When the Libertarian Party was founded it was intended to be the party of free markets, civil liberties and a non interventionist foreign policy. Though electoral success was fleeting and sparse, the party quickly grew a reputation as being a party of principle. By nominating dedicated activists activists like David Koch and Ron Paul and Harry Browne to lead their party, the Libertarian Party established the level of dedication placed on being principled in no uncertain terms. With the Ron Paul Revolution having happened in the Republican Party in 2008, one would think this would drive the Libertarian Party to embrace Paul’s hardcore approach to an even greater extent.

Unfortunately, we have seen the exact opposite unfold since that 2008 primary. The Libertarian Party responded to the rise of Ron Paul in 2008 by nominating Bob Barr, a former congressman who had supported the Drug Importer Death Penalty Act and voted for invading Iraq, outraging liberty activists across the country. This departure from principle lead to the Libertarian Party receiving just 0.4% of the vote in a year where they had massive potential to do better. In 2012 the Libertarian Party nominated former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, a much better candidate than Barr, who pulled off the 2nd largest percentage the Libertarian Party has ever pulled in a Presidential race (0.99%) and garnered over 1.2 million votes. Johnson was considered a pragmatic libertarian who was perhaps a bit hawkish on foreign policy, but overall was libertarian enough to gain the support of the grassroots. Though it should be mentioned that this 1.2 million votes was nearly half of the 2 million plus votes Congressman Ron Paul received during his presidential run in 2012, demonstrating that there were still many voters being left on the table by this compromise strategy.

This time the Libertarian Party may have gone too far and handicapped their ability to get to the 5% threshold they seek. Gary Johnson is once again the nominee, but over the 2016 primaries he has tacked severely to the left, alienating many in his base of supporters. Johnson has taken positions which are fundamentally unlibertarian or demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of libertarianism. These transgressions include rejecting freedom of association, belittling the importance of the Non Aggression Principle, claiming the free market is killing coal as opposed to the EPA, being unable to provide the definition of a “right”, and a very confusing position on the banning of burqa’s in the United States. This left a serious opening for challengers such as Austin Petersen, Darryl Perry and John McAfee to force a second ballot at this years Libertarian National Convention. Though Johnson won on the 2nd vote of the convention, his 49.5% on vote one paled in comparison to the 70%+ delegates he managed to coalesce in 2012, a sign of a highly fractured party.

The major cause of this fracturing, to an even greater extent than Johnson’s deviation from libertarian principles in his own campaigning, is Johnson’s nomination of former Massachusetts Republican Governor turned lobbyist William Weld as his vice president. Weld is the quintessential Rockefeller Republican, a supporter of the Iraq war who increased state spending as governor and has no qualms about murdering unborn children. Weld supported the EPA’s electric car mandate and greater regulations on smog as well as affirmative action as governor. That isn’t even to mention the fact that Weld endorsed Mitt Romney over Ron Paul twice and endorsed Barack Obama in 2008. You read that correctly, folks, the Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee endorsed BARACK OBAMA for President in 2008. This is the man Gary Johnson called “the original Libertarian” during the convention? Fortunately, Weld’s nomination was not met unchallenged, prompting a near revolt on the convention floor during his nomination and forcing a second ballot to ultimately confirm him.

I certainly understand the impulse that many liberty activists have to try and nominate a “serious” ticket when we have two frontrunners with historically high unfavorable ratings. It may seem prudent to nominate two former 2 term governors regardless of their views on policy, but it should be very clear to everybody that Bill Weld is not a libertarian and that Gary Johnson is less of one than he was in 2012. Is it worth changing the definition of libertarian itself in an attempt to appeal to the Bill Kristol crowd? Did we not already try a similar strategy with Bob Barr in 2008 and see disastrous results? Even if it works, doesn’t that create an open invitation for every political moderate in DC to turn the Libertarian Party into an empty vessel? I hope you join me in sending a message to the Libertarian Party by refusing to vote for a ticket that has demonstrated clearly that they do not care about the Constitution or libertarian principles.

