Podcast with Ray McBerry

For those of you that may be interested, a friend and I did a podcast with Ray McBerry last night for United Liberty (a liberty movement blog that I took over in June).

We talked with Ray about his campaign, why he is running and some of the issues he is running on.

You can listen to the podcast here.

81 comments

  1. benevolus says:

    What’s a “liberty movement? Are you guys Wiccans? “An’ ye harm no one do what thou wilt”?
    Or is it just a euphemism for “I don’t want to pay for community services (except the ones I use)”? ๐Ÿ™‚

    • Or is it just a euphemism for โ€œI donโ€™t want to pay for community services (except the ones I use)โ€? ๐Ÿ™‚

      That’s a pretty succinct overview of the typical Libertarian position. As opposed to the typical Republican position, “I don’t want to pay for community services (INCLUDING the ones I use!)”.

      • Or is it just a euphemism for โ€œI donโ€™t want to pay for community services (except the ones I use)โ€?

        …As opposed to the typical Republican position, โ€œI donโ€™t want to pay for community services (INCLUDING the ones I use!)โ€.

        Don’t forget the Democratic position, “I want nothing but community services (I don’t want to be responsible for anything) and want to pay for it all with someone else’s money (since, I’m not willing to provide for myself).”

        See, we all can be defined by our fringe… I don’t really think it is that productive though.

    • Doug Deal says:

      The answer is he is a successionist and what his supporters call for is actually treason.

      You are not a Constitutionist when you only follow the Constitution when it agrees with you.

      Simply put, these people are loons, their platform is dangerous and if they ever got elected, they would spend the rest of their days in Federal prison.

      • Fawkes says:

        People should be cautious when they hear the word “Constitution” floated about ad nauseum. Many frauds are getting recognition within the “Liberty” movement. These shysters are not to be trusted and should be ignored. They shout “Constitution!” when they really mean to further their own ill-gotten agenda.

        • Jeff says:

          Do you not know your history/Constitution? DC has NEVER been part of the Union. It is the “federal district”, an area that was supposed to be separate from the Union from the beginning!

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            Oh come on Jeff, technicality.

            If you want to get that specific, D.C. is directly controlled by Congress. I’ve just always called the Federal Government, “D.C.” for short. Other shortenings include, Fed.gov, Uncle Sam, Big Brother.

            I know the Constitution pretty well.

            Although, I think Bill G. has an idea. Let’s officially free D.C. so we can go on about our business as it was intended.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            I just don’t get why everyone is so concerned with the states leaving the Union. If a state leaves, that’s less upkeep for “D.C.” In the end, they’d have less folks worry about protecting during the “War on Terror”, or to have to spy on, or to have to pay for unconstitutional healthcare coverage, or to have to borrow money to pay for projects within those states.

      • Game Fan says:

        I wouldn’t even recognize McBerry if I saw him on the street. However voting for/supporting the Constitutionalist is always a done deal for me. You see, I don’t give a flip about what folks think cause I’m not running for office. For myself (as an average Joe) the Constitution is what it’s all about. You would have to be deep in sheeple territory to be fearful of a Constitutionalist or to think that this is the worst thing to fear or that McBerry could be defined by his fringe, or that ANY Constitutionalist would somehow obtain magical dictatorial powers. What the heck are you people smoking?

        • Game Fan says:

          Sure there’s some “strange bedfellows” in the Constitutionalist camp. As if there aren’t in the Republican mainstream these days. In a general sense when you’re looking at the Constitutionalist vs. Corporatist deal of course many will support the former no matter what. And in the Paul camp we’ve got some “strange bedfellows” too. Retroactive immunity for the telecoms would be one of many issues which actually bring the “LEFT” in rather than the right wing fringe. So no matter what his platform (I have no idea) supporting McBerry takes things in a different direction.

        • Fawkes says:

          I have a feeling that those of you on here defending McBerry didn’t care to view my links I provided above. He is the Chairman of a secessionist organization (League of the South). The man is a secessionist. That kind of “leadership” is not needed in Georgia.

