..The lesson from American politics is that when libertarians create parties, they end up undermining liberty by diverting campaigners’ efforts way from the mainstream. Perversely, the Libertarian Party in the United States has undermined liberty: if it becomes a noticeable minority party, the British equivalent will do the same.'

Alex Singleton in the Daily Telegraph on the folly of setting up libertarian parties.

Worth reading the Samizdata comments thread  for some surprisingly vitriolic comments from ex-LP members.

Rantings from a crazed Truther? Anti-US socialist nutters?  Private school Year 10 students rebelling against their privileged Eastern Suburbs background?

No, just a typical post on the Ron Paul-endorsed Lew Rockwell blog.  

This post, by Sean Corrigan, links to, and therefore presumably endorses, a loony-toon article on the World Socialist Web Site including such gems as this, 

'The only means for abolishing the immense and deepening chasm between rich and poor is through the revolutionary restructuring of society along socialist lines, so that the burning needs of the overwhelming majority of humanity take precedence over the profit requirements of the few.'

Meds, quick!

But there's more from the ridiculous Lew Rockwell blog including this wacko article by Paul Craig Roberts entitled 'Hyocrisy rules The West', 

'Indeed, Bush and Brown, as commanders in chief, are on a killing spree that makes the government in Burma look extremely restrained by comparison.'

and this,

'To cut to the chase, what is the difference between Bush and Brown on one hand and the murderous Burmese government on the other? Bush and Brown are actually worse.'

With libertarian friends like Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, i'm surprised that libertarianism is even a 1% market share brand.

Thanks to Jim Fryar on Real World Libertarian for highlighting this rubbish.

Well done, Pommy, you've sent the blog stats into overdrive... I even took a screenshot of the WordPress home page for keepsies. Classic stuff... not sure how it happened, but our most popular post yet. BTW, you can watch (and download) Fitna here.

UPDATE: I should probably also mention that I've blogged this over at Catallaxy, in part because I have Dutch relatives and find the whole issue interesting from their perspective.

I want to remind people that Texas Libertarian Party conventions are this week- precinct conventions are Tuesday night and county conventions are Saturday. Did I mention that I'm moving? The chair postition for Collin County LP is up for vote- it was actually up for vote whether or not I moved- and all you need is a pulse and permanent address to run. I do warn you that the LP is a delightfully strange beast though. You could be the only human nominee and still not win. Unlike the two major parties, the LP has NOTA running in all races.

I have forty seven things that I want to get off my chest right now but somehow I realize that I need to let them sort of sink in before I yap about them. When you've been offline and as busy as I've been, the 47 items initially seem important when only 3-4 ultimately are. Firing up the laptop equals sensory overload right now and we'll hate each other tomorrow if I pop off prematurely.

I did find this cute video about the philosophy of libertarianism and thought it shareworthy. Enjoy while I take a break from the packing, get drunk and cry about not being Suzy Fucking Homemaker in the eyes of some unrealistic shithead potential home buyer. I'll nurse my hangover in the morning, be cranky, figure out what the 3 or 4 important things are and be back to bitching and moaning by afternoon.

XOXO,

Miche

2. Dr. Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, argues that religion must be beyond criticism. Harry Haddock's reply is a peach.

3. Is Wesley Snipes an anti-statist hero, asks Samizdata?

4. Marginal Revolution ponders whether sub-prime lending contributed to a baby boom in the US?

5. Adam Smith Institute highlights the bizarre call to ban the unintended consequences of the smoking ban. Go figure!

6. Those boys at Reason do not report too kindly on Bush's State of the Union address.

7. Spiked urge football authorities to 'stick the two minutes silence up your arse.'

8. Andrew Norton asks whether conservatives and classical liberals can agree on anything.

9. And finally, vote for Andrew Norton, Rafe Champion or Jason Soon in the Best Blog Posts of 2007.

Please let us know your favourite libertarian bloggers out there and we'll update the blogroll.

Larry Lepard, a venture capitalist and Ron Paul supporter from Massachusetts, has shelled out about $85,000 of his own money to throw what he told U.S. News is a "small hard rock at a good target": a full-page ad supporting Paul that will run in tomorrow's edition of USA Today—the nation's largest circulation daily newspaper—on the busiest travel day of the year.

The ad is a "message from the founders" that tells us that we were warned about where we are today, shares a little about Congressman Paul, and plugs Tea Party 2007.

Grassroots is exciting Baby and I'm proud to say that Little Bit will be making her first political donation on December 16th. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go write a check for the TX Libertarian Party. (I'm maxed out on the Paul campaign and the LP is the only entity outside of Ron Paul working to bring back freedom.

Well, it seems to have worked remarkably well and the day isn't close to over. Reason Hit & Run author, David Weigel, posted a screenshot of the Ron Paul counter at midnight and the fundraising total was at $2,836,840.15. As I type this at 10 p.m. central, the total is $6,902,791.82. I am happy to claim $200 of that total and to brag that I should be maxed out. (I say should be because I think I got duped into giving a few bucks to the Republican Party at Ron Paul's Ft. Worth event. The lady collecting at the door told me that the money for admission would go to Ron Paul, but I don't see it reflected in the FEC report.)

Anyway, I should be writing about the special election in Texas, but I can't seem to get excited over anything but Ron Paul right now. How often do libertarian ideas get presented at all in the news? Here is a quick rundown on what's on the ballot for Texas and Collin County. For the constitutional amendments, I defer to LPTX suggestions. On the Collin County bond issues, I'm voting "no" down the line. They are asking us to vote for nearly $330m in "improvements" while claiming it will cost nothing in new taxes. As usual, the politicians and special interests groups are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

I'm gonna run, but I want to leave you with what I just heard on Ron Paul radio. It is reported that Ron Paul's merchant account provider is backlogged with donations and the amount donated could reach $8m. Off to celebrate $7,107,893.21 and I'll see you tomorrow with the hangover required to write about sexual predators in North Texas.

Later fellow spam-bots!

*Special thanks to Robert for the screen-cap of my donation.

Thanks Wine Commonsewer!

Oh, in case you have no clue what Guitar Hero is, this little kid is doing (on GH2) what I soon hope to do. (Though I wouldn't show off quite so much.)

Like many libertarians, I've read most of Ayn Rand's work. While Ms. Rand was, before her death, no fan of the Libertarian Party, both shared remarkably similar ideas. Cathy Young of Reason once said, "Libertarianism, the movement most closely connected to Rand's ideas, is less an offspring than a rebel stepchild." I think Ms. Young was correct. Nevertheless, I found the following clips interesting and thought to pass them along.

My friend, Michael Hampton, and I used to contribute together at Hammer Of Truth and since it is (perhaps permanently) down for upgrades, I go often to check out his thoughts at Homeland Stupidity. Michael is a NH resident, member of the Free State Project and has also been a very vocal supporter of the Browns and has documented that support on his website. When Michael started writing about the harassment received from the DOJ, he was called many ugly names and everything from his sanity to his intelligence was questioned. What he recently wrote about almost knocked the breath out of me. Armed federal agents paid a visit to Michael's home on Friday.

Satire became reality Friday afternoon when half a dozen armed federal agents wearing body armor showed up at this author’s home and detained everyone in the house for nearly 90 minutes to determine who might pose a threat to the government.

Marshal John Bolen of the U.S. Marshals Office of Protective Intelligence traveled to Manchester, N.H., to investigate threats of violence allegedly made against Steven McAuliffe, a federal judge in the district court in Concord, and other federal officials in the area. He brought along with him other marshals and agents who would only say that they were with the Treasury Department.

Later in the afternoon the federal agents detained and interrogated another Manchester resident for nearly 30 minutes trying to locate yet another person of interest to them, and then after having set up a Saturday meeting with this person of interest, didn’t even bother to show up.

The threats allegedly originated with convicted tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown, late of Plainfield, and supporters of their cause. Marshals took the Browns into custody Thursday night to begin serving 63-month prison terms after a nine-month standoff in which the couple remained in their home, supporters brought food, supplies and firearms, and staged concerts and press conferences on the property.

No matter what you think about the Browns, this should chill you to the bone. That the government monitors and then detains a person for expressing himself on a public blog should show you that we are not talking about tin foil stuff here. I'm glad that everybody at Michael's home is safe, but he should not have been visited to start with. An old saying is brought to mind right now and I think that people should pay attention.

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

Another thing worthy of a quick mention. Where is Ed Brown? I know that he is supposed to be in federal custody; that's what they told us anyway. A Digg reader has pointed this out though:

Elaine Brown, prisoner #03924-049 is in Federal Bureau of Prisons Custody at Danbury FCI

Ed Brown, prisoner #03923-049 is NOT IN FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS CUSTODY

So where is Ed? How can he not be in federal custody? If not theirs, then whose? Military maybe? I've heard quotes from officials that they were not in state or local custody at any time nor would they be.

Scary stuff indeed.

So, this post is dedicated to the U.S. Government. I still support Ed and Elaine Brown. In fact, my support is strengthened by your actions at Michael's house. I do feel that I must stress here that I'm non-violent. I certainly don't wish to entertain your thugs and I'm a shitty hostess. I'm also posting a couple of tax videos from Tommy Cryer. It is, after all, my duty to try to release your grip on the neck of America.

Update: Just wanted to say good morning to the DOJ.

Digg This HERE.

Press Release
P.O.C. Chris Bennett 217-801-3367
chrisbennett2008@yahoo.com

CHRIS BENNETT ANNOUNCES THAT HE WILL SEEK THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY'S VICE-PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION

I'm announcing my candidacy for the Libertarian Party's 2008 Vice-Presidential Nomination.

A little background about me: I have been a libertarian activist for almost 16 years, helping Libertarian and small l-libertarian candidates throughout the years. I was Aaron Russo's scheduling coordinator during his run for the 2004 LP Presidential nomination. I am 35 and married with two children. I'm a senior at University of Illinois at Springfield pursuing a degree in political studies and a minor in economics and I graduate in May, 2008, two weeks before the national convention in Denver. I am currently the Legislative Chair for the Libertarian Party of Illinois. I have fought for for better ballot access for third parties in Illinois, which according to Richard Winger over at Ballot Access News, has one of the most difficult ballot access laws in this country for third parties.

I will not make promises I can not keep. I do not have 200,000 dollars in future contributions and I am not endorsed by a famous dead person. However there are some promises I will keep:

I am strongly against the invasion and the "police action" in Iraq and will help push for an anti-war resolution at the Denver Convention.

I am against a fair tax and I will continue to fight to decrease the tax burden for all Americans.

I will continue to fight to restore our civil liberties and constitutional rights and fight to eliminate the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act, the Military Commissions Act and the North American Union.

As an African-American, I will use my candidacy to recruit more minorities and women into the libertarian movement.

As a soon-to-be college graduate, I will continue to convince younger voters and non-voters that the Libertarian Party is the future not the two "boot on your neck" parties and use my candidacy to re-energize libertarian college campus and local organizations across the country.

If I am nominated, I will help/assist state parties on getting our presidential ticket on their respective state ballots.

If I am nominated, I will assist serious Libertarian candidates running for office in all facets of their campaign across the country.

The days of a dormant Libertarian Party VP candidate are over. Our VP candidate should be as active as our Presidential candidate and I will proudly work with whoever you choose as our Presidential candidate in order to spread our message of liberty and freedom to the American people.

My e-mail is chrisbennett2008@yahoo.com and if you want to talk to me personally via phone, e-mail me and leave your number and I'll get back to you ASAP.

Thank you and I hope I will get a lot of support heading into the National Convention in Denver. Thank you ahead for your support!

Chris Bennett

This would have devastating consequences to the very real chance the Republicans have, to win the presidency again. They have very credible candidates in Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and probably Fred Thompson, and are gaining ground in grassroots campaigns across America.

Some Libertarians though have expressed an intention of joining the GOP in order to support Ron Paul, then leave again if he fails. If he were to stand as a third party candidate, he could take with him a great deal of the parties libertarian/Republican support.

It would be a terrible thing to see a man of his stature act as a spoiler.

"Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis calls on Ron Paul Libertarians to Stay in the GOP"

By Eric Dondero

8/29/7 -- With the race for US President on the GOP side becoming more and more solidified for frontrunners Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, MI GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis made an appeal last night to Ron Paul supporters to stay within the GOP and support the eventual Nominee.

Anuzis was a guest on the Blog Talk Radio show "Libertarian Politics Live" hosted by Eric Dondero, and Co-Hosted by Andre Traversa.  At the end of the half hour interview Anuzis said:

"I've been very involved in the conservative libertarian side of the Party...  If you don't get involved, don't want to get involved you're not going to make a difference...  throwing bombs from the outside it's not going to help.  It's important to have people who are passionate about the issues involved.  I mean take a look at a mainstream libertarian group like the Cato Institute.  Cato has had an enormous influence...  In Michigan we have the Macinac Center which is also libertarian... libertarian conservative.

They're important, but activists need to also get involved and get their hands dirty and not just jump in because Ron Paul is running and then jump out again...  Their credibility is shot."

During the half hour interview Anuzis also discussed Michigan politics, GOP outreach efforts to minorities in the State, and the prospective run of Ted Nugent for Governor as a Republican for 2010.

Listen to the entire interview here!

Eric Dondero is a US Navy Veteran, former Libertarian Party National Committeeman, Founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus and fmr. Senior Aide to US Congressman Ron Paul R-TX.  He is now a national Republican Political Consultant based in Houston, Texas.

This was never very important to disclose, but the other night a dear friend called and asked if he could mention me and my past foray into adult entertainment in a blogpost about strippers for Ron Paul. I asked him not to mention my married name and he held true to his promise, but when Tucker Carlson's associates asked for my contact information for a segment, I had a decision to make. That I'm writing this now tells you what I decided. I'll tell you my stripper story and hopefully provide some insight into why adult entertainers would support Ron Paul.

My mother tried to raise me in a church. I was a bit of a rebel even as a young child and sought out everything life had to offer. I married too young and as a result, became a young mother. I needn't tell you where many young marriages end and I certainly don't have to explain that many young mothers end up making ends meet on their own and without the benefit of child support or welfare. Those things were not what led me into a club on Bourbon Street though. It would be easy to use that one little grain of truth to justify what brought me to a g-string and a pole; it certainly gets the "poor girl" emotion going, but it wouldn't be right.

