Press "Enter" to skip to content

Sonny Landham, Kentucky Libertarian for U.S. Senate, defends ‘camel-dung shovelers’ comments on youth radio show

When asked about high energy prices, Kentucky Libertarian for U.S. Senate Sonny Landham said we should release oil from the strategic oil reserve, drill in areas of the U.S. currently off-limits, and try to persuade OPEC to cut the price of oil. And if that doesn’t work, Mr. Landham said we should use military force to steal the oil. More specifically, he said: “We should go and bomb those camel-dung shovelers back into the sand.” Apparently thinking his racial epithet clever, he reiterated: “I said ‘camel-dung shovelers.’ Make sure you put that in the newspaper.”

Later asked about this on The Weekly Filibuster, — a radio show that works to inform young voters of the week’s political news — Landham asked if Arabs would prefer to be called “camel jockeys.”

Landham further defended his racist statements: “I’m a pro-American all the way. The Arabs, the camel dung-shovelers, the camel jockeys, whichever you wanna call ’em, are terrorists. And they are doing a terrorist act on this country with the high gas prices. They’re about to wreck this economy, not only our economy, but the world economy. Now, when you talk to people, you don’t talk in PC terms. PC does not get the attention of the people.”

When taking a call from an Arab-American woman, Landham said he didn’t care what she thought, his interest was in American citizens. The lady told him that she was an American citizen, and Landham said he didn’t believe her.

Landham also blames the U.S. dollar’s decline on high oil prices, rather than blaming both on the Federal Reserve’s inflationary monetary policies.

Landham said the greatest threat to America was “not being industrialized.” He said we need to get back to the days of Jimmy Hoffa and Eugene Debs. He came out strongly against international trade and in favor of complete autarky. When it was pointed out to him that Hoffa and Debs are not typically libertarian heroes, Landham said this: “These men built America because they stood up for the working man. They didn’t allow outsourcing of jobs. Eugene Debs with the wobblies shut down Seattle for a week. Jimmy Hoffa today would shut down every truck in this country until they reduced the price of gas and diesel. John L. Lewis would never have allowed this country, uh, to subvert the mining and use of coal.”

Landham’s comments pulled Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr into the mud, as well, as he was asked “Do you think that Bob Barr agrees that the Arab race consists of camel dung-shovelers?” Landham said he could not speak on behalf of Bob Barr.

This is the image the Libertarian Party of Kentucky is putting forward as “libertarianism” to young people and the public at large.

And he managed to insult the Green Party, as well.

Below is the full transcript of his appearance on The Weekly Filibuster.

Ben Goodman: And joining us now is the Libertarian Nominee for the United States Senate in Kentucky, Sonny Landham. Good evening Mr. Landham.

Sonny Landham: Good evenin’, Ben. How are ya’?

Ben Goodman: Well, great! And…and…how are you? Thank you for joining us.

Sonny Landham: Well I appreciate you and the rest of the panel having me on tonight.

Ben Goodman: Well, Mr. Landham, I guess we should just jump right in, you’re under fire this week for…uh…calling the entire Arab race “camel dung-shovelers.”

Sonny Landham: Would they have appreciated it better if I called them “camel jockeys?”

Ben Goodman: Well, how do you justify those statements?

Sonny Landham: Look. Now, I’m an American. I’m a pro-American all the way. The Arabs, the camel dung-shovelers, the camel jockeys, whichever you wanna call ’em, are terrorist. And they are doing a terrorist act on this country with the high gas prices. They’re about to wreck this economy, not only our economy, but the world economy.

Now, when you talk to people, you don’t talk in PC terms. PC does not get the attention of the people.

Ben Goodman: Tom Dec.

Sonny Landham: I beg your pardon.

Tom Dec: Oh, sorry. This is Tom Dec, one of the panelists on the show. I just have a follow up to that. Are you aware where…what single country gives us the majority of our oil?

Sonny Landham: Saudi Arabia. Oh, you mean where do we get most of our oil right now?

Tom Dec: Well, like, which single country gives us the most oil? Or at least sells us the most oil, rather.

Sonny Landham: We get from, we get a lot from, we’re getting a lot from Mexico.

Tom Dec: Well it actually turns out that we get about, I don’t know the exact figures, but uh, Canada actually, uh, sells us, is the single country that sells us the majority of our oil. At least from…Canada is the single biggest contributor to our oil supply.

Sonny Landham: Yes, but the Arabs are holding back on oil production which is raising the price and giving…it’s not one whole thing out of this, but the Arabs are setting the price, the American dollar is going down on the consumption of oil and the war in Iraq. Therefore, therefore, everybody else is profiteering off of the oil. See, people can only pump so much. We’ve come up with a plan which is, if you’ve been to the website, which is switch and drill. And that is, we have to drill everywhere that we can, but also Bush needs to sign the executive order to open up the federal oil reserve which can pump, I believe 4.4 million barrels a day, 13 days after he signs that order. Also, we should be taking, uh, half of what Iraq has produced, which is a million and a half barrels a day, we should be taking 750,000 barrels of oil a day from them at the rate of forty dollars a barrel to repay the trillion plus debt that they have towards us over the war and the rebuilding of their infrastructure while our infrastructure, uh, deteriorates badly.

Ben Goodman: Matt Cavedon.

Matt Cavedon: I’m wondering if you’re criticisms are directed at all Arabs, all Muslims, is Islam itself opposed to America? I mean, our current ambassador to the United Nations under President Bush is Zalmay Khalilzad, he’s a devout Muslim. Who exactly–

Sonny Landham: What exactly do you want me to say, praise the Muslims? I will not say that. There is, Matt, it is Matt, right?

