64 votes

Blue Republican or Red Democrat? The rEVOLution Crosses Party Lines

The newest and fastest growing political grouping in the USA is driven by the idea that the problems that are facing the nation today have been caused not just by the Left wing or the Right wing, but by the mainstream of both parties, which have for years been eliminating our civil rights, sponsoring and benefiting from a crony corporatist economic system, and operating a militaristic foreign policy, seemingly to the benefit of a military industrial complex more than that to the benefit of the nation.

This growing group of anti-Republicrats are mostly young people who’ve been educating themselves about their nation and its workings – rather than relying on the typically dull mainstream media that continue to filter events through the mistaken ideas that the Democrats and Republicans have fundamentally different political perspectives, and that on any particular issue, one of the parties will know the best political direction for the nation.

In 2012, most of these post-partisan Americans who say to America’s political duopoly, “Pox on both your houses”, are supporting Ron Paul for president, even though very many of them have never before identified Republican.

Now their influence is beginning to be felt outside the Republican party – and not just in the presidential election.

In the 10th District of New Jersey, a candidate for the Democratic nomination to represent his district in Congress, is finally asking the question that hundreds of thousands of young American liberals have already asked - and whose answer has caused them to leave his party.

The candidate is Dennis Flynn, and his campaign video begins by asking, “Where Have Our Liberal Values Gone?”

The voiceover proceeds to provide the motivation for the question …

The following is a quote from the most outspoken voice for liberal values currently serving in the U.S. House of Representatives.

'… it is with the complicity of Congress that we have become a nation of pre-emptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrolled spying on the American people. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely, the opposite is true.’

Cutting to pictures of stadiums filled with literally thousands of people, the voiceover continues,

Here are some recent examples of this Congressman’s speaking events. Crowds of young liberals who want to end the rules and protect civil rights are passionately participating in a wave of political action [that is] sweeping across the country.

So what’s wrong with this picture? The congressman they are supporting is a Republican.

Those young liberals are called Blue Republicans, and that congressman is called Ron Paul.

The values that have driven the Blue Republicans out of the Democratic party and toward a conservative septuagenarian Republican are a preference for peace over war, a belief in the Bill of Rights and a desire to end to a government-sponsored crony corporatist economic and monetary system.

What strange bedfellows true principles make!

Whereas a Blue Republican can most simply be defined as a “Democrat or Independent who is registering Republican for one year to support Ron Paul”, more important is the underlying realization that causes people to make what for many of them is a dramatic political conversion: what is most wrong with the United States is not caused by one or other party, but by what both parties have agreed about, often tacitly or implicitly, and caused together.

Don’t like the Patriot Act, the NDAA, or CISPA? Romney and Obama both support them. Don’t like bailouts? Romney and Obama both support them. Don’t like military intervention without the declaration of war? Romney and Obama both support them. Don’t like a secretive central bank and corporations that (under government license) manipulate a fiat currency in a manner that systematically transfers wealth from working Americans to a financial class? Not only do Romney and Obama both support them: they both receive their largest donations from those very corporations.

As Flynn’s campaign states, “These are not Democrat issues or Republican issues. These are American issues.

Exactly, Mr. Flynn.

And yet, since Ron Paul – who stands against all the un-American things just listed, and is unique in consistently voting against the shared assumptions of the two main parties – is a Republican, the Republicans are gaining registrants as the Democratic party is losing them: not because their track record is any better, but just because the guy who’s telling the truth has an (R) after his name.

In New Jersey, Dennis Flynn realizes that it doesn’t have to be this way. Democrats can tell the truth about what most matters, too. Moreover, the Democratic Party has for decades talked as if it had a greater claim to these Blue Republican values than the Republican Party, so surely it can stop the bleeding of support by putting its policies - and its candidates - where its mouth is?

Flynn appreciates that Ron Paul is being carried by a rising post-partisan live-and-let-live pro-liberty political wave that spans the political spectrum, attracting the independently minded of both liberal and conservative sensibilities. His campaign is both effect and cause of the fact that a cultural and political revolution that is bigger than either party is under way in the United States. And if the rEVOLution is going to take root and then take over, it must start to undo the prevailing self-interested orthodoxies of both of the main parties of this nation.

I am pleased to support Dennis Flynn, the Democrat, as I am to support Ron Paul, the Republican. The purists may hate me for it – whether they be party-Democrats, party-Republicans or even libertarians. And that is just fine. In politics, “perfection” - like abandonment of principle - is nearly always the enemy of the good. Given his running on a Democratic ticket, I suspect that Flynn disagrees with Paul on abortion, has softer views on certain government spending, and has an idea of property rights that may not satisfy a “Human Action”-carrying libertarian. But, finally, a Democrat has recognized that the nation is profoundly losing its way – and that all those issues about which he may disagree with a principled libertarian are much less important than those (civil rights, peace, crony corporatism) about which they should agree.

Dennis Flynn is making a farsighted attempt to turn one of the nation’s most powerful institutions – the Democratic Party – toward civil rights and the very values that it has been espousing for decades but long ago forgot to act on. (It was the Democrat, Jim Clyburn, who said only two years ago that most of what Congress does is Unconstitutional – and therefore at odds with the Bill of Rights.)

People who care most about political orthodoxy, a candidate’s political experience, their pet government program or whether their candidate is a party-man won’t care much for Mr. Flynn; nor will those who just don’t like the unfamiliar. However, those who think that perhaps not all blame for America’s mess lies with the political opposition, but that their own party (and nation) might benefit from a little honest self-criticism and house-cleaning, will be excited by the truth Flynn tells and the courage with which he is telling it.

Flynn’s tagline is “Returning Real Liberal Values to the Democratic Party”. Let’s see if he can return some of the real liberals to that party, too.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Thank You Robin

...and for those of you who have not read this article by Robin, please do. It is so much in line with Dr. Paul's demeanor and character...something most of us are trying to learn from.


I truly do not understand why there are so many attacks on good people lately. Paranoia and fear with *unintended consequences?* Or purposeful with clear intent to disrupt.

Anyway...just keep writing Robin. Many here truly appreciate the way you think and the information you share.


Robin Koerner's picture

More liberty is always better, wherever it is found.

Seems like some major misunderstandings in response to this article on this site.

Anyone who is genuinely interested in the true purpose of the Blue Republicans can read my dozens of articles and listen to my 40 or 50 interviews. No reasonable person could possibly say that we are not fully committed to a Ron Paul victory and the re-establishment of small, Constitutional government in the USA. Tens of thousands of words have been written by me and by others about our work. No one has to speculate. Just do some homework. I don’t care if someone disagrees with me. I do care when someone who has never once spoken to me, not read all my work and gets his facts wrong calls into question my integrity, honesty or motivation.

My goal is a Constitutional Republic. I don’t give a flying fish about parties, except inasmuch as they already exist and are powerful - so we have to deal with them and in them. I don’t much care how we get our rights back or our Constitution back, although I don’t want to see anyone get hurt. Anyone whose politics is sufficiently in line with mine that they would support Ron Paul and the Constitution is someone I am going to respect and support. As is the case with Dennis Flynn, if he is the ONLY such person with such politics in a race in which ALL OTHERS do not support Paul and what he stands for, I will support him all the more strongly.

All of America’s politicians have a duty to uphold the Constitution and protect our inalienable rights. That goes for Republican politicians, Democratic politicians and all others. The oath is the oath. We should demand that from candidates of ANY party.

I am also for REAL change – not for theoretical purity that wins us no supporters. Obviously, the effort to take back our country is well ahead in the Republican party, which is where my focus will remain. It is also why I have spent hundreds of hours of my life this last year to bring new registrants to that party specifically to vote for Ron Paul and to fill the party with those who passionate about liberty and the Constitution.

There is no “either-or” between liberty in the Republican party and liberty in the Democratic party. The Democratic Party has indeed appeared to be a lost cause in terms of liberty and the Constitution. But unfortunately, we are stuck with them as almost half of the political establishment. I have written plenty about the damage they have been doing to this country. But in the America I would like to see, Democrats and Republicans would ALL respect our Constitution and our civil rights. It therefore makes no sense to abuse someone who is in the Democrat party and supports those things - just because he is not in the Republican party. (That very idea, by definition, puts party before principle, which is exactly the mistake that has brought America to the current tyranny that we are supposed to be fighting against.)

Of course the most important thing for us to do is to get critical mass in the Republican party … but if you are a classical liberal Constitutionalist in a very heavily Democratic district, then it’s not unreasonable to think that the way to turn that district around is to run as a Democrat. Sure, Dennis Flynn could be a Republican, but then he wouldn’t get elected, so he wouldn’t do any good, and he’d not have the platform to espouse the values we love. Sure, you can question the strategy, but you should honor the man and his attempt (and those who support his effort). He is doing no harm to the Republican party. In fact, he is, by gaining the trust of Democrats, able to bring more Democrats around to vote for Ron Paul – as he has already started doing. Ron Paul himself doesn’t ask for those who agree with him to join the Republican party.

Moreover, as a Republican Constitutionalist (which I am, although not yet officially, as I am not yet a citizen), and I am asked to support a candidate, my first criterion should be “Is he a Ron Paul-supporting, Constitutionalist who, if elected, would jolt his district’s political establishment in the direction of liberty?”. Flynn is such a man. If I only support people I agree with on absolutely everything, I would support no one and therefore contribute nothing to our cause. (In fact, I have a couple of differences with Ron Paul himself, but that doesn’t make my work any less important or passionate or effective.)

But most simply and obviously, there is no liberty Republican in a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, is there? So all this “undermining our effort in the Republican party” is prima facie baloney.

If you are more interested about WHERE to promote liberty than in promoting liberty EVERYWHERE – then it is not really liberty that is motivating you. Now, if you honestly believe that promoting liberty only in one party is more practically effective than promoting liberty in that party and elsewhere (seems like a logical impossibility to me, but I address it because it seems also to be the case that some have been making in this thread), then you are entitled to your opinion. But that does not provide you with a basis to question the motivations or integrity or bona fides of those with whom you have a methodological disagreement.

One thing I know for sure is that the thing will cause us liberty-loving Constitutionalists to lose our battles is NOT Democrats’ coming round to understand what Paul and his message are all about. In fact, that is EXACTLY what we need to win the war. Rather, it will be in-fighting that is instigated by those who claim to be for liberty, but assert that they know more about it than those with whom they disagree and so stand in judgment of not just their opponents, but also those who are doing heavy lifting to actually win supporters for our cause.

This last year, I worked tirelessly and without any form of compensation to bring Ron Paul’s message to American citizens who would not otherwise have been exposed to it – and I have done so in way that has actually made a difference by persuading people. There are those who have done much more than I, but I will put my efforts and my results up to be measured against those of anyone in this nation.

As for writing on the Huffington Post. You bet. I will spread the word of liberty WHEREVER and WHENEVER I can. I don’t care who owns the website, who else writes on it or whatever. I also write on the Daily Paul, the Moderate Voice and the Daily Capitalist. All I know is that once given that kind of platform to reach thousands – and I do reach thousands - I have a moral responsibility to use it for good. Right now, that means bringing liberals and conservatives around to the message of freedom and the Constitution. Since the HuffPo has a liberal and Democrat audience, I write to persuade that audience. Frankly, that is why I am so good at what I do. If I find allies in that audience, I will embrace them, whoever they are. And I will understand that they won’t come all the way to my exact position in one step. And for the record, Huff Po does not pay me, and so they exert no editorial control over my work (or as far as I am aware, anyone else’s, although I cannot vouch for that). I am just a guy with a login on their site. How blessed I am to be able to use it in a cause I believe in.

