Libertarian Peacenik

Oliver Stone Prefers Ron Paul for President

2012-01-24T19:42:00.000-08:00

Filmmaker Oliver Stone prefers Ron Paul to Barak Obama for president!

Speaking to Ed Rampell of Rock Celler magazine, Stone engaged in the following exchange:

Rampell: In Our History you ask if there's "a potential wild card in an internal economic collapse of the empire"? Is America an empire? And if so, do you foresee the fall of the empire?

Stone: Yes. Yes, both. I don't think it's a wild card, I think it's a given. There's no way that we can continue this spending spree. In fact, I think in many ways the most interesting candidate -- I'd even vote for him if he was running against Obama -- is Ron Paul. Because he's the only one of anybody who's saying anything intelligent about the future of the world.

How do we go on being who we are? We have an identity crisis here. But as long as we keep running this fantasy through our minds that we can dominate history, it's not a wild card, it's a given!

Read the entire interview.

Oliver Stone's admiration for Ron Paul is yet another example of Paul's strong appeal to progressives -- and to artists and youth.

This is the crowd the Libertarian Party needs to court if it is to have a future. Instead, the LP is being guided by the Clintonesque neocon Wayne Allyn Root, who insists that the LP's future lies in courting "conservatives" (i.e., the neocon/pro-war Fox News crowd).

Were he ever asked to "discuss" Stone, Root would likely just vomit out one of his boilerplate screeds, ranting about how Stone is a "radical Marxist" who "hates America" etc. Really, Root need only take one of his past rants (they all sound alike), delete "Barak Obama" and insert "Oliver Stone."

Ron Paul's strength is that he appeals to a broad spectrum of thoughtful Americans who have a serious understanding of the dangers of war and empire. Whereas Root has no strengths -- just a few mindless rants that he endlessly reworks and recycles.

That Root supports Gary Johnson is worrisome, and would make me hesitant to support Johnson, were I still an LP member.

Gary Johnson on Israel and Iran

2012-01-22T22:35:00.000-08:00

Carol Moore, of the Libertarians for Peace Yahoo Group, gives a heads up on Gary Johnson's views on U.S. support for Israel.

In a December 30, 2011 NPR interview with Robert Siegel, Johnson said:

SIEGEL: By the way, what do you make of Congressman Paul's libertarianism which pointedly does not include respect for the reproductive rights of women?

JOHNSON: Well, that would be one of our differences. I also happen to think that Israel, you know, we were responsible for the creation of Israel and that was through the United Nations; that they've been a strong military ally, that they will remain such. I do not think a military threat right now exists from Iran, but we should be vigilant to that. And I think it's naive to think that Israel is not going to act in their best interests should there be weapons of mass destruction showing themselves.

SIEGEL: And you would say the U.S. should support an Israeli action in that case, if Israel were to act militarily?

JOHNSON: Well, I would argue that that would probably be in our best interest. And to have them do that is a better situation than U.S. men and servicewomen engaged in the same.

Johnson's remarks sound vague and squishy to me. As if he knows that 1. many Libertarians support a strictly non-interventionist foreign policy (i.e., ending all foreign aid and military alliances/favored nations -- no exceptions), and 2. that other Libertarians (e.g. Wayne Allyn Root) want the LP to carve out an exception for Israel (i.e., continued U.S. aid and military alliance).

Johnson's answer sounds like he's hinting that he supports such an exception for Israel, without coming out and saying so unequivocally.

Curiously, while Johnson claims that Israel has been a "strong military ally" of the United States, there are counterclaims that Israel has never been -- legally or officially -- a U.S. ally, because no treaty of alliance has ever been signed between the two nations.

Carol Moore wrote the influential and controversial article, "Is Applying Libertarian Principles to Israel Anti-Semitic?"

Libertarian Party Joins Muslims to Oppose NDAA

2012-01-02T12:26:00.000-08:00

An interesting press release from the Council on American Islamic Relations (dated January 2, 2012):

On Tuesday, January 3, representatives of the Libertarian Party and the Green Party will join the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections (AMT*) -- a national coalition of major Muslim organizations -- and other civil liberties group leaders at a news conference in Iowa to express their opposition to the unconstitutional nature of the National Defense Authorization Act's detention provisions.

This news conference is intended to convey a broad-based public response to President Obama's signing into law of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that authorizes the military to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens suspected of terrorism without charge or trial.

WHAT: News Conference on New Law Authorizing Military Detention of U.S. Citizens "Without Charge or Trial"

WHEN: Tuesday, January 3, 11 a.m.

WHERE: Des Moines Marriott Downtown, Sioux City Meeting Room, 700
Grand Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa 50309

CONTACT: AMT National Director Muhammad Salim Akhtar (773-507-5335)

AMT is an umbrella organization that includes:

Member Organizations:

American Muslim Alliance (AMA)
American Muslims for Palestine (AMP)
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA)
Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA)
Muslim American Society (MAS)
Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA)
Muslim Students Association-National (MSA-N)
Muslim Ummah of North America (MUNA)
North America Imams Federation (NAIF)
United Muslims of America (UMA)

Observer Organizations:

American Muslims for Civic Engagement (AMCE)
Islamic Educational Council of Orange County (IECOC)
Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)
Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)

SOURCE Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

This move by the Libertarian Party is especially interesting given Wayne Allyn Root's opposition toward Muslim outreach.

Wayne Allyn Root vs. Glenn Greenwald

2012-01-01T00:42:00.000-08:00

Wayne Allyn Root often brags this his articles are widely distributed. Yet it's always the same brainless boilerplate: "I'm so great, Obama is Satan, I'm so famous, I never saw Obama at Columbia, etc."

But how widely read an article is does not benefit Truth or Liberty if that article is a mindless rant.

Today I read a brilliant piece from Glenn Greenwald (a progressive), contrasting the respective moral merits of Ron Paul vs. Barak Obama. Greenwald's article is nuanced, intelligent, informed, and thoughtful, emphasizing understanding and insight over sledgehammer partisanship. It's the exact opposite of Root's moronic screeds.

Reading Glennwald's article about Ron Paul, one can only feel shame and grief that the LP is represented by the idiot scribblings of Root.

Secret Service Investigates Libertarian Candidate Jules Manson

2011-12-21T00:09:00.000-08:00

The good news for "Sesame Street Libertarians" is that "The L Word" is all over the news -- from the internet to talk radio. The bad news is, it's not for any positive reason.

Last spring, Jules Manson ran for Carson City Council as the candidate for the Libertarian Party of California. Now the Secret Service is investigating Manson for allegedly making racist death threats against President Obama.

Dennis Romero reports for the L.A. Weekly (December 20 2011):

"Jules Manson, a nutter who once ran as a Libertarian for Carson City Council, is getting (wanted?) attention today after he called President Obama the N-world and suggested that someone 'assassinate the f----n n----- and his monkey children.' "

This story has national legs. Nancy Dillon reports for the New York Daily News (December 20, 2011):

"...Manson described himself as a mechanical engineer bent on fiscal conservatism as he scraped together just 550 votes -- less than 4% -- in his Carson City Council loss last spring.

"He claimed Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Dale Ogden had endorsed him, but Ogden said he did not recall giving a formal endorsement when he met Manson while handing out Libertarian party literature at a street fair.

" 'He might have been, perhaps, a bit more hard-core than most Libertarians, but I am surprised and puzzled by his specific advocacy of an assassination,' Odgen told the Daily News in an email.

"Ogden said he did not consider Manson 'a serious threat' after obtaining an oath of non-violence from him via Facebook Monday."

Manson is also a hot topic on talk radio (and, I assume, on cable TV). Tonight I heard the nationally syndicated Mike Malloy discuss Manson -- and Los Angeles's top-ranked John and Ken Show on KFI-AM interview Manson. Listen to this excerpt from the show.

While there are valid reasons to criticize Obama, it remains true that a foul stench permeates much of libertarianism. Regrettably, since 9/11, many libertarians' rhetoric have crossed over into racist lunacy.

Wayne Allyn Root is a leading source of Birther conspiracies, not to mention his Muslim bashing and innuendos in Reason magazine that Obama only got into Harvard because of affirmative action. Then there's Kentucky Libertarian Party candidate Sonny Landham's racist remarks.

I've also heard rank & file LP members make bigoted remarks over this past decade -- something that wasn't true prior to 9/11.

Ever more regrettably, Manson is a Ron Paul supporter, which makes Manson a good talking point for Paul bashers.

I don't believe Paul is a racist, but that's not enough. Paul must play to his strength -- his appeal to both sides of the spectrum. If Paul ends up on the November ballot -- whether it's on the GOP, a third party, or as an independent -- it's vital that Paul pick a running mate from the peacenik left. Perhaps Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nadar, or Mike Gravel.

Wayne Allyn Root Endorses Gary Johnson ... for President?

2011-12-19T09:05:00.000-08:00

Wayne Allyn Root has endorsed former New Mexico governor, Republican Gary Johnson, for president. Root wants Johnson to quit the GOP and run for president on the Libertarian Party.

Writing at Independent Political Report, Root posted (comment 8):

”I’ve been heavily recruiting Gary Johnson to LP for weeks. I had dinner with him in Baltimore a month ago. Spent much time with his campaign senior adviser in the past few days. I think it’s pretty clear I support Gary to be our Presidential nominee....

“I am heavily invested in my businesses and multiple careers right now ... I’m hoping to recruit a Libertarian-conservative candidate that I can support to LP, so I can wait until 2016.

“Gary is the perfect candidate. Answer to my recruiting efforts.

“The most fiscally conservative governor in America. Mr. Veto. Never allowed a spending or tax increase in 8 years as Governor.

“Simpatico with me on almost every issue.

“A Libertarian in every way -- yet still a huge supporter of Israel.

“The perfect LP candidate.

“I’ll be going 'all in' to help Gary.”

By any real world definition, that's an endorsement of a Johnson LP candidacy. It can even be taken as an endorsement of a Johnson presidency. Why would an LP official endorse an LP candidate, unless he wanted (even if he didn't expect) that candidate to actually win?

Yet in America's slippery political culture (“It depends on the meaning of the word 'is'.”), even the most supportive words are not considered an endorsement unless one says the magic words: “I officially endorse Thee!”

Thus, Root may claim that the hasn't actually “endorsed” Johnson for president.

Why would the Clintonesque Root want enough “wiggle room” to support a Johnson candidacy, without “officially” endorsing him?

Root's part of the pro-war/Reform takeover of the LP. As such, Root (and his supporters) care less about winning (no LP candidate will win) than about denying the candidacy to an antiwar firebrand. Nomination battles are really about “branding” the LP with one's preferred Public Face.

Will the LP's 2012 presidential candidate be a Republican Lite/Pro-Foreign Aid for “Friends” Face -- or an Uncompromisingly Antiwar/Anti-Foreign Entanglements Face?

At best, Johnson strikes me as the former, but with a dash of Antiwar Lite. He's certainly no Ron Paul.

Yet while Root wants to deny the LP's Public Face to a radical antiwar candidate, neither can he seriously endorse any LP candidate to the extent of actually urging people to vote for that candidate -- especially in swing states. Root's talk radio/Fox News supporters expect Root (and all of their "friendly guests") to rally behind the GOP in November. This election is “too important to lose” and the “most important election history.”

Root's career as an aspiring media pundit requires that he maintain his LP base as long as possible (by denying its leadership to his antiwar opponents), while simultaneously placating his Neocon media sponsors by preventing the LP from offering serious opposition to the GOP at the voting booth.

And so while Root is endorsing Gary Johnson for the LP's presidential nomination, I expect that Root will use his "wiggle room" (not an "official" endorsement) to hold back on supporting Johnson too loudly, should Johnson get the nomination.

Is Ron Paul Anti-Israel?

2011-12-16T09:10:00.000-08:00

A recurring talking point among conservative bloggers and talk radio hosts is that Ron Paul is “great on the economy” but “horrible on foreign policy.” Some radio show hosts (e.g., John Phillips) have even said they think Paul is a threat to Israel. That Paul would “abandon” Israel.

Would Paul “abandon” Israel? Well, he'd likely treat Israel equal to all other foreign nations. No more “special relationship” or lopsided foreign aid.

Would that be wrong? Would it threaten Israel's existence?

Israel is a wealthy nation, with a lavish, European style welfare system. Israel offers heavily subsidized national health care and university education to its residents. (At least to its Jewish residents). Israel even gives significant welfare handouts to its ultra-orthodox men so they can stay at home and study Torah. (No state funding for its Christian or Muslim citizens to stay home and study their religions, as near as I can tell.)

All this is fine if that's how Israel wants to spend its money. The point is, Israel doesn't need U.S. money for its military. Israel can afford to pay for its own military -- it need only divert some of its lavish social spending to its military.

Conservatives or “libertarians” who lament that the U.S. can't cut off aid to Israel, because Israel needs the money for its survival, are either ignorant or lying. (Besides, as Ayn Rand said, “A need is not a claim.”)

Isn't it curious that many American conservatives and "libertarians" denounce their fellow Americans as "parasites, looters, thugs, Marxists" for taking American tax dollars -- yet they want U.S. tax dollars to support Israeli socialism? (Money is fungible, which means that funding Israel's military also subsidizes Israel's socialist and religious spending.)

Another talking point for funding Israel is that the U.S. also funds Israel's “Arab enemies.”

Not really.

Yes, the U.S. should stop funding both sides -- but U.S. military aid to Israel is not comparable to U.S. military aid to Arab dictators. Israel gets money to purchase combat aircraft or missiles (or develop their own missiles). The U.S. is also alleged to have helped Israel develop nuclear weapons.

By contrast, U.S. military aid to Arab dictators is limited to small arms -- rifles and tanks and such. The Arab dictators only get weapons that don't threaten Israel (an Israeli jet can easily destroy an Arab tank), but which are used mostly to suppress their own Arab populations.

If U.S. military aid to Arab states were identical to its aid to Israel, the Israeli lobby would have no problem with ending U.S. aid to Israel, provided the Arab states also lost funding. This is not the case. Israel's lobby wants the aid to continue (though they continue to parrot “The U.S. also funds Israel's enemies” as a useful, if dishonest, talking point), because they know that Israel gets the lion's share of benefits under the current setup.

By contrast, Ron Paul advocates the true libertarian solution -- end all aid (economic and military) to all foreign nations, now. Yes, Israel would lose out, since it gets higher quality aid than does its enemies. But no, this would not threaten Israel's existence, because Israel is a wealthy country that can easily afford to pay for its own military. It just doesn't want to because, hey, why pay for it if you can bully the U.S. into paying for it?

It's disheartening to see some libertarians go ballistic when this simple libertarian principle (support no sides in foreign disputes) is applied to Israel. For instance, on July 28, 2011, Mike Koch posted at Independent Political Report (comment 72):

"If the LP would finally get the balls and get rid of a few dozen, loud, obnoxious anarchists, America and Israel haters, that look like the freak show at the circus and smell like the animal cage, we could be leading the Tea Parties, running Sarah Palin for President and have the endorsement of Glenn Beck.

"Get rid of the anarchists already please. If you hate America and Israel go join the communists or the Nazis. You are not Libertarians you patchouli smelling dope smoking rainbow freaks."

What evidence is there that anyone in the LP “hates America”? They may criticize the U.S. (and Israel), but that's consistent with libertarianism.

It's curious that when libertarians criticize Britain's or Canada's national health care services, they are never accused of “hating Britain” or “hating Canada.” Nor are they excoriated for criticizing Mexico, North Korea, France, Russia, China, Sweden, Saudi Arabia ... pick any state.

Yet some websites (e.g., FreeRepublic.com, FrontPagemag.com) call Ron Paul an “Israel hater” and even an anti-Semite simply because Paul treats Israel the same any other foreign country.

Paul's has criticized many nations -- including the U.S. This does not make Paul an “America hater.” Nor would his policies threaten Israel's existence. Israel can easily afford to be treated like an equal nation -- an adult nation -- which pays its own way.

Big Mouth Libertarians, or, The Armchair Anarchist

2011-12-09T01:27:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago I witnessed yet another example of an all-too-common phenomenon in the libertarian movement -- the Big Mouth Libertarian.

These Armchair Anarchists are like the Armchair Revolutionaries of the Left and the Armchair Generals of the Right. These windbags are all talk, and no sacrifice.

In this most recent example, I was at a libertarian supper club in Los Angeles. The the night's theme was "How to Start Your Own Libertarian Country." It's the sort of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" thought experiment that's popular among people who mistake Atlas Shrugged for reality.

As the attendees discussed and planned Libertarian Land, the issue of public revenue came up. How would taxes be collected?

Taxes?!

"That's a deal breaker!" one libertarian shouted.

He then parroted the old "taxation is theft" mantra a few times, while repeating that any taxes whatsoever would be a "deal breaker" that would prevent him from supporting or moving to this hypothetical libertarian nation.

He lied. Not so much to us, as to himself.

In his fantasies, this Armchair Anarchist may imagine himself a sort of John Galt figure. As someone who refuses to compromise with the State. But it just ain't so.

This Armchair Anarchist -- who looked to be in his late 50s/early 60s -- lives in the United States. He's had plenty of time to emigrate to some tax nation. Perhaps even homestead onto some deserted island with his generator and survival skills. Or maybe disappear into the Alaskan wilderness and live off the grid, hunting and foraging off the land.

Yet Mr. Big Mouth Libertarian continues to live in the U.S. -- and presumably, pay his taxes.

For that matter, he lives in high-tax California, despite Nevada (which has no income tax) being less than 200 miles away.

Clearly, paying taxes is no "deal breaker" for him.

Sure, it's though to move; to leave behind friends, family, businesses connections, etc. But if it were a "deal breaker," Mr. Armchair Anarchist would move despite the hardships. That's what "deal breaker" implies. That compromise is impossible.

Yet compromise with the State is possible. We do it every day. I do it every day.

Of course, I'm a minarchist and Constitutionalist -- I believe that government has legitimate authority to collect taxes for certain purposes -- though that does not include war and empire. So I'm no Anarchist, Armchair or otherwise.

Whatever your philosophy, if you're gonna Talk Big -- let's see some action. Yet for all this "principled" talk of taxes being a "deal breaker," he plugged his video camera into a wall socket, taking energy from a State sanctioned monopoly. And he continues to live in the U.S. -- and California -- because taxes are clearly no "deal breaker" for him. He merely enjoys the rush of shouting his principles, beating his chest, and perhaps earning the admiration of the handful of nearby libertarians.

He's also a living example of why the police think libertarians are a joke.

PS: here is my favorite Tom Tomorrow cartoon -- a satire of neocon Armchair Generals of the sort that inhabit Free Republic.

Like many of Tom Tomorrow's anti-conservative barbs, this one applies equally well to progressives -- and libertarians.

Angela Keaton, Antiwar.com, Win Free Patriot Peace Prize

2011-12-06T08:20:00.000-08:00

Angela Keaton and her employer, Antiwar.com, have won the 2011 Free Patriot Peace Prize. I'm not sure what that is, but according to Independent Political Report:

"The Free Patriot Peace Prize was founded in 2009 due to the history of the Nobel Prize Committees' reputation for selecting pro-war recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize."

Their 2009 winner was Ron Paul. The 2010 prize was shared by Adam Kokesh, Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), and Private Bradley Manning (whose leaks were publicized by Julian Assange).

"[2011] Free Patriot Peace Prize winners are a former member of the Libertarian National Committee who is a longtime outspoken critic of unjust, undeclared wars [Angela Keaton], and a nonprofit founded in 1995 in response to the Bosnian War [Antiwar.com]."

In addition to criticizing unjust wars, Keaton was also a critic of the Libertarian Party's retreat from its avowed principles. For her actions, Keaton was harassed off the LNC. At the time, the Massachusetts LP publicly stood up for Keaton.

I first saw Keaton when she spoke at the 2006 national LP convention, which I taped:

Keaton also has her lighter side.

Herman Cain -- and Wayne Allyn Root -- Cash-In by Running for National Office

2011-12-05T08:54:00.000-08:00

Why did Herman Cain run for president, knowing he had so many skeletons in the closet? He must have known they'd be discovered.

Los Angeles shock jocks John and Ken (of KFI-AM 640) think it's because Cain never expected to become a serious contender. Cain only expected to get a little free publicity (as a minor “also ran”) so as to increase his fame -- and thus make more money as a speaker, author, and media pundit. Little did he know that he'd be taken seriously enough to invite scrutiny.

Although libertarian embarrassment Wayne Allyn Root may not have Cain's personal skeletons, I've long theorized that Root ran on the Libertarian Party for the same reason as Cain -- to boost Root's own personal fame, and thus cash-in as a speaker, author, and media pundit.

Listen to John and Ken discuss Cain's now defunct campaign (on Dec. 2, 2011), during which they explain their theory on Cain's motives. Decide for yourself John and Ken's analysis doesn't apply equally well to Wayne Allyn Root.

To listen to this John and Ken excerpt, click here.

Wayne Allyn Root's Wealth Masters International -- Is It a Scam or Fraud?

2011-11-20T23:04:00.000-08:00

Libertarian embarrassment Wayne Allyn Root has long promoted an MLM (multi-level marketing) company called Wealth Masters International (WMI). Some people think all MLMs are ponzi schemes, frauds, or scams. Other people think that some MLMs are honest and legit.

You can see Root hawking WMI in this promotional video. (Root hawks MLMs with the same enthusiasm with which he sells breakfast cereal).

Especially shameless is Root's special appeal to the jobless -- to the people who can least afford risking their savings on a risky MLM.

Root doesn't name "this company" in the video. Like any salesman with a hard-to-sell product, he teases the client with only bits of info, making them want it before letting the other shoe drop (such as the high pricetag). But the video appears on the WMIWealthPlan.com website.

That website also uses Root's LP credentials to buy credibility for Root and WMI. The site says: "Wayne Allyn Root is a politician, entrepreneur, television and radio personality, author, and a well known political commentator. He was the 2008 Libertarian Party vice-presidential nominee. Today is Chairman of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee."

This past weekend, San Diego anti-tax activist Richard Rider sent out a group email (posted at Independent Political Report) in which he wrote:

"Wayne Allyn Root has been a very effective spokesperson for liberty. Not perfect, but a much better communicator than most libertarians. That is perhaps both his strength and his weakness.

"At heart, Root's a salesman. Nothing wrong with that. So am I (and I’m FAR less effective than he is).

"But I'm afraid that his bottom line is selling dubious products to 'fellow travelers' in the liberty movement. It's called 'affinity selling,' common in belief groups -- religious or not.

"Such seems to be the case below. He's hustling what appears to be an MLM program -- multi-level marketing. You go to the website, and you get a lot of hype and endorsements, but no substance as to what the program is. For that, doubtless you have to sit through a presentation. Bad sign.

"For 20 years I was a CFP financial planner. I worked on commission. I sold good products and bad. While overall I did pretty well for my clients, I made just about every investment mistake there is at one time or another -- except pyramid schemes.

"I also got to review many investment and business propositions brought to me by clients. I can see, feel, taste and smell a hustle.

"Indeed, I contacted the SD COUNTY DA on the infamous local J. David Dominelli commodity pyramid scheme 18 months before it collapsed (the DA did nothing despite two letters I sent detailing my concerns).

"Some MLMs are just harmless pyramid marketing schemes without much front money (think Amway) -- others are terrible frauds. Can’t say which one this is, but I’d bet dollars to donuts it is one or the other.

"One important aspect of such programs is that the salespeople have to BELIEVE in the program. It's almost a religion. Few (generally found at the top of the pyramid) are actual con men, hucksters who understand the game.

"I suspect that Root is a believer. I KNOW he's be a passionate and effective sales person for the deal.

"I caution Libertarians to be skeptical. Indeed, skepticism is a trait that we have in abundance -- except perhaps when we trust the messenger.

"Trust NO ONE in investments -- and especially in MLM. Think Bernie Madoff -- a superb con man who successfully worked his belief group -- Jews. Similar con man Ponzi hustles are particularly common among Mormons and Baptists.

"Let's be VERY careful out there.

Read what the Ripoff Report says about Wealth Masters International.

U.S. Military Loves Barak Obama and Ron Paul

2011-10-17T09:02:00.000-07:00

War-crazy, bogus "libertarians" and "conservatives" often whine that Barak Obama and Ron Paul are "anti-military," yet they lead in contributions from military personnel.

According to OpenSecrets.org:

"U.S. wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya may weigh on the minds of voters next year, but during the early months of the 2012 election cycle, members of the U.S. Armed Forces who are active political donors are mainly rallying around two candidates, according to a new analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Those candidates are President Barack Obama and libertarian-leaning Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas)."

But before you read the rest of the article, be sure to view this Ron Paul video. It may explain why actual soldiers (as opposed to Neocon, Tea Party, and Liberventionist armchair windbags) prefer Ron Paul:

What Motivates Libertarians?

2011-10-12T00:10:00.000-07:00

If Libertarian Party members were categorized by motive, they would fall into one of four groups: Ideologues, Socializers, Party Cultists, and Opportunists.

A person may have more than one motive for participating in the LP, but usually one motive is primary or dominant.

1. Ideologues

These people are in it for the ideology. They join because they want to advance libertarian principles -- usually in a relatively pure form.

Purists (who advocate 100% uncompromising libertarian principles) are rare. I've yet to meet a libertarian who claims to be a Purist. The Purity Police itself is an urban legend.

Ideologues are more likely to be Radicals than Reformers, though I'm sure some Reformers are Ideologues.

With rare exceptions, everyone in the LP wants to be seen as Principled but nobody wants to be called an Ideologue. If you approve of a party member's views, he is Principled. If you disapprove, he is an Ideologue. Go figure.

The best and the brightest in the LP tend to be Ideologues. They are the LP's conscience.

2. Socializers

Socializers are primarily in it for the supper clubs and conventions. For them, the LP is a chance to commiserate and gripe with like-minded folk. If the LP succeeds in reshaping society, great. If not, it's no big deal. They still enjoyed the good food and good conversation.

All third parties attract Socializers, but the LP perhaps more than most. This is because the LP is aggressive in organizing supper clubs. Even non-LP libertarians organize supper clubs. It's what we do.

Sometimes it seems that supper clubs are the only activism that many libertarians engage in.

Former Los Angeles County LP Chair, David Larkin, once complained to me about this obsession with supper clubs. David said, "It's as if some libertarians think, if I can just organize the perfect supper club, we'll finally have a libertarian America."

Socializers include both Radicals and Reformers, though they can be hard to tell apart. Socializers gripe, but don't engage in much active in-fighting (or active anything). At most they'll vote at conventions.

Socializers are not skilled at purges or party skullduggery. They're usually too lazy or uninterested to even try.

3. Party Cultists

These people are weird. And troublesome, and destructive. For them, the LP is a source of personal validation and self-esteem. They treasure their party titles, with their concomitant illusions of power and success. They also tend to be control freaks.

Some libertarian women have suggested to me that the LP attracts middle class men who haven't risen as high as they'd like to in the real world. And so they seek to compensate by amassing LP titles.

It may be that the Party Cultist is a lopsidedly male phenomenon, though I can think of one female example.

Party Cultists treasure the fantasy that the LP is a real political party -- just like the two majors. They must feel a sensual thrill whenever they enter the national convention hall, which looks just like those of real political parties, C-SPAN cameras and all.

Party Cultists and Socializers both love conventions. The difference is that Socializers don't much care who wins the party titles, so long as the hospitality suites are well-stocked with good food and good conversation. By contrast, Party Cultists care a great deal about who wins the titles and factional wars.

Unlike Socializers, Party Cultists thrive on political skullduggery. For them the LP is virtual politics. Fantasy Football or Second Life for political geeks and wannabe wonks. Roberts Rules of Order is the Dungeon Master's Guide; mastering it is essential in forming alliances and out-maneuvering your opponents until you control the Realm.

If you can't win real elections, then winning the game is the next best thing.

Naturally, all Party Cultists claim to be Principled. Being seen as Principled is important to one's advancement up the LP ranks.

4. Opportunists

An Opportunist may wish to accumulate party titles, but it's not for personal validation. Opportunists regard advancement within the LP as a means to an end; a chance to broaden the market (both inside and outside the LP) for their books and tapes and media careers.

Yes, Wayne Allyn Root is a classic Opportunist. There have been others, but Root's the most successful (and shameless) one in my memory.

Just as Ideologues are more likely to include Radicals, Party Cultists and Opportunists are more likely to attract Reformers. This is because the Reform faction wants to dilute LP principles so as to broaden the LP's respectability and appeal -- a goal shared by both Party Cultists and Opportunists.

Party Cultists are in it for the self-esteem and validation; they crave respect from the media, political establishment, and Middle America. Being Chair of one's County LP is so much more impressive at the office water cooler if your co-workers hear about the LP's importance in the news every day.

Likewise, as the LP gains in popularity and respect, Opportunists will attract more media attention and customers.

A small, extreme, vocal LP can stir debate and advance issues, but at the price of political marginalization. That's fine for Ideologues, who are interested in advancing ideas rather than political respectability.

But Party Cultists and Opportunists share a vested interest in diluting principles to make the LP appear less scary or extreme. Party titles become more respectable, and business opportunities improve, if the LP looks safely middle class.

When Terrorism Was No Cause for Terror

2011-10-08T01:28:00.000-07:00

In my previous Memory Hole posts, I related what it was like to fly pre-9/11, that aid to Israel was originally promoted as a temporary measure, and that the Tea Party was originally antiwar.

Here's another historical factoid: Once upon a time, our Establishment did not exaggerate the threat of terrorism to panic the people into giving up their liberties.

It was the early 1970s. I was a child in grammar school. Terrorism often made the news. It was the era of Patty Hearst and the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Baader Meinhof gang and the Japanese Red Army, the Weather Underground and the Cuban hijackings, the Black Panthers and the Seven Crowns.

You've probably never heard of the Seven Crowns. They were a black gang. I learned about them when I was in sixth grade. A rumor had circulated in the schoolyard that the Seven Crowns were coming to Queens in New York City (where I lived) to gun down Catholic school kids. We were all jumpy during lunch break. Any loud car passing by was cause for consternation.

The rumor reached our teacher. After lunch, he told us how ridiculous we were. He explained how false rumor start and spread. Someone hears something small, passes it on, and with each retelling, the story grows.

Our teacher ridiculed us for letting some baseless fear get the better of us.

His attitude was not uncommon. Maybe a year later, I read a news article in the Weekly Reader that discussed all those terrorist incidents in the news. But the article also made an observation that I never forgot.

The Weekly Reader did the math, and pointed out how unlikely any of us might become a victim of terrorism or of a hijacking. Like being hit by lightning. The paper went on to explain that terrorism's main impact was psychological, not physical.

Why would the Weekly Reader emphasize these points? I suppose it was partially to quell the fears of children. To calm those of us who'd heard bits and pieces of terrorist stories in the news or from our parents.

Also, of course, it was the truth. As a news publication, the Weekly Reader was obligated to report the truth.

Compare that to today. The math is still the same. It's highly unlikely that any of us would ever become a victim of terrorism. And yet the official attitude seems different. It seems as if the powers that be want to scare us -- even to terrorize us -- with tales of what the "Islamo-fascists" would do to us, were it not for the TSA, NSA, etc.

What changed in the U.S. during these past 40 years? Once upon a time, we told children the truth. Now, children (and adults) are encouraged to fear rather than to understand the facts.

Antiwar Play -- Sarah's War -- Comes to Los Angeles

2011-10-06T03:13:00.000-07:00

A new antiwar play -- Sarah's War -- is coming to Los Angeles.

This news comes to me from Angela Keaton of Antiwar.com, who forwarded the below email to me:

"As the Marketing Director for the Levantine Cultural Center (LCC) in L.A., we extend to you and your team an invitation to attend our next event -- a benefit for a new antiwar play that will at the same time, establish a new theatre company, Freedom Theatre West.

"Levantine Cultural Center champions a greater understanding of the Middle East and North Africa by presenting artistic and educational programs that bridge political and religious divides. In a search for common ground, the Center fosters discussions among artists and thinkers and offers classes and workshops that serve diverse ethnic communities.

"Levantine Center partners with community groups and artists that engage in cross-cultural initiatives or the education of a broader public with cultural/social relevance. We strive to work collaboratively with multi-generational, multi-ethnic, multi-disciplinary and/or broad geographic communities in response to cultural/social issues articulated by those communities.

"On October 23, 2011, my parents and the LCC are holding a fundraiser where LCC Director will be present, along with the cast and crew from a fantastic new play called Sarah's War that talks about the Rachel Corrie story, the Occupation and the siege of Gaza.

"Also attending on October 23rd is Professor William Cook -- author of The Rape of Palestine and The Plight of the Palestinians, among others.

"No one will be turned away for lack of funds. But those who have funds are encouraged to donate to help the center keep up their amazing work as well as help create an Inland Empire Chapter of LCC.

With great admiration,

Yasmine Jabsheh

The Levantine Cultural Center is at 5998 W. Pico Blvd., Los Angeles CA 90035-2657. More details and contact info at their site.

Once again, the fundraiser is on October 23rd. If you can't make it, you can still donate here.

Progressives for War

2011-10-05T02:31:00.000-07:00

With some exceptions, all too many Americans will quickly betray whatever principles they profess if they think it'll help their preferred political party's chances in the next election. Libertarians ditch their "extreme" views to "get votes" for the Libertarian Party. Conservatives ignore the GOP's reckless spending. And progressives forgive imperialist war-mongering -- so long as a Democratic president is leading that war.

Monterey County libertarian peace activist Lawrence K. Samuels has now put progressives on the spot. Samuels drafted a resolution demanding that President Obama return his Nobel Peace Prize, both for escalating old wars and starting new wars.

Samuels tried to get local progressives (his Peace Coalition of Monterey County partners) to to sign his resolution, but for one excuse or another, they all balked.

Samuels says he's not surprised. He'd long suspected that many of his progressive allies were more anti-Bush than pro-peace. Samuels adds that he drafted his resolution partially to test his progressives allies' commitment to peace. And they failed his test.

Read Samuels's full report.

Wayne Allyn Root, Breakfast Cereal Huckster

2011-09-08T22:57:00.000-07:00

You can't make this stuff up.

Libertarian Party embarrassment Wayne Allyn Root is now leveraging his Libertarian Party Vice Presidential nomination to sell breakfast cereal:

Root also claims to make "thousands of appearances a year" on radio and TV. Plural. That would mean at least 2000 media appearance a year.

But on IRP, Root claims (at post 39) to have "done somewhere in vicinity of 3000+ interviews in media in last 3 years..." That would mean less than "thousands" of media appearances a year.

Root also repeats his talking point of being a "bestselling author."

Based on what?

Traditionally, "bestselling author" meant that your book appeared on The New York Times or Publishers Weekly bestseller lists. Appearing on the Washington Post or Los Angeles Times lists was also good. But only The New York Times and Publishers Weekly were deemed to be the gold standard -- official confirmation of a book's bestseller status.

Yet I'm not aware that Root's books have ever appeared on any of the above lists.

Granted, with the rise of Amazon, the terminology has gotten sloppy. Today, hordes of authors claim to be "bestselling" based on sheer nothing. If challenged (which rarely happens) some will point to a relatively high ranking in one of Amazon's categories.

But as Victoria Strauss explains:

[Author's Claim]: My book was #2 in the Spiritual Vampire Novels for Teens category on Amazon!

[Reality]: These Amazon categories don't mean much. Not only do the more esoteric ones contain a limited number of books, the rankings are comparative, and therefore don't say much about actual sales. If you're #2 in a category where the other books are selling poorly, your book is also selling poorly--just, maybe, a bit less poorly.

[Author's Claim] My Amazon ranking jumped 200,000 points in one day!

[Reality]: That could mean one sale. Or it could mean no sale--Amazon rankings are comparative, and a slow day for top-selling books can boost the rankings of lower-selling or even non-selling books.

Amazon rankings are irresistibly obsession-making, but they are not a reliable way of judging sales.

(For a fairly helpful elucidation of the perpetually mysterious issue of Amazon sales rankings, see this explanation of print rankings and this explanation of Kindle rankings from Morris Rosenthal of Foner Books.)

As always, Wayne Allyn Root exaggerates his "greatness," trying to leverage his spin and puffery and LP titles into whatever marginal info-huckster gig he can scrap up. A few years ago it was sports betting. Today it's an obscure cereal company. Maybe tomorrow it'll be something to shed those pounds or tone up your abs.

Re-Register Republican -- For Ron Paul

2011-08-27T13:12:00.000-07:00

I've got the California voter registration form on my desk. I'm re-registering Republican so I can vote for Ron Paul in the upcoming GOP presidential primary next year.

It makes sense. Paul is the best of all the candidates -- of any major or minor party -- running for president in 2012. He has a proven record of being pro-peace. Pro-civil liberties. Pro-Constitution. A long-standing and consistent record of fighting for those positions, even in the face of public disapproval.

Sure, some minor party candidates advocate similar positions. But Paul has America's attention. He has the best shot at educating the public about those issues. He even has a (very slim) shot of winning.

Ron Paul appeals to progressives, conservatives, and libertarians alike.

Writing for the Huffington Post [July 7, 2011], Robin Koerner makes an excellent case as to why progressives should re-register Republican in order to vote for Ron Paul in the upcoming GOP primaries.

After arguing Paul's merits over Obama (Paul is more pro-peace and pro-civil liberties), Koerner observes:

Ron Paul's electoral weakness is not a difficulty in winning a presidential election. It is in winning a primary in a party with a Conservative constituency that includes the religious right and neo-cons. An influx of peace and freedom-loving independents and Democrats would change the math on the Republican side and potentially the future of America by setting up a presidential contest with a pro peace, pro-civil rights candidate (who could outflank Obama on those issues, at least, from the left).

Read the entire article.

Koerner is right. If every pro-peace/pro-civil liberties voter, of every party and no party, invaded the GOP by re-registering Republican, then Ron Paul can win the Republican nomination for president.

Rightist Neocons (and corporatists, and welfare statists) will back Obama. But Americans for peace and civil liberties (and who are opposed to budget-busting wars) will rally around Paul. It's a long shot, but if all the stars align, he might just win the presidency.

I urge all Americans, of every party and no party, to register Republican so they can vote for Ron Paul.

You can always vote for other parties' candidates in the general elections -- but you must be a registered Republican (in most states) to vote in the Republican presidential primaries.

Rewriting the Tea Party's Antiwar Libertarian History

2011-08-19T00:13:00.000-07:00

Orwellian Memory Holes keep puncturing the historical record, leaving young people with false pictures of the past (e.g., the ease of flying pre-9/11, or that aid to Israel was originally promoted as a temporary measure, or the Neocons' flip-flop on French courage).

The Tea Party's libertarian roots are likewise being tossed down the memory hole.

Writing for Tablet Magazine, Michelle Goldberg writes:

"The Tea Party was initially mischaracterized as a libertarian movement [my emphasis], but it is deeply imbued with religious fundamentalism, and polls show that a majority of its members believe that the United States is a Christian nation. It's no accident that, upon taking over statehouses nationwide, Republicans elected with Tea Party support enacted a record number of abortion restrictions -- 80 in the first six months of 2011, compared to 23 for all of 2010."

As a progressive, Goldberg is probably honestly mistaken, rather than lying, about Tea Party history. But she is mistaken.

The Tea Party initially was a libertarian movement -- that's no "mischaracterization." Only later (albeit, fairly quickly) was the Tea Party co-opted by pro-war rightists, who then purged it of antiwar libertarians.

In May 2009, a local Libertarian Party officer, Lawrence K. Samuels, reported on how the Monterey County Tea Party united conservatives and libertarians. But by October, pro-war conservatives were purging antiwar libertarians from the Tea Party.

By February 2010, Ron Paul was attacking pro-war Neocons' infiltration of the Tea Party. That same month, Tea Party rightists were likewise attacking Ron Paul.

Also in May 2009, local Libertarian Party officer, Jason Gonella, reported on the Los Angeles County GOP's co-opting of the local Tea Party.

Yes Virginia, once upon a time the Tea Party was heavily libertarian -- and antiwar. But then the Neocon warmongers came, and saw, and conquered.

Jon Stewart: Media Ignores Ron Paul

2011-08-16T09:00:00.000-07:00

Jon Stewart is dead-on in his analysis of how the media (especially the pro-war, Neocon Fox News network) is ignoring the only major party, antiwar candidate the in 2012 presidential race, Ron Paul:

Once again, Paul shows his unique ability to cross political polarities, uniting antiwar conservatives, antiwar libertarians, and antiwar progressives.

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

A Big Lie: The Most Important Election In History

2011-08-08T23:46:00.000-07:00

Well, not so much a Big Lie, as a Common Lie. Partisans of both major parties repeat it. Yet it's a Tried and True Lie. It works.

Every election year, Republicans and Democrats say that this election will be the most important election of our lifetimes, or in American history, or perhaps even in the history of the time-space continuum.

It may be noble and understandable to vote for an independent or third party candidate, but this election is too important to lose. All of world history -- perhaps even all of galactic history -- will be determined by this upcoming election.

It's an obvious lie, because, come next election, we're again told that this election is too important to lose! (Wow! -- Even more important that that last election?!)

It's also a silly lie, intended to frighten people into thinking, "Sure, I hate this major party, but I hate the other major party more -- and because this election so important, I'll vote for the lesser evil. I only vote for good candidates in unimportant elections."

This year's Big Lie Award winner is KRLA-AM's Dennis Prager, for being the first to call the 2012 election "the most important election in history."

I heard Prager announce his Big Lie last week -- the first week of August 2011.

It may be that someone beat Prager to the punch, but I haven't heard it. So I anoint Prager 2012's winner.

Prager didn't qualify "history", so maybe he meant the history of the United States, or the history of the human species, or even the history of every multivese along the space-time continuum -- yes, the 2012 election is that important.

Karen Kwiatkowski Seeks Support for Congressional Race

2011-08-03T07:00:00.000-07:00

Karen Kwiatkowski, who I've endorsed for president, has instead decided to run for Congress as a Republican.

Like Ron Paul, Kwiatkowski is a true Constitutionalist, libertarian, and antiwar patriot, and deserves support from those communities.

Kwiatkowski emails her supporters:

"We've not really asked for money for the campaign, although it is generously flowing in already. What we value in this campaign is our conservative principles, and our 6th District of Virginia love of constitutionalism and liberty. These fundamentals are the real key to a robust and vibrant economy.

"We don't like asking for money but we are going to need it to win these upcoming battles for the hearts and minds in the 6th District. At the first of every month, for 72 hours, we will be reminding ourselves to remind you to support and help our campaign with some Federal Reserve notes (hold on to your gold and silver, people!).

"Our August fund-raising effort is themed around the fundamentals -- the Constitution, and the first ten amendments. We are asking that, if so inclined, that you donate $10 -- the greenback isn't worth much, but a symbolic dollar for each of the first ten amendments is a nice way to help kick off our first organized fundraiser."

You can donate money via Karen for Congress.com. She also has a Facebook page.

Her campaign address:

Karen Kwiatkowski for Congress
P.O. Box 156
Port Republic, VA 24471

California Radio Ad Hinders Petition Signature Gatherers

2011-08-02T07:30:00.000-07:00

An ad is airing on talk radio stations here in Los Angeles.

A wife tells her hubby that she'd just signed a petition for a ballot proposition.

"Oh no!" the husband laments.

He explains to his wife that identity thieves will gather signatures to steal personal information -- address, phone, and people's hand-writing samples.

"That's it!" the wife resolves. "I'll never sign another petition again."

The ad suggests that signatures gatherers in California are especially likely to be identity thieves, because California doesn't regulate signature gatherers. Anyone -- even out-of-staters -- can collect signatures.

That's the gist of the ad -- but you can listen to it for yourself.

The ad is sponsored by something called Californians Against Identity Theft. Maybe they're for real -- or maybe they're a front for some other organization that wants to scare off people from signing petitions for ballot initiatives and third party/independent candidacies?

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

UPDATE: On the afternoon of August 2, John Kobylt of the John and Ken Show (Ken's on vacation) reported that the government employee unions are the people behind Californians Against Identity Theft.

The unions are worried about some upcoming ballot propositions seeking signatures (notably a ballot measure to repeal the Amazon tax, and another ballot mesaure to prevent union members from being forced to pay union dues to fund political campaigns.

Futhermore, the radio ad LIES. The information requested by signature gatherers are already on the voter registration rolls, and are available to the public for the asking.

Government to Track All Internet Use

2011-07-29T13:24:00.000-07:00

Got this message from Demand Progress.org:

"A direct assault on Internet users" is what the ACLU is calling it.

Yesterday a U.S. House committee approved HR 1981, a broad new Internet snooping bill. They want to force Internet service providers to keep track of and store their customers' information -- including your name, address, phone number, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporarily-assigned IP addresses.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Demand Progress, and 25 other civil liberties and privacy groups have expressed our opposition to this legislation.

Will you join us in opposition by emailing your lawmakers right away? Just click here.

They've shamelessly dubbed it the "Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act," but our staunchest allies in Congress are calling it what it is: an all-encompassing Internet snooping bill.

CNet Reports: Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, who led Democratic opposition to the bill said, " 'It represents a data bank of every digital act by every American' that would 'let us find out where every single American visited Web sites.' "

"The bill is mislabeled," said Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the panel. "This is not protecting children from Internet pornography. It's creating a database for everybody in this country for a lot of other purposes."

Please click here to join the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Consumer Federation of America, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Demand Progress and 25 other civil liberties and privacy groups in opposing this legislation.

Thanks for fighting for Internet freedom.

-- The Demand Progress team

P.S. The bill just passed committee, so it's time to push back hard. Will you please ask your friends to take action too?

A worthy cause, which I hope many will support.

Unforunately, House Republican Tea Partiers don't seem too upset by HR 1981 -- indeed, the House Republicans control the committee that passed it.

And still, some Libertarian Party activists look to the Tea Party like some sort of libertarian hope.

Libertarian Party Dysfunction

2011-07-27T00:19:00.000-07:00

Anyone who participates in the Libertarian Party for any length of time will observe a chronically dysfunctional organization. The various factions blame each other, but I think the dysfunction stems from a combination of (1) the nature of American third parties, (2) the libertarian ideology, and (3) the sort of people attracted to an ideologically libertarian third party.

A fuller explanation requires a book -- it's too complex to explain in a single post. Instead I'll just provide (yet another) eyewitness account of LP dysfunction.

Gail Lightfoot is one of the most respected Libertarians in California. She was one of the LPC's original founders, some forty years ago. She's long been one of the LPC's most successful perennial candidates (in terms of number of votes pulled). And she's long been regarded as a highly principled member of the "party of principle."

Yesterday Ms. Lightfoot resigned her position as editor of the Los Angeles County Libertarian Party's newsletter (which position she inherited from her husband, Richard Venable). Lightfoot apparently emailed everyone on her Libertarian list (myself included) explaining her reasons for resigning:

"I regret to inform you that I had made a decision not to continue to edit and publish the L.A. Libertarian in Richard Venable's place. This decision ... was based on the failure of the LPLAC members to provide copy in a timely manner, and often not at all, or to communicate with me as a member of LPLAC so that I might be more informed of the activities of LPLAC. Total silence on the issue of making changes to the publication makeup or schedule was simply the frosting on the cake....

"As an aside, I fail to understand why Libertarians are the least forthcoming, open, and honest, in their dealings with one another. It is a wonder any activist remains an activist after simply observing our behavior to one another.

"Anyone who sees our internal struggles would surely think we are not fit to govern at all. Back stabbing for control (as if every new idea or direction requires total control of the org.) and rudeness towards our contractors seems to be firmly imbedded in our culture.

"Perhaps it is time to change that culture as we face extinction and loss of ballot status in 2012."

Gail Lightfoot raises issues (LP rudeness, dishonesty, backstabbing, control freaks) that many others have observed over the years. Lightfoot herself has reported on the rudeness and dirty tricks she's observed at California LP conventions.

I've written about Libertarians' chronic lateness and disregard for their own schedules (i.e., Libertarian Standard Time), the purges of Angela Keaton, Lee Wrights, and Rachel Hawkridge -- and the dishonesty and dirty tricks at the 2008 LP national convention, and the Nevada LP and California LP.

These are just a few examples of Libertarian Party dysfunction.

Small wonder that the Clintonesque Wayne Allyn Root finds support within the LP, even as the libertarian movement, and America as a whole, dismiss Root as a joke -- if they're even aware that he exists.

Small wonder that libertarians are looking outside the LP for principle, and are finding it in Ron Paul.

Rich Israel Does Not Need American Foreign Aid

2011-07-23T13:44:00.000-07:00

Libertarians and conservatives supposedly believe in very little government spending -- but many make an exception for Israel when it demands money.

One excuse for Israel, which I heard KABC-AM's John Phillips make, is that Israel needs American aid for its "very survival." If the U.S. stops subsidizing Israel (the usually cited number is 3 or 4 billion dollar a year), then Israel will cease to exist.

Yet on the Israeli website Globes, Gil Shlomo writes:

"A survey by Bregman Baraz Real Estate commissioned by 'Globes' found that Israelis were the second largest foreign buyers of US income-producing real estate in the period from July 2010-June 2011, after Canadians.... Israelis invested $1.15 billion to buy 36 income-producing properties in the US over the past 12 months, after the $4.22 billion invested by Canadians, and ahead of the $1.14 billion invested by the Swiss."

If Israel has enough private wealth to buy over a billion dollars worth of U.S. investment real estate just last year (presumably among other investments and consumer goods), then Israel can certainly afford to pay for its own defense should American cut off its welfare check.

Israel is a wealthy, high-tech, first world nation -- and a nuclear power. Israel does not need American tax money to survive. Rather, Israel wants American money (and routinely demands it, like a spoiled and petulant child) because, hey, who doesn't want free money if some sucker can be bullied into handing it over?

GOP Supports Expensive Wars For Israel

2011-07-19T23:42:00.000-07:00

Republican presidential candidates not only support money for Israel (despite the debt ceiling crisis, entitlements for Americans are subject to budget cuts, but not entitlements for socialist Israel), but they're lining up to express a willingness fight wars for Israel.

Herman Cain is the latest. The Washington Times reports:

"Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said Monday he would attack Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons or to respond to aggression against Israel...

"Mr. Cain said that, as commander-in-chief, he would 'make it crystal clear [that] if you mess with Israel, you’re messing with the United States of America,' but stressed that his 'Cain Doctrine' would not be a 'blank check' for Israeli military action.

" 'There will be a set of conditions and circumstances that I will work with Israel on for them to understand that they cannot abuse that doctrine,' said Mr. Cain, a former CEO of Godfather's Pizza."

What "conditions and circumstances" Cain would impose on Israel, he does not say.

Michelle Bachmann has implied even more sweeping military support for Israel, in that she believes that God demands America's unqualified support for Israel. Bachmann has said:

"I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States...

"[W]e have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play."

A curse? Well, I guess you can't argue with a curse from God.

Bachmann's extreme-right brand of Christian fundamentalism (unlike Catholicism, which is more peace-oriented and even-handed on Muslims) not only motivates her slavish devotion to the Israeli government, but also inspires her harsh views on gays.

Ironically (in that Cain and Bachmann likely consider themselves admirers of the early American patriots), George Washington advised precisely against their kind of favoritism toward foreign nations, when he wrote:

"Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other.

"Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests."

More irony: the Libertarian Party claims to support a non-interventionist (i.e. unbiased and even-handed) foreign policy. Yet it is "libertarian" Wayne Allyn Root who exhibits "excessive partiality" for Israel, and "excessive dislike" for its perceived enemies (which apparently includes Muslim Americans).

And it is Republican Ron Paul who opposes favoritism in the Middle East, treating all nations equally, and putting all Americans (regardless of religion, or no religion) first.

Progressives for Ron Paul

2011-07-12T07:48:00.000-07:00

Progressive Robin Koerner has an excellent piece The Huffington Post, wherein he argues that Obama has proven himself to be no peacenik, and that Democrats who truly want peace should join the Republican Party in order to vote for Ron Paul.

No, Koerner's not turned Republican. He slams the GOP, but acknowledges that Paul, for all his imperfections (from a progressive standpoint), is the best candidate out there, on either party.

Koerner writes in part:

"If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again 'because you've always been a Democrat' or because you think that some group with which you identity will benefit more from Democrat programs than a Republican one, then that is up to you, and I wish you well. But don't you dare pretend that you are motivated primarily by peace, civil rights or a government that treats people equally.

"That Ron Paul, who has been standing up for these principles quietly for half a lifetime, happens to be a member of the Republican party is a lot less important than the principles that we should be voting on. The fact that he is not a party guy should be obvious from his extensive differences in policy from his party and the fact that many think, given his views, he should not run as a Republican at all.

"As Dr. Paul often points out, however, we live in a country with a corrupt political party duopoly... and the system is stacked against anyone who would run outside the two party system. So he's doing what he has to do. And so should we as Americans who love peace and freedom. It really isn't complicated."

Read the entire article.

This article demonstrate yet again why Ron Paul is such an attractive candidate -- for any party! Paul appeals across the mainstream. Paul has supported Wikileaks, called for ending foreign aid (even to sacred cow Israel), opposed the CIA and Tea Party warmongers, and incurred their wrath. Paul has condemned Obama for being pro-war as early as 2009, and has earned praise from progressive Ralph Nader.

Were Ron Paul to run as an Independent, or even as a Republican with a progressive peacenik running mate, he has a real shot in 2012.

Contrast Paul's broad appeal to that of libertarian embarrassment Wayne Allyn Root. Despite Root's boost in 2008 -- "I'm Ron Paul on steroids!" -- Wayne Allyn (pro-Afghan surge; anti-Afghan surge"; Weak on Wikileaks; pro- and anti-Hosni Mubarak; Birther conspiracy instigator, etc., etc.) Root appeals mostly to the Palin/Bachmann Neocon wing of the Tea Party -- and those people would far rather vote for Palin or Bachman than ... "Who's that guy on Fox Business Channel again?"

Indeed, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann supporters will vote for any Republican in 2012, over anyone else, regardless of what they say now.

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

BTW, you can purchase the above image at Cafe Press. No, it isn't my store.

New Antiwar Petition Evokes George McGovern

2011-07-08T01:53:00.000-07:00

ComeHomeAmerica.us is sponsoring a non-partisan antiwar petition, calling on the U.S. to end its current wars and occupations, and adapt a new, peace-oriented foreign policy.

Come Home America. That was the refrain of George McGovern's last televised speech of his 1972 presidential campaign. He kept repeating that line throughout his speech. It was his call to bring back American troops from the Vietnam War.

McGovern had bought a half hour on network TV, on the Monday night before Election Day, to broadcast his speech. It was his desperate, last ditch attempt to reverse his polling numbers.

It didn't work. Nixon buried McGovern the following day, Election Day.

I remember seeing McGovern's speech on TV. I was eleven, and a Nixon supporter. So were my parents, and almost every kid at school.

The new Come Home America petition is pretty good. Many libertarians -- and non-libertarians -- have signed it. Myself included.

I doubt the Powers That Be will heed our request, but you should sign it anyway. At least future generations will know that not all Americans were fooled -- or intimidated -- by the government.

The Come Home America petition comes with a Come Home America book.

Finally, here's a recent interview with McGovern, in which he discusses Barak Obama's current wars:

California Libertarian Party Violates Fundamental Fairness

2011-06-29T00:35:00.000-07:00

The U.S. Constitution imposes Fundamental Fairness and Proceduarl Due Process on the government's actions.

Due Process "requires notice and an opportunity to be heard" before adverse action is taken against you.

The State must give you Notice that a proceeding in which you have an interest is scheduled to be taken -- and a Hearing so you can present your case.

The Libertarian Party often slams government because, either from incompetence or duplicity, government fails to abide by Constitutional Due Process.

By contrast, the LP trumpets itself as the Party of Principle, implying that its behavior is morally superior to that of any government.

NOT!

The various LPs (state and national) are as shifty or incompetent as any governmental bureaucracy out there.

LPC Northern Vice Chair C. Michael Pickens attended the Libertarian Party of California's Executive Committee meeting on June 18, 2011, in Ventura County, and reports:

"After lunch we were given a convention proposal presentation by the Ventura County Libertarian Party. The verbal presentation was accompanied by a full-color binder showcasing Ventura's accommodations, dining and entertainment, transportation...

"After the presentation Gale Morgan motioned to vote on having the 2012 California Libertarian party convention in Ventura. The motion was seconded.

"A few members expressed their concern that the vote was premature because there were other county parties that were going to submit bids for the 2012 convention.

"But because there was only nine months left until the convention the executive committee went ahead with the vote and it was decided that the 2012 convention is to be held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Ventura California."

In other words, competing county LPs were blindsided. No notice was given to them about a deadline for submitting convention bids, or that a decision on a convention site was on this meeting's agenda. These competing counties were denied Notice and a Hearing.

I know the LPC isn't bound by governmental standards of fairness and due process -- but that never stops the LP from claiming to meet even higher standards of fairness and transparency. Yet many LPs fail to meet even governmental standards. If Americans don't notice, it's only because the LPs are too unimportant for their misbehaviors to affect the real world.

If the LP can't walk the walk, why should American voters pay attention to the LP's talk?

Pickens continues his report:

"Because of the confusion about submitting bids and the approval process for future convention locations the executive committee voted to implement a process for the 2013 convention."

Did he say "confusion"? So in other words, the LPC wasn't duplicitous, but incompetent.

The LPC had forty years of existence in which to create a clear process for submitting convention bids and deadlines -- and it's failed to even meet that level of procedural competence? The DMV is more efficient.

And if the LPC Executive Committee admits they had no clear process, then why not begin the remedy with the 2012 convention? Give Fair Notice to all the county LPs to submit bids within 30 or 60 days of the June 18 meeting.

But no. The LPC instead admits confusion, and promises to fix it in the future. Just like any other governmental bureaucracy.

I don't know if Ventura County as a convention site was intentionally railroaded through (duplicity -- the LPC has a history of convention shenanigans and trickery), or if Ventura County was chosen by default due to the admitted "confusion" (incompetence).

Either way, it seems that even the government is a model of competence and fair dealing compared to the Libertarian Party of California.

Video Games: Desensitizing Tomorrow's Killing Machines

2011-06-22T04:51:00.000-07:00

With improving technology and human actors, video wargame images are looking ever more realistic, depicting combat in all its gory detail -- but minus the actual pain.

Video games are also addictive.

What better way to desensitize children into becoming tomorrow's lean, mean, killing machines?

Get them "hooked" on the high of fighting virtual battles, without any consequences -- until, of course, they grow up, go to a real war, and lose two or three limbs...)

It's called "militainment" -- and now there's a documentary that exposes this unsettling phenomenon. Read Returning Fire: Docu Examines How Video Game 'Militainment' Promotes War in the Hollywood Investigator.

Aid to Israel Was Supposed to be Temporary

2011-06-21T01:20:00.000-07:00

I've written previously about our Orwellian Memory Hole. Just as young people in Oceana were ignorant of life before Big Brother, Americans are growing up ignorant of pre-9/11 American history.

Here's another blast from the past...

In the late 1970s/early 1980s, it was a "given" that U.S. aid to Israel was temporary. Even the Israeli lobby said so. It was one of their talking points for sending money to Israel.

Back then I attended high school in New York City, and often listened to Bob Grant's call-in radio talk show on WOR-AM. Grant was a big supporter of Israel, as were many of his callers.

Sometimes people called to complain about American tax dollars sent to Israel. One of the defenses offered by pro-Israel callers was: "Hey, it's only for a few years! Israel's having some tough economic times right now -- but just as soon as Israel gets on its feet, there'll be no more aid! You can help out our great friend and ally, just for a few years, can't you?"

This was about when Carter was doing his Camp David peace accords. Then came Israel's (expensive) incursion into Lebanon, and it became "just a few years more..."

A Fundamental Conservative/Libertarian Principle (in that they all at least claim to believe it) is that: Welfare is never temporary. Welfare creates dependency, and a demand for increasingly more money. Welfare recipients know no gratitude, but instead fight viciously to retain -- and increase -- their welfare benefits.

This principle is often proven correct, as in the case of Israel. Today most conservatives (and even some libertarians) accept American tax dollars for Israel as a "given."

Another forgotten excuse for sending money to Israel (one I often heard in the 1980s), was the Cold War. The rationale was that the Soviets funded the Arab states, so America had to fund Israel to "level the playing field."

This excuse had some surface logic during the Cold War. Wherever political strife, national tensions, or civil war arose (in Africa, Asia, or Latin America), the Soviets and Americans often funded opposing sides, each trying to prevent the other from establishing the sole foothold in that particular nation or region.

But with the Cold War's end, that logic was flipped on its head. The new "logic" was: "Hey, now that the Soviets have withdrawn from the Mideast, the U.S. can support Israel that much more safely, since there's no risk of escalating tensions into World War III. America should take advantage of this Golden Opportunity of being the world's Sole Superpower -- by supporting Israel!"

Both the Soviet's presence in the Mideast, and the lack of a Soviet presence, was a reason to fund Israel.

Another excuse I've heard over the years for American aid to Israel is that it benefits American business, because Israel spends some of that aid money in the U.S., buying weapons.

By that logic, why not instead give all of those tax dollars to Americans (via food stamps, welfare, health care, etc.), so that all of those tax dollars are spent in America? Would that not boost the economy that much more?

Curiously, no conservative or libertarian would advise increasing welfare payments to Americans as a way to boost the American economy -- but some have actually suggested that welfare payments to a foreign nation are a good way to boost the American economy.

(I assume such conservatives and libertarians know better; they don't believe their own talking points, but think they might get it past an audience that doesn't think too much about it.)

Another reason some conservatives and libertarians offer for sending tax dollars to Israel is that Israel needs the money. Israel could not survive without U.S. tax dollars, so that trumps all other principles. (I heard KABC-AM's John Phillips make the "needed for survival" argument earlier this year.)

But as Ayn Rand said, A need is not a claim. Conservatives and libertarians love quoting Rand when denying U.S. tax dollars to poor Americans, but curiously, a need is a claim -- when the claiment is Israel.

Yet even that isn't true -- Israel does not need U.S. aid to survive. Israel is a wealthy nation, with a heavily subsidized, socialist economy (like that of many Western European nations). Compared to Israeli economic policies, the "Marxist" Barak Obama looks like a free marketeer.

This brings us to yet another Fundamental Conservative/Libertarian Principle: Money is fungible. If I pay for your health care, I'm really paying for your car, your CD collection, your trip to Europe. The money you spent on your CDs and trip would have covered your health care, but since I subsidized your health care, you were free to spend your money on fun stuff.

Israel can easily pay for its own defense -- if it cuts back on its subsidized health care, education, housing, and other socialist goodies. Because money is fungible, American taxpayers are actually subsidizing Israelis' health care, housing, and education.

America is nearing bankruptcy, crippled by its own rising health care, housing, pension, infrastructure, and education expenses. Why should American taxpayers keep financing Israel's welfare state?

A need is not a claim, but Israel doesn't even need American money. Israel wants American money, because, like any welfare client, it's gotten used to it. Israel feels entitled to American tax dollars, and -- like many state union employees -- feels enraged and "attacked" if there's any talk of cutbacks.

Israel, like America, has forgotten that aid to Israel was originally supposed to be "only for a few years."

Libertarians Support NSA Domestic Spying

2011-06-20T00:10:00.000-07:00

At least that's increasingly the image given by today's "voter friendly" Libertarian Party.

Why do I say this?

I was listening to Bill Handel's radio show last Friday (June 17, 2011, heard on 640 KFI-AM). Handel was discussing some new National Security Agency plan or proposal to spy on all the email passing over the internet in the U.S.

Handel said that he has no problem with this. (I don't think he was joking.) He said the NSA already listens in on all cell phone calls and texting, worldwide.

Then Handel said, "Of course, some people are gonna have a problem with that. The First Amendment folks, privacy folks, the libertarians -- not the libertarians. The civil...what word am I looking for? The ACLU types. The..."

And so on.

I think the phrase Handel was seeking was civil libertarians.

Handel's comment demonstrates that the word libertarian is no longer associated with opposition to NSA domestic spying. Civil libertarians, sure, but not libertarians.

No, I don't think Handel was trying to slam libertarians. He is a non-partisan guy, with no particular animus toward libertarians. A middle-of-the-road, common sense-oriented, shock jock. He's praised both Bush and Obama, depending on the issues. He's agreed with California Republicans on the need for severe budget cuts, but he also supports national, single payer health care.

Handel's comment was not intended as a slam against libertarians, but his honest understanding of libertarian views.

You can listen to the above broadcast over here.

Good job, libertarian "vote getters"! Good job, you "big tent" types who don't want the Libertarian Party to take too "extreme" a position on the issues. Congrats also to Wayne Allyn Root for his carefully nuanced position on Julian Assange!

Increasingly, the public perceives libertarians as a right-wing party that supports government domestic spying. I'm sure electoral victories are right around the corner!

At times like this, I sure am glad I'm no longer a member of the Libertarian Party.

Screw Elections, Not Principles

2011-06-13T00:27:00.000-07:00

I recently wrote a letter to the editor opposing sales taxes and rent control. The details (the context, which newspaper) aren't important. What is important is this: I made no mention of the Libertarian Party or of the libertarian philosophy.

Some libertarians have made a sexual fetish of "the L word." What I call Sesame Street Libertarians.

Back when I was active in the California Libertarian Party, I met many LP members who measured the value of their activism (mostly letters to the editor and calls to radio talk shows) by how often they managed to publicize the word "libertarian."

"I wrote 'libertarian' twice in my letter to the editor," one LP member might say, "but the newspaper deleted one instance, so they only printed 'libertarian' once."

"I managed to say 'libertarian' three times during my call to a radio talk show," another would brag.

These sick puppies measure the value of their message not by its cogency, intelligence, integrity, or persuasiveness -- but by the number of "L word" hits.

They imagine that getting "the L word" out there is itself a good thing, because the more often people hear "the L word," the more likely they are to vote Libertarian. Sesame Street Libertarians think that selling the party is like selling Pepsi. These "vote getters" emphasize "branding" and "marketing" over ideas, principles, and truth.

One problem with this thinking is that it elevates form over content; packaging over substance. We see the result.

Today, Sesame Street Libertarians infest the LP. Obsessed with winning votes for "the L party," they regard principles as a ball-and-chain that prevents the LP from winning elections. They've sold out, with nothing to show for it at the ballot box.

I think the reverse is closer to the truth. "The L word" is a ball-and-chain that defames libertarian principles.

Why do I refuse to use "the L word" in my letters to the editor? Because one can more effectively promote libertarian ideas if one ditches "the L word" -- and even more so, "the L party."

If I argue against a sales tax increase, without identifying myself as a libertarian, then people from across the political spectrum are more likely to consider my ideas with an open mind.

If I call my ideas libertarian, then many people who are prejudiced against libertarianism will shut their minds to my arguments.

(This is why actor Mike Farrell tells people to "Just call me Mike." -- because he thinks political labels prevent people from listening to each other with an open mind.)

Do libertarians want to promote their principles -- or a political party?

If principles, then it's wise to ditch the ball-and-chain that is the Libertarian Party. Don't mention the party. Don't even mention "the L word" as a philosophy. Now that Sean Hannity, Wayne Allyn Root, and all manner of neocons are hiding behind "the L word," it's likely been corrupted in many people's minds anyway.

If, on the other hand, you're more intent on promoting the LP rather than principles, well then, take a tip from Howard Stern. Call every random radio talk show, and in the middle of the conversation, start spouting, "Libertarian, libertarian, Baba Booey, Baba Booey, Wayne Allyn Root rules!"

It won't win the LP any votes, but nothing does, so you may as well get "the L word" out of your system and enjoy the rush.

Jennifer Jajah's I Heart Hamas in Hollywood

2011-06-11T11:50:00.000-07:00

It can't be easy being a Palestinian-American in Hollywood -- or anywhere else in America.

Writer/actress Jennifer Jajeh, a Christian Palestinian-American, was raised in the U.S., and has visited Israel and the Occupied Territories.

She now courageously places her difficult identity into the spotlight, and mines her life experiences, for a one-woman show: I Heart Hamas: And Other Things I'm Afraid to Tell You.

Despite the provocative title, I Heart Hamas is getting rave reviews in major American cities.

This play, along with films like Miral, indicates that a significant number of Americans -- Jews and gentiles -- are ready to see Palestinians as actual human beings.

True, Jajeh is a Christian Palestinian-American. Nevertheless, I'm sure the Islamophobic bigots can make an exception in Jajeh's case (seeing as she's still an Arab) and hate her anyway.

Nevada Libertarian Party Prefers Bolshevik Party Discipline to Pluralism

2011-06-01T03:55:00.000-07:00

After the Libertarian Party of Nevada dissolved its county parties, it offered, as part of its rationale, the need to speak with one voice and promote one message to the public. They didn't want the county LPs to issue independent or conflicting messages. As the Nevada LP said in a press release:

“...our primary reason for this change was to more effectively pursue Libertarian goals of identifying and electing qualified Libertarian candidates statewide by creating a single source of a unified, positive message...

“Without adequate coordination, the voting public is getting mixed messages from different parts of the LPNevada as county affiliates often focus on issues of little importance to mainstream voters...."

According to the Nevada LP, the goal is to elect candidates. Allowing the county parties an independent voice impedes that effort. Too many voices, too many opinions.

The Nevada LP is lying.

It's not that they want to promote one message -- it's that they want to promote their message.

That's how control freaks think.

A few years back, when the pro-war control freaks were on the out (at least here in California), they whined that it was “divisive” to publicly say that the LP was antiwar.

No one tried to squelch their right to voice their pro-war crap, but having a voice was not good enough for them. Since they were a small minority, their pro-war screeds would have been drowned out -- so they instead wanted all libertarians (pro and antiwar) to shut up about the war, because “it's an issue over which libertarians of good faith disagree.”

Now it seems that the pro-war control freaks are in charge of the Nevada LP. (I say this because Nevada LP Vice Chair Wayne Allyn Root supported the dissolution of the county LPs.) And these control freaks are not satisfied with having the state LP bully pulpit (the loudest voice) -- they want the other, smaller voices to shut up.

Here in California, it's long been customary for every LP -- the state LP, county LPs, and even regional LPs (the Los Angeles County LP is divided into 8 regions) to issue their own press releases, and pass their own resolutions. County LPs are independent entities, entitled to their own voices in the public arena.

This is a Good Thing.

When I was editing the state newspaper, I always allowed, and even invited, pro-war LP members to submit articles and letters to the editor. I was satisfied that, because antiwar libertarians were the majority, and had the better arguments, that we had nothing to fear from giving a platform to the pro-war crowd.

But the Nevada LP control freaks (of which Wayne Allyn Root is one) don't see it that way. Now that they're in charge, they want to be the sole voice representing Libertarianism.

I don't know how big a factor the war issue was in the Nevada LP's dictatorial action, but I suspect that, overall, this conflict falls along the usual Reform vs. Radical divide. A “Reform faction” (now in charge) prioritizes vote-getting, and thus wants to avoid hot-button issues like ending the drug war, opening borders to immigration, ending foreign bases and foreign aid (even to Israel -- gasp!), ending the police state, downsizing the military -- things that “normal Americans” don't feel comfortable with. (Or so the Reformers claim to believe.)

When Radicals are in charge, they dominate the debate.

When Reformers are in charge, there is no debate.

At least that's how it seems to work out.

Reformist control freaks like to impose Bolshevik Party discipline.

At least Mao Zedong paid lip service to pluralism, saying that Communism should "Let one hundred flowers bloom.” Not so the Nevada LP.

Libertarian Gamma Males Hate Alpha Males

2011-05-30T22:48:00.000-07:00

Control freaks have long pestered the Libertarian Party. They infest the LP from time to time, trying to dictate how everyone should behave "to win elections," or what the party's message should and should not be. The Nevada LP's recent crack down on its county parties is one example. The actions of the Reform/liberventionist/Root faction provide other examples.

Even so, the control freaks always have a hard time because, as it's long been said, trying to manage libertarians is like herding cats.

Now I've come across an interesting term, in an article about Herman Cain, that relates to this phenomenon -- the Gamma Male.

From reading this article, it seems to me that Alpha Males can easily rule Beta Males -- but the LP is mostly composed of Gamma Males. Alpha Males (which is what I consider Bob Barr, Wayne Allyn Root, Aaron Starr, and some others, to be) cannot control Gamma Males. Gamma Males don't want to rule, but they rebel against control.

(Yes, there are some women in the LP, but unfortunately, the party's fate is still largely determined by male power dynamics.)

Here's the relevant excerpt from the article, by Daniel M. Ryan, found at EnterStageRight.com:

"The division of people into Alpha and Beta started, unsurprisingly, with experiments on rats. Studying social dynamics, the scientists found that certain rats struggled to assume leadership of the rat packs and tended to end up as leaders. They were labeled Alphas. Other rats didn't fight for leadership, and were content to follow: they were labeled Betas. The two categories seemed exhaustive, until those rat-watchers discovered a third kind of rodent.

"That rat was labeled the Gamma. Superficially, it appeared to be an Alpha. What differentiated the Gamma from the Alpha was the former's disinclination to either lead or follow. Gammas that got leadership slots grew tired of being the boss and went off on their own. Interestingly, they were confused with Alphas but not Betas. Gammas weren't much for following....

"The Gamma personality has not entered the popular argot, despite the Gamma's correspondence to a definite psychological profile. A Gamma male, or female, is a dominant loner.

"Like their rat counterparts, [Gamma humans are] not much for following but show little inclination to lead. In a way, it's surprising that there's not more recognition of the Gamma personality because there's a whole Gamma subculture right in front of our eyes. As dominant loners, whether rough-hewn or refined, they're inclined to be individualists.

"As people, they tend to assume that other people are like themselves. Consequently, they tend to see the leader-follower bond as a little odd or degrading. Some are more sophisticated then others, but their psychological profile inclines them to look on leaders with suspicion and followers with disdain.

"H.L. Mencken, to take a single example, was all Gamma. What other kind of person would see democracy as something akin to a well-run slave plantation, with vote solicitation obliging the master to always wear velvet gloves and keep pampering the slaves? His knack of portraying political leaders as either rascals or buffoons went hand-in-hand with an eternal contempt for their supporters and followers. Clearly, H.L. Mencken's own political prejudices squared tightly with the Gamma profile. So does anyone who despises the "sheeple" for needing the sheepdog."

Read the entire article.

Wayne Allyn Root Uses Libertarian Party for Neocon Stardom

2011-05-11T21:35:00.000-07:00

Since 2007, when I first saw him speak at the 2007 Libertarian Party of California state convention, I've said that Wayne Allyn Root is using the LP to promote himself, seeking a new career as a paid political pundit, with all the usual lucrative book deals, and radio & TV gigs.

Why would Root seek a new career? Perhaps because his sports betting business was already tanking in 2007, though I didn't learn about that until later.

Why would Root use the LP to attain the goal of media star/political pundit?

My logic: The world is full of Rush Limbaugh wannabes. An aspiring, right-wing media pundit, one with no serious political creds, must separate himself from the herd.

Winning the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination is one way to rise above the pack.

Plus, the libertarian pond is much smaller than the conservative ocean. It's easier to look like a Big Fish in the LP than in the GOP. Less competition when Fox News needs an "official libertarian spokesperson."

Root only won the LP's VP nomination, but his plan worked. Despite Root's ignorance of both libertarian philosophy and internal party issues, the VP nomination brought Root instant "political spokesperson" creds. Which he immediately began leveraging to pump up his own personal stardom.

Root's supporters derided my analysis of Root's motives and intentions.

Robert Capozzi called me a "mind reader" for presuming to know Root's motives and intentions.

No, not mind reading. One may logically assess a person's motives and intentions based on that person's circumstances, statements, and actions. We all assess other people's motives and intentions, every day.

IPR's "Libertarian Girl" said my analysis was ridiculous, because if Root wanted to use a political party for personal fame, he'd join the GOP rather than the LP.

No, not really. Had Root sought power within, or through, the GOP in 2007, he'd have been a small fish among Big Boys. The GOP wouldn't have nominated Root for vice president. And Root's ego can't abide toiling in the shadows of GOP power brokers, hoping for a chance to maybe run for state assembly in 10 years.

But now I am vindicated. On January 31, 2011, Root sent an email to S. Rowan Wilson, which Wilson released to the public. (Root's email was in relation to yet another Root fiasco, specifically, the Nevada state LP's power grab, disaffiliating its county parties.)

In his email, Root reveals his personal goals. Here's the relevant excerpt (the ellipses are in the original), in which Root writes to Wilson:

"And I'm not interested in local issues- I’m 100% a national guy.

"So only when I’m 70 years old and retired will I be interested in running for Congress or U.S. Senate. At that point it might be fun to move to D.C. and add a new chapter to my life.

"In the meantime my goal is to become very famous as a TV and radio host over the next 6 years...and run for President in 2016 with the name recognition of Rush or Hannity or Glenn Beck or Michael Savage.

"And get Ross Perot-like vote totals...and then become a true national celebrity known and respected by all.

"Then spend 4 more years as the Libertarian-conservative Rush or Beck on radio and TV...

"then actually have a legitimate shot to win the Presidency in 2020...

"And if that doesn't happen...at that point as a household name (like Ross Perot, Al Franken, or Jesse Ventura) become Nevada's U.S. Senator.

"But the only way to 'settle' on U.S. Senate and actually win...is to become Nevada's most famous citizen as talk show host...TV celebrity...and serious Presidential candidate."

You can read the full Root/Rowan email exchange on Independent Political Report.

Are Root's motives relevant to anything?

Yes. If Root seeks a personal success that requires the approval of Fox News and the right-wing punditocracy, then Root will craft his Message to appeal to those who can give him that success -- the pro-war Establishment.

Root will also avoid sensitive, controversial issues (e.g., aid to Israel, open borders, drug legalization, gay marriage), or even take an anti-libertarian position on those issues, should it offend his Fox News customer base.

Which makes Root a damaging spokesperson for the LP.

Libertarian Party Is Too Right-Wing for Republicans

2011-05-10T02:45:00.000-07:00

A little over a week ago, I attended a non-political, arts-related social event. A man recognized me from a couple of years ago, and said, “You're a libertarian, right?”

I explained that I was no longer a member of the Libertarian Party.

He replied that while he was a progressive, and usually voted Democratic, he'd liked some things about the LP, but that in recent years, the LP “had turned really right-wing.”

I asked for examples. I wondered if he could cite specific names or incidents that caused him to feel this way.

He didn't have any particular person or incident in mind. He said he knew several Libertarians, and their general impression was that the LP “had turned really right-wing.”

I don't know if these libertarian friends of his are party members, or just philosophical libertarians.

This man's demographic background: a Latino (fully integrated; no accent), in his early 30s, with wife and kids, who works in the arts and lives in California.

But this is even more noteworthy...

Most folks at this event were progressive Democrats, but I also met a man who described himself as “a former Republican,” but now registered as an independent. A white guy, early 40s, who works in the arts.

He too complained that “the Libertarian Party is too right-wing.”

Again, he couldn't cite any specific names or incidents that made him feel this way. It was just his general impression that the LP had become “too neocon.” (His words.)

When I told him that I'd cast a write-in ballot for Ron Paul, he grew excited. He had voted for Paul too.

He liked Ron Paul, but not the LP. Paul was cool; the LP “too right-wing.”

A couple of observations:

1. While the general public may not pay enough attention to LP candidates or leaders to remember any specific names, the message is trickling down that the LP is “right-wing.”

2. The current LP (brought to you by the Reform faction) not only repels libertarian-leaning progressives, it's gotten so that the LP repels libertarian-leaning Republicans.

LP Reformers (and specifically Wayne Allyn Root), say the LP must focus its outreach on Republicans. Well, there's nothing wrong with outreach to libertarian-leaning Republicans -- but the current LP repels them. Instead, the current LP resembles the Neocon GOP which libertarian-leaning Republicans are escaping.

Rather than provide a home for libertarian-leaning Republicans, the current LP resembles the Neocon creeps they just escaped from.

This former Republican is not unique. I was a registered Republican before I quit trying to “work within the GOP” and switched my registration to Libertarian. I left the GOP because of their pro-war/anti-civil liberties policies.

Only to leave the LP for the same reasons.

The Reform/Root faction says the LP should ignore libertarian-leaning progressives, because the real gains are to be had among Republicans. But the LP isn't attracting libertarian-leaning/Ron Paul Republicans. Only Neocons are pleased with today's LP -- and they'll be voting GOP come November.

Fight Facebook Censorship in China

2011-04-26T13:17:00.000-07:00

From DemandProgress.org:

Facebook will do anything to get China to accept its friend request. As China cracks down on dissidents and Google condemns that country's authoritarian leadership, Facebook is considering a partnership with Chinese censors.

Will you tell Facebook to start respecting civil liberties? Just click here to sign our petition to Mark Zuckerberg.

And let's make this campaign go viral on Facebook: click here to share it with your friends.

Facebook's lobbyist Adam Conner just told the Wall Street Journal, "Maybe we will block content in some countries, but not others....We are occasionally held in uncomfortable positions because now we're allowing too much, maybe, free speech in countries that haven't experienced it before."

Astounding. And this disregard for civil liberties is nothing new: Facebook has consistently dodged hard questions about free speech. Last year they refused to attend a U.S. Senate hearing on "global Internet freedom" and the company won't join the tech industry's Global Network Initiative, which promotes human rights and free speech.

Thanks for taking a stand against censorship.

-- The DemandProgress.org team

Ron Paul to Announce 2012 Presidential Run

2011-04-25T19:30:00.000-07:00

The National Journal reports:

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, whose outspoken libertarian views and folksy style made him a cult hero during two previous presidential campaigns, will announce on Tuesday that he's going to try a third time.

Sources close to Paul, who is in his 12th term in the House, said he will unveil an exploratory presidential committee, a key step in gearing up for a White House race. He will also unveil the campaign's leadership team in Iowa, where the first votes of the presidential election will be cast in caucuses next year.

Paul, 75, ran as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, finishing with less than one half a percent of the vote. After more than a decade as a Republican congressman, Paul gave it another shot in the 2008 presidential election, gaining attention for being the only Republican candidate calling for the end to the war in Iraq and for his "money bomb" fundraising strategy, which brought in millions of dollars from online donors in single-day pushes.

Read the entire article.

Rachel Hawkridge Quits Libertarian Party

2011-04-22T19:49:00.000-07:00

Washington state LP officer Rachel Hawkridge (who two years ago addressed the LNC's attempted purge of Lee Wrights) joins the long list of activists and leaders who've left the Libertarian Party.

Hawkridge gives her reasons in the below email, which was forwarded to me.

Hawkridge writes:

Dear State Chairs, Friends & Allies –

Most of you know by now that I have abandoned you, disappeared, and you have probably heard that I have left the LP.

It's all true. I'm finished. Life member of the LP. LPWA's "Activist of the Year -– 1999". I'm not going to be silent, nor take any more BS from this bunch of misogynists.

Several months ago, [LP national chair] Hinkle demanded that I step down from the Convention Oversight Committee. He said I wasn't participating, that furthermore, "everyone tells him" that I hadn't done anything last term on COC.

Except the Admiral (last year's COC Chair), who when asked if this was true, said "Absolutely NOT"!

I said I had been participating –- just about one week before this demand, I had been on a conference call WHERE HE WAS PRESENT, where I talked a lot!

For most of the conference calls, I had been present, but muted, as they were invariably scheduled during dinner time with my Hugs. I listened to the discussions, sometimes unmuted and commented, but mostly eMailed in between.

I told him this, and he continued to insist that I resign, or he would remove me. He said it would "be better for me" if I resigned.

Former treasurer James Oaksun told me that most COC correspondence was not being distributed to me (nothing that went through the Secretary, Alicia Mattson). Mattson confirmed that she was not sending me the information on a conference call when David Nolan asked.

I provided proof of my presence (hours of damned conference calls from my phone bills, and eMails), and also told him that the conference call reports listed participants.

Hinkle then called me a "bald faced liar" to a friend of mine.

Then there was the Oregon debacle -– Hinkle, Mattson and Carling showed up at an Oregon convention, and Carling and Mattson intimidated the State Chair into canceling due to lack of quorum. They maintained that the quorum requirement (according to RONR) was not met, as it required a percentage of the entire membership.

Another Registered Parliamentarian provided an differing opinion, as Oregon's conventions are NOT conventions with "elected representatives" as in the RONR requirement, they are "mass meetings" where everyone who is a member is welcome. Hinkle threatened Oregon officers with "We'll be watching."

The LNC's secretary, Alicia Mattson, established a secret discussion list from which I was excluded, apparently on the basis of untrue allegations that I couldn't be trusted with confidential information. This list is used to conduct business, as the Vegas binder had printed pages from it on agenda items.

In Jan, it came to my attention that Pat Dixon was actively sabotaging the LSLA conference.

At that point, the health problems that I had fighting for a couple of months became a crisis, and I went into surgery. The result of putting off surgery for a couple of months meant that I was seriously run down, and hellaciously anemic. I spent several days in the hospital just getting TPN BEFORE I could have surgery. (TPN is nutrition by IV; in my case by a line directly to my heart.) I was in the hospital for a total of 2 weeks, followed by a long and very tough recovery.

My Hugs demanded answers from Hinkle, and has never gotten any response other than "Tell her to resign."

Hinkle is a liar, and will cut out any representative that he doesn't like. As State Chairs, we are not important enough for him to respectour State autonomy, nor our representative. He refused before his election to vote against "his friend, Aaron Starr", and now Starr has a firm hand on the puppet strings. Starr's paramour Mattson is Secretary, and taking over much of the decision making on agenda and RONR, since Hinkle is incompetent.

Finally, the "data dump" sent to State Chairs more or less monthly, most recently in April 2011, did not list me as a member, even though I'm still officially the state chair of the Libertarian Party of Washington, and a Life Member of the Libertarian Party. (Headquarters claims to know nothing about why my name wasn't on the April "data dump" for the LPWA, and claim that I'm still listed as a member).

Hinkle will lie, with no compunction, even about things that can be proven.

My Hugs and I are leaving the LP completely. He's been a member since his original member number of 324. I've been a member since 1995.

Please accept my gratitude for allowing me to be your representative, and forgive me for quitting on you. I cannot continue to be part of the disgrace that much of the LNC has become.

I urge you to elect Vicki Kirkland to Rep., and elect a new Alternate on Monday evening. Don't let the seat fall to someone who will misrepresent you.

I appreciate getting the chance to get to know all of you, and would love to continue to have a social relationship with you, even though I will not be involved in the Party.

Peace.

Rachel Hawkridge
Sovereign Woman, Nama Waycho & Lover of Hugs

Libertarian activists are abandoning the dysfunctional LP (which increasingly behaves as a subsidiary of Wayne Allyn Root Enterprises), and are instead investing their time and money in Antiwar.com, Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty, or really, anyplace other than the LP.

Afgahn War Worsens; Amputations Increase

2011-04-20T01:13:00.000-07:00

Some Libertarian vote-getters and chickenhawks say that we should focus on the economy -- that our current wars (three, so far) are no longer an issue.

Yet as Tea Party chickenhawks whine about taxes (while screaming their "support" for our budget-busting wars), the Los Angeles Times reminds us that our current wars will remain a lifelong issue for young Americans who were unfortunate enough to believe in war propaganda of chickenhawk bureaucrats and media pundits.

In this shocking article (with photo by Carolyn Cole), Tony Perry reports:

"A study by doctors at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, where most wounded troops are sent before returning to the U.S., confirmed their fears: The battlefield has become increasingly brutal.

"In 2009, 75 service members brought to Landstuhl had limbs amputated. Of those, 21 had lost more than one limb.

"But in 2010, 171, 11% of all the casualties brought to Landstuhl, had undergone amputations, a much higher proportion than in past wars. Of the 171, 65 had lost more than one limb.

"Injuries to the genital area were also on the increase. In 2009, 52 casualties were brought to Landstuhl with battlefield injuries to their genitals or urinary tract. In 2010, that number was 142.

"Dr. John Holcomb, a retired Army colonel with extensive combat-medicine experience, said he and other doctors involved in the study were shocked by the findings, which he labeled as 'unbelievable.'

" 'Everybody was taken aback by the frequency of these injuries: the double amputations, the injuries to the penis and testicles,' said Holcomb, now a medical professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston. 'Nothing like this has been seen before.' "

Read the entire article with complete photo.

Our current wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Libya) have been going on for nearly ten years now. And during those ten years, some so-called "libertarians" have either cheered these wars, or said the Libertarian Party should not address the war issue because it was "divisive" and "libertarians of good faith" could disagree about the war.

By remaining silent and timid over this past decade, or paralyzed into inaction by infighting with liberventionists, the Libertarian Party has failed America. It doesn't deserve to win elections.

Shame not only on liberventionist chickenhawks, but on opportunistic vote-getters who quietly "oppose" our wars while focusing on "more voter-friendly" issues.

And remember, in 2008 Wayne Allyn Root called for an Afghan surge, before he flip-flopped on it in 2009.

Miral: Jewish Filmmaker Julian Schnabel Shows the Palestinian Side

2011-04-13T09:10:00.000-07:00

Rarely does Hollywood make a pro-Palestinian film, but now director Julian Schnabel (Basquait, The Diving Bell) has released Miral, a film based on the novel by his Palestinian wife, Rula Jebreal.

Miral has already stirred controversy in the Jewish community. Some Jewish leaders are slamming the film for being "one-sided." Schnabel admits that Miral shows Palestinian experiences from a Palestinian perspective. (Why is such "one-sidedness" never a problem when only the Israeli perspective is shown?)

Miral is not yet released on DVD in the United States, but it will likely happen. It is currently available as a PAL DVD import, which can be viewed on any region-free DVD player

You can read an interview with Rula Jebreal at Alternet.org, and read more about the controversy here.

Among other controversies, Miral depicts the torture of Palestinian women by the Israeli State, something that Jabreal says she suffered and which continues today to other Palestinians.

Hollywood, Congress, Still Pushing for Internet Censorship

2011-04-07T18:19:00.000-07:00

DemandProgress.org reports:

We stole it right out from under them: This week, the special interests pushing the Internet Blacklist Bill called a big press conference with their allies in Congress, trying to create the illusion of broad support for Internet censorship. But our team caught wind of it and scrambled to make sure you were heard. Teaming up with conservative bloggers who also oppose the bill, we stole the story right out from under them:

* POLITICO: Groups blast Leahy piracy bill

* THE HILL: Groups slam online piracy effort

It was a great success, but we need your help now more than ever. Hollywood is dead set on passing a bill this year. Their lead sponsor has pledged to ram it through: "inaction is not an option, and we must pass online infringement legislation in this Congress." That's why an anonymous activist has agreed to match the donations of anybody who becomes a monthly sustainer, but only if you donate this week.

Become a sustainer today and help us defeat COICA and anything else the Hollywood executives throw at us. Your first two months' donations will be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis. (You can cancel your monthly contributions at any time.)

Will you become a monthly sustainer of Demand Progress?

* Yes, I'll click here to become a monthly sustainer and have my first two contributions matched.

* Sorry, I can't, but I'll donate $5 or $10 today.

Check out some of this week's press coverage of our opposition to Internet censorship:

"In their attempts to reign in online file sharing, Hollywood moguls are once again willing to risk massive censorship," said Aaron Swartz, executive director of Demand Progress, a liberal-leaning group. (Congressional Quarterly)

And:

But the progressive activist organization Demand Progress and a group of conservative bloggers lead by Republican National Committee Internet Director Patrick Ruffini are staunchly opposed to the bill and the administration's recent moves to seize and shut down domains linking to pirated content. (The Hill) We won the press war this week and made sure Washington knows we strongly oppose these noxious bills. But as Hollywood ramps up their attacks, we need your support so we can keep fighting for Internet freedom.

Thanks so much for your help: We're a 100% membership-funded organization and need your support to keep up our work.

-- The Demand Progress Team

Libertarian Party of California's Convention Problems

2011-04-05T17:56:00.000-07:00

I have written before about the Libertarian Party of California's declining attendance at state conventions -- and that it appears intentional.

The LPC seems to want to discourage attendance by longtime activists (often povertarians) as a way to rig the outcomes (e.g., its notorious 2006 cruise convention (opposed by the Orange County LP), and its current 2011 convention located in Nevada).

This, on top of other convention dirty tricks.

Now longtime LPC officer and activist, Gail Lightfoot, writes this open letter stating her own complaints about the LPC's crappy convention setups.

Gail writes:

This is an open letter to the LPC XC [Executive Committee] listing my reasons for not attending a convention since the LPC went to Sea.

1. Changing and inconsistent dates prevent advance planning.

2. Locations are often out of the way for air, train and bus.

3. Locations isolated so you must stay at the hotel with no option for less expensive lodging.

4. Having to pay an increasingly hefty fee to vote as a Delegate!

5. Allowing and encouraging even the newest members to be Delegates over the time honored (by all political parties) of having Delegates represent a county (or region) so they have been "vetted" as being familiar with LPC history, Bylaws and Platform prior to serving as a Delegate.

We don't live in a Democracy so why are we being more democratic? How can we educate the voting public about the advantages of a Republic over a Democracy and end the insanity if we fail to set an example of how it works.

The LP and the LPC have failed their members and voters repeatedly over time. Here in California, the number of voters registered LP grows, not by our efforts, but by the effect of the few libertarian thinkers and media types who bring them to us. We consistently fail to reach out to them in meaningful ways.

We cannot blame the lack of numbers and funds when the truth is any one who is active locally is ignored by the party leaders, given no accolades or even respectful treatment or invited to share their experiences with others. These local activists are the ones who should represent our voters at conventions, not just anyone who can pay the fee. They should be the speakers at workshops designed to teach activism to new members.

Unless and until the LPC recognizes where its real strength lies, it will continue to flounder. With Prop 14 our members have no justification for spending time and energy being a candidate. Our free publicity as candidates is now lost and I don't see the LPC fighting back, hard and heavy!

How can we consider acquiescing to Prop 14 instead of working night and day to overturn it? Newcomers will not know the dangers inherent in such acquiesce just as they did not see the danger in making changes to the party than dilutes its purpose -- providing candidates for the politically homeless freedom lover.

Without radicals, we have no base for Liberty in America. May as well join the parties in power.

All of these insult long time party members, activists and candidates such that they see no need to waste time watching the LPC dissolve into nothingness.

If we do not provide a political home for the radicals for Liberty, we have no reason to exist.

If we do not reward the hard work of our activists and candidates, they will soon give up the battle for more productive means of getting out from under too much "other gov't".

Liberty,

Gail K. Lightfoot

LPC Chair 1995-96, 1990
LPC So. Vice Chair 1993-94
Convention Cmt., Bookkeeper 2002
Convention Organizer 2003
Convention Oversight Cmt Chair 1992-1995
LPC Sec, 1989
LPC News Editor, 1990, California Liberty, 1994-95
LP Candidate for U.S. Senate 2010, 2000
LP Candidate for Sec of State, 2006, 2002, 1998
LP Candidate for Congress, 23 rd CD 1992, 33rd CD 1990, 1986, 1984
Regional Chair East San Gabriel Valley, L.A. 1980 to 1988
Charter Member of the LP, 1972

PS: No, I won't organize a convention to prove it can be done. Been there, done that, offer advice, no one listens. Like all old Libertarian activists, I have become a curmudgeon as I grow older and wiser. GKL

Karen Kwiatkowski Slams Libertarian Warmongers, Vote-Getters, and Wayne Allyn Root

2011-04-04T12:14:00.000-07:00

Karen Kwiatkowski has written an open letter to Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle.

Kwiatkowski writes:

Dear Mark,

Your email to me on March 30, 2011 expressed concern that in a speech I gave a few days ago, I criticized the Libertarian Party for becoming associated with pro-war rhetoric, and not sticking to libertarian principles. You asked, "…why level a critique against the Libertarian Party for the pro-war support of a minority within the Party?" and wanted me to name names.

Because the LP has taken a very public stand that it is a party founded and based on principle, not popularity, it makes itself vulnerable to criticism for appearing unprincipled. The 2008 LP presidential nomination of well-known conservative Bob Barr, and the promotion to Chair of the LP National Congressional Committee of the rabidly pro-war Wayne Allyn Root caused people of all political stripes to look at the LP and wonder whether the principle of the party was peaceful libertarianism, or just political experimentation and number-crunching.

These less principled Libertarian figures may have represented the minority view of the party, but their names are strongly associated with the LP, hence my criticism. In fact, even before the Barr and Root elevations within the party, in 2005, the LP published an "Iraq Exit Strategy" which called for troops leaving gradually, not coming home but instead being redistributed throughout the Middle East, and pouring in direct aid to Iraq's nascent state-building efforts. This proposal was not at all libertarian. Shockingly, it was as interventionist and imperial as anything put forth by either a Left-Progressive or Right-Conservative think tank.

Wayne Root, in particular, is allowed by the LP to speak for the party, and honest libertarians throughout the American population and within the LP are turned off. You suggest that my criticism of these anti-liberty, pro-state LP voices are the same as criticizing the GOP for being pro-life because some minority members of the GOP are pro-life. But when the GOP fields candidates and spokespersons, particularly at the national level, they toe the party line, and they don't suggest that there is "room" at the philosophical table. Our own LP table is already small. Embracing statists and nationalists quietly within the party is one thing; making them front and center as a leading voice of recruitment and policy means that these types of unprincipled non-libertarian perspectives become the LP in the minds of everyone.

Why haven’t we, as a party, asked Wayne to simply join one of the war parties?

I have a suggestion for the LP HQ strategists. The focus on vote-getting at the national level has led the LP into precisely the situation that you are noting today (a criticism of the party within liberty circles). I would love to see the party concentrate on supporting local elections of libertarians (which it does nicely), and in DC, to serve primarily as a rating and clearance site for Congressmen and Senators. Take your issues (http://www.lp.org/issues) and create a liberty friendliness rating on each issue for each congressman, much like the John Birch Society does on conservatism. (See http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=2151 ) or as the Heritage Foundation does for economic freedom in countries around the world. This type of approach would make our positions politically applicable and measurable, and a "Liberty" rating will be something many Congressmen will welcome and seek (or angrily react to). It would also allow many of us in the field to jump on it, further making the LP relevant. This way we remain a "party of principle," with the added benefit of being a party that is listened to, and donated to, because it is loud, proud, and principled.

I also think, that beyond the fleas the LP gets from lying down with characters like Root, and promoting him, we should be careful about our other bedfellows in DC. The Cato Institute does fine work, but it is not as effective in gaining Libertarian friendly legislation and votes as is Jim Babka's interactive and aggressive DownsizeDC, and nothing Cato has produced on constitutional foreign or domestic policy comes even close to what is done daily over at the Bumper Hornberger’s Future of Freedom Foundation in Reston, VA.

Mark, my fundamental sense of betrayal and anger at the LP for its 2008 shenanigans and for its lack of creativity in the fight for freedom at home is far deeper than anyone would imagine from my limited criticism of the party, mentioned briefly in a long talk. May I take your note as an opening for real change within the LP Central Committee and a real commitment to win the battle for hearts and minds across the country?

Sincerely,
Karen Kwiatkowski
ksusiek@shentel.net

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

Naturally, Kwiatkowski's open letter is being discussed at Independent Political Report.

Is the Koran More Intolerant Than the Bible?

2011-03-31T22:46:00.000-07:00

Many Neocon pundits and media figures spread Islamophobia, because fear and hatred of Muslims encourages non-Muslim Americans to support our current wars in the Mideast.

A key talking point of this politically inspired Islamophobia is that Muslims are uniquely violent and intolerant.

Jews, Christians, and Muslims all have a violent history -- as do pagans and other religions. But Islamophobes insist that the difference is that Islam (unlike Judaism or Christianity) is inherently intolerant; that the Koran requires and demands that its adherents kill nonbelievers.

Is this a key difference between the Bible and the Koran?

I've never read the Koran, but I assume it does contain some intolerant passages. But does the Koran differ from the Bible in that respect?

Here are some passages from the Old Testament (or what Jews call the Hebrew Bible). According to Deuteronomy 13:6-10:

"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, 'Let us go and worship other gods' (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."

Nice.

And Deuteronomy 13:12-16 says:

"If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, 'Let us go and worship other gods' (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt,"

So it seems that both the Bible and Koran require that believers kill nonbelievers.

Now, some will say, "Yes, but modern Jews and Christians don't practice that passage; they don't kill nonbelievers." Very true. But neither do the overwhelming, vast majority of Muslims kill, or even advocate killing, nonbelievers.

If you're still inclined to hate Muslims, read what the Catholic Church says about Islamophobia.

And if you feel a thrill at seeing American bombs killing foreigners, read a Catholic interpretation of Jesus' admonition to his Apostles.

Yes, I know it's not what "Christian" warmongers want to hear. Sorry to ruin your day.

And we may as well review libertarian embarrassment Wayne Allyn Root's views on the "Ground Zero mosque" and on Muslim outreach.

Is the California Libertarian Party Greasing the Wheels for Wayne Allyn Root?

2011-03-31T01:12:00.000-07:00

What with more important news, such as the upcoming April antiwar protest rallies, I'm increasingly tired of covering the petty sleaze that infests today's Libertarian Party, but here's goes...

I'm not sure if there's a fire, but smoke indicates that Root allies in the Libertarian Party of California are trying to stuff the 2012 delegation in Root's favor.

It's been a California LP tradition that the state convention alternates between southern California one year, northern California the next. A ruckus ensued when this tradition was ignored (e.g., the 2006 convention on a cruise ship to Mexico, which left from Long Beach, CA, so it was briefly in "southern California").

Aaron Starr was state chair in 2006. He arranged for another cruise convention for 2008.

But in 2007, a new set of CLP officers were elected, partially as a backlash against Starr's cruise convention. Kevin Takenaga was elected chair. (Starr chose not to run again, because, he said, he wished to focus on being national LP treasurer). The Takenaga faction ended plans for a 2008 cruise convention (the contracts had not yet been signed).

Now, in 2011, the Takenaga administration has set the LPC convention not in northern California, but in Nevada. Root country.

Does this mean anything? I don't know for sure, but it fails the "smell test." It may be legit, but it smells fishy.

But wait -- there's more!

Now "Libertarian Girl" reports on Independent Political Report (comment #6) that the Nevada LP is spending its own cash to promote the California LP convention.

LG writes: "the Clark County excom, not my vote, voted to let the Chair alone decide to send our money to the state, who decided to let the chair alone decide how to spend it (NO I'M NOT MAKING THIS SHIT UP) and the chair has decided to spend 1500 advertising the cali convention. TOTAL FUCKING BULLSHIT, the LP in NV is corrupt, sorry Wayne but this is so far past acceptable there aren't even words"

(It's noteworthy that LG is a longtime Root fan.)

Why would the Nevada LP spend $1,500 to promote the California convention?

"Gains" suggests (comment #13): "Because they are going to stack the California delegation with WAR supporters... again. Duh. You don't even have to live in California to vote, you just need $125 and the officership in your pocket."

Is Gain's right? Well, Root did carpetbag his whole family to the 2008 CLP convention, signing them up as delegates.

"Delegate Stuffing" asks (comment #22): "Are not delegates to the 2012 national convention to be chosen at the California LP's 2012 state convention? They're not choosing any national delegates at the 2011 convention, are they?"

Gains replies (comment #25): "The WAR camp has enjoyed a very friendly posture with the operations committee in California, which has traditionally been handed the responsibility to filling in unused delegate slots from the California Convention, of which there is usually some good number.

"The responsibility is in the ExCom of California's hands by rule, and opacity in the office has lent itself to them having to, in a state of deadline emergency, OK the operations committee list for filling those slots without more than a few moments of review.

"The problem is cultural. We need officers and representatives that do this business without skulduggery, bypassing the will of membership. We also need membership that does not engage in exclusive politicing with delegation slots.

"I am not going to point at individuals for blame, nor call the set up especially nefarious on its face. Deescalating WAR's acceptance in the party seems to be a sign that that culture is starting to form.

"The answer lies in getting involved, though I am sure some force wielding authoritarian-libertarian will try to correct the issue with by-laws proposals."

It's noteworthy that...

* The LNC has set the 2012 national LP convention in Las Vegas, NV. Root country.

* The same CLP leadership that opposed Starr's cruise convention, has now shifted its principles to arrange a Nevada convention. Root country.

* The Nevada LP (Wayne Allyn Root, Vice Chair) is promoting the California convention.

* The California LP has many delegate slots available, whereas Nevada has but a few. (Hence the temptation for "Nevadans for Root" to carpetbag into California.)

If this isn't a "fix," then coincidences are certainly aligning nicely for a Root victory at the 2012 national convention (regardless of whether he runs for president or chair).

Like Gains, I don't know if anything's afoot. But petty skulduggery has long been one of the LP's few strong suits. (Yes, some LP officers no doubt fantasize about big stakes skulduggery, but if they had any skills in that direction, they'd be Demopublicans.)

Okay, now back to more serious business...

Protests Against Obama's Lybia War on April 9th and 10th

2011-03-30T20:29:00.000-07:00

Kevin Zeese, of Voters for Peace, sends "an announcement of antiwar rallies in New York on April 9 and San Francisco on April 10 which Voters for Peace has endorsed."

Details of where and when to show up at: NationalPeaceConference.org.

This seems like a mostly Left coalition. It's noteworthy that the Left is opposing Obama's war. It would be nice if many antiwar libertarians and conservatives also showed up, so it becomes a more broad-based protest.

What Motivates Born-Again Antiwar Conservatives?

2011-03-23T20:49:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I wrote about how so many conservative radio talk show hosts, who were previously pro-war, have done a sudden 180 degree switch now that Obama has attacked Libya. They now oppose war.

I provided a list of such born-again, antiwar conservative radio hosts.

To this list you may now add John Batchelor, whose sudden skepticism about the Libya War is noteworthy, considering that he's long been one of the most HARDCORE of neocon radio hawks -- no small achievement, considering the field.

Batchelor passes himself off as providing serious news and analysis (not a "mere entertainer"), and as possessing superior expertise on foreign affairs. Yet despite his feigned objectivity, he "editorializes with music." He plays stirring martial music when reporting on the U.S. military, and ominous music when reporting on Arab nations.

One of Batchelor's standard numbers is from Hollywood's Starship Troopers. That the film is increasingly interpreted as a satire of militarism seems lost on Batchelor.

Why the sudden policy switch among so many conservative hawks? One slow conversion, from hawk to dove, might indicate sincerity. But so sudden -- and united! -- a switch among so many hawks indicates ... well, it's weird.

Here's some (not wholly original) speculation:

The American populace is often and increasingly upset. In order for the Powers That Be (no, I don't know their names) to maintain control of the American Empire, they must give the people safe channels through which to vent their steam.

Our Two Party System serves this purpose nicely. Whenever a majority of the populace is dangerously fed up, they can find "hope" in the Out Party, and vote it into "power". This creates the illusion of Change.

No, I don't think there's an organized cabal, but rather, a confluence of interests, and an understanding of what's expected to succeed within the system.

Conservative radio hosts (and that includes "libertarian" baby pundits like Wayne Allyn Root) know that their personal success depends upon bashing Democrats, regardless of merit.

When Bush was in power, conservative pundits understood that their book deals and media ratings depended upon beating Bush's war drums and railing against the "big spending" Democrats. Now that Obama is in office, conservatives' success depends upon bashing Obama, regardless of what he does.

Democratic pundits, think tanks, media voices, etc., do the opposite.

It's noteworthy that neither side seriously challenges the Empire. No loud demands for a complete end to ALL foreign aid (to ALL nations) and a complete shutdown of ALL overseas military bases.

The talking heads (conservatives -- including "libertarian conservatives" -- and progressives) thus maintain the illusion of Two Choices. Whether the talking heads understand their role in maintaining this political deception is unimportant. They DO realize that in order for their careers to flourish, they must cheer one Official Side and attack the Other Official Side.

That's where the money is. That's what brings in the book deals, TV appearances, and radio show gigs.

(It's okay to take a few light jabs at your "own side" -- indeed, it's a Good Thing. It creates the illusion of "independent thinking," which goes over well with the populace. But you MUST choose One Side, and save your big punches for the Other Side.)

Thus the American populace sees Two (illusory) Choices. And when the economy sinks, or wars go bad, they vent their anger at the In Party by supporting the Out Party. The infrastructure and policies of the Empire itself -- from the Federal Reserve to the overseas military bases -- are left unchallenged. Indeed, that they might even be debatable issues is unthinkable to most people.

Yes, conservative talk radio is now attacking Obama's Libya War. So what? We are in Libya. It's a done deal. The Empire is pleased. And when the American populace becomes fed up with Obama's Wars (as they were, before, with Bush's wars), they will believe (thanks in part to conservative talk radio) that the solution to ending Obama's Wars is to vote Republican.

Then we'll have a new Repubican war, and an angry populace will once again vote for a Democratic warmonger.

This notion of hidden power brokers, discussing which Face (Clinton, Bush, Obama) will be our next president, reminds me of the ending to Being There:

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

A note on Wayne Allyn Root. Why don't I trust his (latest) born-again antiwar stance?

Because unlike Root supporters, I judge Root in context. His supporters want Root to be judged by his every latest article, all his previous acts and statements -- all his Clintonesque switches and sudden flip flops -- down the Orwellian Memory Hole.

Would any libertarian judge Obama like that? Would libertarians allow Obama to reinvent himself every day? If Obama gave a startlingly libertarian speech, would libertarians ignore all of Obama's previous acts and writings?

I judge libertarians by the same standards I set for conservatives, progressives, independents, and anyone else. I give no extra credit for having a Magic L before your name.

Wayne Allyn Root Parrots Conservatives on Libya

2011-03-22T18:42:00.000-07:00

Wow! I had just posted Born-Again Antiwar Conservatives Denounce Obama's Libya War.

Although not primarily about Root, near the end I wrote: "But right-wing radio hosts (as opposed to shock jocks) have seemingly embraced an 'anti-Obama/anti-Libya War' Party Line. I thus expect that libertarian embarrassment Wayne Allyn Root will soon release his own anti-Libyan War screed, with special emphasis on bashing Obama. It's safe to do so now in conservative circles."

Less than an hour later, Bruce Cohen posts Root's latest on Independent Political Report.

No, I have no special mind-reading abilities. Anyone can predict Root's positions. Just listen to conservative talk radio. Root never deviates from their Party Line.

Also read my Born-Again Antiwar Conservatives Denounce Obama's Libya War.

Born-Again Antiwar Conservatives Denounce Obama's Libya War

2011-03-22T17:44:00.000-07:00

Truly, we are living in Orwellian times. Not long ago, right-wing radio hosts were united in supporting America's Mideast wars. Then last week, President Obama attacked Libya.

That's a conundrum for right-wingers. Do they support American At War! against yet another Muslim nation -- or do they oppose their much-hated bogeyman, Barak Obama.

Well, the dust has cleared, and the Party Line is settled. With remarkable unity, right-wing radio hosts have become "born again antiwar, fiscally conservative, Constitutionalists." Marching in surprising lockstep (as though there really is a Party Line), they're all denouncing the Libyan War.

I guess they hate Obama even more than they love bombing Muslims.

I first began hearing conservative radio hosts denounce Obama's Libyan War on Sunday, March 20th. Since then, I've heard the following conservative radio hosts denounce the Libyan War: Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Mancow, Michael Smerconish, Lou Dobbs, and
Mark Levin.

Their reasons for opposing the war include the Constitution (i.e., that Congress did not declare war -- and why was this not a problem when Bush attacked Afghanistan or Iraq?), the financial cost of war, the fact that we don't know which faction represents what principles (i.e., who will replace Gaddafi), and that innocent civilians are being killed.

Again, why were none of these valid concerns when Bush attack Afghanistan or Iraq?

Mike Savage suggested that Gaddafi's opposition includes al-Qaeda, and that this was one of Obama's motives. As Savage put it, "It seems that Obama never misses an opportunity to support radical Islam."

Apolitical shock jocks are taking a more moderate approach. Here in Los Angeles, the Bill Handel Show's "morning team" has remained supportive of intervention in Libya. And on the John and Ken Show, both John and Ken said that they can't bring themselves to give a damn about Libya, one way or another. As John put it, "Libya is just such a dirty, ugly nation." When Ken said that if the U.S. doesn't intervene, Libya may devolve into civil war, John replied, "Good. There's only six million of them. Maybe if there's a civil war, they'll all kill each other."

The Bill Handel and John and Ken shows are reputedly conservative, a charge that both shows deny. Bill Handel has even spoken favorably of socialized medicine. I agree that neither of these local, drive-time shows are representative of right-wing radio.

But right-wing radio hosts (as opposed to shock jocks) have seemingly embraced an "anti-Obama/anti-Libya War" Party Line. I thus expect that libertarian embarrassment Wayne Allyn Root will soon release his own anti-Libyan War screed, with special emphasis on bashing Obama. It's safe to do so now in conservative circles.

Authentic libertarians likewise oppose the Libyan War. And some may say, "So what if Root is following the conservative crowd? At least an anti-Libyan War position is correct."

Yes, the antiwar position is correct. But why a person advocates antiwar matters. If a person advocates antiwar out of sincerity, integrity, and courage, then you can be assured that person will continue to advocate antiwar when the going gets tough.

If, on the other hand, a person advocates antiwar out of craven opportunism, then that person is an unreliable ally. He'll only be antiwar so long it remains popular, and will switch to pro-war when that becomes more profitable.

In 2008, Ron Paul advocated antiwar to Republican howls and jeers -- and stood his ground. That's sincerity, integrity, courage -- that's real leadership!

In 2003, Karen Kwiatkowski was a Pentagon whistleblower on the Iraq War -- and was denounced by right-wingers for it. Kwiatkowski is a woman of substance -- and of sincerity, integrity, courage, and real leadership. (Read Kwiatkowski's latest piece.)

The antiwar movement needs real leaders, not fair-weather opportunists who are obsessed with a personal hatred for Obama. America's decades-long foreign policy fiascoes transcend any president.

Pro-War/Antiwar Divide Behind New York Libertarian Party Purge?

2011-03-16T20:09:00.000-07:00

Dr. Tom Stevens writes about a purge within the New York Libertarian Party.

If this is your typical LP infighting, then the procedural rationales are trivial, convoluted, and fake. Usually, the ostensible reasons for any LP purge or feud are a cover for some underlying personal or ideological dispute.

Here's what I find noteworthy about Stevens's report:

"While the main culprits behind attacking the Queens LP and Dr. Tom Stevens (our unanimously elected State Representative) have been Blay Tarnoff, Gary Donoyan and M Carling (the same people behind the 2006 de-chartering of the Queens LP)...

"...In the months leading up to this action, John Clifton, LPQC Chair, proposed two bylaws amendments to change the State Bylaws, the sum and substance of which would have allowed duly chartered chapters to elect a Chair and State Representative of their own choosing..."

To divine what's really going on in any LP feud, it helps to know the personalities involved.

On one side of this dispute is M Carling, an ally of Root supporter Aaron Starr. That is, Carling belongs to the LP's pro-war faction. (Root, Starr, and Carling would probably dispute the term "pro-war.")

Curiously, Carling has been active in both the New York and California LPs, and has reportedly been active at Oregon LP conventions.

On the other side of this current LPNY feud is John Clifton, who has been an "outside the box," pro-peace thinker, at one point suggesting that the LPNY endorse Cindy Sheehan for Senate.

Are there pro-war/antiwar, Reform/Radical motives underlying this current feud?

I don't know. It's possible.

However, in 2008 Dr. Tom Stevens ran for president on the Objectivist Party line, with the very pro-war Alden Link as his running mate. And they're apparently doing so again in 2012.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Libertarian Party Should Dump Robert's Rules of Order

2011-03-15T20:05:00.000-07:00

On Independent Political Report, David Colborne writes:

"Regarding parliamentary rules, I find it absolutely amazing how, at every Libertarian event (and this is a personal observation, not an official one), the probability that an LP meeting will devolve into rules lawyering approaches given enough time.

"I don't know if it's a personality situation or a design flaw in Robert's Rules themselves but it's absolutely maddening."

I too have noticed that some LP officers and delegates (usually of the Reform/Republican Lite faction) use Robert's Rules not to enhance debate, but to stifle debate and participation, and to "gum up the works" so as to block certain agenda items from passing.

For instance, at one LPCA convention, a couple of LP members didn't want an anti-capital punishment platform plank to reach the floor for a vote, fearing it would pass. So they engaged in endless trivial debate and questions on preceding platform proposals, until the clock ran out.

(A fairer approach would have been to give every platform proposal time for a vote, irrespective of whether there had been time for floor debate.)

There are other examples. If you've attended enough LP conventions, you've likely seen some abuse of Robert's Rules.

So last year, I suggested on IPR that the various state and national LP's dump Robert's Rules, and amend their bylaws to read:

1. The bylaws shall govern the LP.

2. Any issue not covered by the bylaws shall be governed by the common sense of the members, officers, or delegates, to the extent that they have any.

3. Anyone is free to consult Robert's Rules, or a dictionary, or The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Galaxy, or their astrologer, or whatever else for additional guidance, but under no circumstances shall the LP be bound by anything other than the bylaws as interpreted by the common sense of the members, officers, or delegates.

We need rules? Fine -- we'll use the bylaws and naught else. Common sense will fill in the blanks. It may not work, but it can’t get worse than using Robert's Rules.

On that same IPR thread, Robert Capozzi pointlessly responded: "And that’s the rub. What constitutes 'common sense,' and how is that determined?"

To which I replied:

There is no "rub." I already anticipated and answered your objection in my initial posts.

I said: "Any issue not covered by the bylaws shall be governed by the common sense of the members, officers, or delegates, to the extent that they have any."

I intentionally set a very low bar. The members may have the common sense of Socrates — or of a soiled napkin — it doesn't matter. We'll use whatever "common sense" they can muster.

Why? Because as I said, "Common sense will fill in the blanks. It may not work, but it can't get worse than using Robert's Rules".

You see? No "rub." Whatever level of "common sense" the party can muster, it can't be any worse that the current, deliberate misuse of Robert's Rules to stifle dissent.

I stand by that. I don't think the average Libertarian has any more common sense than your typical Democrat or Republican, but at least they'd be better off relying on whatever common sense they can muster, than being prey to the parliamentary tricks of their slicker and less honest party members.

California Internet Tax Threatens Amazon Associates

2011-03-11T18:25:00.000-08:00

The California state legislature is threatening the livelihoods of over 10,000 Californians who earn money as Amazon Associates for online retailer, Amazon.com.

These Californians place links on their websites to Amazon. When someone clicks through to Amazon and makes a purchase, the Associate earns a commission.

Amazon is not required to collect sales taxes on purchases made to Californians because there is no "business nexus." But now California is considering a law to classify Amazon Associates as a "business nexus".

Other states have done likewise. In all such instances, Amazon ended its Associates program rather than be forced to collect the sales tax. Amazon has even ended its Associates program in big states such as New York and Illinois.

History shows Amazon is not bluffing. If California declares Amazon Associates a “business nexus,” Amazon will end its Associates program in the state.

This will hurt over 10,000 Californians' earnings -- and will lower California's income tax revenue.

This loss in state revenue will not be made up in sales taxes, because by ending the Associates program, Amazon will once more not be required to collect sales taxes.

"Bricks and mortar" retailers complain that Amazon has an "unfair advantage" because online buyers don't pay sales taxes. But they ignore that: 1. their buyers don't pay for shipping, and 2. this legislation will NOT compel Amazon to collect sales taxes -- it will only hurt 10,000 Californians trying to earn money and thus further hurt the state's revenue.

Californians, please contact your state senate and assembly representatives and tell them to oppose any attempt to force Amazon to collect sales taxes, or to declare Amazon's Associates a "business nexus."

Why Wayne Allyn Root Gets Media Attention

2011-03-09T08:14:00.000-08:00

I've said the same myself, in other words. So have others. But Tom Blanton says it so well, it needs to be repeated and highlighted.

At Independent Political Report, Blanton explains why Wayne Allyn Root gets so much media attention, why it's not a good thing, and why it's impossible for pro-peace libertarians to get similar media attention.

In Comment #105, Blanton writes:

"[T]he type of media exposure that Wayne Root gets is because of his message.

"His message parrots the message that right-wing media likes to feature. This is why he gets on FOX, all the right-wing radio shows, and is a featured writer on NewsMax.

"Now, you'd like to see other libertarians compete with Root and get some media. Great, but to compete with Root, libertarians will have to Boortz themselves or get Rootified in order to be acceptable to the right-wing media that is willing to promote Root.

"There is another faction of media, primarily on the internet and in print media, that is left-leaning. The problem is that the left media is not so accommodating to libertarians. There are some exceptions, but rather few.

"The possibility remains that if a 'libertarian' were to go to the left-wing media and start talking about raising taxes, increasing government regulations to protect citizens, having government engage in activities that are now handled by private enterprise, etc., perhaps left-wing media would feature more libertarians.

"But then you would have the same problem there is with Root, except instead of a libertarian spewing right-wing rhetoric, you would have a libertarian spewing left-wing rhetoric.

"Libertarians seem to be so myopic about the barriers erected by their political opponents and so narcissistic about themselves, they are unable to come to grips with the outside influences that marginalize libertarianism and keep certain ideas away from public consumption.

"When libertarians control billions of dollars worth of advertising money through their corporate sponsors, and when libertarian legislators are able to exert influence over the media through legislative means, and when corporate America owes libertarians favors for favorable legislation, subsidies, etc. thrown their way, then we will see the media become friendly to libertarianism -- only it won't be libertarianism, it will most likely be corporatism wrapped in a flag and waving a constitution (much like the 'conservatism' we see now).

"LP members in particular crave political power so much that it doesn’t seem to occur to them that to 'do real politics' will require them to abandon libertarianism in all aspects except rhetoric.

"Doing politics is all about redistributing wealth and income, doing favors for groups and classes of people, forming alliances with large corporations and other special interests, and generally becoming corrupt to the core and becoming experts in managing perceptions through propaganda and lies.

"The media will never be a game-changer for standard libertarianism. If it takes becoming a Reagan libertarian to make minor inroads into right-wing media (that so far haven’t produced any tangible results for libertarians over the years), then libertarians would probably be better off just joining the GOP.

"So much for competing with Root for media attention. So, let's quit pretending that what he is selling is standard libertarianism when he himself claims to be selling 'Reagan libertarianism.'

"There's not much use in pretending that media is going to feature proponents on standard libertarianism unless libertarians are willing to be treated like Charlie Sheen."

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

Tom Blanton links to the Project for a New American Revolution, so maybe it's his site. I don't know.

Copyright Extremism Threatens Free Speech: Linking Is Infringement

2011-03-07T07:41:00.000-08:00

From DemandProgress.org:

Ever sent someone a link to a copyrighted YouTube video? Of course: Everybody has. And now the US Government seems to think that means it can put us in prison.

Bryan McCarthy ran a website that linked to various websites where you could watch online streams of TV shows and sports networks. A couple months ago, the government seized his domain name and on Friday they arrested him for criminal copyright infringement.

Tell the government that this is crazy: There's nothing wrong or illegal about sharing a link.

The government doesn't even allege that McCarthy made a copy of anything! Just that his site linked to various sites with copyrighted material. Under that sort of thinking, everyone who's sent around a link to a copyrighted YouTube video is a criminal.

This is another shocking overreach by the department of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) -- a steamship-era department that's proving once again it doesn't understand the Internet.

We need to push back -- and fast -- before they try to lock up all Americans.
Click here to tell ICE to drop its charges.

Thanks for taking a stand.

-- The Demand Progress team

P.S. We need to convince ICE to back down, and the first step is making sure they know that Americans are watching, and are disgusted by their behavior. Will you help shine light on ICE's abuses by forwarding this to your friends?

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

Also read how hypocritical Big Media companies are threatening YOUR copyrights.

Bipartisan Opposition to Ron Paul's Call to End Aid to Israel

2011-03-04T07:52:00.000-08:00

U.S. Representative Ron Paul's call to end aid to Israel has met with bipartisan opposition. Alternet reports:

"Illinois Democrat Jan Schakowsky -- a leading member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus -- has drafted a letter, cosigned by California Democrat Anna Eshoo, warning that the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia 'have the potential to add to the very real security challenges faced by Israel.' Reducing or 'otherwise endangering aid to our ally' would be 'unproductive,' she adds, encouraging her colleagues to tell Obama they 'strongly support providing $3.075 billion in assistance to Israel.' ...

"This liberal appeal for Israeli military aid, meanwhile, is being sent out under the auspices of J Street, a group that positions itself as a left-leaning answer to AIPAC....

"So it's left to folks like libertarian Congressman Ron Paul and his son, Kentucky Senator and Tea Party favorite Rand Paul, to call for ending aid to Israel.

"In a February 4 interview with ABC News, Rand Paul said of Israel, 'I think that [Israel's] per capita income is greater than probably three-fourths of the rest of the world. Should we be giving free money or welfare to a wealthy nation? I don't think so.'

"Indeed, Israel has the 24th largest economy in the world, and ranks 15th among 169 nations on the UN Human Development Index, which makes it a 'very highly developed' nation. [i.e. Israel doesn't need U.S. aid -- it can pay its own way, but like any welfare client, it prefers handouts.]

"Yet what thanks did Senator Paul get for his call to save the U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars? A torrent of criticism, even from J Street, which called on Republicans -- and their donors -- 'to repudiate his comments and ensure American leadership around the world is not threatened by this irresponsible proposal.'

"Paul's fellow Tea Partiers aren't any better. Of the 87 freshmen House Republicans elected on platforms of cut-baby-cut, at least three-fourths have now signed a letter declaring that, 'As Israel faces threats from escalating instability in Egypt' -- where have we heard that line of argument before? -- 'security assistance to Israel has never been more important.'

"Subsidies are for militaries, you see, not poor people."

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

The U.S. provides far more money than just its direct financial handouts to Israel. If Americans contribute money to the IDF (the Israeli military), it's tax deductible in the U.S.!

That's right. Americans can legally pay less taxes to Uncle Sam by contributing money to the Israeli military. I learned that yesterday from listening to Eric Garris at Antiwar Radio.

The Israeli military is the only foreign military that Americans can support with tax-deductible contributions. Another aspect of our "special relationship" with Israel.

David Horowitz Attacks Ron Paul for "Anti-Semitism"

2011-02-25T09:28:00.000-08:00

David Horowitz accuses Ron Paul of anti-Semitism, primarily because Paul wants to end foreign aid to Israel.

In an article entitled, "Ron Paul Is a Vicious Anti-Semite and Anti-American and Conservatives Need To Wash Their Hands of Him," Hororwitz writes:

"For years the Texas crackpot, Ron Paul, has been attacking America and Israel as imperialist powers -- the Great Satan and the Little Satan, and calling for America’s retreat from the battle against our totalitarian enemies. At the recent CPAC conference Paul's Jew-hating storm-troopers swarmed the Freedom Center’s table to vent their spleen against Israel as a Nazi state. Now Paul is making a priority of withdrawing aid for Israel -- the only democracy in the Middle East and the only reliable ally of the United States."

Read the rest.

Of course, Ron Paul wants to end foreign aid to all nations.

A few weeks ago, I heard KABC-AM's John Phillips, a fiscal conservative, defend foreign aid to Israel because, he said, Israel could not survive without it.

But is this true?

Is not Israel a socialist nation (much like those in Western Europe), with socialized health care and eduction? If the U.S. were to end financial aid to Israel, and Israel needed more weapons, could it not simply divert its domestic social spending to the military?

Tell Google, Facebook to Protect Your Privacy

2011-02-22T08:57:00.001-08:00

From DemandProgress.org:

"Imagine the cops rifling through your mail, your calendar, your receipts. All your private information, available for them to look through. To do this offline, they'd have to get a warrant from a judge and break into your house. But every day the cops -- and anyone else with a good lawyer! -- get access to your online email and calendar just by asking.

"Major online service providers like Gmail and Facebook just hand over your personal data to the police when they get a legal request -- usually without even telling you they've done so! And since you never know about the request, you never get a day in court to challenge it. Your privacy is gone before you even know it.

"Click here to tell Google and Facebook that if they're going to store your private information, they need to promise to keep it private!

"Twitter has just taken a bold stand to protect its users' privacy. When the US Government demanded they turn over information about people affiliated with WikiLeaks, they told the people affected and now they have the chance to challenge the request. But Facebook and Google are refusing to do the same! Sign our petition demanding they -- and other major Internet companies -- adopt sensible privacy protections and stop turning over your personal data to anyone who asks.

Tell Google and Facebook that they need to follow Twitter's lead and protect our privacy. We're meeting with Google NEXT WEEK, and will deliver the petition then.

Thanks for taking a stand.

-- The Demand Progress team

P.S. We're meeting with Google next week, and want to have as many people as possible signed on by then. Could you forward this email to your friends?

Libertarian Standard Time

2011-02-22T01:43:00.000-08:00

Tonight I attended a libertarian meeting, in the Los Angeles area, for which no one else came. I waited over an hour, then left.

This is the 4th time, in the past several years, that I was the only one to attend a Los Angeles libertarian meeting that had been announced and promoted on websites and email lists.

It's not just me. I once went to another supper club (that was supposed to run from around 7 - 11 p.m.), saw no one there, waited, then left. I later learned that other libertarians had arrived, one by one at different times, saw no one there, and left.

Back in the 1990s, I heard some LP members jokingly refer to Libertarian Standard Time -- a self-deprecating reference to many libertarians' inability to be punctual or organize efficiently.

In the early 2000s, I attended local libertarian meetings and supper clubs about 20 times a year (there are many in L.A.). Now I only go about twice a year, partially because I don't have time to waste on "hit and miss" games.

I'm sure some libertarian groups are well organized, but the Libertarian Standard Time joke implies that disorganization is also widespread. A disregard for punctuality or time commitments seems endemic to libertarian culture. Maybe some libertarians imagine themselves to be "free spirits" who can't be bound by the "tyranny of timetables."

The sorry truth is, Obama style socialism is more efficient than are many libertarian run organizations.

Libertarians, instead of getting all preachy to the American public about "the efficiency of the free market vs. socialism," would do well to first clean up their own acts. They should demonstrate efficiency, rather than just talk about it.

Wayne Allyn Root Flip Flops on Hosni Mubarak

2011-02-17T08:23:00.000-08:00

On February 3, 2011, Birther conspiracy source and Libertarian embarrassment, Wayne Allyn Root, suggested that the vast majority of Egyptians loved Hosni Mubarak.

One week later, on February 10, after an outcry from Libertarians, Root did a 180 flip-flop and condemned Mubarak for being a tyrant.

This is one of Root's fastest 180 flip-flops to date. Even faster, I think, than when he announced that he would testify against Obama at Reverend Manning's Birther sham trial, only to call it off following another outcry from Libertarians.

Then there are Root's flip flops on gay marriage (against it, then for it, then for state's rights on it), and foreign non-intervention [pro-war on Iraq (2006); then "Iraq is the wrong war, Iran is the right war" (2007); then radical non-interventionist (early 2008); then pro-Afghan surge (late 2008); then attacks Obama's Afghan surge (2009)..."]

Antiwar is my issue, but even I can't keep up with all of Root's shifting positions.

All these flip-flops imply a hollow man, a man without principles, an opportunist. Certainly not a serious libertarian thinker, much less "one of America's leading libertarian thinkers" as Root sometimes likes to spin himself.

Root not only flip-flops, but he does so without explanation or apology. No mea culpas. No thought-provoking essays on why, after long and difficult consideration, he realized that he was previously wrong and these are the reasons he changed his mind.

Root's flip-flops are positively Stalinesque in their swiftness, completeness, and ignoring that there even was a change.

This mindless, unprincipled, shameless, Stalinesque flip-flopping of political positions is best satirized in George Orwell's 1984.

Recall the scene wherein an Inner Party member gives an impassioned speech denouncing the Eurasian enemy. In the middle of his speech, he is handed a revised speech. He continues his speech without missing a beat, without losing his passion -- only now he is denouncing the Eastasian enemy, as though it were always so. Nor expecting anyone in the audience to notice or object.

But most LP members are not mindless Ingsoc members who force themselves to ignore party contradictions and historical revisions.

Doubtless, if Root seeks the LP's 2012 presidential nomination, he will hope that party members will remember him only as an early leader in the opposition against Mubarak, and that his previous praise of Mubarak will be buried by Google.

LP members must remember Root's long history of flip-flops, and remind others.

Racist Drudge Report Headline?

2011-02-10T23:21:00.000-08:00

Here's a screen capture of The Drudge Report, as it appeared on January 19, 2011. I'm only now posting it. (Yes, I am backlogged.)

What do you think?

Is this headline racist? Does it hint at an unspoken message, as in ... you "real Americans" (white Americans) have lost your country to coloreds and foreigners!

The headline says "White House, 2011." Yet the article has nothing to do with the White House. It's about Chinese leaders meeting with President Obama. Yes, I suppose the meeting was in the White House, but that's not relevant to anything. Why wasn't it called "Trade Talks" or whatever they discussed?

And why reference the year?

I'm white, have never been PC, have never voted Democrat. Yet even I see racist hints in this headline and photo.

It seems to be hinting that the White House (i.e., America), in this modern year of 2011, is no longer "white." This once-white nation no longer even shares power with white people. Look! No white people in the photo. Just coloreds. Not even American coloreds. (I suspect many of Drudge's readers think Obama was born in Kenya.)

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, I defended conservatives from charges of racism. I doubted most conservatives were racist. Besides, progressives had their own share of bigots (mainly anti-white, anti-Christian, or anti-male). Bigotry exists, to some extent, across the political spectrum.

Yet I regret to admit, over this past decade, conservatives (and even libertarians) have increasingly played the race card (especially against Muslims, Arabs, and Mexicans).

Or have I become overly sensitive? Do I see something in this Drudge Report headline that isn't there?

Do you see racist hints in this Drudge Report headline?

Wayne Allyn Root's Latest Whoopers

2011-02-09T09:00:00.000-08:00

In a posting at Independent Political Report, some of Wayne Allyn Root's "counter-factual" statements are so blatant, it's a wonder he could type them with a straight face.

Does he really expect anyone to believe the following?

Root says:

"A few months ago I played Paul Revere with my commentary 'The Real Obama Economic Plan: Purposely Overwhelming the System to Destroy Capitalism.' This commentary, exposing Obama and his Marxist plans, was rated by some Internet authorities as the second most popular story on the entire Internet for several months."

Someone responds:

"Wow! The 'entire internet'! That would mean more people read Root’s commentary than those who read any of the tens of thousands (millions?) of articles and blog postings written about Angelina Jolie, Oprah, Obama, Lindsay Lohan, Snookie, Rush Limbaugh, Lady Gaga, Prince Williams and his upcoming marriage, Sarah Palin, Black Swan, The King’s Speech, the Beatles, etc., etc… Taken literally (as opposed to taking it as a lie), this would mean that Root is more famous than God!"

Further down, Thomas L. Knapp writes:

"Wayne trots this out occasionally, and I call him out on it every time. No, it was not 'rated by some Internet authorities as the second most popular story on the entire Internet for several months'. It was rated by snopes.com as the second most widely disseminated urban legend on the Internet for several months. There's a difference."

Then Knapp catches Root again.

Root writes:

"As Obama's college classmate at Columbia, I was familiar with the teachings of our Marxist professors, Cloward and Piven."

Knapp responds:

"Apparently Root got lost on his way to class. During his time at Columbia, Piven was at Boston University (1972-82) and City University of New York (1982-). So, in the first two paragraphs, Root goes 2 for 2 with counterfactual bullshit."

Libertarians for Duvalier/Mubarak 2012

2011-02-03T23:01:00.000-08:00

First, the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential candidate, Bob Barr, traveled to Haiti to support former dictator Baby Doc Duvalier.

Now, the LP's 2008 VP candidate and Birther conspiracy source, Wayne Allyn Root, defends current dictator Hosni Mubarak.

One of the commentators on the above IPR thread used the handle "Libertarians for Duvalier/Mubarak 2012". It wasn't me. I thought of it myself, but as I was scrolling down, I saw that someone had beat me to it.

If two people independently invent that same joke so quickly, it's safe to assume that others will too. Reality lends itself to that joke.

The Neocon "Big Tent" Libertarians (a lie, since their "Big Tent" has no room for Muslims, anarchists, non-interventionists, and other groups) promised to end the LP's being a "debating club." But they never explained that they would replace the debating club with a depraved joke.

Even many Republicans and Democrats have disowned Duvalier and Mubarak, if only out of self-interest. It takes a Libertarian rat to swim to a sinking ship.

Fahrentheit 451 in Israel

2011-02-02T02:40:00.000-08:00

Guernica reports a little known historical incident: Israeli forces, in 1948, raided Palestinian homes for books and newspapers, in an attempt to erase Palestinian history and culture.

This incident is now documented in Dutch-Israeli filmmaker Benny Brunner's film, The Great Book Robbery.

According to Guernica's article:

"As the 1948 war which led to the creation of Israel was in full gear, a campaign was under way to steal Palestinians’ cultural patrimony. Israeli forces entered vacant Palestinian homes and removed over seventy thousand books, newspapers, and manuscripts which ultimately led to the premature death of a Palestinian literary and cultural movement.

"When Benny Brunner, a Dutch-Israeli filmmaker, discovered this hidden chapter of history and its implications, he decided the story must be told, the books a heritage that must be returned.

"In a war which led to the creation of seven hundred and fifty thousand refugees and a simmering conflict running for over sixty years, stolen books may seem like a trifle compared to other kinds of loss—lost homes, lost lives. But books, as the Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges illustrated so well in his stories, almost literally contain the world.

"Brunner’s film The Great Book Robbery is the latest in a line of documentaries in which he challenges the Zionist narrative, a narrative he sees as dangerous and counterproductive....

"[Brunner] served in the Israeli Army in his youth and never thought he would have reason to question the Zionist narrative, which insisted that Palestinians were not expelled in 1948 but fled because their leaders told them to leave. In this version they were promised a triumphant return once they had drowned the Jews in the sea....

"[But later, Brunner says,] 'I began to realize that a lot of what we were taught at high school -- the history and the Zionist narrative -- was made up,' he explains. 'These were just legends of nation building.' "

The Israeli State is trying to erase history. I don't know whether their actions are more comparable to Fahrenheit 451's book-burning, or 1984's Memory Hole.

Ron Paul, the Antiwar Presidential Candidate for 2012

2011-01-28T21:43:00.000-08:00

People are urging Ron Paul to run once again, in 2012:

I can't think of a better candidate.

If Paul runs, it will probably be for the Republican Party nomination. If he loses (as he probably will), he can then run on either the Libertarian Party or Constitution Party, if he wants.

But perhaps the smartest move would be for Paul to run as an independent, with a more progressive-leaning/antiwar (and anti-corporatist) candidate. A right-left antiwar fusion ticket.

I still like the idea of Karen Kwiatkowski as Ron Paul's VP pick, but Ralph Nader might be more attractive to those on the left.

Wayne Allyn Root Opposes Libertarian Muslim Outreach

2011-01-28T02:18:00.000-08:00

At a recent Libertarian National Committee meeting, Libertarian Party chairman Mark Hinkle proposed increasing the LP's outreach to Muslims. LNC member Wayne Allyn Root objected.

Here are more details, are reported by Gold America Group:

Mark Hinkle announced he was going to present our party before the American Muslim Alliance, where he had been invited to speak....

Dan Karlan notes that Muslims are the one group that is persecuted [in the U.S.] "It makes sense for an outlying political organization to go after (seek common cause with) groups of similarly-trashed people," Karlan rationally argued.

Wayne Allyn Root went on at great length as to why the LNC should not be doing this. We believe an accurate quote of his message is:

"So with atheist Libertarians harshly criticizing Christians, do those same anti-religious Libertarians choose to equally criticize Muslims? Do they support Mark going to Muslim religious events?

"Because right now we risk looking anti-Semitic as a political party. Where is our outreach to Jewish groups? Or Christian groups? Seems one-sided and biased for our party to outreach to only Muslims.

"I'm sure it offends most mainstream American voters.

"I wonder if the views of this Muslim organization have been vetted in detail? I would not attend any religious event for any religious group without checking on what they stand for.

"The problem is that many Muslim groups do not agree to Israel's right to exist. Many do not denounce suicide bombers as murderers. Several seemingly innocuous Muslim groups in the USA have been indicted for raising money for terrorist groups....

"If the LP sends a rep to Muslim events we MUST send reps to Jewish and Christian events too. I volunteer to outreach to Jewish and Christian organizations. Atheists can outreach to whomever they want. We, as a group that should not show bias or prejudice, should be outreaching to every possible group of faith."

Mark Hinkle tried to restore sense with a question: "Wayne, in the United States, which religious group is more hated, more reviled, more persecuted: Jews or Muslims"?

Probably not expecting the responder, "Jews," from Scott Lieberman.

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

Some observations:

Outreach is generally aimed at under-represented groups (as per their percentage of the U.S. population). It appears to me, based on my decades of following the LP, that:

* Jews, atheists, pagans, and Christians are well represented. Yes, the LP has a minor reputation of being unwelcoming to Christians, but I've not found this to be so.

* Women and youth are under-represented.

* Muslims and people of color are heavily under-represented.

It's nice that the LP has so many older, white men of Jewish, atheist, and Christian background. But Libertarians have long griped about the lack of women, youth, and people of color in the LP. So what are they doing about it? How about increasing outreach to under-represented groups?

It's telling that I've not heard complaints about the lack of Muslims in the LP, but it make sense to increase outreach to them as well.

Imagine if a member of the Lily White Country Club suggested outreach to blacks? And someone said: "No, that looks anti-white! It's racist to outreach only to blacks! We shouldn't do outreach to blacks unless we do equal outreach to whites!"

That's Root's logic.

The flaw in Root's logic is that the LP's door is obviously open to Jews and atheists, Christians and pagans. It's not obviously open to Muslims (or to blacks, or Mexicans...).

As for Root's worry that Jews or Christians may be "offended" by the LP's "biased" outreach to Muslims, well, I suppose that in the 1950s some Lily White Country Club members were offended by outreach to blacks (and Jews, and Catholics, and Latinos).

But so what?

If LP members (or American voters) are offended by outreach to Americans of Muslim heritage ... let them be offended.

(I can't speak for other faiths, but I've done the research, and I know that good Catholics won't take offense at Muslim outreach.)

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

Thomas L. Knapp makes a good observation at Independent Political Report. "Left libertarians" have long griped about Root appearing on far-right, pro-war, and even homophobic shows (e.g., radio's Mike Savage). Knapp observes:

Root objects to the chair accepting the Muslim group's invitation, characterizing the chair's acceptance as an LNC activity that amounts to "the LNC sending a rep" ... Three guesses what [Root's] likely response would be if anyone on the LNC tried to tell him what shows/events he could or could not appear at/on.

Yup. Root demands the right to represent the LP anywhere he wishes (no matter how it reflects on the LP), yet he conversely wants to veto others in representing the LP in ways he disapproves of.

Hypocrisy?

Starchild, of San Francisco Libertarian Party, Writes Pro-Wikileaks Resolution

2011-01-25T22:22:00.000-08:00

Starchild, a former officer and current activist of the Libertarian Party of San Francisco, reports on Independent Political Report:

I recently wrote a proposed resolution for the Libertarian Party of San Francisco on the WikiLeaks issue, and sent it to members of the Libertarian National Committee and other email lists, offering it as sample wording others could use in crafting resolutions for their own bodies to pass on the topic:

* * *

WHEREAS WikiLeaks has provided an invaluable service to the cause of free speech and to helping keep governments and other institutions accountable to the people of the world; and

WHEREAS numerous politicians and other public figures in the U.S. have called WikiLeaks founder and Australian citizen Julian Assange a traitor (treason being punishable by the death penalty in the U.S.) and even in some cases for him to be assassinated; and

WHEREAS it is possible that if Julian Assange is extradited to Sweden, he could be extradited from there to the United States; and

WHEREAS the sex charges for which Julian Assange is wanted by Swedish authorities appear to be baseless, yet have been pursued in an unusually urgent and forceful manner by said authorities, in what can only be a result of Assange's role in WikiLeaks;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of San Francisco calls on the British authorities who have arrested Julian Assange and currently have not released him in Britain despite bail being granted and posted, to immediately stop all judicial proceedings against him, and refuse to extradite him to Sweden, the United States, or any other country.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of San Francisco thanks Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, as well as their sources including U.S. Army private first class Bradley Manning, for exposing what congressman Ron Paul called "the delusional foreign policy" of the U.S. government, and revealing government secrets wrongfully withheld from the American people.

* * *

Alas, this resolution may be too libertarian for the Libertarian Party.

Libertarian Party of North Carolina Condemns FBI Raids on Antiwar Activists

2011-01-03T22:06:00.000-08:00

From the site of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina:

With a vote of 8 affirmative and one abstension, the Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina passed the the following statement this week:

"The Libertarian Party of North Carolina condemns the September 24, 2010, raids by the FBI on the homes of 14 antiwar activists in Minneapolis and other cities and the issuing of Grand Jury subpoenas to the targeted activists.

"The right to speak is one of the fundamental human rights recognized by the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is now clear that these raids were simply intended to intimidate those who speak against the foreign wars that our country is currently pursuing, and constitute a 'fishing expedition' wherein the Department of Justice is using these Grand Jury subpoenas in an effort to discover or create actions or statements that will justify continued prosecution of these activists.

"We call on Attorney General Eric Holder, President Barack Obama, Congress, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to cease and desist from using Grand Jury subpoenas to intimidate people who are merely exercising their First Amendment rights, to immediately return all of confiscated items that were seized during these raids, and to pay for any required home repairs or damage done to confiscated items while in FBI custody."

Once again, I ask, where is Wayne Allyn Root?

Isn't Root a "Libertarian leader"? Doesn't he claim to support LP principles such as Free Speech and Foreign Non-Intervention?

Wayne Allyn Root on Israel

2010-12-29T21:17:00.000-08:00

The Mideast remains America's foreign policy hot spot -- and political hot potato. It's the locale of our current (and potentially future) wars.

The classic libertarian position is one of foreign non-intervention. Peace and friendship with all nations, alliances and entanglements with none.

However, Libertarian embarrassment Wayne Allyn Root has flip-flopped so much on foreign policy over these past four years, one wonders what he really believes -- in his heart -- about America's Mideast policy.

Texas Libertarian Party activist John Jay Myers offers some insight into Root's heart, based on his personal talks with Root. In a publicly posted comment at Independent Political Report [comment #28], Myers writes of Root:

"I don't really bash anyone as much as Wayne Allyn Root, but there is a reason for that. I am deeply involved in the group [the Libertarian Party], so when some ding-dong comes along claiming to be the Libertarian Party magi, and saying things to my face that contradict himself (and his book) I just can't let it slide.

"Here are the two things that Wayne said to me that stoke my animosity:

" 'John, you realize we have to be in the Middle East to protect Israel, right?'

"He [Root] often uses his book as a resource to say that he has changed his mind on our foreign policy. But he told me this after his book was in stores, and he was at my house.

"So basically his opinions on foreign policy are a complete fabrication. Or a false front. That is a huge strike against Wayne.

"Secondly, he told me in Missouri, 'John, you cannot talk bad about Israel and expect to get in the media.'

"What? What does that even mean? I should be able to talk about whatever or whoever I want. This is America after all....

"He [Root] is basically saying there is a group of people so in control of our media, that freedom of speech is no longer an option.

"That is a big deal. And if I believed this, as Wayne apparently does, I would be screaming it from the rooftops."

Read Myers's full account at Independent Political Report [comment #28].

I Paid Cash and Flew Without Showing I.D.

2010-12-19T11:28:00.000-08:00

The government can whittle away at our freedoms partially because younger people don't know what freedom looks like. They weren't around in freer days, so they don't know what was lost, or what freedoms might have been theirs.

They're much like Winston in 1984, who sought out old men, trying to learn clues as to what life was like before Big Brother ruled Oceania.

Here is an example of what real freedom once looked like in America:

Back in the late 1980s (I think it was in 1986), I flew from New York City to Washington D.C. It was a last minute thing. I took a taxi to La Guardia Airport to catch the hourly shuttle from NY to DC. I think Pan Am ran it back then, but I'm not sure about that.

* I had no reservation. I don't think anyone did for those shuttles.

* I bought my ticket at the last minute.

* I bought no return flight.

* I paid in cash.

* I had no luggage.

* I showed no I.D.

I simply hopped on the plane to DC. It was like getting on the subway. A few of hours later, I flew back from DC to NY. Same routine. Cash, no reservation, no luggage, no I.D.

That's what freedom once looked liked in America.

For another peek at real freedom, see what it looks like today in Canada.

Wayne Allyn Root's Slick, Non-Position on Julian Assange

2010-12-16T22:31:00.000-08:00

The Clintonesque Wayne Allyn Root knows how to speak forcefully -- without actually taking a clear position on controversial issues.

Bold, empty statements are common among politicos. Buried within Root's latest anti-Obama rant, Root says:

"Is Julian Assange of Wikileaks really a 'threat to national security' or is Obama and the United States Congress a bigger threat to the average taxpayer?"

This is clever, in that Root appears to defend Julian Assange -- without actually doing so.

When Bush Sr. said that Saddam was "worse than Hitler," Bush did not mean that Hitler was good. Merely that Saddam was worse.

Actually, Root doesn't even say that Obama is worse than Assange. Root merely asks whether Obama is worse than Assange.

Root's brief statement can thus be interpreted in every possible way:

1. Julian Assange is a pro-liberty hero.

2. Julian Assange is a monster, second only to Obama.

3. Julian Assange is a monster, worse than Obama.

4. Julian Assange occupies some moral position between "hero" and "monster."

Root's statement about Assange can mean anything. Root doesn't defend Assange. To do so would threaten Root's aspirations to join the lucrative field right-wing, media punditocracy. Instead, Root's implied defense leaves him free to condemn Assange at some future date, should the neocon customer base require Root to do so.

However, if Root runs for a Libertarian Party office or nomination, one of his lapdogs can always spin Root's statement so that it looks as if Root is defending Assange.

(It's always better for Root's LP lapdogs do the antiwar/anti-police state spinning, as it leaves Root free to renounce that spin should the neocon media require it. "My supporters misunderstood my statement," Root can always say.)

Root knows how to be direct, even blunt. If he's coy, or vague, it's intentional.

Compare Root's coyness on Wikileaks to Ron Paul's bold statement on Wikileaks.

Jim Burns Praises Ron Paul

2010-12-15T21:20:00.000-08:00

I received the below email from Jim Burns, who is running for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination, again:

The subject is Ron Paul. Here are 354 words from my friend Rick White and me:

Rick: Fox News reported on Monday, 12-13-2010 that it is likely that Ron Paul will seek the Republican nomination for President. What do you think, Jim?

Jim: This is good news for libertarianism. Mr. Paul is an articulate advocate for liberty and I hope he can receive at least the support he got last time, and I think with the Tea Party movement now available he can do even better.

In the long run this is good news for the Libertarian Party; the more people introduced to libertarianism the better. In the short run, it can be either good or bad news for the Libertarian Party. It all depends on what we of the LP do.

Rick: Should members of the LP support Mr. Paul?

Jim: Members of the LP should take what actions they deem proper. I believe, however, that we should not follow the actions of Bob Barr and Wayne Root. The only time I saw Mr. Barr and Mr. Root on TV was when they offered Mr. Paul the LP Vice-Presidential spot, not in person but on TV.

To me, this was inappropriate, an insult and disingenuous. For one thing, if Mr. Paul had wanted, he could have had the Presidential nomination if he had just showed up in Denver -– hell, all he had to do was to pick up the phone and call almost any LP member at the convention, at the time and the LP Presidential nomination would have been his.

For another thing, Mr. Paul called a meeting inviting third party candidates to attend (I believe, it was understood Mr. Paul would endorse some one); to their discredit, neither Mr. Barr nor Mr. Root attended. Mr. Paul did not endorse the LP ticket and I believe he was just in his choice.

If we take suitable actions, I believe we can help Mr. Paul at all levels and there are measures we can take even if Mr. Paul gets the Republican nomination. We need to think outside the box.

We can be a powerful force in American politics if we change our behavior and take bold appropriate actions.

-- Jim Burns

Jim Burns for President
PO Box 1139
Beatty, NV 89003

541-261-4163
702-722-9494

Wesley Snipes -- Libertarian for President?

2010-12-09T23:52:00.001-08:00

As the Libertarian Party seeks a presidential candidate for 2012, perhaps they should consider actor Wesley Snipes?

Snipes is about to begin a three-year prison sentence after being convicted for federal tax evasion.

But Snipes was not merely trying to save money. It seems that he's a tax protester.

On January 14, 2008, The New York Times reported:

"But unlike other celebrities who find themselves on the wrong side of the Internal Revenue Service, Mr. Snipes has a flamboyant explanation: he argues that he is not actually required to pay taxes."

I believe the federal income tax is Constitutional and legal. But I'm also a "Big Tent" libertarian. If the LP's tent is big enough to include pro-war neocons like Wayne Allyn Root and Neal Boortz, it should be big enough to include tax protesters.

Running Snipes for president will stimulate debate and discussion on the nature of taxes in general.

That Snipes has spent time in prison is another plus. As with Steve Kubby, prison will have sensitized Snipes to civil liberties concerns. Nor is there any reason that Snipes can't campaign from prison. In fact, it can make for a colorful "talking point." Here is a man who understands the need to reign in federal power!

Root's supporters often argue that the LP should run a "celebrity" (like, they say, Root), because celebrities attract media attention. Well, Wesley Snipes is a real A-list celebrity, unlike Root, who's a few rungs below Kathy Griffin's D-list status.

That Snipes is African-American is another plus. His candidacy will broaden the LP's appeal to progressives. Snipes will mitigate the impression that the LP is filled with Tea Party racists.

I don't know much about Snipes's political views in general. If I learn that he's pro-war, that would be a deal-breaker. But he's worth a closer look.

Here are some intriguing items about Snipes, from Wikipedia:

"Snipes converted from Christianity to Islam in 1978. His current beliefs are unknown.

"Snipes's apartment was destroyed by the collapse of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers during the September 11 attacks in 2001. He was on the west coast at the time.

"A September 24, 2002 Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee press release listed Wesley Snipes as an 'artist who is supporting' a $6 million fundraiser with tickets ranging from "$500 to $250,000."

I'm still Catholic, not a Muslim, but I'm "Big Tent" enough not to require that a political candidate share my religious views. Indeed, I think that, in this time of anti-Muslim hysteria, it would be a positive public statement for the LP to run a Muslim for president.

Snipes can also address 9/11 from personal experience -- his home was destroyed. It's not like anyone can accuse him of being ignorant of that tragic day.

As an LP presidential candidate, Snipes would be an African-American, ex-Democrat, with strong civil liberties/tax-protester creds.

I'm not a Snipes supporter yet (my dream team is still Ron Paul/Karen Kwiatkowski), but I think Libertarians should take a closer look at Snipes. Learn more about him. Ask if he'd be interested in running.

Veterans Call for Antiwar Rally on December 16th

2010-12-06T23:36:00.001-08:00

I got this from Voters for Peace:

It is time for the antiwar movement to pick up the pace and demonstrate that Americans want the current wars ended and out-of-control military spending reversed.

Our allies in the peace-veterans community are taking the lead and we are joining them. Veterans for Peace has announced a rally and civil resistance action in Washington, DC on Wednesday, December 16th. This will be the largest veteran-led civil resistance to U.S. wars in recent history.

Every day the horrors of the U.S. war-occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan continue – deaths of civilians, deaths and casualties of U.S. soldiers, incarceration of local people without charges, abusive searches of their homes at night and, too often, their torture. The long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have already drained our national treasury of $1.1 trillion and will cost Americans trillions more even if they ended today, primarily due to the need to treat U.S. soldiers; casualties now exceed 100,000 victims.

For more information on this important protest, visit Stop These Wars.

Real hope and real change will come from neither the White House nor Congress, but will come instead from us, taking action and getting independently organized into a movement that the government cannot ignore. As noted author and war correspondent
Chris Hedges writes:

"Hope knows that unless we physically defy government control we are complicit in the violence of the state. All who resist keep hope alive. All who succumb to fear, despair, and apathy become enemies of hope. They become, in their passivity, agents of injustice."

You do not have to risk arrest at the White House to participate with us on December 16th. You can be there in support. You can take photographs and videos. You can write about the event to spread the word that Americans are saying no to war. If you cannot be there in support, you can phone Congress and the media and demand the defunding of the ongoing wars.

Opposition to these wars is the majority view of the American people. The government is not representing us. It is time for Americans to demand that they do so.

Join us in Washington, DC on December 16, 2010.

Sincerely,

Kevin Zeese
Executive Director

P.S. This is a good time of the year to make a year-end donation to Voters for Peace. Please make a donation now. Thank you for your support.

Is the Pledge of Allegiance Fascist in Spirit?

2010-12-04T23:35:00.000-08:00

I found this old article at PeaceRally.org. Click the image and you'll more easily read the words.

I doubt that Hitler copied his hand salute from the pre-1942 American salute. More likely, Hitler copied Mussolini's fascists, who in turn copied the Roman Empire's salute. In all likelihood, Americans were likewise copying the Romans.

Even so, the American Pledge of Allegiance's history is thought-provoking. Is there not something inherently fascistic about a Roman style pledge to a State?

Ron Paul Cheers WikiLeaks -- Where's Wayne Allyn Root?

2010-12-03T23:28:00.000-08:00

Ron Paul has called for more WikiLeaks. Paul is a true supporter of free speech and government transparency. According to Raw Story:

Speaking to Fox Business host Judge Napolitano on Thursday about recent revelations at the Federal Reserve, Paul's typical candor showed through.

"What we need is more WikiLeaks about the Federal Reserve," he said. "Can you imagine what it'd be like if we had every conversation in the last 10 years with our Federal Reserve people, the Federal Reserve chairman, with all the central bankers of the world and every agreement or quid-pro-quo they have? It would be massive. People would be so outraged."

Paul, a longtime critic of the US Federal Reserve, is the incoming chairman of a House subcommittee on monetary policy. His most recent book, titled End the Fed, takes aim at central banks the world over, blaming fiat money systems and fractional reserve banking for the world's increasingly volatile economies.

"In a free society we're supposed to know the truth," Paul insisted. "In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble. And now, people who are revealing the truth are getting into trouble for it."

He added: "This whole notion that Assange, who's an Australian, that we want to prosecute him for treason -- I mean, aren't they jumping to a wild conclusion? [...] I mean, why don't we prosecute The New York Times or anybody that releases this?"

This once again highlights the difference between a true libertarian like Ron Paul, and a pretender like Wayne Allyn Root.

Paul has always opposed our encroaching police state. Root never did so -- until right-wing talk radio lashed out at the TSA's sexual groping and X-ray body scanners. Then Root rushed out an anti-TSA piece, thundering as if he were always a passionate leader against such police state tactics.

I expect Root will either oppose WikiLeaks, or remain silent -- unless and until his neocon customer base supports WikiLeaks. Then Root will scream his support for WikiLeaks, as if he were always a passionate and leading supporter of WikiLeaks.

Internet Censorship Blocked -- Feds Keep Seizing Websites

2010-11-28T08:16:00.000-08:00

DemandProgress.org reports progress on the internet censorship bill that we previously reported:

On November 18, 2010, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to send the Internet blacklist bill to the full Senate, but it was quickly stopped by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) who denounced it as "a bunker-buster cluster bomb" aimed at the Internet and pledged to "do everything I can to take the necessary steps to stop it from passing the U.S. Senate."

Wyden's opposition practically guarantees the bill is dead this year -- and next year the new Congress will have to reintroduce the bill and start all over again. But even that might not happen: Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Hollywood's own senator, told the committee that even she was uncomfortable with the Internet censorship portion of the bill and hoped it could be removed when they took it up again next year!

This is incredible -- and all thanks to you. Just a month ago, the Senate was planning to pass this bill unanimously; now even the senator from Hollywood is backing away from it. But this fight is far from over -- next year, there's going to be hearings, negotiations, and even more crucial votes. We need to be there, continuing to fight.

Can you chip in a couple bucks so we can keep our lobbyist in DC?

We're doing everything we can: working with key staffers to remove the most egregious parts of the bill, lobbying more members of Congress to speak out against this bill, and insisting on hearings so the whole Senate can learn about how dangerous this is. And, of course, we'll keep working with you to make sure more people hear about this bill and tell their senators.

Keep on fighting,

-- Aaron Swartz, David Segal, and the Demand Progress team

P.S. Are you as outraged as we are at those new TSA scanners? Click here to write a letter to your state legislators asking them to ban the practice. We've already gotten a bill introduced in New York -- will your state be next?

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

Although the fed's latest internet censorship attempt has failed (for now), they're still shutting down internet sites suspected of piracy, despite a lack of evidence.

As with federal asset forfeiture laws, with suspected "internet piracy" it's guilty until proven innocent.

Once again, the feds are trashing the Constitution.

The Clintonesque, Libertarian Embarrassment, Wayne Allyn Root

2010-11-27T07:59:00.001-08:00

On yet another Wayne Allyn Root thread at Independent Political Report, Thomas L. Knapp explains why so many of Root's critics attack "Root the man" rather than just Root's positions. Knapp's points are spot on, and worth repeating...

"You seem to think that this [Root's positions] is separable from character issues.

"With some people, it can be. With others, it's not.

"With Root, it's generally not because he is exceptionally, for lack of a better descriptive term … Clintonesque.

"If he launches an unjustified attack on someone and it backfires on him (e.g. Ruwart), he'll throw a staffer under the bus as the real author of the attack rather than confront the substance of the issue he brought up when that substance is going against him.

"If he takes a position and later finds embarrassing (e.g. his late 2006 endorsement of a McCain/Lieberman 2008 ticket), he'll just lie about it when confronted with it.

"Hell, sometimes he changes his positions so fast that it's hard to keep track of them at all, and arguing 'substance' becomes impossible. If you address the X that he said on Fox last week, he'll just come back with the opposite of X that he said last night at an LP fundraiser, or the orthogonal to X that he threw out in a radio interview this morning.

"How do you talk 'substance' on a guy who goes from strong supporter of the Iraq war to weak supporter of the Iraq war to 'Iraq was the wrong war, Iran is the right war' to allegedly anti-war over the course of a few months?

"How do you peg the 'substance' of someone who goes from 'Ron Paul is an old guy with some decent ideas but bad on foreign policy' to 'I'm Ron Paul on steroids!!!' so fast he leaves skid marks and takes out a couple of telephone polls making the U-turn?

"It's impossible to tell what the 'substance' of Root is from one day to the next — or, at any given moment whether that substance is the real thing or just another pitch to get over on the rubes."

Kudos to Knapp for hitting the nail on the head. See the entire thread here.

Libertarian Party of Idaho Calls for Expulsion of Wayne Allyn Root

2010-11-23T21:37:00.000-08:00

I reported last week that the Libertarian Party of Florida voted to dump Wayne Allyn Root. Now George Phllies posts at IPR [comment 70] that the Libertarian Party of Idaho has called for the LP to boot Root:

A RESOLUTION

TO REMOVE AND REPLACE WAYNE ALLYN ROOT FROM THE LIBERTARIAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND THE LIBERTARIAN NATIONAL CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE.

WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party of Idaho Executive Committee is committed to the platform of the Libertarian Party; and

WHEREAS, Libertarian National Congressional Committee Chairman and LNC at Large Member, Wayne Allyn Root, made the undisputed quote, "I'm kind of re-creating libertarianism. I'm just not going to follow the traditional roots. I’m a Ronald Reagan libertarian. Traditional libertarianism mixes in too many things that are liberal." in the November 11-17, 2010 issue of weekly magazine Vegas Seven; and

WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party of Idaho Executive Committee finds Mr. Root's comments above will confuse the general public as to what the Libertarian Party’s official positions are; and

WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party of Idaho Executive Committee finds Mr. Root's comments highly offensive and in direct contrast to the Libertarian Party's message and platform; and

WHEREAS, Mr. Root has frequently made similar and consistent comments to the above noted; and

WHEREAS, Mr. Root's comments have clearly illustrated that he is philosophically opposed to essential first-principles of the Libertarian Party, or if not so opposed, shows a serious lack of understanding which makes his position of leadership in the LNC and LNCC harmful to the Libertarian Party; and

WHEREAS, Mr. Root has supported Republican candidates for public office while in his position on the Libertarian National Congressional Committee

NOW THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED by the Libertarian Party of Idaho, THAT the Libertarian Party of Idaho fully repudiates Mr. Root's comments as described above and strongly feels Mr. Root should be removed from his position in any official capacity with the Libertarian National Committee, inclusive of the Libertarian National Congressional Committee, and replaced. We would encourage Mr. Root to examine our basic moral opposition to conservatism and any other forms of initiated force, and insist that he remain ineligible for leadership until such time as he demonstrates a working knowledge of, and embraces the philosophical practice of, the non-aggression principal.

Monterey Libertarians Protest Obama's Wars

2010-11-23T08:10:00.000-08:00

The following report is written by Monterey County libertarian activist Lawrence K. Samuels, and is reprinted with his permission:

Finally, the Left in Monterey, CA decided to organize a demonstration in opposition to Obama's wars in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

Since the election in 2008, the only two peace rallies sponsored by the Peace Coalition of Monterey County were organized by leaders from the local Libertarians for Peace chapter. But now it appears that the Left has had enough of Obama’s broken promises as the so-called "peace candidate."

The keynote speech on November 13th was delivered by California Assemblyman Bill Monning, but the most well-received speech came from David R. Henderson, professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School, and co-chair of Libertarians for Peace of Monterey County.

Henderson, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, came out strongly against U.S. intervention in foreign nations. First he argued on a personal level. He was tired of hearing about how we are fighting wars in a slew of Middle East nations. He pointed to boxer Mohammed Ali, who once said as a conscientious objector against the Vietnam War: "I ain’t got no quarrel with the Vietcong."

"Well, similarly, I have no quarrel with the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, in Pakistan or in Yemen," Henderson said. He was subtly making the case that governments rarely represent their citizens -- that we are not the government.

Normally, such a concept would get "government-is-us" Leftists into a tizzy. But not this time. The audience applauded this moment in Henderson’s speech, probably not realizing its deeper, anti-statist meaning.

Next, Henderson took on the U.S. Defense Department. He noted what conservatives never want to recognize -- that our military has a nasty habit of attacking nations that have never attacked us. Because of this addiction to aggression, he said, the U.S. Defense Department should be renamed the "U.S. Offense Department."

Henderson went further. He said that not only has U.S. foreign policy embraced militarism, but that we "have become an empire." Just looking at the big sums of money spent by the U.S. military is proof enough. According to Henderson, the United States military now accounts for over 40% of total military spending in the world.

Over 200 protesters attended the peace rally.

David Henderson’s peace speech will soon be posted on Antiwar.com. Henderson is planning to publish a book of his best articles and speeches concerning the U.S. wars in the Middle East.

National Opt-Out Day Celebration at LAX

2010-11-19T00:49:00.000-08:00

Forwarded by Angela Keaton:

Hello We Won't Fly - Los Angeles Unscannables.

This message is going out to the Meetup as well as the Facebook group. Thank you all for stepping up. Please join both groups and continue to spread the word those not yet involved.

My name is Hagen Gilbert and I'm working with Nick Hankoff to keep this a smooth and successful operation. National Opt-Out Day is Wednesday, November 24th, 2010. Here's the layout:

Where we're going: On Opt-Out Day Carpoolers should meet at Nick's place at 6 a.m. Nick and I will drive a total of 8 passengers to the airport. If you would like to get a ride with one of us, please contact one of us ASAP. Everybody participating on this day is expected at LAX at 7 a.m. We will be raising awareness about the naked scanners from directly outside the airport. It shouldn't take long to hand out all our materials and get one or two media interviews then celebrate with real breakfast somewhere.

What to bring: The best thing you can bring is a camera. The more of those, the merrier. Please do not bring large signs as we may be construed as a protest group. This is not a protest. Nick and I will supply handouts. Right now we are planning on handing out approximately 100 Reason magazines along with as many fliers as I can get printed. The fliers can be viewed here.

How to act: Smile and be happy! It is the holiday season after all and it will be National Opt-Out Day! By cheerfully saying "Happy National Opt-Out Day! Here's a free magazine to read!" you will attract more people’s curiosity about what’s going on. Once the magazine is in their hand, they will also have a copy of the flier (linked above). Feel free to add "You have a right to opt-out, read the flier before you go through any naked body scanner!"or something like that.

Likely you won't have much time at all as people hustle to their destination, but our objective on this day is to raise awareness about the TSA and (AIT) Advanced Imaging Technology, and how it affects people's health, family, security, and privacy. Our mission with Opt Out Day is for the expressed purpose above, it is NOT to raise awareness about 9/11 or other topics of concern.

We Won't Fly is emphasizing three major points:

1. Security

Security is important for everyone, but the new techniques being used by the TSA offer no improved security while it does entail the loss of personal privacy. A trade off that is not only unacceptable but continues the security theater that actually endangers us more than protects us.

2. Privacy

Strip searches and/or sexual assault on you or your family are a violation of the 4th amendment and should not be a requirement for air travel.

3. TSA

TSA screeners may even be at a higher health risk from these machines due to their constant radiation exposure. Unfortunately those working for $10/hr are not getting the whole truth from their employer.

As always, frequent We Won't Fly and Opt Out Day for continued information. Also feel free to Contact me or Nick with questions or ideas or anything that can help us with our endeavor.

Best,

Hagen Gilbert, hagenshape at gmail dot com

Nick Hankoff, nhankoff at gmail dot com

Peace Vigil -- Every Friday at Studio City, California

2010-11-18T04:00:00.000-08:00

Forwarded by Angela Keaton (who adds. "Highly recommend Frank Dorrel's Addicted to War List for the So. Cal area"):

8th Year Anniversary for Studio City Peace Vigil

This FRIDAY, November 19th, 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

Neighbors for Peace & Justice, San Fernando Valley

Meet at NE corner intersection of Ventura and Laurel Canyon Blvds. Park behind the bank.

Eight years on the corner protestin' war and occupation. Every Friday, since November 2002. Banners, candles, bring your signs or use ours. Be there to demand an end to endless war. Bring All the troops home NOW!

Libertarian Party of Florida Calls for Expulsion of Wayne Allyn Root

2010-11-15T09:38:00.000-08:00

Karl Dickey reports the following:

"During a regular meeting of the Libertarian Party of Florida’s Executive Committee last night, they created a resolution (found below) to repudiate recent comments made by Libertarian National Congressional Committee chairman Wayne Allyn Root and suggested his removal from any leadership position within the Libertarian Party.

"While the Libertarian Party of Florida is glad to see the membership growth both on the state and national level, it feels strongly, as per the wording of their resolution, those in leadership positions should be held by a higher standard of libertarianism then the membership or those registered to vote Libertarian.

"The resolution came about after an article appeared recently in the weekly magazine Vegas Seven where Mr. Root was quoted as saying, 'I'm kind of re-creating libertarianism. I'm just not going to follow the traditional roots. I'm a Ronald Reagan libertarian. Traditional libertarianism mixes in too many things that are liberal.'

"The statement along with Mr. Root's support of Republican candidates has Libertarians upset with Mr. Root and his attempts to manipulate the Libertarian message thereby confusing the general public as to what a Libertarian stands for. Mr. Root has made similar comments in the media which distorts the Libertarian message.

"Here is the resolution as passed at last night’s LPF EC meeting:"

WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party of Florida Executive Committee is committed to the platform of the Libertarian Party; and

WHEREAS, Libertarian National Congressional Committee chairman, Wayne Allyn Root made the undisputed quote in the November 11-17, 2010 issue of weekly magazine Vegas Seven, “I’m kind of re-creating libertarianism. I’m just not going to follow the traditional roots. I’m a Ronald Reagan libertarian. Traditional libertarianism mixes in too many things that are liberal”; and

WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party of Florida Executive Committee finds Mr. Roots comments found above will confuse the general public as to what the Libertarian Party’s official positions are; and

WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party of Florida Executive Committee finds Mr. Roots comments highly offensive and in direct contrast to the Libertarian Party’s message and platform; and

WHEREAS, Mr. Root has supported Republican candidates for public office while in his position on the Libertarian National Congressional Committee; and

WHEREAS, Mr. Root has made similar and consistent comments noted above.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Libertarian Party of Florida fully repudiates Mr. Roots comments as described above and strongly feels Mr. Root should be replaced and removed from his position in any official capacity with the Libertarian National Committee, inclusive of the Libertarian National Congressional Committee.

ADOPTED November 14, 2010

Libertarian Party of Florida

Vicki Kirkland, Chair

Congress to Vote on Internet Censorship/Blacklist Bill

2010-11-13T00:13:00.000-08:00

From DemandProgress.org:

Congress is bringing back the Internet blacklist bill for a vote on Thursday -- just a week from now! We've spent the week meeting people in DC and I can tell you our petition is definitely making a difference. This bill was supposed to pass without objection, but now even Politico is calling it "hotly debated" -- all thanks to you.

We've found the most effective way to get through to senators is for constituents to call in to Congress.

Remember, this bill--in blatant violation of the Constitution--would let the Attorney General create a blacklist of websites that every American ISP would be required to block. Wikileaks, YouTube, and others are all at risk. Human rights advocates, constitutional law experts, and the people who invented the Internet have all spoken out against this bill -- but some of the most powerful industries in the country are demanding that Congress rush it through. The music industry is even having all of their employees call Congress to pose as citizens in support of the bill.

-- Aaron Swartz, David Segal, and the Demand Progress team

P.S. Can you please forward our petition to your friends? So far over 250,000 people have signed. Can you help us hit 300,000 before the vote?

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

The music industry is supporting this bill, doubtless to make it easier to take down "pirate" sites. But if this bill passes, it can be used to censor any site that the military, or any politically well-connected group, wants to censor.

Another example of how over-broad intellectual property protection threatens free speech.

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

Does the Safe Protest Vote Syndrome Negate the Wasted Vote Syndrome?

2010-11-06T08:49:00.000-07:00

Third parties often fantasize that their vote totals are the tip of the iceberg. That for every vote they receive, there's a large pool of Silent Supporters who would vote for them, but that these Silent Supporters don't want to waste their vote on a third party that can't win.

This long-discussed theory is known as the Wasted Vote Syndrome.

It goes like this: A Libertarian Silent Supporter (LSS) prefers the LP candidate, but because the LP can't win, the LSS votes for the "lesser evil" Republican to prevent the Democrat from winning. Likewise, the Green Silent Supporter prefers the GP candidate, but votes for the "lesser evil" Democrat to keep the Republican from winning.

Caveat: Some libertarians believe the LP has an equal number of supporters among both Republican and Democratic voters. But that doesn't affect the Wasted Vote Syndrome theory; you still have LSS voters choosing a major party over the LP.

But just how many votes does the Wasted Vote Syndrome cost third parties? I don't deny that some people vote for a major party, though they prefer a third party, because they don't want to waste their vote on a third party that can't win.

Yet there's a countervailing force at work here. Let's call it the Safe Protest Vote Syndrome.

I suspect that some people vote for a third party precisely because third parties can't win. Some voters may feel anger at the system as a whole, or disgust with both major parties, or simply be in a generally nihilistic mood at the time -- so they vote for a third party that they also hate, as a form of protest. They may feel that voting for an obnoxious third party is a safe way of "giving the finger" to the system. Safe, because there's no chance the third party can win.

Third parties like to imagine that while the major parties attract many votes from people who can't stand them, that every vote for a third party comes from an enthusiastic supporter.

I don't think that's true.

Should a third party start to grow, it may attract new voters who previously feared wasting their vote -- but I suspect they will also lose votes from people who no longer think it's safe to vote for that party, because now there's a danger that they might actually win.

I wonder how much the Wasted Vote Syndrome hurts third parties -- and I also wonder how much the Safe Protest Vote Syndrome helps third parties?

Libertarian Congressional Candidate Erich Miller Ducks War and Foreign Policy

2010-09-29T22:30:00.000-07:00

I live in California's 30th Congressional District. Pro-war Democrat Henry Waxman is my representative.

This November, three candidates will be opposing Waxman.

Republican Chuck Wilkerson advocates the usual saber rattling.

Libertarian Erich Miller's website is silent on the war. If I emailed him, pressed him to the wall, he might mumble something about being anti-foreign intervention. I don't know -- and I don't care. It's Miller's job to earn my vote by advocating the correct positions on the key issues. And he's not doing it.

Miller is running for Congress. Since we're "at war," foreign policy will be a big part of Miller's Congressional responsibilities -- yet his website only focuses on the economy and health care. For whatever reason, Miller hasn't found it worth his while to say anything about foreign policy.

Maybe Miller is afraid of offending someone and losing votes?

By contrast, the socialist Peace and Freedom Party candidate, Richard Castaldo, advocates the following positions on his home page:

1. Defund all wars of imperialism, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

2. Single-payer not-for-profit healthcare.

3. Abolish corporate "personhood." Rights belong to human beings, not corporations.

4. Terminate the Patriot Act and restore the Bill of Rights.

5. End corporate bailouts and create green jobs.

Castaldo's positions 1 and 4 are entirely libertarian. Many libertarians would agree with position 3. Position 5 is at least half libertarian. Only position 2 is clearly anti-libertarian.

Two out of five of Castaldo's positions (1 and 4) directly, aggressively, and unapologeticly address the core issues of our expanding wars and increasing loss of freedoms.

Why is the socialist Peace and Freedom Party more vocally libertarian on these key issues than the so-called Libertarian Party?

Do you see why I'm no longer a registered Libertarian? Why I've registered non-partisan and ignore party labels?

I'm not saying who I'll be voting for this November. But antiwar voters should educate themselves about every candidate, in every state and district. Then vote based on the issues that the candidates advocate (vocally and aggressively, not buried in some fine print). Don't waste your vote on something as meaningless as party labels.

Libertarian candidates must earn votes from libertarians, not be given votes simply because candidates have an L before their names.

Movie Muslims -- Films That Reflect Their Humanity

2010-09-09T23:55:00.001-07:00

In this time of rising bigotry against our fellow Americans who happen to be of Muslim heritage (including some "libertarians" who engage in hate), it's good that Hollywood has produced some films that reflect the humanity of Muslims.

An Eyewitness Reports from Inside Afghanistan

2010-09-07T09:28:00.000-07:00

This article was written by Mark E. Smith and posted on the Peace Movement Google Group on September 5, 2010. It's written from a progressive, rather than a libertarian, perspective. Nevertheless, because Mr. Smith lived among the Afghans and writes from first-hand experience, his insights bear consideration.

With his permission, I reprint Mr. Smith's article:

I lived in Afghanistan for almost five years in the late '60s, early '70s. I went there on my own and was not connected with any governmental or nongovernmental organization. I volunteered in a hospital and ran a free clinic in my home. I learned Pashto. I spent most of my time with Afghans rather than with Americans.

Afghanistan does not have a common language. It has two major or official languages, Farsi (Persian) and Pashto, but there are about 30 other languages.

Whether you do or don't have a gun, as long as you don't attack them, the Afghan people have a tradition of welcoming strangers and are very friendly and hospitable. As all Afghan males usually have guns, they don't see anything wrong with strangers having guns, as long as they aren't hostile or part of an invading army.

While it is true that the Afghans will never be conquered by force, they will never be conquered by diplomacy either. If you could live with them for an extended length of time and learn what they want, you'd find that what they want is not to be conquered and to continue the traditional way of life that has sustained them for thousands of years.

Many Afghans have traveled to or have relatives in the U.S. and Europe. They know what modern development has to offer, and they don't want it. They certainly don't want roads, as roads would only make things easier for invading armies.

Why bring in solar panels and storage batteries when they already have a sustainable green system? Donkeys and camels don't have to be produced in capitalist sweatshops out of raw materials gained through genocidal resource wars; they reproduce naturally. And they provide fertilizer instead of toxic wastes that are impossible to dispose of. Donkeys and camels are totally organic, sustainable, and biodegradable. I don't know of any green energy source that you can say the same about.

As for the opium poppies, if the CIA didn't need heroin profits to fuel its black budgets, Afghans would grow no more opium than they did when I was there, some for herbal medicinal use, and some for barter. They had no drug problem because they didn't use it recreationally and they weren't desperate enough to need it to drown out reality the way many westerners do.

Americans seem to think that everybody wants to be rich. Most Afghans would be ashamed to be rich, as it would mean that they hadn't shared their good fortune with their neighbors and had hoarded it for themselves, a disgrace that could easily see them ostracized.

One Afghan once told me, "Most Americans are rich, but you're an American and you aren't rich. I'm poor, but that's okay because everybody here is poor. But it must be terrible for you to be poor in a rich country." This was an illiterate Afghan who had never been to school. I know many Americans with doctorates who aren't half that astute.

They don't need education either. We have education for jobs that don't exist and I've spent seven decades of my life watching our educational system decline.

The Afghan people are moderate Muslims when they're not being attacked. When they're invaded, they expect the religious warriors among them to lead the fight to drive off the invaders, so they become more militant, but it doesn't last once the invaders are gone.

As for the treatment of women, when I was in Afghanistan there was no prostitution. Women were sold into marriage, not sold to pimps and brothels. Most Afghan men love their wives and children.

Do you judge the U.S. by abusive husbands, brutal pimps, exploitive pornographers, and the other types of male bovine excrement that abound in our society?

The Taliban were nothing and had no power until we started funding them to fight the Russians. The Russians had done things in Afghanistan that we considered totally unacceptable, such as allowing women equal rights, funding schools for both girls and boys, providing free health care, etc. We destroyed the Soviet Union because we abhor Communist crimes like that. Our oligarchs fear that if such heresy spreads, it could interfere with their corporate profits.

I remember the first time I tried to take a taxi at the Khyber pass. There were several empty taxis, but they were unattended. One taxi had five ferocious looking men in it, all with turbans or those pancake hats, beards and mustaches, rifles, and bandoliers full of ammunition. They kept smiling at me and gesturing to me to get into their taxi, but I was terrified--certain they intended to rob me.

Finally somebody who spoke English turned up and he explained to me that the taxi couldn't leave until it had a full load of passengers and they only needed one more. It turned out to be a pleasant ride and was my introduction to overcoming stereotypes.

Understanding the world is a long journey, so I pass along to you the standard Pashto greeting, "St'rai m'shee," which means, may you not be tired.

Why Did Jesus Instruct His Apostles to Buy a Sword? Luke 22:36

2010-09-02T00:57:00.000-07:00

When seeking Biblical support for their notion of a militaristic Jesus, Neocon warmongers sometimes quote Luke 22:36.

First, some context. This scene from the Gospel According to Luke occurs during the Last Supper. Jesus is addressing his apostles, shortly before he is arrested and crucified.

Luke 22:36 states: He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one.

Is Jesus telling his apostles to prepare for combat? Perhaps to overthrow the Roman Empire? Or maybe just a defensive battle against the Jewish religious leaders (soon to arrest him) or the Roman governor (soon to convict him)?

Neocons have used this verse to justify our current wars. But is this verse even about war?

Let's examine this quote in context, reading what comes before and after this verse. Here is what Luke 22:35-38 states:

And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing." He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, 'And he was reckoned with transgressors'; for what is written about me has its fulfilment." And they said to him, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough."

That's odd. Two swords? Among twelve apostles? Two swords hardly seem enough to battle an empire, or even a garrison of guards.

Seems this context changes things. It's a key to understanding this verse. Seeking a Catholic understanding, I look to the commentary in the Navarre Bible. Its commentary for Luke 22:35-38 states:

Jesus announces his passion by applying to himself the Isaiah prophecy about the Servant of Yahweh (Is 53:12) -- "he was numbered with the transgressors" -- and by pointing out that all the other prophecies about the sufferings the Redeemer would undergo will find fulfilment in him.

The testing-time is imminent and our Lord is speaking symbolically when he talks about making provision and buying weapons to put up a fight. The apostles take him literally, and this leads him to express a certain indulgent understanding: "It is enough."

"Just in the same way as we," Theophylact says, "when we are speaking to someone and see that he does not understand, say: 'Very well, leave it.' " (Enarratio in Evangelium Lucae, in loc.).

So it seems Jesus spoke symbolically of swords, not literally. This interpretation is also consistent with one of the Gospels' recurring themes: the apostles' repeated misunderstanding of Christ prior to his resurrection.

If you're curious, my edition of the Navarre Bible is "the Revised Standard Version with a commentary by members of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Navarre." A great source for a Catholic interpretation.

According to its Preface: "The commentaries contained in the notes are the result of looking up thousands of sources (sometimes reflected in explicit references given in the commentary text) -- documents of the Magisterium, exegesis by Fathers and Doctors of the Church, works by important spiritual writers (usually saints, of every period) ... The editors felt that it would have been impertinent to comment on the Bible using their own expertise along;

If anyone ever throws Luke 22:36 at you in support of war, saying that it's time to buy a sword, ask him why Jesus said that only two swords were "enough."

Islamophobia Is Anti-Catholic

2010-08-31T22:26:00.000-07:00

Anti-Muslim bigotry is rampant among what passes for "conservatism" these days (and even in much of "libertarianism"). Visit neocon, pseudo-conservative sites like FreeRepublic.com, and you'll find many so-called "conservatives" labeling Islam as a "Satanic" religion.

But what does official Catholic teaching say about Islam? I don't mean quotes from this or that Catholic leader, but offical Catholic Church doctrine?

Well, here's the official Catholic Church position on Islam, as quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: Second Edition:

"841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. 'The Plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.' "

That's right, "Catholic" neocon bigots. Your hatred is not supported by the official teachings of your professed faith. Bummer.

"Ground Zero" Synagogue Goes Up in Lebanon

2010-08-27T14:45:00.000-07:00

American bigots -- hiding under the labels of "conservative" or "libertarian" -- have a favorite talking point: "We'll let Them build a mosque in America, when They let Us build a church or synagogue in Saudi Arabia."

Yes, some bigots are saying "No mosques in America," not just on Ground Zero.

It's an absurd demand. Why? Because Germans, Russians, Italians, Chinese -- everyone -- have long come to America to escape more oppressive nations. We never said to Russians, "You can't enjoy free speech in the U.S. until Americans can enjoy free speech in the Soviet Union." We never before demanded that American immigrants live by the laws of their foreign homelands.

Why change that American standard for Americans of Muslim heritage? (That's right -- the "Them" and "They" are our fellow Americans.)

Even so, it seems that some foreign, Muslim nations are more tolerant than is the U.S. Here's a must-read peace about Lebanon's Ground Zero Synagogue.

Libertarianism Is Dummied Down and Declining

2010-08-24T00:14:00.000-07:00

Libertarian Party members keep talking about "growing the party." I've heard this mantra for decades. Optimistic Libertarians of all factions have assured each other that Americans are really libertarians, that major party status is just 15 or so years away.

It's always been 15 or so years away. In the 1990s, the national LP sent out some junk mail promising a "Libertarian majority Congress in 2010!" They did not promise one elected Libertarian, but an LP majority in both Houses of Congress.

Wayne Allyn Root likewise, when running for president in 2008, promised that he would win the presidency on the LP ticket in 2024 or thereabouts. Victory is always 15 years away, give or take.

Well, no. Libertarianism as a philosophy is going backwards in the U.S. The "Ground Zero mosque" controversy is proof of that. Vast numbers of Americans have embraced xenophobic bigotry against Muslims.

Even "sensible, moderate" radio talk show hosts here in Los Angeles (e.g., Dennis Prager, Peter Tilden) oppose the "Ground Zero mosque" and imagine that their positions are moral. The say how the "mosque" would be insensitive to Americans -- ignoring that the people building the Muslim cultural center are Americans.

And even members and spokesholes for the Libertarian Party are "opposing the property rights and religious freedom of their fellow Americans.

At Los Angeles's Karl Hess Club last week, one longtime "libertarian" kept spouting snide smears against Muslims, hoping to entice others to join in. We didn't. But while many of the KHC attendees are not anti-Muslim, several have indeed succumbed to Islamophobic fever.

First the LP tent grew to accommodate warmongering imperialists. Now the LP has grown to include xenophobes opposed to property rights and religious freedom.

Fifteen years ago, it was a given that most Americans were not libertarians. But now, you can't even be sure that a Libertarian is a libertarian. The Libertarian Party has gone backwards. The libertarian movement has gone backwards. America is retreating from freedom and rationality, and libertarians are no help at all.

Libertarian Warren Redlich Support "Ground Zero Mosque"

2010-08-22T21:58:00.000-07:00

There's been much bigoted hysteria regarding the "Ground Zero mosque" (which is not on Ground Zero, and is not a mosque), including bigoted statements from Libertarian Party embarrassment Wayne Allyn Root.

It's therefore nice to see a Libertarian Party candidate actually take a libertarian position on this issue. You rarely see LP candidates or officers speaking like libertarians any more (one reason I rarely vote LP anymore), but Warren Redlich, the LP candidate for New York governor, correctly supports both property rights and religious freedom, and thus supports the right of our fellow Americans (of the Muslim faith) to build a Muslim cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero:

Curiously, the New York LP nominated Alden Link as their Lt. Governor candidate. I don't know Link's position on the "Ground Zero mosque," but when I met him at the 2006 LP national convention, Link struck me as quite pro-war. He suggested the U.S. military should bomb the branches of banks that hold "terrorist money" in their deposits.

Link was also quite the warhawk at the 2008 LP national convention. He was the only candidate who managed to make Root look like a dove.

After failing to get a single delegate's vote at the LP convention, Link (who was not a delegate), attempted to get the Boston Tea Party's presidential nomination.

Failing that, Link eventually managed to secure the Objectivist Party's vice presidential nomination. Considering how insanely pro-war organized Objectivism is these days, that seemed an appropriate political home for Link.

Objectivist Party founder, presidential candidate, and sometime LP officer, Dr. Tom Stevens, has formed Bachelors for Link to support Link's Lt. Governor candidacy.

Who or what is Bachelors for Link? In endorsing Link, this "group" (assuming it's more than just Dr. Stevens and his blog) says: "Bachelors often feel pressure to get married and to live a conventional lifestyle. Despite choosing to be 'unattached', they often face ridicule and are the subject of 'whispering campaigns' questioning their sexual orientation. We are proud to support Alden Link, the Libertarian Party's candidate for Lt. Governor of New York State, who has socially tolerant views and a principled belief that people should be able to organize their lives as they see fit without private sanction or governmental interference."

So...should Link be elected Lt. Governor of New York, he'll use his office to end "whispering campaigns" against bachelors? Well, at least it'd be a less offensive use of Link's time than his previous Islamophobic war hysteria.

Kudos to Warren Redlich's defense of Muslim Americans' equal rights -- and a curious, raised eyebrow to Alden Link's latest weird candidacy.

Wayne Allyn Root, John Hospers: The LP's Anti-Libertarian Faces

2010-08-06T07:59:00.000-07:00

Massachusetts Libertarian Party Chair George Phillies reports on Independent Political Report (comment 148):

"I am amused to report that the LNC was contacted by a reporter who wanted to do a story on possible interactions between the Libertarian Party and Malcolm X, the question being 'Has Malcolm X inspired your Libertarian activism?'

"It was observed by one LNC member that there was a PA local candidate who was a member of the Nation of Islam. It was noted that another LNC member had made a study of Malcolm X and his beliefs. Another LNC member claimed there is no one like that in our party.

"Mr. Root gave the LNC 'I am the de facto face and voice of the LP.' and opined that he should get the interview. Another LNC member answered Wayne 'You have indeed gotten a lot of media. However, as I pointed out in an earlier e-mail with graph attached, this has not translated into new members for the LP. We have fewer new members each month. Whatever you are doing is not growing the LP.' Glaringly obvious reasons for this failure were then listed.

"If you are wondering why our national party is in its current shape, you should recognize that this was most of the LNC's activity for a number of days.

"I have not yet learned if the reporter got an interview with anyone."

Some observations:

1. This above thread concerns 1972 LP presidential candidate John Hospers's call to oppose the Muslim cultural center being built two blocks from Ground Zero.

2. LNC member Wayne Allyn Root had previously also called for public opposition to the Muslim center.

3. Root's position resulted in criticism from Libertarian bloggers, which is why Hospers felt the need to jump in and defend Root.

4. Well, of course it resulted in negative reaction! For Root and Hospers to call for public opposition to building the Muslim cultural center is to invite the public to suppress the property rights of the building owner and the religious freedom of Muslims.

Seems the Libertarian Party tent has gotten so big, it now welcomes people who are pro-war, anti-property rights, and anti-religious freedom.

And now Root claims that he's the "de facto voice and face of the LP." Considering Root's constant conspiratorial speculations about Obama being a black radical at Columbia University (even though Root claims that he never met Obama at Columbia), I wonder what Root would have told the reporter about the LP's views on Malcolm X.

(I myself have no views on Malcolm X, as I've never read or studied him. I only saw the Spike Lee film, which is not enough for an informed opinion.)

Root's defenders (the usual suspects) chimed in that Root hasn't called for government intervention against the "Ground Zero mosque" (a misnomer, since it's neither a mosque, nor on Ground Zero -- it's a Muslim cultural center two blocks away from Ground Zero).

Root's defenders praise Root for calling on the private sector to exert "market pressure" on the property owner and Muslims to not build there, and to leave the government out of it.

Now, can you imagine if anyone in the LP called for the private sector to exert "market pressure" on someone to not build a synagogue? Or a gay or black cultural center? Yes, it would technically be "libertarian" in that it's not a call for government intervention -- but it would still be bigotry.

While the LP may well defend the rights of haters, that doesn't mean the LP should actually instigate hateful action. The ACLU defended the free speech rights of Nazis, but it didn't go the extra step of encouraging the Nazis to engage in hate speech.

Alas, Hospers and Root are calling for the LP to side with haters.

However, Root may well be correct in that he is one of the more famous LP members out there. How tragic for liberty if Root becomes the "de facto" voice of the LP.

Ron Paul is far more famous that Root, and more respected. But Paul is not active in the LP. (Yet another thing to admire about Dr. Paul).

If there was ever any doubt, Root and Hospers are not libertarians. Whatever titles they accumulate, however many talk shows they appear on, they have left the pro-liberty reservation.

Gasp! Am I suggesting a litmus test?!

See Thomas Knapp's excellent article on libertarian litmus tests.

Can Libertarians Be "A Little Bit Pregnant"?

2010-07-14T01:07:00.000-07:00

The Libertarian Party's "Vote Getter" faction (for lack of a better term) has long advised that the LP "is a political party" and so we must be wary of "scaring voters" with "purist rhetoric."

Consider Wayne Allyn Root, who says that the LP should steer clear of non-economic issues. Root joins other Reform types who say that foreign affairs and war and national security are "divisive" issues, to be avoided if the LP wants to "get votes."

At the same time, most Vote Getters (some of whom are Radicals) join with other Libertarians in deriding Republicans for being "unprincipled" and betraying their promise of smaller government.

The LP Vote Getters want it both ways. They want the LP to dilute its issues so as not to "scare voters," while at the same time claiming to be "principled," unlike the Republicans.

The LP Vote Getters want the LP to compromise (for votes) while remaining principled (unlike the GOP). They want a Libertarian Party that's only "a little bit pregnant," unlike the GOP, which is "very pregnant."

No, I'm not deriding incrementalism. I support incrementalism. Incrementalism means moving slowly in X direction, yet still proclaiming that you expect to arrive at X.

Vote Getters want to hide X Goal from voters, either fooling voters about the LP's end goals -- or perhaps not even wanting to arrive at X.

That's right. Some Vote Getters are "low tax Imperialists" at heart. They support war and empire, but use "it'll lose votes and donations" as an excuse not to support those issues.