Matt Cavedon: Yes, sir.

Sonny Landham: Matt, there has been a holy war going for thousands, and thousands, and thousands of years. Long before we were ever thought of. The Muslims look at infidels. Anyone who is not a Muslim is an infidel. Whether you are a Jew, a Bhuddist, a Catholic, a Protestant, or an atheist, you are still an infidel. They will lie to you, and they will not tell you the truth because it is not a sin for a Muslim to lie to a infidel.

Matt Cavedon: I have some very close friends who I’ve had deep religious conversations on, and we do have some very legitimate disagreements, and we do have some very different perceptions of how things are–

Sonny Landham: That’s a very, that’s a very uh, that’s a very bigoted statement when you say “I have some friends that are.”

Matt Cavedon: Okay. I have some friends that believe in the Islamic faith and have made a profession of faith, to that extent, I have a friend from the middle east who I go to college with, and I certainly don’t believe that they view me as an infidel and I certainly don’t do the same for them. What makes you believe that Muslims alone–

Sonny Landham: If I had my way, I would stop Arabs coming into this country. And I would take all, uh, non citizens of the United States, finger printing them, and having a complete background check before they set foot into this country.

Matt Cavedon: How about Lebanese Christians and Arabs who aren’t Muslims?

Sonny Landham: What did I just say? All people. I said no Arabs into this country. Look, it wasn’t a blonde, blue eyed, fair skin person who flew those planes into the twin towers on 9/11. Wasn’t it those people who murdered about 5,000 of our fellow countrymen in Europe just 50, 60 years ago?

Sonny Landham: Wait a minute, what was that, I did not understand the question.

Matt Cavedon: Wasn’t it blonde haired, blue eyed people who wound up wiping out about 500,000 of our countrymen out in Europe about 60 years ago?

Sonny Landham: Oh, you’re talking about the Germans. The Germans were our enemy. At that time they were our enemy, and I would have felt the same way about the Germans as I feel about the Arabs now. I’m pro-American, baby. This is my country. This is the flag I believe in [coughs]. I don’t wrap myself in the flag and say, “hey, I’m a patriot.” No, I served in the military. I served, uh, thirty-seven months in the United States army. I believe in the flag represents my country, and I believe in America and its citizens. I definitely don’t believe in the politicians that we have in Washington, because most of ’em like Boss Hog talk out of both sides of their mouth, smoke a cigar, whistle dixie, she come down and shake hands with the public every two years or every six years or every four years and the rest of the time they’re reaching out the back door for the payoff. Now that’s why we’re in this fix today. And what people don’t realize is we don’t re-industrialize America now and go back to being a steel economy, and manufacture our own products, that one day soon, other countries will do to us over products we use every day just like the Arabs, whatever you wanna call ’em, are doing to us with oil prices right now.

Ben Goodman: Our number is (347) 205-9993 if you wanna call in. Tom Dec.

Tom Dec: Now, you oppose in Iraq, and, uh–

Sonny Landham: Is this Matt?

Tom Dec: Uh, this is Tom again.

Sonny Landham: Oh, alright, Tom.

Tom Dec: Uh, pretty good, how are you? Uh, um, why do you support bombing the OPEC countries if they don’t turn over oil to us, and how exactly is that a libertarian position?

Sonny Landham: Uh, this, that was not quite what I said. My first statement was, do the steps that we have in the switch and drill, and somebody said, well that’s not my diplomatic way and if that doesn’t work, I said I would bomb those camel dung-shovelers back into the sand, and you’re going to wind up having to do it. Now, I’m pro-Israel all the way. As far as my book goes, Israel can do no wrong, Israel has a right to survive. It’s the camel dung-shovelers that say Israel does not have a right to survive, we don’t recognize Israel. Well, pal, I am for Israel. The biggest thing we ever did was to stop Israel…Israel in the six day war.

Ben Goodman: and we are–

Sonny Landham: Pardon?

Ben Goodman: Go right ahead…

Sonny Landham: In stopping them then, we have the problems that we have today.

Ben Goodman: With our next question is Robert Burack.

Robert Burack: Mr. Landham, just shifting our conversation back to gasoline and energy, do you support offshore drilling as opposed to–

Sonny Landham: Well yes I do. Drilling can…will not deteriorate the ocean. You want to talk about the environment? Well what about these fighter planes that come in and dump their fuel in the ocean before they land on the deck of the planes [sic]. What about these ships that dump their sewage into the ocean? What about these ships that dump their garbage into the ocean? What about these barges that go up and dump their garbage in the ocean from cities?

You wanna talk about the environment? Let’s start with cleaning up the straight pipes in Eastern Kentucky. That’s where raw sewage just flows right into the creeks and rivers of Eastern Kentucky and all I hear is about the environment. Do you know who backs the Green Party? That’s big oil companies that are backing the Green Party just so they can say “well we want to build refineries,” “uh, we wanna drill but we can’t, but the Green Party will stop us. The Green Party is a joke. If oil money took its money away from ’em, we wouldn’t have a Green Party.

I’m not angry, I’m not angry, I’m just passionate about what people ask and what people go through life that have gotten us into this situation today and you can’t go voting frick or frack with the Democrats or the Republicans. If you’re happy with oil prices, if you are happy with high food prices, if you are happy with the scam of corn ethanol, which is jacking up the prices on all our food because it is a staple, then go ahead and vote for the Democrats. Go ahead and vote for the Republicans. And you’ll get the same that you have now, only worse. What do you do? Vote a choice. You have a choice with Bob Barr. That is your statement folks. You wanna send Washington a message? Vote for Bob Barr. You wanna send Washington a message, Kentucky? Vote for Sonny Landham. Vote again Boss Hog McConnell. The pig has been up there too long.

Ben Goodman: We have a caller on the line in area code 240. Caller, you’re on the Weekly Filibuster.

Caller: Hi, Mr. Landham? Is that how you pronounce it.

Sonny Landham: Yes ma’am.

Caller: I’m an Arab woman. Do you hate me?

Sonny Landham: I don’t hate you, honey. I don’t hate anybody.

Caller: Well isn’t that a little contradictory to what you’ve been saying all week?

Sonny Landham: When it comes to foreign policy strategy, I’m a realist and not a liberal.

Caller: So realistically, I shovel camel dung?

Sonny Landham: Honey, I don’t–or ma’am, I don’t know what you do.

Caller: Then how can you say that my people collectively shovel camel dung?

Sonny Landham: It’s not really a big interest to me. My interest is taking care of America and American citizens.

Caller: Yes, but I’m also an American citizen, and I think that what you said is completely politically incorrect. And as I a realistic foreign policy-making man, you should know that.

Sonny Landham: Uh, I don’t believe that–

Caller: You will never gain anyone’s respect saying that collectively about a people

Sonny Landham: …say what you mean and mean what you say. Now, what’s your next question?

Caller: That’s it, I’m done.

Sonny Landham: Well, good. Have a nice evening.

Caller: Yep.

Ben Goodman: We want to thank the caller for calling in, and with our next question, Sage Koontz.

Sage Koontz: Hello, Mr. Landham. What do you feel are the greatest threats facing America in the next few years?

Sonny Landham: Uh, Sage, would you repeat the question?

Sage Koontz: What do you feel are the greatest threats to America in the next few years.

Sonny Landham: The greatest threat to America is not being industrialized. What we need to do is, back in the days of building America, people like Eugene Debs, Jimmy Hoffa, and John Lewis, who were heads of Unions, they built America, they were an industrial nation. An industrial nation makes it’s own. If we rely on foreign country to manufacture our products, I again say that they will do the same to us with products that we use every day like the Arabs are doing to us with the oil right now. Therefore we have to manufacture our own and be a steel economy. We need good high paying jobs, union jobs, for the American people. The union takes care of your retirement, the union takes care of your health insurance, and they see that the worker gets a fair amount for his labor.

Ben Goodman: Mr. Landham, we know that we only asked you to stay on for a few minutes, but do you mind going on a little longer? We think it’s an interesting conversation.

Sonny Landham: No, I would enjoy doing that, Ben.

Ben Goodman: Excellent. Matt, you have the next question.

Matt Cavedon: You just commended John Lewis and Eugene Debs, who was a socialist party presidential candidate in the early 20th century. These guys aren’t generally viewed as heroes by the libertarian party now, are they?

Sonny Landham: These men built America because they stood up for the working man. They didn’t allow outsourcing of jobs. Eugene Debs with the wobblies shut down Seattle for a week. Jimmy Hoffa today would shut down every truck in this country until they reduced the price of gas and diesel. John L. Lewis would never have allowed this country, uh, to subvert the mining and use of coal. Now that…these are people that stood up for the working man. No one is standing up for the working man today. The Democrats are not standing up for the working man. The Republicans are not standing up for the working man. Pal, it is the unions that built this country. It is the Democrats and the Republicans that have torn this country down.

Ben Goodman: Sage, you have our next question.

Sage Koontz: Hi, Mr. Landham again.

Sonny Landham: Hi, Sage.

Sage Koontz: …changing subjects, how would you propose to outlaw abortion in America, and do you believe that it is a federal or state issue?

Sonny Landham: It is a state issue. It is a state issue, becau–

Ben Goodman: And…our…technical

Sonny Landham: Hello?

Ben Goodman: Hello, are you there?

Sonny Landham: Yeah, this cord, I’m in a motel in Florence, Kentucky, I’m you know, campaigning up here, and the cord just pulled out of the phone. Uh, you asked me about abortion. Abortion is a state issue, not a federal issue, that’s not something for the courts. I believe states rights today, states rights tomorrow, states rights forever. And to do that is what our constitution is built on so that we can have self determination. Now, if a state…and I am are pro-life all the way, but if a state votes for abortion, I can’t stop what some other state does. But it’s not the job of the federal government.

Matt Cavedon: Mr. Landham, you said in a previous interview that abortion is the equivalent of murder.

Sonny Landham: It is.

Matt Cavedon: Do you believe that murder should be left up to the states, or does the federal government have some jurisdiction in that?

Sonny Landham: No…any crime that is committed, the federal government has no criminal jurisdiction by the constitution. Any crime that you commit is a crime the, the, um the injured party…I mean not the injured party, the victim of any crime is the state. All indictments read “the state of” whatever, or the “commonwealth of” whatever versus Joe Doe, it doesn’t say the federal government. There are only three courts in the federal government. That’s equity, maritime, and admiralty. Now, the criminal court for the federal government is only good in Washington, DC, which is federal property, indian lands and territories. But the states have states rights. And we have given up our state’s rights by state politicians being bribed by our own tax money.

Ben Goodman: Robert Burack.

Robert Burack: Yes, I’m just wondering whether you view homosexuality as something that’s immoral?

Sonny Landham: Homosexuality is an individual choice. You know, homosexuality does not rub off. In all the time I spent in Hollywood, I worked with homosexuals, I socialized with homosexuals–it’s not a disease, it doesn’t wear off. It’s and individual choice. And I can’t make choices for individuals. That’s their right.

