Libertarian Party Boots Boortz

Emailed to contact.ipr@gmail.com:

NEWS RELEASE
April 10, 2010

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Robert Butler
512-758-9134
Libertarian Party of Texas
Libertarian Party Boots Boortz

Syndicated radio talk show host Neal Boortz, a Libertarian Party member, has been uninvited as a speaker to the Libertarian Party’s national convention in St Louis the weekend of May 28 -31. Boortz stated on April 2 that voters should not support third parties in the 2010 and 2012 elections in order to get Republicans elected.

Boortz had been a regular national convention speaker for the Libertarian Party through the 2004 convention in his home city of Atlanta. In 2008 he cancelled his appearance shortly before the convention to schedule some medical treatment. When the Libertarian Party removed him from the 2010 convention schedule due to his recent comments, Boortz removed himself again claiming he had medical treatment scheduled.

“We do not need an unreliable and reluctant individual promoting the Republican Party to be given a speaking slot at our convention” said Texas state chair and national party committee member Pat Dixon. “We will have a great convention in St Louis and continue to offer voters a choice that neither the Republicans nor Democrats offer.”

National party and former Texas state party executive director Wes Benedict made reference to hypocrisy in Bootrz’ actions. “For 5 years the Republican Thursday Morning Theme Team has invited Boortz to talk to them, and they cancelled him at the last minute every time. Neal keeps falling for their lies every time. He now appears to be adopting their behavior.”

Research from Public Policy Polling indicates that Democrats are just as likely as Republicans to vote Libertarian. Dixon added “Boortz can spend his time on a futile effort to get Libertarians to vote Republican, or persuade Democrats to vote Libertarian.”

Dixon concluded “Neal Boortz has a very entertaining show has has been a great supporter of our party. Of course we respect anyone’s decision to support the candidates or party of their choice. We also get to choose who speaks at our convention, and at this time Neal is not a good choice.”

###
Libertarian Party of Texas logo About the Libertarian Party of Texas

The Libertarian Party of Texas supports more freedom and less government. We follow the Golden Rule: we treat others as we would like to be treated.

We seek to restore the great American free enterprise system that made us the strongest, most powerful economy in the world: lower taxes, free markets, free trade, less regulation, and less red tape for businesses big and small.

We respect your right to live your life the way you see fit, and expect you to take responsibility for the consequences.

Find out more at:
http://lptexas.org

Libertarian Party of Texas

Robert Butler,Executive Director
512-758-9134
director@lptexas.org

146 thoughts on “Libertarian Party Boots Boortz

  1. Andy

    Good. Boortz is a fraud. The LP should have stopped inviting him to speak at conventions years ago.

  2. Pro-War Is Worse Than Pro-Demopublican

    Supporting war is far worse than supporting Demopublicans.

    Boortz should long ago have been expelled for supporting war.

    In comparison to supporting the bombing of women and children, telling people to vote against the LP is no big deal.

    The LP tolerates war-mongers, but gets into a hissy fit if someone says to vote against them.

  3. paulie Post author

    In 2008 he cancelled his appearance shortly before the convention to schedule some medical treatment. When the Libertarian Party removed him from the 2010 convention schedule due to his recent comments, Boortz removed himself again claiming he had medical treatment scheduled.

    He apparently also used medical excuses when questioned about why he did not serve in Vietnam, but the exact medical reasons given differed at different times when he told the story.

  4. paulie Post author

    Before anyone asks, the convention website has not been updated to reflect this.

    Talked to Stewart Flood, who maintains it, a couple of days ago and he said he is swamped with work and has not had much chance to update the website.

  5. George Phillies

    Some of you may find it educational to read the web home page of still-speaker Jefferson Davis. Your take on his very clearly expressed opinions may vary.

  6. Gene Berkman

    There are certainly some Republicans that deserve backing from Libertarians – Ron Paul, Tom McClintock etc – but Neal Boortz was an outspoken supporter of warmongering big government Republican George W Bush.

    Neal Boortz does not belong on the speaking bill at any Libertarian convention.

  7. Bruce Cohen

    Tom McClintock supported The War in Iraq and George Bush. So did Larry Elder. So did John Hospers. So did Milton Friedman. So did a host of Libertarians, so there you go, Gene, kick out 50% of the Party, why don’t you?

  8. Donald Duck

    Great idea

    Send the Republicans who support war criminal Bush, war in the middle east, domestic espionage, and torture back home and have a real Libertarian Party!

    Thanks LP and thanks Bruce…

  9. Donald Duck

    …and don’t forget the homophobes, anti-immigration racists, and misogynysts. Please take ’em with you when you leave.

    And your little doggie dog of a fraudulent “fair” national sales tax ripoff, too!