In another shocking case of children being manipulated by their parents to push a political agenda, a video recently posted on YouTube appears to show a mother and father instructing their 3 year-old daughter to say repeatedly “We have to kill Donald Trump.”

The video, which was analyzed by author Mark Dice, shows the mother and father prodding their child to say she wishes to kill Donald Trump. “Why are we going to kill Donald Trump?” the mother asks, to which the child responds, “Cause he’s bad.”

The father asks, “Why is he bad?” to which the child responds, “Cause he wants to take away our family.”

Clearly, the child is being used by her parents to perpetuate the false narrative that Donald Trump is planning to deport every Hispanic person in the United States, regardless of immigration status, if he is elected President, when he has made no statement to indicate as much. Such a gross distortion of Trump’s position on illegal immigration is nothing new, and has been used by race-baiting organizations to galvanize opposition to his candidacy.

https://youtu.be/vQS1WDo-Ma8

Sadly, the image of children being used as political pawns, threatening violence or shouting obscenities at Donald Trump and/or his supporters, is nothing new. Prior to the Indiana Republican Primary on May 3rd, a crowd of anti-Trump protestors, including many young children, were caught on video shouting obscenities at passing Trump supporters. One child can be head, and seen, yelling repeatedly “F*** Trump” and “Viva la Raza.” Comments like the former are indicative of the racist propaganda pushed by organizations like La Raza and MEChA.

https://youtu.be/DCMZaBFcxrk

In November of 2015, a Pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC ran an ad in which Hispanic children are forced to read a profanity-laced script declaring Donald Trump a racist. “Republicans use offensive words,” one child in the video says, “so here’s a few of our own: ‘F*** you racist f***!’” Two other children say, “When you say Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers and drug dealers, you know it’s racist code for words like: spics, wetbacks and beaners.”

Deport Racism PAC is “dedicated to fighting anti-Latino, anti-Arab, anti-muslim and anti-immigrant racism in the 2016 election,” according to its website. “DeportRacism.com will work to turn out the Latino and progressive vote and give a voice to people Republican candidates try marginalize and use as scapegoats.”

The PAC itself is registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) by Luke Montgomery, a pro-LGBT and pro-amnesty activist (who once legally changed his name to “Luke SissyFag” to call attention to homophobia) also responsible for the pro-Hillary Clinton website BillForFirstLady2016.com.

As I have stated in previous articles, race-pimping organizations like La Raza (“The Race”) and MEChA (“Chicanx Student Movement of Aztlan”), funded and supported by globalists like George Soros, are promoting racial division in the United States by laying the blame for all of the ills in the Hispanic community, as well as in Latin American countries, on white people and Capitalism. The globalist elite promote Balkanization and Socialism as a means to foment civil unrest, resulting in the breakdown of our society and the elimination of our collective national identity.

Someone recently described the Libertarian Party as an “elephant graveyard.” It’s an interesting description, but a factual one as well. The Libertarian Party has had a recent trend as being new life for opportunistic Republicans, many of which are hardly libertarian at heart. The Libertarian Party has essentially become an aspiring clone of the Republican Party.

Libertarianism itself has it’s appeal, with a 2015 Reuters poll showing “One in five Americans consider themselves libertarian, with younger adults being the most likely to adopt the label. Among adults aged 18 to 29, 32 percent consider themselves libertarian. Just 12 percent of Americans age 60 or older consider themselves libertarian.”

The Libertarian Party itself doesn’t seem to gather the fact that the younger generations are embracing libertarianism and welcoming the principles of freedom, instead only resigning itself to be a rebound for Republicans.

Consider the 2008 libertarian presidential ticket when Bob Barr was the presidential nominee, with Wayne Allyn Root as his running mate. Barr was a former Republican Congressman who served from 1995-2003. In this time, he was a strong supporter of the federal drug war, authored and sponsored legislation to federally define marriage as between one man and one woman, and voted for the USA PATRIOT Act. Barr also voted for the Iraq Resolution.

Barr’s running mate, Wayne Allyn Root, had been a lifelong Republican.

Nothing is wrong with Republicans, Democrats, socialists, communists, etc. crossing over and discovering libertarianism. But there is a difference between welcoming in newcomers and giving reborn politicians the keys to the kingdom.

Barr’s political career had been aiding moderate and neoconservative Republicans and opposing the libertarian message. Root, while not having as deep an anti-liberty record, still hadn’t established himself as libertarian in principle. Furthermore, both were later shown to be mere opportunists. Barr rejoined the Republican Party to explore running for United States Senate, instead of running under the Libertarian ticket to theoretically give it a boost. He would also support Mitt Romney for President, instead of Gary Johnson.

Root rejoined the Republican Party as well, throwing his support behind Romney, who he declared would win. After floating the possibility of running for United States Senate as a Republican, not a Libertarian, he now supports Donald Trump for President. Not Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.

Given facts like these, it’s only natural that libertarians are skeptical of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and running mate William Weld, a former Massachusetts Governor. Both are former Republican Governors who only joined the Libertarian Party for a new career jump start. Johnson had been a Republican up until 2012, when he dropped the label after failing to catch fire in the Republican primary.

Weld joined the Libertarian Party not long before Johnson announced he was the preferred running mate. It further doesn’t reflect well that Johnson chose a running mate who supports gun control and wouldn’t remove the United States from the United Nations, among other views contrary to common libertarian positions. Not only did Weld support then-Senator Barack Obama for President in 2008, he joined Barr and Root in supporting Romney for President in 2012.

In terms of libertarian credentials, there is much debate about the two former governors on this cycle’s libertarian ticket. It’s not too much to ask for libertarians to want something different in this ticket. Beyond this, libertarians have every reason to be skeptical of the ticket. Will Weld stick with the party after losing the general election, or will he return to the Republican Party and abandon Libertarians?

Supporters for the Johnson/Weld ticket can criticize those they label as purists all they want, but the so-called purists are raising legitimate questions. With Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton hitting low favorability ratings, the moment for libertarians is here. So the Libertarian Party wastes a golden opportunity on moderate Republicans who became Libertarians out of political convenience?

When did the Libertarian Party become the Little Republican Party?

The LNC has spoken – Gary Johnson will be the Libertarian Party nominee moving into the main election. going up against what likely will be Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton for the Republican and Democratic tickets, respectively. Many conservative-leaning libertarians are unhappy about this. I’ve even heard some of my friends proudly proclaim that they are going to write-in Rand Paul as a protest vote since their personal preferred LP pick didn’t make the cut. One author outrageously claimed earlier today that Austin Petersen, the second-most-popular candidate in the running this year, was “liberty’s last hope,” and later said that Johnson’s nomination meant that the party itself was no longer viable, and even claimed that a move back to the GOP as a voting libertarian somehow made more sense than continuing to support the LP in Petersen’s absence.

This rhetoric is, frankly, ridiculous. The liberty movement fancies itself one of intellectualism and fearless activism, yet the reality of it seems much more bleak and stagnant than this residual self-image would imply – there are internal rifts between anarchists and minarchists, social conservatives and social liberals, and yes, the rather chilling cults of personality that have recently cropped up around the different presidential candidates themselves. The fact that this even needs to be said is extraordinary, but true activism comes from an ability and willingness to not only put in the actual footwork, but also to cast a wide enough net to rally like minds and build alliances. In other words, we actually need the liberty movement to grow, or else we don’t deserve to call ourselves activists of any kind. And part of that needed path to growth comes largely from being humble and tactical enough to accept the richness of the liberty movement for exactly what it is: a tumultuous, sometimes contradictory, but always beautiful mess of embodied independence.

Far too often, though, I see the purists in the movement not understand or realize these qualities as innate, and instead I see them expecting it to be nothing more than an exclusive debate club of high philosophical discussion. Meanwhile, the world crumbles. What is so frustrating to me personally is that libertarianism as a philosophy has many qualities that I truly believe could fix this country’s current woes, yet the movement itself, and the LP specifically, continuously and predictably keeps dropping the ball.

