Where Are the Antiwar Protests?

According the The Economist’s headline [July 19, 2026]: The Iran war is America’s least popular since polls began.

I believe that. So where are the antiwar protests in the United States? I remember plenty of antiwar protests during the Iraq War. I attended several of them myself. But I don't see any sizeable antiwar protests today in the U.S. The New York Times headline [June 22, 2026] says it all: Small Protests Against the U.S. Attack in Iran Sprouted Up Over the Weekend.

I can think of two reasons for this:

1. As in the old Soviet Union, Americans have become disheartened and cynical. They've lost faith in the system. They no longer believe that we live in a responsive democracy. They doubt that expressing their opinions can influence anything.

Trump said “America First!” and “No more Mideast wars!” Instead, we got Israel First and the Iran War. As for Democrats, Biden essentially supplied Israel's Gaza genocide, against the wishes of most rank & file Democrats. Both Republicans and Democrats have come to realize that their leaders will do as they will, despite promises and pretty words to the party rank & file.

2. The Deep State supports the Iran War, which means no Deep State funding for any antiwar protests.

The Deep State funded the 2020 BLM anti-Trump riots. But after his first term, Trump surrendered to the Deep State, as is evidenced by his Iran War. And so there were no electoral "glitches," and no anti-Trump protests, in November 2024. Trump was allowed to win peacefully.

You can be sure the Deep State supports a policy, or a war, or a candidate, when there are no expensive protests against such.

Those are the two reasons that come to mind when I question why America’s most unpopular war has failed to generate any significant antiwar protests in the U.S. Perhaps you have another theory?

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

California Freedom Now Available for Free PDF Download

The Libertarian Party of California used to publish a monthly newspaper called California Freedom, on both paper and PDF. Because of the high cost of printing and postage, the publication went defunct after the September/October 2009 issue.

Past issues from 2004-09 are now available for free PDF download at Libertarian Peacenik. As an added bonus, I've collected several back issues of The Los Angeles Libertarian, Liberty Magazine, Liberty for America and LP News, also available for free download at that webpage.

Enjoy! 

=========

Israel Owns the Deep State

The term “Deep State” has lost much of its meaning. This is because, in conservative circles, the term has become a popular accusation, a widely hated baddie, a label with which to smear any and all enemies.

Thus, all factions within conservatism try to spin opposing factions as the “Deep State.” For instance, I’ve heard Neocons accuse opponents of the Iran War as being the “Deep State.” The Deep State, they claim, hates Israel.

Well, no.

If you define terms correctly, and pay attention, you’ll see that the Deep State – the real Deep State – is fiercely pro-Israel. One might even say that Israel owns the American Deep State.

How to define the Deep State?

As a permanent power elite “deep” (hidden) within our government, its policies blocked from public scrutiny and which cannot by overruled by popular vote.

Harrison Berger’s article in The American Conservative, “Congress Aims to Give Israel Leverage Over America” [July 5, 2026], reports that these criteria are met by Congress's current attempt to pass Section 219 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2027, “which includes language designed to sustain the yearslong wealth transfer from Americans to Israelis and cement that relationship in ways that would be less transparent and more difficult to challenge through democratic processes.”

Section 219 hides U.S. support for Israel from public scrutiny.

“Section 219 would shift funding for Israeli weaponry from Congress to the Pentagon’s murky procurement system. “This so clearly seems to be an attempt to shield money from cratering public opinion,” Sheline said.”

Section 219 takes future Congressional votes on aid for Israel off the table, as aid will continue automatically -- indeed, mandated by law -- by the “murky” Pentagon bureaucracy.

The Massie amendment to cut off funds for Israeli offensive weaponry “may end up being the last time these sorts of votes are meaningful,” says Sheline. “If we proceed with defense industrial integration (Section 219), congress won’t be able to vote on it again.”

 The Young Turks are also discussing Section 219.

 

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

Trump Does Not Understand the Art of the Deal

I've never read Trump's much bragged about book, The Art of the Deal. I don't know if he wrote it. Maybe it was ghost written. Maybe not. What is clear is that he doesn't understand its topic: How to make a deal. 

If by deal Trump means negotiation, then deal-making is the opposite of war. In a deal, all parties negotiate respectfully and in good faith, seeking a resolution that satisfies all. Even if your opponent is a monster, you feign respect, so as to allow him to save face at home should he agree to your terms.

