Devvy Kidd: Sort of an embarassment

I don't mean to pick on Devvy Kidd. I happen to like and agree with a lot of what she says. However, she is representative of the Christian Patriot movement who talks about liberty but supports many restrictions on it.

Here is her critcism of the Libertarian Party and in effect libertarianism: http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd100.htm Unfortunately, the LP isn't anywhere near as libertarian as she thinks it to be.

"All political parties have a platform or agenda. This is simply a fact of any organization. Goals, mission statement and how to achieve those goals. Let's look at the platform for each of these parties in a brief form:

The Libertarian Party: They promote and condone sodomy, "rights" for sodomites and their toxic death style, women committing the abomination of sex with each other, abortion as a "civil right" for women, pornography, legalizing all drugs and "free trade." These are all goals of the Communist Party which I have covered in depth in dozens of columns. These moral issues are also in complete alignment with the Democratic Party.

While the Republican party faithful will deny their party has also embraced many of these issues, they might wish to get a reality check from the many columns written by Chuck Baldwin. They are factual and clearly validate that the Republican Party has been moving towards the "left" for a long time, something GOP party faithful don't want to acknowledge.

The LP does champion the Second Amendment, personal property rights and other freedoms which has attracted a relatively small number of people to their party over the decades. When I say relatively small, 300,000 or even a half million members might seem like a lot, but compare it with the numbers below and you will get the idea. The LP has never really become a magnet for freedom lovers because many feel the party is too morally liberal, just like the Democrats and some of the other parties listed below. This is simply an observation I am making from being in the trenches the past 15 years. I know a lot of wonderful, decent people who belong to the LP. Should I send them attack e-mails because I don't agree with what the LP promotes and condones? "

Libertarians neither promote or condone the "toxic lifestyle" of homosexuals. Assuming that all homosexuals practice the same lifestyle (a collectivist notion), it is their life and if they die early there is no justification for abridging their rights. As far as abortion goes, not all libertarians support the individual right (libertarians don't support "civil rights") to an abortion. And all libertarians oppose taxpayer funding of abortion. Libertarians technically do not support "legalizing drugs" which Devvy characterizes as her personal moral belief. They support repeal of prohibition. Opposition to drug use is a personal moral belief but opposiing the legalization of drugs is a political position. Libertarians support free trade but oppose NAFTA and the WTO. Unfortunately, many beltway libertarians lined up for NAFTA and the WTO claiming it was free trade. Not prohibiting adult porn and prositition are not equal to condoning for promoting it. Libertarians are nothing like the Democrats on personal freedom issues. Democrats have a reputation for social tolerance but it's a complete myth. Look at their voting records.

I just re-read Ms Kidd's article again, just to be sure what I was going to write wasn't going to be out of line.

It appears that some here are thinking that Devvy put something in her article which promotes making homosexuality illegal. I see NOTHING of that sort in the article whatsoever.
However, I do see a whole lot of her decrying an agenda which IS being politically furthered by certain politicians, and primarily left-leaning ones as she so accurately points out.
And this agenda is to PROMOTE the homosexual lifestyle via gov't interference and policies and laws. This is VERY DIFFERENT than what I'm seeing espoused here in comments about the Libertarian position to "not criminalize" it.
This is a major distinction. "Promoting/endorsing/advocating/enabling" something by political pressure, laws, and policies, and "not criminalizing" are two VERY different things.

Nowhere did Devvy call for illegalizing homosexuality in that article. However, she was very strong in her wording to castigate participants in that lifestyle, and the political forces which strongly advocate for the adoption of it into our society via government policy and pressure, which is entirely her opinion which she has the right to express. And I happen to agree with her on that point, because the use of gov't pressure to institute a social policy of promoting the gay lifestyle is just as bad as using gov't pressure against it. The political arena should consider this neutral, legal, and leave it be at that. That's a whole different thing than running around passing laws requiring people by law to adopt an "affirmative action" campaign to promote homosexuals into society. Especially egregious are laws requiring this in gov't curricula presented to young children in public schools. If you can't see this distinction, than you need to work on your logic skills.

Perhaps some Libertarians are so interested in "appearing to not be against anything" that they overcompensate, and become advocates.
Remember "not criminalizing" and "advocating" are two very different things.

Devvy did nothing wrong, and I think she did alot right. And she was bold and honest about what she feels is right.
If you are going to take her to the woodshed about this, then you'd better look good and hard at your own positions.

I am sick to death of Political Correctness crap, and to see it filtering into the Libertarian/libertarian camps is definitely giving me a stomach ache..

Further, her writing style is one that I cannot stand. I submit to you fellow patriots to have a problem with it as well. We do not like this kind of slanderous name calling when its done by the NeoCons, War Mongers, Hannity types, ORielly types who calls people pinheads...etc.

It just FEELS good. It feels good to you if you agree with the point, but if you do not, you feel like there is "no one home" to have a discussion about it with...you are talking to the "convinced", to the president of the "Always Right Club".

Where is one to have a rational discussion on a point of disagreement with Devy? Or the Constitutionalist Party for that matter? I have no idea. I would love to intellectually engage them, but to do that one must be seeking to find the truth of the matter, not pushing thier agenda down ones throat.

Those in the libertarian movement are guilty of this too. Just as those in the R3VOLution are as well. No one is perfect.

Nevertheless, I must agree with the proposition to refrain from name calling for Feel Good Reasons. One it ruins the meaning of the original term. If being a Marxist means anything than its a term that should be used when it applies. Having a wide definition that could include all progressive liberals makes the two terms identical, thus meaningless in the end. If fails to inform.

Furthermore, I think human sexuality and sexuality in general is not a well understood subject. Self reflection is not good science, but it all most of us have to start with. For instance I did not conciously "choose" to be heterosexual, it came to me as natural as being right handed. Yet for many people i understand that may not be the case. I am confident enough about Human Sexuality to say we do not know enough period. But what we do know is that we are human beings, Americans certainly, who living under the Constitution our forefathers decreed it is human to have inalienable rights, the Rights to Life, Liberty & Property (see the 13 colonies's State Constitutions) and Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness (Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness being redundant). I further recognize that transgressions of our natural inalienable rights occurs when force or fraud is used, thus we seek a Good Government that would make Good Laws to protect these natural rights and rule against uses of force.

Human sexuality is certainly an interesting topic, but social conservatives who rail against homosexuality seek the Koran - Muslims kill them, the Jewish Bible or the Christian Bible--whatever God-book versions one believes in--to also kill them. This is then a moral code that recomends and advocates killing of another human being that has not used force or fraud upon others, for the simple fact of being a homosexual. Such a moral code, like Muslim Shira Law, may claim it is "above the law", or above the US Constitution, but I for one take issue with that.

Where is the common ground? Perhaps there is common ground with the Devy Kids of this world, perhaps not. Perhaps there is common ground to be found with Muslims, Jews and Christians who would do harm and kill homosexuals by pointing out that with laws come force, and with force there can be no moral decision making, thus no moral behavior. Further, there is a contradiction between the 10 commandments, and those who seek to kill others for their sexual moral choices.

Yes by now you have guessed that I see nothing "wrong" with homosexuality from a libertarian point of view. Such behavior is not "my cup of tea", though like many American men, we don't mind it if we see two 20 something female models going at it, in fact that may just "turn us on". Why? I have no clue. What I do know is that when others do not like it, they are really pissed and they speak as though they are ready to take action, fight about it, use force even to get their way. If Devvy Kidd could sign the law outlawing Homosexual actions inside the USA, would she sign it? If yes, then to my mind she is not as virtuous as Dr Ron Paul nor as wise or as principled a protector of the Constitution. This concerns me, its just not civil and it to our credit as a country we condem such actions.

It would be a credit to our Revolutionary Movement if we condemed it too.

In Peace & Liberty,
Treg

when you talk about homosexuality, as to being promoted publicly or a private manner. Everybody has their own choice on how they act in the eyes of God. However, homosexual behavior should remain a private matter, and should not be promoted as a natural behavior to be accepted in the public arena. The heteralsexual relationship is the only natural behavior, because it is the only way to procreate, and why it has been the only public relationship accepted throughout any society in recorded history. Since, it has been proven by several accounts, that people who have made claim as being gay, but then changed to the heteralsexual relationship and remained for the rest of their life, shows it could be a choice, and not a predetermined gene in their makeup. Being that homosexuality makes up at the most, 2% of the population, it is a minority position, and should not be promoted as a strongly accepted form of relationship, when it isn't. Devvy is only stating, that in order to be a true Christian, you have to follow the moral teachings of Christ, or you are only using the religious title to gain your own selfish ambitions to attempt to decieve certain people to vote for you.

that's why I listen to Dr. Paul he has it right in my book. If homosexuals don't care that I'm heterosexual that works for me. Peace

It seems to me that if you criticize a candidate for not being anti-gay, you are saying that you want the government to be anti-gay. Otherwise, why would it be relevant to a discussion of the candidate? She is imposing a scripture-based morality on candidates which seems to indicate that she supports a scripture-based morality in the law. I oppose that.

That Devvy Kidd article is full of venom. People are entitled to their own opinon, and Ms. Kidd is no exception. But that much hostility towards homosexuals says something about that person that is, IMHO, not favorable at all.

You never hear Ron Paul talk about gays that way.

I would first like to apologize for my spelling. I was in a bit of a hurry. I don't understand how mild criticism of Devvy can be equated with support of Hlllary or Obama. Using this logic, if I criticized Obama or Hillary therefore I am a McCain supporter. I wish people would read what I wrote more carefully. I support the right of Christians and other religious individuals to deem homosexuality sinful. Scripture definitely backs that up, although I think Scripture is more harsh toward male homosexual conduct. As to the Marxist issue. Hillary and Obama may get support from Communists, they may go/have gone to Communist meeting but operationally they are fascists. They support government control of private property more than they support government ownership of the means of production. In either case, it is irrelevant. Both communism and fascism, as well as liberalism and conservatism are species of collectivism or statism. Don't get caught in the false Left/Right paradigm.

And I think those who would use the government for a anti-gay agenda are just as evil as those who would use it for a pro-gay agenda. Rather than use persuasion, both sides would like to use force.