Truthfully, I've never been afraid of nudity and there was nothing that my mother's Baptist church or my daddy's Italian rule could do about it. OK, perhaps I exaggerate. I certainly did not walk into the club asking to strip. It was a knowledge process; my moral compass was established by my parents but I'd seen enough of their porn to know that it was do as I say. I'd been told by society that only "bad girls" wear thongs and if they wear them in view, they're whores! I went to the club to wait tables after I quit my corporate job to go back to school. The schedule provided the flexibility needed to care for children, attend school, and pay the bills. The jump to dancing happened only after I learned what really didn't happen in clubs, saw the increased flexibility and, of course, the cash.

Many moral crusaders would have you believe that strip clubs are dens of iniquity where women are fucking for cash at a moment's notice- on the main stage even. They will tell you that women working in clubs are degraded and are screwed up from years of abuse. They will call in "experts" to tell you how it damages society. I will tell you that they, for the most part, are liars serving their own agendas.

I went back to Corporate America after dancing for a couple of years, and now I'm out of both. Professionally, I'm a small business owner and I'm working on patenting a new idea. More importantly, I'm a wife and mother. As such, I would like to tell you what is degrading. Degrading is punching a timecard for a corporation. Degrading is knowing that you must beg for time off to care for a sick child. And that is before I even start on the government. Asking permission, from any entity, to control your life is degrading and it goes against everything our country was founded upon.

That the Libertarian Party knows and respects this is obvious to any regular reader of this blog, but the issue at hand is "Strippers for Ron Paul." Why would the adult entertainment industry support such an obvious Christian? It is because the Christian congressman, Ron Paul, understands the proper role of government in the United States of America. Government should not dictate morality. Christians are instructed to cast stones if only free from sin. According to Biblical teaching, we are all born into sin and Ron Paul is the only candidate of the Republican Party doing both what his Constitution and Bible demands. I don't know which he puts first, but I presume that it doesn't matter because they aren't incompatible.

Free will and free persons. Ron Paul will not likely be giving personal support to strippers, in dollars or encouragement, but he supports, in legislation, their right to be free. For that, this mother, wife, small biz owner, inventor, Libertarian Party county chairman, and ex-stripper thanks him.

See you on Tucker Carlson tomorrow @ 6ish... please don't mention this to my M-I-L- she JUST started to accept me.

I was mortified when I couldn’t get rid of the infestation. My kids were clean, their sheets were clean, our apartment was clean, and I’d spent hundreds of dollars to rid our lives of the bloodsuckers. I finally bought clippers, the girls got crew cuts, and while they had ugly hairstyles for girls, we got rid of the problem.

You may wonder why I bring this up. If you came from this reason H&R thread, you might think that I’m on a parasite kick.

You’d be right.

I’m thinking of Eric Dondero types as parasites. He runs around, blog to blog, screaming that he (and Giuliani) is a libertarian. He meanwhile pounds upon the war drum, bastardizing the bedrock of the libertarian movement. My good friend, disinter, has come to think that Dondero is actually a hired gun for the Republican Party; that he gains his life’s sustenance by making ours miserable.

Disinter might be correct, I think.

There is talk about ignoring Dondero and letting him go about his bullshit. But lice hurt hosts. They are initially an irritating itch. But then they can make a person anemic and cause real health problems. They don’t know any better; it’s just what they are programmed to do. It’s how they eat and live. But, you know what I learned about lice? They attach themselves to the cleanest hosts-it's a less troublesome road.

Our philosophy (read: platform) is good; parasites attach themselves, usually in great numbers, to the best feeding opportunity available. The LP message is strong and instead of ignoring those who misrepresent it, we should take them on. We must not allow them to misappropriate our message.

I don’t think purity tests should be decisive and I think that party purges seem so USSR, but if we want a free USA, we need to cut the hair.

Fortunately, the Dondero types are split ends.

There is a lot riding on the presidential race of 2008 and the Libertarian Party has much to think about before the national convention. I hope this aids your decision making process.

Mr. Root, please provide several reasons why I should consider voting for you when your platform and Ron Paul’s are very similar?

First of all, I'm constantly accused of being "more of a Republican" than a Libertarian- simply because I used to be a well-known, outspoken Republican. Now your blog reader Mike asks why Libertarians should vote for me versus Ron Paul. I'm actually smiling as I respond. I left the GOP. I joined the LP as a "Lifetime member." Ron Paul is NOT running as a Libertarian- he's running as a Republican! He's the real Republican, not me. Yet many Libertarians are supporting him. I'm perplexed. You have to maintain consistency. You can't criticize me for being "too Republican"
because I used to be one. Then support a guy who is a Republican right now!

I'm the guy who (LOUDLY) left the GOP. I was literally born a Barry Goldwater Republican. I was a Republican supporter, activist, voter, contributor and former candidate (at age 21). I wrote a best-selling book in 2005 called "Millionaire Republican." Yet I realized over the past two years that the GOP has changed radically from the party of smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom for the individual (the philosophy of my heroes Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan) to the party of big government, runaway spending, Big Brother and the Nanny State. I did not leave the GOP. The Republican Party left me (and millions of others). I have no doubt that Barry Goldwater would today be a Libertarian. Yet Ron Paul chose to stay in the GOP- where his anti-war ideas will never be accepted. That's why he stands at 1% to 3% in the polls. He's in the wrong party, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Bad decision.

On the other hand, I made the jump. It took great courage. It's nothing to be suspicious of- afterall Ronald Reagan was a lifelong Democrat and union activist before he made the switch to the leader of Conservative Republicans. Hillary Clinton was a "Goldwater Gal" and head of her college Young Republican chapter before becoming a liberal Democrat activist for life. Smart, passionate and committed people see the light and change.

What the LP DESPERATELY needs right now is millions of disillusioned Republicans making the same change as I made. The LP needs someone like Wayne Allyn Root to help disillusioned Republicans see the light. To give former Republican voters the courage to make a big change. Ron Paul will not help make that happen. I can.

The more important point is that Ron Paul has 1% to 3% support in the polls. He is NOT winning the GOP nomination. So your choice as a Libertarian voter is only Wayne Allyn Root versus other Libertarian Presidential candidates. Ron Paul will not be a choice available in November 2008.

Unless he makes the smart move- and decides to run as a Libertarian Presidential candidate. Which I think would be a great move. He has built incredible momentum and organization. The time is ripe for a third party Presidential candidate to run a highly competitive race. I'd be willing to step aside and run as Vice President in a Ron Paul/Wayne Root LP ticket. I think that ticket would be highly competitive in the 2008 election. All the factors are in place for a third party PERFECT STORM.

I would provide great balance to a Ron Paul candidacy- I am young to his age and experience. I am a dynamic, high-energy communicator who is ideal for the TV sound-bite age. I bring moderation to Ron Paul's message on Iraq and the war on terror- something millions of Republicans, conservatives and independent patriotic voters want to hear. I bring 10 to 20 million angry and motivated online gamblers and poker enthusiasts (who are fans of mine) to the table. I bring disillusioned "reformed
Republicans" to the table. I bring vast media and television experience, prolific fundraising ability, infomercial expertise (like Ross Perot, any third party ticket needs 30 minute infomercials to spread their message), and the ability to create high profile media vehicles for our LP ticket (TV reality show, book deals, documentary on our LP campaign). Will Ron Paul come back home to the LP? You never know. I'm planting the seed and extending an olive branch right now.

