CONCORD, N.H.—Today, the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire announces that it has acquired the political assets of the New Hampshire Republican Volunteer Coalition and has added NHRVC Co-Founder Steve MacDonald to its 10-member RLCNH Board to lead a merger effort and help carry on the mission of the NHRVC within the RLCNH organization.

“By merging the NHRVC into the RLCNH and adding Steve MacDonald to the RLCNH board, we are adding new vigor to our now substantially larger political action organization and ensuring the ongoing success of principled Republican activism in New Hampshire,” said Carolyn McKinney, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire. “During the last few election cycles, the RLCNH and the NHRVC groups had been duplicating efforts to elect liberty-minded Republicans. It simply makes good common sense to merge our efforts so that we can motivate our now larger group of activists to pursue one effective mission.”

The NHRVC was founded in the wake of the November 2008 elections as a grassroots coalition of highly motivated activists working to elect principled Republicans who stand for low taxes, fiscal responsibility, free enterprise, individual liberty, and the U.S. and NH Constitutions. Founded by Kevin McHugh and Steve MacDonald, the NHRVC grew from just a handful of people trading e-mails to more than 4,000 members working to spread liberty through the Republican Party.

The RLCNH was launched in December 2004 to promote the ideals of limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, free enterprise and adherence to the N.H. and U.S. Constitutions among Republican Party officials and throughout the state by identifying and supporting candidates sympathetic with the organization’s ideals, and by supporting, through public education and outreach, initiatives in the N.H. Legislature that further these ideals.

Both RLCNH and NHRVC have operated on the Facebook, Twitter and Yahoo Groups social media portals and have a Web site with a blog. The NHRVC social media portal sites and blog have been shut down. As part of the merger, NHRVC members will be migrated into the RLCNH social media sites (Facebook | Twitter) where members discuss political ideas and candidates, and they will be invited to sign up to receive the RLCNH Report of state legislative action items as well as to visit the RLCNH Web site and blog.

“Beginning today, I am inviting all former NHRVC members to continue their involvement in pursuit of the same aims, to whatever degree suits them, under a new banner,” Steve MacDonald said. “We will be able to engage in the same  debates on Facebook and start thousands of new ones, share important links and commentary on Twitter, and use our ‘boots on the ground’ mentality in the RLCNH Yahoo Group and beyond to connect our principled ideas with principled Republicans in New Hampshire and across the nation.”

Leading up to the merger decision, NHRVC Co-Founder Kevin McHugh handed the reins to MacDonald and resigned from the organization to focus more of his time on his work and family. It was at that time that MacDonald determined that the mission of the NHRVC could be more effectively fulfilled within the structure of the RLCNH. The merger plan was developed by MacDonald and members of the RLCNH Executive Committee during the past week, and today’s announcement seals the deal.

RLCMN credits and thanks Walter Hudson for providing this summary and resource.

Unions created their own dilemma by initiating force against competitors, which include other unions or individual workers wishing to contract with employers separate from a union. Federal law enables unions to establish contracts granting them exclusive representation, meaning they are the only entity which can negotiate on behalf of employees. It is these exclusive representation contracts, not right-to-work, which obligate unions to represent non-members and those not paying dues. The solution is simple, unions can change their contacts to give up exclusive representation. Under right-to-work, the choice for the unions would come down to maintaining a contractual monopoly and enduring the resulting "free riders," or giving up their monopoly and competing in a free market for labor. In either case, all parties concerned would retain their freedom of association. Whether with exclusive representation or without right-to-work, employees do not have the freedom to choose whether or not to associate with a union.

Excerpts from "Effects of Right to Work Laws on Employees, Unions and Businesses" by John W. Cooper

Federal law allows unions the special power to create “exclusive representation” agreements with employers. If they choose to create these exclusive representation agreements, they are indeed required to represent all members, both dues paying members and free riding members alike. However, it does not appear that unions are actually required to set up these exclusive agreements (Greer, Union Representation).