  10. Donald Duck

    W.A.R. is next, baby!

    Let’s put a boot in that ass….do it with LOVE!

    🙂

  11. Boortz ............ or Cohen ??????????? [Lake]

    paulie // Apr 10, 2010:

    In 2008 he canceled his appearance shortly before the convention to schedule some medical treatment. When the Libertarian Party removed him from the 2010 convention schedule due to his recent comments, Boortz removed himself again claiming he had medical treatment scheduled.

    [the Knapp, Phillies, Root, Handcock, Cohen symdrome! Also displayed by ctweber, Grundmann, Nightingale, Qurik ……..]

  12. He is a Republican ??????????? [Lake]

    Bruce Cohen // Apr 10, 2010:
    “Tom McClintock supported ………………….. So did a host of Libertarians, so there you go,”

    No, there YOU go again! How was the Long Beach California LP convention ?????? How is the dead and dying American sailors cover up of the non combatant USS Liberty doing ???????????????

  13. Solomon Drek

    “Tom McClintock supported The War in Iraq and George Bush. So did Larry Elder. So did John Hospers. So did Milton Friedman. So did a host of Libertarians, so there you go, Gene, kick out 50% of the Party, why don’t you?”

    50% of nothing is still nothing. Libertarian is Republican-Lite, and Republican is Libertarian-Lite.

    I wouldn’t waste my time on any political party, third, fourth fifth, first or second.

    Independent candidates have a better chance to win and don’t have to satisfy “purity tests” by party activists.

  14. Donald Duck

    “Libertarian is Republican-Lite, and Republican is Libertarian-Lite. ”

    What?! Are you on quack?

    quack! quack! quack!

  15. Tom Blanton

    Tom McClintock supported The War in Iraq and George Bush. So did Larry Elder. So did John Hospers. So did Milton Friedman. So did a host of Libertarians, so there you go, Gene, kick out 50% of the Party, why don’t you?

    Why is that the pro-war “libertarians” become hysterical whenever someone expresses an opinion in disagreement?

    Gene Berkman wrote:

    Neal Boortz does not belong on the speaking bill at any Libertarian convention.

    He did not mention kicking Boortz out of the LP as Cohen suggests. The truth is that the pro-war “libertarians” feel they have the right to express their vile pro-war rhetoric, but anyone who disagrees with them should shut the fuck up.

    So, I suppose it is fair to say that it is Bruce Cohen who wants to purge the LP of anyone who is not in favor of wars of aggression that cause debt/inflation, loss of civil liberties, and a more militarized society. Not only must libertarians tolerate the bellicose war rhetoric from the interventionist neolibertarians but also snide and belligerent remarks attacking those who disagree with them.

  16. Donald Duck

    pro-WAR “Libertarian” = Republican

    Send them back home…”return to sender, address unknown…”

  17. Eric Dondero

    Bruce only gives half the response.

    In 2003, then LP communications director Bill Winter took an informal poll for LP News on the War in Iraq, and found that fully 40% of Libertarian Party members supported Military Intervention to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

    That number, no doubt went down significantly in 2005/06/07. But now that it’s clear that the US won the War in Iraq, decisively, and a relatively stable Pro-Western democracy now rules the country, instead of a Hitler-like dictator, no doubt the number of Libertarian Party members in favor of the War in Iraq, is back up.

    So, it’d be interesting to know if the Anti-War faction of the LP would like to purge the 30 to 40% of us LP members who support War on Islamo-Fascism?

  18. Eric Dondero

    Point of Historical Fact:

    Early organizing Libertarian Party members from 1971/72 included Pro-Defensers Dr. John Hospers, Darlene Brinks, Mike Dunn, Bob Poole and Jack Wheeler.

    It was only in 1974, and subsequently in ’75 that Murray Rothbard, Justin Raimondo and the black arm ban wearing Anarchist wing of the LP took control of the part platform committee and purged the Pro-Defensers.

    Thus, the originalist Libertarian Party position was firmly Libertarian Defense Caucus. The Newbie usurpers are the Anti-War pacifists who support Peace at all costs.

  19. Eric Dondero

    A poster mentioned the USS Liberty from 1969.

    How about the more recent cover-up of the murder by Saddam Hussein of 37 US Sailors aboard the USS Starke in 1987? You never hear about that?

    I was a young sailor in the Persian Gulf at the time on board the USS Luce DDG-38. The Stark was our sister ship. I knew many sailors on the Stark.

    Saddam Hussein launched a brief war on the US in the mid-1980s, bombing oil tankers in the upper Persian Gulf, and ultimately a US warship.

    Again, Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of 37 US Sailors aboard the USS Stark in 1987. The government has downplayed the incident, and even brushed it off to some extent “mistaken fire.”

