Zo Changed His Mind: Now Supports a Libertarian 3rd Party!

Use Liberal’s Own Label Games Against Them
I’ve been been adamant about no going third party but I’ve changed my mind and I’m coming around on a Libertarian 3rd party.

Thanks for watching my vids! If you like the message in them then You’ll have a BLAST nukin’ the liberal Narrative with my audio book of Christian Conservalicious profundus, written and read by Me! WEAPON OF A.S.S. DESTRUCTION! CLICK HERE OR IMAGE AND CHECK OUT SOME REVIEWS, AND GET YOUR COPY!!!


  • John Helmes

    The entire Video was 100% TRUE,

  • I approved this message.

  • Bryant Harris

    Amen Zo, Amen!!!

  • Jeff Nagengast

    If you want to move to a third party, we need to use the power of incumbents. After the 2016 election would be a perfect place to start. If we win the President, then the President and the rest of the Conservatives will need to come together right after the election and state that the Republican party no longer represents their beliefs, and that they are all starting a TEA Party or joining the Constitution party or whatever. This allows us the nation to be used to the 3rd party being in power for 2 years before the midterms. We do not run anyone new for the 3rd party in 2018. Instead we run as Republicans and then leave again. By 2020, the Republicans are the 3rd party.

    • shatto

      Re-listen to Zo.
      Your preconceptions caused you to misunderstand.

    • Jeff Nagengast

      I thought he may not have been saying he is pro 3rd party. I couldn’t really listen I was at work.

  • Patrick

    Great video!

    • RinoWatch

      Only for those who misunderstand what libertarians actually believe.

  • The problem with Zo’s reasoning:
    1. 3rd party success=nationally electing the third best candidate most often. The 2 strongest candidates split the popular vote while the weakest or worse choice enjoys unity in opposition to the more popular policy set advocates.
    2. In order for the 3rd party to overcome normalcy bias and take 1st or 2nd place it must advance radical unsettling policies which make the other 2 look identical and yet achieve popularity overarching the status quo. OR work inside one or both major parties to reform along popular new ideas.

    TEA and Libertarian party wonks agree more than disagree on those requisite new ideas or more accurately ‘old ideas’ long forgotten by both major parties. “Self interest demands government back under the authority of the Constitution.” Republicans refuse to prosecute Democrat offenders and Democrats refuse to prosecute Republican offenders. Independents are waking up to this and supporting more of your so-called ‘invaders.’ Good!

    • shatto

      Where did he actually endorse a Libertarian Party?
      I heard him tell people to …. think.

    • Okay; so think. He said he supports a 3rd party. This being the case he supports dividing TEA and Libertarian parties from the GOP. TEA and Libertarian candidates provided the conservative sweep the GOP needed to gain and hold control of both houses of Congress. He called us invaders of their republican house, and to mind our manners in their house. I don’t recognize these Republicans as Republican who attack the candidates we sent into the Washington elitist corruption cesspool to return leadership to sanity. Fine. We’re invaders.Both major parties need major reforms in the worst way. The Olde Guard need to be swept out. Party ideologues need to pay closer attention to what their own are up to. How do they spend 30 years in Congress at $175K per yet come away $30 million or more richer? Positions of power and influence including Speaker are bought. That’s 3rd in line to the presidency! McConnell bought it.

  • JoeB154

    Poor Zo, you have such a limited understanding of libertarianism. You can indeed be fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. Unlike Liberals, we don’t think society should bear the cost of an individuals decision. If they make a wrong decision it is up to them to bail themselves out, unless someone voluntarily wants to help them. There is no big government coercive ‘charity’ in our worldview, but there is also no coercive ‘morality’ which is what makes us unlike conservatives. If you actually want to increase your understanding, read this: http://www.historycarper.com/articles/notlibertarian.html

    • Frank Harrison

      As a libertarian you cannot be socially liberal, as being liberal means taking liberties with other people’s freedoms. I prefer being socially equalizing. That is, putting everybody on an even playing field, which is the exact opposite of what both liberals and conservatives want (WE ARE BETTER THAN THEM!!!!!). It is under socially equalizing ideas that support what you have just listed. As I noted before, he did pull a lot of y’all on the libertarian party. I.e. inclusion by association.

    • JoeB154

      You are somewhat right, Frank, in that your definition fits what today’s Liberals have become, but to be liberal also means being open to non-traditional ways of behaving, and/or believing in individual liberty, therefore libertarians are most definately socially liberal. The difference between a social liberal and a Liberal is that Liberals believe society must protect individuals from the consequences of their own decisions, social liberals do not.

    • patgo

      Sorry, but as long as the liberals and communists outnumber us at the polls, there IS big government coercive “charity”. Address that FIRST, and THEN we can talk about making vices legal (but the fact is, legalized vices, or widespread practice of vices, all lead to the same end: a huge population of dependent people, and a bunch of do-gooders who want to force YOU to provide the charity to bail them out.)

    • Frank Harrison

      How does that run alongside what I just said?

    • patgo

      Sorry. I was addressing JoeB154. Don’t know how my answer got posted under yours.

    • Frank Harrison

      That’s ok. TY for addressing it

    • RinoWatch

      Right, because there is a difference between thinking a LAW will do more harm than good vs. wanting people to be utterly wild. The cure/treatment for many behavioral problems lie upstream from law — in the culture.

    • thomas

      JoeB154, I think I understand what you are saying, but I disagree not only in that there is no coercive ‘morality’, but I also firmly believe there is a need for one. Man is some noble creature that is born and has built in social morals; quite the contrary, they are instilled in us. Now whether those morals are instilled within/upon us by our parents, the local pastor, the school or the government, they are not something we are born with. So, if we agree that the morals demonstrated in society today are becoming troubling or an issue, where did they come from? Even if we say government, in order to reach that level of “institutionalism”, it had to start somewhere with someone or some group of common thinkers.
      No intent to simply be argumentative, but our morals come from somewhere, the issue today and going forward for individuals and our nation is where do they come from, what are they based on, and who decides what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’? We can say nobody, it is the individual’s responsibility, but again, individuals are not born with some fundamental set of morals in dealing with life and/or their fellow man.

  • Johnny Christensen

    I am so happy you were kidding ! I am red blooded conservative patriot ! You are so right on !!!!!

  • Lara Fabans

    Where’s my Kleenex…there’s snot everywhere 🙂 Just kidding. I do feel there’s a big difference between being socially liberal (aka brain damaged) and socially libertarian. I do think that you can bring back additional freedoms and impose stricter consequences. I believe that’s going back to the original Republican party platform. I don’t like the current Republican party leaders who pander to minorities, compromise everything or else make it all about religion. I want those people to drink a glass of STFU, and let’s get the party back to solid values, personal responsibility, self-reliance and genuine helping one another. We are the most generous nation in the world…or we were before everyone said “meh, the government will take care of that, and hey, why is my paycheck so low, why are my property taxes so high, why does milk and bread cost so much?”

    • Frank Harrison

      The only problem is, you can’t. The Republican party inherited Base Socialism/Progressivism in the 70s when the Democrat party kicked the Christian Left out (KKK) and they came to the Republican side and started infiltrating the ranks. That is where the Republican party gets its liberalism/progressivism from, the Southern Baptists like Falwell, Baker, Popoff, Roberts, Robertson, Graham, etc. The Christian Left, especially back in the 30’s – 60’s were in charge of McCarthyism, the arrest/silencing of liberal ideas like giving blacks the right to vote, women receiving equal pay for equal work, being allowed out of the house to work, etc. Once the Democrats converted to full tilt socialism like they are today, and convinced the liberals of that age that government is the only real answer; the progressive religious leaders came to the Republicans with enormous wads of cash and corporate power and said, “how would y’all like to do business with us?” And the rest is history. That’s exactly why libertarianism was born. Because we saw the shift happen at both ends, and decided not to follow along.

    • Thanatos144

      You really need to learn history because almost all of what you wrote is wrong….Not just wrong but ignorant.

    • Frank Harrison

      Correct me then. Or are you all rhetoric and no fact?

    • patgo

      Well, no, Thanatos is right. Your description is not just wrong, it’s just plain goofy! The leaders you named were not LEFTISTS at all. They were/are conservatives. I don’t know where you get the idea they were the Christian left. And they certainly don’t teach this stuff in the public “schools”. The “Christian left” is made up of people liks Sojourners, many Catholics, and so forth, and when I look at what else they believe, I am hard put to consider them “Christian” though “leftist” fits just fine. And by the way, the KKK was NEVER Christian. It is the very antithesis of Christianity. It was the REPUBLICANS who fought for the rights of people of color. Not the leftists. The leftists STILL enslave people, to government this time, as Zo repeatedly points out.