Ben Goodman: And with our next question, Robert again.

Robert Burack: Sure, I’m just wondering, how would you reform American Indian services, given your background.

Sonny Landham: How would I reform the American Indian services?

Robert Burack: Yeah.

Sonny Landham: There are not supposed to services to the American Indians. Indians have their land, it should be sovereign, and they should govern and take care of themselves. Now, this is something for the reservation, the indian police, and federal law. But, no, the government should get out of the Indian services and let the Indians…you know, the government is withholding money that the Indian tribes should have and they also faltered on payments to tribes. And man, I’ll tell you, this government is into everything, it’s into your life, it’s into your cellphone, it’s into your computer. You know, this PATRIOT act, that’s an act of terrorism on this country. George Bush and his delegation up there, Cheney, they are terrorist, they are traitors to this country. They have foresaken everything this country stands for and economically taken it down the tubes. And Boss Hog McConnell, who’s the minority leader in the Senate, claims to be the closest. I mean, folks, these people should be held for murder. They have mamed and murdered our sons and daughters over a lie about Iraq. The only thing the Iraq war was for was to get BP, Total, Exxon, and Shell back into drilling in Iraq. This was all for his oil buddies.

Ben Goodman: Matt.

Matt Cavedon: Who do you believe would be worse for America, Barack Obama or John McCain as President.

Sonny Landham: [Laugh] [Cough]. Who would be the worst? John McCain. John McCain has some serious mental and personality problems…uh…disorders. John McCain does not know who John McCain is. And I do agree with Wesley Clark. That John McCain, just because he’s, and I respect the man for his service to his country, as a Vietnam veteran, but just because he spent 5 or 6 years in a prison camp does not qualify him to be president of the United States. John McCain can’t decide whether he’s a Democrat or a Republican, or…I don’t know what he is, and he doesn’t know. And he changes every time he turns around. The only thing that Barack Obama has done is he has come out and said what the people want to hear. This country is ready for a revolution. You can’t have a bloody revolution today. You can’t go to march on Washington with your guns, with your muskets, and pitchforks. So what do the people do? They’re going to have their revolution pack the ballot box. Barack Obama…people no longer want the old time politics. That’s why Hillary Clinton didn’t win, that’s why John McCain is gonna be the George McGovern of the Republican Party.

Ben Goodman: And just going back to your comments earlier, you mentioned of course Bob Barr, your party’s nominee for the presidency. Do you think that Bob Barr agrees that the Arab race consists of camel dung-shovelers?

Sonny Landham: You would have to ask Bob Barr that question.

Ben Goodman: Okay. And with our final question, Sage.

Sage Koontz: Hello sir, again. On a lighter note, have you stayed in touch with your Predator co-stars, Governors Ventura and Schwarzenegger, and did they give you any advice?

Sonny Landham: Uh, we were in touch with Schwarzenegger’s office. Them personally, I haven’t been in a good while. Arnold, you know, was Governor, he’s had his problems. But we did talk and discuss hydrogen and hydrogen cars and the use of hydrogen with Arnold and his office. That we did do. But uh, any personal contact, not recently.

Ben Goodman: Well, Mr. Landham, we want to thank you so much for joining us.

Sonny Landham: It’s Sonny, Ben. Just call me Sonny.


  1. paulie cannoli paulie cannoli July 25, 2008

    # pauliecannoli Says:
    July 26, 2008 at 1:36 am edit

    CLARKSVILLE, IN–The Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), a white supremacist organization that has strong ties to the mainstream via members that are elected officials, will be holding their annual conference next month in a Holiday Inn near Louisville, Kentucky. This will be the second time this year that a major hotel chain was the location of a white supremacist conference, and this event is listing as speakers a former actor who has worked with Eddie Murphy and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and a Canadian fascist who was most recently seen at National Vanguard’s Conference in Elmwood Park, NJ on Mother’s Day Weekend.

    June 16 and 17 is when the CCC is to hold their 2006 National Conference at the Clarksville, Indiana Holiday Inn. This is considered a suburb of Louisville, Kentucky, which in recent years has seen a rag tag group of Klan members attempting to organize that reports say may put together a rally in the near future with the National Socialist Movement. The CCC event had been announced months ago, but it was only recently that the location was published on one of their websites.

    The Conference boasts a slate of speakers that are considered conference regulars. CCC member and author Brent Nelson. Col. Robert Slimp, and lawyer Sam Dickson, who once represented Daniel “KKK Guy” Carver from the Howard Stern Wack Pack, will be among those regulars speaking. In addition Minuteman and CCC member Joe McCutchen will also be on hand to speak at the conference.

    Co-hosting the event will be actor Sonny Landham, who has appeared in 48 Hrs., Predator, The Warriors and a string of porn films in the seventies. He is a new member of the CCC and has been very active particularly around the issue of immigration.
    # pauliecannoli Says:
    July 26, 2008 at 1:37 am edit


    (207) 710-7608 /


    Louisville, Kentucky – Sonny Landham, Libertarian nominee for the US Senate in Kentucky will address media attention regarding his Wednesday degrading comments of the Arab American community.

    Landham will appear tonight for a full hour alongside representatives from the Arab-Americam community on a special edition of The Weekly Filibuster airing live tonight at 10PM EDT at

    Landham will take listener calls at (347) 205-9993.
    # pauliecannoli Says:
    July 26, 2008 at 1:45 am edit

    Can Billy woo the woman vote in KY?

    This might be an obstacle:

    The legal page is the report on the activity that is presently consuming my life, and has consumed my life since 1998. The legal will explain how a mentally ill wife and a liberal guided federal government railroaded me into federal prison.