    Don’t believe it! Hussein murdered 37 brave Americans.

  20. Eric Dondero

    To Gene Berkman:

    Guess who else supported George W. Bush?

    Our Honorary Chairman for Libertarians for Bush in 2004, 1972 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Dr. John Hospers.

  21. Eric Dondero

    Wonder if Berkman would like to purge Hospers from the LP, for supporting Bush?

    Oh, and let’s not forget Larry Elder who was also a big Bush backer in 2004.

    Hey Gene, some of us Libertarians who supported Russo and Gary Nolan, just couldn’t stomach leftwing Libertarian Michael Badnarik. We were all prepared to vote LP, but then LP delegates screwed the pooch by nominating Badnarik.

  22. Donald Duck

    “But now that it’s clear that the US won the War in Iraq, decisively, and a relatively stable Pro-Western democracy now rules the country, instead of a Hitler-like dictator, no doubt the number of Libertarian Party members in favor of the War in Iraq, is back up. ”

    Pffft! I shot coca cola through my duck bill.

    Keep the knee slappers comin’…

    Hey, if we won the war, can we bring the troops home already?

    “So, it’d be interesting to know if the Anti-War faction of the LP would like to purge the 30 to 40% of us LP members who support War”

    I don’t know that the anti-war “faction” (overwhelming majority) is some kind of one-minded blob, but yeah, the dead-enders who still support a war of imperialist aggression should go back to the Republican Party and sty away from the LP for good. But unfortunately a lot of libertarians still tolerate warmongers who call themselves libertarians. As if.

    “in 1974, and subsequently in ‘75 that Murray Rothbard, Justin Raimondo and the black arm ban wearing Anarchist wing of the LP took control of the part platform committee and purged the (warmongers)”

    Good idea…let’s do it again!

  23. Eric Dondero

    Umm, please explain how the War in Iraq was an “act of aggression,” when it was Saddam Hussein who murdered 37 of our US Sailors in 1987 aboard the USS Stark? And it was Saddam Hussein who invaded Kuwait, murdering over 100,000 Kuwaiti citizens. And it was Saddam Hussein who harbored two Al Qaeda Terrorist training camps Salmaan Pac and Answar Al-Islam? And it was Saddam Hussein who gave refuge to one of the master-minds of 9/11 Abu Zarcawi?

    Hussein had been attacking the United States and our allies for decades. Were we supposed to just sit back and take it? Oh, I guess, that’s the coward, yellow-bellied Leftwing Libertarian strategy: Let Islam0-Fascists continue to attack you, and just turn the other cheek.

  24. Eric Dondero

    Oh, and btw, why do you post on-line under a silly fake name? Who are you? Why not have the courage of your convictions? Why should anyone take your views seriously when you post under “Donald Duck.” For all we know you’re some sort of Daily Kos troll.

  25. Eric Dondero

    Yes, we can “bring the troops home already.” To ticker tape parades, marching bands playing in downtown Manhattan, and heros welcomes from sea to shining sea.

    If they don’t get the huge Victory Celebrations for a job well-done, than what’s the point in bringing them home?

    We did it in WWII, and we damned sure can do it again for our victory over the Hitler-like dictator Saddam Hussein.

  26. Tom Blanton

    In 2003, then LP communications director Bill Winter took an informal poll for LP News on the War in Iraq, and found that fully 40% of Libertarian Party members supported Military Intervention to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

    How many LP members responded to this “informal” LP News poll? My estimate is less than 20 self-selecting persons responded and there was no check to see if they were actually LP members.

  27. paulie Post author

    Stop the presses!

    Yes, we can “bring the troops home already.”

    -Eric Dondero

    That makes Dondero more antiwar than Democratic President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party majority in both houses of Congress, who want to keep them there indefinitely.

  28. Donald Duck

    He should still be booted though.

    With love, of course.

    It’s the American way.

  29. Tom Blanton

    If they don’t get the huge Victory Celebrations for a job well-done, than what’s the point in bringing them home?

    Let’s see now, we bring the troops home and if they don’t get a ticker tape parade, then we send them back?

    To do what? Kill the pro-Iranian puppets we installed and claim they are al Qaida Islamofascists?

  30. Tom Blanton

    That makes Dondero more antiwar than Democratic President Barack Obama….

    Dondero is even further to the left than that radical left extremist Michael Badnarik.

  31. paulie Post author

    To do what? Kill the pro-Iranian puppets we installed and claim they are al Qaida Islamofascists?

    LOL, at least that would make marginally more sense than claiming Saddam was Islamo-anything.

  32. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Umm, please explain how the War in Iraq was an ‘act of aggression,’ when it was Saddam Hussein who murdered 37 of our US Sailors in 1987 aboard the USS Stark?”

