Note that once you get past the inaccuracies of the post where it says that SFL is affiliated with the Libertarian Party (we are a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization) and that we hosted Rush Limbaugh and so are right-wing (I think they confused us for the hosts of CPAC, which brought Rush Limbaugh in to speak), all the post really says about SFL is that:
Indeed, Conservative Future boast on their blog about how enjoyable the company of SFL were...I don't think it's such a bad thing that an international organization visiting the U.S. found SFL to be enjoyable company. In fact, I'm very happy to hear that the people we met from them liked meeting with us (I assume the post that Stuart is responding to is from here on Conservative Future's site). So it may not be a criticism of us so much as a misunderstanding of what SFL stands for and who we are, but it's international recognition nonetheless!
This post raises an interesting point of discussion, though. Stuart calls SFL "right-wing". Personally, I very much dislike the term "right-wing" as I disagree with many positions of the political right (e.g. social conservatism, interventionist foreign policy, etc.) and think that a philosophy of liberty does not fit comfortably in the bipolar political spectrum. While I think many who read this blog would agree with that assessment, and so asking what people think of that would probably not produce much, I'll bring up an important topic that I've had many conversations about, but have not raised online yet: what is the relationship of liberty advocates to the left and the right? If we do not want to be associated with the big government policies of the right, how do we make that difference known?
Note: I'm now in touch with Stuart via Facebook. He's a nice guy and hopefully we'll get a good-natured debate going out of this.