Darryl W. Perry: Open Mouth, Insert Two States

From an email sent to IPR by Darryl Perry, chair of the Boston Tea Party:

Last week President Obama said:

The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

Wayne Allyn Root claims:

“For the first time in history an American President has chosen to abandon our great friend and ally, Israel, in favor of radical Muslims led by the terrorist group Hamas.”

It seems Root missed the part of the speech where Obama said, “Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.”

However, since President Obama wants to redraw borders to achieve peace; I’m curious if the President will also call upon a return to the United Kingdom’s pre-1920 borders – that should help achieve peace in Northern Ireland by unifying Ireland. Maybe China should return to pre-1950 borders to allow for an independent Tibet. Maybe all of Europe should again be under Rome’s control. Or, maybe the United States should not be involved in policy making that does not directly affect the United States. President Obama hinted at this – though it is doubtful he will not continue to involve the United States. “Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, nor can endless delay make the problem go away. But what America and the international community can do is state frankly what everyone knows: a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.”

The President further stated, “There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity… We support a set of universal rights. Those rights include free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion; equality for men and women under the rule of law; and the right to choose your own leaders.”

If the President really supported self-determination, as he claims, he would urge Congress to allow American territories a vote on independence. Or does he only support self-determination for people that aren’t “his subjects”?

If the President truly supported free speech & free assembly, he would not have allowed the use of military as “crowd control” during the 2009 G-20 summit in Pittsburgh. Or does he only support free speech & free assembly when it is others that are being criticized?

American foreign policy should be: no foreign aid to any nation, no military base in any nation, and as Thomas Jefferson suggested “peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.”

Obama also states,“the United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves.” What about those that do not wish to be governed? Can we “exempt” ourselves and/or form voluntaryist communities? Or does he believe that only non-Americans should govern themselves?


In Peace, Freedom, Love & Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
Chair Boston Tea Party National Committee
http://BostonTea.us
Owner/Managing Editor Free Patriot Press
http://FreePatriot-Press.com
2016 candidate for President of the United States of America
http://dwp2016.org

Darryl W. Perry is an Activist, Author, Poet & Statesman. Darryl writes a weekly article for the Mountaineer Jeffersonian, a monthly article for The Sovereign and has appeared on various alternative media talking about his books, political career and goals. Darryl is the Chairman of the Boston Tea Party National Committee and Owner/Managing Editor of Free Patriot Press.

To schedule an interview with Darryl please send an email to editor@freepatriot-press.com or call 202 709 4377

54 thoughts on “Darryl W. Perry: Open Mouth, Insert Two States

  1. Stacy Johnson

    Why does our president need to play like he’s a global president when he can’t solve problems at home.

    Memo to America: Stop waiting for Democrats and Republicans to save you.

  2. Darryl W. Perry

    Not to mention that he contradicts himself by first saying how they should act to bring about peace and later saying “no peace can be imposed upon them” and “peace will involve two states for two peoples… each state enjoying self-determination.”
    It seems he wants to tell them how to run their business… not exactly “self-governing” is it?

  3. Jake Witmer

    Darryl, Obama’s speech is full of double-speak. Wayne focused on the essential, he didn’t focus on its contradiction, inside the same speech. Obama does what George W Bush did: he gives the same speech alongside its direct contradiction, and Boobus americanus is too dumb to tell the difference.

    Wayne is doing what LP political candidates should do. He is engaging in political discussions. His statements are statements about what he believes to be the nature of reality, and they do not contradict any part of the LP platform.

    They are statements made toward a large demographic.

    There is nothing wrong with this.

    The enemy is not Wayne Root. The enemy is the state.

    I don’t always agree with everything Wayne writes. I strongly disagree with a small amount of what he writes. But he has a campaign platform, and he has taken great pains not to be a divider or saboteur of the libertarian movement. He is a good man, with good intentions, and an “open door” policy.

    His point in the article was largely misunderstood by the anti-Root crowd. There are libertarians who strongly favor Israel, and there are libertarians who strongly favor Palestine.

    The proper libertarian stance is nonintervention. ie: “No dog in the fight”

    He related his statement to that viewpoint, and his point was valid and legitimate.

    There are better things to do than hate on Wayne.

    Is there anyone in your family who does not understand jury rights? Is there anyone among your family and friends who would be sent home during “voir dire”, so they could not save an innocent person from punishment? If so, you are misprioritizing Wayne as a threat to libertarianism.

    Wayne is always in the media. He is always spreading the message. If you had something for him to say, that would make more sense than criticizing what he’s already said. …Most of the media will never say ANYTHING libertarian.

    Wayne is a producer. Most of the people who criticize him have a looter mentality. …And this is why people look at the LP and see “two ugly bald old men fighting over a comb.”

    Wayne Root opposes the drug war. He opposes gun control. He wants to abolish the IRS. He wants to abolish the capital gains tax. He supports Paul’s “free competition in currency” bill. He wants to abolish the Fed. Etc…

  4. W.A.R. is great?

    @6 – Witmer says, “I don’t always agree with everything Wayne writes. I strongly disagree with a small amount of what he writes. But he has a campaign platform, and he has taken great pains not to be a divider or saboteur of the libertarian movement. He is a good man, with good intentions, and an “open door” policy.”

    What planet have you been living on and what have you been smoking there? The only joke bigger than W.A.R. himself is those that spread this kind of nonsense about W.A.R. Libertarians need to get a clue.

  5. Jill Pyeatt

    Jake @ 6:.”His statements are statements about what he believes to be the nature of reality, and they do not contradict any part of the LP platform.”

    This is the statement I couldn’t believe I was reading. Mr Root misrepresents the Libertarian platform regularly, whether it’s a ridiculous diatribe against a non-mosque being not built at ground zero, to a rant of how we need to support Israel because of the hateful Muslim terrorists. This is what makes everyone so furious with him.

  6. Daniel Wiener

    Jill @ 9, I went back and read Wayne Root’s commentary (at http://www.rootforamerica.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry110520-081916), and the paragraph which I found most salient, especially for libertarians, was the following:

    “If you are a Libertarian non-interventionist who has “no dog in the hunt,” you should be outraged that an American President is choosing sides at all. You should be outraged that Obama is inflaming tensions that could lead to World War III. You should be outraged that instead of cutting off foreign aid to radical countries, or eliminating all foreign aid, Obama on this same day recommended several billion dollars in new foreign aid to countries filled with radical hate for America, as well as Jews and Christians worldwide.”

    Now I would not describe myself as someone who has “no dog in the hunt”, since (despite its flaws) I consider Israel to be a far superior and far freer society than its surrounding neighbors, and I very much want Israel to be successful in defending itself from the barbarians and terrorists who are trying to eliminate it. However, I also think that Israel is fully capable of accomplishing that without aid from U.S. taxpayers, especially if the U.S. government stops shelling out vast sums of money to Egypt and Hamas-controlled Gaza and other potential and actual enemies.

    But as Wayne points out, Obama has decided to take exactly the opposite tact: He wants to throw even more taxpayer money at the Middle East, while at the same time staking out a “moral equivalence” attitude between Israel (which wants nothing more than to peacefully coexist with its neighbors) and radical Islamic groups (e.g., Hamas) and nations whose unwavering goal is to destroy Israel.

  7. Jill Pyeatt

    Mr. Wiener, my problem with the article Root wrote about Obama and Israel did not have to do with his discussion of Israel. I believe that we should stop giving them money, and let them make their own decisions. What I was/still am upset about is the paragraph where he describes Muslim behavior. I believe it is racist, whether he meant it to sound that way or not.

    Here is the paragraph I find to be horrifying:

    “On Thursday, Obama left no doubt that he sides with and wants to redistribute money from American taxpayers to Palestinians and radical Muslims like Hamas that target Israeli women and children…that encourage their own children to become suicide bombers…that hand out candy in celebration for the murder of an innocent Jewish baby…that force women to endure public lashings for disobeying a husband…that execute women for “allowing themselves” to be gang-raped…that pour acid on the face of little girls who dare to want an education…who throw gay men off the roofs of buildings…who marry off their 5-year-old daughters to pay the bills…who imprison all women for life behind dark veils in 120 degree heat, to keep them from being seen by other men. “

  8. Wayne Root

    Jill,

    This is such politically correct nonsence…and so offensive.

    You know what the definition of a racist is?

    Anyone that’s winning an argument with a leftist.

    The term is such nonsense that no one cares anymore. The word has been neutered. Leftists have used it so much, it is meaningless. “The sky is always falling.”

    Incidentely, the reason polls show Americans support Israel so strongly…in a landslide…and more than ever…is because of precisely the reasons I listed.