Finally, it is a rEVOLution, remember? I try to come from a place of LOVE. Love is expansive, kind, and looks for ways to unify, not to divide. My degrees are in physics and philosophy. I know what intellectual purity is about and I know its value… Nevertheless, if I agree with someone on most of the liberty platform, but we differ in our understanding of particular aspects, I will work with him to move forward on those areas of agreement. As I have written, winning arguments is nice, but it is frankly easy and a waste of time. Orthodoxy is the death of any movement. What matters is winning supporters. You do that by finding common ground and growing it. Applying the non-aggression principle in everything – including how you communicate - will help in that effort.

Ron Paul will not be endorsing Dennis Flynn AT ALL, EVER!!

Ron Paul is not going to endorse a Democrat.

Endorsing Democrats is your distortion/corruption/ division with Ron Paul (you have several from reading your blog), and to say you don't care, which is just another way of saying, you do care, but you have no better way to make that care a reality (not caring is default) so in other words you are telling us, "Screw you heartless, ignorant, selfish Ron Paul Republicans; Robin to the rescue spreading liberty (stealing Ron Paul's message for the Democratics, by rendering it to an "idea" with a "movement", rather than a rEVOLution), farther, wider, thicker and better then old Ron Paul." Yeah Robin. Sure.

In Contra Costa CA, running for US Congress in District 11 is Democrat John Fitzgerald, a Ron Paul supporter, and definately NOT a Republican by any color. No Republicans will be voting for him, but they can tell their Democratic friends to vote for him. There are 8 Democrats running for congress in my district and one Republican).

Many of us have sacrificed our friends and family time to face these Neocons in our own towns at Republican Central Committee meetings, joining THEIR GOP, and to have someone like you, who is not an American (you gotta know that really impresses them, eh?) who is also informing them, "Blue Democrats have infiltraited to bring Liberty".. You are who they fear.

I'm not going to defend you at my Republican Central Committee meetings, and either would Ron Paul.

It would have been proper to say your Democrat friend, Mr Flynn supports Ron Paul. That is enough being Ron Paul is still in the race, the Ron Paul Republican delegates are still fighting to bring liberty to the GOP, as Ron Paul asked us to do.

Robin Koerner's picture

Inaccuracy after inaccuracy after inaccuracy

I am not endorsing a liberty Democrat OVER a liberty Republican - or any Republican for that matter.

My entire article was about the fact that the rEVOLution is bigger than one party, and that it is good that there is a Democrat in a DEMOCRATIC primary in a district that a Democrat is bound to win, who espouses many of Ron Paul's values and supports him. Why would any lover of liberty not prefer that - and therefore a chance that a Ron Paul supporter could represent that district - than a situation in which there is no chance that a Ron Paul supporter would represent that district?

Once again, I will do NOTHING to take away from the effort to have a liberty, Paulian takeover of the GOP. Indeed, I have done much work in that direction. Preferring a liberty Democrat over any other IN A DEM PRIMARY - and being happy that such a thing exists - does not take away any Republican votes.

(It occurs to me, though, that most liberty-loving supporters of Ron Paul would prefer a RP-supporting liberty-loving pro-Paul Democrat or libertarian or whatever to a non-liberty-loving anti-Paul Republican. If it ever came to such a choice, I would - and I would hope that all of Paul's supporters would as they would be doing what Paul always advocates, which is putting principle before party)

I am a Ron Paul Republican, as is evident from anything I've done and written over the last year (since I "came out" with my political views on a public platform) So how could I characterize Ron Paul Republicans as heartless, ignorant, selfish... and why would I insult my own? The claim is absurd. You're putting words in my mouth that I would never say - not just because they are factually wrong, but because I would never accuse someone of such awful motivations without extremely good reason.

You would never hear the likes of that from Ron Paul (nor would you hear a dig from him based on someone's nationality, by the way), so please don't invoke him in support of your post in the way you have.

That you refer to "Blue Democrats" suggests that you know nothing about my work or my position. The movement with which I am associated is called the "Blue Republicans"... referring merely to people who have not been Republican before, but who have become Republican to support Ron Paul and his message - which is, I hope, the same reason that everyone on this site, is a Republican.

If you don't know that, then you don't know the first thing about the political work I do. (I mean that literally - coining "Blue Republican" was the first thing I did of any importance in US politics, and people who know nothing else about me know that.)

You also misrepresent by using the term "infiltrated to bring liberty" . I wrote an article that coined a term to describe a group of people who were changing their party political registration. They did so AFTER they heard the liberty message from Ron Paul, a Republican, and they have done so very publicly. They didn't "infiltrate" to "bring liberty". Ron Paul and those who have supported him for much longer than I had already done that. You cannot bring something that has already been brought.

Finally, you say that I have rendered the rEVOLution as "just" a movement or idea. Again, factually incorrect. I have in many, many articles (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/) referred to Ron Paul's rEVOLution. In three cases, I have even put the term in the title. Of course, I think there is a "liberty movement" and "liberty ideas" too.

I don't know you at all except for your posts, so I cannot call your mischaracterizations deliberate attempts at deceit - but so many in such a short post that is filled with such vitriol is unusual. I am used to being criticized. But please do it accurately and even perhaps, like Ron Paul, by giving those with whom you disagree the benefit of the doubt. He is a good example for us not only in political thought, but also in manners.

You appear to be more concerned that we support the Republican party than we support the rEVOLution. Ron Paul, as he has said multiple times, is more concerned with his principles than party. His entire career shows he means it. I'm happy to pin my colors to his mast. Principle before party. And saying that does not take away from my belief that our best shot of winning is to remake the GOP, to which end I am actively working.

The rEVOLution is IN THE GOP

I apologise for writing, "Blue Democrats". I meant Republicans. I have been reading you blog, asking questions, and appreciate your time to respond.

Ron Paul's message is bigger than the GOP; However, it is in the GOP where we are working to establish citizens who appreciate liberty, in an effort to Restore America to her Constitution, sound money, and freedom.

It seems that you are not understanding that the Neocons, are liberals, Neoliberals, AKA Neocons, who infiltraited the GOP to bring about a NWO working with the neocliberals in the Democratic Party, and MSM.

My Republican Central Committee should have 21 Republicans seated. There are eight, and 5 never show up. Ron Paul informed us back in 07/08 that the GOP was in desperate need of new blood. If we want to keep our Republic, we better get in the Republican Party and start voting "No". He was right.

My ballot has 8 Democrats running for congress and one Republican. Only one other Republican dared to think about running.

Many people have accused Ron Paul of baiting us to keep the GOP alive, because it's dead. Mine is dead. There is nothing legal about it, actually. We never have a quorum, we have no money, no events, no candidates, and people don't show up to meetings.

On the other hand, the Democrat Central Committee is very healthy with people waiting to be listed, as there are no seats available.

There are three districts in my county that have 4 seats open in the Republican Party, and not one person wiling to be seated.

Do you see the problem?

It's not easy being a Republican here in ultra liberal land, and it's especially not easy being a Ron Paul Republican.

I went to an anti-war rally with some Ron Paul issue cards being against war. I asked the group as I approached, "Hey, do you know who Ron Paul is?" "Noooooo", swooned the group, leaning to hear my answer, when a small voice from the back said, "He's a Republican!!!"

The group broke. Half, ran aside the building as if the voice had said, "Bomb!" The other half poised their signs as if they were going to beat me with them.

I went to a League of Women's Voters, "Meet and Greet", I needed signatures to get on the ballot. There was about 40 people there. I introduced myself as a Ron Paul Republican. Not one signature. I asked the chair, "Are there any Republicans?" "Not that I know of.", she said. "Hmmm", I replied, "Maybe I could be the first Republican?" To which she said, "We don't like Republicans."

Yesterday I had my teeth cleaned. I've known everyone in the office for a few years and they are always kind. A black man walked in with his wife and the entire office went out of their way to hug the man, not his wife who was white, as if he was some long lost relative. I noticed they looked at me as if to say, "Unlike you, we are not racists".

I've been accused of being a racist and a homophobe, who hates women because I support Ron Paul.

I have experience after experience like this... so to me, to say Ron Paul's "idea" belongs in the Democratic Party, we might as well fold the GOP and have one party, where none of the Ron Paul Republicans will get a seat, as the seats in the Democratic Party are already full.

Party's have platforms. Ron Paul says the Republican Party has lost it's way and we should help it return to it's conservative roots, thus Robin, is the rEVOLution. The rEVOLution is in the GOP, which needs a revolution if it's going to survive.

In 07/08, having worked with Ralph Nader on ballot access in several states, I hoped Ron Paul would go Indy so I could help. But it dawned on me that he chose the GOP for a reason, and now that I am in the GOP, attending central committee meetings, I see. The established government are exposed because there are too few people.

THAT is why I am pressing for the rEVOLution to continue to expand in the GOP. If we lose the GOP (I'm sure the establishment can operate a stealth shell with MSM covering for years), so no one would cry if the GOP was ended, except maybe us Ron Paul Republicans, because we are trying to save the GOP, and our country, to restore America.

Again I apologise for saying "Blue Democrat", I admit, I never liked the term, "Blue Republican", but I don't hate it. I only believe you have no idea what we who joined the GOP are facing, fear from the Neocons, loathing from the neoliberals, and all our work could be destroyed over night.

Seems as Republicans, we hardly had a chance to be established and the message is being co-opted for Democrats, who once they have it.. we won't get it back.. not in this weak state.

We are winning Robin because there's not enough Republicans in the party. We are losing becasue trhe Republicans in the Party are establishment shills. It's all MSM bologna, with the exception of what you read here from Ron Paul Republican delegates.

I have another question.. if you are not an American citizen, how did you become a Republican?

Robin Koerner's picture

Thank you

I appreciate your reply too - both its content and its tone. If you don't mind my saying, much more conducive to our success and understanding each other.

I hear everything you've said here. It is clearly important and relevant. I don't think I have any disagreement with you. I am as appalled as no doubt you were by what you have been on the receiving end of given others' (non-Republicans') prejudices against those of us who would claim the mantle of Republican. I stand with you in spirit at those times.

Regarding your question, which is important for the sake of clarity: I actually answered it in my original comment, when I wrote, "as a Republican Constitutionalist (which I am, although not yet officially, as I am not yet a citizen)"...

Of course I cannot be officially a member of any party until I have citizenship (another couple of years). My identifying as "Republican Constitutionalist" is what I am in spirit/political perspective, and as soon as I become a citizen, my identifying as such will be able to become "official".

I occasionally joke that the reason I am doing everything I am doing is precisely because I cannot vote, so I need the rest of the country to vote the right way so that I don't have to leave. It is just a joke: I have no intention of giving up the fight here in the USA, where there is still a fight to join. For the country of my birth, alas, I don't think I can say the same thing.

Thanks again.

Very good

Thank you for the understanding.

Perhaps with allot of hard work and some luck, together we may fill those open GOP seats with Ron Paul Republicans and become the change we want to behold.

I am proud to be a Ron Paul Republican. I love people, and don't blame them for their fears and brainwashing by MSM. Most folks just want to get along, they have enough problems.

Ron Paul takes a learning curve. I did not agree with him 100% in 07. It took me awhile to understand what natural rights are and what they look like outside my assumptions and imagination. Human rights do not discriminate. For example, a fetus is human, and it's personhood is underdeveloped due to it's young age. Natural human rights protect it's life. When we discriminate by dividing rights into groups, ie women, race, age, we lose natural human rights and thus our humanity. We become monsters.

May God Bless you and keep you a Ron Paul Republican.

"Bona Fides"? Many talk and write about Liberty, few truly

understand LIBERTY.

It is particularly difficult for British SUBJECTS to understand and to pretend to a leading role in the restoration of LIBERTY to this land.

While your ancestors(or at least the ancestors of the peoples to which you currently claim allegiance) were fighting, ruthlessly and brutally to keep SUBJECTS(a weasel word for slaves) as SUBJECTS/SLAVES my ancestors were fighting them. My ancestors WON-thank all that is good and useful for that.


