From The Editorial Desk, intellego ut credam, Novus Ordo Seclorum, Politics, Status quaestionis, Weekly Politikos



Due to a health emergency, I am quitting the blog Libertarian Monks. It’s been a grand time, but all good things — as is true with bad things — must end.

Suffice to say, I would offer a serious and heartfelt thanks to all those crafty and intelligent band of classical liberal readers, however small a group they may be, who’ve stuck with us and read our brand x of vicious pontifications on limited government and the need for a constitutional revolution in these United States. You’re the best.

I appreciate everyone who ever read this blog.


Sincerely Yours,

David Joseph Beilstein

From The Editorial Desk, Novus Ordo Seclorum, Politics, Status quaestionis, Weekly Politikos



By David Beilstein

Congressional Republicans were slaughtered by the Obama White House in the government shutdown debacle.

Feckless Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), whom received a standing ovation for his meagre attempts — and whom was ultimately successful at crafting an agreement with with congressional Democrats —is also worthy of the strongest condemnation by serious classical liberals.

We should have known nothing of significance would be accomplished on entitlement spending, debt, or ObamaCare with such a force of impotency at the helm of congressional leadership.

Some will claim a Republican victory, as was noted here. But all that really can be said is a U.S. president with anemic poll numbers—with a whopping 86 percent of Americans thinking the country is headed in the wrong direction—President Obama was successfully able to defang Republicans. To be sure, this resided in Republican weakness, not President Obama’s strengths.

And it must be said that is an embarrassing place to be. But it is understandable. Think hard. If such were not the case, Barack Obama would not have won reelection.

We can be assured of that.

Many Republicans plan on fighting for another day. Where have we heard that kind of cheese before?

That’s the awful thing about Republicans. The aphorism about there being no time like the present to mount a robust, and dramatically inspired constitutional revolution to the Obama White House’s statist oligarchy resumes being perpetually at  arm’s length.

It’s why Republicans lose at the national level—and also why fewer Americans see reason to vote for such an irrelevant political entity.

artium and moribus, From The Editorial Desk, intellego ut credam, Mr Robert Luke Capehert



By Robert L. Capehert

At least it has been for myself.

Dave Beilstein has been at it here as resident blogger (under two different site names) since around August of 2012.

I myself came on later to add some punch to an otherwise soporific blog—or at least to add a pinch or two of profanity now and again—with lean prose intended to rankle and offend the statist mindset.

Over the last couple weeks, I’ve had the opportunity to look back at LM archives: what a depressing glance back into recent history that has been. Ugh.

Nevertheless, Beilstein was all over a Romney victory (as were many others). And whilst the little man can be forgiven, reading column after column reporting good news for Romney and bad juju for Bam-Bam Obama is still painful.

One should never relive the past all that much–besides an effort to avoid the same mistakes. Albert Einstein said something about that I recall.

I too, figured good man Mitt Romney would pull a victory out of President Obama’s atrocious political hand. And I was utterly amazed to watch those aspirations dashed when the electoral wave—come to God or whatever—did not show up, electing Barack Obama to a second term.

That means three more years of Pres. Barack H. Obama’s scatological nonsense.

Certainly, it was the wrong year to run a venture capitalist regardless of Obama’s record. That’s not Mr Romney’s fault. It is the fault of a G.O.P base, however, which pitches such moderates to the base few are enthusiastic over.

Clearly, voting against someone—even a tyrannical impostor like Obama—is not enough to stoke bellies-of-fire-and-rage on the right, propelling even a moderate to victory. I can deal with reading this blog’s errors in presidential predictions. It’s common. Everyone makes mistakes—even Beilstein.

What is becoming increasingly hard to conceive of, however, is how G.O.P. establishment types—horrors!—like Karl Rove and company, continue to  tell conservatives how to win when all they do is nominate “moderate” losers. That’s truly where the shame really belongs, folks.

Truly, indeed.

From The Editorial Desk, Mr Robert Luke Capehert, Weekly Politikos



By Robert L. Capehert

WHEN Governor Ronald Reagan ran against then-incumbent Republican President Gerald Ford in ’76 primaries, it infuriated the Grand Old Party establishment.

And they swore Reagan was finished for his pretentious gall. Reagan answered the bell by winning the nomination in ’80 and going on to knock Democratic Party and incumbent Pres. Jimmy Carter ass-over-tea cup in the general election.

In 1980, conservative columnist George F. Will supported Republicans Howard Baker, then George H.W. Bush, finally settling on Reagan like many a conservative held back nausea in buttressing Mitt Romney’s candidacy in the ’12 election.

In a word, Mr Will wasn’t passionate about Reagan. The vaunted right-of-center columnist’s reasons seemed obvious at the time.

Reagan could not win. Just a B actor, they said.

According to conventional wisdom, that is. So much for Mr Will’s assessment—as it simply turned out to be the worst kind of inside the beltway punditry.

Not only could Ronald Reagan win, but he won two landslides; landslides, which have been unable to be duplicated by Republicans in the last 30 years, except the coattail riding George W.H. Bush in ’88, whom coasted to victory.

But Bush Sr. won based upon Reagan’s successes, not his own policies. So much so, when Bush had to run on his own record he was destroyed in a three-way race, electing Arkansas Governor William Jefferson Clinton, to the presidency.

Still, since the ’88 election, Republicans have struggled as a dying man crawling up a scabrous hill to surmount the necessary 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.

Not so with Reagan. The former Governor of California was not simply truly conservative, but was an electoral juggernaut—slicing up statist leftist candidates like a knife through butter.

But the most important take-away is the reality that Ronald Reagan was not a hero to Republicans, nor a slew of conservatives, when he ran in ’76 or ’80.

The vitriol against Texas senator Ted Cruz, following his 21-hour filibuster against the Affordable Care Act by Republicans, mimics profoundly, the hatred Republican blue bloods had for Reagan.

And Like Reagan, Sen. Cruz’s accusers lament he will destroy the electoral potential of the G.O.P.

It’s about the next election stupid, goes their wisdom.

This idiocy expresses itself despite the utter failure of establishment Republicans to push the ball forward toward constitutional government (let alone get elected).

Within this disturbing orbit, Republican establishment types have become more and more pretentious toward the idea it must be their way or the highway—despite the fact their way continues to enrich the consultant class, and nominate losers.

Who, good intentions all, continue to lose elections.

Conservatives, err, constitutionalists, are supposed to listen to Sen. John McCain, and other inside the beltway blowhards (who go down in flames), pontificate about how Ted Cruz is some kind of whacko bird.

Conviction matters. Whether it is Rand Paul, or Mike Lee — or Justin Amash in the House, Reagan teaches us the idea change rides upon non-conventional politics.

The failure of the Republican Party is because of a lack of conviction. Or, convictions, which when voters take a peek-a-boo at closely are no different than Democratic Party hysterics.

Most the problems inside the Republican Party are nearsighted problems. That is, being concerned with politics a few inches out, rather than a couple miles out.

In ’76, Reagan was not going to be a winner—despite how well he did against Pres. Gerald Ford in the primaries. Reagan was future. Pres. Ford was the “now.”

Like ’76, the G.O.P. is stuck in the now. Sen. Cruz is of the future—where the party needs to go if it is going to have a real impact on governance in our time. His critics are meaningless.

The establishment attacks against Sen. Cruz only bolster the Texas strongman’s case for real constitutional reform in our republic. Thus, the inability to perceive the political environment down the road has impeded Republican dominance in politics far too often.

With a strong cadre of libertarian Republicans doing passionate battle, change appears to be coming—and it is inspired news. Like Reagan, do not expect this renewed constitutionalism to be lauded. It will not be.

Reagan taught us a lot. Still, much has been said about dropping Reagan of late. That was Jennifer Rubin’s point in the Washington Post some years ago.

True, America faces different challenges than when Reagan walked into the Oval Office every morning, some 23 years ago. But Reagan illustrates the long hard road constitutionalists must traipse in order to win—and when they do so, they can win overwhelmingly.

It is aptly important to understand those whom walk in Reagan’s shoes, will not be heroes; not even in so-called conservative circles, but will be systematically attacked.

And that’s okay. It’s always good to know whose side everyone is on.

Establishment Republicans endanger themselves, not unorthodox wunderkinds like Cruz and Paul—whom are two of the best voices in constitutionalism in generations.


From The Editorial Desk, Hooking & Jabbing, Litterarum, Novus Ordo Seclorum, Politics, Status quaestionis





I have had the fortune of being on somewhat of a sabbatical in order to finish up some important creative writing projects and other duties.

Moreover, Bob Capehert has been working on his first novel—asking questions of professionals everywhere how to publish whatever it is he has concocted.

And I was also able to sit down with a couple who are dear to my heart and eat a wonderfully cooked meal and speak about religion and politics until somewhere north of 11 pm this past Wednesday. All and all it has been a welcome week of brain stimulation and exchange of ideas Libertarian Monks deems to be of significant importance.

I pray for the health and state of mind to continue to blog more on a regular basis. I’m quite enthused about my writing projects—but developments around the world and especially in America do not let up easy. To be sure, I also felt the need to till and replant the better foliage of my mind, so ammo was needed to write differing content than has been the norm on LB for quite some time.

If I can figure out how to get those damn pictures showing up on the tabs to new entries many of my current frustrations will have ebbed—and I shall rest easier I’m sure. Until later—and let say I hope that means sooner—I’ll see everybody back here shortly.

Sincerely Yours,

David Joseph Beilstein

From The Editorial Desk, Mr Robert Luke Capehert




By David Beilstein

Crede, ut intelligas welcomes the contrarian of contrarians—our newly acquired staff writer, Mr Robert Luke Capehert.

Born in Washington, D.C.’s George Washington Hospital on Nov. 27, 1983, Mr Capehert is a 2001 graduate of Saint Allonym University in Tacoma Washington, where he graduated with honours, obtaining his B.A. in political science, and a minor in journalism.

In time, Crede, ut intelligas will occupy new territory. Mr Capehert will take over various editorial duties when time allows. At some point, I will have to change the introduction part featured on Crede’s website to expand topics thus covered.

If the Lord is willing, Mr Capehert will write about television and literature and numerous other cultural topics. His tastes run from the popular to the eccentric, so be patient. Those readers used to a straightforward style will find a welcome relief in Mr Capehert’s ability to be blunt and devastatingly aligned with American zeitgeist.

What Mr Capehert lacks in compassion he makes up for with journalistic muscle. While immensely talented—somewhat at least—Mr Capehert is arrogant, but never oft putting.

Mr Capehert does not quote very much—and there will be lots of attention paid to one of his perennial heroes, heavyweight champion Jack Johnson. Mr Capehert once told me he would like to do for prose what Mr Johnson did for boxing.

Subsequently, a review of American author James Ellroy’s literary skills is in order, awaiting Mr Capehert’s voice and opinion. Up first, however, will be a review of Mr Ellroy’s brilliant 1995 novel, American Tabloid.

Mr Capehert’s strength is in being assertive. And what I admire about Mr Capehert happens to be what the Negro has a monopoly on. So it is assumed. His appetites are legion and diverse—shifting without warning. So far, Robert Capehert has stuck to a lot of the same kind of points I’ve made in previous columns. But the task has been to get him off his ass a little—showing, not telling, concerning divergent viewpoints and presumptions.

I’m elated to have this old school Negro aboard.

Within our editorial offices (a Mac computer is all we got!) Robert L Capehert will be peek-a-booing over John Dos Passos’ U.S.A. trilogy—comparing it with the City of Demon’s own, Mr Ellroy’s oeuvre.

—Sincerely Yours,

David Joseph Beilstein

Domininum, From The Editorial Desk




By David Beilstein

TYPICALLY, I don’t like to make changes because it confuses the readers I do have. My second blog, newly entitled, dominium, is up and running.

I decided it was better for the new dominium blog (at blogspot) to have the same name as this one (David Beilstein), so readers can make the connection.

I know, I know, advertising is awful – but needed. Dominium will contain more creative topics; where I’m also throwing some of my more personal ideas and projects down.

Hopefully, those readers will tune in – it’s been a lot of fun.