patted down at the airport. His arms and entire body was thoroughly patted down, including in his crotch area. The first time this occurred was when young Hicks was 2.

The lists are maintained by the  Terrorist Screening Center, which also works with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 8-year-old Mikey Hicks was never brought before a judge or found guilty in a court of law. He was treated like a criminal because his name was the same as someone on the list. This is what happens in the absence of due process of law.

Verrill’s endorsement of the “no fly” list as a means for depriving constitutional rights implies support for the thorough pat down of a young child, with Transportation Security Administration agents traumatizing him.

The second Facebook post by the Foreside Tavern continues, “If evil and hate want to boycott my restaurants then so be it because I believe good will be on my side on this. As long as my doors are open I will believe that love is love.”

The problem is those responsible gun owners who own an AR-15 or any weapon labeled as “weapons of war” are not evil and do not promote hatred. Responsible gun owners are as outraged with the events at Pulse in Orlando, Florida as those opposed to gun ownership. What does feed evil and hatred though is lawlessness and a deprivation of due process of law.

Groups like ISIS operate without due process and do not believe in freedom. They have thrown homosexuals from rooftops, burned a Jordanian pilot alive, and beheaded countless Christians. These are things that wouldn’t happen here in America because not only does our Constitution guarantee due process of law, it also prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

These guarantees cease to exist when government bureaucrats can make decisions outside of the justice system that revoke rights of citizens. This is the problem with the “no fly” list and the position of the Foreside Tavern’s position on the issue.

The ongoing saga of Hillary Clinton versus the world continues. The career politician had a spring coronation disrupted by a persistent battle with Vermont United States Senator Bernie Sanders, and all along has faced an ongoing battle with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Republicans continue to point to the source of the FBI investigation, an issue involving usage of a private email server while Secretary of State, and the Benghazi attacks as well.

In Hillary Clinton’s defense, this is the United States of America. In America, we have the benefit of a justice system that views the accused innocent until proven guilty. Until Clinton has been found guilty of violating the law, she’s innocent in the eyes of the law.

Now while this is how our country operates, does Clinton, who is running for President, really agree?

Clinton’s response to the Orlando shooting provides a revealing answer. In her gun control push, she also made a specific point in relation to FBI investigations.

“If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to go buy a gun, no questions asked,” Clinton was quoted as saying.

Now with this quote, keep in mind that Omar Mateen was a United States citizen. Being a United States citizen, he has rights under the Constitution. Among these is due process of law. Even when accused, he still remains innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If he was accused of terrorist ties, he then has a right under the Constitution to face the accusations and defend himself. The burden of proof in proving guilt lies on the accuser.

Clinton doesn’t believe that. Her statement reflects a growing executive hubris that has grown under the Administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Terrorism accusations are able to circumvent the law.

But what’s more telling is the power she gives to the FBI. An individual’s guilt can be decided not just by a judge or jury, or even just a President, but also the Federal Bureau of Investigation?

That’s a huge endorsement by someone being investigated by the FBI herself.

Did Hillary Clinton have sensitive and classified information on her private e-mail server? Well the Federal Bureau of Investigation is currently taking a close look at her. This is clearly an implication of guilt, isn’t it?

This is the inherent problem with Clinton and the way she would continue recent trends. The Bush and Obama Administrations have created a stronger executive power with the ability to use terrorism to undermine constitutional due process rights. Through the use of fear, the rule of law can be negated. If we cannot rely on our integrity in times of strife, how can the country be expected to survive?

A true leader stands firm through difficult times, able to balance the rule of law and the goals of national security, without compromising either. Through her inconsistencies, Hillary Clinton shows she’s just not ready or even able to serve as a respectable option for President of the United States of America.

The Libertarian Party is in a unique position in history right now. Their ticket has two former Governors, one a left-leaning libertarian with appeal to multiple spots on the spectrum. His running mate is a career neoconservative who found his libertarian streak just in time to get nominated and according to former New Mexico Gary Johnson himself, William Weld is an excellent fundraiser. Philosophical debates aside, this team looks viable on paper.

The Republican Party is setup to nominate a candidate arguably less qualified in Donald Trump. Trump, while scoring record turnout among party voters, remains extremely divisive. Moderate, conservative and libertarian wings of the party all have their own varying concerns. For this reason, they’re looking elsewhere.

The Democratic Party is throwing its favor behind a candidate that is not only polling with low favorability ratings among registered voters, but unpopular with the party’s grassroots as well. The Associated Press-nominated Hillary Clinton is driving away supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders and otherwise more progressive or harder left liberals.  For this reason, many are looking elsewhere.