    Saddam’s regime claimed it was an accident.

    The US agreed that it was an accident.

    And the US Navy was working for Saddam’s regime at the time.

    Every time I get into a discussion about the war, it seems like former Saddam minion Eric Dondero is the loudest screamer against Saddam. If you didn’t like him, Eric, maybe you shouldn’t have worked for him.

    “And it was Saddam Hussein who harbored two Al Qaeda Terrorist training camps Salmaan Pac and Answar Al-Islam?”

    Except, of course, for the facts that:

    1) Those claiming that Salman Pac was a terrorist training camp have never provided any credible evidence that the allegation is true; and

    2) The Anser-al-Islam camp was harbored by the Kurds, not Saddam, and in fact protected from Saddam by the US armed forces.

    “And it was Saddam Hussein who gave refuge to one of the master-minds of 9/11 Abu Zarcawi?”

    Zarqawi’s time in Iraq was spent mostly under US/Kurdish protection from Saddam at the aforementioned Anser-al-Islam camp. No credible evidence has ever been presented that Saddam “gave refuge” to him, or was even aware of his presence in Iraq, or that he was in any way involved in 9/11, let alone a “mastermind” of those attacks.

    In summary, Dondero is a fucking idiot.

  33. Andy

    “Bruce Cohen // Apr 10, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    Tom McClintock supported The War in Iraq and George Bush. So did Larry Elder. So did John Hospers. So did Milton Friedman. So did a host of Libertarians, so there you go, Gene, kick out 50% of the Party, why don’t you?”

    I don’t consider any of those people to be real libertarians.

  34. Andy

    Eric Dondero said: “Hey Gene, some of us Libertarians who supported Russo and Gary Nolan, just couldn’t stomach leftwing Libertarian Michael Badnarik. We were all prepared to vote LP, but then LP delegates screwed the pooch by nominating Badnarik.”

    Aaron Russo, Gary Nolan, and Michael Badnarik were all very similiar on the issues. They were so close on the issues that there wasn’t much they disagreed on, so issue wise I don’t think that it mattered much which of them got nominated.

    I did not attend the National Convention that year but if had been there I would have voted for Russo. The only problem that I had with Badnarik was that I thought that he lacked money and name recognition as compared to Russo and Nolan. I did end up supporting Badnarik after he got the nomination though.

  35. rittburger

    Why is Eric Rittberg posting under the silly fake name “Eric Dondero”?

    Is this a MafiaWars RPG screen-name?

  36. Steven R Linnabary

    Yes, we can “bring the troops home already.” To ticker tape parades, marching bands playing in downtown Manhattan, and heros welcomes from sea to shining sea.

    If they don’t get the huge Victory Celebrations for a job well-done, than what’s the point in bringing them home?

    We did it in WWII, and we damned sure can do it again for our victory over the Hitler-like dictator Saddam Hussein.

    I wish we would bring the troops home. But almost six decades since the end of the war, troops are still occupying German AND Japanese soil.

    The “ticker tape” parades were more for the folks back home and their elation and relief from the drudgery of wartime depravations. No more rationing, some family reunions and with Roosevelt dead the world ahead had to seem bright. But few returning troops ever saw any parades.

    And with Obama and the republicans in charge, we don’t have the bright future to look forward to.

    PEACE

  37. Eric Dondero

    Mr. Blanton, Winters is a hardcore Lefty Libertarian opposed to all Wars. Why would he play up a poll that he disagreed with?

    Oh, and it was a poll of “Libertarian Party members,” as in subscribers to LP News, NOT! the libertarian movement on the whole. If Winters had polled all libertarians, including us Libertarian Republicans, no doubt a majority would be in favor of the Iraq War.

  38. Eric Dondero

    Oh my God! Are you some sort of Alex Jones freakoid Blanton?

    Did you actually say above that Achmadinjad is a “puppet” of the United States?

    Was Hitler a “puppet” of the US during WWII? Dude, man, you are one freaky mofo. You make Alex Jones look like a piker.

  39. Eric Dondero

    No Steve Linnaberry, the ticket tape parades were NOT! for the folks back home, they were for us Military Veterans of War.

    As a Veteran of the United States Navy, I can tell you nothing means more to us than recognition of Winning a War.

    The Viet Vets got spit on by Lefty AntiWar pukes when they returned home. I know a lot of Lefty Libertarians would like to do that to Iraq War Vets.

    Over my dead body!

  40. Eric Dondero

    Responses:

    To Andy, no friggin’ way dude. Ain’t gonna let you get away with that one. Russo was a Military Vet, who had served in the US Coast Guard. And was thus, most certainly NOT! a Military hater like Peacenick Badnarik. I heard Nolan give a speech at the Univ. of Houston two weeks before the LP Convention. He was asked specifically about foreign policy/defense. He gave a very balanced response, acknowledging the need for a strong military.