    Anyone with common sense can see that radical Muslims, led by Hamas and Hezbollah, are savage and commit heinous acts that no decent society would tolerate.

    Radical Islam purposely targets civilians for maximum effect…and uses their own civilians as human shields.

    Radical Islam treats women like slaves.

    No worse. Slaves don’t have to wear hot veils in 120 degree heat. Slaves are sometimes allowed to drive cars to carry supplies. But women in many Muslim countries are banned from driving.

    Any clear thinking person can see why Israel is our friend and ally and loved by most Americans.

    In Israel, no woman is banned from driving…no little girl is banned from education…no Israeli purposely targets civilians.

    Only Israel’s army…in all the world…TELEPHONES every apartment in a building they are about to shell to make sure every innocent civilian gets out.

    There is no comparison.

    The definition of racism is murdering women and children and elderly because they are Jewish.

    Naming streets and town squares after suicide bombers is racism.

    Telling the truth about our society, values, and way of life versus radical Islam is not racism. It is simply the truth.

    But when you are losing the argument badly, you have no choice but to scream “racism.”

    What a terrible thing to do.

  9. Darryl W. Perry

    Wayne,
    You’re comments are stereotypical at best… and pandering to the lowest common denominator at worst.

    According to Merriam-Webster:
    racism(noun)
    1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
    2: racial prejudice or discrimination

  10. Jill Pyeatt

    Since Mr Root has said things like this before (specifically, re: the non-mosque which isn’t at Ground Zero), I believe he is a bigot, and therefore is unsuited to represent me or my party.

  11. LibertarianGirl

    he is bigoted against Muslims that much is clear , he is unwilling to speak truth to power when it comes to the U.S or Israel , he is very clearly bigoted against anarchists etc

  12. LibertarianGirl

    he does make the good point that anyone arguing with a ‘lefty’ gets called a racist when they disagree but ignores the fact that the ‘righties’ and himself , default to their own name calling of Marxist , Socialist etc. you cant have it both ways Wayne…

    i myself find that these labels are employed for 2 reasons , you cant win the argument and /or they are words people rcognize and rally behind.

  13. LibertarianGirl

    racism to me does not mean hateful words or beliefs about other races , it does mean hateful acts and or disadvantages dealt to certain peoples by those is charge , HOWEVER , it also encompasses special priveleges given to special groups and also a lack of accountability required for reasons of political correctness.

    RACISM AT ITS CORE IS A BELIEF WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY THAT GROUP A. IS ALWAYS RIGHT AND JUST AND GROUP B. IS INHERENTLY EVIL.

    the u.s and israel are perpetrating the same racial fraud dealt to them under Hitler

  14. Ban Islam

    You know what the definition of a racist is?

    A White person who is proud of being White.

    Any other race is allowed to take pride in themselves without being deemed “racist” because the Zionist plan is to dilute the White bloodline and eliminate the White race by mixing with the inferior mud races thus creating a race of half-humanoid slaves for the Zionist masters.

  15. LibertarianGirl

    i sorta agree with you, at least up until the Zionist-humanoid -bloodline thingy..

    what used to be clear and present racism , IN THE PAST , has turned into a political correctness that employs white guilt to the point of absurdity.

    the government that gives you priveleges because of your race and past injustices cripples you ad keeps you from competing.

  16. Diverse in Reverse

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9k57V1rUSI

    There’s nothing wrong with racial pride, so I don’t understand the fuss.
    Just take a look at the Niggers and Muds, they are even worse than us.
    Some say it’s wrong to be proud of being white, they say we’re all the same.
    So why were we born as different races, was it nature playing a game?

    I’m proud of what I am, judge me all you want, I don’t give a damn.
    I’m a white European, true Skinhead.
    Loyal to my race until I’m dead.
    I’m proud of my bloodline, of my white ancestry.
    Well if that makes me a racist, then I’m proud to be.

    Some say all men are equal, I can tell you that ain’t right.
    Pakis, Niggers, Muds and Spics: They sure as hell ain’t white.
    We all know that Niggers are lazy, while greed reflects the Jew.
    These stigmas didn’t invent themselves, they exist perhaps they are true.

    I’m proud of what I am, judge me all you want, I don’t give a damn.
    I’m a white European, true Skinhead.
    Loyal to my race until I’m dead.
    I’m proud of my bloodline, of my white ancestry.
    Well if that makes me a racist, then I’m proud to be.

    If racism means admitting that’s there racial diversity, then you can call me racist and I’m fucking proud to be.
    It ain’t about hating the other races, it’s about loving your own.
    So you see, there’s nothing wrong at all, when racial pride is shown.

    I’m proud of what I am, judge me all you want, I don’t give a damn.
    I’m a white European, true Skinhead.
    Loyal to my race until I’m dead.
    I’m proud of my bloodline, of my white ancestry.
    Well if that makes me a racist, then…

    I’m proud of what I am, judge me all you want, I don’t give a damn.
    I’m a white European, true Skinhead.
    Loyal to my race until I’m dead.
    I’m proud of my bloodline, of my white ancestry.
    Well if that makes me a racist, then I’m proud to be.

  17. LibertarianGirl

    skin heads are soo 1980’s. but please , keep getting those swastika tattoos , i like to know who the idiots are

    white and proud to be kind

  18. Daniel Wiener

    I’m not sure what the IPR’s policy is regarding banning posters and deleting posts, but “Ban Islam” @ 20 (who I assume is also “Diverse in Reverse” @ 22) clearly deserves both, if for no other reason than to protect IPR’s reputation. Either “Ban Islam” is trying to be satirical and doing an incredibly piss-poor job of it, or this is as pristine an example of racism and bigotry as you can possibly get.

    But not to waste any more time on “Ban Islam/Diverse in Reverse”, let’s look at the larger question of what actually constitutes racism. The commonly understood meaning of racism is to hate or be biased against or discriminate against or physically harm another person on the basis of that person’s physical characteristics (e.g., skin color or ethnicity) which people have no control over – they were born that way. The colloquial meaning of racism has also come to include religion, even though it’s not a physical attribute. But that’s not an unreasonable extension, insofar as it applies to people who were born into a religion and hence are categorized and denigrated as members of that religion regardless of their current religious beliefs.

    This is in direct contrast to philosophical and ideological labels which describe people’s voluntarily chosen ideas. It’s the distinction between what people are and what they believe in. Labeling a person as a conservative or liberal or libertarian or socialist or marxist is a perfectly reasonable shorthand way of summarizing their views and goals. The label may or may not be accurate, and it may be complimentary or derogatory depending upon whether one considers those views and goals to be laudable or undesirable.

    Obama has hired people in his administration who openly describe themselves as socialists or marxists or communists, and who consider that a good thing. Wayne Root describes Obama and his policies as socialistic or marxistic, and Wayne considers that a bad thing. One may criticize Wayne for either being inaccurate in his assessment (I don’t) or for treating those labels as desparaging (which I agree they are, and deservedly so), but not for being a racist

    Similarly, it would be racism (in colloquial terms) to attack Jews or Muslims merely because that’s what they are. But it is not racism to label people as Zionists or radical Islamists because of what they believe in and the goals they are seeking to advance. In reading over Wayne’s commentary, he has been careful to refer to “radical Islam” and “radical Muslims” so as to distinguish those who voluntarily embrace terrorism and human oppression from those who simply happen to belong to the Muslim religion.

    Now if you think that it’s okay for suicide bombers to blow up random civilians; for gays to be stoned to death; for raped women to be the subject or honor killings; for religious apostates to be murdered; for women to be prevented from getting an education or leaving their heads uncovered or wearing makeup or driving a car – then you should consider the appellation of “radical Islam” and “radical Muslims” to be complimentary to those who engage in such acts.

    I consider such acts to be barbaric and evil. Those who voluntarily embrace such evil in the name of Islam should be castigated and brought to justice for their crimes, especially by those people who happen to belong to the Muslim religion and do not wish to be associated with such an evil ideology.

  19. Ban Islam

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5B-vR3icyE

    Have you seen the news today? Another terrorist attack. A man walked in the railway station with a bomb strapped on his back. Blew himself up for the love of his god and left many white people dead. Muslim fundamentalists, what goes on in their heads?

    The railway station in Madrid and London’s Underground: An example of the way they want to bring our culture down. They took their holy war to european soil, Islam should be banned because it’s OUR land getting spoiled.

    Number one threat nowadays, a religion so vile and dumb. We won’t yield for it’s twisted ways or for the scumbags that it’s coming from… Rock against Islam!

    I get so sick of all those Mosques, those silly hats they wear, can’t stand their stupid monkey language, I hate their women’s facial hair. They’ve got a different culture, different morals and other thoughts. I don’t approve of their beliefs and I spit on their god.

    Number one threat nowadays, a religion so vile and dumb. We won’t yield to its twisted ways or for the scumbags that it’s coming from… Rock against Islam!

    Another thing I can’t understand, another thing that really bothers me: Their prophet’s name is Mohammed and he’s a pedophile, you see. He married a girl just 9 years old at the age of fifty four and this is the man that muslims hail, they’re sick and that is sure.

    Number one threat nowadays, a religion so vile and dumb. We won’t yield to its twisted ways or for the scumbags that it’s coming from…

    Number one threat nowadays, a religion so vile and dumb. We won’t yield to its twisted ways or for the scumbags that it’s coming from… Rock against Islam!

    Rock against Islam! Rock against Islam! Rock against Islam! Rock against Islam!

  20. LibertarianGirl

    he has a very small white cock he cant help it
    but lets look at the big picture of history and inhumanity…
    White people are at least tied for # 1

  21. Andy

    “But he has a campaign platform, and he has taken great pains not to be a divider or saboteur of the libertarian movement.”

    Voting to disaffiliate the LP county chapters in Nevada sounds like being a divider to me.

    If it’s OK for the the state party in Nevada to disaffiliate the county parties in that state, then going by this logic is should be OK for the national party to disaffiliate the state parties. Just get rid of the state parties and have the national party run everything.

  22. Darryl W. Perry

    @Andy
    “If it’s OK for the the state party in Nevada to disaffiliate the county parties in that state, then going by this logic is should be OK for the national party to disaffiliate the state parties. Just get rid of the state parties and have the national party run everything.”

    That was my first thought when I heard about the disaffiliation.

  23. Jill Pyeatt

    Wayne @ 12: “Only Israel’s army…in all the world…TELEPHONES every apartment in a building they are about to shell to make sure every innocent civilian gets out.”

    What a bizarre statement.

  24. Don Lake, FYI, not necessarily a unilateral endorsement

    LibertarianGirl // May 25, 2011:
    ……….. ‘he has a very small white cock ………’

    [Lake: does he drive an expensive, fancy auto mobile, red or school bus yellow, at 11 miles per hour (about 20 Kilometer Per Hour) during ‘rush’ * hour ??????????????]

    * why do they call it rush hour ?????????? Nothing moves!

  25. Wayne Root

    Jill,

    I want you to widen your horizons. There is no more Libertarian supporter than Robert Ringer. He has written three #1 NY Times bestsellers and the Libertarian classic “Restoring the American Dream.” That book brought tens of thousands of people to the LP.

    His blogs about government would bring a tear to your eye, they are so radical Libertarian.

    Here is his analysis of the Israel/Palestine issue. I’ll bet that you will be surprised his opinion of Palestinians:

    http://blog.robertringer.com/2011/05/25/the-truth-about-the-israeli-occupiers

  26. Jill Pyeatt

    Sure, Wayne, I’ll watch the video. Here’s one for you, where Dubya said something quite similar to what Obama said last week.

  27. Jill Pyeatt

    Okay, so here’s the thing: I learned long ago not to talk about Israel or abortion, because everyone always gets wound up, and no one is ever going to change their mind. Until last Memorial Day weekend, I deliberately stayed away from the Israel/Palestine debate because it’s very complicated and I don’t live there–I don’t think I can understand it without living there. Last year when those people were killed on the Freedom Flotilla, I decided it was time to form an opinion about Israel/Palestine. My observation is that pro-Israel people throw around terrible accusations about the Palestinians that are so over-the-top that I find them hard to believe (like the child suicide bomber thing). I continue to think this is a very complicated issue that I’ll probably never understand. As a Libertarian, I think we should stop finding Israel, along with every other country, and I think we should stay out of their affairs. But when I read someone painting all Palestinians as monsters, I see that as racism. And since I abhor racist talk, I get upset at the person who is doing the talking, especially when that person says he represents me and my party.

    Wayne, seriously, why don’t you hire someone to proof your articles before you publish them? Someone else else might have noticed that your words might have been construed differently than you might have meant. Clearly Israel is an issue you feel strongly about, but racism–painting a group of people as exhibiting certain bad behaviors because of their race or ethnicity–is something I feel strongly about. It’s a core value for me, which will never change.

  28. LibertarianGirl

    “robert ringer–Robert Ringer made his name in the 1970s as the author of Me Decade motivational classics like “Winning Through Intimidation” and “Looking Out for Number One.” Ringer has brought that kind of selfish intimidation approach ….””

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-krepel/robert-ringers-voice-of-i_b_682646.html

    read the article , it points out in length how obsessed he is with Obama and if you read his blg , you guessed it , almost entirely Obama bashing

    so…. couple that with the first paragraph and its really reminding e of someone else…

    HE IS NOT A RADICAL LIBERTARIAN WAYNE , HOW U CAN EVEN SAY THAT AND EXPECT IT WILL FLY IS SHOCKING, so i guess it musta been a joke

  29. Ras Putin

    @12 You know what the definition of a racist is?

    Anyone that’s winning an argument with a leftist.

    It seems that @20,22 and 25 is a clear example of racism. Whether than line of thinking can be legitimately characterized as winning arguments with leftists is an interesting question.

    Is the answer to be determined by who gets to shove the steel toed boot in the other’s rectum at the end of said argument?

  30. Daniel Wiener

    LibertarianGirl @ 38: You’ve obviously never read Robert Ringer’s superb book “Restoring the American Dream”. Back in 1979 and 1980, when I was Chair of the Libertarian Party of California, we were giving that book out as an incentive for premium memberships and large donations. You can learn more about Robert Ringer and his tremendous positive impact on the libertarian movement by going to this Advocates for Self-Government page: http://server.theadvocates.org/celebrities/robert-ringer.html.

  31. LibertarianGirl

    Dan , I dont doubt he wrote a great book , but i think i might. I am saying the other 2 titles says alot about his approach , which seems identical to Waynes, inasmuch as it is pro #1 and winning thru intimidating.
    I dont find those styles of leadership should be aspired to nor examples of how kind people would operate

  32. Libertarians for Mubarak-Duvalier 2012

    Is the answer to be determined by who gets to shove the steel toed boot in the other’s rectum at the end of said argument?

    The essence of “winning through intimidation”…something that our Mubarak-Duvalier dream ticket understands very well!

  33. Daniel Wiener

    LibertarianGirl: Don’t be put off by the titles of his other books — publishers often prefer attention-grabbers. They are actually very witty books with some great stories about his experiences. I think you’d enjoy them.

  34. Jill Pyeatt

    Thomas–amazing you did that. I originally put “murdered” in, but took it out because I didn’t want to further enrage the pro-Israel camp. Of course they were murdered.

  35. Thomas L. Knapp

    Jill @ 50,

    I’ve always been pro-Israel, and still consider myself so. But like you, the Israeli government’s outright and unrepentant piracy and murder (including of one American citizen), in international waters, on the Mavi Marmara made me sit up and take notice.

    The only difference between the murder of Furkan Dogan and the murder of Leon Klinghoffer is that the thugs who committed the latter weren’t paid functionaries of, and operating under the orders of, a US-recognized state claiming to be a US “ally.”

    Israel doesn’t get to reclaim its mantle as an alleged bulwark against savagery until its government stops engaging in savagery itself.

  36. Darryl W. Perry

    I think WAR should consider reading some statements/essays from “Neturei Karta (Orthodox Jews United Against Zionism)” & “True Torah Jews Against Zionism” and/or other Jewish groups that oppose the actions of “Israel” and the “Israeli government.”

  37. Carol Moore

    Unlike the non-libertarian tea party writer, libertarians believe in individual property rights of those who can prove ownership in recent history, not states declaring who owns or controls what property based on 2000 year old stories and myths. See for example: **Murray Rothbard – “War Guilt in the Middle East” http://www.mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_3/3_3_4.pdf — ** Dean Ahmad, Ph.D. – “The Real Reason to Oppose Aid to Israel”. http://www.minaret.org/israeliaid.htm at his libertarian Minaret of Freedom site — ** Richard Ebeling – “Property Rights and the ‘Right of Return'” http://www.fff.org/comment/com0305o.asp Future of Freedom Foundation –** Stephen P. Halbrook – “The Alienation of a Homeland: How Palestine Became Israel” http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/articles/halbrook.html Journal of Libertarian Studies — ** Sheldon Richman – “Ancient History: U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War Il and the Folly Of Intervention” http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html Cato Institute — ** Sheldon Richman – “Cant and The Middle East” by http://www.fff.org/comment/com0205h.asp Future of Freedom Foundation —

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *