Ron Paul, the Antiwar Presidential Candidate for 2012

People are urging Ron Paul to run once again, in 2012:



I can't think of a better candidate.

If Paul runs, it will probably be for the Republican Party nomination. If he loses (as he probably will), he can then run on either the Libertarian Party or Constitution Party, if he wants.

But perhaps the smartest move would be for Paul to run as an independent, with a more progressive-leaning/antiwar (and anti-corporatist) candidate. A right-left antiwar fusion ticket.

I still like the idea of Karen Kwiatkowski as Ron Paul's VP pick, but Ralph Nader might be more attractive to those on the left.

Wayne Allyn Root Opposes Libertarian Muslim Outreach

At a recent Libertarian National Committee meeting, Libertarian Party chairman Mark Hinkle proposed increasing the LP's outreach to Muslims. LNC member Wayne Allyn Root objected.

Here are more details, are reported by Gold America Group:

Mark Hinkle announced he was going to present our party before the American Muslim Alliance, where he had been invited to speak....

Dan Karlan notes that Muslims are the one group that is persecuted [in the U.S.] "It makes sense for an outlying political organization to go after (seek common cause with) groups of similarly-trashed people," Karlan rationally argued.

Wayne Allyn Root went on at great length as to why the LNC should not be doing this. We believe an accurate quote of his message is:

"So with atheist Libertarians harshly criticizing Christians, do those same anti-religious Libertarians choose to equally criticize Muslims? Do they support Mark going to Muslim religious events?

"Because right now we risk looking anti-Semitic as a political party. Where is our outreach to Jewish groups? Or Christian groups? Seems one-sided and biased for our party to outreach to only Muslims.

"I'm sure it offends most mainstream American voters.

"I wonder if the views of this Muslim organization have been vetted in detail? I would not attend any religious event for any religious group without checking on what they stand for.

"The problem is that many Muslim groups do not agree to Israel's right to exist. Many do not denounce suicide bombers as murderers. Several seemingly innocuous Muslim groups in the USA have been indicted for raising money for terrorist groups....

"If the LP sends a rep to Muslim events we MUST send reps to Jewish and Christian events too. I volunteer to outreach to Jewish and Christian organizations. Atheists can outreach to whomever they want. We, as a group that should not show bias or prejudice, should be outreaching to every possible group of faith."

Mark Hinkle tried to restore sense with a question: "Wayne, in the United States, which religious group is more hated, more reviled, more persecuted: Jews or Muslims"?

Probably not expecting the responder, "Jews," from Scott Lieberman.

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

Some observations:

Outreach is generally aimed at under-represented groups (as per their percentage of the U.S. population). It appears to me, based on my decades of following the LP, that:

* Jews, atheists, pagans, and Christians are well represented. Yes, the LP has a minor reputation of being unwelcoming to Christians, but I've not found this to be so.

* Women and youth are under-represented.

* Muslims and people of color are heavily under-represented.

It's nice that the LP has so many older, white men of Jewish, atheist, and Christian background. But Libertarians have long griped about the lack of women, youth, and people of color in the LP. So what are they doing about it? How about increasing outreach to under-represented groups?

It's telling that I've not heard complaints about the lack of Muslims in the LP, but it make sense to increase outreach to them as well.

Imagine if a member of the Lily White Country Club suggested outreach to blacks? And someone said: "No, that looks anti-white! It's racist to outreach only to blacks! We shouldn't do outreach to blacks unless we do equal outreach to whites!"

That's Root's logic.

The flaw in Root's logic is that the LP's door is obviously open to Jews and atheists, Christians and pagans. It's not obviously open to Muslims (or to blacks, or Mexicans...).

As for Root's worry that Jews or Christians may be "offended" by the LP's "biased" outreach to Muslims, well, I suppose that in the 1950s some Lily White Country Club members were offended by outreach to blacks (and Jews, and Catholics, and Latinos).

But so what?

If LP members (or American voters) are offended by outreach to Americans of Muslim heritage ... let them be offended.

(I can't speak for other faiths, but I've done the research, and I know that good Catholics won't take offense at Muslim outreach.)