Some proponents of RTW laws rightfully argue: “Nothing in federal law prevents union officials and employers from negotiating contracts in which the employer recognizes the union for its members only” (Greer, Union Representation).

Therefore, it appears that unions are not required by law to enter into exclusive bargaining agreements with their employers, and that if they wanted to they could form member only bargaining agreements in which they only represent their members, only their members are required to pay union dues, their contracts only pertain to their members, and other people are allowed to work for the employer independent of the union.

Join commentators from the Republican Liberty Caucus and Blogcritics Magazine, along with special celebrity guests beamed in from Twitter for live discussion and coverage of the results of the Super Tuesday Republican primary results.

Over 400 delegates are up for grabs today in what may be the most imnportant turning point in a very long primary to determine which Republican gets to challenge President Obama in November.

Coverage starts at 7pm Eastern Time.

As early as Tuesday afternoon, the House of Representatives is likely to vote on H.R. 1433 (PDF), the Private Property Rights Protection Act. This important act is designed to discourage the abuse of eminent domain power by municipalities by withholding federal funds if they exceed their reasonable authority and seize property for reasons other than genuine civic need.

This is an important protection for private property rights which have been weakened in this area by the growing practice of seizing land for the use of businesses and other interests who have political influence with local government. This bill to some degree counters the misapplication of the law in the notorious Kelo vs. New London decision in New Hampshire.

It is vitally important that you act today to email or call your Representative now and stay in touch for when the bill moves on to the Senate in the near future. An earlier version passed the House in 2005 but was blocked in the Senate.

For more information on this legislation read this article in the Washington Times.

There are legitimate uses for eminent domain, like building roads and schools, but taking property from citizens with no legal recourse and giving it to businesses for commercial development is an unacceptable abuse of the power and far too often the product of cronyism within local government. Please take action now to support H.R. 1433 and stop eminent domain abuse.

Use the form below to send an email.  It’s always a good idea to modify or replace the standard text with your own words, especially specific references to problems in your local area.

In the struggle for the Republican presidential nomination candidates are searching for every advantage they can find, desperate to reach constituencies which can help them gain an advantage over their rivals. Some of them are getting more desperate and more manipulative as they fall behind, even resorting to some pretty blatant lying about their records, their beliefs and their intentions.

Listen to this audio clip without looking at the image attached to it, the way you would hear it on the radio:

Sure sounds like just what we need, a champion of the grassroots of the Republican Party ready to stand up for the little people against big governmnet, political insiders and the party establishment. Sounds like my kind of candidate.

Then go to the website which goes with this stirring radio ad, timetochoose.com. Bet it wasn’t what you expected to see. I know I was surprised. After the ad I assumed it was a powerful new pitch for Ron Paul. I sure wasn’t expecting something so far from the ad’s description as Newt Gingrich.

Newt is many things, but a grassroots alternative to the party leadership is not one of them. I’m not even convinced he’s the conservative he claims to be. Despite having served in public office, it’s arguable that Romney with his background in business and state government experience is far more distant from the corrupt leadership in DC, while Gingrich was at the pinnacle of that leadership when he served as Speaker of the House.

The real target of this campaign is the growing number of “soft” Ron Paul voters – mainstream Republicans who are so fed up with the party leadership and political insiders that they are being drawn to Paul despite some of his more radical positions. These primary voters see Paul as the only candidate really looking at the issues which concern them, and while they may be uncomfortable with his foreign policy and a few other positions, they do recognize him as a genuine conservative and a political outsider. The efforts of the party to throw roadblocks in his way has validated his claim to that status.

The Gingrich campaign has a problem. There is one too many candidates in the primary and Gingrich seems to be the odd man out. Santorum has staked out the religious right constituency. Romney has the moderate, corporatist vote. Ron Paul is sewing up the fiscal conservatives and libertarians. Those three broad groups pretty much make up the party and there’s not really anyone left over for Gingrich.