But Trump bullies everyone, good guys and bad. Consider last year's bullying of Denmark as he tried to steal Greenland. Although both Denmark and Greenland insisted that Greenland was not for sale, Trump kept darkly hinting that he was going to get a "deal" for Greenland whether Greenland liked it or not.

That's not deal-making. That's Don Corleone style thuggery. You don't seek a resolution in which both parties walk away satisfied. You make them an offer they can't refuse. They either agree or you send them a severed horse's head. Or bomb their civilization into extinction.

Trump's crude attitude is understandable. He comes from the world of New York real estate. He knows how to work the system. How to make government connections, tax breaks, lawsuits, and bankruptcy laws work for him. How to promise the moon, and if you fail to deliver, walk away, explain away, declare victory and expect everyone to agree, or at least forget.

It's not that past presidents, Democratic and Republican, haven't engaged in bullying and thuggery. They have. Nor that other nations don't also practice bullying and thuggery. But I've not in my lifetime seen an American president so brazen about it. No fig leafs, no diplomatic niceties, no pretty words, no feigned politeness or respect. 

Trump doesn't only grab at what he wants. He wants to rub his opponent’s face in the dirt for all to see. 

It's like his renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America (which I don't think will stick). A wiser president would politely negotiate with Mexico on trade and immigration. Perhaps just as firmly, but in a manner that would allow Mexico to accede to U.S. demands while saving face. But instead, Trump needlessly humiliates Mexico, making it all the harder for Mexican politicians to agree to his demands.

Sometimes thuggery backfires. Trump not only failed to steal Greenland, but he angered all of our NATO allies. This is likely part of the reason they're reluctant to join Trump's war on Iran.

Trump knows very little about the "art of the deal."

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

U.S. State Department Admits Israel Requested the Iran War

On April 21, 2026, the U.S. State Department issued a surprising press release that, perhaps inadvertently, admits the U.S. attacked Iran at Israel's request.

 

The press release is credited to Reed D. Rubinstein, Legal Advisor, Office of the Legal Advisor.

 

Its first two paragraphs reads as follows:

"On February 28, the United States Armed Forces launched Operation Epic Fury with a set of clear objectives: to '[d]estroy Iranian offensive missiles, destroy Iranian missile production, destroy [Iran’s] navy and other security infrastructure,” and, finally, ensure that Iran “will never have nuclear weapons.'

"Epic Fury is only the latest round of an ongoing international armed conflict with Iran. As the United States has explained in multiple letters to the U.N. Security Council, including most recently on March 10, the United States is engaged in this conflict at the request of and in the collective self-defense of its Israeli ally, as well as in the exercise of the United States’ own inherent right of self-defense."

 

 

The press release goes on to claim that this war is also in America's interests, and gives various other justifications for this war. 

 

Still, this is the first time I can recall an official admission that Israel's interests played any role in America's decision to attack Iran.

 

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

The Canard That Welfare for Israel Benefits the U.S. Economy

In a New York Post article, dated April 25, 2026, Joseph Epstein trots out the tired old canard that U.S. welfare for Israel (i.e., foreign aid) is really for America's benefit. He makes the claim (which I've been hearing for decades) that "Most of that $3.8 billion must be spent on American-made military equipment. That’s not charity — it’s a subsidy for our own defense industrial base."

It's a bizarre argument coming from any alleged conservative.

Following Epstein's logic, all domestic welfare (including Food Stamps, DEI and BLM grants, and even money for illegal migrants) really benefits all Americans, because that money "subsidizes" (Epstein's word) American grocery stores, restaurants, retailers, movie theaters, landlords and medical providers.

Following Epstein's logic, we should expand all welfare programs (foreign and domestic), so more money will "subsidize" American businesses.

But every true conservative and libertarian knows this is a bogus argument. If we eliminated all welfare programs (including welfare for Israel), that money would remain with American taxpayers, who would also spend that money in the U.S. But instead of the goods and services going to welfare recipients (foreign and domestic), they would instead benefit the taxpayers who earned the money in the first place.

In either case, American businesses are "subsidized" by consumers. The difference is whether that "subsidy" buys goods and services for welfare recipients (foreign and domestic) or for American taxpayers.

Epstein's argument flows either from his stupidity or his dishonesty. And I doubt that Epstein is stupid.

And that's without raising additional points, such as that Israel is an extremely wealthy nation that could easily afford to pay for its own defense.

=========

A Free Speech Culture Goes Beyond the First Amendment

Libertarians and conservatives often say: "You are free to speak. You are not free of the consequences." This is their way of saying, with approval, that the First Amendment only forbids the government from banning speech. But if you lose your college admissions, business partners, customers, jobs, platforms, or friends and family because of what you say, well then, tough. That's the "free market" at work.

I disagree. While their interpretation of Constitutional law is accurate, the market is not moral, and not all consequences are just or conducive to a free society.

Whereas the First Amendment is a legal doctrine, free speech is a cultural value. And in a free culture, people do not dox or harass, bankrupt or destroy, anyone who expresses opposing opinions. They do not pressure universities, employers, service providers, or social circles to expel thought criminals.

The First Amendment guarantees a politically free society. But a politically free society isn't necessarily culturally free. Private sector actors, apart from government, can oppress freedom just as effectively. 

During our recent COVID hysteria, I felt as if I were living in Communist Romania, a nation I visited during the 1970s (and inspiration for my novel, Vampire Nation). As I crossed into Romania, I felt the atmosphere grow oppressive. The same atmosphere I felt in Los Angeles in 2020, with the masks, and social distancing, and kneeling to George Floyd.

People often wore masks or kneeled not because the law demanded it, but because private individuals and businesses monitored and harassed those who didn't. An intolerant culture was enough to enforce compliance; no laws required. People who refused, or questioned the narrative, risked being harassed by Antifa, BLM, random "Karens," and various private sector busybodies.

You don't need laws to destroy freedom. Civil society can crush freedom without state intervention. Politically free people are not necessarily free.

A free culture values free speech for its own sake. It's a culture whose people proudly cite Voltaire: "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire's statement might be apocryphal, but it's a beautiful sentiment. It conveys a generosity of spirit that celebrates not only the right to speak, but to be respectfully heard. Not to be free of disagreement, but free of harassment or intimidation. One does not express a willingness to die for a "right" that can then be so easily quashed by the private sector.

In the 1970s, public figures, conservative and liberal, often quoted Voltaire with approval. It was a decade when a Jewish ACLU lawyer, Aryeh Neier, defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois (the topic of his book, Defending My Enemy).

Having seen Communism first hand, being the son of refugees from Communism, I hate Communism as much as anyone. Yet when, out of morbid curiosity, I visited the New York City offices of the Communist Party, USA in 1977, my disgust was balanced with pride that I lived in a country so free that even the vilest of people could rent an office and appear on the election ballot.

But those were the 1970s. I no longer hear Voltaire quoted today.

On both left and right, there have always been people intolerant of speech. But they seem louder and more numerous than in decades past. They no longer hide their desire to "cancel," but boast of it. While the left tries to unperson "Covidiots" and "racists," the new Neocons (NeoNeocons?) seek to unperson those critical of Israel or the Iran War.

Filmmaker Sacha Baron Cohen has argued that the right to speak does not mean the right to a platform. Some libertarians would agree, citing the "property rights" of Big Tech platform owners. But those "property rights" rest on shaky ground, considering the internet was built on public utilities, or that Big Tech lobbies for regulations that ensure their dominance and block competitors, or is largely funded by government contracts.

Ironically, while a free culture protects more speech than does the First Amendment, the private sector can, and often does, restrict for less speech than is protected by the First Amendment. Thus, as our culture grows intolerant, government increasingly outsources speech restrictions to private sector companies.

Finally, the debate over speech restrictions is not about about "offensive" speech, though it's often presented that way. People don't seek to restrict speech because it offends, but because they fear it doesn't. They fear their neighbor, rather than offended, might enjoy it, and even be convinced by it.

An intolerant culture is a low-trust culture. Free speech is seen not only as offensive, but dangerous. A view that is alien to the high-trust Western cultures of decades past.

I prefer we foster a high-trust culture, tolerating speech far beyond what the First Amendment permits. Not a low-trust culture with outsourced corporate censorship and private sector "Karens." Not merely a politically free society, but one that is culturally free. A society whose people might disagree with what they hear, sometimes vehemently, but always with a Voltairean spirit.

================ 

It’s Iraq All Over Again

In 2000, Bush ran for president promising a “humbler foreign policy.” He gave us the Iraq War. Trump ran as the “peace president.” Now he’s given us the Iran War.

At the 2007 Libertarian Party of California state convention, Wayne Allen Root was among the candidates running for the LP presidential nomination. By then most Libertarians had soured on the Iraq War. Some had opposed it from the start, but the war did have its “libertarian” supporters.

Root was aware of this anti-Iraq War sentiment, and so he said, “Iraq was the wrong war. Iran is the right war.” That didn’t go over well, and so he muted his “pro-Iran War” statements as we entered 2008.

Root is still out there, writing, and podcasting, and making media appearances. I hear he’s quite ecstatic about Trump’s war. Root finally got the war he wanted.

And once again, some conservatives have turned a Republican president into a religious idol. They’re saying that God has guided Trump into war. They said it about Bush, who was supposedly “God’s anointed.” But now it’s Trump who is “God’s anointed.”

After Bush took us to war, I remember Dennis Prager saying, in reference to the controversial 2000 election ballot count, that “It’s hard not to believe that God intervened to prevent Gore from becoming President. In making Bush president, God has given America one last chance.”

That’s pretty much what I remember Prager saying.

Ironically, all the conservatives I hear praising Trump’s Iran War have also long denounced Bush’s Iraq War (not at the time, but a least since 2016). That’s why they voted for Trump. Because they hate Bush and “the Neocons.” According to them, the Iraq War is Neocon. But the Iran War is MAGA and America First because reasons.

If you disagree, if you express doubts about Trump’s wisdom or good intentions, these conservatives become gripped with hysteria, and accuse you of TDS. Even as they hyperventilate and foam at the mouth, they accuse you of TDS.

And so I no longer argue with them. I did my part in opposing the Iraq War for much of the 2000s, even joining the big international antiwar protest in February 2003, before the first shot was fired. I have no illusions about being able to change anything at this point.

As for the Libertarian Party, it appears to be in greater disarray than it was 20 years ago, but perhaps it will be able to provide an alternative for those seeking peace. A recent statement from its national HQ is a good sign.

==========

José Castañeda Remembers Ed Clark (1930 - 2025)

Ed Clark, the 1980 Libertarian Party presidential candidate, died last June 18th.

Los Angeles libertarian José Castañeda shares his thoughts: 

This is my Ed Clark story. In 1980, I and my brothers were on a trip to Disney World. We were staying at a nice fancy old fashioned hotel in Texas. It was July or August (I think it was August).

I was chilling out in the lobby watching television when an Ed Clark Libertarian Party candidate for President advertisement aired on one of the three major networks. I was impressed because only one other time in 1976 did I ever see an alternative candidate presidential candidate advertisement on television.

I of course am discounting independent John Anderson as he was a Republican.

Over the coming months I saw many Ed Clark for president advertisements. Ed Clark as a candidate seemed okay and I agreed with some of his views: Support for the ERA (I was and am a big supporter of the ERA), being against the draft, being against an interventionist foreign policy (I was against the Vietnam War), in support of tax cuts (I supported Proposition 13), and was for the free market.

My favorite advertisement was the politics of hope ad, and the one where the "voice" asks Ed Clark if he is going to be elected president. He responds it is not about that. He added, if you like what I am saying (and then lists some of his views) you should consider that (and vote for me).

I liked that he was on the ballot in 50 states. Which alternative party presidential candidate does that? Up to that time, none in my lifetime.
 
I was also impressed that there was another alternative party candidate (Barry Commoner of the Citizens Party) for president that was getting some notice. I thought, this is how bad things are in America that we have two alternative presidential candidates getting notice by the media, voters, etc.

I subscribed to the magazine Libertarian Review. I knew after reading the first issue I received I was a Libertarian. I changed my registration to Libertarian and I joined the Party in 1982. 
 
A few years later, I was talking to a therapist who asked me what meetings (supper clubs) I was attending, and I mentioned Libertarian ones, and she knew from the Ed Clark advertisements (she mentioned Ed Clark) what I was taking about.

I used to attend libertarian supper clubs being held in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. This is when there were three non-Party supper clubs in Los Angeles County and one in Orange County. Speakers were libertarian VIPs such as Ed Clark, David Bergland, and Dagny Sharon.

Those were the days.
 
This is my Ed Clark story. RIP.
 
Sincerely,
 
José Castañeda, CAP
 
Secretary - Treasurer,
Representative Executive Committee South East Region 65
Libertarian Party of Los Angeles County

==================== 

New Jersey Libertarian Party Condemns U.S. Bombing of Iran

It feels like 2003 all over again. The U.S. is once again entering into a Mideast war that is none of its business. Libertarians are once again protesting -- and, I'm sure, contentiously dividing into pro and antiwar camps.

Some good news: the New Jersey Libertarian Party issued the following press release. (The bad news, Libertarian Parties are probably even less influential than they were 20 years ago.)

 

June 21, 2025

New Jersey Libertarian Party Condemns US Bombing of Iran

On June 21, 2025 President Trump announced that the United States bombed three nuclear sites at Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. This escalation of U.S. involvement in this conflict was neither necessary nor beneficial. It will lead to further U.S. involvement, further casualties and domestic hardships.

The New Jersey Libertarian Party condemns this act and our Commander-in-Chief for authorizing it. Instead of prioritizing peace, liberty, and the welfare of the American people, President Trump has thrust us into another bloody, costly, and pointless war.

During the 2024 election cycle we were promised peace. We were told that this new regime would be guided by a policy of non-intervention and domestic enrichment. Yet, 6 months later we are presented with military destabilization and global warfare. Millions of Americans voted in support of a peaceful future. One wherein the United States focused on preserving the liberties of its people. Instead, President Trump chose to fire the opening salvo in another pointless conflict. 

U.S. foreign policy has become dangerous, not only to peace abroad, but to the safety and security of the American people. President Trump, like his predecessors, has used the imagined threat of “weapons of mass destruction” to scare us into compliance. To lead us like the Pied Piper into economic quagmires and mass graves. We cannot continue to impoverish ourselves to turn countries into craters. We cannot continue to send young men and women to fight for the glory and enrichment of the elite, while their loved ones struggle to afford ballooning grocery bills. We cannot continue to champion ourselves as the leader of the free world while innocent civilians lose everything to modern American imperialism.

We call for an immediate end to all acts of aggression against the Iranian people. The United States does not belong in the Middle East and we ought not involve ourselves in any foreign war. We call on the United States congress to reclaim their war declaration authority from executive overreach. Finally, we call on the American people to join us in condemning state violence in all of its forms. 

In Liberty,

The New Jersey Libertarian Party

Bruno Pereira
Chair, New Jersey Libertarian Party

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

Military Might Does Not Make a Nation Great

Neocons such as Eli David are once again promoting the idea that America is great because we can bomb the crap out of foreign nations. I recall the same nonsense from when George W. Bush was president. It's his post-9/11 war fever all over again.

 

America has serious domestic problems. Violent street crime. Domestic turmoil. Public schools that graduate illiterates ... creating an ever greater reliance on foreign workers and foreign imports ... making our supply chains ever more vulnerable ... making it harder for young people to find jobs that pay a living wage ... making it harder for them to marry and raise families ... plus our rising national debt, inflation, a looming depression ... laced with our cultural and moral decay as our social fabric comes apart, and, well, one could go on.

 

But we can still bomb the crap out of whoever we want. (Or whoever Israel wants us to bomb.)

 

And really, isn't that what makes America Great?

 

(Okay, I didn't think so either.)

 

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

Greenland Rejects Trump's Neocon Bullying

Trump campaigned on America First, a term coined in 1940 and which meant that the U.S. should not aid foreign countries or enter into foreign wars. America should mind its own business. America First never meant that we should be the world's bully, taking whatever was in our "national interest."

If "national interest" were the measure of morality, then the actions of any foreign conqueror could be justified as serving that nation's "national interest." Hitler thought it was in Germany's "national interest" to annex Poland and much of the east. Stalin thought it was in Russia's "national interest" to annex Poland, the Baltic states and Finland. Mao thought it was in China's "national interest" to annex Tibet.

And perhaps it was. But it was not moral.

The Neocon expansionists, with their vaunted "moral compass," might respond, "America's better than that -- so we have a right to behave the very same way."

Well, maybe not in such blatant words. But that's their argument. We're "good" because we don't behave like bad nations, so we have a right to behave like bad nations.

Silly, isn't it?

Trump's "America First" foreign policy is hardcore Neoconservatism. In addition to blanket support for Israel, Trump has called for the annexation of the Panama Canal, Gaza, Canada, and Greenland. I doubt he expects to annex Canada, but of all those territories, he seems most determined to take Greenland.

Yet the people of Greenland bravely responded "No" in their recent elections. Jakob Wiezman of Politico reports (March 12, 2025):

 

"Greenland had a message for Donald Trump as islanders went to the polls this week: thanks, but no thanks.

"The U.S. president’s repeated noises about acquiring the vast Arctic island — not ruling out military force or economic coercion — were rejected at the ballot box, as a party that denounced Trump’s ambitions came out on top.

"The opposition center-right Democrats party grabbed the most votes in a surprising national election result that saw the country’s governing coalition parties (the left-wing Inuit Ataqatigiit and center-left Siumut) edged out into third and fourth place, on a total of 28,620 votes cast (70 percent turnout).

But like the Godfather, Neocon Trump is determined to make Greenland an offer they can't refuse. Following the election, on March 13, Emily Goodin of the Daily Mail reports:

"President Donald Trump on Thursday reiterated the United States 'needs' Greenland for national security purposes and indicated he's willing to send in American troops to take control of the island.

'I think it'll happen,' the president said of annexing the island during his Oval Office meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

'We really needed for national security. I think that is why NATO might have to get involved anyway,' he added."

Ayn Rand famously said: "A need is not a claim."

I've met conservatives, libertarians, and Objectivists who love to cite Rand whenever an impoverished person seeks a handout. But when America (or Israel) demands or takes something because some leader says the nation "needs" it for their "national interest," these same Rand fans go silent.

I wish the people of Greenland well in their quest for independence -- from both Denmark and the United States. We demanded independence from Britain. Greenlanders are entitled to the same.

And I wish Trump would focus on putting America First (no foreign aid) but without the Neoconservatism (foreign conquests).

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

Trump Joins AIPAC in Trying to Oust Thomas Massie

Thomas Massie, a Republican Congressman from Kentucky, is one of the few elected Republicans who oppose all foreign aid -- even to Israel.

AIPAC tried to punish Massie by funding his opponent in the last election. AIPAC failed. The voters once again choose Massie.

Of Massie, The Nation 's John Nichols wrote (May 28, 2024):

[O]n matters of war and peace, he often sides with progressives, positioning himself as a libertarian-leaning Republican who opposes US military interventionism and military aid packages for foreign countries, including Israel. That stance has drawn sharp criticism from neoconservatives in general, who worry about the return of the sort of old-school Republican isolationism that reflexively opposed military interventions and foreign aid packages, and in particular from AIPAC, which has objected to his many votes against aid to Israel, as well as his rejection of resolutions backing Netanyahu’s government.

Now, Andrew Solender reports for Axios that Donald Trump has vowed to "lead the charge" to unseat Massie in the next election.

Trump makes no mention of Massie's opposition to funding Israel, but that doesn't mean it's not Trump's real motive. AIPAC likes to keep a low profile. When it funds ads opposing "anti-Israel" candidates, the ads generally make no mention of Israel. 

Reporting for Common Dreams, Eli Clifton writes (August 9, 2022):

Curiously though, the ads paid for by UDP [United Democracy Project], affiliated with the largest pro-Israel group in the country [AIPAC], don't mention the groups' central issue: Israel.

Like Ron Paul, Thomas Massie has a strong record on many libertarian issues, including foreign affairs. And that, for the Israel First lobby, is the problem.

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

LNC Chair Steven Nekhaila Endorses Tulsi Gabbard as DNI Chair

Back in 2019, I praised Tulsi Gabbard as the best among the Democrats for her strong antiwar statements.