While Green Party candidate Jill Stein is making her case for the third party voters and disaffected Republicans and Democrats, the more viable ticket remains Johnson/Weld. For this reason, the Libertarian Party has a solid opportunity to attract new supporters.

But the trick is the Libertarian Party needs to understand why it is people are turning away from their respective political parties and also grasp what it is libertarians want out of them. Whether or not the arguments about purists being impossible is true or not, responding negatively to critics isn’t going to attract anyone.

Johnson/Weld is not a favorite among libertarians or conservatives, with Weld being more unpopular than Johnson. The result has been an ongoing combative philosophical debate since the nomination.

Those supporting the Libertarian Party ticket and otherwise enrolled in the Libertarian Party are telling potential supporters they need to put aside their concerns for the good of the party. Get them over electoral thresholds and at least they’re better than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

Essentially, the Libertarian Party is utilizing large party tactics to force people in against their conscience.

It’s not going to work, because this is exactly why people are turning on their own parties. Liberal and progressive voters turning away from the Democratic Party are doing so because they won’t just fall in line to stop the other person. They have principles, regardless of what they are, and they aren’t going to compromise on them.

The same goes for Republicans, who won’t fall in line just to stop Hillary Clinton. Moderates, conservatives and even libertarians refuse to compromise their personal principles for the good of the party just to stop Clinton.

So why would these people set aside their principles for a party they essentially don’t have any previous loyalties to, just to stop Clinton or Trump?

They won’t.

The Libertarian Party needs to understand why people are leaving what they’ve always stood by and appeal to that. Arrogance is not a winning electoral strategy. Why should anyone care about electoral thresholds? The good of the party argument hasn’t worked with any party so far, it’s not going to with the Libertarian Party. If the Johnson/Weld ticket is strong, give it time for those uncomfortable to come around. People will see how Johnson and Weld handles the media and their opponents.

Until then, Libertarians need to rethink their strategy in dealing with all groups of people, if they are to be a serious campaign going into November.

The Bernie Sanders movement has been an interesting story to this point. The Vermont Senator sparked an incredible movement of young activists inspired by a message. The message was from a man who had been in Washington D.C. for quite some time and with little results. But he remained persistent in his principles and attempts to uphold them. People were drawn to this message and others respected him, even when disagreeing, because he was honest.

For this reason, a segment of left-leaning libertarians who leaned a little far to the left this cycle said Senator Sanders was just like former Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

Ron Paul, like Senator Sanders, had been in Washington D.C. for some time. His legislation had bold goals and never moved far, but he remained persistent. He eventually would run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, without gaining much traction in the actual primary. The result however, was a movement.

Paul sparked what is the modern libertarian movement, something the Libertarian Party could never do. Countless young activists were drawn to Paul’s message and others respected him, even when disagreeing, because he was honest and consistent.

The Senator Sanders supporters who drew comparisons had a point, right?

This was an issue that many Paul supporters took issue with from the beginning of this election cycle. All philosophical differences aside between the two individuals, and the differences are indeed great, there was also a difference in objective.

Senator Sanders has always sold himself as someone who would stand up to the elite, which he described as a great Wall Street conspiracy with big money controlling all of America. He would be the man who started a revolution.

The test wasn’t during the primary itself, but would be at the end. Just like with Paul’s two runs for the Republican nomination, there became a point when it was clear Senator Sanders just wasn’t going to be the Democratic nominee for President. The Democratic National Committee wasn’t going to allow it to happen, no matter how hard he tried.

At that point, would Senator Sanders stick to his principles and fight? Or would he cave to the Democratic establishment and support Hillary Clinton?

The Associated Press called the Democratic nomination on a night when nobody voted based on a survey of superdelegates who don’t vote for another month. It gave people like Senator Elizabeth Warren and President Barack Obama a free pass to finally endorse Hillary Clinton without appearing like they were picking favorites.

This was the time for Senator Sanders to fight. And he didn’t.

After a meeting with the President, Senator Sanders endorsed Clinton without actually endorsing her. While he didn’t say he was supporting her for President, he did say he would work with her to stop Donald Trump. That means only one thing: Hillary Clinton has his support.

This illustrates the difference between Senator Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul.

Paul wasn’t running for office, he was launching a movement. Even after his candidacy concluded, he stuck to his principles and pushed. The Campaign for Liberty started after 2008 and after 2012, liberty activists across America launched countless groups, organizations and movements to push their principles.

For himself, Ron Paul never endorsed Senator John McCain or Mitt Romney. Both contradicted his principles and he wasn’t going to compromise what he stood for just to appease the party establishment.

Senator Bernie Sanders was never like Ron Paul and was never going to be. As he’s showing now, he never had the political backbone to stand up to the establishment. And that’s why he failed.

This entire election cycle has been a bizarre time for politics. In a conventional year, a battle involving an involving an eloquent party golden boy from Florida or the heir to the Bush dynasty throne would theoretically have either come out on top. Instead, a bombastic businessman with no background in elected office is the Republican nominee for President.

And on the Democratic side, while many widely expected Hillary Clinton to become the Democratic nominee, most thought it would be because of actual voting and not due to an Associated Press survey of superdelegates who don’t vote for another month.

This insanity is the reason why third party candidates are now more relevant than ever before. Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson secured the Libertarian Party nomination and is currently embarking upon a media blitz. For the Green Party, Jill Stein is looking to catch on the third party rise and specifically attract the supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders.

Part of the key to attracting the supporters of the Vermont Senator will be to make the case that staying with the Democratic Party to support Hillary Clinton is the wrong choice. Enter Stein’s latest comments about Clinton.

In an interview for Democracy Now, Stein implied that probable Republican nominee Donald Trump is worse than media-anointed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. In the interview, Stein states that while Trump has a history of saying scary things, Clinton has a history of actually doing scary things.

It’s absolutely true that we have more of a political record from Hillary Clinton. And during this political career, Clinton realistically only appeals to establishment and moderate Democrats. Conservatives and libertarians, even in their opposition to Trump, would never entertain the thought of voting for Clinton. Progressives and hard leftwing liberals didn’t back her in the primary against Senator Sanders for a reason and after their treatment during the primary, they’re unlikely to join her side in the general.

Is it true that Clinton is worse than Trump, or is this just more of Stein attempting to appeal to the supporters of Senator Sanders?

The former United States Senator from New York supported the Iraq War, which led to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and subsequent destabilization of the region. The time that followed saw the rise of ISIS, a radical group that has been terrorizing the region with monstrous acts of violence.

As Secretary of State, Clinton supported military intervention in Libya, continuing a trend of supporting ill-fated military interventions.

Also while Secretary of State, she accepted donations to the Clinton Foundation from oppressive countries like Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is known for its mistreatment of women and the LGBT community, both groups Democrats claim to be strong in support of. In Saudi Arabia, coming out of the closet can get an individual executed.

Does Hillary Clinton support the death penalty for being a homosexual?

Furthermore, as a United States Senator, Clinton supported various big government policies and legislation such as the USA PATRIOT Act. The former Secretary of State also believes that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden broke the law by exposing widespread abuses of the Constitution and should be prosecuted for sounding the alarm.

Stein’s claim that Clinton is worse than Trump thus has some truth to it. That does not necessarily mean Trump is any less dangerous by comparison, just that Clinton has an actual record that gives America proof of who she really is. For this reason, supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders should stick to their principles and not support Hillary Clinton.

Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party are waiting for your attention. Give them a look before even considering casting a vote for Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

Third parties have long been scapegoated for losses in American politics. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader are two prominent examples of major third party candidates being blamed for a race going in a certain direction. In Maine, liberal Independent Eliot Cutler was blamed for the election of Republican Governor Paul LePage. Beyond this, the examples are numerous.

But is this fair?

In recent memory, Republicans have feared the third parties. When former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney lost in 2012, libertarians and the Ron Paul grassroots were blamed. While a number of them wrote in the former Texas Congressman or just stayed home, there was considerable support for former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson as well.

In the end, the quest for 5% fell short, with Johnson finishing at .99%. Still, this is a progress for the Libertarian Party, after finishing with .40% in 2008 and .32% in 2004.

The Libertarian Party didn’t change the outcome of 2012, with Romney finishing almost four points behind President Barack Obama. Despite this, the fear among Republicans still exists.

Republicans shouldn’t be as afraid of Johnson as the Democrats, however.

Probable Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump leads Independents at 32%, according to a new poll. Runner up among self-identified Independents is not media-anointed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, but rather Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.

That is quite significant, but not entirely surprising.

Democrats have a unity problem and Hillary Clinton has an integrity issue. Through the use of a superdelegate survey by the Associated Press, the Democrats were able to shutdown their nomination race and finally reject a candidate who was actually more favorable than Clinton. Clinton has only a 42% favorability rating among registered voters, while 56% of them do not have a favorable view of her. By contrast, Senator Bernie Sanders had a 54%-41% favorable/unfavorable difference.