Gingrich has been left trying to pick up the leftovers from all three groups and it’s just not working for him. The other candidates are just better at appealing to their particular niche audiences and Gingrich can’t win any of those groups based on his record or an honest presentation of his positions. He’s too personally immoral for Santorum’s supporters, too unpredictable for Romney’s followers and too much of a big government insider for Paul’s supporters.

Gingrich’s handlers did figure one thing out right. They know that Republican voters are unhappy with the party leadership and just about anyone who already has a job in Washington DC. The “anyone but Romney vote” extends beyond that to “anything but the status quo” and that’s a real constituency if you can define yourself as the authentic outsider.

The problem is that Gingrich in no way qualifies as a political outsider. The anti-establishment crowd is just not his constituency. To anyone who knows his record and background advertisements like this one which try to redefine him just seem bizarre and mendacious. In his desperation he’s trying to dislodge a small segment of Ron Paul’s support base, but it is not his constituency and he’ll never really be the outsider they want. I hope primary voters won’t be fooled by this slick but deeply deceptive ad campaign. It’s time for Gingrich to go.

A slightly different version of this article appeared previously on Blogcritics

In a powerful example of the internet grassroots in action, a viral campaign through Reddit played a large role in stopping the passage of s SOPA and PIPA and that effort has now expanded into an movement to produce  alternative legislation which would address copyright concerns but also protect the rights of internet users and providers.

This collaboratively produced legislation is called the Free Internet Act.  It has as its stated goal:

“To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship and innovation by preventing the restriction of liberty and preventing the means of censorship. FIA will allow internet users to browse freely without any means of censorship, users have the right to free speech and to free knowledge; we govern the content of the internet, governments don’t. However enforcements/laws must also be put into place to protect copyrighted content.”

The effort is ambitious, and goes beyond just proposing a law for the United States and includes the idea of an international treaty to address not just SOPA but also the European Union’s equally troublesome and unpopular ACTA legislation, effectively as a new international treaty on online copyright and free speech.

The proposed bill would make it more difficult for copyright holders to remove suspect content and limit the amount they could sue for, while still giving reasonable protections against piracy.  It provides guidelines for fair remedies to get content removed and gives site owners and uploaders a 30 day grace period to deal with problems and defend their content, addressing the concern that SOPA provided no remedies or due process for the accused. It provides for enforcement through the court system and suggests unspecified penalties for abuse of the process or efforts to intimidate content providers. It even provides the rough elements of a sort of internet bill of rights.

Right now the FIA is in rough form, produced through a collaborative process which is not efficient and not well suited to refining and focusing the language, but it’s an excellent starting point which includes sensible alternative proposals which address the legitimate concerns behind SOPA while also protecting civil liberties and the rights of internet users and businesses.

An online community like Reddit is great for getting the ball rolling on an effort like this but is not well equipped to take the subsequent steps necessary to produce a working piece of legislation and get it introduced in Congress.  The next step in the process is for the FIA to be taken up as a cause by advocacy groups which have been involved in this fight, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Republican Liberty Caucus, and from there pass it on to sympathetic lawmakers to be introduced in Congress, with a strong push from the internet grassroots.  In the process the language of the bill will need to be clarified and refined and brought in line with legislative standards.

Senators like Rand Paul (R-KY) and Congressmen like Justin Amash (R-TX) and Ron Paul (R-TX) who were outspoken in opposition to SOPA should have a natural interest in sponsoring such legislation.  A promise to introduce a version of the FIA migh talso be a powerful campaign issue for Richard Mack who is challenging SOPA author Lamar Smith (R-TX) in the Texas GOP primary.  Producing a resolution for inclusion in state Republican Party platforms endosing the FIA might also be a useful tactic.

The internet remains one of the strongest and most productive sectors of our economy with huge potential for future growth, but we cannot allow that potential to be stifled by unwise legistlation.  The benefits to individuals and to the nation of preserving a free and open internet environment are obvious to everyone except for big media and their lobbyists.  The internet grassroots have started a wave of change on Reddit and they’ve come up with a good start on a real solution.  It’s time to take the next step and make it into a real law.