    Well, that might not be too bad, maybe there’s an explanati…..

    During divorce proceedings in 1998, Sonny’s wife Belita ran to a women’s abuse center, due to her fear of losing money and custody of their daughter, Priscilla. Even though Sonny had never struck his wife or children (Rachel Landham is a step-daughter) [the foregoing statement was made by Belita and Rachel], the fascist women’s abuse groups of Kentucky and the federal government through judicial terrorism framed Sonny, and he did thirty-one (31) months in federal prison

  2. langa langa July 25, 2008

    “Is a gold standard feasible again? Of course. The dollar could be redefined in terms of gold. Interest rates would reflect the real supply and demand for credit. We could shut down the Fed and we would never need to worry again what the chairman of the Fed wanted.” — Ron Paul (2002)

    Go back and look at the linked webpage. That quote comes not from Ron Paul, but rather from the attached article by Lew Rockwell. Regardless of whether Ron Paul would agree with the quote, it is inaccurate to attribute it to him.

    Ron Paul is a libertarian who likes to use conservative rhetoric, while Bob Barr is a conservative who likes to use libertarian rhetoric. I actually think much of Barr’s metamorphosis is legit, but he has a long way to go to be as libertarian as Ron Paul.

    It’s ironic that someone mentioned a Paul/Barr ticket, since that’s exactly what I was hoping for a few months ago. It would have gotten a ton of media exposure, and would have spared the LP the embarrassment of being represented by the insufferable WAR.

  3. Chris Mallory Chris Mallory July 25, 2008

    One thing to remember, in Kentucky, the parties don’t have anything to say about who runs on their name. Especially if there is no primary. Anyone can pay the fee get their name on the ballot. Democrats and Republicans need two signatures. Other parties, need a petition of from 50 to 1000 names to be on the ballot.

  4. donald raymond lake donald raymond lake July 25, 2008

    And in the Blue Ridge Mountains:

    You Gave Us the Building Address
    What is Building Address?

    ASHLAND KY 41101-7645

  5. G.E. G.E. Post author | July 25, 2008

    The two are interrelated. Arabs don’t have property rights, in his eyes, because they are “camel dung shovelers.”

    However, I would much prefer a candidate who was “racist” against Arabs but did not want to bomb them, to a “cosmopolitan” faux-libertarian (like Brink Lindsey) who may love the Arab man’s brown skin but want to murder him with Carl Milsted’s weapons.

    Of course, I would honestly prefer none of the above, but one is clearly worse than the other.

  6. FreeMarketeer FreeMarketeer July 25, 2008


    Yes, he is saying that Arabs have no property rights, but that’s only part of it. His racist and bigoted views towards Arabs are blinding him to the fact that it’s our energy policy and foreign policy of interventionism that are at the root of high energy prices. He wants to blame someone? Blame the current administration for getting us into this mess. Yet Landham doesn’t even do that.

    Although his opposition to private property rights, which is proven by his support for Debs and Hoffa, is a major factor in his rhetoric, his racist views of Arabs are the lion’s share of the problem. And it’s a problem that we need to acknowledge, or we’re in trouble.

    And, because of that paradigm of his, people like Landham prove my point: sane, true libertarians need to distance themselves from the label “libertarian” and embrace other labels that are better than the one they’ve clung onto.

    It’s the reason why I now identify myself as a “free marketeer” and not as a “libertarian.” And I wish just above every true, ideologically pure libertarian would do the same.

  7. G.E. G.E. Post author | July 25, 2008

    antiwar – His opposition to property rights is reinforced by his celebration of Debs and Hoffa.

  8. antiwar antiwar July 25, 2008

    Everyone seems to be missing the most important point. Landham is saying that Arabs have no property rights, because they are not Americans. He is saying we should bomb them if they won’t lower their price.

    How about if he said he should bomb Korean grocers in Los Angeles if their prices are too high? Seems like the same logic.

    Hate speech and racism aside, he is opposed to property rights.

  9. FreeMarketeer FreeMarketeer July 25, 2008

    Greg (a.k.a. Naisarid):

    This nonsensical claptrap regarding “the difference serving a steak on fine china or serving it on the lid of a garbage can that smells bad and has maggots crawling all over it” is simply that — claptrap!!

    You simply forget that Landham despises all Arabs with a passion. He has smeared a wide gamut of Arabs (or, if you prefer, Middle Eastern people) who are not a monolithic ethnic group at all. He looks at them the same way a KKK member looks at a black man. Sprinkling an entire group of people with racial epithets s no different from that same KKK member calling a black man the N word.

    If I recall, Greg, you’re Armenian-American. Excuse me, but isn’t your ethnic heritage a part of the Middle Eastern culture? Aren’t your grandparents from Armenia, who happen to be Arabic as well and part of the Middle Eastern region on that side of the globe? If Landham saw you, he would look at you in the same way that a white supremacist looks at a black man, calls him the N word, and lynches him.

    Landham has demonized and denigrated an entire culture, especially that culture has never committed one ounce of terrorism. This is sheer hate, racism, prejudice, and bigotry on his part. Since he’s Native American, what if a white man makes a blatant racist statements about American Indians, referring to them as a bunch of tribal people who live in teepees, shoot arrows, wear weird American Indian clothing, and sneak up on people with the intent to attack them? I doubt Landham would appreciate that.

    This pipsqueak refers to Arabs, including Muslim-practicing Arabs as “camel dung shovelers,” “camel jockeys,” and “terrorists.” I’m surprised he didn’t employ a more racist slur like “sand n****r”!!!