    To Anonymous:

    My legal name is Eric Dondero Rittberg. I can post it all if you wish, but it’s a bit cumbersome, so I stick with Eric Dondero, or sometimes Eric D.

  41. Eric Dondero

    Knapp claims those weren’t terrorist training camps.

    Really? Saddam’s own top Air Force General Georges Sada ademently disagrees. Read his book: on “Saddam’s Secrets,” where he outlines in detail where Saddam stashed the WMD (Syria), and the massive network of Al Qaeda linked terrorist training camps throughout Iraq, that was completely ignored by the liberal media, after 2003.

  42. Eric Dondero

    Hey Andy, some of us don’t consider you to be a “real libertarian.” In fact, I have some very good sources who have spilled the beans on your background to me, and there’s nothing in your political history to indicate that you’re a movement libertarian. It’s all far leftwing America-hating causes bullshit. With some mercenary work for the LP sprinkled in on occasion.

    I’ve got 30 hardcore years of Libertarian activism under my belt. I get to decide who really is a libertarian, and who is not. Not Moveon.org usurpers such as yourself.

    Now scoot…. you’re stinkin’ up the place.

  43. Tom Blanton

    Did you actually say above that Achmadinjad is a “puppet” of the United States?

    Not what I said, cakewalker. The Shia leaders of your Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq are pro-Iran. You’d know that if you consumed any data besides neocon prowar propaganda.

  44. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Saddam’s own top Air Force General Georges Sada ademently disagrees.”

    Sada retired from the Iraqi Air Force in 1986, 17 years before the US invasion of Iraq.

    He was briefly recalled to active duty in 1990 before being imprisoned by Saddam’s regime, and sided with the US during the invasion (if not before — he had longstanding ties to the US, including two years’ training at Lackland Air Force base).

    To cite Sada as “Saddam’s top Air Force general,” or to otherwise imply that he was in Saddam’s command loop, with access to privileged regime information as of 2003, is beyond stupid.

  45. Tom Blanton

    Oh, and it was a poll of “Libertarian Party members,” as in subscribers to LP News, NOT! the libertarian movement on the whole. If Winters had polled all libertarians, including us Libertarian Republicans, no doubt a majority would be in favor of the Iraq War.

    The only poll I recall from that time was a LP News poll. Those polls rarely had more than a few respondents. So, where was this alleged “informal” poll of the “libertarian movement on the whole” published and when? Pony up with the sources, tough guy.

  46. Tom Blanton

    On a historical note, go back and read issues of the Libertarian Forum in the years prior to the founding of the LP and see what was written about the Vietnam war.

    Dondero’s definition of leftist as being someone against senseless wars would make Pat Buchanan a left-wing extremist. Complete nonsense.

  47. Tom Blanton

    “Vietnam should remind conservatives that whenever you put your faith in big government for any reason, sooner or later you wind up an apologist for mass murder.”

    Karl Hess

  48. Tom Blanton

    I’ll remind Dondero that it was Hess that brought libertarianism to the masses prior to the founding of the LP with articles like “The Death of Politics” in Playboy (1969).

    While Dondero’s dad was jerking off to that issue and monkey boy was riding his trike around the living room, Hess was defining libertarianism. He had this to say about Root’s hero:

    “A defense of Goldwater cannot be carried too far, however. His domestic libertarian tendencies simply do not carry over into his view of foreign policy. Libertarianism, unalloyed, is absolutely isolationist, in that it is absolutely opposed to the institutions of national government that are the only agencies on earth now able to wage war or intervene in foreign affairs.”

    This dispels two myths advanced by pro-war “libertarians”:

    1. The “founders” of the libertarian movement were pro-war

    2. Goldwater was some sort of libertarian poster child

  49. Tom Blanton

    Thus, the originalist Libertarian Party position was firmly Libertarian Defense Caucus.

    Let’s get out the calculator. LP founded in 1971. Libertarian Defense Caucus founded in 1973. This adds up to negative two.

    Was there a Libertarian Offense Caucus in 1971 or did that not come into being until 9/11/01?

    Oh, and by LP, I’m referring to the Libertarian Party, not the Likud Party.

  50. Robert Capozzi

    tb: This dispels two myths advanced by pro-war “libertarians”: 1. The “founders” of the libertarian movement were pro-war…

    me: “Dispel”? No. It may weaken it somewhat. Although I am generally in the dove camp, it’s certainly the case that some Ls — at the founding and now — were more hawkish, some quite hawkish. The Reason and Randian crowds were often quite hawkish, and they were a large portion of the LP.

