Libertarian Judge Jim Gray Supports Two-State Solution

Last weekend, retired Judge Jim Gray, from California, was nominated as the Libertarian Party's 2012 Vice Presidential candidate.

A few days earlier, on May 1, libertarian activist Carol Moore circulated a nugget from Jim Gray's political past. When he ran as the California LP's candidate for US Senate in 2004, Gray supported an Israeli/ Palestinian Unity Resolution.

It's a balanced document. It condemns all terrorism -- suicide bombers and state terrorism. It calls for a two-state solution. (As opposed to the more controversial and "extreme" one-state solution.) It takes no sides, and advocates peace and dignity for all partied in Israel/Palestine.

Despite this balance, Gray's position was condemned as anti-Semitic by a few posters on this May 2nd Indepdendent Political Report thread.

Here is Gray's 2004 statement:

ISRAELI/PALESTINIAN UNITY RESOLUTION

Whereas, the situation involving the Israelis and Palestinians has been steadily deteriorating into open warfare; and,

Whereas, all of the nations of the world still have not stood up together to guarantee the right of the State of Israel and the State of Palestine to exist in security and peace; and,

Whereas, there can never be a full and lasting peace in any land that does not afford and provide justice for all of its people, regardless of race or religion; and

Whereas, people of all faiths, backgrounds and nationalities have not stood up together to condemn all acts of terrorism of every nature; and,

Whereas, the people who live in the Israel/Palestine area should have the self-determination to decide the historical and emotional political issues that presently divide them; and,

Whereas, further bloodshed in the Israel/Palestine area is unacceptable and unnecessary;

Therefore be it resolved that each one of us individually and with all of our strength and fortitude guarantee, and recommend that our country and the world community guarantee, the existence and security of the State of Israel and the State of Palestine; and

Further be it resolved that all people in Israel/Palestine area be afforded and provided justice for all claims and grievances; and that reasonable compromises be reached by parties; and,

Further be it resolved that from this day forward, each one of us will decry and condemn all acts of terrorism, which are defined as the use of force by individuals, groups and/or states for the intentional injury, destruction and/or killing of civilians, which includes all forms of suicide bombings, but also includes acts like firing missiles out of helicopters to kill or injure people below, whoever they may be, and which intentionally clouds people’s ability to think and maintain an open mind; and,

Further be it resolved that questions as to the future existence of the Israel/Palestine area, such as the issue of where borders are to be drawn, and the status of Jerusalem, are to be decided primarily by the people who live there, with other countries and world bodies playing a neutral role under the guidance of the Geneva Accords.

While I'm disturbed by Gary Johnson's foreign policy, Jim Gray has a long history of promoting peace. I continue to support Ron Paul -- and have already voted for him in California via absentee ballot -- but I am pleased with the LP's vice presidential pick.

Los Angeles Republicans for Ron Paul

Registered Republicans in California will be voting for Republican Party Central Committee members in the upcoming June 5, 2012 election.

I live in California's 50th Assembly District. I've been Googling the 13 candidates for Republican Party Central Committee.

The below five candidates appear to be pro-Ron Paul:

* Mary C. Willison

* Vrezh Zatikyan

* Brooke Loesby

* Nels Hefty

* Gavin William Greer

* Mary Mottahedeh

Here's a video of candidate Vrezh Zatikyan registering Republicans to vote for Ron Paul in the June 5, 2012 primary:

Please support the above five pro-Ron Paul candidates for Republican Party Central Committee if you're a registered Republican in California's 50th Assembly District.

You can vote for up to seven candidates, but I recommend only voting for these five. Voting for two other, non-Ron Paul candidates will dilute votes from these pro-Ron Paul candidates.

You have until May 21st to register (or to re-register) Republican in California, so that you can vote for Ron Paul.

Addendum:

I've since been sent this list of all libertarian candidates for Republican Central Committee throughout California:

Gary Johnson Supports Gitmo

Many libertarians already know that Gary Johnson is pro-war and pro-US tax dollars for Israel, even though Israel is wealthy and can easily pay for its own military. (But why should it, so long as socialist Israel can bilk US taxpayers for money?).