(This article appeared previously in a slightly different form in Blogcritics Magazine)

In my journey through the liberty movement, I discovered that a free market approach to solving issues is about the best framework we can implement in order to solve out nations problems.  Finding an example which embodied those ideals, and shined with success in it’s implementation was much harder to prove, I was finding.  I feel that without an example to look towards as a template, most people have a hard time making a leap to something new, consistent and comfortable will always win the day.   I had to find an example to help showcase why I feel a decentralized form of government, limited federal government is the best way to provide the most freedom and opportunity to the people it hopes to govern.

To be clear, what I mean is the decentralization of policy, letting our local towns and cities try new laws and policies in order to let the free market work, and show us the most efficient and acceptable policy per the market.  Better put, let the people show us which policy is better, and which implementation of it, the most effective.  Not to mention the added benefit of allowing local governments to act as testing grounds for new innovative ways to deliver that service that the people demand.

I needed a government service or institution that is governed at the local level, which the majority feels is essential, and it’s implementation follows free market principles, perfectly suited to the people it serves.  I finally discovered that perfect example, something I could showcase which embodies those attributes and can be the proud example of limited government on a grand scale while maintaining it’s small town charm.

The Answer is Simple: The Fire Department!

The Fire Departments across our country are the perfect example of local government, market solutions, catered to the need of the people rather than a blanket rule handed down from the federal government.  In large cities, the people pay the salaries of the firemen and employ full time career firemen and woman to ensure they have the fastest response times possible, and the equipment to reach them when in need.  Investment in technology and training to provide the very best in fire safety, prevention and rescue also doesn’t come cheap.  It’s because of that, large cities like New York, Boston and Chicago value their fire departments more than their rural counterparts in terms of budgets.

Through their votes and elected officials, the people voice their desire for the fire department which will provide them the level of service they feel can be prepared to respond to the task at hand given the environment.  For major cities, where someone 14 floors down can put your family at risk by falling asleep with the stove on, h

aving a highly trained and professional department of firemen ready to charge up those stairs and save you is important.  That training, courage and resolve is only achievable with proper funding and full time, experienced personnel, only achievable with higher taxes, and budgets.

In more rural areas, you’d be lucky to find a building which is taller than 3 stories, and most of those are grain elevators.  The people of these communities do not require the rigorous needs of a highly trained, funded fire department in comparison to large cities.  In most parts of the country, firemen and women are rarely paid and operate as volunteer associations to provide protection and assistance in emergency situations for their community.   These volunteer associations in turn cost far less to operate on smaller town budgets, making a perfectly suited policy, for the people, and the

Some fire departments will not even put out the fire unless you have paid your service fee for the year.  Last year a couple living in Obion County Tennessee had to learn this lesson the hard way when their mobile home caught fire.  After calling 911 and reporting the fire only to have to save their own belongings as the south Fulton fire department watched on, on the ready in case anyone was in harm’s way.  When a reluctant resident fails to pay their fee, these fire departments will act when life is at danger.

This kind of fee-for-service approaches to government teaches a valuable lesson of personal responsibility that is sorely missing in today’s’ society,  More importantly, if Obion County, or any other rural citizens want to ensure they are covered in the event of a fire, it is within their power to vote for higher county taxes in order to pay for that service.  Many of these fee based fire protection programs are incredibly affordable too, for $75.00 a year (21 cents a day), that couple could have been protected in their time of need.

Why does any of this matter?

Looking towards this model of providing government services, at variable levels is a perfectly American approach to government; it’s why our founding fathers were so adamant about State’s rights.  Ensuring that what might work for you may not necessarily work for me.  It’s the perfect Constitutional argument on how local decisions provide the best form of government for the people and by the people, If at any time the current situation isn’t working for a town, county, or state, they can organize and vote to change the way they are governed.

It’s the perfect example for how all the issues should be solved in today’s federal government.  I always knew a decentralized approach to government was the best form, but I never could find an example that so readily embodies the lessons and structure of this as does the Fire Departments across this country.  People will always find the best solution for them and their family, and their community.

Washington rarely has a perspective which can understand the wide ranging needs of the people of this country.

Most important issue we lose at when we implement federal policy as a blanket policy, we lose the ability to innovate and discover new methods on how to deliver, manage, or provide a service which the people are looking for.  When we allow the states to decide how best to provide for their people, we have unique labs across the country testing to see which one works the best.  The Free Market, allowed to spur on innovation and ingenuity will dramatically help craft and implement the best policy over time for all, and that’s not just my opinion, that’s our history.

So next time when someone rolls their eyes at the idea of empowering the people to find the best solution, whether it’s healthcare, or social issues, you can point to the best fire departments in the world and show them that we the people can determine how best to suit out needs, not Washington.

As you may have heard, last week actor Sean Penn visited his buddy Hugo Chavez in Venezuela once again. Associated Press reported his comments on the 2012 presidential election as

“It’s never predictable what can happen in an American election, but we certainly believe at this point that it’s becoming increasingly clear to the American people that the policies of the far right are the policies of the rich, and that they are to the exclusion of the middle class and the poor, and that no society has a future on that basis.”

This is far from the most outrageous comments attributed to Sean Penn during visits to the socialist police state that is Venezuela. Furthermore, these are exactly the kind of statements conservatives and libertarians should expect to hear from Hollywood liberals during President Obama’s reelection campaign. Being unable to run on a record of great success, the president will have no choice but to turn to this divisive rhetoric to get reelected. Unless his opponent is Rick Santorum, whose rigid social conservatism will hurt him greatly in swing states like Ohio and Florida, and whose record on big spending is most outstanding when compared to his three competitors–an ex-Governor who balanced budgets, a former house speaker who oversaw a government shutdown shortly followed by nearly-balanced budgets (national debt went up during the Clinton “surpluses”), and a Texas Congressman who has never voted for an unbalanced budget or a tax increase–the President will have to actually debate the merits of his economic policy. And it is a debate he will likely lose.

Organizing for America, the Democratic National Committee under the offensive demagogue of a new chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and various mainstream media personalities have been attempting to capitalize on the greed and anger of the Occutards and have been running on a “Republicans are the party of the rich!” message–in spite of President Obama’s backing of and expansion of the bailout and stimulus policies of his predecessor George W. Bush.

No doubt at the front of Mr. Obama’s campaign will be the entertainment industry that helped him get elected in the 2008 primary and general election against seemingly impossible odds. This will include Sean Penn.

It baffles me how Sean Penn and his ilk have any credibility with the American people. I’ll admit that I even find a personal degree of disappointment in myself when I share articles on Facebook about celebrities endorsing my choice for 2012–Ron Paul. I do it because sadly enough, Americans care more about what these people think than say, what the veterans and members of the military think, or what the people out of work think, or what the successful small-to-medium sized business owners think. I don’t like the idea about taking advice from celebrities on anything. Most of them have zero understanding of individual liberty, economics or how the business sector operates, a minimal understanding of international affairs, and a hypocritical view on the fair share the 1% which they are a part of is allegedly not paying. Sean Penn is one such actor.

What I am also baffled by is that those of us on the other side of the political spectrum rarely fight back against these celebutards. We often take a “who cares what Hollywood thinks mentality”, failing to understand the power they have over influencing everything the average American says and does. Middle America doesn’t understand the lack of credibility these people have and we fail miserably to expose them for their hypocrisy. Reason is on our side, and we need to prove it, and we can do show by exposing the words of these people for their inaccuracies and logical inconsistencies. Will everyone listen? Of course not. But we don’t need every American to listen to us, we just need to get a few people at a time to wake up. Eventually, enough will do so that Hollyweird loses is significance in election cycles.

In 2010 I was working on a satirical book, entitled Mass Media Mindnumb, on what I had perceived to be the denigration of American pop culture. I have since lost interest in the subject and focused on more important things in my professional and personal life, but I kept the unfinished manuscript and sometimes reference it if I need some ammunition to fight back against Hollywood hypocrisy. My generation has proven to be the strongest victim of the cult of celebrity. I fear greatly what subsequent generations will look like as they come of age. America today faces a dichotomy. We will go down one of two roads. A road of European style socialism all the way to bankruptcy, or a restoration of the long forgotten free-market principles that made America great in the first place. There will be a generational shift that will soon show up in the political spectrum. My generation will either choose this European socialism, or adopt a libertarian-leaning conservatism. The dominionist [religious] right stands in the way of them adopting the latter, while the entertainment industry beckons them to the former.

I’ve spent enough time recently demagoguing the dominionists, so I’m gonna go after Hollywood, and I’ll start with Sean Penn.

In Mass Media Mindnumb I had written a scathing rant about Sean Penn’s hypocrisy. I’m going to release the contents of that rant in this article, while making some minor editorial revisions to reflect current events. Here is what I had written:

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

I Am Sean

Sean Penn is one of several celebrities who has made enough an ass of himself that he gets his own subsection in this chapter. You probably think he’s a good actor. Really I can’t remember him outside of any movies other than Fast Times at Ridgemont High—where he played a disruptive stoner and I Am Sam—where he played the mentally challenged title character. Both decent movies; the actor is a different story.

Deceitful, left-wing, but most importantly the ultimate hypocrite—Sean Penn routinely criticized George W. Bush for taking away civil liberties during the beginning of the war on terror, but recently came out suggesting that people lose their right to free speech!

Let me break it down for you.

In 2002, he placed a $56,000 ad in The Washington Post out of concern for the upcoming war in Iraq and the PATRIOT Act. This letter was surprisingly eloquent, making some interesting analogies. He particularly wanted Bush to reconsider invading Iraq and the expansion of his federal power, to not “[diminish U.S. citizens] through loss of civil liberties [or] dangerously heightened presidential autonomy through acts of Congress.” His criticism of Bush would soon turn into anger, going so far as to call for Bush’s impeachment.

The criticisms—well, the early ones at least–were not entirely unfair, but what completely destroys Penn’s credibility as a political voice (pay attention here) is his ultimate hypocrisy. Some time in spring 2010, Sean Penn appeared on Bill Maher’s show Real Time. On the show, Penn made comments that completely destroyed his credibility for all his criticisms of George W. Bush’s infringements on our civil liberties.

I mentioned briefly the socialist leader of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, a man who has partially usurped control of the media in his country, all but guaranteeing political insuperability. Well, Penn is chummy with this guy and doesn’t exactly like people who bash him. The mainstream media, according to Penn, constantly lies about Hugo Chavez.

In reality, the mainstream media tells a lot of lies and skews many of their stories. But portrayal of Hugo Chavez as a socialist dictator isn’t one of their misleading notions—its cold hard fact. Penn’s allegations of this as a lie aren’t what make him a hypocrite. What makes him a hypocrite is the fact that he suggested a law which would outright violate the First Amendment—both violating freedom of the press and of speech.

“Every day, this elected leader [Chavez] is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it. And this is mainstream media. There should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.” — Sean Penn in 2010 on Real Time with Bill Maher

Excuse me? You want a bar that would send people to prison for speaking their mind? Even if they were lying about Chavez’s oppression and socialist policies, and they certainly are not, the media has a constitutionally protected freedom to say whatever they want and it is the responsibility of ‘we the people’ to do our homework and find out the truth. As a matter of fact, two of the earliest media outlets in this country were created for campaigning purposes when John Adams and Thomas Jefferson battled each other for the presidency. They each had their own outlet to demagogue each other, and it was up to the citizens to separate fact from fallacy.

If anyone is going to be locked up for false allegations by this bar that Penn wants to create, consider this scenario where the law becomes international and then subsequently be used to lock up Chavez.

