Stewart Flood Exposes LNC Control Freaks

Libertarian Party watchers have long suspected that a group of pro-war/Republican Lite control freaks (sometimes dubbed The Starr Chamber after former LNC treasurer Aaron Starr) have conspired to dominate or manipulate the LP.

Their goal was to advance their petty power and pro-war/ Reform faction policies.

Their methods included purges (e.g., Angela Keaton, Lee Wrights, Rachel Hawkridge), takeovers of state LPs (e.g., Nevada, Oregon), and slick gamesmanship in misusing Robert's Rules of Order.

Now, the May/June 2012 issue of George Phillies's Liberty for America has published Stewart Flood's following exposé:

Former LNC Member Stewart Flood writes on Independent Political Report the comments currently numbered 525, 532-535 [Ed: here are only short bits from much longer posts. Emphasis added here.]

"Now that I [Ed: Stewart Flood] am not on the LNC, I believe it is time to set some of the record straight, and blow the lid off several of the greatest conspiracies the Libertarian Party has seen...

"The Starr Chamber is not gone. They have quite a few members on the LNC and they will do their best to follow the marching orders they have been given. Yes, they actually hold secret meetings...

"I am no longer on the LNC, so I have no reason to not admit that there are secret meetings where a majority of the LNC decide in advance how to vote and where motions are written and given to members on cue cards. Mr. Starr was usually the chair of the meetings that I attended. He continued to do this (over my objection) after he was defeated in his re-election bid for office...

"Remember, I know the real plan. A few other people have figured it out on their own without being told. It is really quite clever, but this convention was a major setback for them. I have never supported or agreed with what they want to do to the party...

"The major hooded key holders of the inner circle are gone, leaving only five or six of their pawns on the LNC.

Flood does not state this group's goal. But from my own observations, these people are mostly Party Cultists, supporters of Wayne Allyn Root, and generally pro-war.

Ron Paul Gets 10.2% in California GOP Primary

In California's 2012 Republican presidential primary, Ron Paul pulled 147,893 votes -- 10.2% of the total -- and placed second in a field of six candidates.

The final tally as reported by the Secretary of State are:

Mitt Romney .... 1,151,197 -- 79.6%

Ron Paul ..... 147,893 -- 10.2%

Rick Santorum ..... 75,802 -- 5.2%

Newt Gingrich ..... 54,944 -- 3.8%

Charles E. "Buddy" Roemer, III ..... 9,714 -- 0.7%

Fred Karger ..... 6,482 -- 0.4%

In the November 2008 general election, in which any registered voter could vote, Paul pulled 17,006 write-in votes, despite his desire that people not vote for him. Last night, in a race wherein only registered Republicans could participate, and in which Paul was on the ballot, he got 147,893 votes.

Make of that what you will.

The Libertarian Party's primary election results were as follows:

Gary Johnson ..... 5,244 -- 49.4%

Barbara Joy Waymire ..... 1,669 -- 15.7%

Scott Keller ..... 949 -- 8.9%

Bill Still ..... 538 -- 5.1%

R. J. Harris ..... 523 -- 4.9%

Roger Gary ..... 456 -- 4.3%

James Ogle ..... 443 -- 4.2%

Carl Person ..... 414 -- 3.9%

Lee Wrights ..... 379 -- 3.6%

Joy Waymire is a nice lady, but I assume she only did as well as she did (placing second) because hers was the only female name on the ballot.

It happened before, in California's 2008 Libertarian presidential primary, to Christine Smith. Smith won that primary, only to be trounced at the 2008 LP national convention, culminating in her infamous meltdown.

Facing a slate of mostly unknown candidates, registered Libertarians (who are less informed than are LP convention-goers or pledge-signers) will often vote for the coolest name (by whatever standards they have). Top LPC vote-getter, Gail Lightfoot, has theorized that her female, Native American-sounding name, has helped in her runs for office.

I assume that Lee Wrights would have done better had this primary been held before the LP national convention. Wrights lost then and threw his support behind Johnson. Wrights likely polled last in this primary because his supporters heeded Wrights's call to support Johnson.

Libertarian Party's 2012 Antiwar Ad

Former Libertarian Party presidential candidate, and current LP Vice Chair, L. Lee Wrights has long tried to rebrand the LP as the antiwar party. Toward that end, he has donated this antiwar ad to the LP.

According to Thomas Hill:

The national LP has accepted our video as a gift from the Wrights 2012 staff. A blog post with more information will be posted at LP.org later today.

The main goal of the Wrights campaign was to make sure that the LP presidential nominee would have a strong anti-war message.

Both the Johnson campaign and the national LP appear to be committed to the message of peace.

I believe Lee Wrights has had some influence on both.

Hill's above comment (#1) can be found at Independent Political Report.

Gary Johnson on Afghanistan, Libya and Non-Intervention

Gary Johnson's foreign policy is a confused and confusing mixed bag. Some of his proposals are specific and positive, others vague and troubling.

He's clear about wanting to end some current wars and decrease the Pentagon's budget, yet he also leaves the door open for future interventions and foreign aid.

In a Huffington Post article (May 25, 2012), Johnson says:

We should bring our young men and women home -- and vow to never again fight an 11-year war when our mission was complete in six months.... It took [Obama] three years to bring our troops home from Iraq. And Afghanistan? We're still there, ten years, too many lives and hundreds of billions of dollars longer than necessary.

Johnson advocates an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. He thinks we should have left earlier. But as he later makes clear, he still supports the initial invasion.

[W]e spent hundreds of millions launching missiles into Libya to topple the leader of a sovereign nation. Gaddafi was not a guy I would want running my country, but we took him out with no clear understanding of what -- or who -- might follow.

Johnson sounds ambivalent about the Libya intervention (as were many conservatives). He implies that he's uncomfortable with Obama's Libya war, but that he might have supported it if the outcome were assuredly beneficial, but that we had "no clear understanding" of the possible outcome at that time.

Americans are looking for a non-intervention choice [in the 2012 election], and there is one. I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning.

That's good, but it doesn't make Johnson a purely non-interventionist choice. Rather, it means he was non-interventionist on this war.

Every politician is non-interventionist regarding at least some conflicts. A Libertarian candidate should clearly and specifically go beyond that.

There was no threat that required an invasion [of Iraq], and there are a host of unintended consequences -- from an empowered Iran to a loss of standing with long-time allies.

Not specifically bad, but vague and troubling between the lines.

Johnson worries about "an empowered Iran." Does this mean he thinks a war against Iran is likely more justifiable in the future?

Also, what does he mean by "a loss of standing with long-time allies"? Does he mean that some of our "allies" are displeased with the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq? Perhaps, but which nations does he mean?

The Israeli government (if not all Israelis) lobbied for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Britain and the Anglo nations (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) were enthusiastic allies of America's invasion.

The "Arab street" likely opposed America's war, but Arab states were at least nominally backing the U.S.

While the U.S. suffered a "loss of standing" in the eyes of many people across the globe, I truly don't know which nations Johnson means by "long-standing allies"?

I supported going in to Afghanistan to uproot al Qaeda. We did that, quite successfully, in a matter of months. The Taliban was humbled and al Qaeda scattered to the winds -- all within a year.... A President Gary Johnson would have declared mission achieved in 2002 and brought our troops home.

Johnson supports ending the Afghan war now, yet he still supports the initial invasion. Contrast this with former LP presidential candidate (in 1996 and 2000) Harry Browne's proposals after 9/11, which focused on ending U.S. interventions and warned against invading Afghanistan.

I pledge to reduce military spending by 43% -- to the disbelief of those who refuse to let go of interventionist, nation-building foreign policies.... if we stop playing offense and focus on defense, a 43% cut in military spending is not only feasible, it will still leave us as the preeminent military power on the globe.

This is good as far as it goes.

Do we need hundreds of thousands of American troops in Europe and Japan? Can we not get by with only enough nukes to eradicate mankind 8 or 10 times? Do we need to have a military base in every nook and cranny of the world?

Johnson specifically cites Europe and Japan as places from which to withdraw U.S. troops. That's good -- but what about U.S. troops in the Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia? Johnson implies that he might have other nations in mind for withdrawal, but I wish he were more specific.

I advocate the use of strategic alliances to allow military obligations and needs to be more equitably shared.

I don't like the sound of "military obligations." Does the U.S. have military obligations to other nations? What does Johnson mean?

We are bankrupt. We cannot continue to bear the burden of protecting the entire world.

True. We cannot protect the "entire world." Not that the U.S. ever tried to protect the entire world, just those nations with economic value or powerful lobbies.

The only foreign aid we should offer is that which, in fact, produces savings and a positive cost-benefit for America.

I don't see how giving money to foreign nations can create "savings" for the U.S. Rather, every beggar nation (no matter how rich) will say, "Subsidizing us will save money for you!" Johnson is providing a "libertarian" talking point as cover for foreign welfare clients.

A principled policy of non-intervention does not require pledges to never ever send the military into conflict beyond our borders. I would like to think America would act to stop a Holocaust.

The Holocaust is an emotional button, often pressed to end debate. Yet this century has seen many Holocausts (e.g., Rwanda, Uganda, Bosnia, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Persia, and the former USSR), albeit by other names. There will be more. If Johnson wants the U.S. to stop them all, then he wants the U.S. to be the world's policeman -- an empire, with all the requisite costs in treasure and blood. If he only wants to stop some of them, then by what principles will he pick and choose?

Johnson has advocated keeping Gitmo open, and offered confusing statements on foreign policy in general.

Read Johnson's entire Huffington Post article.

Cops Lie on Tape When They Say "Stop Resisting"

It's routine for police to repeatedly say, "Stop resisting! Stop resisting!" when making an arrest -- even if the arrestee is not resisting. This is because police are often audio-recorded on tape, but not video-recorded.

Police are trained to repeatedly say, "Stop resisting. Stop resisting!" An audio recording of an arrest during which they say "Stop resisting! Stop resisting! is a helpful piece of "evidence" at trial should they ever be charged with police brutality.

It's an especially neat piece of "evidence" if the arrestee was not resisting and the police were brutal -- such as the Fullerton Police beating of Kelly Thomas.

But don't take my word for it. Witnesses -- civilians and police officers -- all say that this is standard operating police procedure.

On May 11, 2012, a caller to Los Angeles's John and Ken Show, on KFI-AM, described how, when he was arrested -- and complied -- the officer nevertheless kept mindlessly repeating, "Stop resisting! Stop resisting!" You can hear that portion of the show here.

Then a week later, on May 18, 2012, a caller who described himself as a former police officer, told John and Ken that the police are indeed trained to say "Stop resisting! Stop resisting!" whenever making an arrest. You can hear that portion here.

So the next time you're on a jury, and the prosecutor introduces some audio recording of a police officer repeating the magic phrase, "Stop resisting! Stop resisting!" -- don't be so quick to believe it. It's possible the arrestee was resisting -- but it's equally possible the cop was lying for the tape -- and to fool you, the juror!

Starchild Challenges Wayne Allyn Root

I've written previously about how rich Neocons are trying to purge the Libertarian Party of antiwar radicals.

Now Carol Moore is distributing a telling conversation between San Francisco libertarian activist Starchild (newly-elected to the LNC at the 2012 national convention) and Wayne Allyn Root (re-elected to the LNC at that same convention).

Their exchange occurred on the LNC listserv, which Starchild apparently distributed (on May 12, 2012) to other listservs, which Moore then further spread.

Starchild summarizes the gist of his conversation with Root by saying:

"I bear no malice toward W.A.R., but he really doesn't belong in our party's leadership. He doesn't believe there's room for us (and by 'us' in this context I mean radicals, anarchists, Libertarians who are for opening borders, eliminating foreign aid, legalizing all drugs, etc.), any more than I think there's room for him."

Read the entire exhange.

Tea-O-Conned Exposes Neocon Infiltration of the Tea Party Movement

I've previously written about how the Tea Party was initially heavily antiwar and libertarian, only to be infiltrated by Neocons.

Los Angeles libertarian activist Jason Gonella reported on how the GOP hijacked the Tea Party in Lancaster, California.

Monterey libertarian Lawrence K. Samuels reported on the Neocon's purging of antiwar libertarians from his local Tea Party.

Those were brief observations and on-the-ground reports. But there's also a book on the subject. It came out in 2010, but I only recently discovered Jake Shannon's Tea-O-Conned: The Hijacking of Liberty in America. Exposing the Neoconservative Infiltration and Takeover of the 21st Century Tea Party Movement.

That's a mouthful of a title. The book hasn't received much publicity, perhaps partially because it's self-published. But neither can you expect the Neocon media to promote antiwar Tea Partiers. The latter challenge the approved narrative of pro-war rightists vs. antiwar leftists.

I haven't yet read Shannon's book, but its topic is both under-reported and critical. His book seems worth a look.

Infiltration and sabotage is normal behavior for the pro-war crowd, as demonstrated by Aaron Biterman's admitted sabotage of the Ron Paul campaign on Facebook.