    • Frank Harrison

      perhaps you should go back and look at the actual voting requirements of the Moral Majority yeah for a guy like Jerry Falwell to claim that he’s a Republican and yet he was in favor of segregation he was against interracial marriage and he thought very loudly and proclaimed that Martin Luther King was in fact a Democrat and Republican he infiltrated the right especially when you consider look at his family I mean God is grandfather was an atheist his father was an agnostic yeah the guy pretty much is nothing but a con and a scam artist takes all that into account as for other claims well you know I can look back at the sky Ainsley who actually was the founder of the original law banning marijuana back in the 19 thirties you see when he did that his claim was at the time that’s marijuana had no actual medicinal purposes but when people actually pulled up his off the record quotes they were actually all about let’s see what’s the proper way to put this marijuana was the scourge of the illegal Mexicans and the black neighborhoods that were infected and the other neighborhoods around the country now of course he used a lot more colorful terms then I just use their butt I’m a little bit more sensitive about it than other people you know here’s the problem you and friend a toast just read the school version of United States history you actually don’t care about history because you want history to repeat itself well actually I really do too but I want history from the late 18th century to the early 19th century to repeat itself back when governments it was actually about promoting progressive this progression moving forward doing the right thing ie the government only putting in laws in place that helped all businesses grow not just businesses that make billions and billions of dollars and contributions to go forward and keeping small businesses under the boots of governments that’s where history is actually proving me correct and you all wrong you need to go back and reread history

    • patgo

      Wow! That message is so irrational I can’t even make sense of it! What have you been smoking? Thank heavens for spell checkers, because without it, your message would have been indecipherable.

      I don’t care what Jerry Falwell thinks. I never followed him. I just know he was a conservative, and the description of him as a Christian liberal was totally off the wall. And another thing: I don’t share a view against miscegenation. We are a racially integrated family by choice, and I actually talked a woman into accepting her son-in-law-to-be, who was glaringly obviously of a different race from her daughter.

    • Frank Harrison

      oh you can accept what you like Petco but the fact still remains the Democrats have always been the racial party take a look at it from this point of you who always brings up racism issue as opposed to the actual character of an individual?. oh and by the way I actually use voice translator on my phone for these posts because quite frankly it’s a waste of my time typing

    • patgo

      Better throw that phone away. It’s doing you more harm than good. Democrats are racists. I have NO IDEA what you are trying to say here. I discuss racism when other people bring it up. I look at character and positions when I vote.

    • Frank Harrison

      Oh, OK. So the Republican party isn’t going left because of infiltration from a party that has a win at all costs mentality. That’s naivety. That’s also a closed mind. It’s funny, conspiracy theories always point out a bigger picture, but people have been told that they are just logical fallacies. And yet, when the truth comes out, and certain people within a certain party point out these fallacies, it’s still dismissed as a conspiracy theory. So I guess this means that Sarah Palin, Alfonzo, Cruz, Paul (either one, although Rand would fit better for the sake of this argument) must now be nutjob for pointing out the elephant in the room that I too, have pointed out.

    • patgo

      Well, that’s not what I said at all. I simply said the people you called “Christian left” aren’t leftists. Good grief! More of the same “reasoning” that made me conclude you can’t think straight in the first place. I don’t generally attack people personally, but I am hard put to characterize your arguments any other way. I see multiple factors in the GOP moving left, starting with the libertarians leaving (and since being joined by a number of leftist nut-jobs whose only interest is in being allowed to use drugs and engage in vices without worrying about getting arrested, who have basically co-opted the libertarian movement). Then there are the leaders within the GOP, whose win-at-any-cost mentality is causing them to lose, both candidates and principles. And there are undoubtedly conspirators who are contributing to the wrong candidates. I don’t put a whole lot of stock in conspiracy theories for two reasons. The first is if they were really that effective, we’d be in dire straits today, and we still have a long ways to go in that department. The second is that I can’t do a doggone thing about what powerful people do, and if I pay attention to conspiracy theories, I just worry, and it’s not good for me, and I’d much rather trust in God. So they detract from the exercise of my faith.

      I don’t know what you are talking about when you say Palin, Alfonzo, Cruz, and Pauls are pointing out the elephant in the room, because they all have made many statements about what’s wrong. Which particular elephant? And why wouldn’t you want a good GOP elephant in the room? Just sayin’.

    • Frank Harrison

      “I don’t know where you get the idea they were the Christian left. And they certainly don’t teach this stuff in the public “schools”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell#Social_and_political_views.

      Rise of Baptist Republicanism By Oran P. Smith. Specifically pp:93-94

    • patgo

      And you think I will read this stuff because you recommended it? I already told you that you talked me out of reading anything you recommend because of your ugliness. I won’t bother. I won’t bother with you. People will see your messages and realize their incoherency and won’t pay attention to you, either. Done with you.

    • Frank Harrison

      Still haven’t heard anything to supper your claims. I take it your a big fan of public school history, a standardized version. I’d ask you to openjoy your mind and read more, but that would be completely dichtonomous of everything g you were taught in school.

    • Thanatos144

      Thats easy…. Al Gore senior, Byrd, LBJ still all democrats… that’s just two right off the bat….. Unlike you I know my history and not fairy tales.

    • Frank Harrison

      and who was Nixon by the way you know Nixon the most liberal Republican pretty much of all time let’s be honest Thanatos there really hasn’t been a true Republican in the White House well Reagan a little bit more libertarian his first term but oh boy was she ever Rhino in the second completely bought by political interests seriously there really hasn’t been a true Republican since Goldwater

    • Thanatos144

      give me a break….The most liberal in terms of the most like democrats would be Bush.

    • Frank Harrison

      most influential Republican of all time for the party that would have been Jerry Falwell Jerry Falwell who supported segregation of schools and actually fought against several IRS cases that tried to remove tax exemption from schools that we’re not practicing or actually that we’re practicing segregation see Jerry Falwell also was heavily against interracial marriage butter and of course his biggest most outstanding claim was that dr. Martin Luther King was actually a Democrat even though he was a registered Republican so you go ahead and tell me where exactly in your history books you find that there’s nothing better than nothing but right leaning people in the Republican Party cuz one of your biggest financial contributors has always been a Democrat in disguise

    • Thanatos144

      who lied to you that Farwell was influential?

  • shatto

    ….
    Beyond….
    What you see, is University level thought.
    Correct ideas, I reckon.

  • ConservativeCreole

    Well said, Zo!!! Love it!!!

  • steve1

    i don’t think libertarians want you to be less christian, they just don’t want a theocracy..
    the libertarian philosophy ( or “classical liberalism” before the name liberalism was stolen and changed to mean big gov socialist) is no different than the one held by the country’s founders you love so much,
    socialism, progressive conservatism and the theocratic are all pro big government, and move us toward the tyranny end of the political spectrum, personal responsibility and moving toward the liberty end (regardless of the labels it is given) is what Americans and Christians should all be working towards and using as the test of their beliefs..

    • JoeB154

      Christians would be more than welcome in a Libertarian society, I know, I am both, where as Libertarians would not be welcome in a Christian society, at least not the Christian society that the GOP represents. Using the Law to enforce conformity to a religious or moral code, as the GOP and most social conservatives support, is legalism, and if you want to know what Jesus thought of legalism all you have to read is Jesus’ condemnation of the Pharisees… Jesus taught tolerance, and God gave us free will, to choose to follow Him or not. Today’s fundamentalist GOP is the antitheses of the Word of Christ, tho you’ll never get one of them to admit it…

    • thomas

      I have my issues with the GOP, but I have not seen a Republican stand and say, if you don’t follow Christ, you cannot be a Republican. Now, I have seen many of Zo’s videos and I can’t recall him ever suggesting or supporting anything like a theocracy for our nation. Man’s history demonstrates that he needs standards to live by, whose standards will they be? If there are men/women in our country that have it all figured out and would never infringe on the rights of others to achieve their desires, I haven’t met any of them. I think that is basically what Zo is acknowledging in using himself as an example; men/women are fallible creations and must have a standard against which to base their actions or how to conduct their lives when it comes to dealing with our fellow man. Personally, I don’t care what men/women attribute their “good” actions and conduct to, but Christ, whether you believe or not, is definitely not a bad example.