So, Johnson won the nomination this time. Was anyone really surprised by this? I wasn’t. And I defended both him and his main competition, Petersen, equally and on the same grounds from their haters throughout this entire race. But some others wanted McAfee, or Perry, or any of the other multiple candidates this year. But guess what? Those people didn’t get the nomination; Johnson did. And anyone who knows how to read polling trends should have seen that coming from a mile away. And yet, I’m still seeing outrage – outrage about Johnson’s views on cakes; outrage over the fact that he’s scientifically literate and a Rothbard fan, and therefore pro-choice; outrage because he endorsed Bill Weld as his VP pick (but that’s another article I’ve already written); etc. It never stops, and these people, it seems, will never be happy until they are 100% appeased in every conceivable way. Otherwise, they aren’t voting.

There is another demographic other than the purist libertarians who also choose to take their ball and go home after the red carpet isn’t rolled out for their every waking request and desire: children. And as we see in their case, they never get what they want entirely. But eventually, they do something that makes them very different from the purist libertarians and changes everything for the better – they grow up. They learn to accept the things they cannot change. They learn to be humble, wise, pragmatic, tactical, and inclusive in their approach to life. They embrace diversity of their peers and they adopt compromise – not because they are a bunch of good-for-nothing children-betrayers, but simply because they have now become adults. They aren’t children anymore. They have grown into more savvy, thoughtful individuals who care more about humanity and the world as a whole than their own selfish desires. I wish the same could be said of the purist libertarians, but for now at least, it appears that they are fighting maturity and would rather cling to their fantasies.

In the meantime, however, the sensible among us are all too aware of the reality: Gary Johnson cannot win in 2016. But the LP could.

Allow me to explain to those still a bit slower on the uptake: The Libertarian Party is currently polling, with Johnson at the helm, between 10% and 14% in the major surveys so far. In order to be featured in the main debate stage that include the two major parties, a third party candidate must trend at 15%, consistently, for at least 5 of these mainstream polls. Johnson is almost there. So rallying support behind him in polls and (ultimately) votes would mean one thing and one thing only: the LP would for the first time in decades become publicly visible to every single American. Period. It would not mean that Johnson himself would win the presidency, because he won’t (the public isn’t sold on libertarianism just yet, despite what the purists seem to think). It would also not mean that the LP would somehow be given a poor branding to the public (only purist libertarians seem to find Johnson repulsive – everyone else outside the movement likes him once they listen to his views). All that could possibly happen if we all get behind Johnson this year is that the LP would live. And come 2020, it would be all the easier to see a libertarian president as a real possibility. At that point, the purists can nitpick about the nominee. But until then, it’s just an uphill battle to visibility, nothing more.

So please, if you truly consider yourself an activist who wants to affect change, set your idealism aside long enough to vote on a principle, not a man. Maybe then, just maybe, libertarianism will finally have its shot. If you throw this chance away by protesting the guy who can’t win anyway, then you frankly do not deserve to complain during the next four years.

The nomination of former Massachusetts Governor William Weld as the Libertarian Party’s Vice Presidential nominee was not one which was met without controversy. Activists booed Weld throughout the convention and there even had to be a second ballot to ultimately confirm him as Vice President. This was due to Weld’s positions on spending, gun control, war, the EPA and a host of other issues. That being said, this author has discovered something which was not brought up during the fight over Weld’s nomination and is an absolutely damning position for anybody who claims to care about the 4th amendment.

In 2005, as a debate over the renewal of the PATRIOT Act waged in the Senate, notorious neocon Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy authored a letter urging renewal of the law which was signed by over 50 members of the national security establishment. This included men such as John Ashcroft, Frank Gaffney, James Woolsey and…..yes, newly crowned Libertarian Party Vice Presidential nominee William Weld. The letter specifically cited the expiration of the wiretapping capability provided under the Patriot Act as well as the access to the data provided by section 215 of the law (among many others) as reasons the Senate should renew the law. The group of high profile political figures, according to the letter, “called on the Congress not to allow the expiration of key parts of this ‘vital tool in our national effort to prevent further terrorist attacks against the United States.'”

The Libertarian Party as well as the Johnson/Weld campaign must offer an explanation for this. The PATRIOT Act was perhaps the most explicitly unlibertarian law passed after 9/11, and Weld’s support of it (as well as his willingness to associate with characters like Frank Gaffney) should cause liberty activists across the country to doubt his sincerity in advocating for a non interventionist foreign policy and civil liberties.  The fact that the letter specifically cited the provision under which we now know the NSA justifies their bulk collection of every American’s phone records brings up even larger question’s about Weld’s commitment to the 4th amendment.

A call to the Libertarian Party Public Relations Office for comment was not immediately returned.

The Liberty  Conservative has just received a photo from an anonymous delegate at the Libertarian National Convention in Orlando, where the Libertarian Party’s 2016 Presidential nominee is being selected. This photo is of the final results of the straw poll taken of the delegates to determine who will make the debate stage for tonight’s CSPAN Debate. With the cut off having been in the mid 80’s for entry, there will be five candidates on the stage. That being said, what is more interesting about these results is Gary Johnson’s underwhelming performance in the straw poll. This was a poll exclusively of delegates to the convention, and Johnson received 226 out of 747 votes for a 30.2% share of the vote. For a candidate who the media has reported to have 60%+ of the delegates backing him that is a huge red flag. If this share of the vote holds up on the first vote at the convention Gary could find himself in a dead heat with John McAfee or Austin Petersen as early as the second ballot, as candidates like Darryl Perry and Marc Feldman are more likely to have their support go to one of those two than Johnson. Buckle your seatbelts folks, we may be in for quite a ride when the vote is taken Sunday morning!

The Libertarian Party is hoping to capitalize on voter dissatisfaction with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, as well as on the public’s overall dissatisfaction with the Washington establishment, as they prepare to meet to select Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominees at their national convention in Orlando, Florida.

While many expect former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, the party’s nominee in 2012, to receive the nomination again, he is facing significant resistance from many activists in the party, most prominently after his recent endorsement of former Republican Governor of Massachusetts William Weld as his running mate.

Weld has faced intense criticism for his support of gun control measures while he served as Governor of Massachusetts, including a ban on “assault weapons”, a ban on the sale of handguns to anyone under the age of 21, and the implementation of a state-level “Brady Bill” to subject gun purchasers to a five-day waiting period and background checks.

His past support for gun control, as well as questionable views on foreign policy and eminent domain, prompted Reason.com writer Jesse Walker to suggest Weld “isn’t a Softcore Libertarian – he just isn’t a Libertarian at all.”

In addition, his role as a federal anti-drug prosecutor has been met with concern from Libertarian activists. When asked by the Boston Globe about his past views on drug usage, he indicated he has experienced some “movement” towards treating drug usage as a public health issue as opposed to a criminal issue; he stopped short of supporting drug legalization, nor did he express support for legalized prostitution.

When asked a question about abolishing social security, Weld responded: “I don’t propose to abolish Social Security, I just started receiving it!’’ His continued support for the death penalty has also drawn criticism.

Among those challenging Johnson are Austin Petersen, a 35 year-old party activist who is highly popular among many in the party and has received the endorsement of Mary Matalin, a well-known political consultant who left the Republican Party earlier this year.

Also seeking to capture the nomination is cybersecurity entrepreneur John McAfee, who is hoping to capitalize on his outsider status in a year when being part of the political system is seen by many as a deal breaker.

Appearing recently on the Infowars Nightly News, McAfee assailed Johnson for selecting Weld despite his pro-gun control stance. “I have not met a single Libertarian that doesn’t believe we have a right to own and bear arms. And Gary Johnson picks a man who doesn’t want anyone under 21 having a gun, who doesn’t believe that arms are necessary unless they’re used for hunting?”

https://youtu.be/icfiOdFcmUs

McAfee also criticized Johnson for his apparent bid to become more appealing to the establishment by selecting Weld as his Vice-Presidential nominee.