    Jesus Christ, Greg, this is something racist and bigoted anti-Arab Republitoids like Eric Dondero Rittberg, Larry Elder, and Bruce Cohen would say. Hell, just a few years ago, Dondero sent out a mass email, urging the Bush administration to carpet bomb Mecca. How can you just simply shrug it off and justify your statement like that? Please, I’d really, really like to know and understand that.

    Landham has a right to his racist views. As disgusting, putrid, and pathetic as they are, he’s entitled to his beliefs. But he has no business using his racist views in his official capacity as a Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate. He has no moral and ethical right to do this, and, since he’s unapologetic, the Kentucky LP has a responsibility to respond to this. If the members of that party have spines, they would rescind their nomination of this jerk.

    I know Libertarians would say that this guy is a Hollywood actor and his run would give us an enormous amount of press coverage because he’s “famous.” But there’s an error in that thinking here:

    a.) He’s not THAT famous. His only “famous” credential is that he played a commando battling the Predator with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura in Predator;

    b.) His “credible candidacy” will only sink the LP, despite what the LINOs (who are neocons, by and large) say on this subject, although the Kentucky LP has already slit its own throat when they handed its senatorial ticket to this clod;


    c.) If they wanted a “credible candidate” to headline that ticket, why didn’t they get Britney Spears? Jessica Simpson? Tom Cruise? Jessica Alba? Oh, let’s not forget Will Smith. Hell, he doesn’t have to believe in libertarianism. All he has to do is raise money for the Party, expand their vote totals, and get craploads of media coverage. Hell, it would be great PR for the KY LP and the LP as well.

    Landham is a loser and a loon. If the Kentucky Libertarians know what’s good for them, if they have any huge backbones, they’d get rid of this guy.

    That’s all I have to say on this matter for now.

    Yours in Liberty,

    Todd Andrew Barnett
    Vice-Chair, Boston Tea Party

  10. darolew darolew July 24, 2008

    “darolew – If you read the rest of svf’s comment, he says the LP should “drop him like a sack of Arabian camel dung… and quick.””

    I noticed that as I hit “Submit”. There’s kinda a lack of an edit button here. =P

    “Candidates like this are a result of poor articulation of what libertarianism is.”

    Or perhaps the other way around; candidates like this are the cause of poor articulation of what libertarianism is…

    “There is literally no comparison between Ron Paul and Bob Barr.”

    Nah, that’s going too far. As much as you criticize Barr — often rightly so — he’s no demon. Barr may have more deviations than Paul, but the general message is largely the same.

  11. naisarid naisarid July 24, 2008

    G.E., you still don’t get it. Or maybe you do and you just don’t care. It’s the difference between serving a steak on fine china or serving it on the lid of a garbage can that smells bad and has maggots crawling all over it. It’s the same steak, but one presentation is appetizing and the other is repelling.

    It’s not always a question of what is and is not consistent with libertarian philosophy — the presentation is important also.

    Big government advocates succeeded because they were able to make big government sound appealing. Libertarians have the better product, but are failing to make it sound as appealing as it actually is.

  12. ronaldkanehardy ronaldkanehardy July 24, 2008

    This guy is just an attention seeker. As a Green he doesn’t offend me a bit. Oil companies funding the Green Party – it sounds like a punch line waiting for a joke.

    But seriously – this kind of problem of a freak show candidate mis-representing a third party – this won’t be the last time we see it and I’m sure it isn’t the first time. If I were a Lib I’d be busting my ass trying to get him off the ballot.

  13. Fred Church Ortiz Fred Church Ortiz July 24, 2008

    What Pete, more state & federal coordination against bigotry? Maybe even a database? 😀

  14. johncjackson johncjackson July 24, 2008

    When it was announced this guy was running I mentioned on blogs that he appeared to have a “racial problem.” This is because I had previously read about him in articles about “Predator” politicians during his previous runs. I remember things on Wikpedia and other places linked to and quoting statements he made in the past that could be taken as bigoted.

    Just as YEARS before he ran for POTUS this election, Wikipedia and Google brought up many results for the Ron Paul Newsletters including scanned copies on websites. Yet people acted like this information was not around- even when I commented about this years ago.

  15. svf svf July 24, 2008

    I never indicated that Barr wanted to “wage a war” against abortion or gay marriage at the state level.

    Sorry, yeah, you’re just the “Barr advocates a state-level War on Drugs” guy… I was projecting other anti-Barr-cause-of-the-Federalism rants on you. My bad AGAIN!

    P.S. You don’t REALLY think Barr “advocates” a state-level-WOD, do you. You just prefer the absolutist “drug prohibition is immoral… all drugs should be legal and I will pardon all non-violent drug offenders on my first day in office” position.

    And so do I.

    But if we can at least get the Feds out of it, that is a HUGE first step in the right direction, and one that perhaps your average voter can agree with.

  16. G.E. G.E. Post author | July 24, 2008

    The gold standard is preferable to fiat money but government management of money is always susceptible to manipulation.

    You’re wasting my time.

  17. svf svf July 24, 2008

    oops, helpful link and opening paragraph…

    “Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America’s economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the attached article by Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which explains the benefits of abolishing the Fed and restoring the gold standard, into the record….”

  18. G.E. G.E. Post author | July 24, 2008

    Ron Paul is not for government money. He is CERTAINLY not for a bimetalic standard. He points out that, under the Constitution, the federal government has no authority to declare legal tender and the states may only declare gold or silver. But they need not exercise those powers.

    Ron Paul is against legal tender, period.

  19. svf svf July 24, 2008

    Paul is not for the “gold standard”

    Ok, gold, silver, or some other commodity. My bad.