But barring that dramatic move by Ron Paul, I'm your best Libertarian choice in 2008.

You mention the Flat Tax on your website. Do you mention it simply as an example of tax reform or as a preference over the Fair Tax and others? If it is a preference, why?

First of all, I support ANYTHING that cuts income taxes and reduces the tax burden on American taxpayers- rich, poor and everyone in-between. My preference would be for a flat income tax, but I would ENTHUSIASTICALLY support a "Fair Tax" if it was up for a vote. I also support the elimination of "death taxes," as well as the elimination of taxes on capital gains, interest, and dividends. I support dramatic cuts in government spending and entitlements to make massive tax cuts possible.

As to why I favor a flat income tax, it has been a huge success in many countries around the world- including many former Soviet Republics such as Estonia and Georgia. Taxes are dramatically down
and the result is that their economies are booming. On the other hand, many more liberal European countries have adopted VAT taxes (a national sales tax similar to the proposed "Fair Tax")- and those countries are in an economic downfall. Why? Because liberal politicians will always find a way to add back an income tax after eliminating it in favor of a national sales tax- leaving taxpayers with BOTH.

I am also skeptical of national sales taxes because taxpayers don't feel the pain. When I hear taxpayers complain about taxes, it is always income taxes or property taxes that they complain or protest about- because they actually feel the pain. These taxes come out of their paycheck (income tax) or arrive in the mail in the form of a bill from the government (property taxes). But sales taxes are rarely seen by taxpayers- so they don't feel the pain or notice the rip-off by government. I want taxpayers to always feel the pain and therefore protest against excessive taxation.

Having said all that, I'd support a "Fair Tax" in a nanosecond if it would reduce the burden on U.S. taxpayers- and more importantly, if it would eliminate the I.R.S.

“This June, you were registered Republican. Are you ever going to re-register from Republican to Libertarian?”

I am a registered Libertarian. I have been for months now. Perhaps whoever asked this question was relying on old information that has since been updated. I assume you based the question on a very positive article written about my candidacy in the Las Vegas newspaper from a few months ago.

I have heard of ZERO publicity in the mainstream media about any LP Presidential candidates besides me. That is the more important issue. Don't worry about one line in a news article about my registration (that was incorrect). Instead LP enthusiasts should be thrilled to see that one LP Presidential candidate is finally getting attention in the mainstream media. Please go to my web site www.ROOT4America.com and see the section on my homepage entitled "WAR Media Watch" to see all the many articles, interviews and media coverage I've attracted of late.

Interestingly, I haven't even officially filed for a Presidential run yet. I am "the Fred Thompson of LP politics." Fred is not an official Presidential candidate yet and he's already a close 2nd in the GOP Presidential polls. I am not an official candidate either...yet in Stephen Gordon's recent in-depth national LP poll (at GordonUnleashed.com)...I was the leading vote-getter for the LP Presidential nomination. I was also just invited to speak as a Presidential candidate at the most prestigious conservative political leadership conference of the year-with political activists from across the country in attendance. I am bringing unprecedented attention to the LP. That is what I've done well my entire life- I am a dynamic, outspoken MEDIA MAGNET. And that is precisely what the LP and Libertarian movement needs right now.

“Are you ever going to speak to the party officials in your own state?”

I have no idea where this question came from. I had dinner earlier this Spring 2007 with the two dynamic leaders of the Nevada LP. I informed them as a courtesy that I'd be throwing my hat in the ring for the LP Presidential nomination. I spoke again recently to one of the Nevada LP leaders and encouraged him to invite me to speak at a Nevada LP event in the Fall. Summers- as you might guess- are a dead time of the year in the sizzling hot desert of Las Vegas. At any one time, half (or more) of Nevada residents seem to be on vacation in July and August- just as I am right now. As soon as the weather cools down and Nevada LP members are back from family vacations, I'll be only too happy to address my fellow Nevada LP members.

By the way, my second home is in Park City, Utah. My family and I spend much of the summer there. I love Utah and plan to retire there one day. I recently called the Utah LP Chairman to ask if I could address the Utah LP membership at any time this summer while I'm in Utah. He too felt summer was a bad time to try to get many Libertarians together at a meeting. We agreed to try again in the Fall.

My plan has been all along to get serious about my Presidential decisions and campaign starting in Fall of 2007. Summers are for family- not serious politics. Voters are out having fun at the beach and mountains right now. Only the most serious political activists are tuned into politicians and political messages in the summer 16 months before the election! To spend money, time or resources now would be a waste. Or as one of my heroes General Patton would say- "Be patient. Wait...wait...and wait some more. Don't shoot your cannons until the last possible second- when it matters." That's how you win an election- hold all your resources and serious campaigning until the point where it matters- when voters get serious and they are listening. Then…and only then…FIRE AWAY!

“Are you ever going to file with the FEC?”

I think that I already covered this one in my responses above. I will make my final decision and announcement on my Presidential run this Fall. When I do, I'll file with FEC. There was no point in raising or spending any serious money this summer. It would be wasted. A third party candidate would get completely lost amidst summer fun and family vacations 16 months BEFORE the 2008 election. Just like Fred Thompson, I'll file and announce when the time is right. When voters are paying attention.

“Why do you think you are going to be able to raise money without spending any of your own?”

I never said that I wouldn't be spending any of my own money. Once again, rumors run wild on the Internet. I did say on one Internet radio interview that I would not commit to any certain amount of my own money. I have no idea what amount of my own money will be necessary. But once I file, announce and commit 100% to this race, I am willing to spend some of my own money. If you look at the leading Presidential contenders- Guliani, Thompson, McCain, Hillary, Barack Obama, Edwards- none of them to my knowledge are spending their own money. Mitt Romney is the only exception to that. So spending your own fortune to get elected is not a requirement for the office. Actually it is not effective at all- those who have tried to spend their own fortunes have all lost (Ross Perot, John Kerry). Mitt Romney has injected millions into his race in the Republican primaries- yet he's trailing badly in 4th place at this moment. Running for President is all about ideas and vision- not who is the richest candidate. Besides, I have a boss who helps me make these decisions- my wife Debra. She is the CEO of my finances. Together as a team we will make all final decisions on how much personal money I will spend for any future Presidential run.

But rest assured, I'm a prolific fundraiser. I understand that raising money is the crucial part of any Presidential campaign. Unlike your last LP nominee- who was to my understanding a college professor who had never raised money in his career- I make my living in the business world. As a CEO and entrepreneur, my entire life has been spent raising tens of millions of dollars for my various business ventures. Raising money is what I do for a living! I plan on tapping my biggest and most loyal constituency- 10 to 20 million online gamblers and poker enthusiasts who are angry and motivated because of the online gaming ban. I believe that I can raise $10 million dollars (or more) from this core constituency- that's in addition to contributions from Libertarians and LP donors.

“Congrats on the soon-to-be-born. How are you going to manage traveling with a new child arriving on January 1, 2008?”

Well, first that is a big concern for me too. Actually not the issue of traveling with a newborn- because I won't be doing that very much. I'll be traveling alone. Remember I have 3 young children, plus the new baby Root on the way. My wife Debra is CEO of the Household, and should be awarded "American Mom of the Year." So that won't change- Debra will (for the most part) stay home with the kids.

My biggest concern is whether I will get home-sick and suffer "family withdrawl” symptoms. You have to understand my unique lifestyle. I am one of the most fortunate businessmen in the world- I run my entire business empire from my home, so that I can spend all day and night around my family. I'm sure that I've given up countless business opportunities and millions of dollars because I'm not out of the house at meetings or social gatherings as much as I could be or should be. But I'm also sure my kids will benefit greatly from my choice. They will grow up confident, loved and functional because of the sacrifices I've made to be around them 24/7 (we homeschool our kids- so they are home 24/7 too). I believe that family is far more important than money or power. On your deathbed you'll never complain about the hours you didn't spend at the office, but you will certainly lament not having spent more time around your family.

Having said that, there are 3 obvious answers to your question:

First, I could eventually make the decision not to run because of the time spent away from family. I hope that I don't come to that conclusion.

Second, I could decide that my family can survive without me for a few months as I travel the country running for President. It is an "investment in America," the country that I love so much and owe so much to. I believe the country needs what I have to offer- the perspective from a straight-shooting, Libertarian-thinking, fiscally conservative, small businessman and S.O.B. (son of a butcher). My kids can survive just fine for a few months without me around 24/7. Their mom and grandmother will shower them with love! The sacrifice is worth it, when you realize the prize- saving our country. Saving their country. When it's over, I'll either be in the White House with them, or back home (and back to my "homebody ways").

Third is the compromise. I don't think I'll be away all that much. Times have changed. I conduct business meetings without much traveling. With laptops, cell phones, email, video conferencing and video email (I just learned about this from an exciting new company called VM Direct), we can all do business from anywhere we choose- whether from a beach in Maui or a mountaintop in Deer Valley, Utah (where I am now as I write this).

I think that applies to politics as well. In the "old days" Presidential politics was about handshakes and rallies. Well I do not think a LP candidate gets elected that way in the 21st century. We are big underdogs. We can't do "business as usual" to beat the dominant 2-party system. Libertarians have to think "out of the box" to beat the long odds against us. My flying to 50 states to meet Libertarians that already support me and will be voting for me is not going to win this Presidential election. My flying to hundreds of LP events and meetings to address crowds of 50 to 100 people at a time makes no sense (nor is it cost effective). Not when victory means I have to reach over 100 million voters with my Libertarian message. I can never meet that many voters in person. There isn’t enough time in a day.

I am planning to raise a minimum of $10 million dollars. With that money- more than any LP Presidential candidate has ever raised- I will blanket the TV and radio airwaves with nonstop infomercials (30 minute shows, without commercial interruption, explaining my views, solutions and plans) in the weeks leading up the 2008 election. Those infomercials will reach virtually every American voter. I will also conduct an unprecedented media campaign- appearing nonstop on national TV and radio talk shows. I will send daily video emails to millions of American voters. New media will play an increasingly important part in this campaign- I was recently asked by YouTube to create my own TV channel- so my video messages will appear day and night on YouTube. So the end result is that I will be on TV, radio, and the Internet from coast to coast day and night- reaching millions of Americans- without having to leave my home in Las Vegas. And I'll reach far more voters than if I traveled the country for 365 straight days.

Yes, I'll make a few trips to media in NY and Los Angeles. Yes, I'll make a few campaign swings to big cities to attract media coverage. Yes, I'll travel to key LP events and conventions. But I'm a MEDIA MAGNET. I'll put the LP in the spotlight like never before (times ten)- all without leaving home. It's what I've done all my life. So I don't think my kids will suffer too much. Besides, they may learn to enjoy seeing me get out of the house once in a while. LOL.

Obviously, you can’t control what is done by others in your name, but what do you think it does to your candidacy to have Eric Dondero plastering your initials on every libertarian site whilst beating the war drum? Is there anything you want to say to libertarians that might set you apart from the Liberty Caucus of the Republican Party?

First of all, I have zero control...and usually no idea what Eric or any other fan of mine is saying about me at various web sites or blogs. I'm too busy running my businesses, my political campaign, media interviews, and my family to worry what every supporter of mine is saying on the web. I'm no more responsible for what others say about me, than Ron Paul is responsible for what his supporters might be saying about him. Actually the most recent post by Eric Dondero should finally put any controversy to rest- I read that Eric has asked me to NOT run as Libertarian Presidential candidate. That's right- he wants me to drop out of the race. He feels that I am such a talented candidate that I could attract several million votes and thereby cost Republicans Rudy Guliani or Fred Thompson the election. Obviously, Eric didn't consult with me when he wrote that commentary. He has NEVER consulted with me. I have never even met Eric. We've spoken via email a couple of times. That's it. I do thank him however for being the first person to suggest on the web that I should run for President.

Here's my best advice. It's as simple as this- the Internet is the Wild West. No one has any control over what's said. That's good- because it promotes free speech. But it's also bad- in that it promotes and supports comments that are far off the mark, ridiculous, untruthful, slanderous gossip, or just plain wrong. I'd advise everyone in the LP to take everything you read on the Internet with a grain of salt.

Libertarians are not pacifists by any stretch of the imagination; we understand that war is sometimes an ugly necessity. Terror is an emotion that can never truly be eradicated and calling what we are in “The War on Terror” seems to give a blank check for perpetual war. What do you think the U.S. can do, as a matter of policy, to move toward the end of war and better relations with the Middle East and the rest of the world?

First of all, the single most important thing we can do to win the "War on Terror" has nothing to do with war or violence. It has to do with oil and energy independence. We must wean ourselves off of oil sold by Arab nations that then turnaround and fund radical Islamic terrorism. If we cut off the funds for oil, those that fund terrorist activities will quickly run out of money. We win the war by starving our enemies. How do we do that? Through environmental activism? No. Through a war on global warming? No. Both those liberal models will lead to the destruction of the U.S. economy. It is environmental extremism that has already led to our current energy (and economic) problems. First, we are dependent on foreign oil because liberals and radical environmentalists have prevented us from drilling off the coasts of Alaska, California, Florida and in the Gulf of Mexico. Many experts believe we have enough oil reserves located in those areas to supply American consumers with oil (or at least a large portion of our needs) for the next 30 years (or more). That's enough time to create a new national agenda- a united American nation committed to finding alternative fuel sources.

We have the greatest economy in world history. We can achieve any goal we set for our country. Just as President Kennedy set a national mission to put a man in space within the decade of the '60's (and we made it happen on July 20th, 1969- my birthday). We won that “space war.” We can win the “oil war” too. Our next President should declare a national American mission statement for energy independence- a 30 year war to find alternative energy and eliminate the need for oil. That's the kind of war all Americans will unite behind. Americans can accomplish anything if we unite behind a common cause.

But liberal radical environmentalists have also caused a second big problem- by filing lawsuits to prevent the construction of new oil refineries. No modern refinery has been built in this country in over 30 years. Can you imagine? Then we wonder why gas prices are so high. No matter how much oil we have, if we don't have the refinery capacity to process it, the system is flawed. That leads to shortages, price increases and interruptions to our economy. Let's unleash the power of American ingenuity. Let's start drilling for oil on U.S. soil, cut the regulations that hinder the construction of new refineries, and support the nuclear industry (and the addition of new nuclear power plants). If we do that, we'll win the "War on Terror" without firing a bullet.