  51. Valentine Smith

    This is a smart move.
    The main thing holding the Libertarians Party back is the posers sneaking in to grab support for non-libertarians.
    Libertarians should be proud of who they are, not desperate for attention from the ‘wrong people’.

  52. Thomas M. Sipos

    Dondero: “I have some very good sources who have spilled the beans on your [Andy’s] background to me, and there’s nothing in your political history to indicate that you’re a movement libertarian.

    Are these the same “sources” you said were going to reveal that antiwar libertarians were financed by Islamo-fascists?

    Years ago, Dondero claimed he was about to reveal startling evidence that terrorist money was financing the antiwar movement in the U.S., including antiwar libertarians.

    Every few months, I’d ask Dondero about when he was about to reveal his startling evidence. He’d always say that his evidence was soon forthcoming.

    But the years rolled on, and Dondero never revealed anything.

  53. Tom Blanton

    Capozzi, what Dondero wants us to believe is this:

    Thus, the originalist Libertarian Party position was firmly Libertarian Defense Caucus.

    This simply is not true. Identifying the “founders” of a movement which preceded the LP is difficult to do, but noninterventionism has been a prominent meme among American”libertarians” for decades prior to the LP. One might assume that since the name “libertarian” was appropriated for this party, that noninterventionism was the default position – even among those who favor a “strong national defense”.

    Among the Old Right and New Left, Dondero-style pro-war interventionism was never prominent. It is also hardly a surprise that Objectivists, corporate funded think tanks (Reason, CATO, etc), Zionists, and neoconservatives are pro-war. Then again, there are large numbers of movement libertarians who refuse to consider these people libertarians.

    It seems to me that the most prominent libertarian writers prior to and leading up to the actual founding of the LP were not rabid war mongers. I don’t even include Rand among these writers because she was not a libertarian and never claimed to be.

    Dondero is a pro-war Republican who wants to convince libertarians and anyone else who will listen that the the libertarian movement is a right-wing pro-war movement, and he is willing to lie to advance his agenda. He hates libertarians and destroying the LP and the freedom movement is his agenda.

    Those “libertarians” who support him, hire him, and defend him are either foolish or share his agenda.

    For a little history on the Koch funded think tanks (Reason, CATO) and corporate libertarianism, Melinda Pillsbury-Foster posted an interesting piece yesterday:

    http://howtheneoconsstolefreedom.blogspot.com/2010/04/question-all-authority-except-mine.html

  54. paulie Post author

    Early organizing Libertarian Party members from 1971/72 included Pro-Defensers Dr. John Hospers, Darlene Brinks, Mike Dunn, Bob Poole and Jack Wheeler.

    It was only in 1974, and subsequently in ‘75 that Murray Rothbard, Justin Raimondo and the black arm ban wearing Anarchist wing of the LP took control of the part platform committee and purged the Pro-Defensers.

    Thus, the originalist Libertarian Party position was firmly Libertarian Defense Caucus. The Newbie usurpers are the Anti-War pacifists who support Peace at all costs.

    Let’s be clear here. Is Dondero claiming that there were no LP founders who were antiwar? The claim needs to be more specific.

    Some LP founders are still around, and some even participate here. So let’s try to be accurate, shall we?

  55. paulie Post author

    Hey Gene, some of us Libertarians who supported Russo and Gary Nolan, just couldn’t stomach leftwing Libertarian Michael Badnarik.

    In what way(s) was Badnarik more left wing than Russo?

    Russo was strongly antiwar, FYI. I still have some of his campaign handouts that we were passing out.

    And how does this explain Dondero supporting John McCain in 2008?

  56. paulie Post author

    Yes, we can “bring the troops home already.”

    Has Dondero gone soft? The Dondero I used to know was all about nuking Mecca, turning the middle east into a parking lot, or at leas going on to “liberate” Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, and the rest of the Islamic world.

    Who is this wimpy girlie man impostor and what did he do with the real Eric Dondero?!

    😛

  57. paulie Post author

    Mr. Blanton, Winters is a hardcore Lefty Libertarian opposed to all Wars.

    I heard differently. Got more on this?

  58. paulie Post author

    The Viet Vets got spit on by Lefty AntiWar pukes when they returned home.

    I’ve heard this may have been an urban legend. Was it ever documented on video?

  59. paulie Post author

    Hey Andy, some of us don’t consider you to be a “real libertarian.” In fact, I have some very good sources who have spilled the beans on your background to me, and there’s nothing in your political history to indicate that you’re a movement libertarian.

    Who are your sources? I can tell you for a fact they are completely off base.

  60. Tom Blanton

    Years ago, Dondero claimed he was about to reveal startling evidence that terrorist money was financing the antiwar movement in the U.S., including antiwar libertarians.