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

Thomas L. Knapp makes a good observation at Independent Political Report. "Left libertarians" have long griped about Root appearing on far-right, pro-war, and even homophobic shows (e.g., radio's Mike Savage). Knapp observes:

Root objects to the chair accepting the Muslim group's invitation, characterizing the chair's acceptance as an LNC activity that amounts to "the LNC sending a rep" ... Three guesses what [Root's] likely response would be if anyone on the LNC tried to tell him what shows/events he could or could not appear at/on.

Yup. Root demands the right to represent the LP anywhere he wishes (no matter how it reflects on the LP), yet he conversely wants to veto others in representing the LP in ways he disapproves of.

Hypocrisy?

Starchild, of San Francisco Libertarian Party, Writes Pro-Wikileaks Resolution

Starchild, a former officer and current activist of the Libertarian Party of San Francisco, reports on Independent Political Report:

I recently wrote a proposed resolution for the Libertarian Party of San Francisco on the WikiLeaks issue, and sent it to members of the Libertarian National Committee and other email lists, offering it as sample wording others could use in crafting resolutions for their own bodies to pass on the topic:

* * *

WHEREAS WikiLeaks has provided an invaluable service to the cause of free speech and to helping keep governments and other institutions accountable to the people of the world; and

WHEREAS numerous politicians and other public figures in the U.S. have called WikiLeaks founder and Australian citizen Julian Assange a traitor (treason being punishable by the death penalty in the U.S.) and even in some cases for him to be assassinated; and

WHEREAS it is possible that if Julian Assange is extradited to Sweden, he could be extradited from there to the United States; and

WHEREAS the sex charges for which Julian Assange is wanted by Swedish authorities appear to be baseless, yet have been pursued in an unusually urgent and forceful manner by said authorities, in what can only be a result of Assange's role in WikiLeaks;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of San Francisco calls on the British authorities who have arrested Julian Assange and currently have not released him in Britain despite bail being granted and posted, to immediately stop all judicial proceedings against him, and refuse to extradite him to Sweden, the United States, or any other country.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of San Francisco thanks Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, as well as their sources including U.S. Army private first class Bradley Manning, for exposing what congressman Ron Paul called "the delusional foreign policy" of the U.S. government, and revealing government secrets wrongfully withheld from the American people.

* * *

Alas, this resolution may be too libertarian for the Libertarian Party.

Libertarian Party of North Carolina Condemns FBI Raids on Antiwar Activists

From the site of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina:

With a vote of 8 affirmative and one abstension, the Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina passed the the following statement this week:

"The Libertarian Party of North Carolina condemns the September 24, 2010, raids by the FBI on the homes of 14 antiwar activists in Minneapolis and other cities and the issuing of Grand Jury subpoenas to the targeted activists.

"The right to speak is one of the fundamental human rights recognized by the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is now clear that these raids were simply intended to intimidate those who speak against the foreign wars that our country is currently pursuing, and constitute a 'fishing expedition' wherein the Department of Justice is using these Grand Jury subpoenas in an effort to discover or create actions or statements that will justify continued prosecution of these activists.

"We call on Attorney General Eric Holder, President Barack Obama, Congress, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to cease and desist from using Grand Jury subpoenas to intimidate people who are merely exercising their First Amendment rights, to immediately return all of confiscated items that were seized during these raids, and to pay for any required home repairs or damage done to confiscated items while in FBI custody."

Once again, I ask, where is Wayne Allyn Root?

Isn't Root a "Libertarian leader"? Doesn't he claim to support LP principles such as Free Speech and Foreign Non-Intervention?

Wayne Allyn Root on Israel

The Mideast remains America's foreign policy hot spot -- and political hot potato. It's the locale of our current (and potentially future) wars.

The classic libertarian position is one of foreign non-intervention. Peace and friendship with all nations, alliances and entanglements with none.

However, Libertarian embarrassment Wayne Allyn Root has flip-flopped so much on foreign policy over these past four years, one wonders what he really believes -- in his heart -- about America's Mideast policy.

Texas Libertarian Party activist John Jay Myers offers some insight into Root's heart, based on his personal talks with Root. In a publicly posted comment at Independent Political Report [comment #28], Myers writes of Root:

"I don't really bash anyone as much as Wayne Allyn Root, but there is a reason for that. I am deeply involved in the group [the Libertarian Party], so when some ding-dong comes along claiming to be the Libertarian Party magi, and saying things to my face that contradict himself (and his book) I just can't let it slide.

"Here are the two things that Wayne said to me that stoke my animosity:

" 'John, you realize we have to be in the Middle East to protect Israel, right?'

"He [Root] often uses his book as a resource to say that he has changed his mind on our foreign policy. But he told me this after his book was in stores, and he was at my house.

"So basically his opinions on foreign policy are a complete fabrication. Or a false front. That is a huge strike against Wayne.

"Secondly, he told me in Missouri, 'John, you cannot talk bad about Israel and expect to get in the media.'

"What? What does that even mean? I should be able to talk about whatever or whoever I want. This is America after all....

"He [Root] is basically saying there is a group of people so in control of our media, that freedom of speech is no longer an option.

"That is a big deal. And if I believed this, as Wayne apparently does, I would be screaming it from the rooftops."

Read Myers's full account at Independent Political Report [comment #28].

I Paid Cash and Flew Without Showing I.D.

The government can whittle away at our freedoms partially because younger people don't know what freedom looks like. They weren't around in freer days, so they don't know what was lost, or what freedoms might have been theirs.

They're much like Winston in 1984, who sought out old men, trying to learn clues as to what life was like before Big Brother ruled Oceania.

Here is an example of what real freedom once looked like in America:

Back in the late 1980s (I think it was in 1986), I flew from New York City to Washington D.C. It was a last minute thing. I took a taxi to La Guardia Airport to catch the hourly shuttle from NY to DC. I think Pan Am ran it back then, but I'm not sure about that.


* I had no reservation. I don't think anyone did for those shuttles.

* I bought my ticket at the last minute.

* I bought no return flight.

* I paid in cash.

* I had no luggage.

* I showed no I.D.


I simply hopped on the plane to DC. It was like getting on the subway. A few of hours later, I flew back from DC to NY. Same routine. Cash, no reservation, no luggage, no I.D.

That's what freedom once looked liked in America.

For another peek at real freedom, see what it looks like today in Canada.

Wayne Allyn Root's Slick, Non-Position on Julian Assange

The Clintonesque Wayne Allyn Root knows how to speak forcefully -- without actually taking a clear position on controversial issues.

Bold, empty statements are common among politicos. Buried within Root's latest anti-Obama rant, Root says:

"Is Julian Assange of Wikileaks really a 'threat to national security' or is Obama and the United States Congress a bigger threat to the average taxpayer?"

This is clever, in that Root appears to defend Julian Assange -- without actually doing so.

When Bush Sr. said that Saddam was "worse than Hitler," Bush did not mean that Hitler was good. Merely that Saddam was worse.

Actually, Root doesn't even say that Obama is worse than Assange. Root merely asks whether Obama is worse than Assange.

Root's brief statement can thus be interpreted in every possible way:


1. Julian Assange is a pro-liberty hero.

2. Julian Assange is a monster, second only to Obama.

3. Julian Assange is a monster, worse than Obama.

4. Julian Assange occupies some moral position between "hero" and "monster."


Root's statement about Assange can mean anything. Root doesn't defend Assange. To do so would threaten Root's aspirations to join the lucrative field right-wing, media punditocracy. Instead, Root's implied defense leaves him free to condemn Assange at some future date, should the neocon customer base require Root to do so.

However, if Root runs for a Libertarian Party office or nomination, one of his lapdogs can always spin Root's statement so that it looks as if Root is defending Assange.

(It's always better for Root's LP lapdogs do the antiwar/anti-police state spinning, as it leaves Root free to renounce that spin should the neocon media require it. "My supporters misunderstood my statement," Root can always say.)

Root knows how to be direct, even blunt. If he's coy, or vague, it's intentional.

Compare Root's coyness on Wikileaks to Ron Paul's bold statement on Wikileaks.