Skip to main content

Commentary on Ann Coulter on Stossel

Ann Coulter is a terrible spokesperson for the Republican Party. Though I disagree with her on just about every point, she makes in her opening statement. I could make much better arguments for her beliefs than she did.

Her foreign policy comments were more than ignorant and insane. All she had to say is that she supported a deceleration of war and she would have won me over. But I would have appreciated a more honest answer; ‘based on the actions Saddam was taking in regards to monetary policy and the impacts it would have had on the US.’ Reasonable arguments can be made for US engagement (I still oppose them) in other countries, but they are based not on a need to protect us from war, terrorism, and violence, but instead to defend our banking system and other geopolitical reasons. Our horrific foreign policy temporally seeks to protect our unsustainable way of life.

In Q & A I think Ann had some decent pragmatic points, but again I was irritated with her presumptuous and ignorant responses. Libertarians do not suck up to their liberal friends as she put it, any more than they suck up to their conservative friends. Moreover, most Libertarians main platform arguments are not those she mentions; those that she mentions are just the ones that get the most attention by media and pundits like her. They choose to focus on and notice them because our political atmosphere is based on seeking differences. Sadly the little media Libertarians get, rarely depicts the philosophy and reasoning behind the positions, instead of sound bites, lumping of two parties boxed rhetoric is applied to continue the illusion of only two choices.

Libertarians are unlike all other groups and political parties, they have consistent, principled beliefs and do not support policy decisions based on self-interest, instead, they hold a consistent belief that people should be free. Libertarians are the only political philosophy that believes in equality under the law. All other parties lobby for government to aid and legitimize their special interests; only Libertarians want to allow all people to be free to seek their “pursuit of happiness.”

“Different men seek after happiness in different ways and by different means, and so make for themselves different modes of life and forms of government.” - Aristotle

Ann Coulter on Stossel, Calls Libertarians

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4qiIFwDziQw

 Glen Beck: Ann Coulter vs. Libertarians
http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=25608397&topic_id=23419450&v=3



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

When Government Demands Papers We Refuse

 By Matthew Hayward  9/19/2025  The Supreme Court just paused a lower court order that had limited federal immigration stops in Los Angeles. That stay lets federal agents resume roving patrols and interior operations that critics say rely on appearance, language, job, or neighborhood to pick people for questioning.  This matters because it normalizes a posture of suspicion. Checkpoints miles inland and roving patrols turn movement inside the country into a condition to be earned rather than a freedom to be enjoyed. The government already claims expanded authority inside the 100-mile border zone. That claim, plus an open green light for stops based on appearance, is a recipe for arbitrary enforcement.  Philosophy of resistance John Locke told us that the consent of the governed is the foundation of legitimate power. When rulers invade life, liberty, or property, or when they become arbitrary disposers of people’s lives and fortunes, the social compact is dissolve...

The National Guard Was Never Meant to Be a Federal Tool

By Matthew Hayward 7/13/2025 Let me say this clearly: the National Guard was created to defend the states, not to enforce the will of the federal government. It was meant to serve as a local militia—an armed extension of the people under the control of the state. The highest authority a Guard member was ever supposed to answer to is their elected governor, not a bureaucrat in Washington, not a federal agency, and certainly not a sitting president weaponizing military force on domestic soil. Yes, I know the laws have changed. I know the Montgomery Amendment, the National Defense Act, and the Supreme Court's decision in Perpich v. DoD rewrote the rules. But legal doesn’t mean constitutional. Gradualism doesn’t legitimize usurpation. You don’t get to trample foundational principles and call it progress. What’s happening now—federalizing state forces to deploy them in cities without gubernatorial consent—is blasphemous. It's an insult to the very spirit of the Constitution. The ...

How the Drug War Killed Liberty

 By Matthew Hayward 10/25/2025 When the State Declares War on Behavior Earlier this month, President Trump ordered United States military strikes off the coast of Venezuela, killing alleged “narcoterrorists.” He later boasted, “ We’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. ” Those words should chill every American who believes in liberty. Fifty years after Nixon declared his war on drugs, it has evolved from domestic raids to international executions, all under the same failed philosophy that government violence can cure human vice. When the state declares war on human behavior, it always loses and takes the people down with it. Every prison cell, every overdose, every cartel bullet is a monument to the arrogance of government trying to legislate morality. Back in 1988, Ron Paul said it best on The Morton Downey Jr. Show: “You can’t legislate morality. You can’t force people to be better by passing laws. If you want to solve moral and social problems, y...