          Of course, some on here are as big a “Kool-aid drinker” as those blindly supporting Obama; just for a different “side”. Lock it down, the maniacs have taken over the asylum.

        • Doug Deal says:

          For McBerry it is not about the Constitution either. Someone who believes and follows the rule of law and not the cult of personality knows that event the parts that you disagree with need to be defended.

          If not, you are not a Constitutionalist, you are no better than the people on the far left.

          • DD,
            Just to make sure you know what Ray was referringto , I found this video (there are others, but you can reserch further yourself if needed):
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4&

            Some believe that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land… and when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme court has agreed that it is an individual right… and there is also the Constitutional rule of law that provides for due process… so one can believe in the rule of law and be a Constitutionalist at the same time. It would definitely be refreshing to have a Governor who would be willing to stand up to the Federal Gov when it is seen that they are overstepping their Constitutional boundaries.

            (Sorry Icarus, hope you were ready to get started for the day.)

          • Doug Deal says:

            So you deny that McBerry has called on the state of Georgia siezing Federal land and killing any Federal agents (those would be Georgian) who came to take it back?

          • DD,
            I was just referring to the issue I brought up… I’m not sure I heard what you say you heard as for seizing federal land… I heard that he might would look into using a form of eminent domain and to therefore compensate the Feds for said land to return natural resources back to the State… that’s what I head in this podcast…I don’t currently have an opinion of whether I would support such a thing. To be perfectly honest… it’s the first I’ve ever heard this concept.

            And just to be clear on my previous comment… I was just providing info and support that I don’t believe in the seizing of guns of law abiding citizens, especially when theyโ€™re in a situation where they need them most. That practice seems to me to be the exact opposite of the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

          • Lawful Money says:

            Which part(s) of the Constitution does Ray McBerry disagree with?
            Which parts is he refusing to defend?

            Please educate us.

            Thank you.

          • Lawful Money says:

            Double D’s “supremacy” clause, Article VI, paragraph 2:

            “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

            Please don’t slither away like the weasel subversive apologists for the architects of American surrender whose boots you seem thrilled to lick. Let us know in pursuance of exactly what Constitution you are suggesting an “Executive Order” to disarm or otherwise infringe on a sovereign citizen’s God-given right to keep and bear arms, for example, is “supreme”?

            While you’re at it would you mind explaining how it is that different portions of the Constitution could be in conflict with one another and the compact itself still stand? For example – if Doug Deal wishes to protect his 5th ammendment privelege and not be compelled to testify against himself in a criminal case, does some “supreme law” passed in the dead of night while no one’s looking by a group of Marxists who happen to commit their crimes in Washington – mean that Doug goes to prison for 30 years for keeping his mouth shut or his bodily fluids to himself?

            One of DD’s belief systems is going to have to crash in that one – either the Constitution means what it says or Doug’s kids lose their daddy….for NOTHING.

            Next, maybe you can explain to us why we should have a Constitution at all? If the federal government was meant to be “supreme”, why delegate it any powers at all? Doesn’t your theory mean they have ALL powers?

            Sounds to me like you’ve been drinking too much fluoridated water, bud. Try getting a clue & give your handlers the heave-ho. Surrendering your republic for some temporary feel-good at the “Establishment Neo-Con R club” is a sure bet to leave you feeling like a chump for a very long time.

            Why not liberty? Why not truth? Why not the Constitution?

          • Ken in Eastman says:

            Lawful Money,

            Please try that again without the vitriol and overblown verbiage and I PROMISE I will attempt to wade through it and then see if it makes sense.

          • Lawful Money says:

            Ken,
            I wish I could help you there. Please accept my apologies.
            Don’t wade through it, it’s not meant for you anyway.

            P.S. I enjoy your posts.

          • Doug Deal says:

            Ken,

            He is a perfect example of the nutcases that flock to his cause.

            I was willfully ignorant of him until I had the chance to hear a speech all the way through on television. Then, I researched his involvement in the Georgia League of the South. These people do not realize that their replacement for Jesus is calling for the downfall of the United States. Or the “American Empire” as they call it.

          • Ken in Eastman says:

            Lawful Money,

            Thanks, I think. ๐Ÿ™‚

            I’m a strong advocate of the 10th amendment, but I also share some of Doug’s concerns. Also, please read my remarks to Doug.

            Doug,

            I really don’t want to get into a lengthy discussion about Ray McBerry. He does say some things that I find refreshing.

            My youngest son and I were discussing federalism a few weeks ago and I quickly saw why he had questions (Yeah, we actually still have those conversations though he’s now in his early 20s). We state that we have a federalist government and we do by law, but in reality and by action we have a national government. That needs to be fixed.

            I suspect that both you and Lawful Money would agree on my laast statement.

          • Doug Deal says:

            I agree with Federalism, Ken, but listen to what McBerry says the next time he speaks. Listen to what he implies. How do you seize Federal land?

            What does it mean to stand with firearms to prevent Federal agents (who would likely be residents of Georgia) from fulfilling their duties?

            What does it mean when one calls himself a “Southern Nationalist”?

            What does it mean to when one appears with body language and tone to relish the thought of armed conflict with our country?

            We did not get where we are today under the steely boot of a tyrant, we got where we were with decades of good intentions and wishful thinking. Like an overweight person wishing to be thin, this is not accomplished overnight and it is not healthy to do it by just cutting oneself away from the fat. It will take years of work and more importantly, it takes eliminating people like McBerry from the process as they make everyone else who believes in Constitutional limits look like kooks.

        • Ken in Eastman says:

          Doug,

          Please read my comments to Lawful Money. I actually agree with many of your concerns with McBerry,

          I don’t want to get into a lengthy discussion about him because of something a new friend of mine pointed out the other day. She said that McBerry (and many who agree with him) are very knowledgeable about the US Constitution and the writings of the founding fathers, but that they fail to recognize the reality that our government and court system go by different rules.

          In other words, the conversation becomes one of what was meant to be and what exists. No one wins that debate because it’s apples and oranges.

          I will say this, however. If you fail to recognize how things are, you cannot change them to what they should be.

          • Lawful Money says:

            Ken,
            Your last line is quite right.

            I would certainly agree that true Constitutionalists (or R/republicans for that matter) are indeed knowledgeable about the founding fathers and founding document(s), as you point out.

            However, respectfully, it must be stated that those same knowledgeable Constitutionalists can’t be justly accused of not recognizing “that our government and court system go by different rules”.

            Indeed, that stark reality is one of the primary causes for them honestly researching the history which has comprised America’s (and Georgia’s) retreat from victory. And, it is the thing which causes them to refuse compromise on any principle underlying those founding documents and their original intent.

            Self-styled brokers for the surrender of life, liberty, and property on the installment plan – ceding every God-given right to anything unelected and far away which someone can claim is “fulfilling (its) duties” – while “eliminating people like Ray McBerry from the process” …..sounds an awful lot like tyranny to me.

            But hey, what do I know – I’m just a Constitutionalist & a R/republican who means it ๐Ÿ™‚

      • Lord have mercy. Why don’t these folks just line up under the Libertarian Party instead of the GOP? They trash the landscape with their propaganda every election cycle and have a blind loyalty the likes I have never seen (with the exception of our house leadership).

        They’ll get their 3% but goodness gracious with is much trash as they leave all over the streets one would think they’re some massive operation.

        I’m not so much put off with their message and rhetoric as with the racial component they attract. They’re obnoxious.

        When we had Mike Huckabee in Macon during the campaign some of these clowns, operating within the Ron Paul campaign actually taunted and protested our event. What a way to win friends and influence people.

        • Doug Deal says:

          Maurice,

          Don’t lump these people in with Ron Paul people. Ron Paul people do not call for the downfall of the United States, as Ray McBerry’s League of the South has.

          • In that situation, the ones that were there taunting are McBerry supporters. I’m sure that not all Ron Paul supporters would embrace this, but nonetheless, they were rude and obnoxious. They certainly didn’t do their cause any favors.

        • Jeff says:

          Maurice,

          We already have enough kooks of our own within the LP without importing the GOP’s.

          Honestly, McBerry’s platform is MUCH more in line with the Constitution Party’s than the GOP’s or the LP’s. Why doesn’t he join them and work to get them ballot access? After all, if he is as popular as he seems to think, he should be able to pull it off, right?

      • ron322 says:

        Either the States and the people respectively, have the right to withdraw their support or obedience to D.C. when they overreach, or they do not. If it is the latter, then we are not a free Republic. Call me what you will, it does not change the facts. The days of idenity politics is fading fast and soon those who engage in it will be seen as the loons. Both parties have taken this State and the nation as a whole to the brink of disaster. The solution we are told, is more of the same.
        The people are not buying it any more and those who are trying to sell it are afraid. Your security and control, like your freedoms, are an illusion. The time for compromise is over.
        We have only those rights that we are willing to defend.

  2. macho says:

    I don’t agree with everything Ray states, but I agree with 80% of it. Most of the folks that refer to him in such a disparaging manner have problem never actually spoken with him. You would be hard pressed to find a more polite or respectful individual. He has some hardcore ideas about the Constitution and I don’t agree with the flagger stuff, but if you listen to him he’ll make you think. Thinking of Ray only in terms of the State Flag would be like thinking of Libertarians only in terms of legalized marijuana.

    We’ve drifted so far away from the intent of our founding fathers, that people like Ray can seem a little loony. The country would be a lot better off with more Ray McBerrys and less Barney Franks.

  3. drjay says:

    closest thing to a thread where this is pertinent–does anyone else find it interesting that the cook report has the ga guv race listed as a “toss-up”?

    • Icarus says:

      That’s what the tip line is for, DrJay.

      We can take these things you find, claim them as our own, and then put them out there for others to find interesting.

      Way to ruin a good system dude.

    • DTK says:

      I’d rate it as a toss-up.

      I really think Republicans underestimate Barnes’ appeal to suburban voters, assuming, of course, that Barnes gets through the primary unscathed.

  4. Jeff says:

    Ray only went off the deep end twice – once around the 14:30 mark, and another at about the 35 minute mark. Both times he was talking about putting innocent people in prison for nothing more than doing their jobs – jobs he happens to disagree with.

    That said, he actually did better here than I’ve ever seen him do. Maybe he is learning after all…

  5. Doug Deal says:

    You should have seen his speach to the Houston GOP. He started in the deap end and just got deaper.

    I have met him and he is a “nice guy”. Jim Jones and Ted Bundy and a lot of other psychos were “nice guys”. Listen to what he proposes and what he implies with what he proposes. If he wasn’t such an absolute joke, he would be a dangerous man.

  6. Game Fan says:

    I’ve seen one video with McBerry where he Stated he traveled the country in support of the 10th Amendment. It just didn’t seem that extreme from what I’ve seen. Of course some think the worst “ties” aren’t with rampant Federalism but rather the “hidden ties” with K-street and outsourcing, lobbyists, multinational corporations, the “Wal-Martization” of the economy, bailouts, private prisons, private highways, globalism…

    • Doug Deal says:

      Supporting the 10th Amendment is commendable. Saying that he will make war with the Federal government by siezing Federal property, imprisoning it’s agents or ignoring Federal law when he personally disagrees with them or shouting to the world that the “second Revolution” is under way is insanity. You guys do realize that a Revolution is an overthrow of government. I would rather have people I disagree with in Washington than an unstable kook in Georgia.

      • Game Fan says:

        Well for many he’s just a guy who’s an underdog and probably not being sponsored by Monsanto or whatever. If he gets anywhere it’s gonna be with a wide coalition IMHO. In this case the whole “politician-as-leader” is out the window and people can’t be led down a dark alley.