Today LNC Chair Steven Nekhaila "tweeted" his approval of Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence. Nekhaila said:

“I’m optimistic about Tulsi Gabbard stepping in as Director of National Intelligence. While no government position is perfect, her history of challenging the establishment and opposing endless wars gives me hope for a more restrained, accountable intelligence community. If she upholds transparency and resists the surveillance state, this could be a step toward restoring civil liberties. Time will tell, but at the very least, it’s a shake-up the deep state won’t like.”

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

LNC Chair Steven Nekhaila Condemns Trump's Proposal to Seize Gaza

Libertarian National Committee Chair, Steven Nekhaila, has joined the New York LP in condemning Donald Trump's proposal for America to "own" Gaza. In a recent "tweet" on X, Nekhailia said:

"As Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee, I unequivocally condemn President Donald Trump’s recent proposal for the United States to take over the Gaza Strip and forcibly relocate its Palestinian residents to neighboring countries. This plan not only violates international law -- which prohibits forced displacement and the acquisition of territory by force -- but also disregards the fundamental rights and dignity of the Palestinian people.

"For decades, the Israeli lobby has exerted undue influence over American politics and foreign policy, steering decisions that often conflict with  the principles of liberty and non-interventionism that we, as Libertarians, hold dear. This influence has led to unwavering U.S. support for Israeli policies, even when they contravene international  norms and human rights standards.

"The costs of these misguided foreign entanglements have been catastrophic. The U.S. has spent trillions of dollars on wars and interventions that  have resulted in nothing but destruction and instability. The financial burden pales in comparison to the human toll: thousands of American service members have been killed or wounded, countless more suffer from  lifelong physical and psychological trauma, and millions of innocent civilians -- particularly in the Middle East -- have borne the brunt of these  reckless policies. The people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and now Gaza have suffered immensely, not just at the hands of authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations, but also as direct or  indirect victims of U.S. interventionism.

"The Libertarian Party stands firmly against using American taxpayer dollars to fund war and occupation. It is time to stop sending money and weapons overseas to fuel conflicts that do not serve our interests and that undermine our nation’s foundational principles of non-interventionism and self-determination.

"Furthermore, we strongly oppose any form of collective punishment against the  Palestinian population in Gaza, whether executed by the U.S. or the Israel Defense Forces. Such actions are not only morally reprehensible  but also counterproductive, as they exacerbate tensions and hinder the  prospects for a peaceful resolution.

"The Libertarian Party advocates for a foreign policy rooted in non-interventionism, respect for sovereignty, and the protection of  individual rights. We call upon the U.S. government to withdraw from entanglements that compromise these principles and to pursue diplomatic  avenues that uphold justice and liberty for all peoples."

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

Libertarian Party of New York Condemns Trump's Plan to Seize Gaza

Trump promised an America First foreign policy. Yet he seems to have gone full Neocon and is ushering in George W. Bush's third term.

Meanwhile the LPNY has issued the following "tweet" on X:

"The Libertarian Party of New York strongly condemns President Donald Trump’s reported plans for the United States to take control over the Gaza Strip. Such an intervention would be an unconstitutional, reckless, and unjustifiable expansion of American military and political power in a region where decades of intervention have only fueled instability and suffering.

"The United States government has no rightful authority to seize or govern foreign territory, nor should American taxpayers be forced to fund yet another endless entanglement in the Middle East. Any attempt to impose U.S. control over Gaza would be a blatant violation of national sovereignty, an invitation for further conflict, and a direct threat to the lives of both American service members and civilians in the region.

"The Libertarian Party of New York unequivocally opposes foreign interventionism, and President Trump’s reported plans to take over Gaza are a dangerous step toward yet another disastrous occupation. The United States should be pursuing peace and disengagement, not more imperial overreach.”

"We call on the American people and their representatives in Congress to reject any attempt to expand U.S. military presence in Gaza or any other foreign land. The path to peace lies in diplomacy, trade, and non-intervention—not in military control and nation-building."

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

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

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

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

Here are the two resolutions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wayne Allyn Root Flip Flops on Gays, Yet Again

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

Root was an opportunist who stood for nothing.

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

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

So is Root anti-gay?

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

As I wrote at the time:

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

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

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

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

Police Remove Starchild from 2024 Libertarian National Convention During Trump Speech

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

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

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

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

Watch the video and judge for yourself.

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

===========

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

 

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

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

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

How good are AI's literary skills today?

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

==========