“What happens when you decide to take a slow, careful step into revolution — because libertarianism is a revolutionary idea. We want to completely change the way our government functions. When you take these slow, careful steps like Gary and the party has been doing, you end up with compromise. All change of a radical nature, in all of human history that is attempted in a slow step by step process has resulted in that movement being absorbed by the power there, through compromise. The convention has not even happened and already we have someone who is absolutely NOT a libertarian running as Vice-President.”

Writing for Newsweek, McAfee sought to remind Americans about a warning made by our nation’s 34th President. “Dwight Eisenhower warned American citizens at the end of his presidency about the implications of the military-industrial complex and its influence over government. We have now gone well beyond any of the wildest imaginations that could have entered Eisenhower’s mind.”

“The recent mini-war between the FBI and Apple over the former’s quest to unlock the iPhone linked to one of the San Bernardino shooters….should at least give a clue, to those of you those with the right kind of perceptions, where true power lies in this modern world.”

From Berkeley to Boston, cities, states, and ‘safe-space’ after ‘safe space’ have been falling victim to a brutal culture of suppressed speech and demonized debate. This relatively new atmosphere, coined “PC Culture”, has resulted in absolutely laughable absurdities from Mizzou’s segregated safe spaces to Oberlin University’s demand for salaried protests. The free exchange of ideas, once a hallmark of academia, has been reduced to barricaded lecture halls, and near rioting at the sight of conservative speakers. Everything from gender specific pronouns to American flags have been deemed offensive and campaigned against. This culture even came up on the wrong end of jokes in the popular TV show “South Park”, for nonsensical checkings-of-privilege, and for fostering an environment that suppresses diversity of thought. These manifestations are fundamentally immoral- and Political Correctness has been deemed their cause.

However, this is false.  PC culture is not at fault. It’s not inherently evil, it’s not why nearly everything is now deemed offensive, it’s not what’s forcing the fake outrage on college campuses, and it’s not the driving force behind that odd looking guy trying to “check your privilege”. These, in fact, are all direct materializations of a failing culture of glorified victimhood. A ‘Victim Culture’. A fostered environment where everyone seeks to prove themselves to be a victim of circumstance, instead of a triumphant survivor of disadvantage.

With that, the only way for us to truly root out immoral aspects of Political Correctness is to understand its malignant nature.  Yes we should absolutely fight to protect our freedom of speech even if others find it offensive. We have every right to make fun of cultures, traditions, and whatever we wish- but we shouldn’t. As people that yearn to a high standard of behavior and morality- we simply shouldn’t.

In essence, we have been forced to defend behaviors that we may have every right to engage in, but should attempt to avoid anyways. For example, Donald Trump should have every right to be disrespectful or blatantly offensive, and we have an obligation to defend that right of his- but if we yearn to maintain our high cultural standards we need to make a real effort to avoid these. The fight against the excessive “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” will only be won when we begin recognizing the true evil nature of victim culture- and combat it through ending patronizing excuses made on other’s behalf.

Victim culture looks at anyone, not for the content of their core or the greatness of their virtue-but purely for the flaw of their circumstances. A culture that does not tolerate micro-aggressions but excuses thugs who burn their own cities, and murder their own communities. It’s a culture that even allows people like Donald Trump to gain mass support – largely through convincing others of their victimhood. Most importantly, it’s a culture that attempts to force a correlation between outrage and moral justification – implying that the more outraged you are, the more justified you must be. These are all genuinely malevolent, but they have little to do with being “Politically Correct”, and everything to do with wanting to be the victim.

When Baltimore burned because some of its constituency claimed victimhood in the form of racism at the hands of a Black Mayor, Majority black police force, majority black city council, black attorney General, and a black president. That’s victim culture.

When Illegal immigrants claim victimhood because of campaigns to not ALWAYS subsidize their higher education, that’s victim culture.

When the modern feminist movement campaigned to end the use of the term “bossy” because it is apparently demeaning, yet ignored the plight of women undergoing forced genital mutilation in the Middle East and Africa- that’s victim culture ignoring real victimhood.

When Palestinians claim to be victims, because they don’t like the idea of having a Jewish neighbor in Hebron or Jerusalem, that’s bigotry wanting to be known as a victim.

This is explained by conservative commentator Ben Shapiro who said:

“They wake up in the morning and a lot of them can’t point to accomplishments. A lot of them can’t point to things that they have done that are worthwhile, but they can point to you.”

Here is the bottom line: In reality, we should put aside our issues with “Political Correctness” and focus on a growing ‘glorified victimhood’ philosophy. Being a victim is something we should mourn, not glorify. Self-pity is a poison. Period. If men and women can rise from the ashes of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Zhmerinka, and rebuild their ancient homeland with their children- then the men and women of Englewood, Compton, and Bankhead can rebuild their neighborhoods for their children.

After facing withering criticism following revelations from former employees that Facebook was routinely suppressing news stories from conservative media sources on their “trending” news section, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg summoned a handpicked list of “Conservative leaders” to the company’s headquarters in Menlo Park, California to address the controversy.

Among those who attended the meeting were: CNN political commentator S.E Cupp, Mitt Romney’s former digital director Zac Moffatt, Washington Examiner columnist Kristen Soltis Anderson, former George W. Bush Press Secretary Dana Perino, and commentator Glenn Beck. When further controversy erupted over the discovery that practically all of the “Conservative leaders” invited were part of the #NeverTrump movement, Barry Bennett, a senior advisor to the Trump campaign, was invited to attend.

It should be noted that some of the most influential Conservative media outlets, several of which were subjected to Facebook’s article censorship, were not invited. Most notably, Matt Drudge of the influential news aggregator The Drudge Report was left in the cold, as was Breitbart, in a move to punish them for their perceived support for Donald Trump.

“We have zero interest in a Facebook photo-op,” Breitbart editor-in-chief Alexander Marlow and colleague Stephen Bannon said. “We do not want, nor do we need, Facebook’s corporate ‘validation.'”

It should be of great concern to anyone who considers themselves a Conservative or Libertarian that the overwhelming majority of those selected by Facebook to serve as de-facto representatives of the entire movement are connected to the Republican establishment, the very same establishment that has lied and manipulated us time and time again to keep their personal fiefdom intact.

To think that Glenn Beck has been proclaimed the de-facto face of the Liberty movement is incredible. As I stated in a previous article, to see Beck manipulate religious Conservatives to vote, and fast, for Ted Cruz by claiming he was “anointed by God” or by portraying him as the second coming of George Washington or Moses was disgusting. His delusional rantings make it clear he views himself as a soldier of Christ when, in fact, he is an agent of the Devil.

The Daily Caller editor Tucker Carlson, who also attended the meeting, blasted Beck for his apparent boot-licking during the meeting.

“I went to that meeting expecting Beck to cry, rend his garments while quoting James Madison, but that’s not at all what happened. He began the most extended assiduous suck-up I think I’ve ever seen a grown man commit. He acted like he was auditioning to be Mark Zuckerberg’s manservant — it was awe-inspiring,’ Carlson said. “I don’t know what his agenda is; it’s either he’s looking to put his tanking Web properties up for sale or he just can’t help himself. There’s a billionaire there, so he sniffs the throne.”

Following the meeting, Beck expressed his belief that Facebook was behaving “appropriately and trying to do the right thing.” Zuckerberg and the other Facebook executives were “humble, open, and listened intently to everyone in the room,” Beck continued, while lambasting the others in attendance for conducting what he described as a “Salem Witch Trial” interrogation of Facebook’s executives.

In summary, Beck has claimed there is no concerted attempt by Facebook to silence Conservative voices. “We can, and will, debate the merits of some of the complaints against Facebook, but, in my opinion, there is no evidence of a top-down initiative to silence conservative voices.”

