Secret Service Investigates Libertarian Candidate Jules Manson

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?

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?

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

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 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-free 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 tough to move; to leave behind friends, family, business 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

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

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?

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: