The recent ruling made by California’s very own U.S. Chief District Judge Vaughn Walker– in which Proposition 8, which was a voter-approved referendum that banned gay marriage in the state (thanks to the state-approved homophobic Mormon Church that lobbied heavily to get their precious initiative on the state’s ballot), has violated the civil rights of ardent gay activists (who want state-approved gay marriage codified into law) — has undoubtedly ignited both praise by progressives and condemnation by statist conservatives for the judge. (Walker happens to be openly-gay himself, and the statist conservatives have put him in their cross hairs by accusing him, in a malicious fashion, of employing his sexual orientation as a political crutch for his ruling. Even though that kind of paradigm is unconscionable, immoral, and unethical to the Nth Degree, that pales in comparison to the type of mentality that has engulfed some libertarians in the libertarian movement, especially from those who employ semantical word game tactics to evade legitimate arguments as to why the state has no rightful, legitimate, and valid grounds for refusing to recognize same-sex “gay” marriage. The court’s decision, as mandated by Walker himself, can be seen here [pdf].)
Gay rights advocates filed lawsuits to have the constitutional amendment declared unconstitutional. I predicted they would lose. First, they could not prevail on state constitutional grounds since Prop. 8 actually amended the California Constitution. You can’t argue a provision of the constitution is unconstitutional. So the question is whether this provision of the California Constitution violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (see my The Libertarian Case Against the Fourteenth Amendment). In my view, it clearly does not; any argument that such a law violates equal protection is ludicrous–there is no way the equal protection clause at the time of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) was understood to be so broad as to prohibit state laws that treated same-sex unions differently than traditional, heterosexual ones. As for due process–this was a validly enacted constitutional amendment, following regular legal procedures. So it was not a violation of due process (as for the doctrine of “substantive due process“–well this is a ridiculous, obviously dishonest, invented concept; process is, um, procedural).
(The notion that Kinsella [and others who share his point of view] has unveiled here is simply preposterous, but that will be explored later in this post. For now readers can simply make up their minds as to the “validity” of Kinsella’s bogus claims on this issue.)
Even Lew Rockwell, the founder and former president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and creator (and blogger) of LewRockwell.com, formerly objected to Walker’s ruling. In his blog post “Gay Marriage and Immigration” (how quaint that he married those two issues together!), dated August 5, 2010 at 10:24 AM, he writes in part:
[T]he Massachusetts. federal judge who ruled that marriage is none of the federal government’s business, and therefore Massachusetts may enact it, despite the defense of marriage act, had a strong case. He is ignored, however, while the crazed California judge is heralded.
And then, in the same post, he also writes:
[W]hile I can’t stand the foreign-government loving, war-mongering fundamentalist right, I do think they have one point. The heterophobes want to outlaw Church discrimination, that is, freedom. For many activists, government gay marriage is only one step towards even more totalitarian anti-discrimination laws.
“Crazed California judge”? “Heterophobes wanting to outlaw Church discrimination”? Who is he kidding? If anything, Rockwell has always been a homophobe against gays, especially on the issue of gay marriage. For him to use this language to condemn the actions of an openly-gay federal magistrate (even if he’s not a libertarian) is entirely uncalled for and unfair.
Overall, here are four principle arguments made by some in the liberty camp against the state’s attempt to recognize and embrace state-approved same-sex “gay” marriage*:
The State has no business in the marriage realm, so any approval of the ruling equates an acceptance of the State’s role in it as well as granting and codifying such a marriage. That even includes the State.
There are more pressing and more paramount things to be concerned about.
Marriage is merely a means for procreation and nothing else.
Federal courts (especially the U.S. district ones) have no legal jurisdiction over such matters at the state level.
Here are my swift replies:
No one, not even Yours Truly, says that the State must be involved in private affairs such as the institution of marriage. Of course it neither has any legitimate role in marriage nor it should have anything to do with it whatsoever. No one except for statist progressives and conservatives has suggested otherwise. The problem is that it is involved in the institution now; therefore, it’s in the State’s best interest not to invidiously deny a certain group of people of their freedom to marry while granting other groups special rights and privileges at the discriminated group’s expense. Will statist conservatives (including the religious ilk) and vulgar libertarians (mainly the right-libertarian ilk) use the power of the State to say that gays must be barred from eating in the same restaurants, going to the same schools, or driving on the same roads as straights do? Should the State be used to discriminate gays by prohibiting them from entering State-subsidized and State-controlled public buildings such as courtrooms, government schools, hospitals, and municipal buildings? (Let’s include legislative chambers such as state legislatures, state capitals, and, not to mention, the U.S. Congress and the Senate.)
How can there be “more pressing and more paramount things to be concerned about”? When gays are prevented from having the legal and normal (and not to mention mutual) benefits of marriage (including hospital visitation, custody of children, medical-making decisions involving incapacitated partners, next of kin business, etc.), there are no “more pressing and more paramount things to be concerned about”. Human liberty is at stake here. Liberty isn’t some abstraction; it’s about choosing to live your own life the way you want to live as long as you are not aggressing against your neighbor. Everyone’s liberty must be protected at all costs or we become modern-day slaves to the State (although that has vastly and mostly happened today). It’s very simple for libertarians to look the other way and pretend that this isn’t a big deal. (After all, Jim Crow wasn’t a pressing matter to the State-supported and State-backed white bigots in the South in the 1960s.) Besides, the ruling has been made, and we must learn to live with it. How is praising this recent decision a troubling distraction from what is more significant? As human beings we are more capable of multitasking than we realize.
This Neanderthalic view that marriage was constructed only for the purpose of procreation and nothing more than that is simply ludicrous. Marriage has never been exclusively institutionalized for that purpose. If that were entirely true, infertile couples, couples who choose to be childless, and even those who are elderly would have been forbidden to join in matrimony. Moreover, couples who are in wedlock choose to enter in such a partnership predicated on other values at the heart of their decisions: economic security, love and emotional fulfillment, and much more. The Freeman‘s very won Contributing Editor Stephen Horwitzopined on the evolution of the family which provides excellent insight on this subject.Additionally, a related objection to this ruling is that heterosexual intercourse is the pillar of marital consummation. My argument to this: so what? Big deal! Institutions from time immemorial evolve. That’s nothing new in the grand scheme of things. Even if consummation were pertinent in some manner, that simply changes nothing, considering the reasonable principle of mutatis mutandis still exists and will remain available indefinitely. This objection, whether it’s levied on religious and secular grounds (even if it’s predicated on some alleged moral and ethical standpoint), is flatly absurd in every immeasurable way.
This business that federal courts have no business interceding in statist matters propped up by the states and their localities that lead to the curtailing of other individuals’ human freedom is nonsensical all the way around. We as individuals are dealing with crucial matters relating to liberty that must be applied to individuals consistently, especially when the State denies that consistency to other peace-loving people from all walks of life. This point even applies to Kinsella’s and Rockwell’s arguments as well: despite the Founders’ good intentions involving the political apparatus of federalism (which is a loose confederation of nation-like states that reserve the powers to those individuals and not the “states” because they are merely abstractions), state rights do not exist. Kinsella, Rockwell, and their Misean right-libertarian ilk get frequently annoyed when the State and its foot soldiers ignore other people’s already-owned First Amendment, Second Amendment, and Fourth Amendment-protected rights. So how can they ignore the existence of the people’s Fourteenth Amendment protections, which state in part in the following?:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [Emphasis added.]
Whether Kinsella, Rockwell, their ilk, and statist conservatives like it or not, that amendment exists. What are they going to do about it? Call for a repeal of that amendment? And, if so, would that entail a mass movement of right-libertarians and statist conservatives coalescing to push the states to ratify a new constitutional amendment that would nullify that amendment in its entirety? I see no valid argument against the federal court’s jurisdiction in this matter as far as I’m concerned.
Besides, would Rockwell, Kinsella, and their allies who have objections to the ruling make the same argument against interracial marriage? There was a time when interracial marriage was illegal in the South (at the height of the Jim Crow era) and in many other states as well. The Supreme Court refused to intervene in such affairs until 1967 when it ruled on a 9-0 vote in its landmark federal case Loving v. Virginia that such discrimination was illegal and in stark opposition to the Due Process and Equal Protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment as well. Kinsella objects to the Substantive Due Process claims that the amendment covers, which is ludicrous.
Critics may have been opposed to the ideas underlying that principle, but there have been critics of all sorts opposing this idea for years. Just because they criticized substantive due process doesn’t mean that their arguments are in the right or just; in fact, they are substantially subjective without any legal basis whatsoever. The points made by Rockwell, Kinsella, and others who have raised similar arguments are nonsensical and excrement. They are simply naive and foolish to believe in and favor that discriminatory crud.
Moreover, it does not help that Rockwell’s homophobia as the basis for his arguments against equal protection under the law (considering the law mandates that the State must be evenhanded in its application of such decisions) has become the face of the libertarian movement. Do some of those libertarians really want to alienate people more than they already have by taking that shameful position? Where’s the fairness in that type of paradigm altogether?
As long as the State has its dirty hands in the institution of marriage, the system, like or not, needs to be even-handed. While the goal of eliminating the State’s hand in marriage must be pursued, in the interim the State has no business discriminating considering all governments are created by their own laws that are the heart and soul of their own constitutions.
[*Note: I've taken the four points from Sheldon Richman's arguments in his blog post which is actually similar to my views on the matter and reworded his statements according to how I see them. A well-deserved hat tip to him for this.]
Wurzelbacher, trying to appeal to the Tea Baggers’ populist senses, flies into a nonsensical rant about homosexuality and abortion. According to Free Talk Live executive producer and co-owner and partner of CAI Credit Adjustments, Inc. (formerly Sakal/CAI) Jason Osborne, Wurzelbacher brings up the subject of illegal immigration. What does he propose the “people” should do about illegal immigration?
“Illegal immigration?” he said. “Put a fence up and start shooting [them].”
Sadly and disturbingly enough, the entire crowd stood up and gave him a standing ovation. How disgusting and twisted indeed!
Even more, The Times Reporter site, in reference to Wurzelbacher, also stated:
He drew an ovation with a talk emphasizing patriotism, taking responsibility and getting involved. “We need to get behind real Americans,” he said, warning the crowd not to let “a bunch of liberal pansies” take away their rights.
I suppose Wurzelbacher was truly referring to “conservative rights”?
This is a reason why the Liberty movement as a whole needs to divorce itself and disassociate itself from the Tea Party movement as much as possible and as soon as possible. Racism, intolerance, and bigotry must be rejected and condemned across the board. But, more importantly, violence against independent migrants must be denounced at all costs.
This is sheer positive proof that the Tea Baggers, including their conservative ilk, are nothing short of racists and fascism across the board. Any conservative, right-libertarian, or Tea Bagger who condones the putrid vitriol and rhetoric coming from Wurzelbacher and the applause and praise from the right-wing crowd deserves to have his or her feet held to the fire, just for simply embracing and advocating that level of trash talk and violence.
Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.
The website further reveals:
The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.
After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own “Rules of Engagement”.
Consequently, WikiLeaks has released the classified Rules of Engagement for 2006, 2007 and 2008, revealing these rules before, during, and after the killings.
WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.
WikiLeaks obtained this video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers. WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.
WikiLeaks wants to ensure that all the leaked information it receives gets the attention it deserves. In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work.
Here’s the 17-minute and 47-second clip in its entirety. I advise parents and everyone who are about to watch this may not suitable for your children, as it does contain graphic, obscene violence:
If Americans are shocked by this when they see this, my question to them will be, “Why?” What the U.S. federal government has done to the people of Iraq and the rest of the Middle East does not surprise me, but that does not mean it does not disgust me further.
Color me both unsurprised and sickened at the same time.
Democratic operatives and mainstream media shills and apologists for the Obama administration’s just-passed and enacted medical-care overhaul are now accusing the rank-and-file Republicans and their cronies who oppose the much-touted yet highly-unpopular “reform” and warn people of dire medical and economic consequences of being alarmists. The standard argument now being offered goes like this: “You and your ilk made the same claims about Medicare when it was passed in 1965.”
That is quite a hilarious contention, come to think of it. When Medicare was passed and enacted into law, opponents of the program at the time predicted that it result in the state’s greater control of the medical system than ever.
Here’s a couple of fair questions to people: does anyone now believe that Medicare was such a good idea to create? And while we’re at it, does anyone now think that was a horrible prediction at all?
Medicare, as it stands, has an unfunded liability — that is, empty promises — of $37 trillion over the next 75 years, the insolvency of the program notwithstanding. To give the devil his due, Obama at least admits that Medicare is a major reason for the federal deficit, which creates the massive national debt. To rectify the problem (namely the out-of-control budget), coverage for a handful of services are being denied. Doctors are now routinely being prompted to stop accepting new Medicare patients, thanks to the insane bureaucratic burden imposed upon them.
All in all, the government medical program has stimulated supply and demand of services, thus propping up prices for everyone across the board by subsidizing medical care for the retirees. Costlier medical care results in costlier medical insurance. Medical insurance companies are soon priced out of the market, thus becoming wiped out of existence after the price of insurance skyrockets. That certainly adds to the number of people who are uninsured. (Although this is not the only factor of inflation, it remains a relatively large one.)
With prices rising higher and the number of uninsured growing larger (all because of the government product known as Medicare), there is no question that all this has energized the government’s attempt to increase its power over the medical system.
Now, in the present day, the predictions made about Medicare have come true, not to mention legitimate. It has opened the door for more state intervention in our medical-care choices — meaning us.
The question that needs to be asked is this: is what we’ve warned about ObamaCare making us alarmists or talking about reality?
Here’s a YouTube clip of Maher making his speech on the March 26, 2010 episode of his show:
Here’s a transcript of what Maher said:
Finally, New Rule: You can’t use the statement ‘There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year!’ as a threat if there was no cooperation in the first part of the year.
Here’s a word President Obama should take out of his Teleprompter: Bipartisanship. People only care about that in theory, not in practice. The best thing that happened this year is when Obama finally realized that and said: ‘Kiss my black ass, we’re going it alone George W. Bush style.’ [applause]
Now, two months ago, conservative Fred Barnes wrote, ‘The health care bill is dead with not the slightest prospect of resurrection.’ Well, if it’s dead, you just got your ass kicked by a zombie named Nancy Pelosi. Seriously, the last time a Democrat showed balls like that John Edwards’ girlfriend was filming it.
And yet, even before the Democrats got to take a single victory lap, they were being warned not to get drunk with power. I disagree. All you Democrats do a shot and then do another. Get drunk on this feeling of not backing down and doing what you came to Washington to do. [applause]
Do not listen to the people who are now saying that nothing else big should be attempted for a while because health care was so rough. Wrong. Because I learned something watching the lying bullies of the right lose this one. When they’re losing, they squeal like a pig. They kept saying things like, the bill was being ‘shoved down our throats.’ Or the Democrats were ‘ramming it through.’ The bill was so big they ‘couldn’t take it all at once.’ [laughter]
And you know what? I realized listening to this rhetoric that it reminded me of something. It reminded me of Tiger Woods’ text messages to his mistress that were made public last week, where he said, and I quote: ‘I want to treat you rough, throw you around, spank and slap you and make you sore. I want to hold you down and choke you while I fuck that ass that I own. Then I’m going to tell you to shut the fuck up while I slap your face and pull your hair for making noise.’ Unquote. [laughter]
And this, I believe, perfectly represents the attitude the Democrats should now have in their dealings with the Republican Party. [applause]
Yes, it does. That’s what they should be saying to the Republicans: ‘Shut the fuck up while I slap your face for making noise! Now pass the cap-and-trade law, you stupid bitch, and repeat after me, “global warming is real.”‘ [applause]
The Democrats need to push the rest of their agenda while their boot is on the neck of the greedy, poisonous old reptile. Who cares if cap-and-trade bill isn’t popular, neither was health care. Your poll numbers may have descended a bit, but so did your testicles.
So don’t stop. We need to regulate the banks, we need to overhaul immigration, we need to end corporate welfare including at the Pentagon, we need to bring troops home from everywhere, we need to end the drug war, and we need to put terrorists and other human rights violators on trial in civilian courts — starting with Dick Cheney. [applause]
Democrats, in conclusion, Democrats in America were put on earth to do one thing: Drag the ignorant hillbilly half of this country into the next century, which in their case is the 19th. And by passing health care, the Democrats saved their brand.
A few months ago, Sarah Palin mockingly asked them: ‘How’s that “hopey-changey” thing working for you?’ Great, actually, thanks for asking. And how’s that whole ‘Hooked on Phonics’ thing working out for you? [laughter]
This is a perfect epitome of the moral and economic bankruptcy and ignorance of Bill Maher and his cronies. He’s morally and economic bankrupt because he doesn’t care that the state is getting bigger, that it’s exacting force on innocent individuals to fatten the pockets of Big Insurance, and it’s confiscating the fruits of labor from those who earned and giving it to those who didn’t, simply because it’s the “good” of society. He’s ignorant, because he refuses to fathom what the evils of the law are doing to those uninsured people whom he purportedly cares about (and who neither want nor have asked for the new government-provided insurance and expanded health care entitlement system in the first place).
He’s also being disingenuous by framing the paradigm as though this is a “Democrat-versus-Republican” war, when frankly it’s a “Democrat-and-Big-State-versus-Freedom-and-Non-Coercion” war in every step of the way. This argument of his is a perfect indication of cognitive dissonance, which is a psychological term referring to a set of simultaneously conflicting ideas coupled with a feeling of great discomfort between two or more groups of people. It’s cognitive dissonance, because he, on one hand, believes that everyone should have health care and insurance, but health insurance is evil, so the state is justified into wiping the insurance industry (which lobbied for the passage and enactment of the law).
Hypocrisy, idiocy, and fallacies know no bounds when it comes to a cretin like Bill Maher. The sad truth is that he’ll never understand that.
British actor Jude Law recently appeared on the Daily Show, inadvertenely pulling a gaffe in front of Obama troglodyte Jon Stewart. He let slip the fact that England’s health care system is not what it’s cracked up to be because of its long lines, waiting lists, overworked and underpaid doctors, and the well-to-do opting out of the government system in favor of private health care.
The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.
How nice of him, Obama, and the statist Democrats in power! In their eyes, we’re all just a bunch of Pinocchios with strings attached to our arms and legs like hand-made puppets.
It’s political, because the bill, which was supposed to be brought to the Senate for reconciliation before Obama signed it, ended up being bypassed to Obama’s desk for his signature, without the “fixes” (which are actually amendments) being applied to the document. After all, the Voice of America news site reported on March 22 just before the bill reached the Oval Office: “[T]he Senate must still sign-off on a series of changes approved by the House.” (After Obama signed the bill into law, the Senate had just passed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.)
The law’s conservative critics argue that it’s both unconstitutional and illegal, because there’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the U.S. federal government must coerce uninsured individuals into purchasing health-care insurance. I’m not much of a fan of the current document as established by our Founding Fathers, but the conservatives’ argument is entirely flimsy. While it may be true that any constitutional scholar or historian worth his or her salt will say that this medical-care “reform” does not fall within the constitutional purview of the federal government, the Constitution is pretty cryptic in this area. So what if it is unconstitutional? Conservatives are wrongheaded to make this point. They should be arguing that the bill is wrong and unethical, because it initiates force against those who choose not to pay for other people’s medical care, whether they are insured or not, and subsidizes those who would otherwise not need the insurance for a variety of reasons. Congressional Democrats, such as John Conyers of Michigan, say that the “general welfare” clause (found in the Preamble and Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution) grants the federal government the power to establish dominion of the U.S. medical-care system. But what were the conservatives expecting? That Obama would just not sign the bill into law? Democrats have historically been hostile to human liberty across the board. Republicans are the same. Face it; if George W. Bush had proposed a similar law and lobbied hard to pass it, would the GOP and its cronies have argued against it then? Of course not! They would be all for it, because they would have been getting the credit for it, and they would financially and politically benefit from it like former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney did when he imposed RomneyCare in his state.
Finally, it’s immoral and anti-liberty, because it is an assault on individual liberty while both protecting and expanding the parasitic medical welfare state (including the entitlement programs of Medicaid [which is universal medical care for the uninsured poor and needy] and Medicare [which is universal care for mostly wealthy retirees and the elderly collecting Social Security). (Medicare recipients will not be pleased to learn that this new law, which begins to take effect in its entirety by 2018, will undercut, undermine, or eliminate their coverage or see a significant rise in their premiums.) Individuals, who are already not allowed and had never been allowed to make that many decisions on their medical-care options, will find that their insurance premium costs will rise, the quality of health care to plummet, and the pool of available doctors shrinking at a much substantially higher rate than ever. The new law, which for months had been widely touted as a "reform" of the system, will not allow wiggle room for doctors to make medical decisions on their patients' health and patients to make medical choices on their health and what insurance plans work best for them. ObamaCare does not and will not address the state's intervention in the medical-care market, research, and the system in its entirety. It does not even allow patients to shop for insurance plans from insurers across state lines.
The medical care system certainly requires reforms -- true radical reforms. ObamaCare, on the other hand, is just too expensive, and powerful medical and insurance interests are prospering and will prosper even more at the expense of all of us. The status quo will merely profit from it, which hardly leaves any legitimate reason for any sane and rational individual to admire it. With that in mind, we have no sound reason to tolerate it.
The idea that a highly-bureaucratized, highly-socialized state-propped medical-care model such as ObamaCare costing only $940 billion is nothing more than a piece of fiction. Medicare, which was launched in 1966, actually cost $3 billion. Congress projected the costs of the program at about $12 billion by 1990 (an alleged conservative estimate). By the time that year came, the actual cost was $107 billion (if inflation is included in the costs). In 2003, the CATO Institute issued a report indicating that the program was going to be price-tagged at a projected $244 billion. Moreover, the Medicare system is rife with massive fraud and abuse. Fewer than 5 percent of the medical claims filed with the agency are audited. Cost overruns, rising deficits, lower payments to physicians and hospitals coupled with payment delays, medical services and procedures rationed by doctors, hospitals, and the state coupled with treatment delays, payroll taxes paid by employers and levied on employees, and HMO-style "assembly line" medicine have plagued Medicare for the longest time.
Thanks to the imposition of the Medicare Drug Prescription Benefit Act of 2003 (a Bush-era edict that was price-tagged at $400 billion) and a month after then-President Bush issued that decree, Medicare Plan D's price-tag went up to $534 billion. According to the 2009 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, the projected costs from 2009 to 2018 are $727.3 billion. But the economic reality is that the costs for that program are going to be higher -- much higher -- than deemed. Even James Bovard, a policy analyst for the Future of Freedom Foundation and author of The Bush Betrayal, noted in 2005 that the Medicare trustees would cost up to $7 trillion over the next 75 years (assuming the federal government and all of its various programs, including Medicare and its prescription drug program, still exist).
Obama, his progressive supporters who are behind the new model, and his medical and insurance cronies are misguided to believe that the new doomed medical-care system will be accepted by the American people, including their opponents and critics. But they are gravely mistaken. Critics of the law, for months before Congress passed it, have pointed out the obvious problems that the new system will create. Even more than 60 percent of the American people, according to many online polls, were overwhelmingly opposed (and still are) to the bill. This "reform" is nothing more of a repackaging of the current system, with the exception that it coerces more coverage and more people into the system.
Focus on the fact that the majority of the attention of nearly all the "reformers" centered on the health-insurance industry. The common denominator in the entire medical-care "debate" had been, still is, and will continue to be that health-insurance firms have been under-regulated. For months, what became a discussion on "health-insurance reform" soon morphed into "health insurance regulation." Of course, health insurers have been massively and obscenely over-regulated, but the "reformers" don't want to ruin the fun of their crusade against the companies because of that fact. The bulk of the "over-regulation" is imposed by the biggest insurance players such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Blue Care Network, and Aetna against the smallest insurers. More insurance firms will go under ObamaCare, which was the plan all along. The claim that Obama & Co. touted (saying that patients will get to keep their current insurance plans) is just bogus. Expect to see more insurance firms going under because of the massive mandates.
What makes this particular lie pass muster with many people, who might otherwise use their common sense, is that the Congressional Budget Office vouched for the consistency of the budget numbers that say you can add millions of people to a government-run system and yet save money.
The Congressional Budget Office does honest work. But it can only use the numbers that Congress supplies-- and Congress does dishonest work. It is not the CBO's job to give their opinion as to whether any of the marvelous things that Congress says it will do in the future are either likely or possible.
Sowell even further notes:
[N]one of this money is in the official federal budget that the Congressional Budget Office sees. There are many other financial liabilities of the government that are ‘off-budget,’ which means that they do not show up in the official numbers.
Even research analysts find the CBO’s findings apocryphal. As Marc Goldwein, the policy director of the the Washington budget watchdog group Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, points out:
CBO is the most trusted analysis out there, but everything they say, you should take with a humongous grain of salt.
Is health insurance the most lucrative and most profitable commodity in the industry? Not quite. Such insurance on average generates a profit margin that amounts to about 3-4 cents on the dollar. These firms do welcome a guaranteed clientele, even if it’s foisted upon the public, because it ensures their profitability. Although Obama & Co. will appear as an populist opponent to the industry, he’s actually its best ally. Why? Because Big Insurance will accept the onerous new regulations to decimate its much smaller competitors, leaving insurance consumers with fewer insurance options to purchase. Considering they are not incentivized to innovate and compete thanks to their politically-connected, politically-protected mandates, young healthy people will find that the individual mandates are compulsory and that they must purchase highly expensive products and services from these protected government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), thanks to the state. It’s intriguing that the progressive critics of the insurance enterprises, who routinely bash their practices and support Obama’s “reform,” neglect to mention that the new model coerces everyone to transact with these entities.
The only objection that these GSEs have with the plan is that the penalties for not complying with or refusing to comply with the individual and employer mandates are not high enough. Most young people will likely choose to pay the penalties out of their pockets rather than purchase the insurance because of the cheap savings for them. Hence, a problem arises out of that mess: if and when the uninsured become sick and then apply for coverage, they can’t and won’t be denied because the new law prohibits it. Expect to see future changes (in the form of stricter penalties) in the federal law to avert more gaming of the system in the not-too-distant future. Thus, this is another victory for the already-protected insurance establishment.
Finally, the critics of the old government-created public-private hybrid of the medical-care system have been spewing ad nauseum for months that the system was the result of the free market, and that it has failed the American people. But that is a baldfaced lie. A free market medical-care system hasn’t existed, nor has it ever existed over the last 100 years. The “reformers” continue to miss this paramount point every single time: what exists now, and will continue to exist, is the current system has been the result of an uncompetitive medical and insurance cartel system that has been codified by the state and thrives and exists entirely and purely, thanks to state privilege. This privilege has come into existence because of its extension of state governments through state-approved and state-sanctioned monopolistic licensing. Congress, if it wanted to, could end this nightmare by repealing the prohibition on interstate insurance sales and the horrendous tax favoritism for employer-provided medical insurance coverage. But don’t let those points enter the mind of the vile, greedy, and pernicious Democrats, who stand to financially profit from the system at the expense of the poor (whom the ruling party claims to care about).
And to make matters worse, before the bill passed in both chambers of the House and were signed into law, many physicians across the country threatened to bolt from the system and give up their practices. Many of them have exited from the profession because of the low reimbursements and payments from Medicare and to avoid legal malpractice liability. Expect to see a much larger mass exodus from the system in the months and years to come.
The only good news coming out of this mess is that most Americans (if not, many) are seeing for the first time the fraudulent “reform” this law really is. It only secures and protects the government-created cartels, punishes the well-off, and merely postures as a friend of the uninsured who are largely impoverished.
At the end of the day, the true prescription for medical-care reform is a freed market. Two illusions need to be shattered. First, the idea that this is a matter between the status quo and this “reform” is preposterous. The “reform” IS the status quo in drag. Second, for generations, the state has bedded the medical profession and the insurance industry to ram down our throats the evil system we have today. A freed market is the only way out of this mess.
ObamaCare, which is officially known as Patient Protection and Affordability Act of 2010 (H.R. 3950), has just passed in the House. The vote tally comes at 219-212.
It’s now expected that Herr Obama will sign it on his desk this upcoming Tuesday. But how can he sign a bill into law if the Senate hasn’t applied the “fixes” that the Democrats made to the House-passed version of the bill hours ago? Because those “fixes” aren’t REAL fixes. Those are just last-minute amendments to the bill AFTER it was passed, and they are heading to the Senate. The bill has already cleared the halls of Congress. According to the Voice of America news website, “[T]he Senate must still sign-off on a series of changes approved by the House.”
Obviously, so many backroom dealings had occurred on the House floor. The key provisions of the legislation that the medical lobbyists and Big Insurance (like Blue Cross Blue Shield) are backing include:
Coercing individuals to buy insurance or be faced with a penalty of 2.5 percent of income. That penalty would come to an annual amount of $695 if individuals refuse to accept that coverage.
Coercing employers to offer insurance to their workers or face a penalty of $2,000 per worker. Specifically, employers will be coerced to cover 65% of family premiums or fork over a penalty based on payroll. Small businesses with less than $500,000 on payroll will be exempt and payrolls up to $750,000 will have a reduced contribution.
Banning private insurance firms (that don’t have the political clout like Big Insurance does) that want new business from denying coverage to policyholders having preexisting medical conditions.
Coercing above-mentioned firms to accept new government regulations and mandates.
Coercing parents to keep their children on their medical plans until they reach the age of 26.
The most laughable aspect of this “debate” on the House floor is that Democratic Congresscritter Bart Stupak from my home state of Michigan, who was originally against the bill because of a provision in the bill that would allow taxpayer financing of abortions, flip flopped on it because of a meaningless deal that Obama cut with him by saying that he would issue an executive order to prohibit the funding. Stupak wasn’t against the bill because it would solidify the state’s entrenchment in the medical care system; he was against it because of his pro-life views. If that provision had not been written in the bill in the first place, does anyone really think he would have voted against it? Not in a New York minute!
(Interestingly and hilariously enough, the congressman was branded a “baby killer” by a Republican colleague in the House, although he has an idea of who said it.)
Once the bill is signed into law and goes into effect, one can be certain that millions of Americans will not obey the law. This is what happens when the state furthers itself into the medical care system much more than it has in decades. Any chance of restoring a true free market medical care system went up in smoke the second the bill passed.
It’s time for all Liberty activists to start practicing civil disobedience and educate the masses in a clear, concise, and innovative way. No more the state! More freedom than ever!
If U.S. Presidents such as George Bush (41st or 43rd), Dwight D. Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan are widely considered capitalist supporters, and they are, then I, along with Libertarians Against Capitalism, want no part of this moniker. (Ronald Reagan magnificently utilized free market rhetoric; but budgets and regulations increased when he was governor of California and President of the U.S.) And the same goes for the likes of Vice Presidents Spiro Agnew, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle and Nelson Rockefeller, along with talk show hosts Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly. I will not say that there is a 180 divergence between what they mean by ‘capitalism’ and how I use this word, but the differences are very stark. This includes other politicians of the following ilk: John Boehner, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Tim Pawlenty, Michael Steele, and Fred Thompson. Their ‘capitalism’ and mine are very, very different.
Intriguingly enough, Block fails to distinguish his so-called term free-market capitalism (in its purported context) from the commonly-used term state capitalism at the end of his paragraph. But then again why ruin the fun when you can attempt to make a good although unconvincing case against the critics of the term capitalism because of its purported pro-freedom/anti-state roots when actually its true anti-liberty/pro-state baggage predates the 20th century and further extends to France’s National French Assembly after the French Revolution of 1789, which was populated by the original leftists (laissez-faire advocates) on the Left (where Frederick Bastiat and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon sat) and the fascistic and mercantilistic aristocrats on the Right? Not only that, what about this term and its concepts’ deep-seated ties to corrupted, seedy, and shady interventionistic state influence? Apparently, he refuses to acknowledge all and any of those historically factual points.
Then, after listing the names of many conservatives in the above paragraph, Block further writes:
Nor can we afford to ignore a large group of neoconservatives, who are also linked with ‘capitalism’ in the public mind, for example: Elliott Abrams, John R. Bolton, Dick Cheney, Douglas Feith, Carl Gershman, Christopher Hitchens, David Horowitz, Robert Kagan, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, Norman Podhoretz, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Stephen Schwartz, Leo Strauss, Ben Wattenberg, Paul Wolfowitz and James Woolsey. Irving Kristol, the father of neo-conservatism, wrote a book called ‘Two cheers for capitalism.’ As for me, I want no part of this sort of ‘capitalism.’ It is three cheers for me, all the way.
Additionally, he writes:
And the same goes for conservatives such as Roger Ailes, David Brooks, William F. Buckley, John Derbyshire, David Frum, Robert Gates, Jim Geraghty, Jonah Goldberg, Lawrence Kudlow, Rich Lowry, Jay Nordlinger, Ramesh Ponnuru, Karl Rove, Mark Stein, John Yoo and Byron York. If they support capitalism, and they are widely seen to do so, then I, too, along with called Libertarians Against Capitalism, oppose it. For the “capitalism” of these people includes as a central tenet war, militarism and imperialism. They may call it ‘American Greatness,’ but what it amounts to is the U.S. tossing its military weight all around the world, in a totally unjustified manner.
Also, there are foreign dictators who have been, willy nilly, linked with capitalism, and I wouldn’t want to be linked, politically, with them either. For example, Pinochet, Franco, and even, help us please, Hitler.
And, finally, he says:
Reading the above, one might infer that I am as good a candidate as any other libertarian to join Libertarians Against Capitalism.
Ah, but, according to Block, “Not so, not so.” Why is that the case, you ask?
As convoluted as his logic is, here’s the following kicker coming from him:
My main reason is not etymological but rather linguistic. I readily admit that ‘capitalism’ has a bad press, and its historical use is none too salutary either. But, the enemies of libertarianism are always trying to take words away from us.
The “enemies of libertarianism” are “always trying to take words away from us”?
As much I love Walter personally (and I don’t mean to get my digs in him as well), it’s not that the “enemies of libertarianism” have been co-opting our terms for years. They have taken back the term libertarian, considering we took it from them. We did so as a response to the state socialists in the progressive camp having taken the word liberal from us! Look at “libertarians” like Neal Boortz, Mancow Muller, Wayne Allyn, and Bob Barr (who, although successfully had secured the Libertarian Party nomination in 2008, failed to win the presidential election). They have been acting as though they have been in favor of Liberty, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. And they even employ terms such as capitalism and libertarian that are in their vocabularies.
Furthermore, Block says:
They have already long ago stolen ‘liberal.’ We must now call ourselves ‘classical liberals’ if we want to use that appellation at all. Some have recently had the audacity to try to take away the word ‘libertarian.’ I refer, here, to Noam Chomsky, who has the temerity to characterize himself as a libertarian.
(Of course, his “attempted theft” charge against Chomsky doesn’t holds any water whatsoever, considering that Chomsky has been using that term to describe his brand of state socialism [statism] for decades. Block’s “evidence” against him is indicated here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Thus, Block’s case is very weak and implausible and appears to be on shaky grounds.)
It’s pleasant to know that Walter tries to differentiate himself from the capitalists he noted in the above paragraph. My question to him would be: why would you even want to associate yourself with a word that has historically been employed by state socialists (statists) such as progressive Bill Maher (who called himself a “capitalist” on his Real Time show last night) and conservative economist Ben Stein across the political spectrum? Right-libertarians like Block, Stephan Kinsella, and Brad Edmonds continue to embrace the term willingly and without question, despite their inherent incongruities and flawed, convoluted logic. John Stossel of Fox Business even qualifies as an example of this, especially when one considers his vulgar libertarian framing of the libertarian philosophy on his show Stossel and his libertarian and capitalist guests whom he often interviews in front of his live studio audience.
Free market capitalists apologizing for vulgar libertarianism and shilling for the conservative and corporatist shills by protecting the term capitalism, even with the best of intentions and in a vociferous manner, merely create the perceived impression that all voluntaryists and many other advocates of Liberty are in bed with the establishment. These moves land free-market radicals in trouble across the board, regardless of what many right-libertarians claim. These stooges set themselves up for disdain and alignment with the Republicans and their Wall Street-worshipping statist cronies. Should we, including Americans in general, be surprised with this type of behavior that has been an endemic (although embarrassing) part of our society, our culture, and the parasitic political establishment?
As for the word libertarian, Sheldon Richman posits:
Libertarian was used by left-wing Spanish anarchists during the 1930s civil war; they were no friends of private property and free trade. Going back further, the word was used by anarcho-socialists after the fall of the Paris Commune in 1871 because the word anarchist could land them in a heap of trouble. I doubt Block would regard those libertarians as comrades. The French word Libertaire appears to be the origin of our word libertarian, and it seems to have had nothing to do with what Block wants to call capitalism. Quite the opposite.
Sheldon is correct. The word capitalism has always had a twisted, dark, and vile history with the Liberty movement, thanks to and despite the efforts of Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand. Block’s attempt to save the term is an exercise in futility, because the word has really never been ours to begin with. Trying to resuscitate it, putting new life into it, and cleanse it from its sins are nothing but ideological and historical revisionism. No amount of spinmeistering from the hacks in our movement will change that talking point.
Block finally concludes his piece by writing:
So, I beseech Sheldon Richman and the other members of Libertarians Against Capitalism to disband their group, and, instead, work with the rest of us to save as many words as we can for our own use.
I doubt Sheldon has any interest in saving the word simply by disbanding his group. No left-libertarian/agorist/voluntaryist worth his salt believes that such an endeavor is, as Sheldon correctly noted at the end of his blog post, “worth the candle.” Capitalism, like the word libertarian, is not an ally – but rather an enemy – of laissez-faire. They do not truly go together like popcorn and butter. Laissez-faire capitalism is an artificial construct, not to mention a clever redundancy. Not only that, it is an oxymoron. One who calls onself a laissez-faire capitalist is akin to one calling oneself a Christian Satanist. One cannot be a Christian and a Satanist simultaneously. Either one is a Christian or a Satanist; there is no such thing as “between one and other other” or “both.” Besides, there are plenty of terms that advocates of Liberty can use such as market anarchist, voluntaryist, laissez-faire, and free market. Besides, capitalism is a word that free-market radicals have now rejected.
It would be wise of our pro-Liberty allies to wash themselves of the label and stay away from it permanently. After all, it can’t be saved.
Besides, we have no need and use of that poisonous word we call capitalism. But we do have a need of the Libertarians Against Capitalism group on Facebook. Let’s educate the masses about the true vile nature of capitalism as it stands today.
The recent fallout over the excommunication of freedom activist, devout Ron Paul supporter, and YouTube‘s PuZzLeD reality TV show star Brooke Kelley from the Ladies of Liberty Alliance (LOLA), which is an alleged pro-Liberty organization that has billed and sold itself as an advocate for women (who are already) in the libertarian movement and bringing the said gender into both the movement and the group, has already generated a lot of controversy — not to mention a paramount amount of noise — on and out of Facebook and among many activists and members in their respective cliques — and circles — in an already-fractured political wing of the movement. The group, which was founded in 2009 by relative political newcomer Allison Gibbs (who is a 27-year-old former government scientist and AIDS researcher employed by the U.S. Department of Defense [which lasted for 8 years] and is the current Outreach Director for the Campaign for Liberty), has been a long-time talked-about staple in the Ron Paul wing of the political movement, garnering support from a number of pro-Liberty activists because of its goal to boost the female numbers of activists who, in the past, have been inadequate in the eyes of many of the movement’s finest men and women longing for new blood. If anything, these individuals’ desire to keep the grass-roots networking and projects on the Liberty train on the move by pushing for more inclusion of liberty-loving women in the ranks. What they didn’t count on was that it was going to crumble before it could achieve anything to begin with, especially from a pro-freedom standpoint.
The ruckus erupted when Kelley, the darling of the Ron Paul movement (who recently spoke out in defense of Paul over his call to support Lamar Smith), went public with LOLA’s decision to kick her out on Facebook because of the group’s claim that she “frightened” Ron Paul with a question as to how important the “truth” regarding 9/11 was to the people (in reference to the 9/11 Truthers’ desire to know why Paul hasn’t been asking why the government has been withholding information about what transpired on that day). That angered the powers-that-be at C4L at the recent CPAC event over her questions, even though she even heckled Glenn Beck for “stealing the Tea Party movement” and John Ashcroft for pushing to make “raves illegal” and his casual contempt for the Constitution, and attempted to confront conservative hit woman Ann Coulter with a question as well (her security stopped Kelley before she could even ask such a question). Kelley (and many others on Facebook) points out in her latest PuZzLeD video that a C4L employee met with her and told her that there was a group planning to “heckle” Glenn Beck. The problem was that, just prior to Beck’s speech, word was coming down the pike (from Ron Paul himself) that anyone who is discovered to have heckled him would be denounced by the group. That didn’t stop Kelley from doing just that.
Just after she did it, she was subsequently kicked out of C4L. (The details as to how and what the procedures were for kicking her out are rather unclear at this point, but more information will be available.) LOLA Core, which consists of Allison Gibbs and only several members of the the entire LOLA Board (including long-time freedom activist and Antiwar.com employee Angela Keaton), had a meeting and voted on whether to dismiss Kelley from the group. The vote was largely unanimous: Brooke was to be shown the door.*
Brooke came public with the following on Friday, 10:57 AM:
Brooke Kelley So let me get this straight. Im kicked out of Campaign for Liberty, for asking Glenn Beck a question, and kicked out of LOLA for asking Ron Paul a question. Reminds me of getting cuffed at the border for asking that cop a question. Hmmm. I still love you, but seriously–let’s not just Talk about freedom–let’s LIVE Fre…e!! Let’s RISE ABOVE our enemies and UNIFY–not exclude truth-telling, liberty loving ACTIVISTs.”
Immediately, pro-freedom activists across the aisle jumped on the bandwagon, trying to find out what happened. Here are some of the comments that were made:
Chris Tolliver Ⓐ
What the hell happened!!??
Fri at 10:59am
Brooke Kelley
I asked Glenn Beck a question, after Ron Paul explicitly said if anyone heckles Beck, they are no longer in the C4L community. So I asked Ron Paul a question too, and apparently that was offensive to LOLA, and they voted me off the island.
Don’t Live free. Come pay for Liberty! …B.
Fri at 11:02am
Lille Ørn
Stay strong freedomfighter! Listen to this program , lots of stuff going on http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Jack-Blood-32k-022410.mp3
Fri at 11:03am
Chris Tolliver Ⓐ
Wow. This is why I stay away from any organization that supports politicians.
Fri at 11:04am
Debra Dedmon
they friggin kicked you out ?? r u effin kidding me / Um that just makes me justa little more suspicious of them all, and i was already suspicious of C4L, but why the hell shouldthey care u asked Neocon Beck a question , crazy!! but LOLA , that is surprising. doyou mean they kicked u out of an event or out f the group?? i distrust anyone who takes unkindly to the power of questions
Fri at 11:04am
Aj Arias
Unity!
Fri at 11:05am
Lille Ørn
TRUTH will allways win. No matter what!
Fri at 11:06am
Jay Doobie
Wait, they kicked you out for asking questions? I think I’m no longer going to support LOLA or CfL.
Fri at 11:07am
Diana Isabel Miranda
What were the questions anyways?
Fri at 11:07am
Aaron Proctor
What did you ask? Sounds like it’s weird you’d be randomly kicked out.
Fri at 11:09am
Jennapher Frankie Lawson
It’s horrifyingly common to use “unify” and be ostracized. :-s
Fri at 11:11am
Joanna Reed
Brooke, I’ve known Ron Paul personally since college (over 12 yrs now) and he is a gentleman. There has to be more to this story than you’re presenting. Ron Paul is, and always will be, someone I support. Do you think there’s a common denominator here? You’ll catch more flies with honey.
Fri at 11:13am
Greg Jent
I would really like to know the details and to see the Ron Paul comment on not being allowed to ask Beck questions. I’m so confused
Fri at 11:13am
Danzilla Green
Not to be a dick but it’s with in an organization’s right to boot you…
That being said, screw CFL, they’re all minarchist knuckle heads anyways.
Fri at 11:14am
Alexander Benjamin Ramiresonty
*echoes request for details*
Fri at 11:17am
Matt D. Harris
Who kicked you out of LOLA? What questions did you ask Beck and Paul specifically? What were the answers?
Fri at 11:20am
Matt D. Harris
By the way, anyone with the balls to get kicked out of (so-called) liberty orgs is hot by my standards.
Fri at 11:21am
Joe Ringling
Do you think your sudden exclusion stems from your past criticism of Debra Medina?
Fri at 11:23am
Michael Caulfield
again, what question did you ask that idiot Beck?
Fri at 11:23am
Carolyn Taratuta
What’s that all about… Makes one wonder.
Fri at 11:27am
Chris Cooley
wow , totally disassociating myself with those two groups ..
Fri at 11:33am
Reagen Dandridge Desilets
the constitution allows for questions to be asked. any ‘liberty’ group that boots someone for that raises eyebrows. i’m glad i’ve backed off lola and c4l. i love my freedom but do not dedicate myself to any one group or politician. i’ve always said if ron paul is the man i hope he is, he would welcome our vigilance!!!
Fri at 11:33am
Bobbie Dee Anderson
<> Thanks Brooke.
Fri at 11:39am
Danielle Kays
I was thinking the same thing, Joe.
Fri at 11:44am
Reagen Dandridge Desilets
details would be nice for curiosity’s sake alone. again, the constitution allows for us to talk, even when we disagree… anyone that claims to protect the constitution but also censors is breaking the thin ice they r walking on.
Fri at 11:45am
Amber Danelle
You are totally misrepresenting what happened in the above statement. No one kicked you out of anything for ASKING QUESTIONS. Nothing is wrong with asking questions.
Brooke…. You are a serious trip, and I was totally thrown off last night after hearing from you what had happened.
Thought the drama was OVER.
… See More
:-/
And Joe: It is definitely NOT over anything having to do with Medina. And this isn’t “sudden”, either.
Brooke: You talk a lot about unifying and unity and rising above the enemy… but here you are talking SHITE about other freedom activists. Seriously… I hadn’t seen you do this for a while (and, honestly, I hadn’t been paying attention to your page) and I thought it was done with. If something bothers you you spread rumors and discontent about LOLA & C4L…. this is totally going against people working together. And nothing is wrong with whistle-blowing a group or person… but you are doing so without cause, woman. Nobody really know what happened this past weekend. And this whole silly situation could have been way more relaxed if you didn’t like to blow things out of proportion.
I had hoped I could work with you in the future.
I had hoped to get to know a good side of you, as I think you are a beautiful person. ♥ Truly.
After meeting you last year I’d only really experienced drama and outbursts (and I’m not saying you were always loud or uber-obnoxious) from you… silly things that I had no idea about, you saying that LOLA is talking poo about you WHEN THAT ISN’T TRUE!!
We don’t sit around talking about you, Brooke.
We don’t care… we just want to get shit DONE.
Seriously!
And now, here you are again, telling people that LOLA is bad in some way… and people are FOLLOWING YOU and believing what you say!!
We work hard within our group to get stuff done and to enjoy each other as good freedom friends and confidantes! It is so WONDERFUL to be a part of LOLA… but you are sharing way-off information with people and telling people we are nutters. Wow. I have never MET anyone like you, girl. I believed that we could start to work together again. But, I guess that can’t be.
Normally I would have sent this to you in a message. Unlike you, I tend to not want to air my grievances in public (unless it’s some politician JACKING with my life, etc.) because sometimes one can be overly-passionate or mis-informed about a situation. And those who are listening to your aired grievances only know YOUR SIDE of the story and, therefore, cannot make a smart judgement of the situation.
But, today, I’m going to post this on your status because I want everyone to know that YOU are causing this disruption, this silly-ness.
I won’t be surprised if you delete my comment. At least you, and the good people above, will have read something from the “other side”.
Honestly, who cares about all this dang drama anyways!? I just wanna bring freedom back to the people of this country!! I thought I was out of high school.
Okay, I’m done on this subject.
Hope you have a great day… ♥
Love & Light & Liberty to you, Brooke.
Fri at 11:46am
Matt D. Harris, a Libertarian Party member, responded to Amber by saying:
Matt D. Harris
Amber, I didn’t see Brooke claim that LOLA were nutters, just that she got kicked out of the group for asking Ron Paul a question. I’m reserving judgment until I hear what the question is. Obviously asking him something political but a bit pushy is one thing (and OK, imho) whereas something like “when did you stop beating your wife?” might be a little less appropriate.
Fri at 11:56am
Amber responded with this remark:
Amber Danelle
Hey Matt: Brooke didn’t technically say that LOLA was a group of “nutters” (those are my own words)… but she says we kicked her out and alludes to the idea that it was because she asked questions of figureheads. Whatever she is saying: it’s got some people thinking that they don’t want to associate with us.
Again, nothing is wrong with asking questions. That is one of the most important things we can do as good citizens, obviously. And I never heard any of Brooke’s questions this weekend. In fact, I had no idea about any of this until last night when some silly stuff went down (thanks for that, Brooke).
I only heard her say one thing @ CPAC, and it was a badass moment when she called out Ashcroft (he was all discombobulated after she barked out something at him – HILARIOUS!) ~ When I found out it was her I was excited and wanted to congratulate her on a job well done. But my tipsyness at after-parties prevented me from remembering it…. See More
As far as what she asked Glenn & Dr. Paul – I have no idea what she asked. Again, it wasn’t about what she asked.
♥
Glenn Beck for Vice Prez?? UGH.
HAHHAAAAAAAA!!! (sorry, Todd)
Fri at 12:15pm
Matt Harris asks her:
Matt D. Harris
Amber, so how does someone get kicked out of LOLA? I know some people involved but I’m not familiar with the organization’s inner workings. Was Brooke in a board or committee position or something?
Fri at 12:24pm
Amber Danelle responds with the following (yet nonsensical quip):
Amber Danelle
Matt: I had no idea about the kicking out and what was done to get kicked out. As far as the technical process, I’m not sure either. We LOLAs don’t like to let drama cloud our projects or discussion… so we don’t make it a priority to talk about this type of stuff when we’re trying to do work (at least I never hear about it – until the end). It’s super freakin’ cool to work with women who aren’t all about yakkin’ about drama-crap all day. THANK GOD! Women can be weird, as we all know.
It’s also not kosher for me to talk about specifics, because I would prefer to squelch the drama. I barely know specifics anyway. But what I heard from Brooke last night is enough for me to form at least a minor opinion. And whatever I’ve typed here is from ME to HER …. and not from LOLA to HER. … See More
LOLA is freakin’ awesome, in fact!!! These chicas seriously inspire me to keep on with what I’m doing! It’s like having a family. I love working with cool women in situations like this.
Some people work better on their own… and that is cool, too. Nothing is wrong with distrusting orgs or wanting to not work with them. But, for me, I love this group!! ♥
Fri at 12:39pm
Basically, the claim that LOLA has been positing is that Brooke Kelley “stole” freedom activist Tennyson McCalla’s cell phone (committing theft), “trashed” his hotel room (hence, destroying private property), and trying to get into LOLA’s suite at the hotel when they didn’t want her in there (trespassing onto private property). Interestingly enough, Tennyson McCalla, who contacted Angela Keaton and told her that Brooke didn’t steal his phone, did note that Brooke was “irresponsible” for leaving her “dogs in the hotel room.” That is definitely a far cry from theft, not to mention destroying and trespassing onto private property in its entirety.
I did not know about this incident until Mariana Evica, with whom I am good friends, told me about it on the phone on Friday morning, which led me to contacting Angela Keaton and Brooke Kelley to gather more information on the incident (so I could blog about it).
McCalla told Amber Danelle and the others this:
Brooke and Chris *did not* steal my phone. As best as I can determine they were trying to return it to me after they thought that I had left it behind and went off to CPAC. But they did leave the dog in the hotel room that I had invited them to stay in.
The news now is that LOLA is going to shut down. That troubles me.
Fri at 2:33pm
Then Kelley’s next status says the following:
Brooke Kelley dear LOLA: thanx for the good times. you’ll always hava special place in my heart. i love you dearly, but i’m off like a prom dress.
Thu at 4:54pm · Comment · Like
Other comments on the thread appear as the following:
Steve Bell
damnit now i got that image in my head thanks lol
Thu at 5:01pm
Ian Freeman
What happened?
Thu at 5:12pm
Brooke Kelley
The top officials of Campaign for Liberty put out a message right before Glenn Beck’s speech at CPAC (a neocon convention) saying that Ron Paul would denounce and disown any person affiliated with C4L, if they heckle or “harass” Beck at all.
Well, turns out I don’t listen very well. There was gonna be a whole big group of us, but everyone backed out, last minute. I called him out at the end of his speech, and not only did C4L turn their backs on me, LOLA dropped me like yesterday’s news. …B.
Thu at 5:40pm
Ian Freeman
Welcome to politics. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Perhaps you should consider giving up on restoring the republic and join us up in NH as we get the hell out of the republic?
Thu at 5:50pm
James Freelander
That’s awful. For what it’s worth, I’m proud of you and I’ll back you up. LOLA, I’m disappointed =(
Thu at 5:53pm
Steve Bell
beck need to be heckled as much as possible he a shill and the perfect example of a Benedict arnold if anyone dosen’t know who he is ill post link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Arnold
Thu at 5:54pm
Ian Freeman
Did you ever post video of the heckling?
Thu at 5:57pm
Brooke Kelley
no shit, eh. there is no restoring the republic, and i’ve been workin on independent projects lately-like PuZzLeD (Reality Show about Liberty Kids Fighting for Freedom) and Operation Defuse. At what point is C4L gonna stop sittin around talkin about freedom, and actually start being free, and letting others around them BE Free!?
Thu at 5:58pm
Ian Freeman
When they stop believing in politics? Which as a political organization, isn’t very likely. Especially since it pays their bills.
Thu at 6:00pm
Brooke Kelley
Come Pay for Liberty!!
But Ian, GET THIS-the LOLA girls were planning to get the whole group together, to heckle Beck too, and “bring down the neocons”. But when C4L nationals said no, their plan shifted quite dramatically.
Thu at 6:03pm
Ian Freeman
Does LOLA get money from C4L?
Thu at 6:11pm
Brooke Kelley
no. C4L makes LOLA pay them (for booths and stuff) but allison and the board wants LOLA girls to PAY them to have chapters. report to the top and stuff. it’s too bad too, cuz LOLA has the potential to be so much better than the average sorority. …B.
Thu at 6:14pm
Catherine Cointelpro Bleish
Yeah girl. Let’s go be activists and let the socialites be socialites proud to still be an austin lola, disenfranchized as I may be from national lol ♥
Thu at 6:17pm
Ian Freeman
lol @ the sorority comment
Thu at 6:19pm
Dan Tucker
Hmmm, I was there and I remember being told to stop heckling everyone… but you must have got the word pretty late. It started with the panel of students and it seemed many of the YAF students were in training for Fox News comentators… with a Rhupert Murdock Mushroom Cloud Foreign Policy. I think they are all “Twelvers”.
Thu at 6:37pm
Scott Geyer Ⓥ
FYI Liberty on the Rocks doesnt make people pay to set up chapters.
Ian, I do see a voluntaryist in the making in Brooke. I told her Keene’s where she needs to go to find the serious activism.
Thu at 6:48pm
Ian Freeman
Brooke already made a splash here once:
Thu at 7:00pm
Ian Freeman
:30 and :60 versions:
Thu at 7:01pm
Scott Geyer Ⓥ
Yeah, I have a habit of telling her things she already knows. Like the message I sent her about the left right paradigm, divide and conquer ideologue.
Oh and thanks for doing that show on it.
Thu at 7:19pm
Scott Geyer Ⓥ
Oh I remember watching that. I didnt realize it was Brooke. That was awesome. She also did a video with Anarcho-Jesse about gardening.
Thu at 7:22pm
Mariana Evica
Ohhhh Brooke, you rock. I support you 100%.
Thu at 7:27pm
Tracy Ward Ⓥ
The more I hear, the less I agree. Sounds less like liberty and more like democracy. Not good.
Thu at 7:27pm
Angela Aronoff
LOLA has chapters all over the country that dont pay to LOLA National. They don’t really have much to do with C4L other than being at the same conferences.
I think the way LOLA intended to call out neo cons was with the anti-war panel (great event btw).
Surely they wouldn’t drop you just for calling out Glenbeck?
Thu at 7:29pm
Ryan Hopkins
We cannot enter into alliances until we are acquainted with the designs of our neighbors.
- Sun Tzu
Thu at 7:34pm
Brooke Kelley
Angela Keaton writes: “You scared the bejeebus out of an old guy (Ron Paul for frig’s sake is someone’s grampa-what the hell is wrong with you?)”
Thu at 7:39pm
Ryan Hopkins
Watch them label you as an extremist in the media now…such bullshit.
Thu at 7:50pm
Brooke Kelley
And no, Angela, there was talk in the Atlanta meeting, of LOLAs agreeing to group heckle Glenn Beck.
Me and Catherine Bleish were very vocal AGAINST paying “to use the name” (you know, the one we ALL helped to create) and then the subject of payment was dropped. I have a feeling it’ll come back up again, but if enuf people become unhappy with it, they may drop it just in realization of how it makes them look bad. …B.
Thu at 7:53pm
Brooke Kelley
I am an extremist, Ryan. I love Liberty, and I’ll DO ANYTHING–shy of violence–I will Stop at NOTHING to accomplish that goal. That’s pretty extreme in this society.
LIVE FREE or Get Kicked Outa Ron Paul Circle tryin!! …B.
Thu at 7:57pm
Jim Davidson
Brooke, I was waiting to buy a case of LOLA calendars. So now I’ll be buying from you an Catherine, looks like. I’ve been seeing a lot wrong from an activist standpoint with C4L – hierarchy, decisions made from on high, activists, including activist candidates being kicked in the teeth. Wrote a long note about it, which TLE published. I’m with you for freedom, Brooke. And to hell with the stupid old men.
Thu at 8:13pm
Brooke Kelley
buy LOLA calendars from catherine bleish or tracy ward. i have a few that someone gave to me, but i don’t sell them. …B.
Thu at 8:21pm
Jim Davidson
Reminds me of that David Bowie song lyric, “These children that you spit on as they try to change their world, are immune to your consultations, they’re well aware what they’re goin’ thru”
Thu at 8:28pm
Brooke Kelley
LOVE that song you posted regarding this, Jim! THANK YOU!! So sweet. …B.
Thu at 8:40pm
Jim Davidson
Doin’ my part. You are important. The hierarchy and the leaders from on high can be real jerks. Freedom isn’t obtained by kicking our friends under the bus.
Thu at 8:44pm
Adam Tilsley
Sorry for what happened to you. Always remember..when one door closes, another one opens. Continue to fight the good fight!
Thu at 8:44pm
Brooke Kelley
no worries, adam. no worries. had they come to me before and said that not only will ron paul denounce me–but LOLA too–if i dare stand up and actually LIVE FREE–i still woulda done it.
i went there with a job to do, and i did it.
it’s too bad a chunk of the movement turned their backs on me for holding the media accountable for their disgusting actions. i’m not sad tho. i’m motivated. now more than EVER. catherine has been going thru a very similar situation with them too. … See More
just wait and see how we bounce back. Liberty Kids don’t stop–and they are not stoppable. ….B.
Thu at 8:55pm
Buddy Guthrie
Yeah it really is a shame the game of politics gets played, the game of politics makes us all forget what we are all about, to an extent you have to do that to get to the winners circle, and I do get that, but if you sell your soul to win, even if you do win, do you ever win anything?
Thu at 9:03pm
Jim Davidson
The corruption and brutality which result from excessive politics are not going to be resolved by the application of more politics.
Thu at 9:05pm
Molli Skye
Brooke, you will definitely be missed.
But all the power to you, woman!
LOLA has not been turning out at all as I’d anticipated. The idea of a central organization trying to “control” everything goes against the very grain of most of us in this movement. If there’s corruption in a small organization, then how can we expect people in much larger and higher institutions to not be corrupt? That makes us no better than those we are fighting.
… See More
Hopefully the chapters continue to work out.
Thu at 11:27pm
Jim Davidson
In my experience, women who want to make something of a modelling career are better off working with professionals. My friend Cyan Banister has started Zivity.com with excellent results.
Thu at 11:29pm
John Delano
We need more people to get out and get attention. Too many of us (like me) are too shy about starting things like this. Brooke seems to push things a bit, but those people tend to make things happen.
When you get PuZzLeD up and going with it’s new site, you should get some ads for it on some of the podcasts where thre would be friendly listeners.
Fri at 1:36am
Jim Davidson
That’s hilarious, John. I was just having a conversation with Scott Horton on that very FB page about Brooke Kelley and Stephen Schoppe being thrown under the bus by C4L. Horton was vicious and hateful, so I removed him as a friend. He just lost a major contributor to Antiwar. I wrote him a message inquiring what he was doing with C4L as the “Featured Cause” on his FB page, and he called me a douche. Seriously angry guy that Scott Horton.
Fri at 1:45am
John Delano
Re:Scott
can somebody follow as Many wars as closely as he does without becoming an angry person?
Listen to some of his first shows to see how angry he has become. Somebody needs to do what Scott does.
Fri at 3:22am
Jim Davidson
Now that Brooke has her prom dress off, maybe we can get her to do some of that stuff. -smile- I’d rather support Brooke’s activism and enthusiasm, which has a sincerity in which I believe. Scott, in addition to acting like a dick toward me (and no condom on his head) seems hypocritical.
Fri at 3:30am
Brooke Kelley
Scott has every right to be mad. But name calling and slander? If he can’t handle his job, he needs to maybe check into janitorial work or something. …B.
Fri at 10:36am
Brooke Kelley
So okay. I talked to Angela Keaton last nite who further bitched me out, but informed me that the MAIN reason why I was kicked out of LOLA was not because of the Glenn Beck thing so much as me asking Ron Paul if he thinks it’s important that people know the truth about 9-11. Apparently that’s offensive to LOLA to poke around askin valid questions.
I know RP’s stance on 9-11. He wants to pretend like it never happened. That’s his deal. I’m not tryin to bust him out. I sincerely wanted to know if he was expecting his people to hush about it, because that’s EXACTLY the kind of affect his silence is having on this movement!!
His answer–and Angela’s exact words to me .. in a vid to follow .. PuZzLeD ep. 4 COMING SOON!!… See More
So I was confused. C4L kicked me out, because I asked Glenn Beck a question, and LOLA kicked me out, because I asked Ron Paul a question. Sorry for the confusion, y’all! Hope that clears it all up. ….B.
Fri at 10:44am
-Rita Quinn
Brooke, I know you’re not too happy with me because I’ve defended LOLA in the past. I want you to know that I am done doing that… like Cat, I’m not happy with the way things are being run at the national level of LOLA and have tried to appeal to the “board” repeatedly to deaf ears. I feel that until Allison no longer has ties to C4L she can NOT … See Morebe the ED LOLA needs because she is controlled by C4L since they, not LOLA, pay her salary. I’ve always been upset at their lack of transparency and strategic plans and have watched for months as most “official” LOLA activity has centered around how to make money, without any real plans or vision of what to do with it to forward the cause of liberty. As for this decision to “vote” you out, I can tell you that there was never a public vote among the LOLAs (I certainly wasn’t asked to vote and I’ve talked to others who weren’t either) so I can only assume that you were lied to if you were told you were “voted” out. It’s more likely that it was actually just discussed among the 4 board members, who I personally feel sadly lean toward tyrannically tactics when faced with difficult situations and people they don’t like (such as how this situation with you played out). Making this public statement will probably get me, now, kicked out of LOLA but I’ve been a thorn in their side the last few months too. I’ve just done it more privately and have tried to really give them time to change course. I don’t know the specifics around your particular situation, but the bottom line for me is that you have the RIGHT to free speech and if the reason given for you being kicked out was for using it, then LOLA is a travesty to freedom and that makes me both angry and sad, because as you know, I’ve been one of it’s biggest cheerleaders since day one. Even to the point of hurting you. I’m really sorry for everything and will continue to support you in your own activities. LOLA Austin will continue to do the work we’re doing… and if you’re ever in the ‘hood’ you’re welcome to join us.
Fri at 11:30am
But the problem is far from over. Amber Danelle and I got into a tiff over the matter yesterday. Our responses to each other (including Jim Davidson’s) pretty much say it all:
Amber Danelle
Wow.
Todd & Brooke…. you two have a lot of angry people as friends/fans… they have no real idea what my real position on this is. Yet they are balls out angry about it.
Yesterday at 10:27am ·
Todd Andrew Barnett Ⓥ
If they’re angry about this entire incident involving Brooke, good. I hope they are angry about it. I am not a happy camper about it too.
If they’re angry that I brought this matter to the public and talked about the lack of transparency that goes on in LOLA and the refusal of the organization to take responsibility for its own fuck-ups, then they… See More’re barking up the wrong tree. They should be pissed at LOLA for how it handled this mess, not cast aspersions or attack people in the movement who refuse to bow down to and kowtow to their demands.
If they’re angry that LOLA has been pulling this crap, good. I hope they are angry about it. And I hope they’re angry enough to demand that LOLA wises up and change for the better.
Yesterday at 11:12am ·
Jim Davidson
If we have no idea what evil, vicious, tyrannical positions you are taking in “this” it is because you, Amber, are not open and transparent about your positions. It is all some game to you to get listeners to your stupid online “radio” show. Screw you and your “friend” request. You aren’t my friend, and you know it. You aren’t for transparency … See Moreand openness in government, you are for secret trials and water boarding, as your own actions clearly illustrate. If you were dying in a fire, I wouldn’t piss on you.
Yesterday at 7:19pm ·
Todd Andrew Barnett Ⓥ
Ouch! That hoits, Jim! Heh
Yesterday at 7:22pm ·
Amber Danelle
Jim: It’s all good. If you want to listen to how Zaira & I feel about this incident tomorrow, then please tune in. Some other LOLAs may be calling in to let their position be known, as well. If you don’t wanna hear it, I’m not too concerned. I just don’t feel that it’s necessary to disrupt people’s lives with constant negative FB posts. Evil, vicious, tyrannical positions?
Were you loved as a child?
Todd: How is LOLA refusing to take responsibility for it’s feck-ups? Are you saying that because the board may want to move past the drama by NOT AIRING DIRTY LAUNDRY… because maybe they feel it is ineffective to speak ill of a former member of LOLA… YOU feel dissatisfied with that? Who runs this organization?? Not you. Not Jim…. See More
Again… if either of you, or any other person who has, like me, wasted time debating-reading-typing-THINKING about this boloney, wants to hear our “side” because you think that you are entitled to it… then tune in to the show tomorrow night. Zaira & I will discuss our side one time and one time only. After that, we move on.
LOLA is NOT a government. And you really have no right to demand transparency from us.
Soon the core group will be told what happened.
Transparency in our group of core ladies (which is NOT small) is important to us.
It’s not important for us to share drama or unfavorable information about others.
Yesterday at 8:18pm ·
Todd Andrew Barnett Ⓥ
If lack of communication, Allison unwilling to come forward and offer an explanation for the crap that’s been transpiring in the group, making baseless accusations against a former member sans evidence and documentation, and resorting to high school drama tactics and antics to shut up many in the movement who have concerns about what’s been going … See Moreon in LOLA for months “taking responsibility for its fuck-ups,” then it has an uncanny way of showing it.
Your response amounts to deliberate intellectual dishonesty. In other words, you’re purposely full of shit.
I’ll comment further shortly, but I am in the middle of a phone call.
Yesterday at 9:30pm ·
What’s very disappointing about this is that Amber and her co-host Zaira of Truth A to Z kept posting the following notice under various threads (including mine):
Amber Danelle
Fellow humans,
We at “Truth A to Z” appreciate freedom of speech and are therefore exercising it to say we wholeheartedly agree with the statements made by Kim Johnson and Amber Danelle. We stand firmly behind the principles of liberty and demand that others stop to think about current events in light of truth. Our show format derives from our understanding that truth is in fact varied and that people hold different truths. However, we believe freedom is our one common bond. We all know that situations arise, precisely because people see the truth differently. In those cases, we should still judge people based on their actions.
Sunday, at 7 p.m. Pacific time on Boldvoices.tv Channel 40, we will be discussing the said matter on our show as we engage in our liberty activism. We should always keep in mind the non-aggression principle (avoiding a needlessly confrontational approach) and that we stand behind the idea that activists should be professional and civilized, unless it becomes necessary to be aggressive towards an enemy, as in military or police. We feel strongly that there’s a nefarious desire out there, by those who keep us bound, to thrive on our infighting. We want to extend to all of you a warm invitation to hear our truths about the difference between what’s effective and what’s wasting our time…. See More
If you’re interested, tune in this Sunday at 7 p.m. Pacific time at www.boldvoices.tv Channel 40.
Our success means freedom,
Amber D and Zaira D
TruthAtoZ.net
FB invite: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=363477811292&index=1
Fri at 11:54pm
Incidentally, Kimberly Johnson, who is now the Interim Vice Chair (why Angela Keaton is no longer a Vice Chair is a mystery at this time), posted this letter as a Facebook note:
Dear Activists and Allies:
The Board of Directors of the Ladies of Liberty Alliance upheld the decision of the interim chairwoman to remove Brooke Kelley from the LOLA roster due to trespass, theft and physical destruction of private property at a political event. Such actions are in violation of the non aggression principle which binds all libertarians in a spirit of non-violence including aversion to force and fraud.
No further comment will be made.
In Liberty,
Kimberly Johnson
Interim Vice Chair
Ladies of Liberty Alliance
(The comments on this thread can be read at the link above, provided that one has a Facebook account.)
Upon following the outcome of the events of this past week, I have to say that this bickering between friends and allies is absolutely discouraging and wrong. Brooke, I understand that you are upset that the reasons you were asked to leave LOLA may have not been based on 100% truth, but going around and trying to drive division within this important liberty organization appears to be more of a personal vendetta rather than trying to hold them accountable for a mistake.
I have watched you trash the entire organization for the past few days, while LOLA has released one press release on the issue. If you could have resolved this issue in private rather than airing dirty laundry everywhere, we would all be better off. Sometimes we must stand up as men and women of liberty, admit that some of the blame falls upon oneself, and move on. Don’t get me wrong Brooke; I think you do great work and I have been watching a lot of what you do. But the reaction you took regarding the incident seriously made me question whether or not you care more about liberty or your own ego.
To my fellow activists that have taken sides in this issue: I understand standing up for your friends when they are being attacked. However I have seen multiple people not only side with Brooke (which is not wrong), but trash LOLA without even considering that you were collectively trashing a lot of activists that have been in the struggle for a long time. If I were to make a mistake, or even been accused of making a mistake, I would hope that my friends would stick up for me. That does not give you carte blanche to attack and slander simply because you disagree with a decision that was collectively made within an organization! I commend anyone that reacted appropriately, asked questions, and came to a factual conclusion before jumping on a side; you are a true free thinking individual.
Brooke, please consider the words I have written above for the sake of peace, love and liberty.
Corey Moore
Activist
Host of “Voice of Radical Dissent”
Co-founder of Kent State Libertarians
Here’s my take on this entire matter: it’s nothing but pure high school drama that is highly unneeded and unnecessary in the libertarian movement. But, more importantly, what LOLA has done to Brooke was wrong. If she were guilty of anything, then where’s the evidence and documentation that proves that she’s guilty as sin for committing the charges as given?
She may not be a saint, and she may be a “radical,” but we need radicals like her in the movement. I took issue with Brooke for her unwise defense of Ron Paul who called for his supporters to throw in their weight behind Neo-Con Republican congressional candidate Lamar Smith. However, I never had a problem with her in the movement.
I don’t buy into the argument that Brooke has lied to the members of LOLA or has acted against the interests of the movement. If she did, where’s the evidence? And why the need for the histrionics over this tawdry and absurd matter? More than that, what has LOLA done for liberty? How many women has the group brought into the movement? I have not seen such evidence of this kind.
Plus, it does not help that LOLA has been cozy with C4L, considering that Gibbs works for that organization and earns a sweet salary. Considering she is on their payroll, that brings up another point: isn’t collecting a salary and being the ED of a pro-Liberty women’s group a clear-cut conflict of interest? I would assume so, considering LOLA was organized to promote the interests of the libertarian — and not the conservative — movement, yet she is working for an organization that is promoting the interests of the conservative — and not the libertarian — movement at all. And while we’re on that topic, how about the fact that Nena Bartlett, a former LOLA Core member**, has gone on from working as the Development Director at the CATO Institute to working for the Rand Paul for Senate campaign. Oh, and let’s remember that Sarah Palin endorsed Rand Paul, and Paul accepted her endorsement.
Thus, it’s funny that Angela Keaton, whose own employer Antiwar.com has gotten financial support from C4L and is still getting it, accuses Kelley of violating the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) when her employer is doing it by siding with an organization that supports pro-war candidates. It’s also funny that, in a screaming voice in my ear on my phone, she will “destroy” anyone who sides with Kelley and declare that they do not support the NAP simply by making deals with people like David Boaz and Tom Palmer of CATO, the Libertarian National Committee‘s Aaron Starr and Bill Redpath, yet she will not criticize LOLA for having a former board member Barlett for her Neo-Con connections to CATO. THAT is a direct violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. But, then again, try telling her that.
Another ridiculous aspect to LOLA is that its calendars, when they were first launched in the fall of 2009, were priced at $20. Since then, the calendars have been priced at $9.95, which is the price that should have been the entire time. But, according to several sources in the know, Gibbs wanted them at the price of $20, which has led to the calendars becoming a dismal failure sales-wise. Why would anyone honestly pay $20 for a calendar when someone can go to their local pharmacy or grocer and find calendars in stock that sell for under $10?
And, based on the claims posited by Keaton, Gibbs, Dynia, and Danelle, I find the allegations to be quite apocryphal.
Not only that, I believe that these recent tactics are designed to shut up dissenters and opponents of the decisions made by the organization itself. There are now plans for Austin LOLA to rename itself***, and, according to a couple of the group’s activists, the organization is on the verge of shutting down.
As of this writing, Keaton has cut me out of the circle. This is her private message to me, Jim Davidson, and Tennyson McCalla on Facebook regarding this, along with her claim that Jim does not support the NAP:
Jim,
You don’t support the NAP. Sorry, babe, but I have to cut you all out of the loop. I made my statement clear. Have documented evidence.
Please refer all further correspondence to our attorney. Any further contact form any of you is unwelcome.
Peace,
Angela
LOLA might want to change its name to Ladies of Lying Intelligent Tyrants Alliance (LOLITA). It fits the authoritarian mindset of the powers-that-be who run the operation, which appears to be a Mickey Mouse front for the GOP.
Be advised. There is a purge of radicals occuring right now in the tea party and freedom movement alike. Stay pure. Do not worry. Consistency is difficult at first, but pays off in the long run. Stay strong. Choose freedom
I don’t think the radicals are being purged from the movement, but they are being silenced for speaking out against the Neo-Cons who have taken over C4L and, as it appears, LOLA, not to mention the entire movement.
Other than that, I agree with John. Pro-Liberty activists, as ideologically pure as they are, must remain vigilante and strong. Stand up to the statists. LOLA and C4L are all about statism and tyranny now and not about liberty.
That must count for something, no matter how insane it seems to the non-purists.
[H/T to Brooke Kelley for the great title she came up for this post last night.]
[Note: I want to point out that I have no qualms with the other good ladies of LOLA, including Rita Quinn, Catherine Bleish, and Molli Skye. These are fine ladies who are radicals (a.k.a. purists) in the movement, and we need more people like them.]
[*Correction: According to one source, there was no meeting by the LOLA Core to boot Kelley, what was widely believed notwithstanding. LOLA decided to boot her from the roster on the spot.]
[**Correction: Nena Bartlett is actually still on the LOLA Core board. I erroneously thought that she was no longer on the board because her picture was not on the group's website. Apologies are given to the readers because of the inaccuracy of this information.]
[***Correction: Austin LOLA is actually reviewing its relationship with LOLA and has yet to decide what it will do. It has not immediately decided to rename itself as a different group. Apologies are given to the readers because of the unverified and unconfirmed veracity of this information.]
A seemingly intriguing note posted on self-described pro-freedom activist Diana Culda has been making the rounds in many pro-Liberty circles on the social networking site Facebook. The note, which copied an entire page of an “anarcho-communist” (quite an oxymoron if one thinks about it!) creed on a communistic website entitled Anarkismo that is clearly and diametrically opposed to the concept of a freed market and anti-capitalism as well. (HT: both Brad Spangler for pointing that link to Gary Chartier‘s piece at the Center for a Stateless Society on Sheldon Richman‘s blog recently and Gary for penning it.)
Here’s the post in its entirety from Facebook for LLR readers and visitors to see:
Anarfuckismo & Co.
by Diana Culda
This is only one among the multitude of sites I found, who are having about the same agenda. I have no comments, that is no civil comments. So enjoy the reading.
‘
About Anarkismo.net
Who we are and why we do it
Anarkismo.net is the product of international co-operation between anarchist groups and individuals who agree with our editorial statement (see below). It is intended to further communciation, discussion and debate within the global anarchist movement. Our intention is to build this site into a resource that is truly global and multilingual. We intend to work closely with the anarchist movement that exist. All of the editors are either members of anarchist organisations or part of collectives that are seeking to form organisations.
Editoral statement
We identify ourselves as anarchists and with the “platformist”, anarchist-communist or especifista tradition of anarchism. We broadly identify with the theoretical base of this tradition and the organisational practice it argues for, but not necessarily everything else it has done or said, so it is a starting point for our politics and not an end point.
The core ideas of this tradition that we identify with are the need for anarchist political organisations that seek to develop:
Theoretical Unity
Tactical Unity
Collective Action and Discipline
Federalism
Anarchism will be created by the class struggle between the vast majority of society (the working class) and the tiny minority that currently rule. A successful revolution will require that anarchist ideas become the leading ideas within the working class. This will not happen spontaneously. Our role is to make anarchist ideas the leading ideas or, as it is sometimes expressed, to become a “leadership of ideas”.
A major focus of our activity is our work within the economic organizations of the working class (labour organizations, trade unions, syndicates) where this is a possibility. We therefore reject views that dismiss activity in the unions because as members of the working class it is only natural that we should also be members of these mass organizations. Within them we fight for the democratic structures typical of anarcho-syndicalist unions like the 1930′s CNT. However, the unions no matter how revolutionary cannot replace the need for anarchist political organisation(s).
We also see it as vital to work in struggles that happen outside the unions and the workplace. These include struggles against particular oppressions, imperialism and indeed the struggles of the working class for a decent place and environment in which to live. Our general approach to these, like our approach to the unions, is to involve ourselves with mass movements and within these movements, in order to promote anarchist methods of organisation involving direct democracy and direct action.
We actively oppose all manifestations of prejudice within the workers’ movement and society in general and we work alongside those struggling against racism, sexism, [religious] sectarianism and homophobia as a priority. We see the success of a revolution and the successful elimination of these oppressions after the revolution being determined by the building of such struggles in the pre-revolutionary period. The methods of struggle that we promote are a preparation for the running of society along anarchist and communist lines after the revolution.
We oppose imperialism but put forward anarchism as an alternative goal to nationalism. We defend grassroots anti-imperialist movements while arguing for an anarchist rather than nationalist strategy.
We recognise a need for anarchist organisations who agree with these principles to federate on an international basis. However, we believe the degree of federation possible and the amount of effort put into it must be determined by success at building national or regional organisations capable of making such international work a reality, rather than a matter of slogans.’
http://www.anarkismo.net/about_us
This is pro-Liberty propertarian Jim Davidon’s response to Culda’s:
Critique of Anarkismo
by Jim Davidson
My friend Diana Culda has written this note: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=356962428059
She bases her text on this link: http://anarkismo.net/ follow the ‘about’ link.
Here are my thoughts in response.
Diana, people who spend their time in the anarchist movement often ask me about my unwillingness to use terms like anarchist or even anarcho-capitalist to describe my political philosophy. Some of these people see the history of the term capitalism and its application widely in the culture to identify the marriage of big business with big government and say “well, that’s why I don’t call myself a capitalist.” Now you see from this screed at anarkismo dot net that my use of anarchism to describe my propertarian and libertarian philosophy of individual self government without externally imposed coercion would certainly cause just as much confusion. If saying that I’m a sovereign individual, an agorist, a propertarian, and a self governor is more confusing, then I would invite further discussion.
Voluntary and self-responsible individual sovereignty seems to me to be essential. Free markets for finding market clearing prices without compulsion and intervention are necessarily based on private property. Agorism as a basically Taoist strategy of withdrawal and the appearance of poverty seems to be much more effective than many of the other strategies under consideration.
I am transnational, not international. Beyond borders, not about borders. The anarchist collective from which you quote seems to be focused on recognising and working within existing nation state and provincial boundaries. This seems odd at best, pathetic at least.
What anarkismo dot net is not, apparently, is any attempt to reach out to other forms and flavours of anarchism. On that basis, they can kiss my shiny metal ass. They are interested in an echo chamber where their premises may not be challenged. Okay by me.
Unfortunately, I anticipate the same difficulties faced by anarchists like George Orwell with outfits like POUM during the Spanish civil war against Soviet communist anti-anarchist pogroms. The long sad history of communism as a death machine has been chronicled by Bryan Caplan, among many others. Your graphic is on target.
With regard to unity, I don’t see any reason to stand with people who are getting shot at. My preference is to shoot from the prone position. Even laying down next to some idiot who is standing up drawing fire seems absurd. Unity and collective action seem unwise and there is no way that discipline could possibly enter into a relationship based on distrust and lack of consent. As for federalism, I’ve no idea what that means in this context, but it makes me extremely suspicious.
‘Haven’t we just gotten out of a fucked up relationship with a president?” asks Katt Williams, “Couldn’t we just be single for a while?’
That is how I feel about anarkismo. Nor do I agree with their class theory. If they want, as they say, theoretical unity, I should like them to review Konkin’s agorist class theory, or L. Neil Smith’s libertarian class theory. I have more in common with the entrepreneur who is creating value than I do with the government worker. Yet the entrepreneur is supposedly in the “ruling” class while the government employee is supposedly in the “working” class. I believe the government is parasitical and the workers and entrepreneurs and owners of capital who are outside the government are the productive class. But there is apparently no room for this class theory in the theoretical unity of anarkismo.
Nor is it clear to me that there is any point in requiring ideas. I do not “require that anarchist ideas become the leading ideas.” Indeed, I look around me and I see 57% of the population didn’t vote in the November 2008 election, and roughly that same percentage (a bit more) did not file any sort of personal income tax form in April 2009. Do I really give a flying flip what their ideas are? I’m interested in results. If the ascension of anarchist ideas makes more results available, great. If not, who cares?
However, it is clear that the spontaneous order of the free market, especially the market for ideas, is not acceptable to these goons. They require their ideas to be the leading ones, and they assert it won’t happen spontaneously. We must therefore suppose that they mean to impose their ideas.
Given the hostility toward productive persons, the extensive history of racism, sexism, age discrimination, and use of violence by labour organisations and trade unions, I am extremely skeptical of their plans. It seems very likely, to me, that what we may anticipate from anarkismo is violence, purges, and more violence. It seems to me that by saying “we fight for …democratic structures” that what anarkismo is really saying is that (a) they are primarily violent and (b) their goal is a form of direct democracy, rather than anarchy. What have 309 million rulers to offer me that I’m not already getting from 535 or so?
Were big labour not already married to big government in ways far more corrupt, insidious, and riddled with organised crime than the extensive marriage of big business with big government, I might be of a different view. If there were labour organisations suited to the negligible government world, such as private mutual aid groups, purchasing cooperatives, and the like, I would be happy to work with them. However, compulsory trade unions are just another form of coercion.
I am admittedly skeptical of their call for anarchist political organisations. What is it about the excesses and corruption brought on by excessive political activity that are to be ameliorated by the addition of more politics?
The evidence for the effectiveness of struggles, as opposed to entrepreneurship in particular, for building decent places to live seems minimal. Where people go and take over abandoned property, improve it, and make use of it, they are doing far more good than those who merely struggle and demand the government act, or intercede. Where rent control has been imposed and enforced, the availability of low cost housing has been obliterated.
Nor is there any evidence that I find credible that the highly political scientific establishment’s claims about global warming and environmental degradation are based on truth. The environment is much cleaner than ever. Inventions and innovations are making it possible for far more people to live far more cleanly. I am hostile toward what I suspect is an implicit desire by anarkismo to attack individuals, oppress those who seek to reproduce, and steal from those they think are “polluting” by, e.g., exhaling carbon dioxide.
On the plus side, I actively oppose all manifestations of prejudice in society in general. I think racism, sexism, religious sectarianism, homophobia, xenophobia, and war are specifically conservative ideologies, based on bigotry and authoritarianism. I reject them all.
Anarkismo, however, sees no reason to eliminate them until after the revolution. This suggests to me a willingness to compromise on principle. Nor am I confident that their revolution would be anything but a bloody mess – meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The men who spurred us on, sit in judgement of our wrongs, they decide and the shotgun sings the song.
By recognising a purported need for federation on an international basis, the anarkismo people seem to be conceding the existence of imaginary boundaries and imaginary nation states. This seems bizarre and contrary to anarchist philosophy. Building national or regional organisations seems contrary to the whole point of anarchism. It also seems to be characteristic of the 1930s style of employment model, union organising, and political philosophy with which they appear to be most comfortable. I think there is an obvious 21st Century alternative, which is to organise across borders and beyond the reach of any single jurisdiction. In my past writings I have proposed “jurisdictional arbitrage” as a way of maximising resources by taking advantage of the differing rules that apply in many different jurisdictions.
So, that’s all I have to say on this subject. I think my responses merit a note on my FB page, and shall tip my hat your way when I write. Thanks, Diana.
This is quite an engaging, not to mention interesting, subject for debate and discussion. I will, however, respond to it later tonight or so.
Comment by: Jet Lacey
Entered on: 2010-01-26 13:51:01
I hope you believe me when I say I’m not trying to be a complete asshole, but this apparent “activism clique” that you, some of the LOLA girls, John Bush, Todd Andrew Barnett, et al. have going on is starting to really irritate me in certain ways. I have met many in the clique, and I really like everyone that I have met. That is not the issue.
But, it seems that there are some within the clique that seem to spend only a small portion of their time doing actual activism, and the rest of the time suckling on each other’s metaphoric teat in order to cross-promote one other. It is the self-branding and self-promotion that I am starting to remember more than the often excellent activism. For instance, I loved your video on MLK’s tactic of getting kids thrown in jail, but if you peruse the recent list of videos on your YouTube channel, there are many more interviews with your “freedom friends” (that’s what my wife Beth calls mine) than on real issues.
The reason I bring this up is not to attack, because I do support the younger generation of activists, but what I don’t think many of the younger generation of activists understand is that activism seems to be a terrible way to earn a living.
Secondly (and more importantly), I’m beyond sick and tired of the attacks on Ron Paul the man emanating from the clique. I say go ahead, hate that he supported Lamar Smith, hate that he believes trying to save the GOP is the right thing to do, hate the C4L (I certainly have no use for them), but it pisses me off to no end that self-described freedom activists are trying to make their names in the activist world at the expense of the one man in D.C. who has stood firm on his convictions in the face of amazing resistance for almost 40 years. It’s detestable, really.
Tarrin, I realize I don’t know you and I’m certainly not trying to attack you personally, but I must say that I find these non-substantive, saccharine-sweet, cross-promoting puff pieces so very boring and beyond non-newsworthy.
Tarrin’s response was of the following:
Comment by: Tarrin Lupo
Entered on: 2010-01-27 09:30:12
Jet thanks for the feed back. I try and do a whole range of stories on a bunch of different stuff. I think it is just coincidental that all these stories hit at the same time. I mean 2 of them happened at C4L so that is timely, and it was just Brook’s turn because were she landing in the Calender. I am interviewing all the calendar girls and trying to catch up to this month. As far as self promoting I think it is odd that you should say this since you just used the Alex Jones vs Tag incident to promote your blog. Of course I self promote, I am also trying to build viewers and make a living as a full time activist (not easy to do btw). I also believe in promoting other activism I like, in fact I liked your last blog so much I posted it all over the place and I don’t even know you. I think it is natural to hang out with people with similar beliefs, but I also know if my message strays from a pure liberty message they will also be the first people to call me out on it. I think it is healthy to keep everyone grounded. I guess it is still a free market sort of, so why not just ignore the stories I do you don’t like?
Lacey’s response goes like this:
Comment by: Jet Lacey
Entered on: 2010-01-27 13:33:36
Tarrin,
Thanks for your reply. I get it, really I do. And, maybe I’ve been a little too direct and maybe it’s none of my business. What I don’t want to do is to “shit in my own nest” (meaning the freedom movement) and I do appreciate all of the new friendships I’ve started as a result of my participation in the movement.
BTW, I don’t have an active personal blog…just Freedom’s Phoenix at this time.
Keep up the great work, Tarrin.
Peace,
Jet
Here is my response to Lacey on the matter:
Comment by: Todd Andrew Barnett
Entered on: 2010-01-27 14:06:32
At the risk of coming off as an AIR (Asshole In Return), I seriously take issue with Jet Lacey’s comments that involved me as well as John Bush, some of the LOLA Girls, and the rest of the so-called activism clique that Lacey alleges to exist. (I’m speaking for John, Catherine Bleish, Tarrin Lupo, Katie Wilhite Brewer, and a number of others in the Liberty movement who are not in the unique position to speak for and defend themselves. Although I normally don’t speak for anyone but myself, I’m making a crucial exception here.)
I resent — make that beyond resent — the comments made by Jet. Not only that, his comments strike me as damn unfair as far as I’m concerned. If what we say irritates him, then his response to the matter irritates me and my “clique” more.
First, let me say that anyone who has read my electronic paper trail online for a number of years know that I have been critical of the state FAR more than the movement itself. I have been critical of the movement and Ron Paul over the years, but my criticisms dwarf in comparisons to my commentary on the rise and expansion of the state. Not only that, my criticisms dwarf in comparison to other activists in the movement who have been FAR more critical of the movement and Ron Paul than I have been. I have praised Paul, the Ron Paulers, and many members of the movement FAR more often than I would like. My blog Let Liberty Ring is replete with praises and lauding of Ron Paul, all activists in the movement (political or not), and groups that have warding off the growth, promotion, and expansion of the state in every immeasurable way. My commentaries have been critical of the Bush and Obama regimes (although I haven’t been as critical of the latter regime on the commentary front as I would like).
My show Liberty Cap Talk Live, which is on Friday nights, have been FAR more critical of the federal Leviathan than anything in the movement. I have criticized both Bush and Obama on NowLive and Blog Talk Radio, probably in more ways than the activists in the movement care to remember. I have been honest and fair, probably much fairer than I would have liked or wanted. However, when certain individuals in the movement have done something wrong in the movement (Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root, for example), I have called them out on it.
Ron Paul, politically speaking, is no exception. Like it or not, believe it or not, accept it or not, embrace it or not, as a politician he’s fair game just the like Congress. He’s part of the ruling class whether you like it or not. He’s a politician who HAS made his peace with statism — limited statism — whether you care to embrace that fact or not. After all, he IS a Republican. Why should he be treated any differently than the rest of that lot? Because a bunch of pro-Liberty activists happen to have and enjoy their lovefest with him? Anarchists like Tom Knapp, Stefan Molyneux, and Wendy McElroy have given shit loads of heat to the man. Why must he be treated so differently?
Keep in mind that he’s a politician who was:
a.) elected to serve his congressional constituents in the 14th district of Texas
b.) elected to work for his constituency’s interests and not the interests of the Liberty movement
and, finally,
c.) elected not to represent the entire Liberty movement but to certain factions of the movement and does not speak for everyone in the movement. He doesn’t speak for me, for my partner-in-crime James Landrith, Jr., and he doesn’t speak for everyone. He only speaks for those who support him all the way. That’s the truth in a nutshell.
Second, we do not hate Ron Paul the man. I’m sure Ron’s a great guy and a wonderful family man, not to mention someone you’d wouldn’t mind having a beer with, eat fish and chips with, go skeet hunting with, and, as some people say “shoot the shit with,” but he’s not above reproach. No one is. Why does he deserve special treatment for any wrongdoings he commits? Because he’s a compromising politician? Because he’s Ron Paul? Talk about a bunch of twisted — not to mention moronic — priorities you’ve got there.
And finally, those who object to us (including you, Jet) having an issue with what Paul has done need to take their heads out of their collectivistic asses and develop a perspective for a change. The attitude we get from your side is that, “You have no right to criticize Paul because a criticism of him is an attack on us.” Balderdash! That’s a bald-faced lie right there. If we wanted to do that, we would have addressed our criticisms directly towards you guys and not Ron Paul. Let’s set that record straight for once, please?
Those who also seem to glorify the politically sinful actions of Paul and shove the uproar over his decision to endorse Lamar Smith under the political rug are also selling out their principles too, in the name of persecuting those for committing what they see as political heresy and blasphemy. Would you guys have been this defensive of Ron if he had chosen to endorse John McCain in lieu of Chuck Baldwin? Would you guys have said then? What would have been your excuses since then? What’s the point of having principles if you’re just going to be as statist as McCain or statist-lite next to McCain? (Does anyone remember the Bob Barr debacle? Anyone?)
How can we oppose the existence as well as the expansion and increase of Big Statism if the Ron Paul movement tries to cozy up to the GOP and end up being the Party’s little bitch (or whore, if you prefer) and then act as though it’s defending freedom when people can see through that? How can your defense of Little Statism be justified when it sullies everything that the Liberty movement is supposed to be and stands for? The only way you can light the fires in the hearts and minds of people is via persuasion, education, and civil disobedience, not via the political realm.
By “compromising” your principles, you end up letting the state shape and define you sooner and faster than you shape and define the state. Thinking that jumping into the bed of the GOP and expecting it to change to be a libertarian organization and somehow freedom will just rain down the political sky via the magic wand of the state are just fairy tales. They never have worked, don’t work, and they never will work now, tomorrow, and in the forseeable future.
That’s my two cents on the issue. I’m getting off my soapbox now…
Yours Truly in Liberty,
Todd Andrew Barnett
Blogger, Let Liberty Ring
http://letlibertyring.blogspot.com
Host, Liberty Cap Talk Live
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/libertycaptalklive
And this is the best of the Liberty movement we have? If that’s the case, no wonder the people in it are in a heap of trouble.
Tarrin Lupo, the highly-popular host of YouTube‘s purely pro-Liberty news show The Low Country (LCL) Report, was a vendor at the Campaign for Liberty Regional Conference selling jewelry to the C4L staff, members, and the public — virtually anyone there. He worked the whole table the entire time, never having a chance to see and listen to a single speech by any of the speakers at the event. People who were coming into the area and purchase items from the vendors even didn’t know what C4L was.
Sometime during the event, an uninvited crasher who happened to be an anti-Semite showed up making a scene and waving a briefcase. Security came up to him, spoke with him, and sent him on his way. Lupo, who was interviewing someone, happened to have a handycam on his person, filming the incident, even though he missed the first few minutes of the entire matter. Lupo thought the security detail handled the matter very well; thus, no problems at that point whatsoever.
Twenty minutes later the crasher returns, which led to Lupo pulling out his handycam again and filming what was happening at that point. The story would have been over, except that, as Tarrin was filming the altercation between the crasher and the security team, two members of the detail came up to him, harassed him, and ordered him to stop filming.
The detail sees him filming, so one of the security officers (a bald guy) comes up to Lupo and actually grabs the camera (to the point where he almost confiscates it)and moves it away from the direction where the incident is taking place to where it focuses on him. The bald guy tells Lupo, “It’s not gonna be a problem. You can interview me.” This happens so that Lupo won’t be able to film the uninvited intruder being escorted off the premises. So he becomes distracted long enough by security long enough to the point where the crasher is nowhere to be seen.
[*Note: Watch the video, and you'll see and get an idea of what happened.]
Interestingly enough, Lupo had an interesting private Facebook chat with Steve Bierfeldt, one of the detail, over the matter. Here’s the following text of the chat between the two:
Steve
tarrin my man, what are you thinking bud?
12:40pmTarrin
go on
12:41pmSteve
go on? just asking why you think its good for the movement to have someone shouting racial obscenities at a c4l conference
12:42pmTarrin
Ohh I had no problem with you throwing that guy out, I have an issue why you would mess with me
Actually like I said I think you all handled him well
12:43pmSteve
meh, not good for business man. no need to have that on tape. what do you think all the anti liberty folks are going to say? “see, RP supporters are racist” just like the campaign..
12:44pmTarrin
So you thought you would be scene as ANTI-racist for throwing a racist out, if anything it would have showed people the oppisite
Crapp i need to proof, I meant seen
12:45pmSteve
i was just interested in your thought process Tarrin
12:46pmTarrin
Basically I had no idea I what was going on, but I thought you all would want it on tape incase he attacked your security or something, I was not even going to put it up , but I felt bullied by you guys
Why did you feel I was a threat.
Interestingly enough, this occurred on the same day John Bush filmed his interview with Ron Paul, which entails his question to Paul, a question that asks whether the liberty movement’s own congresscritter made a deal to support the incumbent GOP candidates of Texas.
The problem with this incident is that this shows how authoritarian an organization like C4L can be, especially when it censors an citizen journalist who never agreed not to film the entire event, uses the excuse that the organization (which is a political one) is a private organization hosting a private event for its members when the event is shown to the public, and the public can see the activities unfolding at the Sheraton Atlanta (which is where the incident transpired). Furthermore, the group also claims that it is a “private organization” pushing for political change at the state and federal levels when it is a political organization and is not truly a private group by any stretch of the imagination. That is merely a bald-faced lie, because it is a non-profit organization and has been chartered as a corporate entity. (After all, it is a non-profit corporation, which is, like it or not, a creature of the state, not a mythical creature of the “free market.”)
Organizations like C4L must be held accountable for their actions. This latest incident is an apotheosis of the need for that accountability.
[H/T to Tarrin Lupo of LCL Report who supplied me this information, posted the video on his YouTube channel, and provided the private chat to me.]
[Update: Tarrin asks me to include a link to his interview with John Bush regarding his video interview with Ron Paul at the event. Here it is in its entirety:]
[Second Update: According to Tarrin, Bierfeldt was the one who ordered the bald guy to harrass him.]
The recent ruckus over Ron Paul urging his supporters to lend their hand to Neocon Republican Congressman Lamar Smith has immediately become the apotheosis of the the shady, anti-freedom dealings of the Ron Paul for Congress Campaign, the internal working culture of the right-libertarian movement, the “libertarian” wing of the Republican Party, and the organizations and personalities that are tied to Paul and his political disciples. After all, the message from Paul urging his supporters to lend their hands to Smith is clear: “Principles must take a back seat to party politics (in this case, GOP politics) in the name of retaining congressional power. After all, I cannot be very principled by being as ‘independent’ in the GOP as everyone wants me to be, or otherwise I’ll jeopardize my position of power in Congress by losing my congressional seat, my high-ranking position on the Finance Services Congressional Committee, and the same goes for my seat on the Domestic Policy Subcommittee. Therefore, I want you to jettison those principles and help re-elect a candidate whom I support to power, even if he is diametrically opposed to everything that I stand for.”
As soon as the video showcasing an interview made by Texans for Accountable Government member John Bush at the Campaign for Liberty Regional Conference came out a few hours later after late Friday night and before Saturday morning, a devastating rift occurred between two distinct factions within the Liberty movement — Ron Paul supporters and the true pro-Liberty activists (the latter liking a number of Paul’s mostly pro-freedom message and positions but do not see the man as anything more than a messianic political figure looking to secure his entrenched power in the state). The Ron Paul supporters, on the other hand, have politically deified him not as only a man with great philosophical knowledge but as a Pope-like political figure under the rubric of politics who is destined to save them from the political Devil’s diabolical and vile political hell and damnation and lead them onto a path to a political heaven (utopic paradise under the guise of politics). Politics, in the eyes of these worshippers (activists) and apostles (C4L staff and leaders), has become their own warped political Bible that they use in order to attain “liberty” (which is really a state-coddled and state-protected brand of statist conservatism). In a nutshell, Ron Paul is their political Jesus Christ who is their one and true political savior and who will reign in their political heaven.
This is the heart and soul of the abstract construct of “cult of personality” — that is, a politically-charged excess of hero worship or idolatry towards a figure (in this context, a political figure), often expressing extreme adulation with intense flattery and praise in a political or religious (in the case of Ron Paul, both) context. When political worshippers, disciples, and apostles of a political figure (once again, in this case, Ron Paul) see him incapable of any egregious transgressions, bad choices, and serious wrongdoing of any kind, then they will thus be incapable of seeing the immoral, unethical, and political wrongdoing because they refuse to separate the man from the politician. In other words, in their eyes, you can’t take the politics out of the man and vice versa. The way they see it, they must permanently be one and the same. The politician’s “principles” simply are irrelevant in the context of remaining in office, especially if the goal is to keep himself entrenched — and even further entrenched — in political office and in the movement.
Scores of numbers representing the Ron Paul machine say that this is what politics is all about, that compromise is necessary in politics, and that it’s crucial for Ron Paul to deviate from libertarian principles to keep his place in Congress, his seats on the committees on which he serves, etc. The litany of excuses have spread all over the web, including Facebook: Ron Paul is “awesome” and must be supported no matter what his reasons are, Ron Paul has to “carefully choose” who his enemies and friends are “in the interests of advancing” his “politics and beliefs,” Ron Paul has more credibility in the mainstream public than you [the critic] do [does], Ron Paul “rules,” politics is a game you HAVE to play to win, Ron Paul has “done more for the movement than you [the critic]” ever will, Ron Paul makes people aware of the issues, etc. (The last excuse, of course, is debatable, as many non-Paul supporting libertarians have provided excellent examples of what kinds of anti-liberty actions Paul has taken over the years. Wendy McElroy, KN@PPSTER‘s Tom Knapp, and Stefan Molyneux are excellent examples of pro-Liberty figures who have never had any illusions about Paul’s motives and his actions in Congress and have never jumped on board the pro-Paul bandwagon.)
The problem with most of these claims made by the Ron Paulians (who even unapologetically stand by them that is, by the way) is that they are nonsense, and the supporters refuse to look at the real world here. Compromise, especially in the realm of politics, has never gotten the movement anywhere anyway; in fact, it has outrageously and horribly damaged the movement’s chances of gaining traction whatsoever. For example, the Audit the Fed bill (also known as H.R. 1207), which has been given enormous amount of media coverage (and granted, it has received a lot of media buzz over its key provisions), has enabled Paul to go on cable networks like CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and the various talk shows including the talking heads who run them. Has it really gotten the movement closer to freedom, despite the watered-down provisions of the bill, especially when a good chunk of the pro-transparency language has been omitted from the original draft of the legislation? Keep in mind that the Senate version (not the House version) of the bill has been rendered useless and neutered because of the “compromise” to which both major parties have surreptitiously agreed. (The House bill is being stalled deliberately and the possibility of it ever passing intact without any part of the language amended is nil.)
In a nutshell, what good is the bill if it won’t achieve the original aim and goal that Paul wanted? What good will these new versions of the bill do? How will they make the Fed more accountable? Even Paul has admitted on camera that the bill (especially the Senate version) has been nullified (in terms of how it will be enforced). Did the activists really think that, via the apparatus of politics, the Federal Reserve, in collusion with the government, was going to say, “Yup! You’re right. We have been keeping deep, dark secrets from the public, and we want to destroy the value of the dollar!” Did anyone on board the Paul train really think the bill was going to accomplish anything? If anything, it was a pipe dream; nothing more. [*Note: I don't blame Paul for the compromises of the Senate bill, and the stonewalling of the House bill is done at no fault of his own.]
Compromise is what has gotten this country in the mess in the first place. It’s the reason why the state shouldn’t be existing at all. We’re more than willing to give up liberty in exchange for holding onto the reigns of power because the feeling of the power is more important and better than the principle itself. Party loyalty means something, whereas the principle doesn’t.
Moreover, Paul’s stances on social issues (from where he is getting the support from in his electoral and political bases) have been met with intense scrutiny in the last few years. The aggravating part to many non-Ron Paulers (and that includes me even more than when I supported him for president in 2007 and 2008) is that is that the Ron Paulians are willing to look the other way when it comes to his willingness to violate individual rights (in some instances) when it’s politically convenient and beneficial for him to do so. Wendy McElroy, in her blog posting on Paul (at the time when he was running for the presidency on the GOP ticket on July 26, 2007) titled “Why Libertarians Should Applaud Slap RonPaul,” makes an excellent case against him here:
My call for a Slap RonPaul site has elicited some negative and some surprised responses, which I answer. Before doing so, however, I want to suggest that there is nothing outrageous or offensive about a hardline libertarian wishing to slap the face of any politician…of any man or woman who seeks a position of political power over the lives of others, let alone the position of Supreme Commander/President. Indeed, it is offensive to libertarianism to elevate a politician to such a height that slapping his or her face on a game site is considered outrageous. Iconoclastic disrespect for politicians and the political process is a hallmark of libertarianism; god help us if we lose that attitude. In one sense, however, critics of the idea are correct in calling it inappropriate. Although Paul is squarely in the Religious Right, he probably deserves a slap less than other Presidential candidates like the hawkish McCain. I may be displacing the irritation I feel toward the many libertarians who are jumping gleefully onto the Paul bandwagon and, instead, directing the irritation toward Paul himself. Perhaps I should be slapping them and yelling “Snap out of it!” On second thought, nah…that’s not it. The man himself irritates me.
Then she goes further:
A friend whose opinion I value explains that he is supporting Paul as ‘the best candidate among the declared candidates,’ and adds ‘I know, that’s not saying much.’ With genuine respect toward my friend, no that is not saying much and the choice between two evils is still evil. He continues to explain, ‘there are three issues I don’t agree with Ron Paul on: Abortion, Church & State, Immigration.’ Even if those were the only issues upon which Paul is frightening as hell, they are incredibly important issues with far-reaching implications. It is rather like saying ‘other than advocating slavery, he is a great candidate.’ The man’s campaign literature now identifies him as ‘a real conservative’; he represents the Religious Right that wants to collapse the division established by the First Amendment.
She also correctly identifies another problem with Paul here (which is something his hero-worshipping zealots refuse to take into account):
Ron Paul Says Privacy Rights and Freedoms Don’t Include Abortion. I believe Paul’s anti-abortion stance would destroy privacy rights, especially medical privacy. Given that he has voted “yes” on federal bans on abortion, I don’t take seriously his loophole explanation that states should decide such matters.
Wendy is absolutely right. Paul’s defense on his position on abortion should have angered and alarmed those who pay lip service to human liberty across the board, yet it hasn’t. By compromising on those principles, Paul has shown that he would rather throw a mother who had just aborted her unborn child to save her life in jail because of his misguided view that abortion is wrong. I side with Wendy on this matter, considering, although personally I’m against abortion, it is still not the state’s decision to decide whether the unborn child must be or must not be saved. I too reject the state’s rights arguments because they violate the rights of the individual. Conservatives who gleefully jump on board of the states’ rights rhetoric are wrong about this, and so is Paul. Paul, who has adopted the conservative line on this matter, has voted “yes” on many federal bans on abortion.
In simpler language, Paul is enslaving women by coercing them to keep the unborn baby inside them via the power of the state. How does that reconcile with his “libertarian” credentials (which are actually conservative, not libertarian)?
(By the way, one can find more blog postings of Wendy on her feelings on Ron Paul at her website, as the URL to it is given above. Peruse them. Agree or disagree, I urge my fellow readers not to take them personally but do want you to take them seriously.)
[*Note:His records on immigration, the "don't-ask, don't-tell" policy of the military, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (which allows states to have this mythical right to adopt statewide bans on recognizing the right of gays to marry by only recognizing a legal marriage as between a man and a woman). Despite his rhetoric, where's the substance in his arguments? There aren't any, as far as I'm concerned.]
Getting back to the Paul ruckus, the matter is simply not only about Ron Paul (keep in mind that I do not personally have any feelings of ill will or hatred towards the man, and my criticisms of him are serious but not personal). They are mainly about the attitudes and reactions of the pro-Ron Paul crowd that have, since the revelation of Paul selling out the movement, demonized pro-Liberty activists who have supported Ron in the past but no longer do for this reason as well as other unstated ones. The attacks against the principled activists have indeed become personal, unfair, hurtful, and even uncalled for. I can vouch for that, because I have been subjected to a number of unnecessary and unfair ad hominems and criticisms on Facebook and on this blog over the whole matter. (The comments aimed at me can be found here, so there is no need to rehash them at all.)
The sentiments of the Ron Paul supporters espoused online come off as the following: “How dare you criticize the one and great Ron Paul! He is always right and never wrong! You have no right to criticize him or even excoriate him, even if he does make a wrong choice!! Again, how dare you!!!” Wrong on all counts, I’m afraid. Pro-Liberty activists who can separate the man from the politician (and his rhetoric as well) do HAVE a right to be angry over what has happened. They are justified in being angry over this matter. In fact, the blame falls on Ron Paul’s shoulders and his entire congressional team to begin with. While it is true that we don’t know the entire details of the deal that Paul made with Lamar Smith, he is still accountable for his actions, especially because of the deliberately-concealed information regarding the agreement(and not because there is a lack of it). Furthermore, those who are unfairly and unjustly attacking the anti-Paul pro-Liberty activists should be angry too. They have a responsibility to find out why their beloved man has made this disastrous choice. It is utterly irresponsible to sweep this matter under the rug, as the old racist newsletter ruckus was.
There is also a deep concern that this controversy has raised. I called into Rise Up Radio on the Rule of Law radio network on Monday morning a little after 7 a.m. CST, and I was on the air with John Bush, Catherine Bleish, and Paul supporter Brooke Kelley of the popular YouTube reality show PuZzLeD. The point I raised was, because of this “elephant-in-the-room” (no pun intended) mess, if the Democrats and the average Joe who knows about Paul’s record and his position on the War on Iraq and the Bailouts of 2008, what will they think? They will believe that Paul has caved in to political pressure by endorsing a candidate who represents everything that Paul is believed not to represent in their eyes. It is very likely that, if this matter does get out into the limelight, they will make political hay and use this against him, accusing him of hypocrisy, playing party politics, and disingenuousness across the board. Plus, the new listeners and supporters of him message will erroneously confuse libertarianism with his “hip” brand of conservatism. Is that how we want the liberty message to be viewed by the public, let alone the entire world? Is it really worth to throw everything away, just because it’s better to trump principles for politics? These matters, whether the Ron Paul machine wants to acknowledge this or not, believe it or not, accept it or not, and embrace it or not, are black and white, not just for the entire movement but also to the public at large. We should be condemning these remarks and move to strive to reach the masses with the idea that voluntaryism and agorism are the best ways to achieve liberty, not via the guns of the state. The state is the agent of violence; thus, why give it more credence than we already have?
There’s plenty more to be said on this topic. The criticisms aimed at Paul and his supporters are not meant to be hurtful and disaparaging, but to prove how ill-thought out, divisive, and dangerous the desired pathway to electoral politics is. Activism can bring about change (especially for liberty) in many forms, but that doesn’t necessarily require that politics be a part of it. A commitment to integrity, truth, and a respect for individual rights is strongly needed. Let’s not blindly abandon that just for the sake of “good government.”
Here’s a YouTube of anarcho-capitalist John Bush at the C4L Regional Conference in Atlanta, Georgia last night, asking why Ron is supporting a Neo-Con:
Katie Wilhite Brewer‘s quote from Ron Paul’s answer to Bush is of the following:
I’m a republican, I made a commitment to support the Republican incumbents in texas. I’m the most independent republican in the GOP but you can only get away with so much independence.
She then replied to that quote with the following:
Wow! There you have it folks. YouTube video will be out soon.
Smith, a Neo-Con who has voted for a resolution calling for the “Use of Military of Force” against Iraq on October 10, 2002 and voted for the bailout for the banks last fall, has a deal with Paul, saying that he will endorse and support Ron’s campaign for re-election if Paul returns the favor. The idea is that Ron needs Smith’s support, because if he doesn’t, then he will lose his seat to a progressive Democratic challenger in the U.S. congressional race. Another reason is that, if Paul doesn’t do it, then he will be forced out of the GOP, thus losing his seat on the Finances Services and his seat as a Ranking Member of the Domestic Policy Sub Committee.
A Ron Paul sycophant by the name of Brandon Trent (who sounds more like a GOP loyalist and stalwart in his responses to the irate pro-Liberty activists who were disheartened and disappointed by Ron’s statement quoted Katie’s Facebook page) tries to justify and rationalizes Paul’s decision with the following quote in the comments section of the thread:
Brandon Trent
here’s the thing; think rationally for a moment; how much good could Ron Paul do if he is expelled from the party; he would lose his status as a senior member of the Financial Services Committee; including his position as Ranking member of the Domestic Policy Sub Committee…..I’d rather have him in the Republican Party with some clout than out of the Republican Party with absolutely no clout what so ever. Politics is a dirty game; and Im sure Lamar Alexander will in some way return the favor
4 hours ago
Here’s a reprint of the original campaign letter sent out on December 30, 2009 to the Ron Paul for Congress supporters:
Congressman Ron Paul
Dear Fellow Texan,
As you know, America faces tremendous problems. I have dedicated my career to fight for solutions, but I need friends in Congress who will help and work with me in these critical times.
That is why I am grateful for the friendship of Congressman Lamar Smith. Lamar Smith is a thoughtful, intelligent leader who keeps his door open to me and is always willing to listen. As the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Smith’s word carries a lot of weight on Capitol Hill and I am glad to see he fights to take principled stands on important issues like Healthcare and Cap and Trade.
Congressman Smith made a point of reading both of my recent books, The Revolution: A Manifesto and End the Fed and I enjoyed our discussion. True intellectual exchange has become all too rare in Washington and I appreciated his effort.
Lamar is also one of the true gentlemen in Congress. I value Congressman Smith’s thoughtful approach and consider him a true friend. If more leaders in Washington adopted his style of governing, I know we could break down a lot of barriers.
I am proud of my friendship with Lamar Smith. I hope you will consider supporting him in his bid for re-election.
In Liberty,
Ron Paul
Interestingly enough Ron Paul Republican congressional candidate Stephen Schoppe expressed his astonishment with the news.
As Schoppe notes in part:
I really respect Dr. Paul but am disappointed with his email since Lamar voted for the $700 billion banker bailout. Compromises like this with Democrats have led to the financial disaster our nation is in today.
(Schoppe also stated that he was “encouraged that his campaign has spurred Lamar Smith to seek an endorsement from Ron Paul.”) As he explains:
We must be having an effect if Lamar is kowtowing to Ron Paul
Interestingly enough (although not a surprise), Lew Rockwell has been obviously silent on the matter on his blog.
As far as I’m concerned, as a former Ron Paul 2008 supporter, I’m done with Paul. I have denounced him publicly on Facebook because of his action, which is a straw (more like a hammer) that broke the camel’s back. It’s obvious that Paul is doing this for political expediency, at a cost of his past support from his devout pro-Liberty base. So much for his principled pro-Liberty political capital that he had been banking for well over a decade.
After all the crap involving the old (not to mention “brush-under-the-rug”) racist newsletter controversy, his decision to accept a donation of $500 from neo-Nazi Stormfront leader Don Black at one point during his 2008 presidential campaign, his anti-abortion and anti-illegal immigration records (which show that he’s an anti-Liberty zealot on the said issues), his son Rand Paul’s support for Gitmo, and GOP senatorial candidate Peter Schiff’s defense of the preemptive war doctrine that had long since been established precedent by previous precedents by past presidential administrations (including George W. Bush’s), I must wash my hands of Ron Paul and the groups that have long since been associated with him. For a man who takes this anti-Liberty stance in favor of being re-elected because it is just the price we pay for being involved in a dirty game called politics is retching and unconscionable.
I wonder what Paul’s friend Rockwell will say about this latest fall-out (not to mention how he’ll say it). How is he going to spin this mess in Ron’s favor? Furthermore, how’s he going to defend Paul? If he, Ron, and Paul’s ardent defenders are worried about the media fallout over this revelation and the egg on face that will be splattered all over Ron, his congressional campaign, and his entire support base, then perhaps he should have thought about that before he made a vile pact with the political Devil by aligning himself with a congressman who’s not even remotely like him.
Enough of this vulgar libertarianism! Down with the state! It’s time to work outside the political system. Forget the political beast; it can’t be “saved” or “reformed.” It’s time to throw the baby out with the bath water. And that’s especially because the baby happens to be Rosemary’s Baby.
In the late afternoon of Christmas Eve last Wednesday, sometime after my parents and I arrived at my brother’s house to celebrate the holiday with him, my sister-in-law (his wife), and my niece (their daughter), my brother, my dad, and I sat at the table in his kitchen discussing politics (that is, his brand of “right-wing”/conservative with a heavy dose of libertarianesque Republican politics being monopolized in the discussion). These discussions have always been a politically religious tradition in the Barnett family on an annual basis, even if they are held on Thanksgiving Day and Xmas Eve. My mom, my sister-in-law, and my niece stepped out a few times for intervals of five to ten minutes, during which my dad, my brother, and I got into our political chats. (Interestingly enough, my sister-in-law, according to my brother, has grown quite intolerant of the political conversations that are often held at his house or anywhere with all of us together for dinner. Apparently, she can’t stomach such discourse during those times together, from what I can gather.)
At one point during the talks, my brother, my father, and I found ourselves in a discussion over the ObamaCare bill that the Senate had just voted to pass its version of it. (The final vote tally is 60 to 39, with Biden presiding over the key vote on the mandate.) Now the Senate and the House (and even my sibling confirmed this at the table) are scrambling to match their provisions contained in their versions of the bill, so that they can draft a final bill to be passed by both chambers of the House and Obama to sign it into law.
(Keep in mind that, all his best intentions notwithstanding, my brother idealistically — but not erroneously — believes that the law will be successfully challenged by the courts on constitutional grounds. It’s possible that the U.S. Supreme Court can and might overturn the impending law, but given the fact that most conservatives — not to mention their right-wing populists and allies – have historically gone along with government programs once and long after they have passed, it stands to reason that this program will remain in place and be nearly impossible to abolish at the federal level.)
At one point in the conversation, (I’m paraphrasing here!), my brother states that when he talks to people regarding health care, they respond, “We have a right to health care!” My brother argues against that proposition (assuming those people with whom he spoke are of the progressive mindset), claiming that no one has a right to it because he takes the constitutional position that an individual “has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” (While the praxeology per se is valid, it is not a good argument to make against the so-called public option because it is a cookie cutter talking point that libertarianesque conservatives like him take.)
The reason for his argument against the “public option”? He says that it’s taking money from those who didn’t pay for it and giving it to those who can’t. It’s a fair and valid point, and quite a solid libertarian one at that. Who can rightfully argue against that? (The progressives can make a counter-argument in response to that standpoint, but that’s a subject for another post.)
Of course, I interjected by saying that the same argument can be made about Social Security, and I made that point after he applied that same principle to Medicare. He even agreed that Social Security “should never have been created in the first place.” It’s nice to know that we concur on the principles, because his talking points are libertarian to the core. I even pointed out that those programs absolutely should never been created in the first place, and that I have told my listeners and guests on my BlogTalkRadio.com Internet talk radio show Liberty Cap Talk Live(specifically, some of those listeners who really don’t get the point yet) that, once those programs are created, they eventually morph into something other than they were originally intended to be. (Interestingly enough, he agreed. I did even bring up my criticisms of the Big Players of the insurance industry who had a stake in this mess, but we were cut off because my mother, my sister-in-law, and my niece returned from their “in-the-garage” cigarette break.)
But this is what I wanted to ask him, and I wish I had the opportunity to ask him this but didn’t have a chance to do so: “Do you oppose or support the big corporate players in the insurance industry (specifically the big corporate insurance firms like Blue Cross Blue Shield and BlueCare Network) that are on board with ObamaCare?” Furthermore, I wanted to ask him, “Do you oppose welfare in all of its forms? Or do you oppose welfare only for the poor, but support corporate welfare (or corporatism) all the way?”
I suspect he supports the latter. After all, his admission of his supporting the government bailouts of the Big Three and the automotive industry that transpired in the last few months of Bush’s final term of his presidency (when I was at his house for Christmas Eve last year) is an overwhelming indication of that.
Herein lies the heart of the problem with my brother’s thinking, including the mindset that dominates the old libertarian movement. The mentality that has long pervaded the libertarian movement is this: “Despite government intervention in the economy, corporations are still needed, are not the creature of the state, and are not protected by but are victims of the state. Oh, and we do need limited liability laws to protect the interests of our shareholders, specifically the small ones.”
Thus, in corporate libertarianese (particularly those espoused by those self-proclaimed libertarians from both the CATO Institute and Lew Rockwell‘s Ludwig von Mises Institute), corporations are the apotheosis of laissez-faire and that they can exist without state-sanctioned privileges and guarantees and state-furnished subsidies. (Imagine the health insurance corporations that stand to gain everything once the state-provided, vile ObamaCare is set in stone. After all, consider how much tax money is riding on this bill by the entire corporate insurance establishment that’s colluded with the state with this bill.) Furthermore, it’s also another reason why many progressives revile libertarians for adopting Ben Steinan/Lawrence Kudlowesque rhetoric that has significantly dominated the vast majority of the movement, thus harming and scathing it in its entirety.
“Left-libertarian” a.k.a. ideologically pure libertarian/anarchist/agorist Sheldon Richman, who has been in the old libertarian movement for nearly 40 years, had this to say about the state of libertarianism as it stands today:
There are also good strategic reasons for associating libertarianism with the left and not with the right. The modern movement has, despite futile protests that we pro-Liberty activists are “neither left nor right,” been placed on the right as sort of a hip variant of conservatism. Some of this comes from the observers’ lack of perceptiveness, but much of it is the movement’s own fault. A good deal of libertarian commentary sounds like corporate apologetics.
Sheldon is right on the money. Today’s “modern movement” is seen by progressives and many other nonlibertarians as a “cool” aberration of the modern conservative movement. This is not a good PR image for the movement, whether we care to admit it or not. It does not bode well for us in the long run.
Furthermore, libertarians who take — and not to mention embrace — the unconvincing (and largely unbelievable) “neither left nor right” stance have given their adversaries excuses to think that conservatives and libertarians come from the same family when that is not so. Conservatives are fundamentally different from true advocates of liberty (whether those advocates use the label “libertarian” or not). Moreover, the movement has been infiltrated by shady opportunists and collectivists who seek to use the state to their advantage. Look at alleged “libertarians” like Wayne Allyn Root whose most recent book reads like a playbook for a Republican football team and former Libertarian Party activist and now retired Republican talk radio show host Larry Elder who fled the LP a few years ago because of its old non-interventionist position on foreign policy! He even has supported Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan consistently and the government’s incessant intervention of the economy via corporate protectionism and mercantilism. Is that the image that we as pro-Liberty activists want to portray?
(Furthermore, how about the pro-preemptive war comments that GOP senatorial candidate Peter Schiff recently made? How would anti-war nonliberal leftists respond to that rubbish? Or how about Rand Paul’s recent statements on the Gitmo detainees in his senatorial campaign’s press release on the issue? What are civil libertarians and antiwar activists supposed to take away from that crud? Many of the defenders of those two candidates are “libertarian” [actually conservative] supporters of the Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul wing of the movement who, while trying not to come off as not very corporatist in rhetoric, appear to be very apologetic of the corporate state. Some of them take the “libertarian Republican” [quite an oxymoron to boot!], or what should be called the neolibertarian, position that an aggressive foreign policy and a solid national defense [conservative concepts, by the way!] will keep us safe from would-be terrorists and produce peace only by means of an offensive war.)
This is what “free market anticapitalist” Kevin Carson was referring to when he coined the term “vulgar libertarianism” — the brand of libertarianism practiced by those “libertarians” who believe that today’s corporate market would be what the free market entails if decades of government intervention and central planning had not been in the way. When libertarians have that attitude about the marketplace in that fashion, then they give the progressives legitimate reasons to discredit us and persecute us, thus making our jobs harder or even nearly impossible to remove the state from our lives.
Let’s not forget that many free marketeers come off as very combative, very belligerent, and very antagonistic when a morsel of sympathy is given to working class laborers who are the true victims of government taxes, regulations, and pro-state business/corporate guarantees, protections, subsidies, and privileges. A number of those libertarians who complain about this spew this nonsensical attitude that a free market (especially one without state privileges, guarantees, and the like) would not last very long and that the current market, despite the government’s incessant interventions, could not exist in the absence of the state. That assertion tells me several things: that ilk lacks an extraordinary amount of deep perception and objectivity, certainly fathoms the concept of a free market but has never experienced it in a real sense, and has never fathomed how the pains of government intervention have affected the poor and the blue-collar middle “working” class on all levels, physical, economic, mental, and psychological.
When libertarians become indifferent and cold to people who experience true cruelty and misery by defending rotten employers who treat their good employees like a pile of rubbish, it gives nonlibertarians and progressives an excuse to attack free enterprise and side with the state. Of course, there are rotten employees too, and that’s a given in any business, yet that’s not the point. Not only that, it’s an unfair talking point, because libertarians (and conservatives as well) who employ that argument lump in the good laborers with the bad.
And that also raises another paramount standpoint as well: when shady, politically-protected firms abuse their good workers, and those libertarians come to their defense despite all that nonsense, that alienates those workers, thus pushing them into the arms of the politically-connected unions, the bureaucrats, and the politicians who will use them as political and campaign fodder to score some political points, even on the campaign trail. That transpires all the time during every election and legislative cycle. If the politicians, as opportunistic as they are, capitalize on the pains of the working class by appearing to be champions of the poor and the middle class, then those groups will flock to them and see their employers and the entire marketplace as enemies of the “working man.”
This is a massive reason why libertarians of all stripes in the Liberty movement lose on economic liberty big time every single time, before, during, and after every election season. They will keep losing until they stop seeing big employers’ workers as albatrosses on the necks of their businesses and understand that, without their customers and employees, employers don’t have their businesses. If libertarians and employers do that, then the working class and the poor, who are the victims of the state like the entrepreneurs and every non-politically-connected businesses are, will side with them and support a real return to the free market. Why can’t they just do that? What have we go to lose if we do exactly that?
The real advocates of liberty are the original leftists who support and advocate a voluntary society based on mutual consent, not the kind of society that these corporatists and their government cronies want to engineer for all of us.
She will be on to talk about the disastrous Continental Congress 2009 convention, her show, the convention booting PyraBang‘s Chris Pirillo from the event, and the current state of the Liberty movement.
Ron Paul appeared once again on Larry Kudlow’s The Kudlow Report on CNBC yesterday, in which he debated the secrecy of the Federal Reserve with Keynesian stooge/economist Peter Morici, who goes on the pro-Fed defensive. This statist goes out of his way to make a true statement by saying the following:
In order to create money, you have to buy bonds to issue the dollars. So they are always involved in fiscal policy. And, as for this inflation and…and…and this fiscal cri….this financial crisis, well, I think Congress had a lot to do with it. You know, they’ve had a hand in monetary policy or financial policy. For example, the Community Reinvestment Act, which encouraged banks to make irresponsible loans. The meddling in the activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, getting them to make irresponsible loans. A $1.5 trillion deficit. That creates bonds that investors hold internationally. It’s as good as dollars. Wait a minute! If anybody’s going to apologize, then it has to be the people who are totally out of control on Capitol Hill.
While Morici is right on the button on those points, what he fails — perhaps neglect — to mention is that it is all the fault of Congress, the banks (including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), the mortgage and financial lenders, and the Federal Reserve for having a hand in the wipe out and evisceration of the value of the dollar, producing the fall of the financial markets, and so on. The only point that Morici gets wrong is that the Fed <i>buys</i> the bonds to print those dollars (as he contends religiously). Actually, it <i>prints</i> money out of thin air with no intrinsic value backing those dollars whatsoever.
Ron gets it right completely. Morici is an idiot when he says that we shouldn’t link our monetary system to gold because it “will always be rising over time.” He’s ridiculous when he fearfully opines, “Well, there’s simply not enough gold in the world. If you want to have 1880s, 1890s deflation, that’s a great way to have it happen.” Morici, on the price of gold, further notes, “The price of gold will always be rising over time while it gyrates around the trend. It will be rising, it will be very difficult to manage the currency that way.” Ron Paul talks over him, correctly noting:
The pri…the price of gold does not go up; the value of the dollar goes down. You gotta understand that point, or you will never solve our problems.
This blog is for LP, BTP, and third party loyalists who are tired of the crap they’ve seen on Last Free Voice and the Independent Political Report. This site was created on Election Day yesterday, so forgive me if this site doesn’t seem like it is in the best of shape. In the days and weeks to come, hopefully more people will blog here. Anyone who wants to be a blogger on this site, please email me. I’m looking for people who are not happy with blogging at LFV and the Independent Political Report.
I promise that I will not pull the same crap that Elf Nino’s Mom and her husband has pulled on you, so please let me know and I’ll be glad to add you on board.
The Minnesota Independent Party is charged with being a spoiler in Tuesday’s elections, so says the state’s Star Tribune.
Here’s an excerpt of the story:
Recounts and close calls raise charge that IP is a spoiler
By BOB VON STERNBERG, Star Tribune
November 5, 2008
Minnesota’s Independence Party candidates made a strong showing in Tuesday’s election, by third-party standards. But their double-digit vote totals in several hard-fought races are reviving questions about the role the party is playing.
Does the IP embody a developing political movement, seeking to provide an alternative to an increasingly dysfunctional two-party establishment? Or is the party mainly a so-called spoiler — seldom able to mount competitive candidacies while frequently doing more damage to DFLers than to Republicans.
Since its founding in the early 1990s, the IP has managed to win exactly one high-profile race, the election of Gov. Jesse Ventura a decade ago.
“They’re looking more and more like spoilers at this point, pulling swing voters away from the Democrats,” said David Schultz, who teaches political science at Hamline University in St. Paul. “They certainly aren’t getting enough votes to win, but the IP has been capturing the swing votes.”
Nowhere was the impact of the party more pronounced than in the still-knotted U.S. Senate race. With only hundreds of votes out of nearly 3 million cast separating Republican incumbent Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken, Independence standard-bearer Dean Barkley got more than 437,000 votes.
And, according to an exit poll conducted Tuesday, if Barkley hadn’t been running, Franken would have netted more than 20,000 additional votes.
“The Democrats still outnumber the Republicans, but they aren’t at 50 percent,” Schultz said. “So if the swing votes go to the Republicans, it almost equalizes the campaign even if the Democrats hold onto their base.”
By now we’ve all seen the videos. John Kerry appears at a university. A young man asks some questions, gets tased. “Don’t tase me bro,” says the young man. John Kerry says…nothing. Kerry had no problem with the police using their tasers to torture that young man for speaking.
More recently, Barack Obama and John McCain were in a debate at Hofstra University. The police of Nassau County, New York brutally attacked a group of Iraq war veterans. The police used horses to deliberately attack the students. One of the police horses was deliberately directed by its rider to smash the skull and face of one of the veterans. Fifteen were arrested, several hurt. Barack Obama (and John McCain) made no statement after the attack.
Monday, the “Hempstead 15″ were arraigned. The clever county government has opted to spread out its suffering by having separate trial dates for each of the defendants. We look forward to many protests by the Iraq Veterans Against the War, and other Campaign for Liberty and anti-war protesters. There might be ACLU types, too, protesting the police brutality.
If you are seeking insight into the character of Barack Obama, look no further. He knows that those young veterans were protesting outside the debate. He knows they were arrested. And he knows the police deliberately attacked the crowd. He has said nothing about it, and done nothing about it.
Why not? Because he’s a law and order Democrat. Just like John Kerry. Not unlike John McCain, who is a law and order Republican. Law and order is supposed to mean decency, respect for individual liberty, a recognition of the orderly limits to power described in the constitution.
Instead, because of despicable politicians like Kerry, Obama, and McCain, it has come to mean a boot smashing a human face, forever. A group of jackbooted thugs smashes some faces, tases a young man, and arrests whoever objects to brutal excesses of power, and politicians like Kerry, Obama, and McCain stand by and say nothing. Their silence is their assent. They approve of what happened, or they would object.
And they’ll always approve. They approve of the imposition of order by force. They approve of changing the economy by central planning. They approve of extortion. They send troops to foreign countries to intervene, and not one of them cares a whit about any of the people who are massacred in those countries by USA air force bombers, by USA army helicopters, by USA navy artillery, by USA CIA predator drones firing missiles at dimly visible targets. Marines can wipe out a village. Obama does not care.
He doesn’t care because he is interested in only one thing. Power. Raw, naked, brutal power. Now he has it, watch him use it.
There have been some Democrats, and some Republicans, who have called for more sensible ideals. Jimmy Carter made human rights a foreign policy issue. But the next Democrat in the White House, Bill Clinton, obviously didn’t. Madeleine Albright, who was Secretary of State for a time under Clinton, enthusiastically supported brutal sanctions which killed and estimated 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children. Recently, asked about these sanctions and their death toll, she said they were “worth it.” Worth what, and to whom? Sanctions were worthwhile to avoid war? But the war came anyway. Sanctions were worthwhile to achieve what, exactly, Madame Secretary? To achieve the massacre of hundreds of thousands?
Ron Paul has objected to foreign wars of occupation. He is a Republican with many sensible ideas. Stopping the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing the troops home from Europe, Korea, Japan, and the Middle (muddle) East, and ending the failed war on drugs are among Ron’s very sensible ideas. None of these appeal to Obama.
Obama is not going to stop the war on drugs. He is not going to bring the troops home from Europe, Korea, Japan. It is very doubtful he’ll remove all USA troops from the Middle East, and I suspect he plans to leave a few brigades in Baghdad to defend the Vatican-City-sized embassy there. He has indicated his enthusiasm for sending more troops into Afghanistan to massacre more villagers there.
He isn’t to be trusted. He should not be applauded. The cheering crowd at that park in Chicago for his acceptance speech reminded me of the crowds at the stadium in Nuremberg responding to Hitler. But don’t try to talk to those supporters about their behavior – it’s like talking to a barack, I mean a brick wall (with a nod to Meg McLain for this tasty pun).
Make no mistake about Mr. Obama. He is not for peace. He is not for freedom. He is for war. He is for servitude. He did not choose Rahm Emanuel by mistake, or out of some sense of obligation. Emanuel was chosen because of agreement on policy. And Emanuel has been far more blatant about his support for war, for massacring villages full of civilians in other countries, for obliterating the enemies of Israel at any cost to Americans in lives or treasure, for nationalist socialist “service” not voluntary, but compulsory.
And what is compulsory national service? It is involuntary servitude. It is slavery.
You might think Obama would have some cultural sensitivity to slavery. He does not. He is a brutal police state enthusiast. He is a war monger. He’ll benefit from the war machine. Mark my words.
So, if there are precious few Democrats or Republicans who support freedom and oppose war, what to do? I suggest you join The Boston Tea Party. http://www.bostontea.us/ is our site. The life you save might be your own.
Someone needs to get to Jarrett and inform her that American politicians are not Kings and do not “rule” from office. But if this is the attitude of Obama’s transition team, what does The One himself imagine he is about to unleash? Could the fears that Obama thinks he is being anointed America’s King be far off with this sort of talk flying about?
Libertarian activists Angela Keaton, who’s also an At-Large Representative on the Libertarian National Committee, and Michelle Shingal have announced that they are launched the official Keaton/Shingal 2012 campaign while contending for the Libertarian Party’s presidential and vice presidential nominations.
Gawd (sorry-was home in NOLA all last week), I didn’t want to do this but the timing may be perfect and I want to show that I can be as opportunistic as Barr/Root.
I’d like to officially announce the Keaton/Shinghal 2012 ticket. We already have some support on our Facebook page and we have BIG fundraising plans. The unofficial plan is called ‘Stripping across Texas’ but we’re not like most strippers; we know we’ll have neither diploma nor presidency in the end and we don’t plan to sell it that way. And, unlike Root who plans to get a limited airing radio program out of his run, we plan to build a fitness empire out of ours. After all, you can’t strip on the campaign trail without being svelte… With that plan in place alone, we guarandamntee that we can out raise Barr/Root by at least $100k whilst making ourselves wealthy…
Now, I know that y’all might be worried about qualifications. Well, I haven’t any except the abilities to balance a checkbook, drink like a fish and well, never mind. Let’s just say that of all the (wo)men in my past I only count on 3 not voting for me. Keaton has a Masters in Poli-Sci and a law degree. (That’s why she’s the top of the ticket- that and Knapp came to our room in Denver and found her awake before I.) As far as media goes I think that perhaps reason might do us a solid and cover us in a non-judgmental way. Angela does have some rather racy pics on the web and , I have the support of many from the cult of Ron Paul. (Disclosure crap makes me admit that I’m part of that cult…)
There are 3 things about Keaton/Shinghal 2012 that set us apart from many others who might seek your delegate vote. They are: 3) We’re both married to reputable men who are fastidious about their standings in the eyes of their peers and government. In other words, there will be nothing of substance to block our run in the eyes of the state. 2) We’ve no small children- retarded or otherwise- to occupy our thoughts on the campaign trail. 1) We’re fucking Libertarians We are Libertarians who fuck libertarian inclined spouses and we can make the most hostile people friendly in a face to face because we follow the guiding light of our political philosophy and all religions and that’s the Golden Rule.
Imagine what these pro-freedom hotties can do under the LP banner. They’re already making huge waves by doing this.
I hope this is making Wayne Allyn Root squirm (although it is rumored that he is running for president on the party ticket too).
Thomas L. Knapp, 2008 VP nominee for the Boston Tea Party announces his intentions to seek both the Libertarian Party AND Boston Tea Party nomination for President of the United States of America.
I initially planned to announce my 2012 candidacy for the presidency of the United States on April 6th, 2009, from the steps of the Old St. Louis Courthouse (history buffs shouldn’t have too much trouble figuring out why), and I still intend to conduct a campaign event of some kind at that time and in that place.
I see, however, that others are already lining up with formal announcements or at least clear indications of their own intent … and when a fight’s brewing, I prefer to get in early.
It is therefore my distinct pleasure to announce that I will seek the 2012 presidential nominations of the Libertarian Party and the Boston Tea Party.
Why run for president — and why, especially, for the presidential nominations of two parties which together usually account for less than one percent of the popular vote in presidential elections?
I could give you lots of reasons, but I’m going to stick with three for the moment: There are some hard truths that need to be told, I’m interested in telling them, and they’re most effectively told from a bully pulpit.
Among those those hard truths are that the political wing of the libertarian movement will never make substantial progress toward its goals so long as it clings to the apron strings of the failed movements and parties of the past, remains in orbit around the present political “center,” or falls prey to cargo-cultish notions of what constitutes “serious” politics.
If we want a libertarian future, we must create that future, not hope that our political opponents drag us along to it. They won’t. They’re not going in the direction we want to go in, they have no desire to go in the direction we want to go in, and to the extent that they’re interested in us at all, they regard us either as fuel to be consumed or ballast to be dumped overboard at the earliest opportunity. I don’t blame them. We haven’t yet given them reason to regard us as a true threat to their power. It’s time to change that.
As my friend and mentor L. Neil Smith once observed, “great men don’t move to the center, they move the center.” It’s a big center, folks. Moving it will require a long lever, with us at the far end. I don’t claim to be a great man … but I hope to be part of a great movement, and to help that movement get further out on the lever and put some weight on it.
Insofar as cargo-cultism and “seriousness” are concerned, rest assured that I have nothing against suits and ties, friendly media interviews and the other requirements of realpolitick. What I do oppose is the absurd notion that waving around “mainstreamism” like some kind of voodoo fetish will magically boost us to competitive stature versus our older, more established opponents. It won’t.
The future of the libertarian movement, if it is has one, requires a principled populist approach rooted in class theory. Not the theory of the socialists (labor versus capital) or of the liberals and conservatives (ad hoc identity politics adjusted to appeal to society’s phobias du jour), but rather the theory of the productive class (those who make their living through work and voluntary exchange and cooperation) versus the political class (those who siphon off as much of that productive activity as they can get away with, using the coercive apparatus of the state, for their own ends).
For these reasons, the first phase of my campaign will largely be internal to the parties and the movement; as we move on, it will become more outwardly focused, of course, but first things first.
My fundamental goal in seeking the nominations of the LP and the BTP is not to achieve those nominations or to be elected President of the United States. It is to help the libertarian movement outfit itself for a journey yet to begin — a journey which that movement has stood stock still at the starting point of for nearly four decades now. If I achieve that goal, the nominations and the election results are of secondary importance, as I’m certain others are at least as qualified as I am to march at the front of the column. If I do not achieve those goals, then the nominations and the election results will resemble John Nance Garner’s description of the importance of the Vice Presidency of the United States: “Not worth a bucket of warm spit.”
I look forward to an exciting campaign, and I humbly request the support of all who value the future of freedom.
The Foundation for Economic Education, an educational pro-liberty think tank that has been in existence since 1946 thanks to the late Leonard E. Reed, has just launched its own blog Anything Peaceful. It’s been up and running since yesterday. And it’s hosted on WordPress.com’s servers.
The more pro-liberty blogs are out there, the better our lives will be because more people will be exposed to the message of liberty faster than ever.
Boston Tea Party founder Thomas L. Knapp has recently announced that he will run for POTUS on the Libertarian and Boston Tea tickets in 2012. Since the release of this set of news, Knapp has been met with a mixture of criticism and praise from many in the libertarian and LP circles. This comes on the heel of Angela Keaton and Michelle Shingal announcing their run for the same spot on the same day.
From Knapp’s Official Campaign Website, designated Knapp2012.com:
Fellow libertarians,
I initially planned to announce my 2012 candidacy for the presidency of the United States on April 6th, 2009, from the steps of the Old St. Louis Courthouse (history buffs shouldn’t have too much trouble figuring out why), and I still intend to conduct a campaign event of some kind at that time and in that place.
I see, however, that others are already lining up with formal announcements or at least clear indications of their own intent … and when a fight’s brewing, I prefer to get in early.
It is therefore my distinct pleasure to announce that I will seek the 2012 presidential nominations of the Libertarian Party and the Boston Tea Party.
Why run for president — and why, especially, for the presidential nominations of two parties which together usually account for less than one percent of the popular vote in presidential elections?
I could give you lots of reasons, but I’m going to stick with three for the moment: There are some hard truths that need to be told, I’m interested in telling them, and they’re most effectively told from a bully pulpit.
Among those those hard truths are that the political wing of the libertarian movement will never make substantial progress toward its goals so long as it clings to the apron strings of the failed movements and parties of the past, remains in orbit around the present political “center,” or falls prey to cargo-cultish notions of what constitutes “serious” politics.
If we want a libertarian future, we must create that future, not hope that our political opponents drag us along to it. They won’t. They’re not going in the direction we want to go in, they have no desire to go in the direction we want to go in, and to the extent that they’re interested in us at all, they regard us either as fuel to be consumed or ballast to be dumped overboard at the earliest opportunity. I don’t blame them. We haven’t yet given them reason to regard us as a true threat to their power. It’s time to change that.
As my friend and mentor L. Neil Smith once observed, “great men don’t move to the center, they move the center.” It’s a big center, folks. Moving it will require a long lever, with us at the far end. I don’t claim to be a great man … but I hope to be part of a great movement, and to help that movement get further out on the lever and put some weight on it.
Insofar as cargo-cultism and “seriousness” are concerned, rest assured that I have nothing against suits and ties, friendly media interviews and the other requirements of realpolitick. What I do oppose is the absurd notion that waving around “mainstreamism” like some kind of voodoo fetish will magically boost us to competitive stature versus our older, more established opponents. It won’t.
The future of the libertarian movement, if it is has one, requires a principled populist approach rooted in class theory. Not the theory of the socialists (labor versus capital) or of the liberals and conservatives (ad hoc identity politics adjusted to appeal to society’s phobias du jour), but rather the theory of the productive class (those who make their living through work and voluntary exchange and cooperation) versus the political class (those who siphon off as much of that productive activity as they can get away with, using the coercive apparatus of the state, for their own ends).
For these reasons, the first phase of my campaign will largely be internal to the parties and the movement; as we move on, it will become more outwardly focused, of course, but first things first.
My fundamental goal in seeking the nominations of the LP and the BTP is not to achieve those nominations or to be elected President of the United States. It is to help the libertarian movement outfit itself for a journey yet to begin — a journey which that movement has stood stock still at the starting point of for nearly four decades now. If I achieve that goal, the nominations and the election results are of secondary importance, as I’m certain others are at least as qualified as I am to march at the front of the column. If I do not achieve those goals, then the nominations and the election results will resemble John Nance Garner’s description of the importance of the Vice Presidency of the United States: “Not worth a bucket of warm spit.”
I look forward to an exciting campaign, and I humbly request the support of all who value the future of freedom.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
11/11/08
POC Thomas L. Knapp admin@knapp2012.com
314-750-6993
WHEN THE GOING GETS WEIRD, THE WEIRD RUN FOR PRESIDENT
Knapp announces 2012 candidacy
While most Americans are still catching up on their rest from a hard-fought presidential election, one group of individuals is already
on the march: Those who aspire to election in 2012.
Among them is Thomas L. Knapp, who announced his candidacy for the
presidential nominations of the Boston Tea Party and the Libertarian Party Tuesday evening.
“I initially planned to announce my 2012 candidacy for the presidency of the United States on April 6th, 2009,” said Knapp in a
Internet-distributed announcement. “I see, however, that others are already lining up with formal announcements or at least clear
indications of their own intent … and when a fight’s brewing, I prefer to get in early.”
Citing ideological drift in the Libertarian Party, Knapp, 42, founded the Boston Tea Party in 2006 and served as its vice-presidential
nominee this year — while also running for Congress in his home state of Missouri as a Libertarian Party candidate. He hopes to bring the two parties closer together with his presidential campaign. “The LP has a lot of installed plant — ballot access, seasoned activists, the things that any party requires to be successful,” he says. “What we lost track of were our principles — but the BTP has been keeping those alive and will hopefully be happy to share them back.”
Knapp’s campaign organization is embryonic but already in existence. He’s appointed Darcy G. Richardson, a noted political historian and
veteran of numerous third party campaigns, as his campaign’s chief of staff. Also on board is Nick Galindo, an experienced campaign
treasurer.
His chances? He’s realistic: “We’ve got a tough row to hoe before we reach political success,” he says. “Much of my campaign will be about
correcting mistakes the freedom movement has made in the past and positioning us to move forward further and faster.”
**preliminary report**
Active FreeKeene blogger Ian Freeman today helped the Keene District Court prove that it is ready to crack down on non-violent peaceful people today. At least 6 officers of various rank were present in court to try and outnumber the liberty activists. Judge Burke was obviously ready to order Ian’s arrest, and did so less than 45 seconds after entering the courtroom. Ian was then taken to a second room where his supporters could not go with him. He was viewed on closed circuit TV as he continued to question the system and not consent, and drew two further contempt of court charges, all three for 30 days in jail.
Watch FreeKeene.com for further updates, articles, videos, and more.
Freeman was ordered to show up in court over a couch that was on his property, even though it was on his tenant’s side of the yard. Even though his court appearance was caught on tape, his secret trial wasn’t, and that was deliberate on the part of the statists who were looking for an excuse to separate him from his pro-liberty supporters (many of them being members of the Free State Project) and to make an example of him in the process.
Here’s the video of the initial proceedings against Ian. Notice that, at one point in the video (shown below), the bailiff immediately moves to cuff Ian before the judge even ordered to remand him into custody:
As LewRockwell.com blogger Manuel Lora pointed out yesterday, this has been all executed to warn the liberty activists that the state is watching you.
In the ninety-third episode, Todd and Jim ask panelists computer consultant/entrepreneur Steve Gresh, Boston Tea Party of California Chairwoman Joy Waymire, and The Peace, Freedom, & Prosperity Movement founder and blogger James Cox on President-elect Obamas new agency and national service program, Obama’s new chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel, the GM bailout, and the election performance and results of the Bob Barr Campaign and the Libertarian Party.
In the second half of the second hour, Jim and Todd interview LewRockwell.com writer Becky Akers on Sarah Palin, the TSA, Obama’s election to the presidency, and his national service program. Also, Todd and Jim discuss what might happen in the next fours with Obama and his cronies in power.
Do people understand our system of government? I ask myself this question all the time. And more often than not, the answer is “NO”.
I mentioned to a co-worker of mine that a man was arrested for 30 days for taking 6 seconds to sit down in court. His reply was, “Don’t piss off the Judge; the Judge is the law, they can arrest you for contempt for any reason, no one can check them!” To which I replied “That’s the problem.”
Judges believe they are the law.
I challenge anyone to show me a law that requires me to take less than 6 seconds to sit down in court.
I challenge anyone to show me where the Constitution validly gives Congress the authority to tax my personal income as if every penny were profit.
I challenge anyone to show me where the Constitution validly gives Congress the authority to give stolen (tax) money to private businesses.
I can show that we have a right to be free from oppressive government:
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government”
These words are not from an archaic book about self-government, these words are not from some “radical fringe group” that wishes to overthrow the government. No, these words come from arguably the greatest document ever written; “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America”.
I, and so many others like me, believe that ALL men are and of right out to be free and sovereign people.
I do not need a government to keep me from harming my neighbor; I only need the understanding that I do not have the right to initiate force against him.
The sooner people realize that our government is crossing the line and not playing by the rules (the Constitution), the sooner we the people will demand a change. My only fear is that people may demand a change towards slavery and oppression, instead of towards LIBERTY & JUSTICE!
Here’s more of Free Talk Live‘s Ian Freeman’s arrest in a New Hampshire district court that transpired this past Friday afternoon on November 14, 2008:
This video shows Carl Patten, Ian’s “couch enforcer,” walking away from Dave Ridley of the Ridley Report website while talking on a cell phone. Ridley calls out to him, asking him if he’s “hoping Ian backs down.” Then Ridley interviews a new liberty activist who became involved in the movement more because of Ian’s trial. It shows Ian walking up to a few activists, talking to the new activist (his name is Jeff), and walks into the court building where Dave Ridley interviews Ian briefly. After the interview, Ian, Dave, Mark Edge (Ian’s co-host of FTL), and the other Free Staters move into another room where a court official tells Ridley not to film in the room. Ridley kinda backs away from the gentleman and goes out into another room where he films the other room from where he’s standing.
The second video here shows Dave Ridley giving a report on Ian’s arrest in the courtroom and notes that the court officials have posted a notice to all Free Staters in the room that, if they don’t stand for the judge, they suffer the consequences, including and up to arrest.
This third video shows an explanation of Ian’s arrest in the courtroom, where Judge Burke screamed at him for not complying with his order to sit immediately, and then was cuffed by the bailiff within seconds before the judge remanded him into his custody. Ian was then sent into a room where he was sequestered from the other Free Staters and was sentenced to 93 days in prison for questioning the legitimacy of the system.
Dave Ridley films his altercation with the court officials in this excellent report and then talks to a fellow Free Stater. This is part 1 of a 3-part report Ridley made.
Here is another video related to this shocking disgusting news about Ian’s arrest. It is Part 2 of a 3-part report Ridley made.
Interestingly enough, the final part of this report, Part 3, hasn’t been posted yet. It seems to me, at least, very incomplete, and more on this subject is of great interest to liberty lovers across the nation and the world.
Mikaela L. Engert, originally of Rochester, NY, is the City Planner and Climate Protection Coordinator for Keene, New Hampshire. She received a degree in Liberal Studies from Green Mountain College in 2000 and later went on to the University of Buffalo where she earned a Masters in Urban and Regional Planning in 2004.
According to her CitizenKeene profile her favorite candybar is Snickers and she likes “many things in life like snow, snowboarding, music, art, burritos, and making new friends.”
Job:
She’s currently employed as a city planner for the City of Keene, New Hampshire.
According to Alumni Snapshot page at the Green Mountain College Career Services site she spends most of her time “supporting the Planning Board and various other city committees, such as the Heritage Commission, Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee, and the Cities for Climate Protection Committee.” She reviews planning board applications for proposed development, provides technical assistance in the development of regulations, assists the general public with the development review process and conducts site inspections for compliance of board approvals. The rest of her time “is spent working with ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability and our Cities for Climate Protection Committee to monitor, evaluate, and implement our community’s greenhouse gas emission reduction plan.”
According to the page she is “currently assisting the City with the formulation of a new plan that focuses on the community’s ability to improve its long-term preparedness for climate impacts.”
Previously to her position as city planner of Keene she was a community planner at Behan Planning Associates from 2003 to 2006.
Why is she on JailedActivist.info?:
She was the anonymous young woman who issued the complaint against Ian Bernard for the couch on his tenants lawn which eventually resulted in his ongoing incarceration. Fred Parcell on the September 27th, 2008 episode of Talkback described her vaguely (skip to 6:30 in) when Ian claimed he did not believe there was an actual complainant. It wasn’t until Ian’s November 14th trial while in the closed room after his first contempt of court charge that her name was released.
Previous interactions with Ian Bernard:
On August 9th, 2008, a week before Ian Bernard received his first visit from Mr. Carl Patten Jr., Mikaela L. Engert was on the local radio show Talkback to discuss the Keene, NH Visioning Process. During the show Ian called to ask questions on the Visioning Process. After describing the Visioning Process to Ian he says “accomplishing those things would be great as long as we don’t aggress our neighbors. Now you wouldn’t advise aggressing against our neighbors to accomplish those things? Would you?” Mikaela replies: “I wouldn’t advise aggressing against anybody.” Later she says that: “I want to stress this whole thing is really about community dialog and it’s about having conversations with people and it’s not about being aggressive towards anybody.”
“I’m not really enjoying the tone of this and I’m not going to engage in that.” – Speaking to Sam Dodson of Texas after he confronts her about the inherent violence in the state system.
“I wouldn’t advise aggressing against anybody.”
“I want to stress this whole thing (Keene, NH Visioning Process) is really about community dialog and it’s about having conversations with people and it’s not about being aggressive towards anybody.”
Contact Information:
Mikaela L. Engert
190 River Street
Keene, NH 03431-2454
This is not a surprised considering that Ms. Engert is an occasional co-host on Talkback.
More to follow soon.
[Update: The Sources section of the page has been updated since then to reveal the links not working because they were deleted or have moved. Here's the new Sources section that has been updated since then.]
Ian “Freeman” Bernard, the host of the popular nationally syndicated radio show Free Talk Live who was arrested in court for questioning the system and over a court on his yard, has been released from his 93-day prison sentence that was imposed upon him by Judge Burke, a district court judge in the City of Keene, New Hampshire.
According to Antonio SJ Musumeci, the creator of the blog Blog of Bile:
I just talked to Larry. Ian’s charges of contempt stand, but his time is being suspended. Which means he “has to be good” for a year or so. But he’s either free, or scheduled to be free soon.
This is good news for all advocates of human liberty. However, this is far from over. The local bureaucrats will be keeping an eye on him, of course.
This explains why Ian had a surprise hearing this morning, which was reported on the World Wide Web this afternoon. (This hearing can be heard from Porcupine 411.) Dave Ridley of the Ridley Report spoke with a reporter about the hearing, but no details were available at that time.
Ian Freeman, host of the popular nationally syndicated talk radio show Free Talk Live and who was released from his weekend confinement in a jail cell following his arrest in a district court in Keene, New Hampshire, returned to host FTL tonight for the first time since his incarceration. Ian and Mark Edge, his partner, took calls from many callers, including Yours Truly whom Ian thanked tirelessly for covering his arrest here on the Freeman Chronicles. The show, for the most part, was soley on the discussion of Ian’s stay in jail and what the liberty activists in Keene will do to fight the vile, diabolical state.
Surely enough, the podcast will be available later tonight. This post will be updated for that as well.
JailedActivist.Info, a website created initially to support the release of Free Talk Live‘s Ian Freeman, has an updated bio on him. It even includes pics of the musty old couch that has been the source of great controversy in recent weeks (and especially around the time of and after Ian’s arrest) and other pics on the site.
Ian Freeman (Ian Bernard) is a voluntarist freedom activist residing in Keene, New Hampshire. Originally from Sarasota, Florida, Ian moved to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project. He’s the main host and creator of the nationally syndicated talk radio show Free Talk Live where “You control the phones and talk about whatever is on your mind.” Since joining the Free State Project and moving to New Hampshire Ian has become more interested in apolitical, market activism and civil disobedience.
Couch incident:
Approximately the second week of August, 2008, an at the time unknown person issued a complaint to the city of Keene about a couch in Ian’s tenant’s front lawn (see below).
About the third week of August, 2008, a code enforcer by the name of Carl Patten Jr. left a ticket at Ian’s home indicating he had to remove the couch. A week later on August 26th Mr. Patten returned with a second ticket. This time it was caught on video. Later a Keene resident commented on that video claiming Mr. Patten had show blatant favoritism when dealing with an issue concerning the commenter and her neighbor who apparently was friends with him. On September 17th, Ian’s tenants noticed Mr. Patten snooping around. He was caught on camera sitting in his car, parked across the street from the house.
A day later Ian received a letter in the mail indicating that since the violation had not been paid within 7 days the fine was doubled from $100.00 to $200.00. In response Ian wrote them a letter, had it notarized and hand delivered it on the morning of September 26th. While in the lobby of the building he was approached by Mr. Patten who preceded to attempt to give Ian a pink, folded piece of paper which he refused to take. Carl Patten then touch the paper to Ian’s shoulder and let it fall to the floor. He indicated that Ian had been “served” and went on his way. It turned out to be a complaint indicating he was to appear before the Keene District Court on October 1st.
During the appearance Ian attempted to ask some questions but was railroaded. Eventually being threatened with arrest if he did not stop speaking.
On October 21nd Ian had a meeting with Mr. Medard K. Kopczynski, assistant city manager of Keene, to discuss what was going on and make an offer. He told him that he “would agree to move the couch if they would agree to discharge this issue, only prosecute me in the future if they have a victim, and acknowledge the truth that no contract exists between us.” In turn Mr. Kopczynski replied:
I have reviewed your request relative to your case. The City of Keene can discharge the matter before the court, when compliance with city ordinance is achieved. To avoid court prosecution you must remove the violation.
A detailed description of the meeting can be found on the Free Talk Live radio broadcast from that night approximately 74 minutes in.
Ian responded by writing a NOTICE OF DISCUSSION, had it notarized, and hand delivered it to the clerk of court, Larry S. Kane.
On November 14th, 2008 Ian arrived to the Keene District Court for his 1:30PM court appearance. They allowed only one camera into the courtroom for the crowd and indicated clearly with posters on the walls outside the courtroom that anyone who failed to stand for Judge Edward Burke would be found in contempt of court. This lead to several supporters staying outside while the trial began. Within 10-15 seconds of the trial starting Judge Edward Burke called for Ian Bernard to be taken into custody after yelling for him to “have a seat” 4 times while Ian stood at attention to address the court. Raw footage from the trial below.
In the end he was found in contempt of court on three different accounts and given 30 days each. For his failure to pay the fine related to the failure to remove the couch he was given 3 additional days. He was then brought to and held at the Cheshire County D.O.C.
On Sunday, November 16th, 2008 it was confirmed that the anonymous woman who originally issued the complaint about the couch was city of Keene city planner Mikaela L. Engert.
On Monday, November 17th, 2008 it’s been reported that Ian was given a surprise trial where he had his punishment for the contempt of court charges suspended and was to be released shortly.
While Ian and all of us liberty activists have won this battle, the war still continues. The time couldn’t be better than to go after the statists who are a threat to our liberties at every turn.
JailedActivist.Info‘s bio profile of Mikaela Engert, who is the City Planner and Climate Protection Coordinator for the City of Keene in the State of New Hampshire and is the identity as the anonymous complainant who filed a grievance against Free Talk Live‘s Ian Freeman, has been updated on the site. Only the contact information and support sections of the site have been updated.
Here’s the updates to Images as they are now:
Images:
And here’s the updates to Contact Information as they stand now:
Free Talk Live‘s Ian Freeman, who was arrested in a district court in Keene, New Hampshire and ultimately served a 3-day out of a 93-day sentence that was subsequently suspended, wrote an open letter to Keene City Planner Mikaela Engert, indicating that he forgave her for sicking the city’s authorities on him.
I forgive you. You probably never realized, perhaps until now, that government hurts people. I do not know you, but from listening to what you’ve said on the radio and reading about you on the Internet, I imagine that like many people, you believe that government is a handy tool you can use to make life better for people. While your intentions may be pure, the method is not. Government is force. Were you oblivious to that fact? After all, you are one of the people calling themselves part of the “City of Keene”, so whether you knew or not, that’s the tool you advocate. I’m guessing you didn’t know, as you did say on 08/09/08’s “Talkback”:
“I wouldn’t advise aggressing against anybody.”
I really appreciated when you said that! I think people working together voluntarily is a great thing. However, threatening people with violence is not a nice way to build a community with mutual respect. Based on your statement on Talkback, I thought you understood that. Imagine my surprise when I discovered it was you who snitched me out to the “code enforcers” over my tenants’ couch. You said you wouldn’t advise aggressing against your neighbor, then the very same week you initiated aggression against me!
I don’t know whether you realized that what you did was aggression (It is, in the same way that hiring a hitman makes you responsible for the hit, even though you didn’t actually pull the trigger.), but either way I forgive you. Additionally, you needn’t be afraid of me snitching you out for something about your property that I don’t like, as I don’t believe your property is any of my business. Perhaps fear of retaliation was why you were afraid to come and meet me like a good neighbor would have instead of running to the “code enforcers” and having them threaten me into complying with your “city” ordinances.
Did you realize at any point that men with guns would actually throw me into a prison cell over this? That’s exactly what happened, because force is the only tool government has at its disposal. Of course the irony of the entire situation is that it would only cost a few bucks to take the couch out to the dump, but instead your friends in the “City of Keene” were willing to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars to lock me in a cage for several months over this issue! How does that make any sense?
To answer my own question, the reason they were willing to hurt me and my family (my wonderful companion Julia was made quite ill by my absence, and couldn’t work) is because it’s not about the couch, but about being obedient to the arbitrary dictates of the people calling themselves the government.
So, you were either ignorant about the coercive nature of the agency that employs you, or you’re completely aware of government’s coercive nature and you embrace it. I will presume the former, because I like to believe that people are generally good, and I believe that you are probably a very good person, just misled. I can relate as I was also ignorant to the violence of the system at one time. Then I discovered the ideas of liberty and allowing others to be free.
I forgive you for hurting me and my loved ones, Mikaela. You have no obligation to do so, but an apology from you would sure go a long way to healing the wounds and proving to the world (I imagine you’ve gotten a few emails and phone calls from those watching this situation.) that you understand that what you did was wrong.
I also hope to hear that you have embraced the idea of honoring your neighbors’ choices, even if you disagree with them. Don’t hesitate to get in touch. I don’t bite!
Your peaceful, down-the-street neighbor,
Ian Freeman
A man like Ian to show that he forgives the person who did harm to him proves how much of a hero he is and what a good, kind soul he is as well.
Here’s a comic strip satirizing Judge Burke’s recent sentencing of Free Talk Live‘s Ian Freeman to 93 days in jail (a sentence which was knocked down to 3 days because the court presumably caved into political and public relations pressure).
Free Staters, including Mark Edge of Free Talk Live, called into WKBK’s “TalkBack” show (a local radio show in Keene) to talk about Ian Freeman’s arrest in a Keene district court on November 14, 2008.
I spent the entirety of last weekend in the Cheshire County jail. I want to thank the Sheriffs who cuffed and transferred me as well as the Corrections Officers in the jail for their professionalism and courtesy. I made it clear that I did not intend to resist and you made it clear that you did not want to hurt me. I respect you for the level of humanity you treated me with, considering the system itself is inhumane. There may be a few bad guys among you, but I could not identify them during my brief stay. Also special thanks to Lieutenant Kevin Clark for allowing me a personal phone call when the in-cell phone wouldn’t work with my girlfriend’s cell phone.
Unfortunately, while I’m sure you all do your best to do your job as instructed so you can keep food on your family’s table, you should know that what you are doing as part of your job is wrong. Many of you already know this. In fact, the superintendent of the jail, Richard Van Wickler, is a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. As you know, the jail is full of people who have not done harm to another human being. I refer of course to “consensual criminals”, like drug users. This appears to be the main reason another jail is being built – you’ve run out of room to hold your political prisoners!
Don’t you wish you were only incarcerating real criminals? You know, people who actually hurt others or damaged property? I understand that quitting your job may make you feel better, but then you may be replaced by someone less humane than you, so I’m not certain that is the solution. Obviously you’ll be fired (whether you’re the superintendent or a CO) for doing the right thing and turning loose all your peaceful prisoners. Perhaps you can start by joining with your superintendent and becoming a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.
What else can COs who object to being a part of incarcerating peaceful people do to protest? Please post your ideas here in the comments.
I wonder how the Keene prison bureaucrats responded to that post. It would be interesting to hear their responses.
LP member and activist Stephen Meier has recently remitted an open letter to the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) regarding the Committee’s publicly-leaked agenda, which entails a scheduled 30 minute repudiation of LNC Regional 7 At-Large Representative Angela Keaton for her investigation into former LP Executive Director’s Shane Cory’s severance pay in the wake of his resignation from his paid party staff position. That occurred in the aftermath of a successful kiddie-porn smear campaign launched by the Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root camps who were, at the time, vying for the LP presidential nominations earlier this year. (See the Let Liberty Ring blog’s archives for details on that mess.)
This is what Meier’s open letter states in the following, which was published on the Independent Political Report on November 26, 2008:
Nov 26th, 2008
To: Libertarian Party National Committee
Subject: Angela Keaton
In regards to the upcoming LPNC meeting to be held Dec 6th and 7th in San Diego, CA. An agenda has been published at:
This published agenda includes the line “Discipline of Angela Keaton 30 minutes”.
I am deeply disturbed by what appears to be a very autocratic and arbitrary action by the LNC against one of its members who was elected by the party members at a national convention.
The LNC operates its meeting under Robert’s Rules of Order. The Libertarian Bylaws State
ARTICLE 13: PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY
The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall govern the Party in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order adopted by the Party.
Robert’s Rules of Order require that notes be taken and that the meetings minutes be drafted and approved. Robert’s rules go on to state
The minutes should show:
All main motions (except such as were withdrawn) and motions that bring a main question again before the assembly, stating the wording as adopted or disposed of, and the disposition–including temporary disposition (with any primary and secondary amendments and adhering secondary motions then pending;
After a break, the Chair announced Angela Keaton had blogged on the Internet some information that had been revealed in executive session.
Pat Dixon moved to censure Angela Keaton for having blogged what she had put onto the LastFreeVoice website.
Angela Keaton left the room after having admitted to the transgression.
Michael Jingozian read the passage to the body.
Aaron Starr moved a substitute motion: It is the belief of this body that Angela Keaton should resign for having disclosed material in executive session.
Everyone in the room voted for the substitution.
First having reviewed the minutes as published I can not find where the meeting went into Executive Session in compliance with Section 2 Paragraph F. of the Libertarian Party Policy Manual. To be in an executive session during an LNC meeting a motion must have been made and seconded and voted upon and passed by by a majority or by 2/3 of the voting LNC Members depending on if all the reasons given in the motion are among the list of reasons in Section 2 Paragraph F sub paragraph 3 “Identified Topics for Discussion in Executive Session”
In the published minutes the LNC entered Executive Session
Campaign Finance Litigation
The LNC entered executive session to discuss potential campaign finance litigation with Alan Mura and the LP membership list rental.
Coming out of executive session, Jim Lark recommended the LNC express its appreciation to Alan Gura for his work for Liberty. Without objection, the motion passed.
It is expected that to have entered into this Executives Session that the minutes would note that some member of the LNC made a motion, the minutes would state what the motion was, the minutes would state who seconded the motion; the minutes should state that the motion passed by some method of voting or another and what the vote total was or if the vote was unanimous or at least no objections. But the minutes as presented have no motion, no second and no vote thus no Executive Session under the Libertarian Party Policy Manual.
This same (at least according to the minutes) non-entry into a Executive Session happened twice more
Counsel’s Report, Continued
The LNC entered executive session for the remainder of Counsel’s report.
Coming out of executive session, Sean Haugh wanted it reflected in the minutes that he had preferred to discuss matters involving him in open session.
and
The LNC entered executive session to discuss the Barr Root campaign and personnel matters.
Now what could Angela have blogged about that could have happened in one of these policy violating “Executive Sessions”?
Could it have been
Quick: Dead guy gave us money. More than FEC allows. Sue to claim that dead people cannot be corrupted.
Patriot Alan Gura of the Heller Case (frm. IJ intern in his law school days) will on the cheap challenge the Fascist State on this issue. We are discussing on to whether to move forward.
Gura is offering to wave certain fees and cap others so the costs are about 15K. If the suit drags on for several years, he might charge UP TO an extra $7500 (Make sure you actually read the minutes b/c it is harder to type and keep track. Sullentrup may be a closet Republican but he does do something quite difficult very very well.)
if it was how different is this then what the Minutes reported as
Coming out of executive session, Jim Lark recommended the LNC express its appreciation to Alan Gura for his work for Liberty. Without objection, the motion passed.
Aaron Starr moved to proceed with campaign finance litigation engaging the law firm of Alan Gura, to sue the FEC to overturn the contribution limits for bequests left to the LNC, budgeting $15k in 2008 for that purpose with disbursements beginning no earlier than November 2008.
Could it have been about the Barr Campaign when Angela blogged
Said in ExSession. I’m within my rights to reveal this:
We don’t have a contract b/t the Barr Camp and LNC b/c….Cory asserted to both Carling and Redpath that they were afraid that someone would reveal data. I didn’t know what the hell they were talking about until it was further explained that Cory was afraid that I would misuse “data.”
Why this is ExSession? No idea. To Redpath’s credit, he, Ruwart and several other believed that this was an excuse. That I am a scape goat.
Lets take this apart. For this to be a topic of a discussion within an executive session it would have had to have been part of the motion to enter that executive session. What motion? Second it has to be one of the stated reasons in
and as such it might fit under Section 2 Paragraph F sub paragraph 3 or the motion must have the support of two thirds of the voting membership.
vi. Strategic issues (only those requiring confidentiality)
But to do so it would have to require confidentiality. What would be the reasons for requiring confidentiality? To protect Angela? Not likely since she is the one who released the information. To protect the accuser? Since when have we (other then the despised patriot act and military tribunals) allowed an accuser to remain anonymous?
On to the motion to kick Angela off of the LNC. The motion was revised to read
The LNC shall suspend the membership on the LNC of Angela Keaton for breaching confidentiality in executive session as denoted in Article 8 Section 5 of Bylaws, in the event she does not apologize with 10 days and commit to never repeating the offense again
Article 8 Section 5 states that the LNC may suspend the membership of an at -large member for cause. What is missing from this motion is a detailed statement of what the cause is. The lack of a clear accusation and supporting evidence makes this motion appear arbitrary and capricious.
I created and produced a full version of a Boston Tea Party video short. Although it has not been endorsed by the BTP National Committee, it has gotten a great deal of attention on the pro-liberty blogosphere.
This video short, for those who want to know before watching it, is a question posed to the viewer: “Do we live in a police state?” This came about after Ian Freeman, a host of Free Talk Live, was jailed for three days in a Keene, New Hampshire county jail over a couch violation and for taking a stand against the statists in the process. Interestingly enough, he was sentenced to only 93 days in the cell, but his sentence was suspended three days after his arrest in a Keene district court.
If you have any comments and/or questions, please send them to me via ToddAndrewBarnett@gmail.com. I would be glad to answer them in the order they are received.
LNC attorney Bill Hall, who hails from my home state (that being Michigan) by the way, issues a memo to the Committee, stating that he’s tired of the infighting in the LP and LP and LNC members second guessing his opinions.
Bob Barr urges us to vote for one of the worst Republicans in the country.
I am no fan of Saxby Chambliss but it looks like Bob Barr is.
I see no reason for Barr to go to bat for Saxby. He knows people were not happy with him giving money to him earlier this year in a race in which we had a great candidate running. I have not been happy with since Denver and this is just another example.
Here is the email
Dear Doug,
In Tuesday December 2nd’s runoff election we have a choice between incumbent Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss and Democratic challenger Jim Martin.
I urge you to vote for Saxby Chambliss.
Sen. Chambliss is closer to the Libertarian position on a number of key issues
including: shrinking the size of government, less government spending,
abolishing the IRS, replacing the income tax with a consumption tax and
ending the government bailouts.
And there is one other major consideration: the Legislative branch of
our government should not be a rubber stamp for the Executive branch.
There should be a check and balance between the two. The Democrats are
close to obtaining a majority of 60 members of the Senate which means
the opposition party, the Republicans in this case, will have very few
opportunities to have meaningful input on legislative actions.
To me, one party rule in both the Legislative and Executive branches
is a prescription for bad public policy decisions.
Please join me in voting for Saxby Chambliss in the US Senate runoff
election.
The Libertarian National Committee (LNC) has drafted a resolution calling for the disciplining of Angela Keaton. Keaton, who is a At-Large Representative, has been under fire by members of the board for revealing information on Internet blog sites and discussion groups on the details and specifics of the executive session meetings. The board will be meeting this weekend to discuss the matter for 30 minutes at length, along with allowing Wayne Allyn Root to address the Committee for 30 minutes as well.
Here’s the text of the resolution in this now-leaked .pdf file.
Update: Here’s the text of the resolution for those who can’t read the .pdf file:
Resolution of Discipline
Whereas, Angela Keaton has engaged in conduct injurious to the Libertarian Party and its purposes; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Angela Keaton’s membership in the Libertarian National Committee is suspended pursuant to Article 8, Section 5 of the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party; and further be it
RESOLVED, That the aforementioned suspension is hereby rescinded, contingent upon a determination by the Secretary that Angela Keaton has submitted within seven days of the adoption of this resolution a letter for publication in LP News including (and limited to):
·
An apology for being in breach of a board member’s fiduciary duty of loyalty to the Libertarian Party, publicly declaring her disinterest in the party, providing material support to another political party and seeking to undermine the success of and attempting to injure the Libertarian Party and its public image. The contents of the apology to include the following:
o
An apology to the members of the Libertarian Party for seeking to undermine the success of and attempting to injure the Libertarian Party and its public image by posting on her blog in July 2008, “Friends don’t let friends join the LP” and on September 5, 2008, “The LP is hopeless”
o
An apology to the members of the Libertarian Party for violating the fiduciary duty of a board member by joining and providing material support to a competing political party while serving on the board of the Libertarian Party
o
An apology to the members of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire for attempting on August 21, 2008 to sabotage the party’s attempt to win the right to candidate substitution for future elections
o
An apology to Wayne Allyn Root and the Libertarian Party for attempting to injure their public images by knowingly publishing on June 13, 2008 false assertions that an indictment on charges of fraud was pending against Mr. Root
o
An apology to the members of the Libertarian Party for publicly offering on her blog on June 28, 2008, sexual services in exchange for donations to the Party, and suggesting in Internet interviews on June 20, 2008 and June 26, 2008 that the Libertarian Party asks her to offer sexual services in exchange for donations to the Party
o
An apology to the members of the Libertarian National Committee and to the members of the Libertarian Party for numerous blog posts and Internet interviews with officers of a competing political party in which the Libertarian Party’s image was harmed with broad-sweeping general hostility towards the LP, numerous broad insults of her fellow LNC members as being inept, unqualified and not “real” libertarians, and impugning the motives of fellow LNC members for serving on the LNC
o
An apology to Bill Redpath for repeatedly asserting in an Internet interview and on blog postings that he has undergone a “lobotomy”
o
An apology to Admiral Colley for asserting in an Internet interview on June 20, 2008 that due to his age he is incapable of handling special LNC projects involving staff management
o
An apology to Bob Sullentrup for calling him an “ass” and a “goofball whose activism days were long behind him” in an Internet interview on June 20, 2008
o
o An apology to the members of the Libertarian Party for asserting in an Internet interview on June 26, 2008, that most LP members who are concerned about border security are racists
o
· An apology for exhibiting a pattern of reckless behavior and poor judgment, potentially exposing the LP to harassment lawsuits, creating an uncomfortable environment for staff and fellow LNC members, and potentially discouraging groups of people from joining the LP. The contents of the apology to include the following:
o
An apology to LP staff member Casey Hansen for violating the LNC Policy Manual Article 1, Section 8.D and risking sexual harassment accusations by blogging on September 6, 2008, “Nice staff piece of ass, Casey. Dark, young and easy prey for a cougar like myself.”
o
An apology to Aaron Starr and the Libertarian National Committee for violating LNC Policy Manual, Article 1, Section 8.D (which prohibits harassment of LP staff or fellow LNC members with racial epithets and derogatory posters, pictures, cartoons, or drawings) by posting on her blog on June 16, 2008 a photo-shopped image of herself and Mr. Starr portraying him in Darth Vader costume and Hitler moustache and identifying him as “Darth Herr Vader”
o
An apology to the Libertarian National Committee for violating LNC Policy Manual, Article 1, Section 8.D and risking sexual harassment accusations by posting on her blog on September 6, 2008 sexual comments regarding Julie Fox, Heather Scott, Executive Director candidate Donny Ferguson, and Admiral Colley
o
An apology to Southerners and Christians for violating LNC Policy Manual Article 1 Section 8.A which states, “All collective deprecation, whether alluding to sex, race, color, national origin, disability, age, religion, or any other protected category, must be avoided. Every person is a unique individual, and as the Libertarian Party is the Party of Individual Liberty, this injunction should doubly apply”, for posting on her blog on June 13, 2008 referring to an LP member from the South as a “hillbilly” and further stating, “All those Christian types married to their uncle cousins look the same to me.”
o
An apology to the Libertarian National Committee for offering sex to the LNC officers conditional on the performance of our Presidential candidate by stating in an Internet interview on June 26, 2008, “If Bob Barr breaks 1%, the officers of the national party can pass me around like a pu-pu platter.”
·
· An apology to Stewart Flood for threatening by phone on November 6, 2008, “I could have things done to you.”
·
A promise not to commit similar offenses in the future while serving as a member of the Libertarian National Committee
An apology to the Libertarian Party for violating the confidentiality of the September 7, 2008 Executive Session with a blog post on the same date and also for violating the confidentiality of a February 2008 Executive Session with a blog post on June 15, 2008
An apology to the members of the Libertarian Party for misusing donor data to contact major LP donors and falsely telling them that the Libertarian Party had defrauded them
An apology to Dan Karlan for saying in an Internet interview on June 26, 2008 that he isn’t qualified to be on the LNC
Resolved, the Libertarian Party of Georgia expresses its deep disappointment with the Libertarian National Committee in its continued activities regarding Angela Keaton and it neglect of its proper Party duties, and expresses a desire that the LNC get back on proper course for the LP by actually working for the growth of the Party and advancing public policy in a libertarian direction, instead of engaging in self-destructive, alienating, embarrassing, and pointless internal squabbles.
Hooray for the Georgia LP for attacking this monstrosity.
Steve Linnabary, who is an LP activist and a well-known commentator on blogs like IPR and Last Free Voice, has agreed to write for the Freeman Chronicles as a contributor. He is a very principled libertarian, who will comment on a wide number of topics, including, but not limited to, activities within the Libertarian Party.
Please let’s welcome Steve to this site. Welcome aboard, Steve!
The Libertarian Party of Tennessee passed a resolution opposing the Libertarian National Committee’s (LNC) resolution that calls for the suspension of LNC At-Large Representative Angela Keaton and calls upon her to issue an unnecessary litany of apologies to various LNC members and party members. A similar resolution was passed by the Libertarian Party of Georgia the day before yesterday, considering the anti-Keaton resolution was leaked out on that same day.
As IPR’s Paulie Cannoli reports, Tennessee and Georgia are represented by LNC Region 4 Representative Stewart Flood, who is reportedly bringing the charges against Keaton to the board. Flood also represents other states such as Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas.
Here’s the text of the LP of Tennessee’s resolution in its current draft, along with Tennessee LP Chairman Tony Wall’s notes on his blog post regarding Flood’s vile and diabolical resolution:
Friends,
The Region 4 Representative, Stewart Flood, has apparently taken it upon himself to draft and submit the attached resolution. Mr. Flood represents Region 4, which includes Tennessee, and sought no opinions or input from those whom he was elected to represent. I felt it necessary for the leadership of the Libertarian Party of Tennessee to act officially in voicing our displeasure with his actions and those of the current Libertarian National Committee who seem to be more interested in petty business than Party business.
Tony Wall
Chair
Libertarian Party of Tennessee
Libertarian Party of Tennessee Resolution
Adopted December 2, 2008
WHEREAS, the continued activities of the Libertarian National Committee regarding Angela Keaton, the proposed Resolution of Discipline calling for her suspension, and its blatant neglect of performing the proper and necessary duties of a major political party, are deemed to be self-destructive, humiliating, alienating, and detrimental to the Libertarian Party and its Members,
BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of Tennessee demands that the Libertarian National Committee drop its vendetta against Angela Keaton, keeping in mind that she was elected At-Large by the delegates of the 2008 Libertarian National Convention and is largely supported by those who elected her and by many other Party members, retract the proposed Resolution of Discipline, and turn its attention to proper and necessary Libertarian Party business such as membership growth, finances, campaigns, advancing public policy in a libertarian direction, and increasing awareness of Libertarianism.
Signed,
Tony Wall – Chair
Charles Wilhoit – Vice Chair
J.R. Enfield – Treasurer
Ray Ledford – Secretary
Here’s the text of the email alert issued by Power and his group:
Outright Libertarians:
We need your help. We’re not asking for money, but only for a few minutes of your time.
Please contact your Regional Representative and At-Large Representatives to the Libertarian National Committee, and tell them to cease the LNC’s attacks on Angela Keaton. There is a sample letter
at the end of this message.
This weekend, at the Libertarian National Committee meeting in San Diego, there is an agenda item to “discipline” Angela, Outright’s California representative and the only openly LGBT member on the
Libertarian National Committee.
Having thoroughly investigated the “charges” against Angela, we have determined that this witch hunt is more about the ideology of Angela’s attackers than about Angela’s own behavior. If you want a detailed analysis of these “charges,” please see the five-part article at TheDailyLiberty.com by George Phillies entitled “In Defense of Angela Keaton.” But the short version is that, for a small subset of the LNC that wishes to “re-brand the Libertarian Party [as] the real conservative party now,” having an openly bisexual anti-war activist on the LNC is extremely inconvenient.
To address this inconvenience, they have drafted a resolution, “That Angela Keaton’s membership in the Libertarian National Committee is suspended pursuant to Article 8, Section 5 of the Bylaws of the
Libertarian Party.”
In other words, they have decided to overrule the will of the delegates to the Libertarian National Convention in Denver this past May, who elected Angela as an At-Large member of the LNC. They want to kick her off of the committee, so that they can appoint one of their cronies to replace her.
If you can attend the meeting with us this weekend and speak personally with LNC members, that would be wonderful, but it’s just as important (maybe more important) for those who can’t make it to San Diego to contact their representatives on the LNC and ask them to:
1) Remove from the agenda the vote on disciplinary action against Angela Keaton,
and if that fails,
2) Vote NO on any disciplinary action against Angela.
Angela’s attackers have been making these claims about her since before the last convention in Denver, where she was democratically re-elected by the delegates to the position of At-Large
Representative. The delegates saw the motives of Angela’s attackers and rejected them, so now this small faction of LNC members have decided to exploit the Party’s bylaws to overturn the will of the
Denver Convention delegates. We must stop them. Please contact your LNC Representatives today, and tell them to cease the LNC’s attacks on Angela Keaton.
Sincerely,
Rob Power
National Chair
Outright Libertarians
***
Sample Letter and LNC Representative Contact Info
***
To the Libertarian National Committee:
I am writing to ask that you cease the LNC’s attacks on Angela Keaton.
At your last meeting on September 7, instead of doing anything to address the trillion-dollar Wall Street bailout that had just been announced, the LNC chose to waste time persecuting one of its members who had been democratically elected by the Denver Convention delegates. And your next meeting’s agenda calls for even more time to be wasted on this petty witch hunt that does nothing to advance the cause of Liberty.
Please put the LNC back on track to actually doing its job, and set aside this petty attack on one member whose fiercely Libertarian ideology is simply inconvenient for a handful of socially-conservative
members of the LNC.
First, please vote to remove the disciplinary action against Angela Keaton from the meeting agenda altogether. If that vote fails, please do the right thing and vote against any such disciplinary action.
It’s time that the LNC get back to its job of advancing Liberty in our country, and this petty attack on a democratically elected At-Large representative to the LNC is an inexcusable distraction from the LNC’s primary duties.
Chambliss ended up in a runoff largely because of Libertarian candidate Allen Buckley who drew 3.41 percent of the vote, more than enough to push Chambliss from 49.75 percent to well over 50 percent and victory. Chambliss sought support from the Libertarian Party of Georgia in the runoff, but when it was not forthcoming he was able to get backing from libertarian Republican groups to win over Libertarians and libertarian Republican voters. Although he did not get their endorsement in the original election, the combination of his fiscally conservative record and the importance of keeping total control of the House out of the hands of Democrats helped convince the Republican Liberty Caucus of Georgia to endorse Chambliss, and when he agreed to sign their Liberty Compact, the national RLC threw their support behind Chambliss as well.
That extra bit of support from the RLC won over many Libertarians, and their votes along with some votes from independents who had previously voted for Chambliss’ opponent Jim Martin, were enough to give Chambliss a comfortable 57 to 43 percent win in the runoff election on Tuesday, sending him back to Washington with a strong reminder that a lot of voters in Georgia and around the nation would like to see him focus more on fiscal conservatism and defending civil liberties in his next term.
Days ago Bob Barr, who ran as this year’s LP presidential candidate and who is a former Republican congressman representing Georgia, publicly issued his endorsement.
Allen Buckley, the Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate who sent the race into the run-off, however opposed Chambliss as well as any endorsement of him:
Buckley said he wouldn’t publicly endorse either Martin or Chambliss because neither candidate signed a 10 point commitment statement.
Buckley said he wanted the candidates to commit to, among other things, cutting pork barrel spending, fixing social security and not voting for an unbalanced budget.
While Buckley said he wouldn’t endorse a candidate, he did say he knew who he wouldn’t be voting for.
“I have not endorsed either man so as of right now, I can tell you I will not vote for Saxby Chambliss,” Buckley said.
as has crossed my email: I don’t know if it will be submitted. There is a corresponding resolution against Starr. I believe it’s meant as a ‘this is a two way street which we might prefer not to travel’. The effect of the resolution, would it pass, would be to remove Redpath as National Chair, unless the Judicial Committee overturned the suspension.
The resolution reads
Whereas, William Redpath has engaged in conduct injurious to the Libertarian Party and its Bylaws, and conduct in violation of our Bylaws, therefore,
Be it resolved that pursuant to Article 8 Section 5 of the Bylaws William Redpath’s membership in the Libertarian National Committee is [REMAINDER OF RESOLUTION IS BELOW THE FOLD]
hereby suspended.In support of these charges we accuse William Redpath of the following acts, which, among others that he has committed, warrant his suspension from the Libertarian National Committee:
1) Use of Party resources in the form of a gift in kind to support a Presidential candidate of another party.
2) Use of Party resources in the form of a gift in kind to support a Presidential candidate of our party.
3) Failure to ensure that the aforementioned gifts in kind were properly disclosed on LNC FEC filings.
4) Misappropriation of Party funds in violation of the Statement of Principles, namely use of Party funds to attempt an act of theft and fraud.
5) Silent participation in acts of fraud against the Libertarian Party National Convention.
Evidence in support of these charges:
1) At the December 2007 LNC Meeting, Redpath as Chair failed on his own volition to rule out of order as a violation of the Party Bylaws a resolution authorizing the staff to permit Ron Paul supporters to make use of the Ballot Base software. Instead, this motion was passed without objection. Staff, who report to Redpath as CEO, allowed Paul supporters to attempt to use the software.
It is unmistakably the case that Paul was a candidate for the Republican Party Presidential nomination. In contrast, Libertarian Party Bylaws clearly and unmistakably state that our purpose is to function as a political party separate and distinct from all others. The Libertarian Party has raised extensive funds from libertarian donors who believed that they were donating to support our party’s objectives. Use of Libertarian Party funds to advance the political campaign of a Republican was a gross breach of fiduciary responsibility on the part of Chairman Redpath.
Furthermore, the Libertarian National Committee with Redpath as Chair chose to use party resources, such as the party web page displaying their minutes, to publicly invite a particular person to become a candidate for President with our party. Similar access to party resources was not given to other candidates. It has been the policy of the Libertarian National Committee since it was observed that Honey Lanham had used party resources in support of the Russell Means Presidential Campaign that the Libertarian National Committee is expected to remain above the fray and not use party resources to support that candidate. Failure to adhere to this policy in 1996 and 2000, as described in George Phillies’ book Funding Liberty, caused great damage to our party. In contravention of this policy of several decades, under Redpath as Chair the National Committee used its resources to advocate for Paul as our presidential candidate.
Furthermore, at this meeting, four members of the LNC, namely Pat Dixon, Hardy Macia, Julie Fox, and Rebecca Sink-Burris, admitted in their statements of conflict of interest that they had contributed financially to the nominating campaign of a Republican Presidential candidate. The rule for closure of conflict of interests exists so that appropriate corrective measures can then be taken. It was clearly the duty of the Chair to instruct the LNC members who had disclosed that they had supported a Republican that Roberts indicates [RONR (10th ed.), p. 394, l. 15-25] that if a member has a direct personal or pecuniary (monetary) interest in a motion under consideration not common to other members, the member should not vote on such a motion. Redpath failed to make such instruction.
2) Under the leadership of Chairman Redpath, the Libertarian National Committee has used party resources to support the campaigns of particular candidates for our party’s presidential nomination. In particular: The party newspaper LP News for most of the presidential nominating campaign took a position of the nominal objectivity, primarily by ignoring the nominating campaigns of our presidential candidates. However, the April, 2008 issue of the newspaper featured a front page article describing in glowing terms the nominating campaigns of precisely two of our multiple candidates. One of the two was Bob Barr, whom Redpath publicly claimed he had recruited as our candidate.
Other candidates who wished positive articles or statements about them to appear in LP News had to buy the space as an advertisement, at a price far higher than that charged in years previous. Furthermore that space was clearly purchased advertising rather than earned media and was thus far less invaluable.
Under party bylaws and LNC rules, Redpath is personally responsible for this event. National committee resolutions as gathered in the Policy Manual establish that sole responsibility for articles in LP news replies in the hands of the chairman. While the Chairman may delegate this authority, at such time as the authority is abused, as happened here, it was the duty of the chairman to make appropriate compensation to our other candidates. Redpath failed to do so. His failure constitutes misappropriation of party funds in support of his personal candidate for the nomination of our party.
3) The actions described in points one and two were gifts in kind by the Libertarian National Committee to the presidential campaigns of Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Mike Gravel. Perusal of the LNC FEC reports for this period shows that these gifts in kind, while extremely valuable, were not disclosed. Failure to disclose spending in an accurate and timely manner leaves the LNC open to potential civil or criminal action by the Federal Election Commission.
4) Redpath as party Chief Executive Officer is personally responsible for the decision to file the so called “LNC” suit against New Hampshire Secretary of state William Gardiner. The core claims of that suit are clearly and unmistakably fraudulent. Furthermore, the suit represents a conspiracy to deny New Hampshire Libertarians, namely the New Hampshire Libertarian Party State Convention, their right of freedom of association and petition, namely their right to choose a candidate for President and petition to have him placed on the ballot. Use of LNC funds in support of this lawsuit constitutes an act of fraud and theft in gross violation of the statement of principles.
5) Redpath as Chief Executive Officer is responsible for the conduct of his employees. As chair of the national convention he is also responsible for seeing that actions that he reasonably should have known were based on fraud were prevented from taking place. In the matter of the alleged “District of Columbia” delegation to our national convention, Redpath failed to discharge his duties in an effective and appropriate manner
Our Party Bylaws require that the recognized affiliate must appoint the delegation to the National Convention. However, the DC affiliate is noted for its total silence. As the convention approached, MPP chair Rob Kampia claimed to be the ‘delegation chair’ and demanded recognition of his delegation. There is no basis for this claim under party bylaws. Instead, Redpath’s Executive Director, whom Bob Barr brought to the stage after the nomination and thanked for unspecified services, had sent a memo
From: Shane Cory <shane.cory@lp.org>
To: “salvette@umich.edu” <salvette@umich.edu>
Emily,
What’s the latest that delegate names can be submitted to you? Also, Rob Kampia in D.C. has stepped up to the plate to be delegation chair. I spoke with Bob Sullentrup about this. Since there is no D.C. party, he said someone can step up to be the delegation chair (not party chair) to fill in vacancies.
Rob will be submitting names to you after a D.C. Meetup.
Thanks for everything!
Best,
Shane
to create a fraudulent claim that a DC delegation existed. Members will recall that the DC delegation chair, Rob Kampia, participated in this fraud in order to be Bob Barr’s nominator from the stage at the national convention.
Redpath as National Chair must have been aware that there was no active DC party, and failed to take adequate steps to ensure if that the fraudulent DC delegation was not seated.
Eric Dondero, the collectivistic and vile Republican sycophant who has been undermining the liberty movement for years with his idiotic moronic claims (such as one stating he’s the “real libertarian” and Yours Truly is not) and who has been cloaking himself as an advocate of liberty under the rubric of libertarianism, interviewed Wayne Allyn Root for his uninspiring statist-pretending-to-be-a-libertarian blog Libertarian Republican.
Here’s the interview in its entirety:
EXCLUSIVE!
Editor’s Note – We appreciate Wayne Root taking the time to grant this interview to Libertarian Republican.
ERIC: Wayne, how you feeling these days, now that we’re 3 weeks out from the election? Tan, rested and ready for your next big adventure?
WAYNE: Not tan, not rested, but I’m ALWAYS ready for my next adventure. I’m not like any other politician you’ve ever met. They campaign hard for 4 months, then take a 2 week Caribbean vacation after the election to recover. What a bunch of wimps. I never took one day off after the election. I flew home from Atlanta on Nov 5th…and prepared my sports TV and radio shows the rest of the day…then got up at 5 AM the following day to write my book…then spent all day in a TV studio filming my sports TV show.
I work 24/7 every day and year of my life. I’m a business owner and CEO and TV producer and TV host and author and business speaker and father of 4 young children. My days never end. I’m a workhorse- and I like it that way. Rest is for wimps. That’s why I believe I’d make a great President. America needs a 24/7 President who thrives on stress and doesn’t need vacations, rest or golf. I’m your man!
ERIC: Ballot Access News is reporting that the near final vote total for the Libertarian ticket of Bob Barr and Wayne Root, is 520,000. Though, it could still go higher by a few thousand. Are you satisfied with that number, and is it what you had expected?
WAYNE: It’s the second highest in LP history. It blows away 2004…and it beats Ron Paul in 1988 by a country mile…as well as both Harry Browne efforts. It’s kind of hard for LP radicals to spin it badly.
Having said that, I am personally VERY disappointed- because I aim for the stars. I’ll say it again- I’m a different kind of politician. I’m actually honest. I tell you exactly what is on my mind. I expected over 1,000,000 votes. We should have gotten there. But the biased liberal media turned Obama into a national obsession- thereby creating a need for Republicans and conservatives to do ANYTHING to stop him. Barr/Root lost a million (or two) votes because of this Obama-mania.
Barr/Root had as high as 6% in the national polls in August- the same number as Ross Perot when he was invited into the Presidential debates. He ended up with 19 million votes. Put us in the debates and the same thing happens to Barr/Root.
But I built the foundation I said I’d build. A vice presidential candidate can’t win an election by himself- but I sure tried. I came through with flying colors. No LP V.P. ever worked harder or longer. I was a one-man media army- getting more coverage than all other LP V.P.’s in history combined and certainly more than all other third party VP’s in this election combined…and probably more than any LP Presidential candidate other than Bob Barr himself. A third party VP is usually as lonely as a Maytag repairman. I turned that image on it’s head.
I built my base and I’m perfectly positioned for 2012. Things are going to change big-time in 2012. A third party candidate has to be BIGGER THAN LIFE: loud, colorful, charismatic, dynamic and in-your-face controversial. I will be all that- and more. What I accomplished as V.P. should serve notice for what I can do at the top of the ticket. And please remember, I did all this without any money or staff from Barr campaign. Literally none. I was a one-man army. There’s no doubt we’ll make history in 2012.
I’m now a regular on FOX News, nationally syndicated “The Mancow show,” nationally syndicated “The Jerry Doyle Show,” and KABC’s “Al Rantel Show” in Los Angeles (one of the biggest radio stations in USA). I’m also a regular guest on “Break the Matrix” web TV- the home of Ron Paul fans and supporters. I have a major book coming out in May. No I’m not shy about my success- it’s time for the LP to shout from the mountain tops. It’s time to get aggressive, pushy and loud. It’s time to seek our success without asking permission. It’s time to be relentless. We are going to break through in 2012.
ERIC: Could you contrast the Barr/Root performance in relation to past Libertarian Presidential campaigns, Ed Clark in 1980 for instance, or Ron Paul’s effort in 1988? And certainly Michael Badnarik’s campaign of 2004 which recieved 140,000 less votes than you and Bob?
I understand my job for 2012. Ed Clark got the highest vote total because he made a brilliant strategic choice- a billionaire as his V.P. I will spend the next 4 years searching for a billionaire running mate who can spend $20 MM to $50 MM on our LP ticket in 2012. I will campaign for 4 years across the country speaking to LP groups as well as mainstream voters. It’s only been 3 weeks since the election and I’m already booked to speak at LP state events across the USA. I just returned from a wealth conference in Naples, Florida where I was the keynote speaker of the event. Virtually the entire audience was Ron Paul fans and supporters. They played Ron Paul videos during the event. The financial experts who spoke were Ron Paul disciples. The good sign was virtually the entire audience wanted photos with me after my speech and all of them repeated the same words- “I love Ron Paul. But you just grabbed the mantle. You are the man to lead the freedom movement to victory. And we’ll help you in any way we can.” This will be fun! This is no longer your father’s LP.
ERIC: Tell us about your current media efforts. How is it that you’re still managing to get so much media attention from Fox News and nationally syndicated talk radio, and you’re no longer a candidate?
WAYNE: Rome wasn’t built in a day. I was just “discovered” in the waning days of the campaign. Remember a third party V.P. has a hard time getting the media’s attention. But all my work has paid off. I’m now a nonstop guest on FOX News. When FOX wants the Libertarian view on Obama, bailouts, stimulous packages, deficit spending- I’m now the face and voice of Libertarians everywhere. It’s quite a breakthrough. Can you imagine Harry Browne, or Ron Paul or any of our previous Presidential candidates becoming an in-demand regular (multiple appearances per WEEK) on national TV after the election? It’s just happened to your V.P.
ERIC: Can we expect maybe a regular commentator position for you on Fox, perhaps Fox Business, or maybe even your own show?
WAYNE: We’ll see. That would certainly be the breakthrough the LP so desperately needs. I’m having many discussions at this moment- with a national radio network for a nationally syndicated radio talk show called “Root for America”…and one of the producers of “The Apprentice” called me after seeing me on FOX to talk about building a reality show around me. This is how you move the LP into position to compete on a level playing field with the GOP and Democrats. If I become a Libertarian version of Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh with millions of fans…it’s a whole new world for the LP in 2012.
ERIC: When is the book scheduled for release? Where can your fans pick up a copy?
WAYNE: It’s titled:
The Conscience of a Libertarian:
Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling, School Choice and Tax Cuts
It will be released in May of 2009 by John Wiley & Sons–one of the world’s biggest publishers. It will be available everywhere- from Barnes & Noble and Borders to Amazon.com.
ERIC: What’s next for Wayne Root politically? There’s a Senate seat in Nevada up in 2010. Any thoughts of running for that?
WAYNE: Lots of thoughts- no decisions at this time. I’ve been too busy writing my book and speaking across the country. Opportunity is knocking- I have plenty of time to choose wisely with my political advisors and strategists. We’re not rushing into anything.
ERIC: Thank you for your time.
WAYNE: Thank you Eric for helping to spread the word.
Dr. Mary Ruwart, who ran for President on the Libertarian ticket this year and currently serves as an LNC At-Large Representative, came onto the the Libertarian Solution show on 1310 KXAM in Phoenix, Arizona.
We were honored to have Dr. Mary Ruwart, author and Libertarian Presidential candidate, as our guest on the program. Our discussion focused mainly on the ideas of charity; whether or not government should have a monopoly on charity, have mixed involvement, or no involvement at all. Dr. Ruwart also explained the detriments to government involvement in charity, and how getting their hands into the mix actually worsens the problem.
LNC Regional 4 Representative Stewart Flood, who is apparently the author of the anti-Angela Keaton resolution that was leaked out to IPR and to this blog, has brought supporting evidence — in the form of a PDF — for his resolution.
According to IPR, Flood, in an email to LNC members, wrote the following:
—– Original Message —– From: “Stewart Flood”
To: “‘LNC Discussion’”
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:49 PM
Subject: Revised Resolution of Discipline
Attached you will find a revised resolution of discipline, along with a companion document containing evidence to support the resolution. It will be further supported by the presentation on Saturday. I have also included the portion of the policy manual covering harassment.
The evidence focuses on the actual writings of Angela Keaton.
In the interest of saving time, the items in the original resolution that are supported by evidence only contained in audio form are no longer included in this resolution.
The resolution does not contain any new issues. Printed copies will be provided in San Diego.
I wanted to send this out sooner, but I had to replace my laptop computer.
This e-mail and the attached files may be freely distributed.
The Libertarian Party of Nevada has passed a resolution condemning and opposing the LNC’s proposed resolution of discipline for LNC At-Large Representative Angela Keaton.
Here’s the text in its entirety:
WHEREAS, the continued activities of the Libertarian National Committee regarding Angela Keaton, the proposed Resolution of Discipline calling for her suspension, and its blatant neglect of performing the proper and necessary duties of a major political party, are deemed to be self-destructive, humiliating, alienating, and detrimental to the Libertarian Party and its Members,
BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of Nevada demands that the Libertarian National Committee drop its vendetta against Angela Keaton, keeping in mind that she was elected At-Large by the delegates of the 2008 Libertarian National Convention and is largely supported by those who elected her and by many other Party members, retract the proposed Resolution of Discipline, and turn its attention to proper and necessary Libertarian Party business such as membership growth, finances, campaigns, advancing public policy in a libertarian direction, and increasing awareness of Libertarianism.
The following Nevada LP officers who voted AYE are:
Chair – Jim Duensing
Vice Chair – Debra Dedmon
Northern Regional Rep – Nik York
Central Regional Rep – Ray Duensing
Voting Member – Kris McKinster
The following LNC officers who abstained are:
Treasurer Joe Silvestri
Secretary Nathan Santucci
[Update (12/08/2008): Kris McKinster points out in the comment section of this blog post that he didn't vote on this resolution, considering he is not a voting Executive Committee member.]
The Libertarian National Committee will have its meeting today in San Diego today and tomorrow. Much of the business today, as I gather, will be on the resolution of discipline for Angela Keaton.
The live feed broadcast will be airing at 7:30 a.m. PST (10:30 a.m. EST) here and on my Let Liberty Ring blog.
PO BOX 3012, Winter Park, Florida 32790
800.478.0555 www.lpf.org
Resolution by the Libertarian Party of Florida Executive Committee
Adopted December 5, 2008
WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party of Florida does not condone certain actions by Angela Keaton in how they relate to the Libertarian National Committee;
WHEREAS, the actions by Angela Keaton have not had a materially negative impact on the Libertarian Party, its candidates, staff, or related parties;
WHEREAS, the actions by other individuals have had a materially negative impact on the Libertarian Party and its candidates was dealt without suspension or removal of those individuals from their official positions within the Libertarian Party;
WHEREAS, the Libertarian National Committee is scheduled to take up the issue at its meeting in San Diego on December 6, 2008;
WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party of Florida firmly believes the time devoted to Angela Keaton at this meeting would be better spent in improving the Libertarian Party.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of Florida strongly suggests the Libertarian National Committee remove the Angela Keaton discussion from said meeting Agenda and that time be devoted to more pressing issues facing the Libertarian Party. We feel the Libertarian National Committee should spend the extra time on Jim Lark & Patrick Dixon’s Agenda item regarding “goals” and how to achieve those goals.
Signed,
Karl Dickey, Chair
Neil Evangelista, Vice Chair
Mark Clifford, Secretary
Jack Tanner, Treasurer
Here’s the text of the Massachusett’s LP in its entirety:
MASSACHUSETTS PASSES RESOLUTION SUPPORTING KEATON
Whereas, Angela Keaton was elected with the strong support of the delegates at the 2008 Libertarian National Convention, and
Whereas furthermore, the lack of performance of the Libertarian Party this past election cycle, under what should have been ideal electoral circumstances, should be cause for serious reflection, and
Whereas furthermore, spending the valuable meeting time of the Libertarian National Committee on personality disputes brings the National Committee and hence our party into disrepute, therefore
Be it resolved, that the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts calls upon the Libertarian National Committee to decline to consider resolutions suspending Angela Keaton, and
Be it further resolved, that the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts commends to the Libertarian National Committee the desirability of spending its precious meeting time on important issues that may advance our party,
Be it further resolved, that the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts urges the Libertarian National Committee to spend that time, instead, on contemplating the substantive objectives of its budget and volunteer mobilization programs for the next year, and
For if the National Committee does not do so, the members of our voluntary organization may eventually conclude that alternative organizational structures are required if the Libertarian political movement is to advance.
[H/T to George Phillies for leaking this out on IPR.]
Libertarian Party of New York Chairman Eric Sundwall remitted an open letter to the Libertarian National Committee (LNC):
Fellow Libertarians,
I was recently forwarded an item from my regional representative and former LNC colleague Dan Karlan, regarding a resolution involving the proposed suspension of At-Large-Representative Angela Keaton. While I have seen this resolution as such posted at various web logs on the Internet, I have not taken any time to respond to it in those formats. It is my feeling that doing so justifies any breach of confidentiality that may have precipitated as a result of said effort. Having said that, permit me the courtesy of doing so as a former member of the LNC and the current Chairman of the Libertarian Party of New York, now that the item has been officially shared.
This seems an odd resolution. After ostensibly determining Ms. Keaton in some sort of violation, vaguely at best I might add, it lists conditions for contrition or satisfaction premised on apologies for matters apparently hitherto unreferenced as fact or even in allegation form. As Mr. Karlan has represented this resolution as ‘charges’ in his email, I can find no basis for in fact concluding that actual ‘charges’ are being levied. Aside from what seems an entire (and unusual) laundry list of grievances conditioned as apology demands, it was my limited understanding that this proposed action to suspend was originally based on an alleged breach of Executive Session at the last LNC meeting in September. I render no conclusion about the merits or subject of such session.
If I may be so bold, I would urge you to vote against the resolution. Asking an elected member of the LNC to apologize for actions that are not even alleged or determined as fact, is a highly dubious proposition that would set a dangerous precedent. I urge a better and more qualified internal due process in such considerations. In a more practical sense, allocating such time and resources to this matter as will invariably result, is a waste. As a recent member of the LNC I find this action hard to defend or understand.
If we say X, has engaged in conduct injurious to the Libertarian Party and its purposes. What does this mean or imply?
Could it mean something as simple as a criticism of a rival in a similar or dissimilar caucus or state affiliation? If so, does an initial accuser enjoy procedural advantage if charges (related as demands for apology) are rendered as such?
Would a poorly run campaign or ill mannered candidate be considered a perpetrator of injury or contravening purpose to the Party? Presumably some view the purpose of the party to ‘elect’ candidates to office. Could failing at this objective be future cause for sanction or demerit? After all, victory in the un-level electoral playing field is of prime importance, any lack thereof often attracts the stigma of loser within traditional political parties, we all know Americans love winners. This is a curious dilemma indeed, if we are to entice people to even run for public office under our banner.
If the expression of an opinion (or even an untruth verging on libel) in a public or broadcast arena about party leaders or representatives of the party constitutes an actionable offense, are we not engaged in a censure or violation of such cherished rights as free speech and expression? Indeed the very core principles and concerns that we presumably stand and suffer for when such abuses are rendered on our own countrymen and neighbors, then becomes suspect to our own heralded ‘purpose’, let alone principle.
If we look to major parties as an example, the criminal indictment and behaviors of certain actors within seems to have had no ill affect on victorious results at the hands of voters stuck in the either/or world of American electoral sequences. Surely ours is just an expensive hobby until we reach that point of saturation or general acceptance. The probability of which I would heartily deny in reality and historical example, despite any touted general strategy or tactical assurance or reliance. Presuming that injury comes to our ‘third party’ based on insular or petty examples of misbehavior or anecdotal trivialities is tantamount to an absurd reckoning or perhaps a conscious brown-shirting. Perhaps adopting the attitude of the frontline soldiers of trench warfare during World War I would be more appropriate. Live and Let Live.
What if one of the apology conditionals is based on something untrue, deliberately fashioned by an accuser or simply a personal difference in style or interpretation? It seems like in each example or instance that one mistake or incorrect assertion renders the entire resolution suspect, void or in operable based on simple notions of fairness or justice. Until proper due process can be proven to render fact of said action or proof of violation, accusations of a kangaroo court are not unmerited. To reiterate, one false allegation in any of the apology conditionals subjects the entire resolution to immediate dismissal. Of course an endless round of amendments to the resolution is always possible.
There may in fact be an entire bevy of presumed or assumed violations of policy manuals, bylaws and the like. Usually when such concerns and matters have reached that point, it is either a result of personal animus or organizational protection from a perceived threat. I suppose actual transgression is also a possibility. Whether or not the ‘charges’ against Ms. Keaton are true, this resolution is poorly formulated and the results of its passage could be just as injurious to the party as any of the apology conditionals presumes to remedy.
Please note that I have not assumed a direct defense of any of these apology conditionals, potential facts or circumstances. Having witnessed Mr. Flood’s panic resolution during the Ruwart ‘crisis’ last Spring I have little confidence in his operable political temperament or ability to handle subtle issues or matters. While reserving any comment whatsoever during that episode (and I would have dearly loved to respond to Mr. Cory’s ‘Are we Anarchist or Libertarians’ diatribe), I find this resolution even more disturbing and lacking a core quality that I would hope many of my colleagues in political arms might aspire to or possess.
In my estimation this is an internal political pogrom whose results may render the very fabric of our enterprise inoperable or at the very least permanently unpalatable to a large segment of membership. If we cannot function with a general transparency and proceed to render verdict or judgment without reasonable due process, I would consider such resolutions as necessary for potential secession of affiliates as reasonable and with proper cause. If a duly elected official from a body at large is castigated, maligned and subsequently removed without proper recourse or representation, perhaps the real injury and purpose of such ‘political’ alignment, merits deep review and consideration by all those involved.
Thank you for the consideration of this missive and please submit in it’s entirety to the minutes of your next meeting.
Sincerely,
Eric Sundwall
Chairman of the Libertarian Party of NY
The Libertarian National Committee (LNC), at its December 6 meeting in San Diego, voted to form a committee that would deal with the Angela Keaton affair, which entails a pending resolution calling for the suspension of LNC At-Large Representative Angela Keaton. The vote, which was triggered by a motion made by LNC Vice Chair Mike Jingozian, passed unanimously, which effectively called for a committee of six members from the board.
This new committee comprises of the following six LNC members:
Rachel Hawkridge
Mary Ruwart
Retired Admiral Michael Colley
Mike Jingozian
Tony Ryan
Rebecca Sink-Burris
Readers who want the skinny on yesterday’s events can surf here.
[Update: Paulie Cannoli has just informed me that the new committee actually requires seven members, not six. He, however, doesn't know who will be the seventh committeeperson to deal with the Keaton issue.]
I posted my comments on IPR containing my thoughts on the December 6 LNC meeting in San Diego. My comments are referencing the pending anti-Keaton resolution that was tossed to the side immediately when LNC Vice Chair Mike Jingozian moved to address the matter in the form of a new committee should Keaton keeps her conduct in check. Reportedly, Angela Keaton vitriolically said:
I will under no circumstances submit to any committee investigation.
Here are my comments I made on IPR:
Ok, here are my preliminary thoughts regarding the LNC [meeting] that transpired on December 6 and December 7. I will be blogging about the events that took place during the day. If anyone cares to send me a rough summary of what happened on December 6 and December 7, that’s fine. If not, I’ll just use the comments here and Mike Seebeck’s Twitter comments as sources of information for providing more coverage on the Freeman Chronicles and possibly Next Free Voice. But, nonetheless, here are my thoughts as they are, so please take them in the spirit they are provided (if you don’t, that’s fine; that’s your call, not mine):
The Angela Keaton resolution of discipline for Angela was ludicrous, moronic, pathetic, and laughable on its face. [LNC Regional 4 Representative Stewart] Flood’s presentation of the “charges” (which weren’t really charges, considering all that nonsense was trumped-up b.s. in the form of a personal vendetta against Angela because he wasn’t going to kowtow to her way of thinking) were absurd and horrendous. My first impression is that no one took his claims seriously at the meeting. As a matter of fact, according to several sources (and I believe the video clips that Mike recorded and made during the live broadcast of the meeting referenced it), there were some chuckles in the background while Flood was taking his potshots at her. Everyone deep down inside is not willing to admit this, but I believe that they think he is an embarrassment to the Party and to the membership, considering his credibility is anything but respectable, honorable, and filled with dignity.
The LP and its member base should be lucky that the Party did not crash and burn this weekend, despite the fact that it is in very god awful shape. Not that I care about the state of the LP (as I am no longer a member and I am commenting on this event purely as an observer), but the membership must be thanking its lucky stars that things didn’t turn out the way so many Rads thought it would. After all, if Keaton can be subject to sanctions by her own political board, then it’s highly likely that the membership can be attacked and thrusted into various Starr chamber proceedings at any time and any place, with or without cause of any kind. If the Party, as an organization, wants to avoid that, then it needs to get its act together and the membership needs to take control of the Party. The members need to do more than just demand change (although that is a good first step); they need to grab the bull by the horns and be proactive players in the Party. Being reactive and thinking that the Party will just turn itself around are nothing but signs of wishful thinking.
The GOP is in turmoil over their election losses, despite promises by many of its party insiders that it will rebuild itself by redefining its principles. But that’s wishful thinking, because that party has no definition of what its own princples stand for. The same disease has infected the LP. It needs to grow a pair. Better than that, it needs to establish a set of uncompromising principles if it wants to regain the trust of its core members, the movement (and that’s another story by itself), and the electorate as well.
LNC Vice Chair Mike Jingozian opted to move for a new committee to handle the Keaton matter, provided that Angela agrees to keep her behavior in check. Angela wouldn’t accept the new commission, and yet the LNC voted in favor of this new board unanimously. But new questions about this new panel ought to be asked, such as:
1.) Under which and what guidelines will this new group operate?
2.) Will this newly-commissioned board open itself to the membership? Will it be transparent?
3.) Will it rule fairly on the matter? Will it rule in favor of the accused or against her?
4.) What should the membership expect when the findings of the committee become public knowledge? Will these findings be made available at all?
5.) Will the committee deal with this affair or will it sweep the matter under the rug? Will the committee make any fair and unbiased recommendations to the LNC at all? How and in what way will these recommendations serve the interests of the membership and the LNC?
6.) Will the LNC accept the recommendations of the committee, or will it just sweep them under the rug? How will and should the LNC officers handle these recommendations?
and finally
7.) Was the dog-and-pony show orchestrated by Stewart Flood at the December 6 meeting really worth it in the end? Because of his actions, should he resign in shame for launching a smear campaign and nearly igniting an internal civil war within the Party because of his now-apparent hatred of Angela? Should and will the LP member base call for his removal from the board?
These are valid questions (and I’m sure there are plenty of more of them coming on the way) that can, should, and need to be taken into account. Sooner or later, the internal fractionalization within the Party must be deal with and resolved, or the Party will not make it to the 2010 election or the 2012 presidential election.
I must confess that I am feeling ambivalent about Jingozian’s move to set up a committee that would deal with this mess rather than the LNC coming to grips with it immediately. On one hand, it was a ballsy move and a good one at that, and the right thing to do, given the intensity of the moods expressed by the membership and the officers of the national party. On the other, it seems ridiculous that a new committee is somehow going to review and resolve the crisis, even if there is some indirect oversight from the LNC (which I’m not convinced that there is at this point). I think the Keaton affair will fizzle and be tossed into the dust bin of history, but perhaps the assigned members of the committee are convinced that it will be addressed satisfactorily. I’m not convinced that is the case now and in the forseeable future.
I will provide more comments on this, and hopefully Paulie, G.E., and a few others will update the blog post about this comment section and post what I said on there. Otherwise, it’s not a huge concern at all.
Yours in Liberty,
Todd Andrew Barnett
More coverage of the Keaton affair and the LNC meeting this past weekend will come later today.
Scary to think that even republicans can get the message. Scary to think that their switching tactics could leave the LP behind. But I have faith that the GoP will neglect the lessons of ’08, and go with their tried and true obfuscation of the Goldwater/Reagan lessons.
So the question becomes, how do we reach out to the Ron Paul folks? And do we have to obfuscate our own belittling efforts to reach out (a la the Barr fiasco)??
LNC At-Large Representative Angela Keaton, after the conclusion of the LNC meeting in San Diego on Sunday, has announced her resignation from the LNC, thereby relinquishing her at-large seat. This comes after the LNC, moved by LNC Vice Chair Mike Jingozian, to defer the Angela Keaton affair to an endless new committee that would allegedly probe the matter.
Since Angela has stepped down from the Committee in response to the vile, diabolical, and warrant-less attacks that she experienced at the LNC meeting last Saturday, the new committee has become rather moot, given the fact that the LNC can use this tool to persecute and vilify any future Angela Keatonesque, principled LNC member who can, should, and may disclose non-private and non-confidential information, especially when the Committee calls into order an “executive session” for improper purposes.
The moderates that have taken over the Party under the umbrella of leadership and the entire Party itself have claimed that she was “unprofessional” for disclosing pertinent information to her internal constituents about the unethical and illegal actions of the Committee members, fearing that any information coming out of the “ES” would open the flood gates for legal liability, federal fines and penalties from the federal government, and the exposure of personnel issues that need to be kept confidential. What a nonsensical cover! The federal government will still fine them, even if this mysterious chamber keeps its “sessions” clandestine. After all, there’s no telling how many campaign finance violations that the Party, in concert with the Bob Barr for President Campaign, has racked up. Keeping the “ES” private will not throw off the attention of the FEC bureaucrats who routinely want to audit and probe the books of the LP. Furthermore, the Party has already opened itself to huge, potential legal liability over the recent lawsuits that the Bob Barr for President Campaign, in conjunction with the Party, filed in states such as Ohio, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, and Connecticut.
And this nonsense about personnel issues is just that: utter nonsense! Party loyalists leak private information about party personnel all the time. It gets out on the blogs, including (but not limited to) IPR. Moreover, party personnel should not and must not expect a “right to privacy” while serving in their fudiciary positions as elected Committee members and employees of the Party. No such right in the Party exists; it never has. Members of the Party who do not serve in any positions of power have that basic right; however, once a member becomes an elected official or is hired in an official capacity in the interests of the Party, that individual relinquishes that right. Thus, such transparency on a national committee and the headquarters of a political party is needed.
The reason I say this about an elected party official and/or a party employee is that party officers and employees can easily abuse their positions of power, and political party committees and staff are prone to such behavior. History, as in the recent case of the Libertarian National Committee’s recent witchhunt against Keaton, is replete with examples of such abuse. Thus, the excuses by the officers of the Libertarian National Committee are ludicrous in nature and laughable on their faces.
Having said all that, I now include a letter that Antiwar.com‘s Eric Garris wrote and submitted to Angela Keaton just shortly after the second and final day of the LNC meeting on Sunday. In the letter, he calls the LNC’s actions against Keaton a “witch trial” and points out on a blog post at LewRockwell.com that the powers-that-be on the board is “ fixated on alienating those in their own party who still take libertarian principles seriously. Those who dissent from the LP’s new strategy of a watered-down platform and soft-Republican national politics will be unwelcome, even purged.”
Garris goes further by calling the charges “laughable” and that Keaton’s incessant tenure on the LNC has become deleterious to her “real work for liberty” at Antiwar.com. Angela has agreed to leave the Committee and urged Garris to publicly post this letter on the LewRockwell.com Blog. It says the following:
Dear Angela,
I have always been in favor of Antiwar.com’s associates and employees maintaining relationships with other institutions in the libertarian movement, but your involvement with the Libertarian Party National Committee (LNC) has become too big a burden on you and too big an embarrassment for me to accept anymore. Working with the LP on the local level, supporting various candidates and other such activities is be fine. But it is now clear that the LNC has become an embarrassment to the movement, the principles the LP is supposed to represent, and to Antiwar.com by virtue of our association.
As you know, I am not a sectarian. I have always strived to bridge gaps on organizational and ideological lines within the freedom and antiwar movements. In my libertarian activism, I have worked with a range of people from different organizations and factions. I despise the petty sectarianism, personal grudges and ego-driven squabbles that divide those of us who should be working together.
At Antiwar.com, we encourage dialogue and collaboration among people from across the spectrum so long as they share an interest in the goal of non-interventionism. We pride ourselves on featuring paleocons, progressives, left-radicals, minarchists, anarchists, constitutionalists, and others who join us in our struggle for a more peaceful foreign policy. We do not all agree on everything, even on the war issue, but it is important to have as big a tent as possible while still sharing our basic political values. And I have the same attitude toward the libertarian movement.
But the LNC, in its attempts to water down the message, has ironically become the most isolated group in the libertarian movement. Whereas once the LP was the epicenter of the movement, its leadership has tragically turned this once great and proud political party into a laughing stock. The party of principle has become the embarrassing sideshow.
The “controversy” regarding your involvement with the LNC is an indication of the general problem with the national organization. They have become obsessed with policing private behavior, maintaining control over personality, and purging all radical thought from the center of the party. Private organizations have a right to behave in this way, but it is peculiar that the LP leadership would have such difficulty understanding the types of values one would hope would be commonly embraced by a libertarian organization – individualism, personal privacy, a reasonable level of organizational transparency, and of course libertarian ideals. In particular, the abusive use of executive sessions and bizarre practices of ensuring lockstep conformity elicit images of Communist organizing back in the 1960s. Always afraid of the LP becoming a debating society, the moderates in charge have instead turned it into a cult altogether isolated from the broader movement and mainstream society.
I regret this, but for all these reasons I must insist that you resign from the LNC. Otherwise, we would have no choice but to reconsider your employment with Antiwar.com. As I said, your involvement, through no fault of your own, has brought some embarrassment to Antiwar.com and is a distraction from the movement at large. We have a new administration to grapple with soon. The politicians are planning more wars, more invasions of our rights, and more nationalizations of the economy. We all have bigger fish to fry and we need you with us, fighting for peace, not with the LNC, defending your integrity against those who don’t deserve your time.
Sincerely,
Eric Garris
Director, Antiwar.com
[Update (12/09/2008): Correction -- according to Angela, Eric Garris did not pressure her to choose between the LNC and Antiwar.com, as originally reported on IPR and here. This clarification was terribly needed to clear up any mistunderstandings and/or confusions that have been created along the way.]
Former LNC At-Large Representative Angela Keaton has issued a statement regarding the reasons for her departure from the board. Here it is in its entirety:
Friends:
This is to confirm that I have resigned my position on the Libertarian National Committee.
I did not do this as a result of pressure from either Mr. Garris or the LNC. In fact, a few LNC members apologized for any part they may have played in this. However, as long as Redpath, Sullentrup and Starr remain in office, donors will continue to have serious questions about administrative competence, staff neutrality and most importantly ideological coherence.
While I won Saturday’s battle, I had no intention of sitting through yet another round of investigative nonsense only to be told that I was “unprofessional” because I dared say publically what so many of you say in private. While I have nothing but the greatest respect for so many of you, I was the one
who delivered the complaints to Redpath and his cohort directly. I was the one who took the brunt of purge. And a brunt it was.
This is not an HR issue. Actually, Eric Garris not only defended me as my employer but he was willing to do what only a dear friend would do: Save my life.
Eric was aware, as were some of you, that my physical health had begun to deteriorate rapidly after the last three months of harassment by the proxies of the Barr and Root factions. Vomiting blood should not be the reward for pointing out the inept, incompetent and insidious. I went to San Diego to demand that these saboteurs look me in eye. I stood up to the bullies and won but it came at a price. I refuse to give up another moment of my life to these bastards.
For those of among you that I count as my friends, today is my birthday. The greatest gift you can give me is to accept that I have done all I can do to save what remains of the Libertarian Party, and that you will continue our struggle.
IPR’s Paulie Cannoli and LP activists Matt Harris and Mike Seebeck have announced the formation of a new caucus within the Libertarian Party on IPR and Next Free Voice. Dubbed the “Transparency Caucus,” the goal of the new caucus is to bring openness and transparency to the Party by demanding the LNC to open its meetings up to the national membership.
Neil Kiernan Stephenson, an At-Large member of the Boston Tea Party and a former Libertarian congressional candidate for Michigan’s 10th district, has attacked me and smeared me consistently on the Boston Tea Party’s Talk list.
These emails, which are already public on the Yahoo Groups’ btpnc-talk list ( a public discussion list), are pretty hilarious and pathetic, although they are , more or less, somewhat intriguing. Since this list is an unmoderated one for members of the Boston Tea Party, I think everyone should be aware of what Neil has been saying:
“There are things I have done for this party as well. I don’t bring
them up in every post like you do your own with your own deeds because
I don’t feel the need to. When I toured my district during my run for
Congress I got people talking about the Boston Tea Party and
Libertarian ideals. And due to my efforts I got our Presidential
nominee into a debate with Chuck Baldwin along with other third party
candidates. And the name “Boston Tea Party” was exposed to thousands
of Ron Paul Libertarians as a true Libertarian alternative to the
theocratic Constitution Party.
I do appreciate the things you have done. But they are in no way a
special license to be a jackass to anyone who says anything you don’t
agree with. People who respond to criticism about their bad behavior
with “BUT I DID ALL THIS OTHER GOOD STUFF!” as if that gets them off
the hook for being an ass get nowhere with me. At that point you sound
like an abusive person who is trying to guilt trip people into
allowing you to be a jerk to them. And that’s lame.”
This is what I said to Jim when he tried to list his accomplishments
as if that somehow justifies him being a troll. Just as you are trying
to do now.
My show has never been a failure. I have had a lot of high profile
guests including Senator Mike Gravel, Russell Means, Charles Jay,
Chuck Baldwin, Ron Paul, every single Libertarian party Presidential
candidate minus Steve Kubby, G. Edward Griffon, Naomi Wolf, etc.
Countless candidates for Congress and Senate. This statement by you
that my show was a failure is, no surprise, a lie. Your skills as a
radio talk show host are equally pathetic. “Let’s….um… say hello
um…. to our very good friend um….” you sounded like Mr. Rogers
minus the ability to speak clearly.
I helped to organize the Revolution March in Washington DC.
I brought Senator Mike Gravel to the Libertarian party, and therefore
got plenty of attention to the Libertarian movement that would of
never otherwise had heard of it.
Todd:
“You, on the other hand, haven’t written a single piece for any website.”
This statement by you is equally, a lie. I have written dozens of
press releases and articles for Independent Political report, and
recently on Bostontea.us. Not to mention my own website for Congress.
And ConstitutionRevolution.com.
Todd:
“You don’t know any of the people with whom I’ve been good friends for
many years and will continue in the years to come. What have you done
in that area?”
I am a personal friend of Senator Mike Gravel, Michael Badnarik and
many other freedom activists. Nice try Todd. I would also hazard a
guess that like me, many of those people are or were your “friends”
are so just because they are trying to be nice to you. That
conversation in the chat room proved what a joke you are in the
Libertarian movement.
Todd:
“I’ve appeared on other radio shows, online and on FM”
Me too? So what? You are so unbearably pathetic. You want to measure
our activist dick sizes as if that somehow will justify anything you
have done or said. Seriously man, PATHETIC.
Todd:
“What have you done for liberty in the world of media besides hosting
a radio show?”
I helped to organize no less then three debates, two of which ended up
on C-SPAN. Done anything like that? The Revolution March had well over
10,000 people. Done anything like that?
Todd:
“Libertarians for Peace(which was stolen from me by Carol Moore)”
I wager it has considerably improved since you lost it.
Todd:
“I’m now a member of the Free State Project.”
Yep, I got a deal done to give them free advertising. Had them on my
show too.
Todd:
“I’m a songwriter/composer, an up-and-coming screenwriter (working on
my first screenplay in fact), and I was an actor on stage as well. I’m
looking to get back into the world of acting. I’m also a poet, even
publishing my poems in a high school newspaper. Hell, I’ve even
published my first new poem (since I hadn’t written one in ages) on
the Boston Tea Party site — an anti-war poem. What have you done for
liberty in any of those areas?”
Your school newspaper? Your superior to me because you published
something in your high school newspaper. LOL LOL LOL…. no wait….
LOL LOL LOL! I am better now…Did you play little league too Todd? I
am also a songwriter, and an upcoming screenwriter, and am still a
stage actor. And a poet. BIG DEAL.
You are so desperate to validate your contributions that you are
inserting your hand deep up into the reaches of your anal cavity all
way back to high school. Got news for you Todd, nobody gives a damn
that you published a poem in your High school newspaper. I worked on
my High School newspaper and the yearbook commitee? So what?
And yes, I did support Senator Mike Gravel. He has never been a
perfect Libertarian, but he has accomplished more for freedom then you
will ever even seen done in your lifetime. He is a hundred times the
man your pathetic persona will ever even come close to achieving. You
are not even worthy to shine the shoes of Mike Gravel. Once you end
the draft, or expose top secret documents proving the government lied
about Viet Nam and risking your life in the process, then you can even
bring the subject up. Until then Todd, your just a useless poser.
Perfect Libertarian? Nope. Activist? Todd you are not even remotely in
the league of Senator Mike Gravel. Not even close.
Todd:
“Again, Neil, what have you done for liberty? And drop the pretense
and don’t give me “Well, I ran for Congress!”. Whoopee doo!”
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL! Right…. this pathetic person that you are
brings up publishing stuff in his high school newspaper as a great
accomplishment says “Whoopee doo!” to me running for Congress. Todd, I
fear for your sanity.
Todd:
“How many people have you educated?”
Well Todd, since you seem to think that the movement is something that
people can keep score on so they can somehow declare themselves a
“winner” in some sort of contest for liberty, I would say my efforts
have likely reached thousands. As I doubt you have any hard numbers
either, why don’t you just get off the cross and stop claiming to be
some kind of martyr.
“Please, spare me and everyone else the sanctimonious bullshit. You
are no better than me or anyone else for that matter.”
Todd, this is advice you should follow yourself. It’s interesting how
you just like Jim are a total hypocrite. You base your entire lecture
on how much “better” you are then me because of… (LOL!) something
you had published in a High School Newspaper (As if that requires some
kind of effort) And then go on to tell me to spare you and everyone
else the sanctimonious bullshit, and that I am no better then you or
anyone else?
Todd. I re-interate. You are an idiot. Please spare us more of your
lies, delusions, and pity-partying.
Todd:
“Oh, you can keep lying to me, to everyone, and to yourself by saying
that I’m lying to everyone about this. Yet you haven’t been able to
prove a single thing to everyone about me. Why, Neil? Because you have
no proof. You’ve got nothing on me.”
Proof of what? The majority of what I say about you, being that your
an idiot for the way you behave here is obvious, as the proof is in
your statements themselves. Proof that you in your own words said you
were going to “un-resign” from the Michigan affiliate as chair, a
position you appointed yourself to in the first place just to remove
me illegally to pursue as you put IN YOUR OWN WORDS on the Boston Tea
party website “personal feud” with me is all right there. The person
who doesn’t have any proof of allegations would be you and your
equally delusional partner in crime Jim Davidson who lash out with
bullshit allegations hoping to find allies in your quest to get the
guy who told you and Jim what it seems everyone I talk to about you
has wanted to say. Just like the people in the chat room who said it
to you. Seriously man, pull your head out of your ass.
Todd:
“And, honestly, those people in the justin.tv chatroom during that LNC
meeting can kiss my white hairy ass (with the exception of Mike and
Lidia Seebeck) for all I care. So stick it where the sun doesn’t
shine, pal.”
Because they told you like it is about you… that sounds familiar…
Todd:
“Even a prominent member of this party (and I won’t reveal who it is)
told me in private that he thought you were a “douche bag,” pal.
Seriously. You’d be surprised about what a lot of people say about you
in private.”
I saw about thirty people in that chat room say what they thought
about you quite publicly Todd. And they are not alone. In fact other
then Jim Davidson I haven’t been able to find a single person in the
Libertarian movement who thinks highly of you. In that chat room you
exposed yourself to be exactly what you are. A whiny little crybaby
who can dish it out but can’t take it. I find it ironic considering
your obsession with transparency that you want to quote private
conversations with people to make your point. But hey, you recorded
Charle’s Jay’s conversation with you to suit your own political
interests too right? (While ironically looking to pass a resolution
against illegal wiretapping and respecting privacy, ahh the
hypocrisy!) Your such a moron.
Todd:
“Oh, and Neil, I can see why your wife left you. I can see it completely.”
Funny thing Todd. As much as this is supposed to be some kind of low
blow that is supposed to mean a lot, it just further is “proof”
against you as to how pathetic you are. What would I say in return? I
see why your girlfriend broke up with you? (Guess she got smart)
Instead, what I would point out is that I have since had a very long
talk with my wife, and she apologized for every single thing she did,
and acknowledged that the whole thing was her fault.
So, your Ad Hominem is an epic fail on two fronts. 1. Because you were
so desperate for ammunition that you went there in the first place,
and 2. Because my wife has since realized she was completely wrong.
Todd, I am going to say this again. I appreciate what you have done.
However, NONE of it excuses your behavior. And the fact that you have
to hide behind the things you have done for the party, (including (LOL
LOL LOL! publishing something in your high school newspaper) only
further proves that you are a pathetic person. I don’t dislike you
because you wouldn’t side with me against Jim. I started to dislike
you because you took what was supposed to be a private conversation
where you could of won me over to giving Jim another shot and instead
turned it into what we have now. Well done! Along with that utter
debacle in Florida you are proving to be a stellar force for the BTP!
Keep on trucking Todd! Maybe if you do a few more things for the party
then it will be ok for you to be a total troll. Just a FEW MORE!
Sigh…
Pathetic.
See how psychotic this creep is???
UPDATE: The reason I’m posting these emails is to show people the true colors and nature of Neil Kiernan Stephenson, who has levied lies against me, smeared me, and assassinated my character in the BTP, of which I used to be a member. I believe people should be aware of how unstable, irrational, and moronic this person is.
Todd:
“Really? What kinds of things, other than brag about your radio show
and host them on a shitty server that’s had loads of problems with
keeping hosts and their guests on the air? How many listeners for
every broadcast you’ve made? How many listeners for your
re-broadcasts? And none of that
“Well-a-lot-of-them-came-from-IPR-and-Last-Free-Voice” crap, ok? We
can do without that.”
I just stated what kinds of things. And every statement you just made
about my radio network is a huge exageration or an outright lie.
Seriously Todd, your radio show was just a nowlive channel. Nothing
glamorous about that. I don’t keep track of over all listeners but the
podcasts usually get to thousands eventually.
Todd:
“but the bullshit “let’s-dodge-questions-and-fuck-with-his-mind”
claptrap is pathetic and down-right mush. It’s boring.”
Basically everything here applies to you. But I would say that it’s
not really boring anymore to watch you make a complete idiot of yourself.
Todd:
“But then, what else can we say about a hack who’s only been an
At-Large Member of the BTP for almost three months and, despite voting
on a few measures on the NatComm, has nothing to show for it.”
You are so grasping for straws. Still pathetic. Todd what exactly am I
supposed to have to show for it? There has not been much going on
lately. I don’t think anyone on the commitee has anything signifigant
to “show for it” over the last few months. I suppose your record of
getting people to leave the party and utterly fumbling the Florida
affiliate, and trying to use the Michigan affiliate in your “personal
feud” is what you have to “show for it”.
Todd:
“Really? Prove it. Give us the names of the people with whom you
spoke. Did you ever give them the website address? Did you give Jim’s
name, email address, and phone number for them to talk to him? Did you
get them to sign up as members of the BTP?”
Yes I did give them the website address. It is utterly ludicrous of
you to think that I have to prove every person I talked to at the
various voter events and door to door I did. Seriously, absolutely
silly. Once again, pathetically grasping for straws here Todd.
Todd:
“Oh, and about your campaign run, Neil, how many people did you have
on your staff? Who was your campaign manager? How many mentions did
you get in the Detroit Free Press? The News? MLive.com? USA Today? The
New York Times? The Washington Post? Other than a guy you hired to do
webmastering duties, how many people volunteered their time, energy,
money, and effort for your campaign?:
Not sure how any of this is in any way releveant exactly. More Todd
grasping for straws.
I was interviewed on AM and FM radio. I was interviewed for the
Detroit Free Press and a few of the county newspapers. I attended
every voter forum I was invited to. As for who worked for me and why I
don’t really see the point? Who cares? My web staffer volunteered, I
had someone who was my driver. That’s really all I needed.
Todd:
“I only saw that one debate you had (in Port Huron, I believe it was;
could be mistaken), and that was a really lame-ass, cheesy debate
which had no substance whatsoever.”
Todd, your such a liar. Seriously you were excited about that debate
before. But now because I am not on your cool list you decide to say
that it was “lame” and “without substance”. Why don’t you go publish a
poem in your High School newspaper about how lame and without
substance it was. Maybe then someone just might care about your opinion.
Todd:
“If the BTP’s name was “exposed to thousands of Ron Paul
Libertarians,” how come I haven’t seen a gigantic increase in party
membership? How many of them VOTED for you? If those “thousands” of
Paul supporters were “exposed” to the “theocratic Constitution Party,”
how come we don’t have those thousands signed up as members of the
national BTP and the Michigan BTP?
The majority of Ron Paul Libertarians have either went to the
Constitution Party, or the Republican party. As for how many of them
voted for me, you seem to like asking absurd questions that there is
no way to know the answer to. I had about 5k votes when the tallies
were done, and I came in ahead of the Green Party candidate. That was
enough for me. Still grasping for straws Todd. Just acknowledge that
your pathetic and go away. Please.
Todd:
“If any of your claims were true, we would have seen thousands of
emails from those supporters. They may have heard about the BTP (maybe
from the likes of you), but they didn’t bother to sign up for a free
account on the Party’s website or even on the Facebook group.”
Would this be anything like the thousands of members that Jim claims
to be responsible for bringing to the party who for some reason never
vote on anything?
It is very possible that they looked at us and didn’t have any further
interest at this time. We are a much smaller party. And if any of them
have looked recently at your drivel it wouldn’t surprise me if they
saw it and wanted nothing to do with the party. Oh wait, we already
know they do that.
Note: (I am not even responding to some of the drivel that came after
that. But moving on.)
Todd:
“As an out-of-the-closet anarchist (you can have the word
“libertarian,” Neil!), I have no desire to run for office at any point
in the future or anytime soon, nor do I have any desire to apply for
any government-paid congressional staffer or intern position. I have
nothing to lose on that account, but you sure as hell do.”
Thanks for saving us all some serious embarrassment. I for one feel a
lot better knowing that you will never be running for office, because
someone might trace back that you were at one time a member of this
party. And I would have to play damage control explaining that because
we are a party for personal freedom that includes personal freedom for
pathetic losers too. I have nothing to “lose” either Todd. I ran for
office because I wanted to spread the message. Nothing more.
Todd:
“Boy, you’ve got me all wrong and completely-ass backwards. That’s not
a new thing for you, “Eric,” but yes, it sure is a hoot though.
I didn’t respond to you because of me thinking “I did all this great
stuff in the movement.” I responded to you because I have shitloads of
more experience in the movement than you do. I’ve got approximately 10
years ahead of you in this movement. You’re just a fucking wanna-be
libertarian and a newbie. And the way you respond to my posts makes
you a pussy, boy!! Oh, sure, yeah, “Eric,” you’re a tough bad boy. Oh
yeah, you know how to fight with your words and not your fists.”
UH OH! Are you threatening me Todd? UH OH!
Seriously. I can just get out the popcorn and watch as you tear down
any credibility you ever had. Your expirience in the context of you
being pathetic in human interaction means absolutely nothing. And that
is the point. You can be an expirienced asshole and still be an
asshole. But I am sure your poem in the school newspaper is counted in
your countless years of expirience that you have over me.
Todd, you don’t live that far from me if you want to find out if I
know how to fight with something other then words. So if your threat
is genuine, come on over. “Pussy boy”.
The vast majority of what follows is really lame childish stuff that
doesn’t even warrant a response. I will however make another comment.
“I was never a Gravel fan and never cared for him.”
Another one of those “fair weather lies” from Todd Barnett. On your
OWN SHOW you said that Mike Gravel would of been a good choice for the
party. Pathetic.
Todd:
“You do them a great disservice by ignoring them and take all the
credit, which is you implied in your above-mentioned crack.”
Wow…. just when I think you could not become more pathetic. You
continue to surprise me Todd. My above crack consisted of me saying “I
helped organize the Revolution March.” Not “I take credit for it” or
“I did all the work.” YOU LIED. AGAIN! Pathetic little delusional toadie.
Once again wading through useless crap.
Todd:
“I never said I was better than you, Neil.”
That is what your whole post was trying to say Todd. And you failed.
Miserably.
Todd:
“That implies that I have a superiority complex, which I don’t.”
Don’t recall using that wording. But I do think your an insecure,
immature little toad.
Todd:
“George Donnelly, your pal,”
Another lie. I don’t even know who that is. If he was in the chat room
agreeing with me that is total happenstance. What is not happenstance
is that there was no shortage of people who thought you were a useless
whiny crybaby.
Todd:
“People, I think Neil has a sexual crush on me. I think he harbors gay
tendencies towards me..and maybe Mike Gravel himself. LOL LOL LOL!!
Dude, you should try Prozac! I’ve been on that before, and it’s great!
As for Gravel, who cares about him? He’s worthless to me. I wouldn’t
even shine his shoes, even if he awarded me a nice, fat stipend to go
with it.”
I am so happy that a “prominent party member” like Todd Barnett feels
that it is appropriate to insinuate that other members are gay. And
also feels that it is appropriate to insult people on the basis of
them being gay. This is absolutely a positive thing for the party.
I am so glad you resigned from the party Todd. Seriously. I didn’t
seek it, but statements like the one above prove it beyond a shadow of
a doubt. Aside from all of the childish garbage that I didn’t even
bother quoting and responding to, this really takes the cake. Great
move for freedom.
By the way, being in an indie film does not suddenly validate you.
Todd:
“Yes, you have no proof that I’m lying. The burden of proof isn’t on
me; it’s on you.”
And further from Todd:
“What lies have I spread Neil?”
Todd, you and Jim both had a laundry list of invented conspiracy
theories and absolute nonsense about how I was plotting to destroy the
party, along with a host of other garbage. You still lie constantly.
Like that I have never posted anything for liberty on any website,
etc. The burden of proof was never on you when you made this absurd
allegations. But now you expect me to prove that you were lying about
things that you totally made up? Seriously Todd. Their is no evidence
other then your own words, posted here on this website. Where you and
Jim went about deluding yourselves into believing that just because I
don’t like you I must be out to destroy my party.
You invented a “band” of people I am supposedly trying to take over
the party with.
You insinuated that my involvement with the LP was somehow sinister,
even though Tom Knapp is running for that same party’s nomination.
The list of absolute fiction you tried to spread about me goes on, and
on and on. Pathetic.
As to
A. (In reference to the Justin TV chat) Nothing I did in any way in
that chat room justifies you taking it upon yourself to remove me from
anything. Period. Or putting me on in some kind of trial basis. The
fact that you thought that the Michigan affiliate was ever even
something noteworthy enough for it to matter that you “removed” me
from it points to your delusional nature even further. I didn’t
“conspire” with anyone Todd. You really flatter yourself. I didn’t
even know those people. They all just had something in common, a
hatred of you, and of Jim Davidson. I hate to tell you this Todd, but
your in no way signifigant enough to justify having “conspiracies”
against.
From Todd:
” B.) Inquired about those standards after I did “un-resign” myself
only to see that you would be removed from your position because you
were derelict in your duties as my vice chair and subsequently as my
At-Large Member,”
This is a lie Todd. You made it very clear that you were only removing
me because of your personal feud with me. You stated that in plain
language on Bostontea.us. We discussed me moving to at large member
from Vice chair, but there was not much in the way of “duties” to
speak of for me to be derelict of, as vice chair or an at large
member. I know you would like to try and lie your way out of the fact
that you were motivated by nothing other then unprofessional childish
garbage, but it’s a little late now Todd. Everyone read what you
posted on Bostontea.us, and it exposed you. The fact that you are
trying to lie and cover it up now further proves how pathetic you are.
(Note: Nevermind the fact that you can’t just “remove me”. How very
authoritarian of you.)
“I’m no longer the chair of that party, as my old Vice Chair has
assumed control of the Party;”
Thank the Gods.
Todd:
“C.) Moved to delete blogs from the BTP website, largely in part due
to your dissatisfaction with Jim and your war with him”
It had nothing to do with that. It had everything to do with the fact
that Jim Davidson’s statements on the main site were being taken as
statements by the whole party. Including statements that were being
taken as believing that every American soldier was murdering children
and raping women. I settled for a disclaimer. As that whole incident
proved whether Mr. Davidson intended that meaning or not, it was being
stated that he spoke for our whole party because of those blogs. I
stand by this action. You have lied about my motivations. Again. Big
surprise.
Todd:
“D.) Moved for a disclaimer on the website, which Tom intelligently
shot down and put up a disclaimer, only because you whined and bitched
about what members in the blogs say.”
Todd, your reading comprehension clearly needs help. Maybe when you
were publishing poems in the High School newspaper you would of
learned a thing or two. Tom didn’t “shoot down” the disclaimer. He put
it up without a motion because he agreed to it. Moron.
Todd:
“E.) Harassed me in private, even though I published your venom here
on the talk list”
So this whole thing started with Jim Davidson refusing to stop
harassing me in private email. He stops emailing me, then starts
launching his campaign to make our private problems the whole party’s
business. Then out of the blue, he starts emailing me again, and then
posting the replies claiming that I was emailing him first. Citing
harassment.
Todd then engaged in this same tactic. I suddenly get an email from
him out of the blue asking me not to email him anymore. Even though I
had never emailed him at all. I responded by telling him not to email
me to get me stop emailing him when I hadn’t been emailing him. He
then started posting the replies claiming that I was contacting him,
when every email he posted was a reply to something HE HAD SENT ME.
Todd, your lies and your delusions know no bounds. If you didn’t want
another email from me, you should of got the hint when I pointed out
to you that I had not been emailing you, and that you should stop
emailing me if you didn’t want a reply.
Seriously man. Pathetic.
Todd:
“F.) Dissed the BTP on IPR and several other blogs, even though you
remain an At-Large Member of the Party”
Nope. Just dissed you and Jim. Not the whole party. Not even a
signifigant part of the party. Just you and Jim. I know you think you
are the whole party and all, but your not. I explained earlier what my
“dis” was, and how it was not an attack on the BTP at all. Nice try
though. Keep lying, maybe eventually at least you will believe
yourself… if you don’t already.
Todd:
“G.) Called for moving the meetings to a conference-call-only format
(which would mean party members would have to sit through over an
hour’s worth of recorded discussions on the phone in order to maintain
transparency and openness, which you openly opposed),”
I never opposed transparency and openness. This is the absolute lie by
Jim Davidson that started all of this.
Todd:
“despite the fact that you didn’t bother to notice that the national
bylaws require the Committee’s deliberations to be open and transparent.”
There is nothing that is not transparent about a conference call
broadcasted live, with archives available. It would ADD to the
expirience because you could listen to the tone of voice and sincerity
of the words of the people speaking. Doug even suggested that he would
like to do it once or twice a year after the fact. Todd, you are once
again proving to be a delusional liar.
Todd:
“Only those people, with the exception of the Seebecks, told me how
they felt about me, and it proved to me that they weren’t Libertarians
at all.”
For someone who earlier accused me of being a person who thinks he can
decide who is and is not Libertarian. These people are somehow not
Libertarian just because they like most smart people I know think your
an idiot. You have attacked my own Libertarianism on no grounds
whatsoever other then the fact that I don’t like you.
Already covered the “threatening Jim” stuff.
I would still like to point out that Jim also felt I was threatening
to have my mother beat him up.
Todd:
“As usual, regarding my privately-recorded chat with Jay (which I
destroyed once and for all), you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Seriously, dude. You don’t.”
Ok, please enlighten us? I would be very happy to hear you explain
away why you recorded a private conversation and then spread it to
different members in the party? Seriously. Pathetic.
Todd:
“You should be fucking grateful that Jim didn’t call the fucking
authorities on you, let alone sue your ass for libel. He would have
easily built a huge-ass case against you. If you made a statement like
that against some other Joe, I doubt he would have been so forgiving.
Fuck, we gave you a free pass on that one, man.”
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH! Seriously, bring it on. The depths of
your stupidity know no bounds. You GROSSLY overestimate how much
anyone would ever give a damn about this.
Todd:
“If Lin was wrong about what she “did” to you, Neil, then why is she
still with Matt Harris, the Chair of the Libertarian Party of West
Virginia? Why is she still hanging out with him? LOL Oh wait, isn’t he
your best friend too?? Good gosh!!! LOL!”
Todd, this is once again an example of you being utterly ignorant of
the truth. She doesn’t live in West Virginia. Is not with Matt
Harriss, and hasn’t been for months. (In fact, she has been living
with me for months now.) Matt and I are not great friends. However it
is interesting to point out that even when we were enemies he made a
clear statement on IPR that you and Jim’s allegations against me were
total bullshit.
You admit that it was an “attempt” at a low blow. But you failed.
Utterly. And you “going there” to make a point lead to our secretary
resigning, and will likely further do damage to the party. All the
while humiliating you.
Todd, to say I am glad your gone is an understatement. You are little
more then a sniveling, lying toadie. You say that nobody likes me, I
have yet to hear it from anyone but you and Jim. It was not hard at
all to find people who would come forward about their dislike of you
and Jim however. It doesn’t really matter to me. At the end of the day
you are still pathetic. I look over the time you wasted putting this
little troll comment to words. You ask why I kept replying? Because
you kept lying. Over, and over, and over, and over. And your still
lying, just as you are undoubtedly lying to yourself about it more
now. It seems as though you and Jim being the most obviously mentally
deranged members of the party are two peas in a pod.
Neil Kiernan Stephenson really knows how to “bolster” party membership numbers after his childish, immature, and insecure tirades in his message postings on the BTPNC-talk discussion list on Yahoo Groups. (Obviously, we know he doesn’t, but that’s not really the point, now is it?) Of course, these are more lies and paranoid delusions coming from Mr. Stephenson, but unfortunately, that fact can neither penetrate that mentally-challenged head of his nor stop him from believing in them.
Here’s more of what Stephenson had to say about me in one of his latest posting:
His last post included a host of more fabricated allegations against
me. If he is really done, I am done. But as I pointed out when I
started this, I am not going to sit by and allow him to say these
things about me without hearing about it. He went so far as to call me
gay, and talk even further about my personal life, and my relationship
with my wife. I wager if he was doing either of these things to you
your feelings on it would be a lot different.
This whole thing has not been about the last word from me. It has been
about refusing to back down when trolls step up to try and push people
around. What is utterly ironic is the way that people keep asking me
to stop, which would give them exactly what they want. To silence
someone else by harassing and insulting them until they don’t want to
speak anymore.
I know I have damaged myself in this exchange, but I honestly also
think the party has damaged itself as well. Jim Davidson and Todd
Barnett have both been a destructive force, and from what I have seen
nobody would ever call them on it. It was better for us just to let
them continue to behave this way and not say anything. Pretend that
it’s ok. It’s not ok to me. I watched as Mike Gravel, Ron Paul and
Dennis Kucinich were bullied and attacked by their own parties as
well. I saw Jim trying to do the same thing, and then Todd afterward
and I simply would not stand for it. And I won’t. As long as I am a
member of this party anyone who treats anyone like this will hear from
me. I get emails and phone calls every day from members and sadly
former members who thank me for standing up for them, and standing up
to people like this.
Once they got to the point that they would invent lies and conspiracy
theories I knew our party was in real trouble. I didn’t like them so I
must be out to destroy the party. Then Douglass spoke to Jim about his
destructive behavior and then Jim invented more conspiracy theories
and inserted motivations with him as well. I will not seek, and have
not sought to drive either of them out of the party, but as long as
they behave like this, I will reply. Period.
If you didn’t like what was going on, it would of been a lot better to
intervene with the people who were instigating it rather then coming
after me now for not being willing to put up with it. I respect your
opinion, but people like this don’t stop bullying people if you ignore
them, they just keep picking new targets.
BTP National Committee At-Large Member Neil Kiernan Stephenson, in a response to former BTP National Chairman Jim Davidson’s comments about him, decides to take a number of potshots aimed at him.
Here’s the entire message in great detail:
I already apologized to everyone else in the party Jim. I have no
interest in apologizing to you as I don’t regret anything I said to
you. And I stand by my decision. Please don’t insult everyone’s
intelligience by trying to claim that you are somehow now the “good
guy”. It’s a little late in the game for you to suddenly be the
“angel”. You started all of this. And you continued to keep it going.
Your apology was crap. Your behavior afterward clearly showed your
true character.
Let me fix something for you:
Jim Davidson is a tyrannical little jerk. He goes on and on about the
same things without every stopping. He has no courtesy where it comes
to his own misconduct. No doubt he cannot even see his continuing
rudeness as any sort of misconduct.
Fixed.
You went on for WEEKS telling everyone who asked you to stop being a
troll to fuck off, and that they were not the boss of you and all
kinds of other garbage. Have you seriously deluded yourself into
suddenly forgetting that the reason that things are the way they are
right now is because you refused my initial offer of you simply not
talking to me anymore?
Are you forgetting suddenly that you are the one who brought our
personal feud to this list? And to the various blogs?
Have you ever thought of how different things would of been if you had
just left me alone the first time I told you to stop emailing me?
Rather then insisting to make this suddenly a huge party affair, and
attaching all kinds of rampant lies and conspiracy theories to it?
Jim, I am no coward. It’s funny that you whine about me supposedly
“threatening you” on one hand and talk about how wrong of me it was to
threaten you with violence, then on the other try to act like I am not
“man enough” to be violent with you. As if now there is something
wrong with me because I won’t punch you in the nose? So which is it?
Do I punch you in the nose or not?
And lets not forget, I am going to have my mother beat you up
remember? That “ugly threat of violence.”
Also, me refusing to apologize to you has ZERO to do with courage. It
has everything to do with integrity. I will not give you a false
apology. I still fully feel you want this party to revolve around you.
And that you are a total troll who takes out his rage at the
establishment on anyone who happens to disagree with him. As you put
in your mock apology, you are widely disliked in the party and in the
Libertarian movement. This is why.
You haven’t tried to build any bridges. You made it clear to people in
the party that you would not rest until I was out of the party. All
the while insisting that it was me who was trying to drive you out of
the party. Your constant lies and bullshit allegations make it
impossible for me to “build a bridge” with you. Because I find people
who engage in that to be despicable. And now your hoping that if you
try to pretend to be the better man that suddenly everyone is just
going to forget who instigated all of this? I remind you I didn’t even
use this forum until someone on the national level asked me to address
your “concerns” which was a laundry lists of contrived allegations and
outright lies. Made by you and Todd.
In addition, I would also point out that when I would go for a couple
weeks without posting anything, then finally did you just HAD to make
a negative comment. This is what brought about another one of your
“WWAAAAHHH!!!! YOUR NOT THE BOSS OF ME!” speeches when someone pointed
our that you were being a troll.
I refuse to apologize to you for reacting to YOUR extremely rude
behavior by telling you exactly what many people and myself feel about
you. Period. Stop asking. Your never going to get it. I am not a
coward as there is nothing to be “afraid” of. I would say the cowardly
thing would be for me to give a false apology to appease people. It is
ludicrous to imply that I should apologize to you for firing BACK at
you for the lame things you said. You absolutely deserved it.
I also refuse to be “ordered” or “pressured” into making peace with
you. If people think I am a bad member of this party for choosing who
I will and will not communicate with based on their treatment of me, I
think we are going to have a serious contradiction in our principles.
I don’t need to be Jim Davidson’s friend to do my duties as a member
of this party or the position I was elected to.
Here is what I will offer you. Which is what I asked you to do in the
first place. Stop talking to me. Stop talking about me. Stop emailing
me. Stop posting about me. And I will be happy to do the same. I would
like you to cease to exist to me and I will do the same for you. I
realized this was the best solution months ago. But when I blocked
your email and asked you to stop contacting me you decided to goad me
out to fight with you on the blogs and here.
You want this to end? For real? Don’t respond to this post. And don’t
communicate with me or about me any further. Period. And I will never
post another peep about Jim Davidson. And please for the sake of the
party PLEASE stop jumping to conclusions, contriving lies and
conspiracy theories about every party member who dares to stand up to
you. The way you lash out with these insane accusations forces the
person to either spar with you, or allow people who don’t know better
to believe your invented bullshit is true.
Actors/Obama Supporters Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore, with the help of their pal Oprah Winfrey via her Harpo Productions company, have issued an “I Pledge” video that “calls on” their fellow Americans to “serve” — ahem — enslave themselves to the state. If you want to be specific, try President Obama.
If anything, this video, like my fellow libertarian friend Karen DeCoster, makes me ill. I hope you feel the same way as she and I have.
These statist buffoons Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore brag to former View co-host and pro-Obama nut Lisa Ling on Oprah Winfrey’s website about their pro-state “I-Enslave-Myself-to-President-Obama” presidential pledge video.
Google’s infamous site warning “This site may harm your computer” had popped up all over Google’s servers about over 40 minutes ago. This was even happening while I was trying to do some research on the search engine for a post I’m writing for this blog.
I’ve logged onto 6 computers in 4 different states, and two in other countries. I’m getting warnings for every link in the SERPS with Google attempting to block traffic to them.
Here’s a couple of pics to show what I mean here:
(The last screenshot was taken by the blogger who issued the alert.)
Maybe it’s me, but is Google engaging in systematic censorship or what? Considering it’s embracing the omnipotent state, it wouldn’t be a surprise. After all, the once-hailed, once-innovative company has become a mouthpiece for the Ol’ Great Messiah himself.
This is what happens when government and Big Business (like Google, for instance) collude, creating what happens to be the Fascistic State that we’ve come to loathe today.
Ron Paul was featured on Real Time with Bill Maher tonight, which premiered its new season on HBO tonight. Paul, who appeared on the show to Maher in his one-on-one interview, said that the real problem with the state of affairs in the U.S. is we don’t “do a lot less” and that we “should hardly be doing anything in Washington.” He notes that it’s “politically unacceptable” and yet “that’s the right thing to do.” He nailed it on the head with the fact that, when you have too much investment and there is too much debt and malinvestment and too much malvestment, you “have to liquidate it.” After Paul provides his well-thought out example of what happened in 1921 when we were in a depression (which lasted a year because the government wasn’t involved) and then we got into another depression in the 1930s (which was pro-longed by the U.S. federal government’s intervention), Bill Maher asks:
But if that’s true, why do so many economists say we should do the opposite?
Paul responded with the following:
Well, you’re listening to the wrong economists if you think they’re serious. All Keynesian, socialist welfarists will say you have to do something. If you believe in the free market and you understand the business cycle, the business cycle was caused by the Federal Reserve system, you know that you have to get rid of the mistakes that were building the system. The real cause is created by the Federal Reserve, and yet very few people are talking about the Federal Reserve.
Here’s a clip of Paul’s appearance on Real Time:
After Paul’s appearance on the show, Maher and his Keynesian, socialistic guests kept shilling for the banks. Panelist Chrystia Freeland of the Financial Times took potshots at Paul’s Austrian views, saying that she wouldn’t want to live in a country where there’s “no economic activity” if we didn’t bail out the financial services (banking) industry. Congresswoman Maxine Waters (an airhead socialist if there ever was one) made some glowing praise about Paul, but “parted with him” on the need to get rid of regulations (which Paul didn’t even bring up on the show and wasn’t the point on the show to begin with).
Here’s the clip of the first part of the panel discussion. However, watch it from 1:14 to 2:41, where Freeland and Waters criticize Ron Paul’s “extremist economic view” that we must reject the “too-big-to-fail” doctrine and that there should be no regulations on the banks:
Maher asserts to the women on the panel that they are “well-versed in economics.” Freeland, talking about the Austrian/freedom lovers, says that she “wouldn’t want to live in a country that tried that experiment.” She goes on to make this ludicrous yet misguided statement that is the central thesis of this blog post:
I mean, there is this sort of very extremist view called the Austrian school that says what Congressman Ron Paul was saying…that, you know, absolutely these companies got themselves in trouble. We should be absolutist free marketeer; let them all go broke. But would you like to live in a country where economic activity grinds to a halt? I think it’s too risky an operation to try.
And, as Brown asks whether economic activity will grind to a halt, Freeland then naively states:
No, no, it would be, it would be a lot worse. If, if you let the banks go broke, imagine what would happen.
Then Waters chimed in with her nonsensical tripe, saying that she likes Ron Paul and has “shaked up, ya know, the Congress,” but he is a “true believer” (after Maher says it). But then she really “parts” with him on his view that there should be no regulation. Yet ths is the same Congresswoman Waters who supported the government-propped up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac institutions — yup, that’s right; the New Deal programs that Democrats love and want to preserve — that encouraged the reckless “no-money-down,” overextension of the housing market/bubble that burst within the last couple of years. These are the same institutions that purchased malinvested “bad” loans and resold them to banks that would lend them out to credit-risky home buyers. These same home buyers would put “no money down,” accruing interest while their loans were deferred and would end up paying high mortgage payments that they knew they couldn’t afford.
Waters, Brown, and Freeland are wrong about Ron Paul, the Ausrian school of economic thought, and the “absolutist free marketeer” position on the “too-big-to-fail” doctrine and the regulatory state. Big banks like Citigroup and Bank of America can get past these regulations (they are supporters of the corporatist state as well, as they have lobbied for banking and other financial service regulations), and the smaller banks that are even nationalized as well as the big ones have a difficult time getting past the regulations. No one person can simply start up a new bank without reviewing and agreeing to abide by a myriad and a web of regulations that make it cost prohibitive to do business in the U.S. And the big banks get corporate welfare because they have become insolvent and are unprofitable ventures (although the executives are profitting from the taxpayers at their expense). Those business’ losses are heavily socialized, thus cementing a future where today’s generation will face their future being heavily mortgage that they will be stuck paying all the way to their own graves.
I will be — and have already started being — faithfully aggressive in fighting for transparency on the board, as I have promised my voters in the Party. And I’ve already started my duties after having immediately taken the Secretary seat.
Any loyal BTP member who wants any pro-freedom resolutions or would like to offer pro-freedom motions to be put on the table, please feel to let me know at my email addy here.
Boston Tea Party founder and At-Large Member Thomas L. Knapp has introduced an excellent pro-Second Amendment resolution to the party’s own National Committee discussion list on Yahoo Groups. Seconds later, he issued an amendment to his resolution removing the word “both” in the phrase “it is both the constitutional obligation.” I seconded this revised version of the moved resolution just seconds after he sent it to the list.
Here are the original and amended versions of the resolution. Either way, it’s an outstanding one, given Attorney Generalissimo Eric Holder’s promise to restore the old, god-awful 1994 assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. (Here’s former BTP Chairman Jim Davidson’s assessment of Holder’s plan to revive the expired gun law.)
Here’s the original version of the resolution:
Whereas, every man, woman, and responsible child is possessed of a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and constitutional right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon — handgun, shotgun, rifle, machine gun, anything — any time, anywhere, without asking anyone’s permission; and
Whereas it is both the constitutional obligation of government to respect and defend, rather than suppress, that right; and
Whereas all attempts by government to institute measures of victim disarmament, a/k/a “gun control,” are illegal, unconstitutional, subversive of public safety and morally repugnant;
Be it resolved that the Boston Tea Party opposes all new victim disarmament legislation and all attempts to re-impose past victim disarmament schemes, including but not limited to the Obama administration’s contemplated re-introduction of an “assault weapons” ban.
Here’s the revised version that’s currently pending and is to be discussed later today:
Whereas, every man, woman, and responsible child is possessed of a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and constitutional right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon — handgun, shotgun, rifle, machine gun, anything — any time, anywhere, without asking anyone’s permission; and
Whereas it is the constitutional obligation of government to respect and defend, rather than suppress, that right; and
Whereas all attempts by government to institute measures of victim disarmament, a/k/a “gun control,” are illegal, unconstitutional, subversive of public safety and morally repugnant;
Be it resolved that the Boston Tea Party opposes all new victim disarmament legislation and all attempts to re-impose past victim disarmament schemes, including but not limited to the Obama administration’s contemplated re-introduction of an “assault weapons” ban.
Any BTP member and liberty lover is encouraged to spread this far and wide as much as possible.
According to a press release on CATO’s website, Carlson will do the following:
Carlson will use his initial time with Cato to focus on writing a book on the state of the American polity. Through other writings as well as media and public speaking appearances, he will also seek to educate the broader public about how the libertarian philosophy differs from the standard liberal and conservative orthodoxies embodied in the two main U.S. political parties.
The next paragraph of its press release caught my eye, enabling me to shake my head in disbelief:
“Tucker Carlson is one of the most effective communicators of libertarian ideas in the nation,” said Cato founder and president Ed Crane. “We are delighted to have him associated with Cato as a senior fellow.”
First of all, Carlson is not “one of the most effective communicators of libertarian ideas.” He’s not a libertarian; he’s a conservative. He may have a libertarian bent in his conservative thinking, but he’s a conservative. It is true that he has come out against the war in Iraq and the War on Drugs, but he’s not a consistent defender of liberty. He’s not even a radical. Sure, he has expressed his admiration and respect for Ron Paul many times (he had Ron on his show during the course of his presidential campaign) and had been involved with his campaign. (Interestingly enough, one MSNBC toadie who had filled in for Carlson on his old show bashed Paul on December 27, 2007 for openly and truthfully declaring that the United States didn’t need to have its own civil war to end slavery.) But he is a conservative of the Barry Goldwater-style variety. His view on independent migrants a.k.a. “illegal aliens” epitomizes my point.
Second, why CATO? Why not the Ludwig von Mises Institute? CATO serves the interests of the beltway “cosmopolitan” libertarian crowd that embraces Milton Friedman’s Chicago school of thought. CATO is not truely liberarian; it’s libertarian <em>only when</em> a Democratic government and a Democratic president are in power. They were neither libertarian nor attempting to be libertarian when Bush was in power for eight years. In fact, many of its key personnel were (and still are) big supporters of the Republican Party, including Bush. Not a single peep came from them (with the exception of a very few) when Bush dragged us into Iraq, called for and launched the U.S. Department of Homeland Stupidity (I mean, Security), and signed into law the Military Commission Act, the Patriot Act, and the REAL ID Act (among many draconian and pro-state bills).
Carlson may be feeling at home in the think tank’s D.C. offices, but CATO’s Ed Crane calling him an “effective communicator of libertarian ideas” hardly passes the ideologically pure smell test.
Obama’s “Iraq withdrawal plan” calls for a pull out of the 142,000 U.S. forces (comprising of Marines and Army personnel) on August 31, 2010.
Here’s the Fox News story which, in part, describes the unveiled plan to congressional lawmakers yesterday:
The Iraq war will come to an end on Aug. 31, 2010, senior officials said, following President Obama’s decision to end all counter-insurgency missions by that time.
Obama told top leaders in Congress on Thursday that he will transition the mission in Iraq to training, advising and engaging in limited counter-terrorist operations, according to congressional sources.
The president is expected to deliver a speech Friday at the Marine base in Camp Lejeune, N.C, in which he will order the immediate drawdown of the 142,000 Marines and Army personnel in Iraq.
Obama’s decision reflects his belief that “there have been real advances” in the country and, as result, the U.S. military should now be ordered to carry out “a fundamental change in mission,” senior administration officials said.
With 142,000 U.S. forces in Iraq now and counter-insurgency operations conducted on a near-daily basis, “it is a war, no question,” a senior adviser said.
And this war, senior officials said, will officially come to an end on Aug. 31, 2010, when the president orders all U.S. troops to focus their efforts on advising, equipping and training Iraqi security forces as well as assisting in reconstruction and political reconciliation.
“This is a plan that responsibly ends the war in Iraq,” said a senior official who participated in the deliberations. “He is living up to a commitment he made as a candidate but is doing so in a way that has the support of the inter-agency task force on Iraq.”
The president will order U.S. military commanders to leave a residual force of between 35,000 and 50,000 troops in Iraq. Under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, the U.S. must remove all military personnel by Dec. 31, 2011.
This is going beyond the 16-momth plan that Our Great Leader set forth throughout his campaign and even after he was elected to and inaugurated into office, even though some thought it would be “difficult” to implement it. 19 months? It’s no secret that he had soft pedaled and somewhat backed off from his plan in the beginning of his term last month, despite what the Obamameter on PolitiFact.com shows.
I’m not confident that the war in Iraq will end or that Obama will pull the troops out. Perhaps he’ll prove me wrong in the final analysis, but I’m not counting on that.
Government central planners are even more insane and ludicrous than we thought, especially in my township in my home state of Michigan. The Chesterfield Township bureaucrats recently voted to hike the town’s “business permit fee”, which is really a business permit tax on small, local businesses that have registered to pay in order to keep their annual permits up to date. The tax, which is disguised as a “fee” assessed and levied on small, local businesses that are required to pay it on an annual basis to the town officials, has been hiked from an annual rate of $5 to $25.
Here’s a snip from the The Voice News (a local, community newspaper that serves cities in Southeastern Michigan like Fair Haven, Algonac, New Baltimore, Chesterfield Township, Richmond, and Marysville), which goes into detail here:
Businesses in Chesterfield Township have paid the same amount for their annual permit for 30 years. However, that’s all recently changed in an effort to bridge the 30 year gap and generate extra revenue for the township. More increases are on the horizon to update other decades old fees.
“It’s been $5 since the ’80s,” Township Clerk Jan Uglis said of the business permit fees. “We’ve got to be financially responsible.”
The board of trustees voted at the Jan. 5 meeting to increase the fee from $5 to $25.
In the midst of the economic downturn, Uglis said the township has been looking for ways to cut costs and make increases where needed. While the $25 fee might be a shock to some, Uglis said it’s still low compared to other communities.
“It’s a way to bring more money into the township without raising taxes,” she said.
Also new is a late fee the township is imposing. For every month a business doesn’t pay the permit fee, they will be charged $15. Uglis said the code enforcer will be out to make sure all businesses are in compliance and take legal action, if needed.
“It’s part of the ordinance,” she said.
Uglis said it was easier to change the fee to $25 outright instead of gradual yearly increases. The gradual change would have required yearly resolutions; each of which would be required to go before the board of trustees.
“I know this is a bad time, but you have to understand, your business has increased in 30 years,” Uglis said.
“Even at $5 people were years behind.”
When the fee was still $5 Uglis said some of the businesses had failed to pay. She said for those who hadn’t paid in two years, they had to pay $10 for both years and then the $25 on top of that. It added up, she said, especially if they had to pay a late fee.
Jan Uglis, a highly-overpaid township clerk (who is, by the way, a long-time progressive/socialist Democrat and was a proud member of my old church Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, which I used to attend many years ago), is justifying the hikes, claiming that they had not gone up in recent years, but she’s not telling the truth. The true reason why the township is in bad shape is because of government overspending, high taxes, (surprise, surprise!) and a police tax, which have plagued the area for a few years now.
Even one resident has complained about this action and has expressed his ardent opposition to it. The rest of the Voice article gets worse. The next couple of paragraphs showcase, in tonality, the diabolical and vile nature of the beast we call government:
The permit was put into place as a way to safeguard the business and the community. Uglis said the business has to fill out the permit and state what they sell, whether there’s any kind of chemicals on the premises and emergency contact information, among others.
“If the fire department has to go in after a fire, they have to know what kind of products are inside,” she said.
Considering the fact that the local government’s fire department is hardly efficient and swift in the deliverance of its services, I can easily tell you that it takes more than 10 minutes for the Chesterfield Twp. Fire Department to respond to a fire on someone’s property, let alone a business. This claptrap about “safeguarding the business and the community” is a ruse, because government bureaucrats, even at the local level, respond by brute force. This tax and other machinations are souped up by big business and township interests to undermine and destroy commercial activity that has been, for the longest time, the backbone of the small business community in the area. By raising this tax, they are doing exactly that.
Here’s another hair-raising fact: the town even wants to skyrocket its Class C liquor license. As Uglis admits, the township is preparing to raise it from $500 (which had remained that way for 30 years) to a mind-bending $2,000. If a start-up party store (or convenience store) wants to sell booze, that’s too costly for any company to pay that amount. Sure, businesses like my local CVS Pharmacy and Kroger can pay that amount, because, as long-time established businesses, they have the volumes of cash, plus the legal and accounting departments to off-set those costs. A new business with a compliment of 200 employees or less simply can’t afford to do that.
At a time when the township’s economy, the county’s economy, and even the state’s economy are in god-awful shape and unemployment is boosting at the local, county, and state levels, this will even deepen the already-known one-state depression we already have, even though it’s being officially touted as a “recession.”
I have resigned from the party, which in effect means that I’ve resigned my national committee seat (and any admin role on the site, since my resignation consisted of deleting my account).
I apologize for putting the committee through yet another vacancy-filling election. I also apologize for what looks like, but was not, a suddenly undertaken decision to resign. It’s been coming for some time, and the latest episode of “whatever Tom Knapp says has implications for the party” was the straw that broke the camel’s back. It’s never been JUST my party, but that card’s been played so many times that the only way to get it out of the tricksters’ deck is for it not to be even partly my party.
I will leave this Yahoo! group as soon as I post this message. Naturally, I continue to welcome personal correspondence with any or all of you.
Interestingly enough, an hour and 14 minutes later, At-Large Member Steve Trinward (a former Libertarian Party member and Tennessee LP member who once served on the LP’s Libertarian National Committee some years ago) decided to follow suit by posting his resignation on the same list.
Here’s Trinward’s resignation as well:
Dammit, Tommy – Now I look a copycat.
I too am formally resigning from this whatever it is … when I get a chance I will likely drop off the membership as well.
This has also been coming for a while, but other parts of my life have taken precedence. They continue to do so …
This latest “resolution” is just the final straw. The effort to “amend” faulty language, while dealing with neither of Tom’s concerns as he raised them, says it all. This is just another right-wing cover group, no more worth my energies than any other out there.
it’s been … interesting – Steve Trinward.
Trinward’s gripe with a “resolution” is in reference to a resolution I authored and amended (see an incoming separate post, which will discuss the motion [original and amended] in great detail). Basically, this resolution condemns and repudiates President Barack Obama’s backpedaling on the war in Iraq, which I believe was well-worded and no other objections were raised (except that Tom issued his concerns about my proposed motion). Former BTP Chairman and current Kansas BTP Chairman Jim Davidson responded to Tom’s concerns, which is something that Trinward didn’t even to notice.
I’m not sorry to see Trinward go. He has been highly unproductive and hasn’t been voting on a number of motions, although he did manually vote on the first two resolutions after I became Secretary of the BTP. I am, however, disappointed and sad that Tom decided not to make a formal announcement of his departure from the Committee and the Party to the party base. After all, the BTP is and always will be his baby, and he is and always will be credited for that.
Although Knapp doesn’t want me to publish my private correspondence with him, I will not do it. This is out of respect for the man, so people can draw their own conclusions as to why he left the Party.
Former At-Large Member Steve Trinward, who resigned from the Boston Tea Party last night, has issued a clarification as to why he relinquished his seat on the BTP National Committee and the Party.
Here’s the following explanation he gives for his decision:
This confirms my reasons for resigning; comments below
Clearly, I should never have allowed myself to be nominated for this spot. I did not realize that the only difference between serving on:
a) the National Committee of a multimillion-dollar political party, with multiple organized state affiliates, a number of elected officials and at least some clue of how to proceed; or
b) the National Committee of a non-money-based, fledgling and grassroots online discussion group, whose primary function seems to be passing resolutions that then disappear into the Internet ether …
is merely the variety of energy-sink they entail.
Instead of quarterly meetings, requiring travel & hotel & meal costs … this one requires TIME — constant monitoring of Yahoo discussion lists, with tiny signal-to-noise ratios — on the off chance something of substance shows up. ANd it’s not enough to monitor the committee discuss list, one has to also play in the chat-pool …
Sorry, folks! IN a very few months (Bastille Day to be exact) I shall be celebrating the completion of six decades in this cycle of human-form existence … the last four-plus of which I have spent doing some form of “fighting for liberty” or another. Inasmuch as in doing so, I’ve tossed aside a lot of potentially lucrative pathways, in order to have the time to devote to that “higher goal” (while being taken for granted (and/or undervalued) by a wide variety of folks within the movement and beyond it? but I won’t go there), I’m now scrambling to create enough ongoing and self-sustaining ventures so I may not need to be delivering pizzas when I am 80!
no time to check in every day in case something might be of interest; and even less time to do so without some notation that something pertinent to the “business” of the NC might be found there …
good luck – Steve
Good riddance to a smug, arrogant jackass who really proved to be worthless on the Committee.
Raw Story leaked this story about President Obama’s answer to the press about his position on the legalization of marijuana during his town hall Q & A event (simply billed as the “Open for Questions Town Hall event”). YouTubers and the American public, as reported by the mainstream “government” media, print media, and blogs like the Huffington Post, were online, asking him questions from his plan to nationalize the banks and mortgage industries to his insane socialized medicine plan. (Here’s a New York Timestranscript of the event here.)
In response to the questions that 3.5 million people voted on the “Open for Questions” section of the White House website, one user with the username “Green Machine“ asked the following question on the site:
Will you consider decriminalizing the recreational/medical use of marijuana(hemp) so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and a multi-billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?
Obama answered the question by issuing the following statist response:
THE PRESIDENT: Three point five million people voted. I have to say that there was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy — (laughter) — and job creation. And I don’t know what this says about the online audience — (laughter) — but I just want — I don’t want people to think that — this was a fairly popular question; we want to make sure that it was answered. The answer is, no, I don’t think that is a good strategy — (laughter) — to grow our economy. (Applause) [Emphasis on the "applause" added.]
Here’s the video of Obama’s response:
Here’s White House Press Secretary Robert Gibb’s repugnant and sick response to a reporter’s question about Obama’s position on pot:
The teen “child” pornography madness, which has been a subject of great mainstream media coverage over a number of months, has been getting out of hand. I’m not referring to child pornography itself (a practice which is very despicable), but to the allegations of “child pornography” that have been popping up in the courtrooms and the mainstream media within the last number of months. I’m specifically referring to today’s Generation Y a.k.a. adolescents (teenagers), who used to be called “the youth,” and are being prosecuted left and right simply for doffing their clothes and taking nude pics of themselves with their camera phones or just posting them on their social networking accounts like Myspace. Let’s not forget that there have been cases of teenage males having been prosecuted for filming their girlfriends in the nude (or while they’re having sex with one another) and taking naked pics of them.
Just this week a 14-year-old teenage girl from New Jersey was arrested for posting 30 nude pics of herself on her Myspace account. Why did she do this, you might be asking? Because she wanted her boyfriend to see them. According to media accounts, if the poor girl is convicted, under Megan’s Law, she would have to register as a sex offender and serve 17 years in prison. Currently, she’s been remanded to her mother’s custody for the time being. A court date hasn’t been set as well.
What started this brouhaha was that someone tipped off the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which then contacted the police. The authorities began a month-long investigation into the matter, sex stinging the girl until they came to the conclusion that she did this for her boyfriend.
An even more interesting fact is that many parents and pundits have lambasted the local law enforcement officials and the district attorney’s office, including Maureen Kanka (the mother of the late Megan Kanka, a young seven-year-old girl from New Jersey, whose murder led to her mom lobbying for the passage of Megan’s Law) who publicly condemned the arrest, saying that the police should “be ashamed of themselves” for charging the youth. University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Seth Kreimer even believes the arrest was insane as well:
To deploy the nuclear weapon of child pornography charges shows almost as bad judgment as posting the nude photos themselves.
Another case involving another 14-year-old teen girl from Pennsylvania provides a disturbing picture of the out-of-control government’s obsession with prosecuting and persecuting adolescent women and men for taking sexually-explicit pictures and filming themselves engaging in explicit sexual activity. It also shows that the state is infantilizing (more correctly, “childifying”) our youth and treating them like children, while imposing government-mandated “sex education” in the public “government” schools (which is encouraging kids to have sex). Let’s also not forget that most parents do not educate their children about sex, because of their uncomfortability with the subject and their irrational fear that, if they did so, their kids would pursue that kind of activity. Yet it is common knowledge that, once the young children enter their adolescent years, they will learn about sex from either their peers or watch porn (and get the wrong ideas about sex and love) or both. And, because of that, it drives them to have sex, especially when they are not emotionally, mentally, and financially ready for that responsibility. After all, teen pregnancy, while having declined somewhat over the years, is still at an all-time high and sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs) are very prevalent as well.
Moreover, the state doesn’t get that, as long as it continues to raise teens as little children, Generation Y’ers will act out as children and not as young adults. Once they are childified, it’s almost impossible for them to snap out of it and it sticks with them for the rest of their lives.
As long as the state proceeds to prevent teens from learning responsibility and behaving like adults, they will be immature, irresponsible, and insecure. This is what the state is doing to the adolescent population: it’s shielding teens from growing up and learning from the consequences of their actions. If teens were allowed to marry, sign contracts, have children, take control of their education, vote, join the military, drink, emancipate themselves from their abusive parents and families, etc., they would be more likely to wait until they were ready to handle those responsibilities. While the state deserves the lion’s share of the blame here, the parents deserve it just as much.
Moreover, the sex registry system creates a new criminal class, which sticks with the convicted sex offenders for life. It’s almost impossible for them to lose that label. Since there are no victims and the teens who are infantilized by their parents and the state are said to be victims of “statutory rape” (used to be called “jail bait”), the state will accuse the offenders of engaging in these “rapes,” considering teen women voluntarily choose to be sexually active with their male lovers (who are usually older than them) and do not cry out rape. Not only that, the offenders are required to re-register with the state whenever they move and find it difficult to land jobs, considering employers tend to be leery about hiring them to begin with.
It’s time for the state to get out of this business of protecting teens. It’s also time for parents to assume the role of protecting and raising their kids and teaching them about sex, so they can wait until they are ready to deal with all and any adult responsibilities.
Libertarian magician/TV personality Penn Jillette was on Larry King Live last night, with leftist talk radio show host Stephanie Miller, leftist Clintonite James Carville, and conservative and former RNC advisor Terry Holt, in which he points out that Obama “should have much less power.” Collectivistic liberal Miller rebutts his argument by saying:
STEPHANIE MILLER: Penn, we got to have, you know, help around the world with the War on Terror. I mean, I know, after the Bush administration, it’s kind of a low bar for an overseas trip [to London for the G20 Summit]. Uh, as long as, you know, he didn’t throw up on someone, uh, chew with his mouth open, or give someone, uh, an unnecessary back rub, I guess we’re happy. But, I do think his popularity around the world is really going to help us. You know, I mean, he said something starting for an American president. He said, “I’m gonna listen … I’m here to listen and not just talk.” And I think, I think that’s really important.
Jillette responded with the following:
PENN JILLETTE: I was just going to say Bush didn’t say the opposite. I mean, it’s not, uh, that’s not a very profound to thing to just say that you’re going to listen. I mean, yes, people like him more. He’s better looking, he’s a better speaker, and I guess that’s okay. But the whole country rallying behind somebody is always a bad idea.
And the following exchange between Miller and Jillette occured, especially given her smug remarks:
MILLER: Listen, Penn, the only people that are in bad shape after George Bush is gone are the people in the effigy business, because he was burned in effigy more times when he went on overseas trips…
JILLETTE: You can’t, you can’t, you can’t I pretend I’m pushing for Bush. I’m not. I’m just saying the President shouldn’t have that much power.
Right on, Penn! That statist scumbag Miller, whose demeanor on the show is atypical of a limousine leftist, thinks that the American people shouldn’t be exercising individualism whatsoever. And not only that, she claims that we must “have help around the world with the War on Terror.” But wait a second! Aren’t Democrats for civil liberties? Aren’t they for ending the War in Iraq? Aren’t they against the War on Terror?
The answers to those questions are no, no, and no. It certainly proves that the Democrats were never against the War in Iraq; they were against Bush’s handling of the war, because, had they had the White House for eight years after the attacks of 9/11, they would have launched their own invasion and occupation of Iraq. It proves that they are not for civil liberties, as they are not for releasing the inmates of Guantanamo Bay into civilian custody, even though Obama allegedly ordered an end of the detention center. It also proves that they are not for ending the war in Iraq, despite the fact that Obama claims that military operations will “cease” in Iraq on August 31, 2010.
The fact that Miller takes a hostile position against Jillette shows the Left’s hypocritical nature and its vile, repugnant ways.
King himself arrogantly says, “You can be individualistic as much as you like. Someone’s gotta think for the masses.” Excuse me? Someone’s “gotta think for the masses”? This sheeple mentality is indicative of the statist mind, including the limousine leftists like King, Miller, and Carville.
Can someone please remind these clowns that America was founded on the ideals of individual liberty, personality responsiblity, and limited government, not collectivism of the tyrannical kind, protection from personal responsibility, and limitless, out-of-control government?
Update: I was told by a fellow libertarian (a big LRC’er) that the conservative guest Terry Holt under Penn Jillette “was also okay but not as forceful.” He also said that Holt was “more of a conservative” and had embraced ”too many of the democrat premises and terms.” For once, he’s right. The conservative clown seemed to be more in agreement with Carville and Miller than with Jillette, although he did side with Jillette by saying that the government creates a system of “winners and losers” via the tax system. But, as a typical right-winger, he refuses to call for ending the state’s control over the individual, especially by ending the federal income tax and other vile, diabolical government machinations.
Keene, New Hampshire’s very own pro-statist Talkback, a political talk radio show hosted by Cynthia Georgina and Paula Phillips on its local radio station WKBK is now engaging in randomly systematic censorship practices against Free Staters who frequently call into the program to offer anti-state, pro-liberty viewpoints against the political establishment in the town. Georgina, who is a statist serving in the Keene City Council, has espoused her political annoyance with the pro-liberty activists who call in repeatedly because, according to Cynthia:
CYNTHIA GEORGINA: We get caller after caller after caller calling in and saying, ‘You’re stealing homes, you’re stealing homes.’ That’s not what it is. We are following the law. And that’s not stealing homes. And that’s where the problem lies.
Not only that, a number of statist callers phoned into the show, complaining about the Free Staters calling into the show for expressing their anti-state views, including one female caller who has once called into the show before and, on today’s show, says once again that Ian Freeman and Mark Edge of Free Talk Live should only talk about their views on their show and stay off of Talkback’s airwaves.
Georgina and Phillips, who have agreed with these statist callers that the Free Staters should not be allowed on the show’s airwaves, allowed me on the air while I was waiting to go on for a few minutes. While I tried to complain about the statist clods who were defaming my fellow liberty activists in the Keene area, Phillips changed the subject about Obama’s stimulus package for Michigan, considering I mentioned my name and my home state to the two of them. I didn’t want to get into Michigan’s economic woes (considering that’s not why I called), but I played along wondering where they were going with this.
Basically, I said that Governor Jennifer Granholm (my governor, yes!) was responsible for destroying the state due to excessive taxation, regulations, overspending, and other pro-state machinations. They tried to make it sound like I was favoring companies getting away with not being regulated (although the fact is, they are regulated), and I was merely ignoring her questions because they were off-topic. As I tried to get back on topic about the other callers, Phillips, as the liar she is, claimed, “That’s the caller’s opinion, not my opinion!” Yet she and Cynthia agreed with the callers who had a beef with us about our calls into the show.
Conservatoid nimrod Joe Wurzelbacher, the plumber and wanna-be entrepreneur from Holland, Ohio who gained fame for his opposition to President Obama’s “spread-the-wealth” plan that he touted on the final leg of Election 2008, appeared on Sean Hannity’s showHannity on Fox News to not only bring support for a Tea Party rally in Atlanta, Georgia on April 15, 2009 (a.k.a. Tax Day), but to urge Americans to support the Fair Tax. He calls upon Americans to ”become their own lobbyists. Actually become their own lobbyists. Don’t listen to the Washington guys. Become their own lobbyists. Vote the IRS out, vote the Fair Tax in.” As soon as he gave that, a huge cry of anti-Federal Income Tax protestors at the Tea Party rally could be heard, screaming, “Fair Tax! Fair Tax! Fair Tax! Fair Tax! Fair Tax! Fair Tax! Fair Tax! Fair Tax! Fair Tax! Fair Tax!” Hannity then, in a smug fashion, says, “You know why I call it Boortz Land” (in reference to “libertarian” Atlanta talk radio show host Neal Boortz).
Of course, Hannity and Wurzelbacher switch the discussion from the Fair Tax to their disgust with the Obama administration’s “downplaying” of the War on Terror by calling it “an overseas contingent operation.” Hannity asks Wurzelbacher:
HANNITY: This is amazing. But they — if you have a pro-life bumper sticker on your car, if you have an “America is overtaxed” bumper sticker, if you have a pro-Second Amendment bumper sticker, they’re viewing you potentially as a radical.
My question…
(BOOS)
My question is, if those are right-wing radicals, does that mean that somebody that starts their political career in Bill Ayers’ house and hangs out with Jeremiah Wright for 20 years…
(CHEERS)
What does that make them?
WURZELBACHER: I’ll tell you what, let me ask you one more question. Am I an extremist for saying, “in God we trust”?
HANNITY: No.
(CHEERS)
And by the way, and I said God bless America.
And by the way, we might want to steal a phrase from Jeremiah Wright.
President Obama, there’s 15,000 to 20,000 people here. You know what, if I was Jeremiah Wright, I’d probably say, America’s voters have come home to roost.
It doesn’t help that there’s a Tea Party anti-tax protestor who’s holding up a sign while Wurzelbacher’s speaking to Hannity that reads:
2 Steps to Save the USA: Fair Tax and Term Limits
While it sounds great in theory that term limits will “save the USA” by limiting the length of time served by a congressional Republican or Democrat in office, it will not accomplish that any more than slapping a carbon tax on CO2 levels will save the Earth from Global Warming. Term limits will not stop the corruption in the Congress and the Senate, considering new blood replacing the term-limited old blood can be just as corrupt as well. Term limits will not allow congressman and senators to abide by the Constitution. After all, we have term limits on the Presidency, and the Office of the Presidency has violated the founding document countless numbers of times. Why should we expect anything to be different when a new term-limited Congress convenes?
As for the Fair Tax, it will not be any fairer than the Federal Income Tax imposed upon us by the dreaded IRS. The Fair Tax, which promises to do away with the FIT and replace it with the FT, is alleged to be a 23 percent rate on the sales of all goods in the U.S. ($23 on every $100 spent in total, even though its calculation is similar to income taxes). However, the actual rate would be 30 percent on the sales of all goods in the U.S. (meaning $30 on every $77 spent before taxes).
Plus, the bad part about this tax scheme is that it creates a new bureaucracy, which would oversee the imposition of the tax at the federal level. Proponents of the tax say that the new tax would just be done at the state level rather than at the federal level, but that’s just political sophistry. Even the FT opponents know this, countering that compliance would not be carried out by the individual, and that massive tax evasion could result. While the first part of their claim would most likely happen, the last part of the opponent’s argument is speculative. It implies that the current system is better than the alternative. In actuality, the new tax could bring about a new underground economy, as many other opponents observe, because intermediate goods and services are factors of production and can be exempt and are not final sales on the purchases.
Moreover, another reason to oppose the Fair Tax is the fact that the proposed legislation favors a welfare state approach. It can issue checks to the Fair Taxpayers in advance, acting as welfare handouts to them in the process. Family households under the new system would receive what would be prominently known as a “Family Consumption Allowance” — a tax rebate (or “prebate”) — that would easily be used as welfare cash handouts to families in advance for twelve months. A new welfare state can be easily generated because of this. Is this what the conservatives have in mind when they say that they are “anti-tax”? Shouldn’t they just drop the “anti-tax” moniker and just say that they are “anti-Federal Income Tax” but pro-tax on other areas, including inflation and the Fair Tax?
And with this system in place, how would it be “fair” to everyone involved? I thought conservatives were against creating welfare classes. But of course not! They’re only against welfare if it doesn’t serve their interests and doesn’t profit from it. How “pro-American” and “pro-liberty” all of that is!
And, as for the final part of the anti-Fair Tax argument, does anyone really believe that the conservatives, including Boortz and Hannity, will really push for the elimination of the Federal Income Tax and replace it with this new tax? This legislation can easily be amended to keep the original tax and tack on the new tax to go with it. That would mean that the IRS would still be in business, and Americans would be getting their federal income tax refund checks and begin to receive their new monthly “prebate” checks as well.
It should be of no surprise that conservatives like Wurzelbacher, who is also pro-Iraq War, pro-Israeli government, and pro-Fair Tax, is also pro-welfare state. Like Hannity, he also supports the warfare state as well. That’s another part of the welfare state that conservatives love so much because they benefit from it.
Isn’t it time for them to stop saying that they are for liberty and are for government, conservative-style? But then again, isn’t this what you would expect from the old, tired Republican siren song that continues to be played every time they lose the White House and both Houses of the Congress?
Here’s the video of Wurzelbacher and Hannity at the Tea Party “anti-tax” rally in Atlanta, Georgia:
Limousine leftist Hollywood nitwit Janeane Garofalo, who’s also a third-rate actress and comedienne, appeared on limo lefty Keith Olbermann’s show on MSNBC on Thursday, April 16. The topic of discussion on the show was about the growing populist-laced Tea Party rallies that have been springing up as a grassroots movement all over the country. When asked about the groups, Garofalo attacks the Tea Parties with libels and smears by calling the protestors “a bunch of racists” and “a bunch of teabagging rednecks.”
Here’s a transcript of what this statist airhead said to Olbermann who did nothing to stop her idiotic rant:
KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: Well, the teabagging is all over, except for the cleanup. And that will be my last intentional double entendre on this one at least until the end of this segment. Our number two story tonight, the sad reality behind the corporate sponsored Tea Parties, visual proof that this is not about spending, deficits, or taxes, but about some Americans getting riled up by the people who caused these things, and finally about some Americans who just hate the president of the United States. According to both the conservative organs, the New York Post and the Washington Times, see there was another double entendre coming, the protests only drew tens of thousands nationwide, despite relentless 24/7 promotion on Fox News, including live telecasts from several locations. Like Fox’s Neil Cavuto caught yesterday off-air estimating his crowd in California’s capitol at 5,000, then on air claiming it might have been 10,000 or 15,000. Despite Cavuto’s live show with radio talker Michael Reagan there, Sacramento police put the crowd at just over 5,000. “I wouldn’t say it was among the largest we’ve seen here, but 5,000 is pretty large for the west steps.”
And then there were the protest messages, seething with hate. Cavuto calling that hate bipartisan. “They hate Republicans who waste money, they hate Democrats who waste money.” That claim put to the test in Pensacola when an unemployed blogger named Jeff accepted an invitation to speak to Florida.
BLOGGER JEFF: I want to start off by honoring the service of our veterans, our current service members, thank you so much for all you’ve done for this country. I also want to say, a little history lesson here. Back in 2000, there was a bunch of surplus in the country. And then the next ten years, it was just destroyed by the profligate spending by the Bush administration. Here we are today in a situation where we have to…Cheer if you make less than $250,000 in a year. Just cheer. Your taxes are going to be cut under the current budget. Congratulations. I was laid off in September because my employer had to make budget cuts. That was before the election. Let’s remember if you’re going to argue about more taxes and less spending, to place the blame where the blame belongs and that’s squarely in the hands of the Republican congress and…
CROWD: Boo!
OLBERMANN: Congratulations, Pensacola teabaggers. You got spunked. And despite the hatred on display, a few of you actually violated the penal code. But teabagging is now petered out, taint what it used to be. And when you co-opt the next holiday, Fourth of July, try to adopt a holiday food that does not invite the double entendres like, you know, franks and beans. On a more serious note, we’re now joined by actor, activist Janeane Garofalo. Good to see you.
JANEANE GAROFALO: Thank you. You know, there’s nothing more interesting than seeing a bunch of racists become confused and angry at a speech they’re not quite certain what he’s saying. It sounds right and then it doesn’t make sense. Which, let’s be very honest about what this is about. It’s not about bashing Democrats, it’s not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don’t know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. And there is no way around that. And you know, you can tell these type of right wingers anything and they’ll believe it, except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become — it’s like showing Frankenstein’s monster fire. They become confused, and angry and highly volatile. That guy, causing them feelings they don’t know, because their limbic brain, we’ve discussed this before, the limbic brain inside a right-winger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist, the limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person, and it’s pushing against the frontal lobe. So their synapses are misfiring. Is Bernie Goldberg listening?
OLBERMANN: Russ.
GAROFALO: Because Bernie might not have heard this when I said this the first time. So, Bernie, this is for you. It is a neurological problem we’re dealing with.
OLBERMAN: Well, what do we do about it, though? I mean, our friend in Pensacola there who played them like a $3 fiddle and led them right down the garden path with nothing but facts and then they went, wait a minute, that doesn’t sound like Rush Limbaugh. If you can’t get them to make that last leap to what are we all doing here, Howard Johnson is wrong, how do you break through that?
GAROFALO: I don’t think you do, for most of them. This is a — it’s almost pathological or elevated to a philosophy or lifestyle. And again, this is about racism. It could be any issue, any port in the storm. These guys hate that a black guy is in the White House. But they immigrant bash, they pretend taxes and tea bags, and like I said, most of them probably couldn’t tell you thing one about taxation without representation, the Boston tea party, the British imperialism, whatever the history lesson has to be. But these people, all white for the most part, unless there’s some people with Stockholm syndrome there.
OLBERMANN: And, I didn’t see them, the fact that they weren’t near the cameras which is bad strategy on the part of the people that were staging this at Fox.
GAROFALO: True, and Fox News loves to foment this anti-intellectualism because that’s their bread and butter. If you have a cerebral electorate, Fox news goes down the toilet, very, very fast. But it is sick and sad to see Neil Cavuto doing that. They’ve been doing it for years, that’s why Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch started this venture, is to disinform and to coarsen and dumb down a certain segment of the electorate. But what is really, I didn’t know there were so many racists left. I didn’t know that. I — you know, because as I’ve said, the Republican hype and the conservative movement has now crystallized into the white power movement.
OLBERMANN: Is that not a bad, long-term political strategy because even though your point is terrifying that there are that many racists left, the flip side of it is there aren’t that many racists left.
GAROFALO: They’re the minority, but literally tens of people showed up to this thing across the country.
OLBERMANN: But if you spear your television network or your political party towards a bunch of guys looking who are just looking for a reason to yell at the black president, eventually you will marginalize yourself out of business, won’t you?
GAROFALO: Here’s what the right-wing has in, there’s no shortage of the natural resources of ignorance, apathy, hate, fear. As long as those things are in the collective conscious and unconscious, the Republicans will have some votes. Fox News will have some viewers. But what else have they got? If they didn’t do that, who is going to watch — you know what I mean? They have tackled that elusive clam — you know, the clam, the 18 to 35 clam — klan. Klan. With a k demo. But, you know, who else is Fox talking to? I mean, what is it urban older white guys? And the girlfriend, and, you know, the women who suffer from Stockholm syndrome gain. There’s a lot of Stockholm syndrome, is what I’m saying ultimately. What else do you want to know?
OLBERMANN: What happens if somebody who’s at one of these things hurt somebody?
GAROFALO: That is an unfortunate byproduct since the dawn of time of a volatile group like this of the limbic brain. Violence unfortunately may or may not ensue. It always, it’s like a, the Republican Party now depends upon immigrant bashing and hating the black guy in the White House. Will people act on that? It’s not new. But, you know, Fox doesn’t mind fomenting it. Michelle Bachmann doesn’t mine fomenting it. Glenn Beck doesn’t mind fomenting it.
OLBERMANN: Lou Dobbs.
GAROFALO: Lou Dobbs. Oh, man he sure doesn’t mind. But this is, this their, what have they got if they don’t have this? You know what I mean? It’s like an identity politics of the worst kind.
OLBERMANN: They’d have peace in our time.
GAROFALO: Is Bernie still listening?
OLBERMANN: Bernie doesn’t listen. Bernie listened for about two minutes last week. And that was it.
GAROFALO: Oh, he doesn’t watch your show?
OLBERMANN: No, no, no, no, no, I mean in general that was his year’s contribution to the actual political
GAROFALO: So I can move up the rung from five to at least three.
OLBERMANN: Janeane Garofalo, number five, comedian, actress, political activist, and the expert on the limbic brain, great thanks as always.
GAROFALO: Very much thanks to you.
Did you get that, Tea Partyers? You guys, according to limo liberal Garofalo, are “a bunch of teabagging rednecks” and “a bunch of racists.” She pretty much said that this new grassroots movement “is a neurological problem [we Democrats are] dealing with.” In other words, those who speak out against Obama are not only “racists” and “rednecks,” but also they’re “mentally ill.”
Wow. So this is what America has become, huh? What a sad sight to see.
Here’s the video of Garofalo ranting about the “problem” with Olbermann:
Today’s online edition of the Wall Street Journal features an editorial piece titled “Presidential Poison.” According to the WSJ’s op-ed, the Washington torture gang that was responsible for the vile, diabolical water boarding acts in Iraq — yes, those who were under former Dictator George W. Bush — should get a “Get-Out-of-Jail-Free” card because what they had done in the last eight years was ethical. After all, these federal thugs were just “acting in good faith,” according to the neocon brown-nosing sycophants at the WSJ.
The editors of the WSJ penned the following passage in the piece, which should give more than enough reason of raising eyebrows to anyone who reads it:
Policy disputes, often bitter, are the stuff of democratic politics. Elections settle those battles, at least for a time, and Mr. Obama’s victory in November has given him the right to change policies on interrogations, Guantanamo, or anything on which he can muster enough support. But at least until now, the U.S. political system has avoided the spectacle of a new Administration prosecuting [the Bush administration] for policy disagreements. This is what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, countries where the law is treated merely as an extension of political power.
It gets worse. The news organization tries to justify President Obama’s precedessor’s actions with these last three paragraphs:
Mr. Obama may think he can soar above all of this, but he’ll soon learn otherwise. The Beltway’s political energy will focus more on the spectacle of revenge, and less on his agenda. The CIA will have its reputation smeared, and its agents second-guessing themselves. And if there is another terror attack against Americans, Mr. Obama will have set himself up for the argument that his campaign against the Bush policies is partly to blame.
Above all, the exercise will only embitter Republicans, including the moderates and national-security hawks Mr. Obama may need in the next four years. As patriotic officials who acted in good faith are indicted, smeared, impeached from judgeships or stripped of their academic tenure, the partisan anger and backlash will grow. And speaking of which, when will the GOP Members of Congress begin to denounce this partisan scapegoating? Senior Republicans like Mitch McConnell, Richard Lugar, John McCain, Orrin Hatch, Pat Roberts and Arlen Specter have hardly been profiles in courage.
Mr. Obama is more popular than his policies, due in part to his personal charm and his seeming goodwill. By indulging his party’s desire to criminalize policy advice, he has unleashed furies that will haunt his Presidency.
In other words, the previous administration’s actions were not only legal; they were also ethical. What the WSJ is really saying is this: “Then-President Bush and his administration’s actions with respect to their practices of torture (i.e. water boarding) were moral and ethical, and they were necessary to prevent further attacks against American citizens in the U.S. Any attempt to undo the previous administration’s decisions will put us in the cross hairs of the terrorists!”
Moreover, those who were critical of Bush’s foreign and rendition policies, as the neocons want us to believe, are wrong and off-base to do so because the torture crowd was either giving the orders to have the “enemy combatants” (formerly called “prisoners of war”) to be tortured or following them. That kind of attitude expressed by the pro-torture Wall Street crowd is just as bad as a Nazi soldier killing Jews with his guns or putting them in the ovens and then saying, “We were just doing our jobs!”
As LewRockwell.com blogger Christopher Manion correctly put it, the sad truth is that most politicians who “serve in office” or “represent the people” are basically legal criminals who legally steal from us and use the threat of violence in order to get what they want. They can easily punish their enemies and reward their allies in order to justify their lust for power and insulate themselves from any legal consequences, effectively making them above the law.
Partisanship does not and should not have a license to be reduced to a “policy dispute.” It just simply means that some criminals legally decide on partisan politics as a career. Besides, the Democrats, according to the Journal, may be implicated as well. It’s even suggested that investigations of any wrongdoing by both parties shouldn’t be considered at all. If they are, as the statists say, they should be dismissed. It’s an insult to the American people that both parties should not be probed even if they are tied to a crime.
And the Washington establishment says “ethics” matter in politics. How pathetic these people truly are!
Free StaterSam Dodson, who is the founder of the Obscured Truth Network and OTN Productions, is a board member for CD Evolution, and originally hails from Texas, has been languishing in a jail cell for videotaping in the lobby of the Keene, New New Hampshire District Court. He was arrested on April 13, 2009 in the same court where Free Stater Dave Ridley of the Ridley Report was being arraigned for committing the politically blasphemous act of civil disobedience in the same court room – refusing to stop videotaping civil disobedience on March 3, 2009. Since April 13, he’s been incarcerated without having a court trial date set for him. Although initially he didn’t have a defense attorney, he’s now retaining the services of an attorney and Free Stater named Ivy Walker at no cost. (Walker is accepting PayPal donations at ivy@ivysspiceoflife.com from Free Staters and pro-freedom activists who are not Free Staters in order to offset her legal expenses.)
Sam has been slapped with the following litany of charges: disorderly conduct, resisting arrest or detention, possession of personal property without a serial number*, and refusing to be processed. Currently, he’s being officially detained in the Cheshire County Department of Corrections in Westmoreland, New Hampshire. The long and short of it is that the court has trumped up these charges because Dodson refuses to participate in the judicial process that involves eliminating his freedom and surrendering his alleged right to remain silent. Judge Burke, the same one who had Ian Freeman of Free Talk Live jailed for not sitting down fast enough in his court room (especially when he yelled “Have a seat!” at him), has ordered the jail to keep Sam behind bars until he bows down to him and the state and gives his legal name.
Shortly after Dodson’s arrest, six other peaceful pro-liberty activists were arrested and thrown into the county jail for not leaving the public “government” property after the court’s prosecutor (also a cop) demanded that they do so. According to JailedActivist.Info‘s account of the incident:
In the audio clip made available by Ian Bernard he can be heard saying that Sgt. Rivera had called for backup only seconds after instructing them to leave. Some decide to leave while a few stand around in disobedience and/or considering what to do next. Richard T. Onley, Nicholas Ryder, Patrick S. Shields, Nicholas D. Krouse, Kurt W. Hoffman, and Timothy Danforth stayed around long enough for Rivera to decide to have them arrested. Onley and Ryder gave the officers their names resulting in them only receive a summons. Shields went limp and was carried to a squad car by three officers. The others did not comply completely and therefore were arrested and brought to other squad cars and taken to be booked.
(More information on Sam’s incarceration can be found at JailedActivist.Info, including a timeline of the events and latest updates as well.)
Dodson has been engaging in a very long and dangerous hunger strike since he was jailed on April 13, which has been affecting his health. The only liquid he has been drinking is milk. However, he has been bartering food for stamps and has been refusing food. Lately, the guards have told him that he will not be given food, considering he’s been indicating to the statist establishment that he has no intention of eating their meals.
The state’s vile incarceration of Dodson is unforgivable and unconscionable. The courts, as paid by our tax dollars, are supposed to be open and transparent, yet the courts, as epitomized in this case, are violating their rules in order to “prove” that they are “right” and want to be “right.” Courts that prohibit videotaping on their property are essentially creating closed, tyrannical court systems where, if the American people are kept in the dark about the abuses and practices by judges, prosecutors, and police officers on the government property, then the court’s PR appearance would be viewed very much positive. Considering the courts are mechanisms for public relations, if the American people see through their PR nonsense, and see them for what they really are (I prefer to call them “prison processing centers”), then the American public could revolt against these statist judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement “government” officers and fight the system at all turns.
Dodson has asked activists to contact state senator Molly Kelly and ask her the following questions:
Do you know there are district courts writing their own rules?
Do you know many of these rules are unconstitutional and against several Supreme Court rulings?
Did you know Keene District Court is arresting political prisoners? You may remember Sam, you’ve met him a few times. He is one of these political prisoners currently incarcerated.
Do you support the taking of these political prisoners?
The civil rights violations of this man are unbecoming of the system. The state refuses to fingerprint him and photo I.D. him after Sam refused to give his legal name. Don’t they know that they can get his identity from his fingerprints, his Social Security number, and all other pertinent legal information that are on file? They know who he is, even though they have dubbed him “John Sam Doe.” On April 20, although he had requested to use the law library to do research for his defense, he was denied permission to gain access to the jail’s computers. Fortunately, a couple of days later, he was granted access to those computers.
Other civil rights violations were dragging him to the county jail while he was screaming in pain, considering that it was subsequently discovered that the reason he was in pain because, according to JailedActivist.Info, “a large metal bracelet on his right wrist which got caught under the hand cuffs and was digging into his skin and bone. The cuffs had not been locked so they continued to ratchet tighter causing the bracelet to further dig and bruise his wrist.”
Moreover, the toilet in his jail cell had been backing up and overflowing three times, resulting in feces-laced water coming out of it. Even the guards, who were aware of that incident, refuse to sanitize the toilet or provide the prisoners with chemicals to sanitize it.
If this isn’t indicative of a vile incarceration and civil rights violation, I don’t know what it is.
A naked neo-hippie, dubbed as the “Naked Wizard” online and in the online mainstream media, was tased by three overweight law enforcement officers at the Coachella Music & Arts Festival at the Empire Polo Fields in Indigo, California on April 17. The man, identified as 23-year-old Johnathan Fredrick Felch of San Luis Obispo, was asked repeatedly by the cops to put his clothes back on but refused to comply.
In a video that’s currently being widely circulated on the Internet, the three cops attempt to talk Felch into putting back on his clothes. When the officers throw a robe to Felch, he tosses it away from him, indicating his unwillingness to get dressed.
Here’s the video for those who want to see it on here. WARNING: Those who are offended by nudity and strong language should not watch this video, as it does contain those things:
Then one of the cops (who happens to be from Banning) pulls out his taser gun and accosts the man with the weapon. Felch continues to struggle to get away from the cops, but they proceed to keep tasing him several times (one in the chest, another on the back of the neck, and the other in the throat) before they arrest him and place him into custody. Obviously, Felch was under duress just as the statist thugs were cuffing him in broad daylight.
After Felch refuses to obey the officers, the ugliness of the situation begins to rear its head. The officers, dismayed that he wouldn’t abide by their requests, pin him to the ground. One of them is shown pushing his knee into the man’s stomach, resulting in him to break free of their grasp and get away from them.
The onlookers who were concertgoers observing the assault were booing the entire time. In fact, one of them can be heard as saying, “This is fucking ridiculous.”
It’s been said that the man was inebriated and yet deserved to be taken down by the police. One commenter of the video on Vimeo, who claims to be from Portugal, says:
[R]ight on. I’m from Portugal and actually watched this live on TV when it happened. justice was served.
but in this case I think the crowd would have been shot at, americans are too easy on the trigger. and the guy had it coming…police brutality was wrong, but he was warned several times.
How can anyone support this vile paradigm — the idea that the cops “ought to be” revered and looked upon as heros — when the police state can come knocking on their door? If the police demand that you obey them and you refuse to cooperate and they tase you, will you stick to your story that the life of the cops are important and not the life of a non-violent criminal like Johnathan Felch?
[Hat tip to Karen DeCoster for first mentioning this on her blog.]
MIAMI (AP) — A fifth patient has tested positive for HIV, and seven more tested positive for hepatitis after being exposed to contaminated medical equipment at three Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals, the agency said Friday.
That brings the total who have tested positive for hepatitis to 33.
They are among thousands tested because they were treated with endoscopic equipment that wasn’t properly sterilized between patients and exposed them to the body fluids of others. The equipment is often used in colonoscopies and ear, nose and throat procedures.
Nearly 11,000 former sailors, soldiers, airmen and Marines could have been exposed at the hospitals in Miami, Murfreesboro, Tenn., and Augusta, Ga. The agency said 6,687 patients have been notified of their test results so far.
VA spokeswoman Katie Roberts said the new HIV case was found in the Miami hospital. The agency said in a news release the positive tests were “not necessarily linked to any endoscopy issues.”
“It’s very disturbing that anybody would contract it, of course. I am pleased that the VA has agreed to treat all the veterans regardless of where they may have contracted it,” said Alexander Kovac, a veterans’ advocate who was stationed in Korea in the 1960s.
The “VA has agreed to treat all the veterans regardless of where they may have contracted [HIV]“? Doesn’t it matter where they “may have contracted” it? This attitude is proof that the government does not seem to care where and how these patients contracted the HIV virus. The mindset, of course, is deafening and pathetic to the Nth degree.
While it is unclear as to how these patients contracted these diseases, it is obviously confirmed that they were treated at these seedy facilities where unsterilized equipment has been commonly used.
Here’s another disturbing revelation from the article:
The VA has said the problems with the endoscopic equipment had gone on for years, but were discovered in December when officials learned the Murfreesboro facility wasn’t following cleaning procedures the manufacturer recommended. It issued an internal alert for hospitals to check procedures, and the problem at Augusta was discovered in January.
These issues were noticed in December in one facility when it wasn’t following its sanitary procedures? Another one hadn’t bothered to notice the problems until January? Did these “government medical centers” lack flashlights? Did they fail to pay the electric bills and notice that the quality of care in the facilities was third-rate? Or did the typical VA bureaucracy stand in the way of progress at these centers?
Imagine the private sector handling these hospitals. Could you see these abuses occuring at these government-run facilities? If they were to occur, rest assured that restitution would be in effect, as the victimizers would be targeted for accountability. That is not the case with the VA. After all, who will be held liable for the VA screw-ups? Look at the alleged accountability of prison guards and torturers, especially considering the state has its “extraordinary rendition” policy in effect. Who will hold these vile, diabolical government thugs responsible for how they treat their victims in time of war?
As for the VA, who will pay for these disgusting practices if lawsuits are filed? Will the victims be remunerated for their suffering? The answers to the last two questions are no one and no.
At least the VA victims can rest comfortably, knowing that their infections will be “treated.”
Bureaucrash, which was founded in 2001 by entrepreneur Al Rosenberg and the now-defunct Henry Hazlitt Foundation, has been funded by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) (a long-time libertarian think tank), and was run by former Crasher-in-Chief Jason Talley (who runs the Motorhome Diaries with fellow CEI activist Pete Eyre), has been taken over by a neoconservative Republican. Lee Doren, who is the organization’s new Crasher-in-Chief, claims to be a libertarian-conservative (which is ridiculous because the libertarian ideology is a different animal from the conservative one), yet his so-called “libertarian-conservative” positions are not sitting well with the bulk of the group’s entire member base.
Since CEI has control of Bureaucrash and has obviously decided to take the organization in this statist direction, this has had a very detrimental effect on the favorable view and reputation that the group has had for years. The bulk of the membership has expressed utter outrage over Doren’s appointment to his new position, which has led to many members threatening to bolt from BC if Doren does not either embrace the complete ideologically pure tenets of liberty, step down voluntarily, or is not terminated from that job.
Okay, mea culpa. I came in here as the new guy trying to hit the ground running and may have moved too quickly, so I’d like to address the concerns that you have about the future direction of BureauCrash. First, BureauCrash will be an open forum for debate and discussion about the intersection between liberty and politics. Moreover, it will continue to allow all types of pro-liberty political philosophy (and if socialists want to come in here to debate, I’m sure we’ll all be up for that). I am sensitive to the fact that many of you are worried that my personal political views are more from the traditional wing of the liberty movement, but I make no apologies for that. Liberty is a broad concept. I will not be revamping BureauCrash to turn into my own pet project. My goal is to broaden our discussion and activist base while maintaining current ideas and projects. While that task may be difficult, I am sure we can work together to accomplish this goal.
Many BC members have already terminated their Bureaucrash Social (a website which acts as a pro-freedom social networking tool that mirrors Facebook and Myspace in some respects) accounts, while voluntaryists like Ian Freeman of Free Talk Live have already declared that they will be pulling their accounts on Monday. I have already pulled my account from the website, and I no longer wish to be associated with an organization that is transforming from a libertarian one to a conservative one.
Doren, who was on FTL to respond to the questions about his new appointment, was scrutizined by Freeman, co-host Mark Edge, and occasional co-host and AnarchyInYourHead.com cartoonist Dale Everett because of his neoconish positions, which he disguises as “libertarian-conservative.” At one point in the interview, Lee, when asked whether the military budget should be cut, says that he doesn’t “have an opinion” on the issue. What a ludicrous position to have! This man is the head of a libertarian group, and if he is ever interviewed and gets asked about whether the budget should be reduced dramatically, he should have a position as to whether the budget should be cut or not. But this nitwit has no position on the matter, and, because of CEI’s bungling, it shows that he is not a libertarian, let alone an individual who advocates voluntary activism and opposes the state and its bureaucratic nonsense.
It is also indicative of what has become of the libertarian movement, considering there are conservatives like Wayne Allyn Root and Lee Doren who call themselves libertarians when they are not.
This is the problem when libertarianism becomes mainstream. When the libertarian movement and its ideas become mainstreamed into society, they lose their true meaning and their essence. The movement no longer becomes one that has its own autonomy and its own uniqueness; it becomes a political movement that warps and even perverses the purity of its tenets. Thus, the word “libertarian” no longer means an advocate for individual freedom and the elimination of the state; it becomes an advocate for “limited government” (meaning that the government can be what the advocates want it to mean) and the reformation of the state.
As a result of its mainstreaming, when the tent of the movement is widened for people to enter it, then it becomes watered down and sounds not so radical so that interested parties that support the initiation of force will join it. Conservatives who like this new brand of libertarianism (a faux one that it is) will adopt it and dupe ill-informed and unwitting members of society to believe that, because, if these people believe in this brand of liberty, then all advocates of human freedom must share these beliefs as well.
The reason that they would see it that way is that human beings are irrational creatures, thanks to human nature. They make irrational and illogical associations all the time. This is the reason why the libertarian philosophy must be guarded and protected at all times!!! This is not about making personal attacks on conservatives and neoconservatives and their ilk; this is about protecting libertarianism from bigotry, jingoism, nationalism, xenophobia, collectivism, and even statism.
As for Bureaucrash, I doubt that there is any chance of saving the group from itself or bringing it back to its glory days. I’m convinced that the second BC ventured into neocon territory, it was over for the group as a libertarian organization. The odds of restoring and rescuing it from implosion are little to nil. After all, as Pete Eyre of Motorhome Diaries said on the Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity Movement Radio show on BlogTalkRadio.com on Friday, June 5, 2009:
You ask the last thing, ‘What can it be done to resurrect Bureaucrash?’ I mean, personally, I don’t think Bureaucrash can be resurrected as it was. I think the move by CEI has just made it too radioactive. Even if Lee was fired or he chose to leave and they brought in somebody good, like I think the damage is done.
Dale Everett said it best on his AnarchyInYourHead.com blog:
Sadly, the organization is not likely to simply fade away. Instead, by embracing the mainstream, it will probably grow, but it will have lost the edge that made it a special place for principled lovers of liberty. For now, it has chosen a quantity over quality approach when it comes to members, which I feel is very short-sighted, but then that depends on the goals of the owners. If their only goal is to grow membership, then perhaps they have chosen well. I just hope they have more meaningful goals than that.
If this new direction is not quickly changed, Bureaucrash will lose quite a few supporters, including Ian Freeman, host of Free Talk Live, and myself. I do not want Mr. Doren wielding the voice of Bureaucrash to distort the already diluted meaning of the word “libertarian”. If this mistake isn’t nipped in the bud, it is my opinion that Bureaucrash goes far beyond becoming unworthy of your support. They become an enemy.
The tragedy of it is that Bureaucrash has been “bureaucrashed.” What a loss to the libertarian movement this has become!
For those of you who want to know what Lee Doren looks like and is like, check out this YouTube video I got from Everett’s blog:
Bureaucrash Social, the social networking site for Bureaucrash which has taken over by a neoconservative Republican named Lee Doren (despite his claim that he’s a “libertarian-conservative,” has been deliberately set on “maintenance” to ensure that the group’s membership numbers are inflated, the bulk of the incensed membership leaving the group notwithstanding. This has been implemented after the bulk of the membership has emailed the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) in an angry fashion for their ludricous appointment of this neocon nitwit.
Maintenance
We apologize for the inconvenience, but Bureaucrash Social is currently undergoing maintenance.
This is a clear-cut downfall of BC as we know it. It’s an utter shame that this has come a cropper.
Ian Freeman of Free Talk Live has announced on his popular New Hampshire-based radio show that he has left Bureaucrash Social, the social networking site that, to some extent, mirrors Facebook and Myspace and is run by the neoconservative-plagued Bureaucrash. Freeman announced on tonight’s show that he pulled his BC Social account at 4:00 p.m. EST or sometime around that time.
This is on the heels of BC hiring a neoconservative Republican who has assumed control of the organization. Not only that, this comes a week after Freeman and his fellow Free Staters emailed the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), barraging them with complaints for their decision to hire Lee Doren, who has come under fire for not embracing true libertarian principles and for being the hypocrite that he is.
Sam, 33, whose real name is Sam Miller (which was revealed in the Keene Sentinel on May 17* along with information regarding his malnutrition and health), had been languishing away in the Cheshire County Department of Corrections for nearly eight weeks following his arrest. The unexpected news of Dodson’s release came out at approximately 2 p.m. EST, thanks to a NHUnderground poster by the name of Silent_Bob who posted on the website’s forums that Sam’s order “for his release was issued.” At 3 p.m. EST, Sam left a message on Porc411, which reads as the following:
Hello free staters! This is SamIam and the jail has just thrown me out. The forced me to agree to PR terms that I’m already in violation of, I told them I did not understand. That I did not agree to them. I did not sign them. I requested my attorney who’s going to be here in 10 minutes. And they pushed me out the door, in the orange close. I guess I get to keep them. And gave me all my stuff. I was escorted out. They would not explain anything or put anything in writing. They were told just to release me and so I’m out of jail. Thank you guys for everybody who’s helped me, sent letters, cards, emails, done all the things you had to do to support me along the way and I’m looking forward to getting back to life and challenging a lot of this in court. Thank you, glad to be out, looking forward to talking all soon. Goodbye.
[*Note: The recorded .wav message that Sam sent was a tad bit shorter than the actual message posted on Bile's jailedactivist.info blog; here's the file.]
After his release, he was picked up by Free Stater Lauren Canario and brought to the Free Minds TV studio for an exclusive interview. Later that night, he appeared on FTL, resuming his duties as an occasional co-host. His preliminary trial is scheduled to commence at 1:30 p.m. EST at the same court where he was arrested — Keene District Court in Keene, New Hampshire on June 15.
This is outstanding news, considering that the court had previously violated his First Amendment-protected, Fourth Amendment-protected, Sixth Amendment-protected, and Eighth Amendment-protected rights. After all, it was unconstitutional and federally illegal for Burke to arrest him on the bogus, trumped-up charges of disorderly conduct and possesion of property without a serial number. The only charges that are true but are sticking anyway are resisting arrest or detention and refusing to be processed. Moreover, the court decided to throw in a new charge of “common law criminal contempt of court” against him, simply because he refused to cooperate with his vile, repugnant captors.
I, for one, wouldn’t want a law enforcement goon putting his hands on me and cuffing me for any charge, especially when the charges for the alleged crimes happen to be nonviolent. Moreover, why would I want to bow down to the state just to give it my legal name in order “to be processed,” when the authorities can access my driver’s license and other pertinent information if they wanted to identify me really bad? My real name and identity are on record, and therefore, I am under no legal obligation to give them that information. Besides, if what happened to Sam had happened to me simply because I refused to “participate” in the government’s process by playing by their rules in order to acknowledge its legitimacy (which is the best way the system is employing simply as a PR scheme), then it would show how thuggish they were to me. However, even if I did play by a court’s rules and recognized its legitimacy simply by giving the officials my legal name, it wouldn’t make a difference anyway. Would the court really let me go and not throw me in a cage simply because I “participated” in a process that was coerced upon me at gun point? I sincerely doubt it.
The court officials, including Burke, incarcerated Sam because they wanted to make him an example of him and made certain that they wanted to “be right.” It looks like they never got their wish.
As I have said before, courts, even the federal ones, are supposed to be open and transparent under the terms of the Sixth Amendment, yet they are breaking their own rules and expect the public at large to follow them at taxpayers’ expense. Courts forbidding the videotaping on their own property are, by all means, creating a toxic environment where closed and tyrannical courts reign. Because Americans are not told the truth about the vile actions of the courts (particularly when there are high numbers of abuses and corruption practiced by judges, prosecutors, and police officers on government-owned and government-run property), the court’s image from a PR standpoint will more than likely sit well with the public. As I noted in my previous blog entry on the subject:
Considering the courts are mechanisms for public relations, if the American people see through their PR nonsense, and see them for what they really are (I prefer to call them “prison processing centers”), then the American public could revolt against these statist judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement “government” officers and fight the system at all turns.
I can definitely see a very massive civil rights and civil liberties lawsuit aimed at these stooges being filed shortly, if not the not-too distant future.
Americans who support President Obama’s “health care reform” plan involving the creation of a new public “government” insurance plan that would require private companies except for small businesses to provide it ought to be a red flag. As problematic as the corporatized health care system is (and it is, due to decades of never-ending government intervention), it could be in worse shape. However, if Obama, his hero-worshipping limousine leftists, and their collectivistic cronies have their way (and it looks as though it is heading in that direction), the deliberately-misnamed “single payer” health care for which the Democrats ache will come a cropper their way.
My latest and newest op-ed, aptly titled “Health Care Socio-Fascism,” is available here at AssociatedContent.com. (It will soon be available at the Libertarian Enterprise and is currently being reviewed at the Nolan Chart site.)
Limousine left-wing socialist and Obama shill Bill Maher, who is also the host of the highly-rated show Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, went on a rant against Obama last Friday night, excoriating him for not “standing up to the energy companies and corporations” and for not socializing the health care industry like how the comic thinks it ought to be socialized.
What’s even just as ridiculous is that a blowhard Huffington Post health writer/blogger named Ann Dunev praised Maher for his criticism of the One, in which she writes in part:
Just yesterday I asked my husband, “Who does Obama think he is — Lindsay Lohan? Every time I look at the news, there is Obama — having another Kodak moment.” Then I find out Bill Maher noticed the same thing. And had the audacity to mention it on national television.
Aside from the fact that neither Obama nor Maher nor Dunev understand how the marketplace works and how socialized medicine has destroyed lives (and not saved them), their ignorance of the reality of the real world never ceases to befuddle me. They are for welfare for the poor including independent migrants (who, for the most part, pay more than they receive in welfare benefits).
What irks me about Maher is that he continues to labor under the rubric of libertarianism, claiming to be a “libertarian” when he has time after time sullied the word with his socialist nonsense. He’s no better than the Neil Boortzes and the Eric Donderos of the world. Thus, it’s time to excommunicate him from the Liberty movement….but then, he never was a part of it in the first place.
Here’s a video of him on Keith Olbermann’s show continuing his criticism of his boy Obama:
The Massachusetts Department of Revenue has issued a new video focusing on teens who, if they work at a summer job or on the weekends, must “learn what taxes are all about” and “need a few basics” about them before they spend that first paycheck at the mall. According to the DOR, this video is designed to “educate” adolescents about why it is paramount for them to get an early start on their tax filings.
That’s right; it’s probably not the first thing teens are thinking about. But teenagers work too — even if only at an after-school, weekend or summer job. And like everybody else, they need to know the basics to understand how their tax system works.
With that in mind, DOR announces the first release in a new “Teens ‘n’ Taxes” video series designed to educate teenagers about their tax responsibilities. The first video is set on a teenager’s first day on the job — and discusses the Form W-4, Employee Withholding Allowance Certificate, she needs to fill out.
As part of the department’s mission to educate younger residents about the tax system, Teens ‘n’ Taxes — like the successful DORM (Department of Revenue Media) video series for college students, — will be distributed to Massachusetts schools and posted on YouTube, Twitter and other social networking sites.
The vile state wants to get its dirty paws on our youth, who already know how tyrannical, oppressive, and villainous this political beast is. Now these youngsters will be slaves to the diabolical regime as well.
After all, isn’t that what “equal tyranny for all” is all about?
Congressman Ron Paul‘s appearance on Saturday’s edition of Free Talk Live sparked an uproarious discussion about Paul’s old racist Ron Paul Political Reports newsletters when a caller named Jeff from New York inquired about the matter. Of course, this subject has come up numerous times over the course of the Ron Paul for President Campaign, even though the issue has never been satisfactorily resolved and the true yet secret identity(ies) of the author(s) of the articles in the newsletters has (have) never been revealed. But the question that Jeff gave to Dr. Paul is a valid one, because it is a concern that has been long since brushed under the political rug, all in the name of protecting the Texan congressman’s personal, professional, and political rapports with the individual(s) involved in the scathing debacle that dominated the political landscape at the height of the 2008 presidential race. [The show's entire podcast can be found here.]
Here’s a rough transcript of the call that transpired on the show. One can decide whether or not the issue of whether Ron Paul had penned the newsletters or not is well worth the discussion and whether the caller was justified in inquiring about the buried subject that became the center of Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign.
FTL HOST IAN FREEMAN: [A]h, so we’re just gonna get, so we’re just gonna get right into these phone calls. We have a lot of people with questions, and hopefully they will make these questions come out quickly. So let’s start with the AMPlifier line and talk to Jeff in New York. Jeff, you’re on with Ron Paul.
JEFF FROM NEW YORK: Hi, Dr. Paul! How are you doing?
RON PAUL: Doing fine, thanks.
IAN FREEMAN: (Speaking quickly after Paul finished his terse sentence) Go ahead.
JEFF: I just want to let you know, you know, I’m a huge fan. Um, I’m a supporter of Campaign for Liberty and the Mises Institute, and I voted for you…
IAN FREEMAN: (Annoyed; Interrupting) Get to the question, Jeff! I’m sorry, man, we’ve got to get to the question!
JEFF: Um, I wanted to say that, you know, was all before I read some things in the Ron Paul Political Reports in the ’70s and ’80s and ’90s that had some really not so nice things to say about, you know, blacks and Hispanics and homosexuals, and I know you said you didn’t write those reports, but, you know, I mean, uh, why was your name on there, and and, you know, do you so support all of those things that were said in there?
IAN FREEMAN: Thank you for the call.
RON PAUL: No, I didn’t write them, and I don’t support them, and that’s been rehashed many, many times.
IAN FREEMAN: (Quickly speaking after Paul) Yeah, I’m surprised he even, uh, he even brought that up. Uh, you certainly addressed that during the presidential campaign, and it’s when you got a lot of things going on beneath you, you can’t oversee them all and it’s one of those things that slipped through the cracks…
MARK EDGE: It’s unfortunate, but it happens.
IAN FREEMAN: Yup, and it was a long time ago.
Let’s deal with this subject, considering it is a grave issue that has been rendered moot by the Ron Paul supporters and activists within the old Ron Paul Revolution. It is distressing, although not surprising to say the least, to hear that a 10-term congressman from the 14th district of Texas — a man whom I viewed as a hero of mine during the Campaign until the ruckus occurred — decided to dodge Jeff’s salient and relevant question by sweeping the old controversy under the political rug again (as the Paul Campaign, the Lew Rockwellers, and he had previously done many, many times). It is even more distressing to hear that two talk show hosts who run a nationally syndicated talk radio show on the Genesis Communications Network (GCN) have decided to help Paul with sweeping that ruckus under the political rug again by refusing to hold his feet to the fire on the matter which had been rendered moot by the Paul campaign and its activists, contributors, donors, and supporters, the bloggers with, supporters of, and contributors to LewRockwell.com, and a number of pro-Paul groups, including Paul’s own organization Campaign for Liberty.
At the risk of severing my ties to my allies and those people who still support, love, and respect Dr. Paul, I cannot look the other way when a matter like this has been, with so much exertion and effort, pushed under the old political rug. Jeff raises a valid point: why would these putrid articles, which are laced with racism, bigotry, homophobia, collectivism, and nationalistic and jingoistic rhetoric, be placed under Paul’s newsletter byline if the good doctor himself “didn’t write them and doesn’t support them”? This is an old political loose end that needs to be tied up once and for all, not nipped in the political bud as Paul and his supporters have been continuously done in the past and still doing in the present.
I believe Paul when he says that he didn’t write the newsletters. After all, I disbelieve the idea that he held those odious notions expressed in them. But I do believe that he was around with the wrong people who would sooner or later harm and taint his credibility and respect in the libertarian circles and the movement itself. As Sheldon Richman wrote on his Free Association blog on January 10, 2008:
He may have had a sense of what was going on, but did not want to know the details. This doesn’t absolve him of responsibility, but it does mean that he is not to be put in the same category as the author(s) and anyone else who had a hand in putting out such garbage in his name.
That said, I wish Ron Paul would more fully explain what went on. When did he first learn of the offensive material and what did he do about it? Most important, are the people responsible still advising him? He wouldn’t even have to name names to answer these questions.
Sheldon is absolutely on the button, and his words still ring true to this very day. Like him, I wish Ron would expound on what happened during those years when the newsletters were published. When did he first discover the existence of the offensive content? How did he handle it? More importantly, what does he know about it? Even much more importantly, does he know the identity(ies) of the man (men) who is (are) responsible for writing the articles?
While I do concur with Sheldon that he “wouldn’t have to name names to answer these questions,” it would wipe the congressman’s slate clean if he were to come out with the identity(ies) of the man (men) who is (are) responsible for the material. Why the need to keep his true identity a secret after the campaign? Paul has indicated on the show that he has no intention of running for the presidency again in 2012, yet he doesn’t owe that (those) individual(s) anything. And, if those who read this blog post believe otherwise, what does Paul owe him (them)? His loyalty? His respect? His generosity? What?
Paul’s dodging of Jeff’s question and Ian and Mark’s assistance with that dodging are not helping matters at all. There are many libertarians — yours truly included — who are wondering who was involved and why the scathing and offensive content were included in those reports. While legally speaking Paul isn’t under any legal obligation to furnish details of what transpired over the years, libertarians who support him and his organizations are not legally obligated to blindly hero worship him, regardless of how popular he is in the libertarian movement at the present moment.
And what happened on FTL is an indication of that: blind hero worship. Hero worshipping is a very dangerous opiate, because an individual cannot see the facts and the reality for what they are. What Ian, Mark, and Paul did on the show provided the notion that the controversy should be forgotten and ignored, as though it never happened at all. Sidestepping a controversial incident like the racist Ron Paul Political Reports won’t drive the issue away; it will only foster resentment, division, and disgust from libertarians who supported Paul initially but became disenchanted with Paul and the campaign because of their avoidance to talk about the incidents when they found about it. It even adds fuel to the fire for other libertarians who feel that the deliberate attempt to forget about and ignore the wrinkle simply harms the libertarian movement. Even Wendy McElroy, who is not even a fan of Paul, has acknowledged this in her personal blog on January 9, 2008:
Damage is being done to the libertarian movement (see Radley Balko’s analysis) and to Ron Paul. Frankly, I don’t give a flying fuck about the latter…but I know you do. Will you now do the decent thing for libertarianism and come forward to acknowledge responsibility for the material being used against your mentor?
When I initially wrote about this on Facebook, I wrote the following two statuses:
Todd Andrew Barnett is disappointed that Ron Paul, who was on FTL last night, brushed the racist Ron Paul Political Reports newsletters under the political rug in response to a caller named Jeff from New York who inquired about the comments made in them by saying, “I didn’t write them, and I don’t support them, and that’s been rehashed many, many times.”
Todd Andrew Barnett is equally disappointed in Ian Freeman and Mark Edge for helping to brush that issue under the rug by not holding Paul’s feet to the fire. It’s a valid issue to this day, because hero worshipping a congressman on a very uproarious matter, even if the man himself didn’t write those comments, gives the notion that such statements should simply be forgotten and ignored. If Paul didn’t write them, who really did?
Bile of Blog of Bile and I had the following exchange on Facebook:
Bile: It really has been beaten to death. A few seconds on Wikipedia will turn up the suspects.
If it is the person or persons some claim it’s probably not going to harm them much but it could harm Paul’s professional relationships with them. The people who dislike them already believe they said it and that they are racists. Those who don’t care as much… Read More dismiss it as pandering the wrong crowd and a clash of cultures.
I find the whole thing very unfortunate and stupid… but see it as minor compared to everything else. When Holdren is found to have written a book calling for population control… the Paul letter calling rioters barbarians, black teenage theft’s fleet-footed, etc. seems pretty tame. I want the truth too… but I don’t see that happening and find it more of a distraction then anything else.
Sun at 11:02am · Delete
Me: With all due respect, Bile, I personally disagree with you on this one, and not even a large extent. It’s easy to shrug it off and say that it’s “as minor compared to everything else.” It’s hard to get to the real gut of the truth when it’s been officially swept under the rug by the old Paul campaign. And, if Paul chooses to run again in 2012 (… Read Morewhich I hope he won’t), what if the issue comes up again? That old “I didn’t write it” excuse won’t fly. Hero worshipping is a very dangerous opiate, and it’s too easy to fall into that trap. When you advance the old “let’s ignore it, ok?” argument, it opens the door for acrimony and animosity which will fester and continue to fester for posterity.
I’ll buy the fact that, if the person or persons who wrote them did come out, it would jeopardize Paul’s professional relationships. But so what if that happens? They certainly didn’t help his credibility when they buried that issue last year. And, as a result, it harmed the Liberty movement.
Sun at 11:13am · Delete
Me: Even outstanding agorist libertarians like Sheldon Richman (a REAL ideological hero of mine), KN@PPSTER’s Tom Knapp, and Wendy McElroy have been critical of the RP Revolution and its politically-religious treatment of the controversy. When the newsletter uproar hit the blogosphere last year near the end of the campaign, many libertarians on that … Read Moreside demanded to know who was responsible for the comments if Paul didn’t know about it. Even though I do believe Paul that he didn’t write the comments, his comment that he didn’t know about them (and he publicly stated that at the time) was implausible and absurd. Even Stefan Molyneux has been critical of Paul and his followers, and many of his points are well taken, whether the man has done good for the movement or not.
Lew Rockwell is named as the man who allegedly wrote the newsletters.
Sun at 11:23am · Delete
Bile: I don’t see this as a hero worship issue with most. I’m just treating it realistically. I really don’t think that if he said “It was Lew Rockwell” much would come of it. I’m just saying that I suspect that that’s the reason he’s not doing it and I can understand that position. I disagree it’d be a real problem for him but I can see that it could be… Read More seen as one.
I don’t care if it hurt Paul’s or Rockwell’s or whoever’s reputation… I just don’t see it making much difference whether he says or not. Those who dislike them already do… those who will forgive them already have.
In addition I really don’t believe his credibility or the liberty movement was hurt outside a very small circle of those who already were against him or on the fence. The people we care about understanding and respecting liberty are those in the general public. Those people often heard nothing of the incident or figured it was just some normal election attack. And the MSM didn’t believe Paul did it either.
Sun at 11:31am · Delete
Me: I don’t know if it’s true that he wrote them and there is no evidence that he did (if there is, prove it and not just make some baseless claim!), but if he did write them, it’s time to fess up.
It’s even suggested that Eric Dondero Rittberg, who was a former Paul campaign staffer, wrote the crud. I don’t know if he actually did it (no proof has … Read Morebeen established, although it would not surprise me if he did given his nefarious reputation on the Web), but if he did, it’s time to fess up. Besides, how do we know that those people who have a great professional relationship with Paul didn’t leave him holding the bag when that newsletter nightmare came out? Obviously, they did….by making him out to be the fall guy so that Paul could protect them. And for what? What honor and integrity did this individual or individuals have?
As for Holdren, I haven’t read his book, so I can’t comment on that. But I say both matters are equally disturbing. And that’s how I feel about it.
Sun at 11:32am · Delete
Bile: I agree that he should come clean and that “I don’t know” is highly unlikely. I just don’t see it being something to focus on.
Stefan was critical of Paul regardless of the letters. His “grandmom is going to be murdered when Paul turns off SSI” was crazy.
Sun at 11:34am · Delete
Me: Fair enough, Bile. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. No offense intended as always.
Sun at 11:47am · Delete
Another Ron Paul supporter, whose Skype nickname I won’t reveal, told me this in a private Skype chat:
Dude, the newsletter thing is a nothing story. It was dug up by the establishment as the only thing resembling ‘dirt’ they could find, and blown way out of proportion. It’s a pure hit piece. DOn’t know how you can’t see that. FTL is right to drop it – it’s been rehashed a million times, when it wasn’t worth discussing once. There are plenty of legit things to pick on – he’s a minarchist and a Christian. But he is most definitely not a racist.
Sorry, but it’s not a “nothing story.” Peddling such sophistry won’t get us anywhere. But since this person brought up the establishment, let’s focus on that angle here.
Yes, James Kirchick used the Paul newsletters to skewer Paul, the campaign, and his supporters and allies. It is true that Kirchick, who published the infamously notorious New Republichit piece on Paul, was looking to make a name for himself and to boost his then-favored candidate Rudy Giuliani’s poll numbers, and he certainly did that. But, since the Paul supporters were looking to Paul as some sort of Republican version of Barack Obama who touted himself as the “real” agent of change, wouldn’t some Paul supporter have done the same thing? After all, isn’t it true that Lew Rockwell changed his personal website to be a pro-Paul vehicle, thereby sacrificing the site’s tax exempt status (under the guise of the 501 c(3) registration) and became a Paul for President campaign tool?
The fact is that Paul and his campaign became fair game, whether they want to acknowledge, embrace, accept, or tolerate that or not. The second the Kirchick piece came out, the second Paul was an easy target. And it doesn’t help the fact that, according to my good friend Tom Knapp of KN@PPSTER, LewRockwell.com (LRC.com), the Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI), and the paleolibs like Karen DeCoster pandered to the racists, who have successfully tried to torpedo any investigation into this matter. All of this have resulted in further damage to the libertarian movement.
Finally, my criticism of Paul goes a bit further here. When this ruckus began to explode, he said that he didn’t “know about it.” Sorry, but that’s a implausible and ridiculous excuse. He should have known who was responsible for the articles. Fortunately, he has taken responsibility for this mess by saying that he hadn’t written them. He could have urged the person who refused to come forward to come clean. But he chose not to do this. That’s another mark on him from a personal and political standpoint.
Ron Paul has done a lot of good for the Liberty movement, and that goes without saying. But he is not above reproach or criticism. He has his political sins that he carries on his shoulder. His avoidance of the issue does not absolve him of aiding and betting with the people responsible for the crud in his reports. But that universal question remains: if Ron Paul didn’t write them, who really did?
[Update {4:52 p.m. EST): Bile doesn't know if he is really being arrested. After all, he was let out of the cop car at 4:49 p.m.]
[Update (4:53 p.m. EST): Bile says, "It could be a false alarm."]
[Update (4:57 p.m. EST): Bile says, "[T]hey are trying to confirm he has a legit drivers license. They are detaining him till they find out.”]
[Update (4:59 p.m. EST): Bile says, "Yup he's been arrested... taking him to the KPD."]
[Update: More details on Sam will follow in the hours to come.]
[Update: This is what Bile says on his blog: "Apparently while leaving the parking deck after his trial Sam was stopped by a Keene Police officer believing he had a suspended drivers license. Sam being unwilling or unable to provide them with a valid license was held till it could be confirmed. About 10 minutes later they decided to take him to the KPD to be booked. That was at approximately 16:50."
[Update (6:41 p.m. EST): Nick of FreeKeene.comwrites, "Sam has been released with a summons. More information; including video; will likely be forthcoming throughout the weekend."]
[Update (10:16 p.m. EST): Two other Porc411 calls were put up on BileofBlog.com a few hours ago: msg0058 and msg0059.]
This is Meg, from the Keene area activist group. I am writing to you because I believe anger is the gateway to violence, and I want none of it in my life. I’m sure you can understand the fact that someone in my position would be angry; however, you may not understand my views that led me to that point.
First off, I know many police officers, and I don’t believe you are bad people (or ‘monsters’, as you said). Sure, there are bad apples in the bunch; but for many of you, the current system has raised you to believe that enforcing the law keeps people safe from harm, and that is commendable. However, because those who make the laws have lost sight of the concepts of real safety, liberty, personal responsibility, and compassion, and instead turned their focus on power and money, it is the police that must take on the burden of being the ugly face of the lawmaker’s oppression. It is not you I am mad at; however, I am not impressed by your willingness to hurt peaceful people because “that’s your job”. I know it’s not your choice what laws are put in place; however, it is your responsibility as a peace officer to protect people from harm. If the lawmakers are setting up rules that hurt people who have not caused injury or damage to another, wouldn’t it be logical to expect you to protect us from their aggression?
Sam has never caused, or even threatened to cause harm to anyone. I’ve traveled the world, and have never found such a beautiful and compassionate person. I understand his actions may annoy you; but he does those things from a position of love for those who suffer, not hate of the corruption that causes that suffering. That goes for all of us. People driven by hate don’t have the passion that love gives us, so they will always fail. I’m not saying it’s easy… we all get mad. But I am able to pull back, remember the love i have been given by the most amazing person in my life, my Grandfather; and I am once again at peace, ready and willing to share that love with everyone… especially you.
Fact is, I need you on our side. You have accepted the responsibility of protecting us, so it saddens me when i see you unknowingly fail.
Two years ago, I was assaulted and stabbed. I’ve never seen efforts to catch the violent people who attacked me that day; yet twice now, i’ve seen Sam hauled off with his hands bound behind his back. I can’t help but wonder, “Why?”. Is it because people like Sam are easier for you to catch? I don’t want to believe that “justice” is based on laziness. But when I see you wasting time enforcing nonsense when I know violence is continuing unpursued, it leaves me to feel the exact opposite of what I should. I don’t feel protected by police, I feel threatened by them. It is my challenge to you to prove me wrong. Know that you are beautiful. I’m sure it was that beauty which drove you to become a police officer, because you care about your fellow man. Once you see that in yourself, let it come through in your work. I have faith that you can do this. Just ask yourself this simple question while performing your job:
“Who am I protecting?”
Are you protecting another person from harm? Who? Are you only protecting the system? Then who are you saving? If the system requires you to hurt, harass, kidnap, and cage someone, and you can’t place a face or name on the victim of their “crime”… then shouldn’t you recognize the system to be the criminal? It’s hard, I know. But learn to act from love, not from ‘authority’, and you can become a leader in the change to a peaceful society… and a hero to millions.
I thank you for your willingness to talk openly with us. I apologize for anything I’ve said or done to make you believe I hold anything but love and compassion for you, your friends, and family. You are not a monster. You may do things I believe are monstrous; and for that, I forgive you. No matter how long it takes you to stop these acts, I will continue to forgive you. And whenever you are ready to stop committing crimes against peaceful people on behalf of the lawmakers, I will be waiting for you to join my family with open arms.
In Peace,
Meg McLain
[H/T to Meg McLain for her posting of the letter on FreeKeene.com.]
The highly-publicized behavior of many of the town hall protesters, who object to Obama’s “health care reform” (it’s not a reform, but a government boondoggled engineered to convert the already-socialized health care system to a carbon copy apparatus of Massachusetts’ “single-payer health care” system), should be viewed with disdain, simply because of their unruly and uncivilized behavior at these events. It’s one thing to be outraged by the provisions of the 1,000-plus page bill, which includes globs of ominous sections (one of them giving the Secretary of the Department of HHS very vague and very undefined powers); it’s another to level shouting matches, ad hominems, and personal attacks at the politicians and bureaucrats who obviously are not telling their constituents the entire truth about the bloated legislation.
Let’s take Senator Claire McCaskill’s appearance at a Hillsboro district meeting in Jefferson County, Missouri on August 11, 2009 for example. McCaskill, a socialist Democrat from the state, publicly declares that there won’t be a “single-payer health care” bill passed in Congress. She also claims that members of Congress are not going along with the idea and that it’s not on the table, although the bulk of the members of the audience are convinced otherwise. Watch the following YouTube clip that showcases how the audience members act towards the senator:
The next clip is not so clear at all. It unveils two purportedly disruptive black women who allegedly caused a commotion at the same event, and you can see an irate McCaskill shouting out to the women, who were being forcefully removed by the local police in attendance:
While it’s not entirely clear what the “disruption” was all about, the women in the audience were not unruly at all and did not appear to be that way, except for the members of the audience there. If the women were “disruptive,” what about the attendees? Weren’t many of them being “disruptive” at all? Why wasn’t the entire room cleared out if that were the case? Why the selective removal of certain people from what it appears to be more of a health care rally for McCaskill than a town hall meeting?
The two women shouldn’t have been removed at all, and were not even disruptive at all. But even if they were, does that justify their removal from the room? One would think not.
The attitudes of the protesters that encourage some of the flaming emotions running wild at these events should not be condoned, although I sympathize and empathize with these people and how they feel. These angry emotions are epitomized at this CNN video clip of Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA)’s uproarious town hall event.
The man who walks away from Specter after excoriating him in front of the audience members and the cameras screams furiously, “I’m leaving!” Then Specter, with great arrogance and smugness, responds with the following statement: “Ok, ok, ok, we just, uh, we just had, uh, we just a demonstration of democracy. Ok?” The idiocy of the “demonstration of democracy” argument can be argued for another day, so I won’t waste the space on this blog post refuting Specter’s ludicrous quip. This is hardly the time and place for it, so I will blog about that at a later time.
Here’s the full CNN clip of some of the other members demanding Specter to “leave us alone,” which includes a 35-year-old conservative Republican woman taking her potshots at the senator:
I have a suggestion for these individuals: calm down. Take some deep breaths. Blind anger and inability to reason is going to make you look not only camera but also to the masses at large. While I concur with you that Obama’s “health care reform” is a travesty (not to mention immensely terrible), flaring tempers and having meltdowns in front of your elected officials are not going to bring people, especially those who are undecided on the health care issue, to your side. Repeating unfounded rumors that you may have heard on the internet or on the radio isn’t going to score you brownie points; it’ll just turn people away from your talking points. All you’re doing is alienating yourselves from those who might be persuaded to hear your side of the aisle. Just simply make the moral, philosophical, and economic case against government control and expansion of medical care. Nothing harms the cause of human liberty more than any of the childish and absurd claptrap I’ve exemplified.
All of that being said, that doesn’t mean Specter, McCaskill, and the other Democratic lawmakers get a free “get-out-of-jail” card from the political beatings. The critics of the protesters — those who want to sustain the current status quo of government-controlled, government-regulated, government-coddled, and government-subsidized health care (although currently it’s a corporatized system) and want to extend it further — are out of line because of their pathetically and ludicrously smug and arrogant sandbagging and smearing of the citizens who oppose the so-called reform bill. As Sheldon Richman recently and correctly opined in his Anything Peaceful blog post (which inspired this blog post about the matter):
Why would anyone have confidence in an 1,000-page-plus piece of legislation, obscurely written, that would give not-fully-defined powers to the secretary of Health and Human Services?
Why should trust these thugs? What have Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Henry Waxman, and the entire U.S. House of Representatives (except for Ron Paul) and the U.S. Senate done for us lately (other than destroying our liberties behind our backs) and for our freedoms (they couldn’t careless about them)? What makes them so special and unique? What, is it because they’ve got cute-and-cuddly legislative powers and we don’t? How can they be representing us when they are only representing their special interests (particularly the ones who crafted the health care plan, despite what Congressman John Dingell of Michigan says; he only sponsored it and not wrote it)?
Sorry, but any attempt to dignify what these collectivistic crooks do with our stolen goods (in other words, our hard-earned money) need to look in the mirror and take a long look. Let’s not forget that this oppressive and vile statist government to which we are subjected did not start with Obama.
Those who are ecstatic about the bill (like my socialistic Democratic brother Brian, for example) need to get their heads out of their behinds.
Ron Paul weighs in on the “health care debate” (more like a pro-socialized medicine cheering) on Larry King Live, which aired on August 11, 2009. The two statist physicians, Dr. David Scheiner (Obama’s former personal physician and a member and supporter of the Physicians for a National Health Program that “supports a national single payer health program”) and Dr. Dean Ornish (the founder and president of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute and a medical editor at The Huffington Post blog)) who are on the same panel with him support the government control of health but want to take it further. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer sits in for King and “moderates” the absurd “debate.”
Scheiner, who is FOR the U.S. conversion to a “single-payer health care” apparatus, goes into defense mode for his precious “one-size-does-not-fit-all” policy, saying the following:
DR. DAVID SCHEINER: Well, you know, the question is, right now there are 89 representatives in the House, in, uh, the House that support single-payer. Sixty percent of physicians support, uh, single-payer. My organization, there are 16,000 physicians who are fighting for single-payer. The question is I don’t think the public has adequately been informed as to what single payer is. It has been so demonized. Medicare works! Now why is Medicare expensive? Because it takes care of old, sick people. If it were universal, the costs would be spread out. If the administrative costs were lower, they, they…we would be able to afford it. I don’t know why people are so frightened. A national health insurance doesn’t mean that we have socialized medicine. We have private doctors. Free choice! Patients do not have free choice today. They have to go to the doctor; their insurance company says. They have to go the hospital, the laboratory. The medication constantly changes, because they tell us it’s not in their formula. I want the public to have freedom of choice single payer gives them.
This nonsense that Medicare “works” is like saying the U.S. Post Office “works.” It is so inefficient and bureaucratic and saturated with globs of red tape that doctors, registered nurses (RNs), and other medical practitioners are forced to comply with that the costs of Medicare are going through the roof. Plus, Medicare underpays doctors, who either quit the profession because they can’t pay for the costs of their overhead or they are forced to spread the costs to their other patients who aren’t on Medicare. Yeah, Medicare is “working” all right.
His claim here is enough to break out into laughter: “Now why is Medicare expensive? Because it takes care of old, sick people.” No, Dr. Scheiner, it’s not the reason why Medicare is breaking the bank. It’s cost prohibitive because the agency coerces physicians to charge the highest amount to their customers (just as the private insurers do, as mandated by federal rules and guidelines) and it’s in the red because it spends more on tax revenues than it takes in. Plus, it incentivizes the elderly to use the program more than they would; thus, the service mandated by government is, through the forces of the government-created market, rationed, and the demand for Medicare by the seniors exceed the supplies available to provide for them. That’s WHY it is so expensive.
We are talking about the same vile collectivistic socialist Democratic senator who supported the evil Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its provisions, including Title VII, which transferred the private property of any free enterprise to the ruling domain of the state simply by outlawing discrimination “on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, and national origin.” Subsequently, pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination and the prohibition of sexual harrassment were later included in the provisions of the law, which effectively demolished employers’ right to discriminate against employees by not hiring them or simply firing them, even if the employees are discriminated on those grounds. It also resulted in the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which intervenes in private employers’ right not to hire or to fire employees if they are deemed discriminatory by the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal courts and the U.S. District Courts, and the lower courts and the U.S. Court of Appeal.
He was also responsible for expanding the U.S. intervention in Vietnam in the 1960s. He pushed for evil legislation such as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (which repealed quotas on national origin, thus restricting and empowering the state’s role in the immigration market), the National Cancer Act of 1971 (a vile law which launched the U.S. War on Cancer and mandated that the National Cancer Institute would be subsidized with no incentive to find cures for cancer), and the vile No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 and the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act of 2009. He even voted against the infamous Iraq War Resolution, which is hypocritical considering he backed the Vietnam War and the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, not to mention backed additional Humvees for U.S. troops as a measure to keep them in Iraq.
And, oh yes, let’s not forget his infamous involvement in the highly-publicized Chappaquiddick scandal that transpired on the night of July 18, 1969, in which he, in an inebriated stupor, drove his 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88 with one of the few women who had worked on his brother Bobby’s presidential campaign as a passenger off a bridge into a pond inlet. This vile maniac didn’t even bother to save the life of this 28-year-old woman; instead, he swam to safety and never reported the incident until her body was discovered the next day. He only served two months in jail, when he should have served a lot longer than that. Oh, and he was a pathetic alcoholic to boot.
It doesn’t help that his fellow collectivists in the House and the Senate and the major talking heads in the mainstream press and media are canonizing him, as though he were a Catholic saint. Even Obama eulogizes him by asserting that Kennedy was “a colleague, a counselor and a friend” and then extoled him by saying that his “ideas and ideals are stamped on scores of laws, reflected in millions of lives.”
Someone gag me with a spoon, please?
To sum it up, this “lion of liberalism” was all about controlling other people’s lives, manipulated his way to avoid criminal prosecution for murder of people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and a woman in his brother’s campaign, lied to his constituents, and had neither any conscience nor remorse for stealing other people’s money.
Goodbye and good ridance to you, Teddy. Just do us a favor: don’t rest in peace. Just rest in torment. I hope you get the justice you deserve in the black bowels of political hell. Perhaps you’ll end up pleading for mercy to save your soul.
The Freeman Chronicles is back for good, and it will be updated daily. I have since left the Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity Movement because of the conservativesque and tyrannical delusions of its founder James Cox, who is well known as Facebook as a control freak, an evangelical atheist who has tried to convert me to Atheism while in the process of ditching my spiritual system (I hate the word “religion”!) known as Stregheria (a Tradition of Wicca), an inconsistent (and not a true one at that) Objectivist, and an Ayn Rand kook to top it off.
I’m glad to be done with him permanently. Just so everyone knows, I will no longer copy and paste my blog posts on PFP anymore.
The American Family Association, a conservative “pro-American family” organization, is enraged because of this latest GAP ad, which has been branded “anti-Christmas.”
The AFA, like its allies on the Christian Right, are reigniting the culture war flames once again for this Christmas season, like they always do every year. The ad, as absurd and tacky as it is, is anything but anti-Christian. What proof does the AFA have that shows that it’s spewing hated for Christmas or any aspect of it that is synonymous with Christianity? None whatsoever!!!
Besides, haven’t they been really listening to what the ad says? One can hear the dancers cheer “Go Christmas!” as they are watching it. How is that “anti-Christmas”?
Fortunately, AFA has pulled the plug on its earlier call to boycott GAP and its products, except that the company has agreed to air an ad that has “a very strong Christmas theme.” How nice of them!
I’m all for boycotts; after all, that’s a market function that a group of individuals or individuals by themselves should take if a company is engaging in a type of practice, selling a message or theme, or offering products or services that they don’t like. Having said that, it does not change the point that this boycott is foolhardy because it’s done for all the wrong reasons.
Besides, this nonsense that GAP had launched a “War on Christmas” is just preposterous. I don’t see a bunch of GAP employees lining up outside fundamentalist Christian churches or GAP customers standing outside the store with signs saying that Christmas is evil and should be abolished. This culture war hysteria has frankly gone too far (this ad is just the latest example of the AFA’s lunacy!), and the Christian Right kooks need to fly a kite for once.
Here’s another thing: it’s okay for the Christian Right, including the AFA and its delusional members, to say that tax-funded municipal events that are not and have never been pro-Christian are only oppressive to Christians. But it’s not oppressive to taxpayers (many of whom are not Christians by the way and are of different alternative religions).
Radical leftist enviro-wacko Ed Begley, Jr., who is a prominent leader in the Green movement that has been pushing this faux Global Warming (more like Global Cooling) racket for years, appeared in a November 24 interview with Stuart Varney on Fox News’ Your World with Neil Cavuto. During the 4 minute and 23 second pissing contest on the air, Begley Jr. goes off his rocker on the show, arguing with Varney about the validity of the Global Warming theory (which has been the heart of ClimateGate). This nutjob (not to mention a hack of an actor) begins spewing his pro-big government, pro-state, loopy propaganda with his opening line that states the following, “I think the science is very clear on Global Warming.” He keeps spouting the lines, “Peer reviewed studies. Those are the key words, Stuart.” Then he claims, “Peer reviewed studies are the key words.” He keeps chanting those words religiously as though he were citing chapter and verse from his Green Holy Bible.
At one point during his fightfest with Varney, this numbskull has the gall to say that one “can be skeptical but not a denier” about GW. When Varney calls him out on whether the debate on the issue “is over,” Begley, Jr. does his best to dodge Varney’s question by saying, “The debate is clear. It’s out in the scientific community. Read peer reviewed studies. That’s all you need to do. Don’t get it from you or me.”
This cretin doesn’t fathom the fact that “peer reviewed studies” are often subject to subjective and erroneous conclusions, especially when the “data” surrounding this “apocalyptic phenomenon” is faulty, unreliable, inconclusive, and prone to misinterpretation. Moreover, there is no global temperature, as temperatures are measured regionally and locally. Climatology is NOT an exact science and prone to mistakes.
Not only that, where has this moron gotten his degree? What makes him qualified to make “objective” scientific fact gathering? What degree does he have? What subjects in college did he ever study? Botany? Biology? Chemistry? Earth science? I don’t profess to be an expert on these matters myself, but I don’t need a Ph.D. in science or any of the other sciences I mentioned to know that what Begley, Jr. has said is nonsense. What utter claptrap!
I remember him back in the mid 1990s, spouting this crap when he was a guest on America Online‘s chat room where paid AOL members were allowed to come into the room and ask celebrities like him some questions. If your question was hand picked by the AOL crew, it would read on the air. Begley, Jr. was on one night (his AOL nickname at the time was FoodFarmer; it’s no longer active), and he was spewing his nonsensical drivel down the audience’s throat. I wondered how the people could really buy into half of what he was throwing out there. (One paid AOL’er challenged his Green beliefs in the AOL chat room, but Begley Jr. shot him down in a rude fashion and was quite obnoxious about it as I recall.)
– in which Proposition 8, which was a voter-approved referendum that banned gay marriage in the state (thanks to the state-approved homophobic Mormon Church that lobbied heavily to get their precious initiative on the state’s ballot), has violated the civil rights of ardent gay activists (who want state-approved gay marriage codified into law) — has undoubtedly ignited both praise by progressives and condemnation by statist conservatives for the judge. (Walker happens to be openly-gay himself, and the statist conservatives have put him in their cross hairs by accusing him, in a malicious fashion, of employing his sexual orientation as a political crutch for his ruling. Even though that kind of paradigm is unconscionable, immoral, and unethical to the Nth Degree, that pales in comparison to the type of mentality that has engulfed some libertarians in the libertarian movement, especially from those who employ semantical word game tactics to evade legitimate arguments as to why the state has no rightful, legitimate, and valid grounds for refusing to recognize same-sex “gay” marriage. The court’s decision, as mandated by Walker himself, can be seen here [pdf].)
I initially planned to announce my 2012 candidacy for the presidency of the United States on April 6th, 2009, from the steps of the Old St. Louis Courthouse (history buffs shouldn’t have too much trouble figuring out why), and I still intend to conduct a campaign event of some kind at that time and in that place.
Todd Andrew Barnett
southernpatriot
hippiesteve
marcusreeder