Why would political independents want to vote for Clinton or the questionable Democratic operation under Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

Independents aren’t registered to a party for a variety of reasons, but ultimately do not appear to agree with either party and do not want to be apart of the partisan games. They’re looking elsewhere, just as the Senator Sanders supporters will be.

Senator Sanders appears to still be on the fence about throwing his support behind Clinton, but the consensus among his supporters is stronger. They won’t.

The media would like to lead a narrative that the Republican Party is divided, but Trump has actually commanded a strong overall total of votes during the primary process. It’s been some time since Governor John Kasich and Senator Ted Cruz dropped out, leaving the party time to solidify.

Ultimately, Republicans appear united to stopping Hillary Clinton. Senator Sanders’ supporters also stand committed to not giving into the former Secretary of State who arrogantly trampled them through this primary, which is more accurately described as a coronation.

The answer for many of those Republicans who won’t vote Trump or Democrats for Clinton is Gary Johnson. His brand of libertarianism has a left tilt that will attract libertarians, but also give Democrats and Republicans alike something to catch onto.

With a divided party and a chunk of their grassroots opposed to the candidate the media just nominated for them, the Democratic Party is losing ground among their own. But what will be a huge boost for any party is the group of self-identified Independent voters who don’t believe in the two major parties and their partisan politicking.

It just won’t be the Democrats receiving that boost, because Gary Johnson has them beat.

President Barack Obama has a special thing going for him: he’s mastered the art of rhetoric. Nobody else can make empty air on the breeze sound like a choir when aided by a teleprompter manned by a talented writer. His rehersal abilities are only rivaled by maybe United States Senator Marco Rubio.

But let’s dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing.

In yet another blow from the Democratic establishment against Senator Bernie Sanders, President Obama stated in his endorsement of Hillary Clinton for President, “I don’t think there’s ever been someone so qualified to hold this office”

And no, this is not The Onion.

The idea that of all the people that have actually held the office, let alone even run or entertained the thought, Hillary Clinton is the most qualified is beyond ridiculous. What qualifications does Hillary Clinton have? She married a guy who was impeached for having an affair in the Oval Office and was a failed Secretary of State that is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Congratulations President Obama, you’re officially one of the most incompetent people to ever have access to the nuclear codes.

Is Hillary Clinton more qualified than George Washington? Washington, beyond being the first President in United States history, was also general and commander-in-chief of the colonial armies during the American Revolution. He played a critical role in the founding of our nation and securing the freedom that is the foundation of the American legacy.

Clinton didn’t serve in the military. Also, whereas Washington was staunchly opposed to political parties, Clinton is a strong supporter of them and often puts them before her own country. Senator Bernie Sanders has frequently been criticized for not being a real Democrat.

What does that even mean? Why should it even matter what party you are and whether or not you’re loyal to it? The first and foremost priority of a President should be to the betterment of their country. This was Washington’s point.

Cycling through other individuals who have held the office, there is John Quincy Adams who was a vocal opponent of slavery and represented the Amistad captives who rebelled against their captors. General Dwight D. Eisenhower commanded allied forces as they stormed the beaches of Normandy as part of a push that would liberate Europe from the horrors they experienced during World War 2.

There is also Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence, which represented our break from the tyrannical rule of the British Crown. James Madison was also a President and is described as the “Father of the Constitution” for his contributions during the document’s drafting.

The history books go on with a number of intriguing characters who have been or tried to become President of the United States. Some were awful, some were acceptable, and then some characters were great contributors to the American legacy, such as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and Eisenhower. It doesn’t stop there, either.

The idea that Hillary Clinton was any better than any of these individuals is incomprehensible. Not even those most ignorant of history could suggest such a thing. Is her nomination historic? She is a woman and she is under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. But our standards for presidential qualifications should exceed our sex and criminal investigations.

President Obama not only demonstrated his complete lack of knowledge regarding the basics of American history, but he also disrespected a great number of important figures in our nation’s history. The comments made in the endorsement of Clinton were nothing short of disgraceful.

Donald Trump has become quite the polarizing figure in American politics. Over the course of the last year, he’s gone from being the candidate nobody thought could win to the candidate who won with the most votes in party history. The picture between the starting point and the present is also a collage of bad controversies. He’s taken positions that have been at best uncomfortable for many Republicans, and just downright shocking to others.