    My sources, who wish to remain anonymous, have revealed to me that it was Dondero himself, dressed in a burka, who was passing out the checks from Islamofascism, Incorporated to several prominent California neolibertarians in Dead Head disguises. Dondero video taped the staged event but later accidentally recorded a donkey show in Tijuana over the “Burka Tapes”. Once his “evidence” no longer existed, he began his “Guiliani is a libertarian” agitprop.

  61. David F. Nolan

    From the 1972 LP Platform:

    Military Alliances

    The United States should abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world, and should enter into alliances only with countries whose continued free existence is vital to the protection of the freedom of all American citizens. Under such an alliance, the United States may offer the protection of its nuclear umbrella, but our allies would provide their own conventional defense capabilities. We should in particular disengage from any present alliances which include despotic governments.

    Military Capability

    We shall support the maintenance of a sufficient military establishment to defend the United States against aggression. We should have a sufficient nuclear capacity to convince any potential aggressor that it cannot hope to survive a first strike against the United States. But, as our foreign commitments are reduced, and as our allies assume their share of the burden of providing a conventional war capability, we should be able to reduce the size of our conventional defense, and thus reduce the overall cost and size of our total defense establishment.

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29615

    And before Dondero, Starr, Cohen et. al. go batshit, Israel was NOT considered a country “whose continued free existence is vital to the protection of the freedom of all American citizens.”

  62. paulie Post author

    Read his book: on “Saddam’s Secrets,” where he outlines in detail where Saddam stashed the WMD (Syria),

    Interesting claim.

    If Saddam was not going to use these weapons to save his regime or his life, when was he going to use them?

  63. Words to remember! .......... [Lake]

    “……… before Dondero, Starr, Cohen et. al. go batshit, Israel was NOT considered a country “whose continued free existence is vital to the protection of the freedom of all American citizens ………” ”

    [and ask them about Jewish Neo Nazi Zionists in general (including the reform movement’s John Blare, John Dennis Coffey, John Bambey, and Valli Sharpe Geisler ) and the murder of American sailors on the non combatant USS Liberty by Israeli Defense {?????} Forces specifically …………]

  64. Robert Capozzi

    tb, yes, I agree, Dondero overstates. I’m suggesting you are ALSO overstating.

    Reason, btw, was not getting Koch or major corporate money that I’m aware of until sometime in the 80s. They were another strain of L, mostly Randian back in the day. Poole described himself and Reason “conservative L” to me back in the mid-80s, and that mostly meant more hawkish.

  65. Michael H. Wilson

    Not too long ago this veteran, that’s me, was at the local VA hospital. I live near a large Army base where troops are in fairly constant rotation heading overseas and coming back. As I sat and waited my turn I watched the wounded, both young and old, go by. The older guys had been in Vietnam. The younger ones Iraq, maybe Afghanistan. Some were wheelchair bound, others walking. Some were being helped by friends or wives. Some were in serious shape others not bad. There were guys with artificial legs and arms. Some could barely talk. They were black and they were white and many in between.

    These were guys whose lives were permanently altered because of a failed foreign policy of the United States government. The U.S. blundered into Korea, lied about Vietnam and Iraq and failed to read the warnings about Bin Laden. None of these wars was properly declared as the Constitution requires.

    On my way out I passed a veteran with a head injury. It was so severe that he talked like a three year old child.

    When Kipling’s son John died at the Battle of Loos during WWI Kipling wrote; “If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied.”

  66. Robert Milnes

    First, although very similar positions, I am not Donald Duck.
    Second LP boots Boortz-from speaking at LP convention. Not from the LP. This is consistent with my suggestion of big tent LP open to all to join but only allow “genuine libertrians” to have party positions or be candidates or I suppose tregular prominent speakers at their functions.” Genuine libertarians to be determined by a peer review group. And as Tom K. has said all narchists are libertarians -a determination of being an anarchist by peer review group + pass for determination of libertarian. That should also include leftist anarchists.
    Also, I need some support to get to the convention in late May as on my way to CA to start summer season in early June.Dredging has been banned but that could chnge. In any event I would like a season stay in the National Forest to prospect with intent to file claim.

  67. Robert Milnes

    My plans have steadily been downgraded from full season after fixing up my trailer & sublet & getting motorhome to just getting there in cheap used bare bones construction trailer & fixing up/sublet trailer upon return in late October.
    I could use some support personally & political campaign. A good thing would be help me get to convention & briefly speak. Ideally this could be touted as my replacing Boortz!

  68. Tom Blanton

    Capozzi, I never made the claim that the “originalist” Libertarian Party position was firmly anti-war.