But since the 2012 Libertarian Party national convention is underway, it's worth reiterating Johnson's anti-libertarian views on war, foreign policy, and "national security." Among his other anti-libertarian views, Johnson supports keeping Gitmo open:

Much has been made about Johnson being a libertarian on economic and social issues. His supporters claim -- "See, Johnson is libertarian across the board!"

Well, no, because even if you're "fiscally conservative" and "socially liberal" -- you're no libertarian if you still support war, empire, and torture.

Here's another video that bears repeating:

Boot Root at the Libertarian Party Convention

I've long blogged about the Clintonesque (even Stalinesque) Libertarian embarrassment that is Wayne Allyn Root.

So have many others. The problem with Root is not in digging up his dirt, but in keeping track of it all. (So much slime, so little time!)

Now longtime libertarian activist Carol Moore has amassed and organized Root's misdeeds from around the internet, compiling them into a webpage and PDF pamphlets. She urges delegates to the 2012 Libertarian Party convention to print and distribute her material.

Moore's Boot Root webpage begins by saying:

Since the mid-1990s various groups and factions of Libertarian Party members have been pushing for the Libertarian Party to become more "respectable," "mainstream," and "middle class," and less radical, outrageous and/or low income.

The party is being destroyed by people who don't care if they drive out members and reduce the number of candidates as long as those remaining are respectable, mainstream, middle class - or as Wayne Root puts it "high quality."

These people have fought to continue gutting the platform of meaningful libertarian content, including the non-interventionist foreign policy planks, and to drive more "hardcore" libertarians out of leadership positions on the national and even state levels.

They have tried to centralize power so that a small group of mainstream, middle class libertarians could control the whole party from the national level. They have been increasingly successful, using their higher incomes, allegiance to power over principle, and attendant political machinations to get their way.

That's just the beginning. Read it all at Moore's Boot Root page.

Are Rich Neocons Buying the Libertarian Party?

One of the Libertarian Party's many factional splits is that between its Povertarians (libertarians with little money) and wealthier members. Exacerbating matters is that these two groups tend to have different political priorities.

Povertarians are more likely to be Radicals, emphasizing peace and civil liberties. Rich Libs are more likely to be Reform types: pro-war, pro-Root, and more interested in economics. Thus, they are more likely to find common ground with Republicans, conservatives, and even Neocons.

I'm sure there are rich Radicals and poor Reformers. Ron Paul is no Povertarian, yet many (most?) Radicals love Paul.

But as a general rule, wealthier libertarians are less Radical. As radical activist Carol Moore once told me in an email, it does seem the pro-war libs have all the money.

For better or worse, money does help one excert influence beyond one's numbers in the LP.

Now, if you're crying "class warfare" or "Communist!", kindly stuff it. I know about true Communism firsthand. Trying to level the playing field, so that all libertarians have an equal voice in the LP irrespective of their wealth is not Communism. If you think it is, go back to searching for Obama under your bed.

How do wealthy libertarians buy excess influence within the LP? Here are some examples:


1. Joining more than one state LP.


Yup, I just learned that it's possible for someone to belong to more than one state LP.

At Independent Political Report, Marc Montoni writes at Comment 139:


"Carling is a member of several state parties, and in every one where he participates, it seems controversy follows.

"Not due to Carling, who showed up at our Virginia convention in 2003, but due to an attempt at sabotaging our presidential ballot-access in 2004 by a disgruntled former member, the Virginia LP eventually adopted a qualification for members that they must both reside in and be domiciled in Virginia. In other words, now, if someone moves out of state, the mere act of moving out of state is an ipso facto resignation of membership. Not being a member disqualifies one from holding LPVA office, also.

"In any case, I would advise all state LP’s to adopt requirements for members to be resident and domiciled; and probably registered to vote as well.

"Pick a state, and stay there!"


Montoni is referring to M Carling, an LP stalwart with many state and national titles under his belt, and (I believe) a Root supporter.

At the 2008 California LP convention, Wayne Allyn Root flew his entire family in from Nevada to get them credentialed as California LP delegates, including his then under-age daughter.

I second Montoni's suggestion and agree with the Virginia LP. You should be domiciled in the state whose party you wish to be a member of, and should only be a member of that state's party.


2. Expensive convention locals.


Perhaps the most infamous example of this is 2006's controversial California cruise convention.

Another example is the aborted 2010 Hawaii convention. Aaron Starr approvingly posted that his significant other was so thrilled that she did "cart wheels" upon learning the 2010 LP convention might be held in Hawaii. (Honolulu ranks as one of America's most expensive cities on many lists, and that's not including travel expenses to get there.)

Fortunately, more sober heads prevailed and the 2010 convention was held in St. Louis.

Then there's the 2012 Las Vegas convention, with is actually in a hotel outside of Vegas. Radicals have complained that cheaper cities, and even hotels within Vegas, were available, if one had tried to find them.

Instead, the LNC not only chose a venue that was more expensive than need be, but one that was most convenient for Root's supporters (Las Vegans who might drop into the convention and fill up empty delegate slots).

Expensive convention locales are a great way to price out Povertarians, who are more likely to be anti-Root Radicals.


3. Convention floor fees.


Some Povertarians say that it should be free for delegates to attend a convention. Delegates are already paying for their travel expenses and hotel room, and should not have to pay extra to do party business in the convention hall.

Others say that "There's not such thing as a free lunch." It's unlibertarian for wealthy libs to subsidize Povertarians' use of the convention hall.

That makes sense on the surface, but as one person (I think it was George Phillies) observed, the LNC's only task within the Bylaws is to run the national conventions. LNC membership fees should fund the convention. Only if there's any money left, should the LNC fund other stuff. Delegates are already "paying" by attending, and should not have to pay double for a convention hall that their LNC fees should already have covered.

Someone else (I think it was Thomas Knapp) wrote that by holding conventions at expensive venues, it's really the Povertarians who are forced to subsidize the hotel expenses of delegates who wish to vacation at pricey venues. (Because hotels offer discounts if you hold a convention there.)

Floor fees, like expensive convention venues, are another way to price out Povertarians. Some will come and subsidize the vacationers, but others can't afford it, and thus can't participate as equals in running the LP.


4. Bribery


I'm not talking about anything illegal or against the rules here. But sometimes, a wealthier lib will offer a large donation to the LP, provided that delegates vote his way. Aaron Starr did it at the 2007 California LP convention and 2010 national convention. I'm sure others have done likewise.

Povertarians, naturally, can't buy votes with cash. They can only hope to persuade with principles.


Perhaps some libertarians will see this post as class warfare or Communism. And I suppose that an argument can be made that "the market" should decide whether party rules that allow for the above behaviors should be permitted.

Fair enough. And to the LP's credit, Starr's offers were rebuffed.

But my commentary is part of the "marketplace of ideas." And I think the LP has a moral obligation to keep its expenses down, and its rules written, so that people of every economic background can equally participate in the LP.

Isn't that the best way to "grow the party" -- which most Reformers claim they want to do?

The Myth of True Communism

When my anti-Communist satire, Vampire Nation, was first published some dozen years ago, I began receiving complaints from self- identified Communists.

A common accusation within their emails and postings was that I had misrepresented Communism, because, they said, Communism as it had been historically practiced was not True Communism.

They claimed that True Communism was beautiful and wonderful, and brimming with love and fellowship and warm feelings for all humanity.

I replied to their arguments with an article, that I've now reprinted, called: The Myth of True Communism.

In Defense of the Libertarian Macho Flash

I followed libertarian politics long before I began writing about it. One of my first articles on the subject appeared in the May 2001 issue of Liberty magazine.

I enjoy looking back on these "blasts from the past" to see where my predictions came true, where I was off the mark, and to what extent I may have changed in my outlook.

In my article, "In Defense of the Libertarian Macho Flash," I advised Libertarians to not dilute their principles in trying to win elections. I told them to instead use the LP as an educational tool. I believed then, as I do now, that the LP will never become a major political party, no matter what it does, and so it should instead focus on its only real strength: education.

I've now uploaded my 2001 article, which you can find here: In Defense of the Libertarian Macho Flash.

(Above photo of wrestler Randy "Macho Man" Savage.)