    • steve1

      if it is NOT the governments job to stop people from engaging in self destructive activity’s, and if it IS the peoples job to take responsibility for their own actions, that makes MORE room for religion, and gives religion family, and community MORE responsibility and MORE importance not less..
      yes it is a horrible knot to unwind since we already have socialism and big government trying to support the self destructive, and destroy the family unit, and support the prison industrial complex and so on and so on, but just because you see or hear libritarians speaking out on one aspect of liberty or one issue doesn’t mean they are unaware of how they all interconnect.

    • thomas

      steve1, Again, as Zo pointed out regarding Republicans and Libertarians, we seem to agree on much. My understanding is that Zo was espousing a view that religion (Christanity) serves as an individual measure for himself and that most, if not all people need an established and identifiable standard in which to gauge their behavior/actions. Of course FREEDOM is the starting point for everything as without freedom, you have no right to individual choices. (My apologies to Zo if I have misstated his position).
      If I am truly honest, I do not consider myself a “good” religious person, but in learning just a little bit of man’s history, without a standard to look to, man will flounder and attach themselves to some really bad ideas. As I mentioned previously, one does not have to believe in the Bible to view Jesus as a good example. With that said, fanaticism toward anything can be troubling and yes, that goes for religion. As we may very well agree, I like trees and nature (if you will), but I am not hugging any trees nor shedding tears over one, as in my opinion, that is a bit extreme. I happen to agree with Zo’s example of abortion, in that being against abortion is viewed as some sort of evil, while support for it is characterized as the noble, good, or freedom loving thing. That seems to be about as far from any “good” standard as one could be.

    • steve1

      i have no problem with a personal standard, …i have some myself… and while it may not come directly or entirely from Christianity it likely would pass as being christian if examined based on fundamental beliefs instead of attendance, membership or denominational canon.. the big difference between libertarian and social conservative is, libertarians think the same things are bad, evil, harmful etc..as conservatives do, but it is a matter of personal responsibility to not engage in them and you should reap the consequences if you do,
      social conservatives believe it is big governments job to keep you from engaging in those same things, to impose additional penalties (at taxpayers cost) when you do, and to increase the size of government in perpetuity when those policy’s inevitably fail to prevent them, or even slow them down and sadly they often make them profitable which makes them happen more..
      i would prefer smaller government or at the vary least one that does not grow by design due to its own inevitably failing policy’s.

    • thomas

      steve1, so I can better understand your defining of the difference between libertarians and social conservatives; are you able to provide an example? I ask because I am no fan of big government, but I would like to test your definition on myself.
      In an example, I understand and accept (as a non–rider) that motorcycle riders are better protected in wearing at least a helmet but, if a rider doesn’t wear one, their risk, their potential loss. As you know, some will argue that if the rider doesn’t have enough or adequate insurance, the tax payer will end up picking up the tab. Further, lets suppose the rider is disabled for the rest of his/her life; now they will be supported by the tax payer for the rest of their life. This scenario has ‘hot potato’ written all over it, in that the rider is free to choose, but that choice leads to taxpayer intervention. I agree with the freedom, but not at taxpayer expense if the worst should happen, and it does.
      Of course, this could happen to anybody doing anything, but does the choice against what may be considered rational behavior (wearing a helmet) come into play, and if so, how?

    • steve1

      i have to repeat “it is a horrible knot to unwind” your example of the tax payer picking up the tab is one of those messy knots. ideally in the case of the helmet-less rider it is his responsibility to pay the hospital bill (or have insurance), if he cant pay it falls on those who love him ( his family and friends) to pay or raise the money, if that falls short those who have compassionate hearts and who are called to help those in trouble, the church, the Christians, the charitable could “voluntarily” donate to help him..
      in a world where your self destructive actions are payed for by you and your loved ones hopefully you will take more care not to do things that are going to bring them or yourself to harm,
      does the choice against what may be considered rational behavior come into play? it guess it depends on your family and the church, i don’t see most families friends turning away from you for your first stupid choice gone wrong, i expect most churches would give you a few dumb mistakes
      BUT family, friends, church and the way that society has organized itself around personal responsibility all would all be pushing you and teaching you to accept some in your life…

    • thomas

      Steve1, regarding that scenario, I do not personally disagree with what you presented, but in looking around, I do believe it is unrealistic. We don’t even have children that will take care of their parents in old age; either they are financially unable or they would simply rather they went away. When it comes down to it, a good percentage of folks are not going to let the helmetless rider fend for himself. I truly believe our nation has no stomach for the ramifications of personal responsibility. It is hard, hard to manifest in one’s self these days and nearly as difficult to get a majority to watch/visualize the outcomes that are inevitable with strict personal responsibility. With that said, you may think that would lead to greater charity and perhaps it would, but there would always be that large percentage of folks suggesting that the government should do something about it.
      Where we both may agree is in the thought that our country would be far better off with a personal responsibility approach and allow charity (as you suggest) to fill the need, not the government.

    • steve1

      I prefer to think of it as a difficult goal to achieve, instead of unrealistic, but difficult or even hard to envision from where we are at now, doesn’t mean it is not “absolutely worth pursuing”, We can only unravel the knot a bit at a time as best we can, those who want a government nanny state or those who have been conditioned to need one, are certainly a big obstacle. Those in positions of power who have been corrupted by power who want more power (both parties) are an even bigger obstacle…

    • thomas

      Steve1, I love the optimistic, challenge accepting view, but walking and talking amongst the ‘enemy’ causes me to see it differently; and yes, that is the way I view them, as attackers of our nation, raiders, thieves. The ‘strange’ problem with this enemy is, it is not their strength or intelligence that makes them collectively strong, it is their weakness and ignorance. By weakness of course, I mean their dependence on someone else to constantly help them or support them, they view it as a right and that, along with the ignorance makes this enemy far greater than anything this country has ever seen.
      The answer never seems to be, ‘fix it’. Instead, the answer is you better find the money somewhere. Which people don’t know that Social Security is a broke system, but instead of any real attempt to fix it or find a valid alternative, we simply raise the age for receiving benefits a,k.a,, find the money to carry it along for a few more years. It makes me think that Mr. Gruber may be closer to right about the stupidity of the American voter than most of us may want to admit.
      Don’t get me wrong, I will continue to support and vote for what I see as the ‘best’ candidate, but it may be naïve to think that the great majority of our fellow citizens will (going forward) choose the hard right over the easy wrong.

    • steve1

      the optimism sure is hard to maintain some days.. i agree with you on the nature of the enemy, If i had my choice for “one thing you could change” or had to say “what do i think would have the best long reaching benefits for freedom” it would be fixing the education system ..get government out of education… set it up as a free-market, and do away with the Prussian model of education (invented to make pre ww1 era German solders compliant and unable to question orders, and later adopted by the world,) and replace it with a trivium – quadrivium based system that teaches grammar logic and rhetoric, the fundamental legs on which critical thinking rest. teach a man to think critically, and not only will he come naturally and on his own to the conservative/libertarian political views, but he will learn everything else he ever takes an interest in from then on with ease, as well as being able to take those things he learns and use them in interesting and novel ways to create value in the world…

    • patgo

      Thomas, you make an excellent case, well described. People who want to legalize vices now are putting the cart before the horse. As steve1 has shown, people who engage in vices or unwise behavior DO hurt other people, usually MANY other people. Steve1, I absolutely agree with you about education; excellently put. I’d like to see the trivium-quadrivium taught as well. We need separation of school and state. Fight for that FIRST, and for the elimination of nearly all welfare laws and THEN suggest maybe we should legalize vices. It’s still a very bad idea, because the cost to loved ones and society is not totally measured in dollars and cents. The loss of their productivity, wisdom, etc., counts for a lot more.

    • patgo

      No, Christian views like Zo’s and mine are NOT ABOUT LEGALISM. They’re about a sane society recognizing that virtue is essential to a free society. We’re not telling people you can’t watch movies, or play Canasta, or perform ballet. Legalism is when a church takes it upon itself to forbid people to dance, drink wine, or engage in many other innocuous occupations that can be done to the glory of God. Society needs to support virtue, and the people need to be free from having to pay for the vices of others. When society starts being filled with people enslaved to vices, then the kind of liberty the Founders tried to give us is no longer workable, and the result is, ultimately, socialism. Slavery to the State. And THEN you have legalism, because we are REQUIRED to support the slackers and addicts whether we want to or not, and we are no longer allowed to do charity on the private level, to an individual, in person, with love and the message of Jesus.

  • JP Thunderwood

    Zo, I love you bro, but I have to ask, how can you say Republics are the party of God? I get it, they are more “God” then the Demoncrats, and are, on some matters, more Godly then Libertarians, but you can’t tell me the Republicans are “Godly”. Many of the assertions you make in your video rant express the views of the extreme “Libertarian” view (I know, the “Extreme” part of that statement is a problem), but the same can be said about the Demoncrats and Republicans. If it is all about party platforms, then I agree, the Republicans have my vote, but very few Republicans truly stand for the values expressed in the party platform. That’s why you have the majority of the Rep party against Cruz, Lee, Gowdy and others. The few Reps that preach Christian values are marginalized by their own party and we are told that “real” Republicans need to be more in the middle to “Win” during election season. When did it become about winning instead of about principals? I am a Libertarian because in spite of the few things like legalizing drugs or gay marriage, the majority of the party ideas would promote the very things the Founding Fathers pushed for in the Constitution. Even with the Judicial bastardizing of its interpretation, Libertarian concepts lean toward Conservative ideas far more than most of the current Republican representatives in Congress and the Senate. I agree with you that in the past, the Reps were the best thing going, but today’s Rep Party is a pale shadow in comparison. I welcome your response Zo, I bought your book (Hard copy and Audio versions). I love your perspective and commentary, but blind devotion to the letter R without the substantive actions of those elected to represent the R, is just foolish.

    • pearl87

      Republicans are not all the same, but the platform, as of now, is the only one that stands firm on family values and religious rights. Is there any party for Christians and people who believe in conservative values? If so, it is not the Libertarian party.

    • RinoWatch

      The GOP walks away from that platform too often. We need to watch the RINOs.

    • Thanatos144

      and libertarians cant make up their mind what theirs will be.

    • patgo

      Don’t conflate the RINO leadership with the Republican people. They are not the same. Being a libertarian in spite of things like legalizing drugs or gay marriage is NOT a small matter. these things would cause serious harm to any attempt to maintain a truly libertarian society. Vices enslave. They enslave the people involved, everyone around them, especially their children, if any, and society at large. The Founding Fathers recognized that the Constitution REQUIRES a virtuous people. We are no longer a virtuous people, and this is WHY there is a problem. Please re-examine your views. Don’t condemn all of us Republicans because we have some bad leadership. We’re working on it. Zo is working on it. By speaking out plainly, he is helping to articulate what we stand for, in contrast to our RINO leadership.

    • JP Thunderwood

      pat, I am not suggesting Republicans are bad and Libertarians are good. I am not trying to label the Rep Party as a whole, but when you have the Rep leadership and long time seat holders talking up the same crap as the Demoncrats, I just can’t get behind them. The old saying, “Pick your battle” applies here. I agree that drugs and the gay movement run counter to the morals of a conservative society, but those are battles I am willing to devote some time to. The crapitolism the progressive promote have trashed real capitalism. The immigration reform is just Obama-lite. Obamacare is just Romneycare on steroids. the lack of real Leadership in the Rep party and having them make statements about trying to “reach out” to the middle voters just reinforces the idea that they don’t really want change, they just want to keep people at odds so they can push their personal agendas and remain in power collecting the fat pay offs for their efforts. After what they did in Alabama during the primary, how can you honestly say the Reps are any different these days then the Dems? Granted, The Libs don’t have all the answers, but there is no such thing as “one size fits all” in Government. Granted, the Rep Party Platform is the best thing going, but don’t really see them sticking to their guns in forcing conservative issues on the table. One way or another, they always end up caving in or “compromising” and losing out on all the important parts of the debate. So, I say Libertarian because at least there, the biggest platform message is LIMITED GOVERNMENT, LOWER TAXES, REAL ACTION on Immigration, TERM LIMITS, and ENDING the nightmare that is the FED! If we push forward on those issues, the rest will be forced to fall in place. Seriously patgo, I agree with you on almost everything you posted. My only challenge to you is to force you beloved party to truly stick to the platform goals in spite “media” pressure. If they can do that, you will have another diehard Republican you can count on during election cycles.

    • patgo

      The truth is, it isn’t the rank and file Republicans. It strictly IS the leadership, and yes, the rank and file have had enough, and they’re pushing back. This election proves it. You should join us; the more hands we have, the quicker we can get rid of the corruption. The RINOs aren’t interested in dividing us; they’re interested in power, just like the Democraps. The Libertarian Party has been co-opted by druggies and other vice slaves who just want to be allowed to self-destruct without being held accountable for the harm they cause others. It’s no longer really a party of liberty at all, but of licentiousness. Liberty is not the same as licentiousness, and licentiousness enslaves.

      There are many things the LP has let slip by the wayside. Do you know they have NO plank against property tax, even though it is THE tax that challenges and defeats the right to property? And they are short on ideas. For example, in our computer age, it would be possible for each person/family to choose its own form of government. Just specify. If you want a libertarian government, then you opt out of paying taxes for welfare, and you are not eligible for them. If you want a socialist government, you opt in, and you pay the taxes and have access to the benefits. If this were implemented, it would quickly put an end to government plunder, because only the people who want the plunder would opt for it. I have yet to see any libertarian even mention such an idea.

      And then there are the Georgists. They are socialists, but they are tolerated by some libertarians. They believe you cannot own land. We are material beings. Our roots in the land is the only basis for freedom. This means being able to own land. We derive our food, clothing, and shelter from the land. Breaking the ties with the land has been a huge drain on the love of liberty.

      So don’t blame US for the RINOs in charge.

      And by the way, term limits are a really bad idea. Issa is no longer there, and we NEED him. We work like dogs to elect someone decent, and they get termed out, and in the meantime, the other side can come up with replacements that are a dime a dozen. Let the voters decide. And anybody who takes welfare is ineligible to vote.

      I don’t get the sense out of you claiming to be libertarian, unless you are claiming to be the kind I am: one that truly believes in liberty, and recognizes the difference between liberty and licentiousness. I don’t overlook it or brush it aside. It is major, and it is destroying libertarianism from within.

    • JP Thunderwood

      I believe in true Libertarianism, that is to say Ultimate Freedom paired with Complete Responsibility. the reason I don’t take issue with the legalization of drugs is because I believe that if you want to do drugs, fine, just don’t ask me to pay for your addictions or healthcare as a result of your poor choices (that’s where limited Government and ending the IRS and the Fed come in). To your point about the property tax, I agree wholeheartedly. I would love to see an end to property tax for all the same reasons you state. We already pay income tax, capitol gains tax and sales tax. How can anyone justify property tax? The only reason you and I are having this discussion is because through social norming, America has lost the ability to self regulate (accountability). Everyone wants to point the finger at someone else for their trouble as woes. Its never the person that is the destroyer of themselves or others, its the drugs, the drink, the gun, the parents, the society, or some other monster under the bed. I’m sorry Brother, but I just can’t get behind the Republicans until I see those in charge go the way of the Do-Do. They’ve suckered me to many times in the past with false promises and backroom deals. Believe it or not patgo, most Libertarians do not except most of the ideas you label us with (without the “accountability” qualifier added to the mix). i think you and I are most likely pretty close on our direction for the country, you just have more faith in the Republicans than I do. I’ll be watching though and if I see a change in the right direction by men/women of character, integrity and upright morals, then you will have sold me on the “New/Revised” republican Party.

    • patgo

      One of the major reasons the GOP went south was because liberty-loving people left to form another party. Zo is right that now they should self-isolate. But at the time, it was devastating, and that’s when the RINOs got established. We need ALL hands on deck.

      I can’t agree with you about legalizing drugs. Sorry. And a friend of mine who used to be a drug dealer agrees. They need to be illegal. Who is going to care for the children of a drug user? Do you want to pay taxes for that? Do you want the children to grow up irresponsible and dependent, and maybe with major birth defects because their mothers used drugs during pregnancy?

      Here’s something to think about. Suppose we make drugs legal. Should we allow pregnant mothers to do drugs and harm innocent children? If we make it illegal for pregnant mothers to use drugs, in order to protect their children, it will be necessary to make them illegal for all fertile women of childbearing age, because the worst damage is done before a woman is sure she’s pregnant. There goes Equal Protection.

      Yes, take personal responsibility. That’s not gonna happen until people are willing to let people who destroyed themselves die in the street. As long as there are so many bleeding hearts around who vote, ain’t gonna happen.