For this reason, many Republicans have joined those outside of their party in rejecting Donald Trump. Trump believes Edward Snowden, the controversial National Security Agency whistleblower, is a traitor. He also has vowed to restore torture, threatened to execute the families of suspected terrorists, and made a series of questionable statements on top of it all.

There is a perfectly legitimate reason to reject Donald Trump for President.

With that said, there’s a point where the #NeverTrump crowd has hit a point of absurdity. Many have expressed shock and dismay at the fact the Republican Party could elect such a questionable character. Burning Trump hatred aside, why? He endorses some fairly wild authoritarian views, but this really is not unusual for the Republican Party.

Like Trump, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has a storied history of being on both sides of an issue. The contrast between the Romney who tried running for U.S. Senate to the left of Ted Kennedy in a blue state and the newborn conservative running in 2012 is enormous. The candidate formerly supported abortion and an assault weapons ban. He was often criticized by opponents in the 2012 Republican primary for providing the framework of Obamacare with Romneycare.

Global interventionist Mitt Romney also is a strong supporter of the surveillance state, once referring to Patriot Act opponents as conspiracy theorists while stating the legislation protects our “life and liberty.”

In 2008, the Republican Party ran Senator John McCain against then-Senator Barack Obama. Senator McCain numerous times voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act, which was the beginning of the massive surveillance state expansion of the post-9/11 era. He repeatedly pushed for war and has supported big government in his years in the Senate.

This followed eight years of President George W. Bush, which saw a hard trampling of the Constitution. The invasion of Iraq without a declaration of war from Congress was unnecessary and destabilized the region, leading to the rise of ISIS. The escalation of the so-called War on Terror was used to justify passing various pieces of legislation that expanded government surveillance powers, including the USA PATRIOT Act. Issues like indefinite detention of United States citizens had become prominent and spending rose significantly under President Bush as well.

The point being that the Republican Party isn’t as conservative or pro-freedom as many #NeverTrump people would suggest. The descent into supporting tyrannical policies didn’t just happen in 2016, it’s been going on for a long time.

If these individuals are seriously opposed to larger government, oppressive policies, and more war, the larger question is why they’ve been enrolled in the Republican Party to this point. Through the Bush years and the answers to Barack Obama being Senator McCain and Mitt Romney, it’s quite clear the Republican Party is anything but pro-liberty.

It’s no secret that Ronald Reagan was a beloved member of the conservative movement. Most Republicans will tell you he is a hero and talk about the things he did to benefit America. Republican politicians and conservative activists have long spoken highly of his legacy. He was a quotable President, providing some well-distributed one liners that are political and philosophical gold. It’s not difficult to see why many love him.

Quotes like “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help” ring true even more so today than ever before. We live in unprecedented times, where the surveillance state has become more expansive and war has become more extensive.

For all the criticisms of the Reagan Administration by libertarians, there’s still an argument that Reagan understood things better than many mainstream figures.

But unfortunately for Reagan fans and America, Ronald Reagan is also no longer with us.

But he apparently he speaks to us. He speaks to use through his son, Michael.

This is what Michael Reagan would like to lead the world to believe as he spreads the word about his interpretation of his father’s views and principles. He does that because he is Ronald Reagan’s son, so why wouldn’t he know?

No disrespect to Michael Reagan personally, but he’s still not Ronald Reagan.

A lot of people know their parents well enough to know where they stand politically. Just get on one controversial topic and the position on a spectrum becomes clear quickly. In the case of Ronald Reagan, it’s easier to get a feel for where his politics are because his life and career are well documented. In terms of presidential politics, he was quite influential. This is also true of the conservative movement and the Republican Party itself.

Still, not one person interpreting Ronald Reagan, whether it be his son, biographer, or an obsessed conservative activist, knows what Ronald Reagan would think about anything current unless the man himself was alive.

The fact is Ronald Reagan has not been with us for over a decade. Though it would certainly be nice to know his input on the race, it’s just not possible. We will never know what Reagan thinks of Trump’s presidential campaign or the things he says. We will never know whether he would suggest supporting Trump against Clinton or entertain the thought of a third party vote.

Speculation can occur. Reagan’s son, family, and anyone else who claims to know the legacy of Ronald Reagan can speculate. But unless anyone has actually consulted the conservative legend from beyond the grave, it’s just not possible to know for sure what he would think. Again, no disrespect to Michael or the rest of the Reagan family. Ronald Reagan is no longer with us though. his input on this election cycle does not exist.

Michael Reagan is entitled to his own personal opinions, however. There’s nothing wrong with him having his views about Donald Trump or any other political topic. But those opinions are his and his only.

Not his father’s.