According to a Feb 2006 piece from Reuters, Chavez was quoted as saying the following of then-President Bush:

“The imperialist, genocidal, fascist attitude of the U.S. president has no limits. I think Hitler would be like a suckling baby next to George W. Bush.”

Hugo Chavez compared a man who removed an oppressive dictator and kept his country safe, despite wasting lots of money and using questionable policing tactics in the process, to a man who systematically murdered 6 million Jews and invaded multiple countries not with the goal of liberating them but with the goal of ethnically cleansing and then occupying them. Under Penn’s proposed law, Chavez would be behind bars.

See what I did there, Seanny? Apparently free speech is okay for Sean Penn only if you agree with him. When George W. Bush tapped phone and email communications in an attempt to secure our country—albeit with potential to violate our 4th amendment rights—it’s oppressive and fascist; but a man who controls his country’s media to consolidate his own power is a democratically elected and transparent leader, and anyone who disagrees with that should be locked up!?

Pot-calling-the-kettle-black much? You can’t yell about someone infringing on the First Amendment, then subsequently suggest people lose their First Amendment rights because they disagree with you, and expect to have any credibility left can you? I would hope not. And I would hope you the reader make note of this and don’t take political advice from this guy. Ironic enough that his own proposed law of course would probably ensure his buddies Chavez and Ahmedinejad be locked up for their lies—Ahmedinejad especially for calling the Holocaust a myth. But what’s even more ironic is that Sean Penn wants to make laws that oppress people who disagree with him politically, when his own father suffered the same oppression.

Sean must have forgotten that his father, the late actor Leo Penn, was an actor during the Red Scare. He was a communist sympathizer, a supporter of Hollywood trade unions and refused to accuse his communist friends to the House Un-American Activities Committee and as a result was blacklisted—i.e. nobody would hire him because of his political leanings! But in Sean Penn’s hypocrisy, he suggests people should be jailed for their opinions (or FACTS) that Hugo Chavez is a power hungry socialist tyrant.

Sean Penn is a true celebutard; a politically inept hypocrite who should just stick to acting and stay out of politics! But as much as I detest him, I would never suggest he be locked up for his lies. I would most likely never suggest he be blacklisted. But I will suggest a boycott of him. I don’t think I’ll be watching his upcoming films.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

My views on Sean Penn’s hypocrisy remain the same to this day. I hope the readers of this article take these facts to heart and share them with others, particularly the ones regarding Leo Penn. The Hollywood left is losing its credibility but I can only hope it will lose it in time stop my generation from accepting this entitlement mentality present among Occupy Wall Street. The last thing I want is to wake up in 10 years to a repeat of the recent London riots: a bunch of spoiled 14 year olds throwing rocks and molotov cocktails at shops because mommy and daddy didn’t buy them that iPad they are “entitled” to. And if you believe for one second this hypothetical will never happen, I’ll refer you to the even more recent riots in malls all across the country over the new Nike Air Jordans. I don’t think you get a more accurate example than that of combining the “entitlement” mentality with the peer-pressure driven cult of celebrity, not to mention the general wussification of the American male when a bunch of guys in their teens and early-to-mid twenties are fighting over shoes as if they were the Sex and the City girls.

Its not too late to stop this from happening. Just as we managed to do with the temporary stoppage of the so-called Stop Online Piracy Act, libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives will have to take up arms against Big Hollyweird once again; this time over their lies, distortions, and political influence. Don’t be afraid to spend a little extra time attacking their hypocrisy and their logical fallicies and eventually they’ll lose credibility with some of the electorate.

As for Sean Penn, the characters of Spicoli—the dumb stoner, and Sam—the mentally challenged man—may actually be smarter than their portrayer, Sean Penn. Sean PWNED!

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Aaron Alghawi is finishing his B.S. in Economics at Texas A&M University; he is a board member and Director of Student Outreach for the Republican Liberty Caucus.