    • JP Thunderwood

      Pat, I don’t think you read my whole post. You must have missed the part about “responsibility”. I also don’t think you understand the concept of liberty if you ask a question like “Suppose we make drugs legal. Should we allow pregnant mothers to do
      drugs and harm innocent children? If we make it illegal for pregnant
      mothers to use drugs, in order to protect their children, it will be
      necessary to make them illegal for all fertile women of childbearing
      age, because the worst damage is done before a woman is sure she’s
      pregnant.” with an argument like that, We may as well bring bathe 18th amendment and outlaw alcohol (since it has adverse affects too). I do not use drugs and I do not advocate their use, but I will not tell someone else how to live their lives. I also do not want to pay for their mistakes, which leads back to the “responsibility” thing again. “Die in the streets”? Seriously? You have to be kidding. You are falling into the “If we can save just one life” trap. Screw that bro. What’s next on your agenda for the Republican Conservatives, no caffeine (it makes people irritable), no sugar sodas or fast food (it makes people fat), no parents choosing the education for their kids (apparently it makes the kids into zealous Christian racist zombies according to the extreme left). Stop forcing people to abide by your “moral” high ground. Don’t get me wrong, I to believe in your moral high ground, I just want to make people accountable for their choices. I think that is the same thing Christ advocated with the whole “chose Me and I’ll forgive you” message (unless I’m reading my Bible wrong. He told people they should stop sinning, but he didn’t advocate forcing any of them into abiding by his standards, he left it to them to chose. of course, he also said that they would be accountable for their choices. In today’s Government, you are only giving me 2 choices, the crazy Demoncrats control over my freedoms, or the (as you call them) RINO style of control over my freedoms and from where I’m sitting, its hard to distinguish the difference. Bleeding Hearts are a good thing, as long as bleeding hearts stay in the public realm and out of the Government realm.

    • patgo

      I most certainly DID read your whole post. Don’t stoop to tactics like that. Furthermore, I DETEST FALSE ANALOGIES. Your comparison of drugs to alcohol is one such. Wine and certain other alcoholic beverages have medicinal uses. They also were drunk when the water was unsafe to drink. There is an ability to tolerate a certain amount of these (which may vary according to heredity). There is NO tolerance level for street drugs or pharmaceuticals.

      Yes, I saw what you said about responsibility. Ain’t gonna happen with all those bleeding hearts out there. How do you plan to enforce responsibility? How do you force responsibility on children who are incapable of taking care of themselves, and who cannot vote on policies, hold a job that will support them, and so on, and who lack the wisdom to go out on their own without parental guidance? And whose parents have enslaved themselves to vice? One of the HUGE weaknesses of libertarian philosophy is that it ignores children and the weak and vulnerable. Not everyone is capable of personal responsibility to that degree. But people who succumb to vices often were at one time, and like I said, you aren’t going to get responsibility as long as other people (including the victims of vices) can use the vote to plunder you. Address that FIRST. Forget the rest until you have.

      It is one thing to choose one’s eternal destiny, and quite another to choose to harm others in this life. Jesus’ purpose was to address our eternal destiny. He wasn’t here to establish an earthly government.

      What in the heck do you mean by “if we can save just one life” trap? I don’t recall advocating any such thing. Hard cases make bad law.

      Zo understands where I am coming from. We agree. I am glad he is in a position to influence others, a position I am NOT in. Given what you have written to me, I’m surprised you don’t. Really.

      The potential to kick the RINOs out is there. We need all hands on deck.

      And now I am going to bed.

    • Frank Harrison

      They already are growing up that way. They have to sneak into allys and dimly lit streets and run down apartments to buy a product that is illegal. Or they just steal their parents pills, and have pharmacy parties. Read history on the Prohibition. AL Cape didn’t become famous or successful because alcohol was legal. After prohibition was repealed, bootlegging was cut by around half. What has the war on drugs done?. Incarcerated a few 100000 people, that just get back out on the street every day? Made the cartels as powerful they are? Wasted trillions/quadrillion of dollars over 41 years of fighting. Pardon me, I’m not seeing an upside. What I am seeing with legalization is removing the taboo and allure of doing something illegal. I’m also seeing a possibility of eliminating some undesirables by making it easier for them to od, or at better, get help now that it is illegal. I’m also seeing a bulls**t industry called rehab burning itself to the ground for its complicit assistance in fueling the war by providing a therapy which more often than not does not work. So please feel free to debate this despite not having any good feet to stand on

    • patgo

      Sorry, but being condescending won’t help your argument with me.

      The argument you have set forth could apply to any destructive activity. We should legalize rape because people are going to rape anyway. Likewise arson, robbery, you-name-it. The reason we NEED a law is because people are being destructive, and SOME people will actually HEED the law. We need to teach children that looking for a thrill by doing something illegal is unacceptable. We are doing the opposite, so it’s our own fault. If people want to self-destruct, we don’t OWE it to them to prevent them. I’m not saying we shouldn’t try. But the idea that they can get help if we make it legal makes no sense, because they can get help now. And no, the fact it is illegal doesn’t stop them from getting help. Their desire to continue as they are does. And no, I don’t approve of the supposedly helping therapies. I have a very different idea about what truly helps.

      Let’s see. We tried legalizing abortion so that women could get safe abortions. How did that work out for ya? The number of abortions being done is at least an order of magnitude larger than it was before legalization. Abortion mills are STILL houses of horror, filthy, unsafe, and they STILL kill women, but now they kill more of them.

      Colorado legalized pot. How’s that working out for ya? It’s been a major nightmare there. Check it out. I refuse to go there as a tourist because I am highly allergic to marijuana smoke, and I would be exposed to it against my will. So they lose my business. There may well be many other people with the same attitude. The amount of tax revenue they’ll gather won’t offset the social cost by a long shot, and since when is legalizing something so it can be taxed a libertarian idea anyway?

      I believe we should be throwing the book at traffickers. That is the most efficient way to combat the problem. Malaysia does that, and they don’t have a drug problem. But people are too squeamish to do that here. Without a supply, most users won’t be using. Just as women should not be targeted by laws against abortion, users who don’t deal should not be targeted either. There goes your argument about the number of people incarcerated.

      A bad law badly enforced should not be discarded. It should be fixed. Drugs will remain a problem. And while we are at it, we need to outlaw a slew of pharmaceuticals, because they are also destructive. We send a mixed message by prescribing what is deadly.

    • Frank Harrison

      wow you really do miss the point here okay libertarians do not want to wipe all of the laws off the books because certain activities need to become legal none of them that’s anarchism libertarians believe that a lot of the laws that are on the books are on the books because they do promote slavery get that through your f****** head Pat alright here’s the thing every law that has been created since 1931 Franklin Roosevelt presented to the New Deal has been put in place to stereotype and enslave certain demographics of the population I II the working class the poor working class and of course the poor class the party class all of those laws when coupled together equal more crime they always have look at prohibition crime actually rose during Prohibition why will you take away alcohol and go ahead and believe it overall things people want beers I’ll do anything to get beer drug laws same damn thing take away some of the drugs guess what cocaine was legal in this country you might not know it but there’s a drink that was actually name for it yes it was called coca-cola oh dear god now Coca Cola is filled with all sorts of other drugs but those drugs are OK because they’re made by pharmaceutical companies right right and Sons pharmaceutical companies love politicians that makes it even better and more legal ride rides in your hypocrisy just baffles me rape is not alright get off you its just a dick you stupid immature thing to say brother you know I’m just going to end this argument completely go ahead and put her a bottle if you like but the fact is everything you just stated is nothing but sheer emotional stupidity and you just relinquished your ability to debate have a nice day

    • patgo

      After THIS message, I would have cut off any discussion because of your foul language. You obviously lack the most basic respect for your fellow human beings. No WONDER you don’t recognize the harm legalizing drugs would do. And for the record, I think nearly all pharmaceuticals should be banned, too. I haven’t taken a pharmaceutical (except once basically on court order I took an antibiotic) in a fourth of a century, and only one then, and then nothing for the preceding 20 years. And yes, I know about Coke. That doesn’t make legalizing drugs OK. Sorry. Let me repeat that for the stupid person I am TRYING to talk to. I THINK NEARLY ALL PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. Got that? Good! Oh wait! He didn’t get it. Must be using too many drugs.

  • Jeff Schoonover

    You get it Zo. Thanks for another great video!

  • Frank Harrison

    And yet, I’m hearing him say y’all libertarians. As all libertarian think the same way, and come after him the same way. That’s liberalism too Zo. Personally, I stand with Jillette Libertarianism (Penn Jillette for the confused people). I welcome everyboldy to come to our tent, when you are ready to expand your mind. When yolu are ready to see all of the strings attached to being a conservative (for instance being a socialist Christian [you must believe in Christ and God the way we tell you to believe, especially as we grow more liberal]). Go ahead, feel free to debate my points and philosophy, since a lot of conservatives are very liberal in their illogical fallacies.