My genes/heritage/history is an unbroken line of resistors-by force of arms, at risk of life, limb and all things held dear if necessary-to all tyranny over the body, mind, heart and soul of humankind by other humankind.
That line includes the successful overthrow of histories most successful and enduring tyrants -Brit "Royals".

"Bona Fides"?

YOU wrote the blog post excerpted below:

God Bless America. God Save the Queen

(0) Comments | Posted May 30, 2012 | 11:37 AM

By happy coincidence, I am in the country of my birth, England, during the Diamond Jubilee weekend of Queen Elizabeth II.

I will enjoy a little tinge of British pride when I see the flags a-flying and the Queen a-waving -- a feeling not entirely dissimilar from that American...

God Save the QUEEN??

By that statement alone you know nothing of LIBERTY.

You are currently seeking U.S. citizenship? God Save US.

I have much more to say about You, your comment above, this effort you are suddenly promoting, the way it is being promoted(coordinated cabal and all), etc. in the days and if necessary, weeks, months and years ahead.

But for this installment I will close with this:

Some of what you have written above, as well as, some of what has been written by the other co-conspirators and those currently confused by them implies both some "LEADERSHIP" position is held by you in this Movement and that you are in some way above criticism-A Kind of "Royal". Not in my book nor in the book of anyone that Really understands LIBERTY. No one is above question ever in the LIBERTY MOVEMENT and though many believe they are and many assume others are-the LIBERTY MOVEMENT has NO LEADERS. "LEADERS" are the very antithesis of LIBERTY.

If you truly wish to be what you claim/think you already are-GREAT-stick around, learn about LIBERTY and help others learn. First lesson, take to heart the above Cliff Notes on the notion of ROYALTY and QUEENS as it relates to LIBERTY. Also, learn the lessons above about LEADERS and people EVER being beyond questioning as to their COMPLETE allegiance to TRUE LIBERTY. Your learning the lesson of that last will be indicated by your happy acceptance, indeed welcoming, of your bona fides being questioned.

If you are not what you claim/think you are and have no intent of becoming so-Then; time will tell and who should care what you think about being questioned.

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

Robin Koerner's picture

If you must misrepresent me to criticize me...

... then you make my case for me.

Why don't you quote the sentences that immediately follow the ones you quoted from my post to which you refer.

(The article is here for anyone who'd like to read it http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/god-bless-americ...)

Here's the whole quote.


"I will enjoy a little tinge of British pride when I see the flags a-flying and the Queen a-waving -- a feeling not entirely dissimilar from that American pride I get when I pick up my Constitution or watch our nation's best and greatest speak with passion about the United States' founding ideals.

I've had to interrogate myself quite closely about that. After all, in the USA, I spend a great deal of time championing a political philosophy of liberty that was articulated in a sublime Constitution that was written in opposition to abuses by the same monarchy that the Brits will be celebrating next weekend. Indeed, as a passionate American Constitutionalist and activist of the liberty movement, one of my favorite Brits has to be Thomas Paine -- who did as much as any man to point up the absurdity of monarchy -- and of the love that the English apparently had for it."


I should say that you make an argument based on calling me "a leader", which I do not claim, and of being like royalty... which exists only in your mind. It certainly does not in mine.

But what made your comments most extraordinary was the fact that you have put me down based on an accident of my birth - the fact that I am British - and raised yourself based on an accident of yours: that you are one of a line of ancestors who have fought tyranny. I commend them, sir. But that line of argument is precisely the one that has justified monarchs through the ages:

"My genes/heritage/history is an unbroken line of resistors-by force of arms, at risk of life, limb and all things held dear if necessary-to all tyranny over the body, mind, heart and soul of humankind by other humankind."

None of this makes you a lover of liberty. It made them lovers of liberty. The question for you and me is surely, "What are we doing for liberty". I don't know who you are, but I will stand with you to fight for freedom - and I hope you would stand with me to fight for it too, whatever other differences we may have, whatever ancestry we have, and whatever nation we happened to be born in.

Surely, no liberty lover gives credit to a man's opinions or belittles them because of where he comes from - and especially not when that liberty lover, which I assume you are, hates monarchy, which is justified entirely on that principle.

For what it's worth, "bona fides" means "good faith". My point was that thinking someone is wrong is not a basis for questioning their good faith. When you call me a "conspirator" and such things, you are making an accusation - and it is not my good faith that is called into question in that case.

I would like to be fighting with you in the cause of liberty, not against you in an attempt to defend beliefs I don't have and things I have not done.

"Bipartisan" means the voters

"Bipartisan" means the voters never had a choice on the issue.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

I always hear it as "buypartisan" as the lobbyists have bought

votes on both sides on the aisle.

a quote just for you bytejockey ;-)

"They've got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters on the other side, but no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen."
— Huey Long, campaign speech for the re-election of Senator Hattie Caraway (D-AR), 1932 (Williams p. 589)

If you know

any Dems who don't think the message is for "liberals", check out


Waking Up From The Dream State Is A Good Sign

It's called, have enough of us waken up from our apathy?

We want and expect Democrats

We want and expect Democrats to cross over and vote for Ron Paul because of issues we agree upon. But when there is another candidate running for office in the Democratic Party where there is no clear libertarian or liberty Republican candidate, I don't see the harm in supporting him.

Here is an example of the Southern Avenger supporting a Democrat over a Republican back in 2008. (The Republican was Lindsey Graham)

liberty lover in Nor Cal!


This is what is bound to occur with an off axis movement like Liberty. There is nothing that requires a Liberty minded candidate to run Republican. Ron Paul is; good for him. This other guys is running Democrat; good for him.

Small minded, loud mouthed internet warriors like gmason are just that.

This was always going to happen, and it is a good thing.

I'm trying to understand

Maybe I have a small mind too? Maybe I just didn't understand Ron Paul and the rEVOLution from the git go?

Tell me where I am wrong since you have more understanding and wisdom in what the Blue Democrats are saying/doing.