      • “”””I disagree with in Washington than an unstable kook in Georgia.””””

        Given the state of affairs in ATL, kind of makes him look viable. Seems to me we are in a state of confusion in ATL and the common sense conservatives are way too timid to flex their political muscles. What’s sick is if they don’t get their acts together within the next 3 weeks, the next four months are going to be spent in purgatory. In November we’ll end up in Hades.

  7. Game Fan says:

    Hey I might be swayed. Although I’m a self-identified Republican I did support Tommy Irvin for Commissioner of Ag. So who’s the top second-tier candidate for Governor on the Democrat side who doesn’t have big corporate sponsors?

  8. jenny says:

    My comment posted strangely. It was pointed toward the love fest exhibited between the two having a post lobotomy discussion on the difference between principled resolution based on the truths espoused in the Declaration of Independence and the original intent of the Founders to secure our liberties through Constitutionally restrained government AND a loony tune.

    But when you are an ignorant whiner, you are incapable of engaging in the discussion beyond straw men and Red Herrings.

    Thus my comment: idiots of a feather, flock together.

    • Doug Deal says:

      Speaking of lobotmies, Jenny. Listen to your imperious leader admit to hit leadership in the Legue of the South at 3:20.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESuiU2QOUIo

      Then head over to their website:

      http://dixienet.org/New%20Site/index.shtml

      Most organizations founder because they lack self-definition and a definite goal. The League of the South is a Southern Nationalist organization whose ultimate goal is a free and independent Southern republic.

      Try to hide your absolute fanatacism all you like, Jenny. But anyone who follows this crazy man deserves to be marginalized.

      • Game Fan says:

        Again, the “follower/leader” relationship that some have towards politicians. You have to realize that Constitutionalists are less likely to buy into that.

  9. Game Fan says:

    PROBLEM:
    Some of McBerry’s supporters are fanatics. I mean, I’m not into large corporations running everything but, I just can’t be associated with any of this extremism. People might think funny things. Bad things. About me. And I can’t have that.

    SOLUTION:
    Help to broaden his base of support, crowd in and outnumber the extremists.

      • ron322 says:

        What snake oil is Ray selling exactly? Is it better than the snake oil we have been forced to endure the last 80 years ?
        The thing about snake oil is some of actually works. It is the majority selling bogus knock offs that give the whole a bad name. I suggest that we have been sold fake freedom and liberty long enough. I see you prefer your leeks and onions.

        • Doug Deal says:

          The snake oil is his proposal to make a shooting war with the Federal government as some kind of miracle cure all for all of the problems of Georgia.

          The salesman is the making this form of crackery as something attractive.

          I assume that this is how the ethinic wars in Serbia and other places started. Some idiot looking for donations or supporters to his “cause” fans the flames of various hatreds with firery rhetoric with a smile and friendly attitude while he laughs all the way to the bank. Who cares if generations of people have to suffer the consequences later when zealots who flocked to the “cause” take matters into their own hands.

          Anyone who calls for a violent conflict with the Federal Government is not someone that should be considered as a serious candidate for governor.

          • ron322 says:

            I have not heard Ray call for shooting Federal Agents.
            I have heard him call for putting them in jail if they come to Georgia to find victims of Federal regulations.
            The Federal Government is using force and violence against the people, should we just accept it?
            What powers are available to the States?
            What solution do you offer to restore respect for individual rights?

  10. Game Fan says:

    Once again if “people” had the same relationship toward the folks they support (not follow) their relationship toward the politicians might be more akin to that of the lobbyist/politician. As an example:
    “Average Joe” meets the guy he supports. (Does his best James Cagney)

    “OK now you listen up good mista. See, it’s gonna go down like this. You’re going to veto that bill tomorrow, cause we don’t like it, see? That’s all the reason you need mista.” (walks away)

Comments are closed.