    • Jess Tommassello

      It’s okay to be fiscally conservative and socially moderate. The socially conservative people are the biggest turnoff right now to moderate voters. This is the backlash that got Obama elected in the first place. Some people are looking to advance their ideals without thinking about the fiscal impact of their vote. It’s frustrating that the Republican party used to embody Libertarian ideals, before they got co-opted by the religious.

    • patgo

      I don’t THINK so! The reason Obama got elected in the first place had nothing to do with social conservatism. It had to do with the color of his skin and his CLAIM to be black (he isn’t; he’s half white and 7/16 Arabic). Many blacks have conservative social values, but they voted for him anyway. It is NOT “okay” to be a social moderate. Let people determine their own lives without interference, as long as they don’t try to impose their views on YOU and as long as they don’t force YOU to support their lifestyle, either through taxes, or by providing goods and services. Moral conservatism means simply that the prevailing standard for behavior needs to be the Judeo-Christian consensus. That’s not socially moderate by any stretch of the imagination. The Republican Party didn’t get co-opted. The libertarians left, and with it, they took their views, and left the GOP to be run by the RINOs. The social moderates. And that makes sense to you? Hrumph.

    • Hangman54

      “The reason Obama got elected in the first place had nothing to do with social conservatism. It had to do with the color of his skin” …
      …and a self serving desire to be “part of history by voting for a black man for president”, but I contend that the only history these misguided people will be part of, is the acceleration of the downfall of America…
      Congratulation to all that had a hand in that… [smh]

    • Frank Harrison

      Moderate doesn’t mean much. Republicans try to be moderate, Democrats win elections. Socially equalizing? That’s taking specialized privelges away that most white people are nowhere near ready to lose, for fear of not having their imagined superiority. And when I hear Republicrats/Demolican speaks, I hear that imagined superiorit over others who don’t 100%agree in lockstep fashion.

    • Jess Tommassello

      The Republican Party is built on the foundation of ire, Lincoln pissed off all the wrong people when he emancipated the slaves. It may have been the right thing to do, looking back, but that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t the unpopular view at the time. This is a tradition for the Republicans, who continually seek to disrupt the status quo with their notion of equality, which may be actual equality. In any case, it’s certainly not something liberals want to hear.

    • Thanatos144

      it always boils down to Lincoln freeing the slaves with you people doesn’t it?

    • Frank Harrison

      You people. I hear racism.

    • Thanatos144

      More like disgust of ignorance.

    • Frank Harrison

      no that would be me to you your ignorance is ridiculous seriously can you not do anything besides baaaa like a sheep

    • Thanatos144

      Son you have that backwards.

    • patgo

      And who in the heck is Penn Jillette? A comedian? Are you saying libertarianism is a joke? If he expressed a different view of libertarianism, I don’t know what it is, and maybe you should tell us. I also don’t know where you get this bit about conservative Christians being socialists. That totally contradicts everything I stand for, and I suspect that Zo stands for as well. I’m not getting more liberal, and I sure haven’t heard any evidence Zo is, either.

    • Devin Bank

      Penn jillette is a very intelligent man maybe you should listen to his views before you judge

    • Hangman54

      I have seen him many times, but can I dare say I have never heard him say a single thing… what am I missing??
      I think it’s more of a Star Trek moment here… “beam me up Scotty”

    • RinoWatch

      try youtube.

    • patgo

      There are millions of intelligent men in the world. I don’t have time to listen to all of them. What makes his views unique? What does he add to the discussion that no one else does?

    • Frank Harrison

      Since you’ve never heard of him, how about coming off your high horse before criticizing that which you know nothing about. Swear you sound like an Obamaite. No facts, just vile rhetoric for the sake of speaking.

    • patgo

      I am not criticizing him. I am simply NOT INTERESTED in him. I am not obligated to investigate any person someone else happens to like. I have asked repeatedly how his libertarianism is different, or adds something. Nobody has answered. Remember, when you point at someone, four fingers are pointing back to you. You are accusing me of being an Obamaite, with no grounds whatsoever, and this is a direct accusation, unlike anything I have said about Penn Jillette. In other words, it’s the pot calling the kettle black. Who is on the high horse? To ask is to answer.

    • Frank Harrison

      As libertarians go, try. He’s on youtube and talks about the issues from the day. He’s refreshing to listen to. He adds adds logic to it. He’s a complete reversal from fox, or even the Paul family. No preaching, strict rules with flexibility (certainly an opposite of Ron Paul, who is an absolutist). He’s basically the guy who convinced me to jump the Tea party ship

    • patgo

      Well you have demonstrated why you personally like him. That said, how do you have strict rules with flexibility??? That looks like an oxymoron to me. Ron Paul is a nutcase. Nothing else needs to be said. How is libertarianism an improvement over the Tea party? Libertarians’ only influence extends to helping elect the less worthy candidate from a major political party. Not helpful, and can be very destructive. As for watching him on YouTube, I don’t watch TV, and I rarely watch anything on YouTube, either. I prefer to read. Unless someone looks intriguing to ME (in other words, the mere fact you respect him is insufficient, especially since I don’t even know you), I wouldn’t watch at all. But if he wrote a book, I might be persuaded to read it.

    • Frank Harrison

      check on Amazon he actually has released two books

    • patgo

      Yesterday, I could have been persuaded to get one of his books and read it. Then I read your earlier message. You can’t even show me basic civility. Now, why should I care who you like? If they can’t teach you basic civility, I DON’T CARE WHAT THEY THINK. And believe me, a society where people don’t show each other basic civility sure as heck wouldn’t work with a libertarian government!

      Whew! More time saved for more useful pursuits!

    • Frank Harrison

      you don’t get basic civility because you’re not simple that’s it. Simple you can whine about it you can cry about it but when you keep insisting on publishing vitalic comments you don’t get civility back

    • patgo

      What have you been smoking? “Vitalic”? Try “vitriolic”. No, you’re not worth talking to. You don’t make enough sense for me to be able to have any kind of rational discussion with. Looks like maybe I have just met one of the people who stole the LIbertarian Party from its real purpose, to promote vices instead. Am I correct?

    • Robert Goodyear

      boy you are dumber than a box of rocks

    • Frank Harrison

      I’m not seeing any facts to back up your claims. Which means your either a Republicrat, or a Demolican. Which ever one pleases you more in your very small world mental world.

    • Frank Harrison

      Baaaaaaa. Keep following your herd sheep boy. The wolves are among your flocks, and you have only just seen them in the last 5 years. That makes you a lot dumber than me, since I saw those liberal wolves back 1990

  • RinoWatch

    Wow, Zo, I’ve loved every other clip I’ve ever seen from you. On this one… I agree on a third but you’ve misunderstood my libertarian views in a massive way. The biggest problem is when you compare Libertarian philosophy to your religion. The problem is Jesus never told us how to build a government — which means when you talk about our “hands off” and “anything goes” is not some kind of endorsement for people to sin. No! I just don’t want “a priest with a gun” enforcing order. This video was bad. I’d love to go through the whole thing, line by line. Half of your points are great but… are not about my views. You seem to have assumed every oddball comment from some self-declared libertarian is valid for the whole group. You displayed a superficial knowledge of my views. I think we would agree on nearly everything… except how you ascribe different beliefs to me.

    • patgo

      That’s all well and good, but what ARE your views? You sure didn’t say! And I adamantly do NOT think Zo is suggesting that priests with guns should enforce order. Pot, kettle? I think THAT is a misrepresentation of HIS views.

    • RinoWatch

      My views are legion, lol. To start, I am equally Tea Party and Libertarian. And I disapprove of many things and yet I don’t want the government to make laws to suit my judgement, because power corrupts.

    • patgo

      Well, in that case, we might as well legalize arson, don’t you think?

    • Sarah Noble

      How would you come that conclusion? I mean, if you want to burn your own property (and not endanger another person’s) and not take resources like fire fighters and police and then file with your insurance agency and get them to cover the damage you caused….I don’t see the problem….that’s your own business as stupid as that would be.

    • patgo

      No, that would not be acceptable. If you burn and then file with your insurance agency, the other insured are paying for you to burn your property. And if everyone did that, there would be no more insurance. You should never act in such a way that if everyone did it, it would cause problems.

      It’s not your own business. It hurts other people. Sorry.

    • Frank Harrison

      That’s what I’m saying. We’re being thrown together into a pile of playdoh. Libertarians have different opinions and will talk about them civilised. Not hearing that out of TEA people on here, who all sound more like the drones of the Democratic party

  • pearl87

    Yes, Zo. You are right. Libertarians are just Dems who are trying to corrupt conservative values. I used to consider myself libertarian…until I got to know some. I know now that they are hostile to my most essential values.

    • RinoWatch

      Where do you encounter these Libertarians?

    • Thanatos144

      every where there is a comment section in a website of forum….

    • RinoWatch

      that is not a random sample. I read a lot of junk as well… but the squeaky wheels do not define the group.

    • Thanatos144

      says the squeaky wheel

  • Thanatos144

    Right on. Libertarians are not republicans as they tell us over and over and over and over….Yet they like barnacles in a boat stick to the republican party while complaining about the same party. Like a kid that keeps stuickimng their finger in a light socket over and over and blames the socket for doing its job.

  • patgo

    I’ve been preaching that sermon for a long time, but people don’t listen to me. I hope they will listen to you. What you said makes perfect sense to me, in every point.

    I have argued with libertarians until I am blue in the face, pointing out that as long as we are paying for welfare, WE will pay for all the people who destroy themselves with vices to the point where they can no longer take care of themselves. I have told them, get rid of welfare FIRST, and THEN ask me about legalizing everything. I have told them that none of these vices are victimless crimes. These things harm their families and friends, and society at large.They especially harm children. People get enslaved to vices, and they won’t fight for liberty. And you have, for example, elderly people gambling away their savings, and then they become dependent on their children and the government. And Native Americans deserve a better way to make a living. It harms them, too. It never helps a person to harm others.

    I have explained to them that Ron Paul is dead wrong about war. What he wants is to wait until the terrorists come here and start leaving IEDs on our streets, and start wearing those gold ole bomb vests and blowing themselves up in our shopping malls and football stadiums. He doesn’t understand deterrence, and that deterrence is the ONLY way to secure peace. Sometimes when you have a big bully out there, you just have to knock him out to get him to leave you alone. I have tried to explain that we need to support Israel because God said so, and because they are the key to keeping Islam from taking over the world. I have tried to explain that we need to defend Americans abroad. All of this falls on deaf ears.

    I have gotten tired of explaining it, and they don’t let me talk anymore. Ever since I talked about the fact that the homosexual lifestyle is medically deadly, they insist on deciding what I have a right to say. Sorry, folks, but the First Amendment gives me the right to speak out. Yes, in a private discussion, you can prevent me from expressing my opinion, but it sure ain’t very libertarian of you if you do. Libertarianism is like a religious cult. If you don’t sit at the pinnacle of the Nolan Chart, you’re not a real libertarian. I’m done with that nonsense.

    • ssoldie

      You got it right ‘nonsense’.

  • ssoldie

    I just really like this man, he has so much common sense and is not one bit afraid to voice his beliefs. God bless him and his, they are so blessed to have him.

  • J_R_K

    Zoe,

    I don’t know about Dr. Phil, but I don’t think you need to worry about your career until our government becomes completely totalitarian. You’ll do alright (please note: I know you already know that :o)

    By the way, the only thing libertarians have ever done for me is insult my intelligence. I guess they figure it worked for the Democrats, it’ll work for them. Bottom line is, it’s all about bullying other people into lining up with them. I guess I’m just too liberal in my thought processes to allow that to happen. Of course, to me, REAL liberal thought means having an open mind, doing honest research, applying honest thought and being free enough in my own mind to do all that for myself. In the political world, what we call “liberals” are just bullies trying to force everyone else in to their mental mode. Nothing actually liberal about that at all. It’s just bullying. It’s oppressive. And Libertarians who do the same thing, are the same thing.

    • Laurel

      Well said.

  • pete4palin

    Time for a new alternative to the Republicrats.

    • Thanatos144

      funny people say that so much when libertarians have more in common with democrats then republicans.

    • Sunshine Kid

      That’s the truth! It is why I’m an independent – not even a member of the Independent party, because I want to think for myself, not have a set of values shoved down my throat – by anyone!

    • Hangman54

      Yep my voter ID card (oops, does that me racist?)…. my voter ID card reads NPA… “No Party Affiliation” and it reads that for a reason…
      I would NEVER be a democrat, I don’t believe in their liberal take on almost everything, I used to be a registered republican until I saw the errors of their ways with all the big government policies, that I couldn’t take anymore… I believe in the ideals of the tea party and hope and pray that they can come together and help US get back to the country we should be, you know… that country ruled by The Constitution of The United States of America… and NOT by a bunch of self serving lying politicians…

  • Sunshine Kid

    Tough love will NOT end your career, Zo!

  • PATRIOT.WW48

    libertarians, democrats, Vichy repubics ( rino’s ) need the same fate as rag-heads & ILLEGAL Messicans

  • Terry

    As a veteran, and libertarian, I am very pro- military, pro-life, and pro-capitalism. Very limited government, The largest problem in the libertarian party is the ones receiving the media are the egocentric of the party. I left the republican party on observance of the corruption wanting to control everyone involved and wanting them to fall in line on message without regard to their personal belief. Libertarians main issue is a lackadaisical attitude and fundamental laziness with involvement. Many that have the same belief as many Americans just think politics can only be one way or the other, no one will consider a new approach or outflanking the problems.

    • pearl87

      I totally sympathize. There doesn’t seem to be ANY party that represents Americans who believe in the ideals on which this country was founded. We are probably the majority yet, but we are betrayed through a system that’s been rigged to deprive us of our liberty and property and redistribute our wealth and power among the immoral, both freeloaders and scoundrels.

  • Devin Bank

    You have no Idea what being a Libertarian is. maybe you should do a little research. do you know how much the illegal drug “war” costs the tax payer? it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to treat an addict then to house them feed them and pay their medical for 20-40 years. Why do I have to believe in your god to be Conservative? that one book you state has survived so long has been edited time and time again to stay relevant, Do you study the old testament, no more likely the king james version. do you know why it is called the king James version? so if it is truly GOD’s words why would they have to change with the times? But because I don’t believe like you I should not be a conservative. You do remember freedom of religion right? That doesn’t just mean freedom to believe like you. Why should you be allowed to dictate what I believe? tisk tisk

    • Brenda

      Not “edited”….changed….by people who disagree with it…..to fit weak willed “followers of Christ” wants and desires…so they too can “still feel godly” AND do what they “want”. Gods word NEVER changed….just those printing the book did. Its kinda one of the reasons WHY the bible warns about “changing the words and meanings” in the first place. Because of people who would “use this excuse” as a reason NOT to believe it….King James was just the first to have it TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH..He didnt write it! Ha Ha Ha .The original UN CHANGED VERSION is in Hebrew. But the KJV is the closest to the unchanged english version that we have. Because back THEN…..people knew NOT to change the meanings of words. Its not a perfect translation….(hence some of the problems with its meanings) because some words just wont translate easily….but….if you TRUELY want the truth…..its in a KJV for English speakers. Every translation SINCE the KJV has gotten even more watered down than the one before it….for a reason. And its NOT for Gods purposes either….so that only leaves one purpose….

    • Brenda

      Homosexuals NOW have their OWN “version” of Gods word….that they changed to support THEIR wants….not Gods…..but make no mistake…..God does not support it. Just because evil CALLS itself Gods word,…..doesnt make it so. Not debating if Homosexuality is right or wrong here (its wrong)….just making a point about WHY there are so many bible versions….God NEVER changed…..just those who are writting the bible did. =(

    • pearl87

      You are so wrong about everything you say that no one can refute it without writing a book. Every argument you use to discredit your opposition is dishonest. Every premise with which you undergird your position is false and twisted. Every idea that you cling to as true is a lie. I feel sorry for you and hope you come to understand reality before it’s too late.

  • PJones

    Well, Zo, I didn’t really feel like I had the time to spare, but you suckered me into watching your ‘3rd party’ video. And I did… right after I said, “Aw, NO!”
    Anyway, I’m relieved and happy to know that you haven’t lost your beautiful mind after all.

  • mackelby

    We need a 3rd party, just not Libertarians. We need a conservative party. Or at least a party that recognizes we have a constitution.

  • Rick

    And this is the reason the Republican party is dying. No Libertarian gives a rat’s ass what or how you choose to worship. We just don’t want you using the government to force it on us. Libertarians lean a lot closer to Republicans than Democrats. But like you, I would prefer to keep them completely separated. I wouldn’t want Neocons polluting a good movement. You used to put out decent content, but now I must unfollow you.

    • Thanatos144

      prove any republican is doing that…..Or is it because we find it immoral to kill yourself with drugs and our unborn?

  • fights

    I love ZO!!!!

  • postalinVT

    Zo, how do you keep finding ways to say things that are so clear and concise? I’d give anything to be able to have that talent, you really need a wider audience.

  • Tim Martin

    Jesus did not ask His followers to take his words, convert them into laws, and then force everyone to abide by them; that is the opposite of the way in which He asked you to share His message of hope and salvation.

    This was the way conservatives behaved in my youth (Does nobody remember the Sunday shopping laws, book banning, music labeling laws, judges forcing hippies to get a hair cut, christian religion taught in public schools, being forced to swear on bibles in court, woman forced in to back ally doctors?)

    This is why we fear religious based conservatives.

    Now as an older man I see the left using the same rational (they know better what is best for us) to legislate their views then force everyone to abide by them.

    This is why we cannot abide liberal democrats.

    To me Libertarianism is the absence of coercion other than for Legitimate safety concerns.

    • pearl87

      “…other than for Legitimate safety concerns”

      WOW, that is one GIANT caveat right there, big enough for Obola, Pelousi, Michael Moore, AND Al Sharpton to drive their Nanny State tanks straight through…abreast!

  • Philip Haddad

    What a disappointing video. I’m a Christian libertarian, small l, and the ignorant stereotypes talked about in this video do not fit me at all. Asking the GOP to get more libertarian for me is simply asking them to get more Constitutional and in alignment with the Founding Fathers.

    As far as Ron Paul, he received more donations from the military than any other presidential candidate running against him. Thank God the soldiers appear to be more political literate than some faux conservatives who simple regurgitate pro-war, ie. big government, talking points that violate the Christian & Constitutional spirit.

    The Libertarian Party, is not a perfect fit for me, the Constitution Party is closer in many ways, so I’m a Republican. The best Republican small government, honest & moral examples I see in congress are also libertarian leaning Republicans who were inspired by Ron Paul’s fidelity to the Constitution and his ability to rise about party politics. Blessings.

  • WileyPost

    Zo; this is a great video. There are a lot of things I find wrong going on in the Republican Party, but it is FAR better than the other parties. The idea that all the conservative/Constitutionalists/Libertarians need to get into the same “bed” and work out their differences among them makes a lot of sense; because their “family” is threatened by the Democrat/Liberal/Leftists that live next door, and want to “kill” them. To me- to be a Republican does not mean that you are a Christian; but that you RECOGNIZE all religions that are peaceful and respect every individual. That eliminates the Muslim extremists, etc. As to abortion; only a liberal/democrat would justify killing a child. Should a woman be forced into a “back alley” for an abortion; NO- but she should be supported in HAVING her child and accepting the responsibility of her, and his, actions. But here’s my big question; If a drug addict or a smoker, or a alcoholic is sick/dying from their abuse; should we just let them die? Or should we have strict rules/mandates/procedures on how these people are accommodated? The idea that no matter what life abuse you engage; you will be supported by our “government” (eg; taxpayer); makes no sense to me. Choices should have consequences.

  • Kofi Agboado

    Zo:

    How come 5 of the top 10 countries in the World as assessed in the Human Development Index are Scandinavian, secular, and socialist. How come did these nations rate highest on the Human Happiness Index? (USA was 17th). (http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WorldHappinessReport2013_online.pdf)

    How did even the Heritage Foundation in its 2014 Economic Freedom Report even admit that Denmark (#10) had more economic freedom than the USA!? (USA was 12th)(http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking)

    It appears that the only thing liberal is the liberties that you are taking with the truth.
    As a black man (from Ghana and naturalized US citizen), I can only feel pity that you have been taken in by the devil that disguises himself in a suit and calls himself GOP/TeaParty/Libertarian. This devil has no respect for the black and agreeing with him because he manipulates God to manipulate you is blasphemy.

    Please ck out the following to save your soul:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGAvwSp86hY

    • Thanatos144

      WTF does you being black have to do with a made up happiness index???

    • pearl87

      Your kind should refrain from talking about anyone else’s soul, seeing as you’ve sold yours to the Welfare State.

    • Ruby_Con

      Kofi, it is a shame that you are a pathetic and misguided leftist. Firstly, if you believe anything coming out of the UN you are a bigger fool than you appear to be from your comment. Secondly, to make a comparison between America and lets say Norway is ridiculous. Comparing a homogeneous welfare state of less than four million people with vast oil resources from the North sea to America’s three hundred million plus diverse population is ludicrous and irrational. Thirdly, if you love Scandinavian, secular, socialism so much, why don’t you move there?

    • rick0857

      You’re hilarious! You crow a bunch of garbage and then to prove your point you use as an example, a television program from an ultra democrat/liberal/socialist/communistic network HBO, populated with Anti-American “actors” who’ve never had a real job in their life!
      They know absolutely nothing of the REAL WORLD outside of their minutely small inner circle fest of like minded individuals whose only goal is to DESTROY the greatest nation on Earth!

    • greatjoy

      You evidently have not learned about the long war between Democrats and GOP, with Democrats on the side of slavery, jim crow laws, black codes, creating the KKK, making every effort to stop the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but when they failed to stop it, the Democrat President Johnson said about his signing the legislation that it would “have those niggers voting for us for 200 years.” The Democrats would have you believe that THEY pushed the evil Republicans to pass the bill, and that THEY are all for the civil rights of black people. Start with undoing the tangle of lies that frame the thinking you have been fed. Study Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project. She was a Democrat, a member of the KKK, and said, “we don’t want word to get out that what we actually want is the elimination of the negro population.”
      The Negro Project was a diabolical idea–to get KKK members to go into media and political leadership so that they could induce
      people within the black community to do the work of the KKK for them. The Negro Project uses black people filled with bitterness by the lies that the Democrats tell, to do the killing INSIDE OF THE BLACK COMMUNITY. By doing this the KKK has killed FAR MORE black people AND NOBODY exactly understands what is going on. They are told to mindlessly vote Democrat and hate Republicans–and nobody wants you to know about all the battles Republicans fought when black and white people created the Republican Party to stop slavery. But the Congressional record shows the leadership of the Republicans on this topic.
      In fact it was Republicans that also reached out into the world and helped stop the muslim slave markets in other countries.
      (Muslims have put more black people into slavery than any other group. I grew up in Congo, living among a tribe that was part of the slave supply chain, working with muslim and Portugese slavers) Democrats have never given up their idea that they have the “right” to own slaves and the “right” to kill whomever they choose.
      Just this year Nancy Pelosi, Democrat, received the Margaret Sanger Award–Margaret Sanger, who said black people were
      “weeds” and “we have populations we don’t want too many of”
      and “the best thing a large family can do is kill their babies”.
      The Democrat Party has worked diligently to produce poverty in the black community, and deny education to the ghetto kids they “own.”

  • PatriotGranny

    WOW!! This guy is spot on in every single thing he said. BRILLIANT!!

  • greatjoy

    Our founders recommended Jesus Christ as the basis of our laws.
    The government exists as an expression of force. Government was
    broken by our founders and “tied with the chains of the Constitution”
    so that we would have a meeting ground for citizens to talk, and some
    to get chosen by the others to SERVE in public office. The oath of office
    is designed to get officials to promise the people they will serve the people.
    Public servants who don’t respect their oath of office should be thrown out at the first opportunity. The parties are just citizens who care enough to join with others in their persuasion, to try to convince enough others that their persuasion can be organized enough to gain the control of the government and run it intelligently. (At least intelligent government is what I am impressed with.) The problem libertarians have is that basically they resist any organizational effort. Each one respects his own rights so much that they will not organize.
    Americans are very independently minded, but the strongest organized group is the Democrats, because they organize those who don’t care a bit about being organized and controlled. –just give them a ballot and organize a filling in the blanks party, then get back to the party. Fill them with hatred for Republicans…

  • conservativechick

    Exellent video!

  • Republic

    Meanwhile, the Dream Candidate to the Republican Party is nowhere to be found, or allowed to participate …

    View AmericaIdea for the only GOP 2016 Dream Candidate.

  • SamT

    Well, Zo, your Title snookered me into listening to yet another of your Libertarian put downs. After the intro, I really thought that you had something to say, but by the 4 minute mark, I realized that that particular political theme was still just your whipping boy and not worthy of any honest consideration.

STAY IN THE LOOP
Don't miss a thing. Sign up for our email newsletter to get the lastest from Alfonzo Rachel!