Now to my opinion on the term "War on Terror." It's real. Would I wage the war the same way that George W. Bush has? Of course not. I would not take away American's freedoms under the guise of keeping us safe. What's the point of fighting the war in Iraq, if we're losing our rights and freedoms back home? I would not allow warrantless wiretaps. I would not spy on American citizens. I would undo many aspects of the Patriot Act. The "War on Terror" is not an excuse to ignore or violate the constitution. So rest assured that I am a Libertarian.

However where I disagree with some Libertarians is how we should approach the "War on Terror." It is a real threat to our national security. Ask the British- who almost had 3 horrific terror attacks in one day. It is incredibly naive to think our vicious enemies- Islamic extremists- will ever leave us alone. They murder their OWN people for minor offenses. They treat women like slaves. They refuse to allow young girls to attend school. They riot, burn, loot and murder over a CARTOON. They stone women to death for “the sin” of being raped. Yet you think we can "play nice" with them and they'll leave us alone?

Did Adolph Hitler leave us alone? Did Chamberlain's "peace in our time" philosophy make friends with Hitler? No, he laughed at the naivete and weakness of the West. He took advantage of weakness- and attacked aggressively. Islamic terrorists believe that anyone that does not submit to Islam or Allah is an infidel...and must be converted or killed. By the way...that is NOT what Mohammed said. If you study true Islam, you'll find that Islam is not a religion of murder. But Islamic extremism does not care about the truth...or facts. We face a Hitler in our time.

That does NOT mean I'd intervene all over the world. That does NOT mean I'm George W. Bush. I'm not. It does mean that I will remain vigilant and aggressive- something that our enemies respect. It does mean I would secure the U.S. border- our weakest link in the war on terror. It does mean that I'd do more than talk tough to create a false sense of security- all the while only searching the cargo of 10% (or less) of the ships reaching our ports. It does mean that I'd cut foreign aid dramatically (as well as monies spent on the United Nations) and use those billions in savings to create real security for American planes, trains and ports. But I will never show weakness or take options off the table. Our enemies see that as weak. I would make it clear that we will chase terrorists all over the world- so that it is clear that if a terrorist chooses to kill even one American citizen, he will be held accountable no matter where he is in the world. But having said that, Iraq proves we cannot afford to invade nations. We cannot afford to spread Democracy (nor is it any of our business). We cannot afford to "nation build." We cannot afford to "occupy" a nation. We cannot afford to referee a civil war. But by the way, Democrats are no better- they want out of Iraq, yet they want us in Darfur. Are you kidding?

What all this means is that I am a moderate ELECTABLE Libertarian whose views are acceptable to mainstream voters. I am the only Libertarian Presidential candidate that is fiscally conservative, socially tolerant, and strong on the issues of national defense and the war on terror. A radical 100% pure Libertarian cannot get elected. Actually past history proves that a 100% pure libertarian cannot even surpass 300,000 votes in a Presidential election- where winning requires more than 50 million votes.

Let's talk turkey. I'm a businessman and a self-made millionaire. I did NOT achieve success by getting everything 100% "my way." To the contrary, success is all about moderation and compromise. I'd rather win with 80%, than get things 100% my way and lose. Because 100% of nothing is nothing.

The same is true in politics. Ron Paul has 1% of the vote. That doesn't help the LP cause. Only winning helps the Libertarian cause. You have to elect Libertarian candidates in order to make a difference. Radical Libertarianism will not get anyone elected. You will need to support a moderate mainstream Libertarian candidate who can get the support of a majority of American voters. That is Wayne Allyn Root. You'll have to compromise a bit. I'm with the LP on 90% (or more) of the issues. That’s as good as it gets with an electable Libertarian politician.

Here's what it comes down to. Americans hate the Iraq war, they wish we had never gone. They think (like me) that it's a disaster. But now that we're there, they know there are no easy answers. It's more complicated than just "turn tail and abandon ship." They want us out quickly. So do I. But Iraq and the "War on Terror" are two different issues. Americans support a strong stance in the war on terror. Any Presidential candidate perceived as weak will be instantly disregarded by the American public. That's why the anti-war Democrats will almost certainly nominate Hillary Clinton (she has a huge lead in the latest polls)- someone who goes out of her way to sound like a tough-talking, pro-war hawk. That is why her closest challenger Barack Obama (my Columbia University classmate) just announced he'd be willing to attack our ally Pakistan to hunt down enemy terrorists hiding in the mountains of Pakistan. You may not agree. Obviously most liberal Democrats don't agree either. But Democrat candidates are bending over backwards (like a pretzel) to avoid being labeled "soft on the war on terror." That label is the kiss of death of American politics.

It's time for Libertarians to recognize that to get elected we will need to think like winners. Sometimes that requires a little bit of compromise. We will need to nominate someone who is strong and aggressive in the way he or she speaks about national defense, homeland security, and most specifically the "War on Terror." Ron Paul has 1% of the vote because he appears weak on those topics. John Edwards called the "War on Terror" a fraud- the result is that he is now stuck in the Presidential polls at a measly 10% among even liberal Democratic voters. There is no way to win a Presidential election by being soft on terror. Or by blaming America for terrorist attacks.

We are a proud nation. We are a strong nation. We are a positive nation. We like winners, not whiners. I bring all of those positive qualities to the table. I believe that I am the only LP candidate that can bring credibility, high-profile media attention, record-setting votes, and hope (for victory) to the Libertarian Party. I hope I’ve answered all your questions. I hope you now understand my dedication and commitment to the Libertarian cause. I hope you’ll choose to ROOT for Liberty, ROOT for Freedom, and ROOT for America. Learn more about me at www.ROOT4America.com.

Discussion topics include;

Why the Sea should be Privatised 

Private Law Enforcement: Libertarian Ideas on the Future of Justice

Towards a Surveillance Society

Anarcho-Capitalism Versus the Minimum State

Thoughts on Building Campaigns for Liberty 

At the conference, the winner of the annual essay contest will be announced. This year's question is 'Does the UK need a Libertarian Party'?

The same question could be asked in Australia. The view from within the LA, apparently, is that there is no need for a libertarian party in British politics. Their approach to date has been confrontational, even hostile, to mainstream politics and politicians. I completely disagree with this approach and will be submitting my 2,000 word essay for the $2,500 prize.

Change is most effectively brought about by a combination of ideas (think-tanks and blogs), effective marketing of those ideas (funds)  and power (seats). The same is true for Australia.

If you want to find out more about the Libertarian Alliance, contact Sean Gabb at sean@libertarian.co.uk

WASHINGTON - The anti-poverty campaign founded by U2 rocker Bono and others is investing $30 million to pressure the presidential candidates to focus on the oft-forgotten issue, with its leaders arguing on Monday that helping the poor is a national security issue.

Dubbed ONE Vote '08, the bipartisan political push aims to get President Bush's successor to commit to taking concrete steps to combat hunger and disease while improving access to education and water across the globe.

