Libertarian National Committee Calls to End Foreign Aid to Israel and Ukraine

This is a bit confusing. But apparently, on December 7, 2024, the LNC passed two resolutions. One calling to end foreign aid to Israel. Another calling to end foreign aid to Ukraine.

However, according to Third Party Watch, "Adoption was postponed until January so [LNC Chair] Angela [McArdle] can present it to the Trump administration."

Here are the two resolutions:

Resolution Urging the United States Congress to End Military Support to Israel and Cease Global Expenditure of U.S. Taxpayer Dollars

Whereas, continued U.S. military support to Israel exacerbates tensions in the Middle East, increasing the likelihood of a direct war with Iran that would unnecessarily drag the United States into another costly conflict;

Whereas, U.S. ties to Israel present significant conflicts of interest, especially through the lobbying efforts of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which perpetuate a deep-rooted influence on American politics to the detriment of U.S. sovereignty and the principles of non-interventionism;

Whereas, the Israeli government has committed acts that constitute genocide against innocent Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, including the use of excessive and indiscriminate military force that has resulted in significant civilian casualties;

Whereas, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has committed war crimes during its ongoing conflicts with Palestinians, actions that violate international human rights and humanitarian law;

Whereas, the Libertarian National Committee recognizes the atrocious acts committed by the IDF against the USS Liberty, an unprovoked and deliberate attack that killed 34 American servicemen and wounded 171 others, and condemns this act as both kinetic and philosophical in its assault on U.S. interests and principles;

Whereas, the United States government has recklessly spent taxpayer dollars on foreign military and domestic military industrial complex expenditures, placing an undue burden on the American people through taxation and inflation, violating the principles of fiscal responsibility;

Whereas, the Libertarian Party opposes foreign intervention, including military aid that perpetuates conflicts and undermines efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East;

Resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee calls upon the United States Congress to immediately cease all military aid and support to Israel, ending U.S. involvement in perpetuating conflicts in the Middle East;

Resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee condemns the actions of the Israeli government, including its genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, its war crimes, and its persistent violations of international law;

Resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee specifically condemns the lobbying efforts of AIPAC and its undue influence on American politics, calling for the severing of ties that compromise U.S. independence and sovereignty;

Resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee calls for a formal recognition and public condemnation of the Israeli Defense Force’s attack on the USS Liberty as an act of aggression against the United States;

Resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee urges the United States Congress to cease the global expenditure of U.S. taxpayer dollars, instead cutting those expenditures from the Federal budget and removing the burden on the American people;

Resolved, that the Libertarian Party commits to advocating for a foreign policy based on non-interventionism, respect for sovereignty, and peaceful diplomacy, urging the U.S. government to prioritize the interests of the American people over foreign entanglements.

=================

Resolution Urging the United States Congress and the Incoming Trump Administration to Halt Military Involvement in Ukraine to Prevent Nuclear Escalation

Whereas, the single greatest threat to the survival of humanity is nuclear Armageddon, and current U.S. foreign policy dangerously escalates tensions with nuclear-armed nations;

Whereas, the Biden Administration’s recent decision to greenlight the use of long-range weapons capable of striking deep inside Russia has violated explicit red lines set by Russian leadership, significantly increasing the risk of global nuclear war;

Whereas, such provocative actions unnecessarily endanger the lives of the American people and the entire Western world by escalating conflicts to a point of no return;

Whereas, NATO, as an entangling alliance, obligates the United States to commitments in Europe that risk dragging the nation into a broader war, potentially escalating to a nuclear confrontation;

Whereas, continued U.S. military aid to Ukraine prolongs the conflict and undermines efforts for a peaceful resolution, contributing to an unnecessary loss of life and destruction;

Whereas, the Libertarian Party opposes foreign intervention and advocates for diplomacy and trade as tools to foster peace and avoid catastrophic war;

Whereas, the United States government’s reckless spending of taxpayer dollars diverts resources away from American citizens through coercive taxation and destructive inflation;

Resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee calls upon the United States Congress and the incoming Trump Administration to immediately cease all weapons shipments and military support to Ukraine, ending U.S. involvement in a conflict that risks nuclear escalation;

Resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee recognizes NATO as an entangling alliance that places undue commitments on the United States, dragging the nation toward potential wars in Europe and beyond;

Resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee urges Congress to prioritize diplomacy and peaceful negotiations to resolve the conflict in Ukraine and de-escalate tensions with nuclear-armed nations;

Resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee condemns the reckless actions of the federal government that escalate the risk of nuclear war and enrich the military-industrial complex at the expense of global peace and American safety;

Resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee calls upon Congress to cease the use of taxpayer dollars for foreign military aid, reduce federal spending by the corresponding amount, and lower the overall tax burden on American citizens accordingly;

Resolved, that the Libertarian Party reaffirms its commitment to advocating for a foreign policy based on non-interventionism, respect for sovereignty, and peaceful diplomacy.

===============

Wayne Allyn Root Flip Flops on Gays, Yet Again

One of my many complaint against Wayne Allyn Root, when he ran for the LP presidential nomination in 2008, was that he was a weather vane. Most of his principles kept changing, and changing back, depending on which position currently appeared to be in his political and financial best interest.

Root was an opportunist who stood for nothing.

He hasn't changed. He's now claiming credit for "masterminding" Donald Trump's appearance and speech at the 2024 LNC national convention. During his boasting, Root mocked the convention's nomination of Oliver Chase, of whom he said, "To spite Trump, the next day, they named a woke, ultra-left, gay presidential nominee."

Not that, contextually, Root is using the term "gay" as an insult.

So is Root anti-gay?

Yet in 2008, when he was courting the LP presidential nomination, Root marched with gay Libertarians in a San Francisco Pride Parade. I reported that in the September 2008 issue of California Freedom.

As I wrote at the time:

When Wayne Allyn Root first announced his run for the presidency less than two years ago, his position was that marriage was between a man and a woman. Later, like Bob Barr, Root claimed to have evolved toward a more libertarian position on gay rights. At the Denver convention, he promised Outright Libertarians (OL) that he would back his philosophical evolution with visible support.

Last June, Root made good on his promise, marching with OL in the San Francisco Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Parade and Celebration, held on June 28 and 29.

OL national chair Rob Power said that OL fielded "about a dozen" marchers, and that overall parade and festival attendance was at 1.2 million according to Wikipedia.

================

Police Remove Starchild from 2024 Libertarian National Convention During Trump Speech

Starchild is well known in the California Libertarian community, having served in many party offices on a local (San Francisco), state, and national level.

During my active years in the Libertarian Party (1990s to 2000s) I met Starchild several times at state and national conventions. I've always found him to be unfailingly polite and personable.

I dropped out of LP activism in late 2009, but I see that Starchild is still at it. He's even made national news.

Starchild was forcibly ejected from the LP's national convention floor during Trump's speech. As near as I can tell from the footage, all Starchild was doing was holding up a protest sign.

Watch the video and judge for yourself.

Britain's Daily Mail also provided some coverage of Starchild in its reporting, though the DM don't know his name. (See Daily Mail photo below).

===========

It's Fair Use for AI to Learn from Human Writers

 

AI (artificial intelligence) was a key issue in the recent Hollywood actors' and writers' strikes for two reasons. One, the worry that union workers might be replaced with AI generated actors and scripts (AI as competition), and two, the claim that actors and writers should be compensated because AI in some way copies their faces and scripts (AI as infringement).

I'm not sure that AI is an issue for actors. CGI images are an issue, because they increasingly resemble real people who might compete with actors. But is that really AI? As I understand the term, AI is when a computer creates something that it wasn't specifically programed to do; it uses its own logic and data base of knowledge to create something original. AI image generators do exist, but AI is not required to create CGI images.

AI poses a greater threat to writers. Theoretically, I can foresee a day in which an AI program writes an original play the equal of Hamlet. Of course, most Hollywood scripts are formulaic hack work that fall far short of Hamlet, so perhaps writers' cause for concern is more urgent.

How good are AI's literary skills today?

Plenty of free AI generators exist online. I assume that Hollywood studios and Big Tech firms have access to more advanced programs, but I tried the AI generator at Toolbaz.com, just to test its skills.

I input "Christian crusader knight defeats Muslims." Many online AI generators claim to filter out "hate" but, at least for now, Toolbaz had no issue with Christians defeating Muslims. Here is the story that Toolbaz wrote for me:

 

John was a Christian crusader knight who had been sent to the Middle East to defend the Christian faith against the Muslim forces. He had been training in the art of war for many years and was prepared to do whatever it took to uphold the Christian faith.

For weeks, John clashed with the Muslim forces, but the tide of battle was not in his favor. The Muslim forces were much larger and better equipped than he was, and it seemed unlikely that he would be able to win the fight.

But then, something changed. While on a scouting mission, John stumbled upon a secret weapon that belonged to the Muslim forces. He studied the weapon and realized that it could be used to his advantage. With the help of his allies, he was able to turn the tide of battle and eventually defeat the Muslim forces.

The victory was a great one for John and the Christian faith. The people of the Middle East praised him for his courage and strength, and many of them converted to Christianity in the wake of his victory. John was hailed as a hero and remembered in Christian history for centuries to come.

 

Okay, that's not terrible. Grammar and spelling are accurate. The story structure is solid. A protagonist seeks a goal. He encounters conflict. He is about to be defeated. But then, by his own actions and some luck, he overcomes adversity and wins.

Not bad. But not Hamlet. The story is solid, but hackneyed and unoriginal. Nuance and details are also lacking. Even so, this story can serve as an outline for a hack writer to flesh out. Certainly, the story is no more hackneyed than thousands of direct-to-video and made-for cable movies.

I can see how AI might provide ideas and outlines for hack writers suffering from writer's block. A sitcom writer once told me the staff writers on his show kept a supply of old TV Guides. Whenever they were stuck for ideas, they perused the episode descriptions of past sitcoms.

Ever notice how so many sitcoms have episodes in which the characters defend themselves in court rather than hire an attorney, or compete with jealous coworkers for an award? How so many sitcoms still borrow ideas from I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners? No wonder hack writers fear AI.

But if writers can't stop AI, they can still demand compensation from tech and media companies. The Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers Association offered a typical argument for such compensation in their statement to the U.S. Copyright Office, on October 30, 2023:

 

The current crop of artificial intelligence systems owes a great debt to the work of creative human beings. Vast amounts of copyrighted creative work, collected and processed without regard to the moral and legal rights of its creators, have been copied into and used by these systems that appear to produce new creative work. These systems would not exist without the work of creative people, and certainly would not be capable of some of their more startling successes.

 

I was a member of SFWA for about ten years. It's their mission to lobby for writers' interests. But their argument is erroneous. They argue that because AI learns from reading writers' books and scripts, these writers should be compensated.

But that's how all writers learn their craft, AI and human.

In Zen in the Art of Writing, Ray Bradbury discusses his youth, when he was a voracious consumer of culture, both popular and literary. It's how he learned to write.

 

When did it all really begin? The writing, that is. Everything came together in the summer and fall and early winter of 1932. By that time I was stuffed full of Buck Rogers, the novels of Edgar Rice Burroughs, and the night-time radio serial "Chandu the Magician." Chandu said magic and the psychic summons and the Far East and strange places which made me sit down every night and from memory write out the scripts of each show. ...

If I hadn't stuffed my eyes and stuffed my head with all of the above for a lifetime, when it came round to word-associating myself into story ideas, I would have brought up a ton of ciphers and a half-ton of zeros.

 

Read the entire book. Bradbury cites many novels, comics, films, and radio programs as influences. His point is, he learned how and what to write by absorbing other writers, filmmakers and artists. The same way all children learn to write and think. The same way AI learns to write and think.

Many writers were voracious readers as children. The books that went into us shaped our literary tastes, skills and sensibilities. AI can be compared to a child who reads hundreds of books (or with AI, tens of thousands), absorbs them, and then uses his own mind (the computer's algorithms) to create something original.

When a human learns to write by reading books, that's a Fair Use of those books. No copyright is infringed. No additional payments are owed to the writers of those books. Just the one time cover price.

The same logic applies when an AI program learns to write by reading books. It's a Fair Use of those books. No copyright is infringed. You would think that science fiction writers would understand that.

It's not what human writers want to hear; they want royalties from AI programs. But applying the doctrine of Fair Use to AI learning is logical. Any Vulcan would agree.

==========

 

Mao Tse-Tung Disagrees That "All White People Are Racist"

As I was reading Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung (aka The Little Red Book), I came across a particularly stunning quote in Chapter 2: Classes and Class Struggle:

 

In the final analysis, national struggle is a matter of class struggle. Among the whites in the United States, it is only the reactionary ruling circles that oppress the black people. They can in no way represent the workers, farmers, revolutionary intellectuals and other enlightened persons who comprise the overwhelming majority of the white people.

"Statement Supporting the American Negroes in Their Just Struggle Against Racial Discrimination by U.S. Imperialism" (August 8, 1963), People of the World, Unite and Defeat the U.S. Aggressors and All Their Lackeys, 2nd ed., pp. 3-4.

 

Wow. So the "overwhelming majority of white people" are not racist? And that's according to Chairman Mao!

Yet his statement contradicts what today is a familiar accusation from the Left. Search the phrase "all whites are racist" on the internet. You'll come up with much. For instance, an article by Elena Guthrie on Huff Post, "Are All White People Racist?" [February 10, 2017], in which she concludes:

 

"All white people are racist, because all white people exist in a racist power structure that we aren't actively fighting to dismantle. Racists don't just wear white pointy hats and say the 'n' word, by doing nothing, any and every white person is still taking advantage of a power structure that favours us. Don't be more upset with being called racist than actual racism."

It seems today's Left has moved so far to the Left that the late Communist dictator of Red China now stands on "the wrong side of history."

Yet back in his heyday, Mao was as radical as you could get. He was an icon for Leftists who thought the Soviet Union under Khrushchev and Brezhnev had turned soft and compromised. Mao was unlike the "tired, old white men" of the USSR. Mao was cool. He was authentic. His face adorned the walls of college dorms. Women wanted to sleep with him and guys wanted to be him.

But how does The Great Helmsman measure up to the woke standards of today's intersectional Left?

Well, in his Little Red Book, Mao talks a lot about economic class struggle. He denounces imperialism and advocates for "national liberation movements." But he never makes it about race. And although it's not a term he uses, he might justifiably be described as "color blind." That makes him old-fashioned. A dinosaur among today's Left. Perhaps even a running dog reactionary!

I'm no Maoist. The man was a monster, as were and are all Communist dictators. More innocent people died under Mao's regime than even under Stalin or Hitler. Which is why Mao's above quote should give libertarians pause for thought.

When even a man of Mao's Communist street cred is guilty of such a cancel-worthy statement, it shows just how far leftward our own culture has moved.

The Bitcoin Field Guide Exudes Pre-Crash Optimism

Libertarians have long been interested in Bitcoin, blockchain, and cryptocurrency in general, as a means of circumventing state centralized banking. A recent documentary (released just before the crypto crash of 2022) exudes that libertarian fervor.

For my review of 2021's The Bitcoin Filed Guide, click here.

============

Libertarian Party of California Fields No Candidates for June 7, 2022 Primary Election

I've been inactive in the Libertarian Party for a while now. And it seems I'm not alone.

I recently received the California Voters Guide for the upcoming June 7, 2022 primary election. I was surprised to see that not a single Libertarian candidate bothered to run for office throughout the state, or in my area -- Los Angeles County.

Take a look at the list of candidates. Apart from plenty of Democratic and Republican candidates, the Green Party is running several candidates, as is the Peace & Freedom Party. Also many candidates listed as "No Party Preference" and "No Qualified Party Preference."

But not a single Libertarian.

Also no one from the American Independent Party, but that's no surprise. They rarely run candidates.

However, Don J. Grundmann is running as "No Qualified Party Preference." In his candidate statement, he says he belongs to the Constitution Party, which is not ballot qualified in California.

So the Constitution Party, which is so tiny that it does not qualify as a legal political party in California, managed to field a candidate. While the Libertarian Party, with all its greater resources and membership numbers, failed to run any candidates.

Now, it's possible that the LP is running candidates in other parts of California. Or not. But definitely no one at the state level. And no one in Los Angeles, the state's most populous region.

I wonder how this happened? I know Top Two has hurt all third parties. But the Green, Peace and Freedom, and even Constitution parties managed to rise to the challenge, while the LP is MIA.

========