    “Congress’ constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation’s founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.” — Ron Paul (2002)

    (Again, I’m not hating on Ron. I think the whole “Abolish the Fed” thing is endearing as hell…)

  20. G.E. G.E. Post author | July 24, 2008

    Stop putting words into my mouth.

    I never indicated that Barr wanted to “wage a war” against abortion or gay marriage at the state level. Just drugs. I’m pro-life and think abortion is an act of aggression. I have no qualms with Barr on abortion policy, just the hypocrisy of paying to have his own unborn child butchered in the womb while seeking to deny that “right” to others. And Barr, I believe, supports gay marriage on the state level (while I oppose state marriage period).

    Of course I would support Ron Paul as the Libertarian Party’s nominee. Some “Barr bashers” are just as wrong about Ron Paul as you are, and they would not have. But Ron Paul is a much more hardcore libertarian than anyone who ran for the LP nomination with the exception of Mary Ruwart, and possible exceptions of Steve Kubby and psycho Christine Smith.

    Anyone who doesn’t see the insanity of Prohibition is not only not a libertarian, they are probably mentally disabled.

  21. svf svf July 24, 2008

    Dude, you are reading WAY too much into my comments. Simmer down, man. When did I ever imply that the Fed was “libertarian” or that I disagreed with any of Ron Paul’s positions? I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries. I voted for Badnarik and Browne (twice) too, plus who knows how many other state and local LP candidates over the years (including the write-in for Governor last time… that was fun.)

    I’m merely calling you out on your insistence that Barr’s inclusion in the LP somehow only opens the door for Landham-esque disaster “pseudo libertarian” candidates. I contend that the bigger, more tolerant LP tent is just as likely (I would say more likely) to attract credible and perhaps even — god forbid — electable “pseudo libertarian”/Paleoconservative-ish/Paulite candidates in the future.

    Which, as far as I can tell, you would probably also object to, yet something tells me if Ron Paul had ridden into the convention on a white stallion and been nominated instead, you and your fellow righteously outraged Barr-bashers would be a lot more supportive of the 2008 LP ticket. (what if it was a Paul/Barr team? Heads exploding!)

    I’m also tired of your insistence that somehow Barr wants to wage some kind of oppressive War on Drugs / Abortion / Gay Marriage at the state level. There’s plenty of fodder for legitimate Barr criticism without resorting to this kind of absurd mischaracterization of his positions.

    “I do not think that the American people are ready to embrace the notion that there ought to be across-the board legalization of drugs. But I do think we need to begin rolling back the massive government power structure that has been built up pursuant to the war on drugs, which has not proved to be a success, certainly. Therefore, I think we need to certainly respect states rights and decisions by the people in an area such as medicinal marijuana. If the people of California, for example, decide that there is an appropriate place for the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, and they pass a law to that affect, that ought to be respected by the federal government. In other words, I think we can start this process of vesting the power to decide what people want to do with their own lives as long as they don’t endanger anyone else by at least beginning to devolve power from the federal government to the states. That would be an important first step.” — He Who Shall Not Be Named (2008)

  22. G.E. G.E. Post author | July 24, 2008

    Paul is not for the “gold standard” — this was an issue of debate between he and Rothbard. He said it would be “feasible” but if you look at any of his monetary writings over the past 10 years, you will see that I’m right. What? You think the Fed is “libertarian”? Or is ignorance on the issue?

    You’re bastardizing federalism and constitutionalism as they apply to libertarianism. It is NOT libertarian to advocate a state-level War on Drugs — it is idiotic, anti-capitalist, and anti-freedom. That’s Barr’s position. What would be libertarian AND constitutionalist is to point out that the states have the authority, under the Constitution, to do that, but it’s NOT a good idea. That’s what Ron Paul says.

    There is literally no comparison between Ron Paul and Bob Barr. People who try to make it do not understand libertarianism in the least.

  23. svf svf July 24, 2008

    [ edit post ]

    oops, messed up the italics up there… my bad again.

  24. svf svf July 24, 2008

    Being anti-abortion is not unlibertarian.

    No, but the LP Platform does not take a pro- or con- position on it either, so you can’t define Barr or Paul’s “libertarianism” based upon this. Paleoconservatives, however, are predominantly anti-abortion.

    He did not vote for DOMA

    I said he was “pro-DOMA”, not that he voted for it, which he would have if he’d been able to…

    “If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state…” — Ron Paul (2004)

    Federalism and Constitutionalism are traditional libertarian principles.

    Why then do the anti-Barrista LP “purists” object to Barr’s Federalist positions on the War on Drugs, Gay Marriage, and Abortion? (… perhaps because these are also considered Paleoconservative traits rather than “libertarian”…?)

    Ron Paul is not for the “gold standard”

    “Is a gold standard feasible again? Of course. The dollar could be redefined in terms of gold. Interest rates would reflect the real supply and demand for credit. We could shut down the Fed and we would never need to worry again what the chairman of the Fed wanted.” — Ron Paul (2002)

    While returning to the Gold/Silver/whatever Standard per se was never part of the LP Platform as far as I can tell, apparently the old mega-wordy version used to advocate free market currencies and so forth, which of course makes complete sense. My bad.

  25. Fundi Fundi July 24, 2008

    The Green Party takes money from the Oil companies?

    That’s news to me.

    Wow, he’s managed to offend pretty much every segment of society!

    His views on homosexuality are completely the opposite of the the prevailing view in the Queer community; which is that homosexuality is something that you are born with. But I think its probably a mixture of both genetics and environmental factors.

    Wow you Libertarians sure do know how to pick’em 😉

  26. G.E. G.E. Post author | July 24, 2008

    You are way, way, WAY off the mark.

    Ron Paul is not for the “gold standard” but for a free-market in currency, which has always been a Libertarian position (until ’06). And besides, the LP was FOUNDED in response to Nixon taking us off the gold standard. Shows what you know.

    Federalism and Constitutionalism are traditional libertarian principles.

    Being anti-abortion is not unlibertarian.

    Paul is wrong on immigration. He did not vote for DOMA and supports a separation of marriage and state.

    The fact that you think commodity money is a “conservative” position and has “never been” part of the Libertarian platform tells me all I need to know about the value of your opinions.

  27. svf svf July 24, 2008

    Ron Paul is not a “pseudo” libertarian.

    Come on, man. Ron is a paleoconservative: Anti-immigration, pro-Federalism, Anti-Abortion, pro-DOMA, pro-Gold Standard, strict Constitutionalist. None of this stuff has ever been in the LP platform as far as I know.

    If you’re gonna call Dr. No a “real” libertarian, you have to cut Bob Barr some slack too. It’ll be hard, I know, but you can do it.

  28. G.E. G.E. Post author | July 24, 2008

    hahaha! I’m guilty of “hate speech” because I’m not “sensitive” to American hubris. CLASSIC.

    “Hate speech” is an anti-libertarian, statist concept. Being “sensitive” to American workers’ xenophobia and anti-capitalist mentalities is anti-libertarian.

    svf – Not blaming this on Bob Barr. I’m blaming future Sonny Landhams on the idiot delegates who gave Bob Barr the nomination.

    Ron Paul is not a “pseudo” libertarian.

  29. Nexus Nexus July 24, 2008

    Landham is an embarrasment and the LP should dump him. Some of you may not like Barr, but at least he isn’t refering to an entire race of people as ‘camel jockeys’.

  30. naisarid naisarid July 24, 2008

    Elsewhere on this site, G.E. says, “I am in no way ever going to be sensitive to lazy and stupid Americans whining about losing their jobs.”

    I don’t really think hate speech is a good idea whether one is spouting off pro-American hate speech or anti-American hate speech, but at least Sonny Landham knows that his target audience is the American voter and doesn’t insult them.

  31. svf svf July 24, 2008

    I knew G.E. would be able to blame this all on Bob Barr somehow… thanks for not letting me down!

    And we sure don’t want any “moderate pseudo-libertarian” candidates like Gov. Gary Johnson, Clint Eastwood, T.J. Rodgers, or even Ron Paul (redux) seeking the LP nomination either, do we?

  32. G.E. G.E. Post author | July 24, 2008

    BTW: Candidates like this are a result of poor articulation of what libertarianism is. There will be many more candidates like this in the years to come, thanks to the Barr/Root candidacy. NO, I’m not saying Barr endorses his views — I’m saying Barr’s “moderate” pseudo-libertarianism paints too broad a stroke. Rather than promoting libertarianism and winning converts, Barr/Root’s “success” will be in convincing non-libertarians that they are libertarian when they’re not.

  33. G.E. G.E. Post author | July 24, 2008

    darolew – If you read the rest of svf’s comment, he says the LP should “drop him like a sack of Arabian camel dung… and quick.”

  34. darolew darolew July 24, 2008

    “He ran for governor in the past, so you’d think the KYLP would have a clue about him.”

    Case of poor research, then?

    “Gotta love the Reform Caucus. Perhaps now we should call them the Landham Caucus.”

    As I said, this guy isn’t even good for the Reform Caucus. The RC wants to run more mainstream candidates. Landham deviates from libertarian philosophy to become less mainstream. (Well, I suppose you could argue he’s inline with certain neocons; however, his way of articulating it makes him look quite insane, and bluntly racist.)

    “Libertarians should absolutely support Sonny’s right to run for office and make a complete ass of himself. “

    True enough, but does he need to make an ass of the LP at the same time?

  35. svf svf July 24, 2008

    Compared to this Landham character, even the blue-skinned-guy in Montana seems like the model LP candidate.

    Libertarians should absolutely support Sonny’s right to run for office and make a complete ass of himself.

    They should also drop him like a sack of Arabian camel dung… and quick.

  36. aynrkey aynrkey July 24, 2008

    Gotta love the Reform Caucus. Perhaps now we should call them the Landham Caucus.

  37. G.E. G.E. Post author | July 24, 2008

    darolew – He ran for governor in the past, so you’d think the KYLP would have a clue about him. Of course, he didn’t NEED to speak on foreign policy as a gubernatorial candidate, but I still have a hard time believing he would not have given them a strong indication of his anti-libertarian leanings.

    This guy gives Kevin Barrett a serious run for his money as worst candidate ever.

    Where was Sean Haugh during the vetting process of this guy?

  38. darolew darolew July 24, 2008

    Do the Kentucky LP bylaws allow for the removal of a candidate?

    “Can someone tell me how he won the nomination to be the Libertarian Candidate?”

    I think he got the nomination solely because he’s a minor celebrity. I somehow doubt he actually spoke much about politics when seeking the nomination, because this guy is so off that he won’t fulfill the goals of even the most unprincipled power-hungry delegates.

  39. Mike Theodore Mike Theodore July 24, 2008

    Can someone tell me how he won the nomination to be the Libertarian Candidate? I think any Libertarian would have dropped whatever they were doing and fought against his nomination. Was he even running against anyone?
    Jeepers Cripes! This is supposed to be the face of the enemy!
    Stick a fork in me, I’m done.

Comments are closed.