"People do not go to war with people who have saved their children's lives," former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., told reporters at a church in the nation's capital.

Two questions: First, what is Frist doing politicking in church? Don't worry, I've not been under a 6000 year old rock, so I understand the Republican Party and (some) churches are two appendages controlled by the same twisted brain. Second, how is this One Campaign initiative any different from a K Street lobbyist? I'll tell you that it's not. This organization is investing $30 million to tell government how to spend your money. That they do it under the flag of a noble cause is no better.

The stated purpose of this campaign is to:

_Fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

_Improve child and maternal health.

_Increase access to basic education, particularly for girls.

_Provide access to clean water and sanitation.

_Reduce by half the number of people worldwide who suffer from hunger.

Nevermind that the people this group wants to help have begged us not to.

SPIEGEL:
Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa…

Shikwati: … for God’s sake, please just stop.

SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.

Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.

Many of my visitors are libertarian and understand Shikwati's concerns. Government aid packages do not reach their intended recipients. For those of you who are new to the libertarian viewpoint, our position on foreign affairs is:

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere.

The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.

The One Vote '08 initiative claims itself bipartisan and indeed has been at campaign events for Clinton (D), Obama (D), other Democrats, McCain (R) and Romney (R). They plan to step up activity with a bus tour and TV commercials but are focused, at this time, on Iowa, Nevada, NH and SC. The group's stated goals make their involvement in our political process seem benign, even worthy. But, make no mistake; their true purpose is not so pretty. They are involved to influence U.S. policy.

Whether groups like One help end poverty or AIDS is not an issue. As a private charity, they can help whatever groups they wish; I have the ability to donate my money to them or a charity that I deem worthier. In the fight against HIV/AIDS, I think that condoms are more valuable than an abstinence program and would give my money to a group that promotes that line of thinking. A Southern Baptist may think abstinence only programs deserve their money. By keeping government out of the policy making, both methods could be pursued in a voluntary manner and neither of us would have supported a policy we found immoral or flawed.

When you remove the feel good idea of ending poverty, this group is really no different than Exxon, Wal-Mart or a mega-church playing at politics. If you would be angry about any of those groups attempting to pressure candidates in early primary states, you should get angry about this. $30 million is not chump change.

pre·science /ˈprɛʃəns, -iəns, ˈpriʃəns, -ʃiəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[presh-uhns, -ee-uhns, pree-shuhns, -shee-uhns]

knowledge of things before they exist or happen; foreknowledge; foresight.

The Libertarian Party has opposed the Iraq War from day one.

http://www.LP.org
For release: August 8, 2002

WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush's unfolding plan to invade Iraq is totally unjustified, Libertarians say, because that nation poses no direct threat to the United States.

"Before the president risks the life of even one American soldier, he needs a reason, not an excuse," said Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party executive director. "Unless the United States is at risk of an Iraqi military attack, Bush's proposal to invade that nation should be denounced for what it is: reckless foreign interventionism."

Yet a full-blown war against Iraq appears inevitable, according to administration sources, after reports on Wednesday that all of Bush's top national security advisors agree on the need to topple the Iraqi dictator. The most likely scenario involves using 200,000 U.S. ground, air, and naval troops to invade Iraq as early as the winter of 2003.

But one crucial fact has been ignored in the debate, Libertarians say: Saddam has not committed an act of aggression against the United States.

"Wars that are not defensive are merely acts of aggression against sovereign nations," Dasbach said. "And wars that are launched by presidents, rather than formally declared by Congress as the Constitution requires, are illegal."

Ron Paul has opposed the Iraq War from day one.

I do believe that it is time to put the LP logo and Ron Paul's picture up in the dictionary next to the word.

Go Ron Paul! Go Kubby!

I've posted a lot on Ron Paul, but it is time that I give an LP hopeful some time.

About Steve Kubby
Steve Wynn Kubby (born December 28, 1946) is a Libertarian Party activist who played a key role in the drafting and passage of California Proposition 215. The proposition was a ballot initiative to legalize medical marijuana which was approved by voters in 1996. Kubby himself is well-known as a cancer patient who relies on medical cannabis. He was a candidate for Governor of California in 1998 and has declared his candidacy for the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential nomination. -- Wikipedia

But enough dry biography!

Steve Kubby is the only 2008 presidential candidate who's played a key role in passing pro-freedom legislation, then gone to court -- and to jail -- defending that legislation. Since the passage of Proposition 215 in 1996, twelve states have adopted "compassionate use" laws to protect patients whose ailments require them to use medical marijuana.

As a founder and director of the American Medical Marijuana Association, Steve Kubby has continued to fight for Americans' right to protect their health without facing political persecution. In that role, he has negotiated with federal regulators, including the Attorney General of the United States, on behalf of patient rights.

Like some other former, current or likely presidential candidates, Steve Kubby is a cancer patient. As a matter of fact, he is the longest-surviving known victim of malignant phenochromocytoma, a rare form of adrenal cancer with a 100% fatality rate within five years. Steve has lived with malignant phenochromocytoma for more than 30 years, and his condition remains under control ... thanks to medical marijuana.

Right now, I have a friend in CA that this might be important to.

On the issues, Kubby stands here:

Policy Positions: In Brief
Civil Liberties

Repeal the Patriot Act
Repeal the Military Commissions Act
Enforce the Bill of Rights
End government discrimination based on sexual orientation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Energy & Environment

Require government and military fleets to go non-petroleum
End taxpayer subsidies to the petroleum and agriculture industries

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Foreign Policy & Iraq

Immediate, unconditional withdrawal from Iraq
Return to America's traditional non-interventionist foreign policy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guns

No new "gun control" legislation
Repeal of all existing "gun control" legislation
Forbid and prosecute violations of gun rights by government

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Immigration

Open immigration for all peaceful people

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taxes & Spending

Veto any and all tax increases, new taxes, and unbalanced budgets -- period.
Work to cut spending, splitting resulting surpluses between tax cuts and debt service.
Work to eliminate the federal income tax.
Until the income tax is eliminated, seek annual across-the-board tax cuts through increases to the personal exemption.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The War on Drugs

End it!

There is much time before we nominate the Libertarian Party candidate for president, and barring the entry of any new, more qualified candidate, I support Steve Kubby. He has, quite literally, "done time" for freedom and liberty.

He has, in his fight to use medical marijuana, taken the War on Drugs to its proper place: Freedom. From his position paper on the WOD:

Let me preface my position by pointing out one thing: This is no more about drugs than the Boston Tea Party was about tea. It's about freedom:

Freedom to look after your own health without a bureaucrat snooping around in your medicine cabinet.

Freedom to choose the substances that you're going to eat, drink, smoke or otherwise ingest without having to fear that midnight knock at the door and the shout of "police!"

And, yes, freedom to "get high" without risking arrest and imprisonment.

Some people call Kubby a "single issue" candidate, but I think his issue is the most important. Either you are free, or you're not. There is no freedom greater than that which allows a person to RUN or RUIN his life as he sees fit. Steve Kubby gets it. Ron Paul gets it. And, Mike Gravel gets it (@ 5:37 anyway).

Round pegs in square holes? Yep, brilliant cut. Shine on you crazy diamonds!

Audio of referenced song here.

As a libertarian, I want to do my part to see that a pro-liberty person is on the ballot for the 2008 election. As a libertarian county officer, I work to see a libertarian win. With Ron Paul's candidacy, I can work at both. Because he's a Republican Party candidate, I cannot vote for him. But, he is a life member of the Libertarian Party, so I will wear the shirt with pride.

You can find the shirt, and other products here.

Hat Tip/ Titanium Girl

MANCHESTER, N.H., April 25 — In his two months on the campaign trail, the central animating theme of Rudolph W. Giuliani’s presidential campaign has been that his performance as New York mayor on Sept. 11, 2001, makes him the best candidate to keep the United States safe from terrorists.

But when Mr. Giuliani broadened that message here on Tuesday night, saying that Democrats “do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us” and that if they were elected the United States would suffer “more losses,”...

[snip]

In his speech before Republicans here on Tuesday night, Mr. Giulani called the fight against terrorism “the defining conflict of our time.” If a Democrat were elected president, he said, they would “wave the white flag” in Iraq, cut back on surveillance of terrorists, restrict the ability of law enforcement officials to gather intelligence and limit interrogation techniques, curtailing their effectiveness.

“Make no mistake about it, the Democrats want to put us back on defense,” he said.

The Democrat presidential nominee hopefuls are taking the opportunity to call Mr. Giuliani's remarks what they are:

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois accused Mr. Giuliani of “taking the politics of fear to a new low.” Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York used the remarks to link Mr. Giuliani to a failure by the Bush administration to quash Al Qaeda. John Edwards called the remarks “divisive and just plain wrong.”

Of course, the Dems don't talk about their complicity in this war. Now that I think of it, the Rs and Ds are both using tired plays. We have seen this ballgame before. It was only the Libertarian Party that stood against this Iraq fiasco from the start. From a press release dated August 8, 2002:

Moreover, while the U.S. government has made vague claims that the Iraqi regime has terrorist links, it has produced no public evidence specifically linking Saddam to the September 11 attacks, Dasbach pointed out.

"Since Bush has no legitimate reason for waging war on Iraq, he has cobbled together a list of accusations, none of which provide sufficient justification for invading a sovereign nation and risking American lives," he said. For example, Bush claims that:

Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. "True enough, but there are dozens of ruthless dictators around the globe, starting with Fidel Castro; the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia; the Chinese communists; and various tyrants sprinkled throughout Africa, Asia, and Latin America," Dasbach said. "Is Bush going to send troops to topple them all?"

According to Freedom House, an organization that tracks the status of democracy around the world, only 120 of the world's 192 nations are electoral democracies, Dasbach noted. "So unless Mr. Bush plans to launch strikes on the 72 other captive nations, he owes the American people an explanation as to why they should fear Iraq more than other despotic regimes," Dasbach said.

Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. "According to the Pentagon, 12 countries have nuclear weapons programs, 13 have biological weapons, 16 have chemical weapons and 28 have ballistic missiles," Dasbach said. "So what makes Saddam's chemical weapons more menacing than, say, Pakistan's nuclear bomb?

Saddam supports terrorism. "According to the State Department's official list of terrorist sponsors, 45 nations have active al Qaeda cells," Dasbach said. "So even if terrorists are operating inside Iraq, that in itself makes Iraq no more of a threat to the United States than Malaysia, Somalia, or the Philippines."

The bottom line is that Bush's wide-ranging indictment against Saddam Hussein is missing one key element: proof that Iraq poses a direct threat to the United States, Dasbach said.

"Instead of struggling to find a justification for war, Mr. Bush should be looking for a way to avoid war - and avoid the needless loss of American lives that could result."

I'm thinking that it is time to see a new team play ball. The current teams seem more like a bad bookie and cheating player; the outcome of the game is fixed, but not in your favor.

Republican congressman Ron Paul was interviewed on Bill Maher last night. Maher, a self-described libertarian (Maher is a single issue libertarian), attempted to throw Dr. Paul under a bus. I think Dr. Paul did quite well under pressure and described the libertarian viewpoint beautifully. Please watch, try to avoid the slavery soundbite distraction (Maher's), and do your own research. Here's the clip:

Here are a few little known facts about Dr. Paul; perhaps you will gain some insight with regard to his character.

10 Things You Didn't Know About Ron Paul
By Danielle Burton
Posted 3/23/07
Compiled by the U.S. News & World Report library staff

1. Ronald Ernest Paul was born on Aug. 20, 1935, in Pittsburgh. His father was a dairy farmer.

2. Paul graduated with a bachelor's degree from Gettysburg College in 1957 and with a medical degree from the Duke University School of Medicine in 1961.

3. He served as a flight surgeon in the Air Force from 1963 to 1965 and in the Air National Guard until 1968. That year he moved to Texas to take over another doctor's medical practice.

4. Paul greatly admires Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), an Austrian economist who advocated laissez-faire, free market policies. A photo of the economist decorates his office wall. Paul became interested in politics in 1971 when President Nixon removed the country from the gold standard and set wage price controls– disappointing actions to Paul (and presumably von Mises).

5. Paul was elected to the House of Representatives in a special election in April 1976 to replace resigning Rep. Robert R. Casey. He was not re-elected later that year but did win his bid in 1978. He held office until early 1985, when he returned to his medical practice.

6. Paul ran for president in 1988 as a candidate for the Libertarian party. He received over 400,000 votes (or 0.47 percent), finishing third behind George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis.

7. Returning to the GOP, Paul won office again in 1996 to represent his Texas district in the House. He has been re-elected five times. He reportedly would like to be listed as both a Republican and a Libertarian, if Texas law allowed. And maybe also as a member of the Constitutional Party.

8. Paul received the nickname "Dr. No" in Congress for repeatedly casting "nay" votes, even on legislation with almost unanimous support from his Republican colleagues. Explaining why he opposes legislation that expands government power, funds federal spending, or reduces privacy: "I interpret through the eyes of the Constitution. If we don't have direct authorization, I don't vote for it, even if there are good intentions." In 2006, the Washington Post wrote: "He says, if his fellow Republicans are 'very desperate,' he may allow himself to be talked into changing a 'no' vote to 'present.' "

9. During his medical career specializing in obstetrics/gynecology, he delivered more than 4,000 babies. He refused to accept payment by Medicare or Medicaid, preferring to not charge patients or to work out a cash payment.

10. Paul is married to Carol Wells. They have five children and 17 grandchildren. He supported his children during their undergraduate and medical school years–not letting them accept federal student loans. It is also said he plans to refuse his congressional pension. (Emphasis mine.)

With Dr. Paul's candidacy, I find myself lucky to be a Texas libertarian. Texas libertarians easily achieved ballot access so I can support Dr. Paul in the Republican primary and remain true to liberty's cause. There are many libertarians in whom I am interested, but in the duopoly that is American politics, if Dr. Paul wins the GOP nom, my vote might be for the RINO.

Links:
Ron Paul's voting record
Libertarian Party
Ron Paul's campaign site
Ron Paul's issues

Update: I should make clear that as county chairman, I can support Ron Paul up to the primary, but cannot vote for him and hold convention. You can only affiliate with one party. If you are a libertarian who wishes to vote in the primary for Dr. Paul, you will not be able to vote in the Libertarian Party nomination process.