I never thought I would be a Republican. After three elections helping Ralph Nader achieve ballot access, I hoped Ron Paul would go Indy, because then, I could help him in big ways with all my experience. Ron Paul never left the GOP, and I really had to think hard on that. WHY? WHY NOT?

When I met Ron Paul, he took me back when he said, "Thank you for inviting me to your rEVOLution."

My rEVOLution?

I thought this was the Ron Paul rEVOLution. I had put that on all my banners: Join the Ron Paul rEVOLution, with my Meetup #.

I've been here 5 years, and during that time I have read that the GOP was dead. I read articles that called for Restoring the Republic, Republican Party, America.. I saw people join the Republican Party who were saying things like, "I must be out of my mind, but I trust Ron Paul and so I'm going to join the GOP and get involved". My friends who joined called me a coward, and asked, "What is the big deal you can't join the GOP to help Ron Paul?"

It's MY rEVOLution is WHY I won't join the corrupt, mean, GOP. Ron Paul told me himself it was MY rEVOLution and I think we need to go Indy, and allot of people agree with me.

So I didn't join the GOP, and Ron Paul lost, Obama won.

Between then, and when Ron Paul announced his intention to run for president 2012, it began to dawn on me why Ron Paul picked the GOP and stuck with it. It's his message.

His message is perfect for a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy. Democracy is not about Freedom and Liberty, it is about mob rule, in the majority rule. Ron Paul's message is restoring the constitution to our Republic.

So I joined the GOP when Ron Paul announced he was going to run for president 2012, and began going to my Republican Central Committee meetings. I was afraid. All that stuff I have been reading about Republicans... what a turn off, But that is not what I found at my RCC. I found Democrats occupying the RCC as Republicans in Name Only. No wonder we are headed to a NWO. There should be 20 seats filled, and there are 8, and 5 never show up, two rotate. I have shown up more than any of them. Now I have a seat, as I campaigned as a Ron Paul Republican. They fear me. I have power.

For the first time in my life, and all the political campaigns, I was a Libertarian before I registered Decline to Sate in 1993 under the influence of my friend, Ralph Nader, I have political power and find Ron Paul's message actually works.

Ron Paul was the Republican candidates were compared and asked if they supported. The change happening in the party was ... rEVOLutionary. Amazing to see. And we are not done. We still have Tampa to go to... oh gosh I hope he wins CA so I can go to Tampa.

So why, before Tampa, Blue Democrats.. those who identify themselves as "Blue Democrats", are telling Ron Paul Republicans, as if we didn't make sacrifices and take big risks, and still are, that Ron Paul's message and our rEVOLution is mearly an idea, a movement. That's all it is, an idea that should be "shared" with the Democrat Party because the majority in the Democratic Party need to hear Ron Paul's idea. Next you'll be calling it the Ron Paul experiment, and then failed experiement, and then you'll be calling it the rEVOLution of whatever Blue Democrat candidate catchs steam with Ron Paul's idea.

It's not a message with a movement for a rEVOLtuon in the GOP, uck that... it's merely an idea and an experiement to be taken (not stolen). it's a good idea and since the GOP is a sack of crap and the idiots who joined the GOP are losers who think they have any respect from the Democrat Party for a rEVOLution (what a joke), and a message (LOL) It's a freaking IDEA, and it's actually an OK idea and it really belongs to the Democrats and so as soon as the election is over (and sooner if you can) you will drop the GOP like that cow pattie it is, tell the Ron Paul Republicans to F off and take Ron Paul's idea for the Blue Democrats in the Democrat party.. spreading the love?

Have I got the Blue Democrats intention?

Have I got it right?

You mentioned above

that in 2007, you did not agree 100% with Ron Paul, that his message takes a learning curve. If you want Democrats to join the GOP to vote for Liberty Republicans, you should recognize the reality that they'll be voting for establishment Democrats until someone kickstarts their awakening from within their own party. Hopefully, by 2014 and 2016, enough of them will have gone through the "learning curve" to come around to voting for Liberty Republicans against establishment Democrats (and, yes, Freedom Democrats over establishment candidates from both parties). You still respond as if you think we are taking away Liberty Republicans by waking up Democrats. In my opinion, you should consider supporting such efforts to ensure that when Liberty Republicans inevitably win their party's nomination at all levels of government in the next two to four years, the Democrat voters needed to win the general elections aren't hearing about (and/or seriously considering) ending the Department of Education (and other "radical" positions) for the first time.

I don't want Democrats to vote for Liberty candidates

I want voters who are interested in restoring America to Constitutional Government with a Bill of Rights, to join the Republican Party and help us rebuild this Neocon studded empty shell, and make it ours.

I want voters to join the GOP, take seats on central committees, get involved, run for office, and continue to restore conservative values for the Republic.

In My County, the Democrats outnumber the Republican 3 to 1. Many people would like to end the GOP and move into the NWO. Not Ron Paul. Not me. Not those who joined the GOP in the effort to restore America.

Let the Republican Party give the message to the Democratic Party by winning elections with Ron Paul Republican, eh?

I have no problem telling Democrats to vote for a candidaite who endorcses Ron Paul. I have a problem with thinking that candiate will take Ron Pauls' message to the Democratic Party as theft of an idea.

We are trying to take the GOP with that message, so spreading it to the Democratic Party, is basically killing it for Ron Paul Republicans.. we might as well join the Democratic Party and be done with it.

Hello NWO, how the hell are yah!?

That has and always will be the case and ALL are encouraged to

keep us advised on the local knowledge situation in those instances.

The problem is not supporting the most LIBERTY supporting candidate available in each circumstance-the problem is starting a new distraction on a large scale that is VERY poorly timed.

P.S. Distraction and poor timing are just two of many flaws of this ill conceived scheme.

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

"septuagenarian"?? LIBERTY has age BIAS??

More Divide and Conquer.

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

Far too much vitriol!

Loosen up, you are simply cherry picking statements that suit your viewpoint.

Pride and greed hold us all back, to the benefit of the few and detriment of the whole.