If it was not clear enough already that Beck had sold himself out to the establishment in order to become part of the controlled opposition, his statements in support of Facebook’s active censorship of opinions its executives deem inappropriate (read political opinions they are opposed to) should put any doubts to rest. His mission from the beginning was to infiltrate and manipulate the Liberty movement, the last bulwark holding back the tide of tyranny in this country, in order to turn it into controlled opposition.

Even in totalitarian societies, some opposition to those in power is allowed to exist; however, most of it is promoted by organizations or individuals who are themselves directly controlled by those in power in order to give the people the perception that there is opposition to their power.

The same situation exists in our country today. The left-right, Democrat-Republican paradigms are a façade that serve no other purpose than to promote balkanization and infighting, which keeps the people distracted and the “shadow government” in power.

As his media empire collapses, Beck and others like him have launched a suicide mission to stop the rising tide of Nationalism and Patriotism. Beck has joined Benedict Arnold and the long line of other traitors who will lead their manipulated followers over a cliff, taking our country and humanity’s future with them.

Hurry up to wait……and wait……and wait. That has been the slogan from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) over the last few weeks as videos showing screening lines stretching for miles throughout airports in Atlanta, Chicago, and New York (among others) have gone viral. The trade group Airlines for America has expressed concern that, as the peak summer travel season approaches, the growing number of travelers will cause even longer screening lines at America’s airports.

Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson has cited a drop in personnel levels, due to budget cuts enacted by Congress, as the main cause of the long lines (even as the agency, to add insult to injury, has pocketed over $700,000 in loose change from travelers at airports across the country, wasted nearly $1.4 million on an app that randomly displays an arrow directing passengers to the fastest route through screening lines, and another $3 million on explosive-detecting “puffer machines” that never worked).

The union representing TSA employees has called for the hiring of an additional 6,000 airport screeners to reduce wait times. “These additional TSOs [Transportation Security Officers] will at least begin to address the shortage of TSOs needed to reduce the delays passengers are facing in airports across the country,” AFGE (American Federation of Government Employees) national President J. David Cox Sr. said.

Congress, in response to pressure from Secretary Johnson and TSA officials, has agreed to allocate an additional $34 million to hire 768 more screeners and to pay for more overtime for existing employees.

The TSA, seeking to calm public anger over the their incompetence, has brought in entertainers to distract the crowds waiting for several hours to reach screening. “Musicians in Atlanta, miniature horses in Cincinnati, ‘therapy dogs’ at scattered other hubs and, yes, clowns in San Diego,” have been brought in, according to the New York Post.

Homeland Security Secretary Johnson and the bureaucratic machine at the TSA are using the American people as pawns, holding travelers hostage in long lines and disrupting travel plans in order to squeeze more funding from Congress (and by extension, the American people). By threatening longer lines if no additional funding is allocated, the TSA is, for all intents and purposes, committing extortion.

Far worse is the knowledge that the TSA is nothing more than security theater, as well as a means to acclimate the American people to being herded into lines, grouped, and treated like pieces of garbage. TSA screeners have routinely failed tests in which undercover DHS agents (codenamed “Red Teams”) attempted to smuggle explosives and weapons through airport screening.

The fact that the American people must consent to being grouped by TSA screeners, who have stopped as many terrorist attacks as I personally have (zero), while our Southern border is wide open is completely ridiculous. Witnessing TSA agents pat down children, the elderly, and people with disabilities because they may be terrorists, while thousands of illegal immigrants pour across the border and are released with little, if any, vetting process is disgusting.

After 9/11, President Bush authorized the establishment of the TSA, exploiting the American people’s grief over the attack, as well as our fear of additional attacks, to justify the agency’s creation. The attacks on 9/11 have since been used to justify the continued erosion of our civil liberties as a massive surveillance/police state grows around us. History has taught us that people who willingly surrender some of their civil liberties because their government tells them they must in order to remain safe eventually lose them all.