Here is how we know when the R3VOLution has Won:

When a Peace/liberty "D" candidate goes up against the Peace/liberty "R" candidate. Who ever wins the popular vote will not matter, Peace & liberty wins.

Currently, that is how the Welfare/War Party wins. Both the "D" vs "R" is a Welfare/War Party candidate, so welfare/warfare wins each and every time.


Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Have to disagree with that Treg-We REALLY WIN when INDIVIDUALS

get a completely equal airing of views/records and the one that wins the support of the majority of Individuals prevails in that specific contest.

REPEAT across this land and across the globe. All judgement free from the blurring/blinding of Labels.

P.S. Absolutely NO disrespect in this slight disagreement my PATRIOT friend :-)

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

Completely agree with this piece

This movement stretches across party lines and that makes it the "establishments" greatest fear. Right, gmason?

BIG NO-small yes

A state of REAL LIBERTY prevailing is in the enlightened self-interest of all humans. But enlightened is the key. One of the keys to enlightenment is seeing parties and labels for the control/enslavement scam that they are.

Right NOW the worst thing for the establishment criminals is if one of their TWO VIABLE parties that they have long carefully crafted as control corrals falls to the control of TRUE LIBERTY forces. That provides a refuge for those seeking LIBERTY(across the establishment created false notion of "Party Lines") to concentrate their forces-in a venue w/ real hope of getting their LIBERTY voices unfiltered to all the poor brain-washed regular schmoes w/o going through the criminal filter.

If One REAL and VIABLE LIBERTY option is available to the electorate-any and ALL corrupt options will be exposed and the collapse of the false options will be rapid and automatic. That is what the criminals know and most fear. Then they become the ones doing reaction instead of action-it turns the tables on them.

P.S. Dannyboy-Are you not a member of the "Ah Hey Hardie" scammer cabal? I'll look into it when I get a chance.

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

Question from a newbie to the liberty movement

So I'm a lifelong social/fiscal conservative who gradually started drifting left on gay marriage and realizing how the neocons seem to have hoodwinked the entire social conservative movement into supporting unconstitutional wars, and then discovered Ron Paul near the beginning of this election cycle and realized that I was already on board with 90% of what he was saying, and once I got past "wait, what's the Fed?" I was on board 100% :)

Anyways, I love this article, and agree so much in theory, but I'm having trouble visualizing a democrat that I could actually vote for. The biggest thing is the abortion issue. I believe that abortion is murder, and so I have a really hard time getting on board with a candidate that isn't strongly pro-life. This already rules out a pretty large chunk of libertarians, but then if you add the fiscal issues on, I'm confused as to why a pro-life fiscal conservative would ever call themselves a democrat. Do such candidates exist? If so, I'd vote for them in a heartbeat. If not, what am I to do? I want individual liberties, ending of foreign wars, ending the NDAA, TSA etc, but there's no benefit in that for those who aren't alive to enjoy those rights, and even if we get rid of military spending and end the fed, entitlement spending and the welfare state are still serious problems that need to be dealt with.

Any advice from the DP community?


Not exactly sure what advice you are seeking from the DP.

If the candy inside is filled with the sweet taste of liberty.
Does it really matter that much if it's labeled (D) or (R)?

Most candidates have realised that they need to pick D/R to stand a chance at being elected, and this is how we end up with choices that dont fit into the basic views of each party 100%.

The whole Pro-Life/Pro-choice deal is a filthy coin on both sides. This topic along with a few others have no relevance to government, and should dissipate as it shrinks.

Listen Carefully

Most of the so-called "pro-choice" faction is really defending women's unalienable rights. It wasn't too long ago that women and children were property of their fathers/husbands. Some men were, too. Considering these rights have only been recognized for a few years, it's understandable that women can get heated about the issue.

The slaves were freed before women got the vote. Children were drafted and sent to war without a vote. The trend recognizing the individual rights of children, and of women, and even men (big picture and the freedom movement willing), is heading in the right direction.

Technology is helping to create more respect for the unborn.

The "pro-choice"/"pro-life" argument is more about the collision of the trend toward individual rights of women, and the attempts by others to control what they do, than it is about women wanting to terminate any rights of the unborn. Dr. Paul has it right: we need to decentralize this to the local level. It will reduce the "social friction" that accompanies such a big social shift in attitude, and the trend toward rights will continue.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Okay, I'll bite

I was slightly hoping to avoid getting into the actual issue in this particular thread, but I guess that was hopeless before I started, huh?

I get the whole women's rights aspect of the debate, and I'm all for womens rights, the issue arises when the rights of one person conflict with the rights of another. A perfect example is the whole birth control thing that went down a few months ago. Just because someone has the right to something doesn't mean that someone else has the responsibility to give it to you. I'm all for women having access to birth control, and would vehemently oppose any attempt to ban it. But I also respect that some people believe that birth control is morally wrong, and so they have the right to not (in their view) subsidize immorality by providing birth control. Ultimately the government shouldn't be mandating anything about healthcare, but particularly it should never force people to violate their religious beliefs (unless those beliefs violate the rights of others).

So, heading back to abortion, people have the right to control over their bodies. (As Dr Paul is fond of saying, groups don't have rights, individuals have rights). But people also have the right to live. The right to live is more fundamental than the right to liberty, because without life you don't have liberty, so your right to life trumps my right to liberty.

Pre-emptive response, because I anticipate getting "Just because someone has the right to something doesn't mean that someone else has the responsibility to give it to you." quoted back at me and used to argue that just because unborn people have the right to life doesn't mean that women have the responsibility to give it to them. I would say that it's already been given, and now it has to be protected. Use of that argument would justify Catholic hospitals going in to employee's homes to steal birth control that they'd purchased elsewhere. The not "give it to them" decision is back when the woman decided to have unprotected sex (yes, not all pregnancies are voluntary. Rape is a horrible crime, but also responsible for an extreme minority of abortions. The corner cases like that and the lives of the baby and/mother being threatened and messy and difficult, and don't make a lot of sense to discuss unless you already agree on abortion in general.)

Here's one:


I guess I just need to be looking closely. Just skimmed her wikipedia article, and overall she sounds like someone I could vote for, depending on who was running against her.

I'm pro-choice

And I support Dr. Paul. I think we're not going to agree with a candidate on 100% of the issues unless we are the candidate.

Agree, mostly

I have some environmental stances that are way more big government than Ron Paul or any libertarian, but I support Dr Paul, and would happily support a libertarian who disagreed with me on those. The issue is how important a particular position is to you. Remember, that I believe abortion is murder. If you're murdering someone, at the end of the day it doesn't matter at all if you were going to give them all of their constitutional rights or none of them, and it doesn't matter how much of their money you would have otherwise stolen ("taxed"), and it doesn't matter if you would have spied on them or groped them or not. We can't have liberty without life and so in my view life is more fundamental.

Say that a candidate agreed with you on every issue, except they said "I'm for repealing all murder laws". Would you vote for that person? (Well, maybe, just cause they'd have no chance at actually succeeding in that goal, but hopefull you get my point?)

I'm willing to compromise pretty much any of my individual issues to vote for someone if they're strong in other areas. But I don't see how I can compromise this particular one.

Notice the Timing of this Koerner piece and the "Ah Hey Hardie"

crew effort.

Coinciding almost perfectly timed w/ the MSM/ESTABLISHMENT CRIMINALS declaring Romney "Clinching" the nomination.

Hint: From long experience-be very wary of peeps that splash on the scene w/ an entourage and a PR department.

I do not know this Koerner character from Adam(lol-inside joke) and neither do MOST of you.

REMEMBER-"The best way to control(subvert) the opposition is to lead it"

That is one of the criminal establishments favorite tools in their bag of evil tricks to enslave the masses.

You really do NOT need a LEADER for LIBERTY and if you must follow someone be absolutely DAMN SURE you know PERFECTLY the character/nature/ethics/agenda/heart and soul of whomever you chose to follow/allow to "Lead" YOU.

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

please rate Robin


Negative One Hundred.

- 5 *

Negative Five Stars

Two Thumbs Down-with enthusiasm

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

And I give you a negative Bernake

you know it's limitless.

No problem dude-peeps that can and will

understand will-those that can't/won't-won't.

Luckily here-we have a majority of can and will.

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

How to best work this strategy...

A crossover coalition voting strategy needs to be developed to defeat neocon Republicans and blue dog Democrats. I suggest libertarian Republicans ought to support progressives in heavily Democratic districts and states while progressive Democrats ought to support libertarians in heavily Republican areas.

In evenly divided districts and states, we need to determine which party is most vulnerable and get crossover voting to nominate a progressive or a libertarian. In the general election the coalition candidate should slam her or his opponent for not being bi-partisan in representing a bi-partisan district.

The goal would be to defeat the military industrial catastrophe and all of its corporate crony cousins and use the funds saved from gutting these gluttons to pay down debt and fund the building of a peaceful green economy. Unfortunately, until we have 60 US Senators willing to do this, it will never happen. We should not delude ourselves, as either progressives or libertarians, by thinking that we can do this without cooperating with one another.

It would be a disaster to undermine one another and waste resources by planting progressive candidates to defeat libertarian Republicans or libertarians to defeat progressive Democrats.

Were we in the market for a new strategy?

Did not think so.

But you LABEL Boys and Gals knock yourselves out creating Flavored Liberty.

See you are supposed to be here because you now see through the scam-apparently you wish to maintain a safety line to the label scam.

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

Robin and I ...

have some very serious differences of opinion, but anyone who doubts his loyalty to the Ron Paul campaign and to the principles of classical liberalism/libertarianism is smoking something we are trying to make legal. All the haters showing up here to condemn him for supporting a Democrat in a primary are full of horse hockey.

Keep up the good work and good example Robin.

In my humble opinion as a I view this from Canada:

The strategy of taking over the GOP is the only option at this time. Romney and Obama are both backed by Wall Street and the Bankers. Nothing will change with either of them in the oval office. A vote for a Democrat, no matter how sincere the person, is a vote for Obama. Ron Paul and the revolution is the only option, at this time, and GOP is the doorway in.

I'm so happy and so sad because of electronic

voting fraud. Let us come together though, to heal this land, stop this corporate madness and end these wars. Demand Ron Paul and don't back down no matter what! Re Love ution!

People that REALLY understand LIBERTY are still and will

remain rare for some time. Confusing those that are waking up to LIBERTY by the idea that it can be had in either of the parties will guarantee it won't be had in either.

You can spin it however you want-Dividing our core weakens us and hands the Establishment a huge gift for their continued death grip on power.

One step at a time. The establishment got where they are by being focused, methodical and patient-for a very LONG time. Our movement is still an infant on the establishment time scale.

Oh, well, this is not be the first hare-brained scheme to grace the pages of the DP-Nor the last.

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

agreed g

and I take heart in knowing that with the kind of people that really understand liberty come the character qualities necessary to push the movement forward until we are victorious. I'm grateful to know you and so many others here : )

Thank You very much Jinc coming from you that is a very

high value compliment.

I am a flawed human as we all are but I strive always for the greatest humanly possible wisdom and ethics.


"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

If I could thumbs up I would.

If I could thumbs up I would. Thank you my friend. Very well said.


Thank You as Well TAD

God I am sick of every crawling peep still wanting to have power over others.

That is what is behind so much of what goes on here at the DP-People angling for Power.

Leave US ALONE. Let US just live our lives free of your freaking power schemes.

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

I just dont get it sister

Who is this ey hey hardy person. I dont mean to say bad things, but this person's thinking is screwed up. She just does not get the true message of Ron Paul. She does not see the message within his message. All this person sees is an opportunity to get her party up the ladder.

I feel that this is what the dem are going to try in the future since people are starting to wake up. They are not going to fool anyone. Every rep candidate from here on out is going to be proven.