    Go back and read the Hess quote @ # 50. He is describing prevailing libertarian ideology at that time. He is not giving his personal opinion. The virulent interventionists were simply never a major faction in the libertarian movement as Dondero would have us believe. Hence, the Dondero myth is dispelled and further evidence of this is the portions of the 1972 platform posted by Mr. Nolan above. I don’t think calling out total bullshit is in anyway an overstatement of fact in this case.

    I also never affixed a date to when Koch money went to the Objectivists at Reason. In fact, the Reason Foundation didn’t exist until after the founding of the LP. I believe the first big money they got was Scaife money.

    Back in the pre-internet days I subscribed, but I grew bored with Reason magazine. It was a mixed bag then and remains so. It could be that the stuff I read there that I really don’t like may be paid for by Koch and Scaife. The same goes for CATO.

    I realize some may be thankful that fat cats are bankrolling libertarian-lite organizations, but these fat cats are no friend of freedom because they are also bankrolling anti-freedom forces in much larger amounts.

  69. Tom Blanton

    That’s a sad story, Michael.

    Here in Richmond, there is a big VA hospital. I used to give an old guy who was a Korean War vet rides there from time to time. He had been crippled emotionally and spiritually. He spent the rest of his life in a bottle.

    That VA hospital was a sad place and was very creepy back in the 80’s. They’ve spruced the place up and enlarged it now, but it is still a sad place.

  70. Robert Capozzi

    tb, hmm, I went back to 50 and, no, that’s not a statement about “prevailing” L-ism, it’s Hess’s take on what “unalloyed” L-ism is. BTW, he uses the term “isolationism.”

    Hess was an important figure in the history of the LM. He was also a fine gentleman, one whom I had the pleasure of meeting and speaking with.

    Personally, I really don’t care what the Randians and Rothbardians thought back in the day. I think that both camps made rookie errors back then, as both tended to be deontological absolutists.

    Still, I’m grateful to the pioneers of the LP and LM, but none of them were Moses, coming down from on high with Absolute Truth etched on tablets.

    IMO.

  71. Brian Holtz

    Sipos dings Dondero for Eric’s paranoid fantasies of secret Islamo-fascist financing of antiwar libertarians, but Sipos himself has written of his own suspicions that the Libertarian Reform Caucus was financed by the GOP. ROTFL.

    As for the question of how antiwar the LP originally was, just read the original Temporary LP Platform:

    The principles which guide a legitimate government in its relationships with other governments are the same as those which guide relationships among individuals and relationships between individuals and governments. It must protect itself and its citizens against the initiation of force from other nations. […]

    The United States should abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world, and should enter into alliances only with countries whose continued free existence is vital to our legitimate national interests. These countries should include: Japan, Australia, Canada, and the free countries of Western Europe. We should in particular disengage from any present alliances which include despotic governments, whether of the left or the right. We shall support an alliance under which the United States offers the protection of its nuclear umbrella, but in which our allies provide their own conventional defense capability.

    We shall support the maintenance of a sufficient military establishment to defend the United States and its allies against aggression.

    We support the immediate and total withdrawal of all American troops from Indo-China.

  72. Eric Dondero

    Blanton, I knew Karl Hess well, in his last years of life. I even stayed at his home a couple times.

    He was all over the map on a lot of different issues. To pin him down as non-interventionist on foreign policy is grossly simplistic.

  73. Eric Dondero

    Wow! And there you have it folks.

    Tom Blanton brings up those “evil Zionists.”

    Bingo!!! Looks like we’ve got an Anti-Semite in our midst. Why am I not surprised.

  74. Eric Dondero

    Nice of Dave Nolan to chime in here with that platform re-statement. But hey, there’s not much in there that a Pro-Defense Libertarian would find disagreeable.

    World’s Policeman? I’d rather the US not be.

    The rest is pretty consistent with a Pro-Defense view.

    Nolan and other early LPers could have never anticipated 9/11. The World changed dramatically on that fateful day. And it changed for our entire lifetimes.

    We will be fighting Islamo-Fascism til the day we die, whether we like it or not.

    Our only choice is where we fight them? Over on the Arabian peninsula, and the African horn, as well as Pakistan and Afghanistan, or on our border with Mexico (eg. Matamoros and Brownsville).

  75. Eric Dondero

    Paulie, I only supported McCain AFTER!!! he picked Sarah Palin as VP.

    As you may remember I was petitioning for the LP in 7 States, all the way up to the very day she was picked.

    If she had not been picked, if McCain had chosen a boring-ass choice like Tim Pawlenty (which history now shows that he was almost about to do), than I would have been a “Republican for Barr/Root” all the way up to Nov. 4.

  76. Thomas M. Sipos

    Holtz: “Sipos dings Dondero for Eric’s paranoid fantasies … but Sipos himself has written of his own suspicions …

    Holtz is showing off his reading comprehension problems again.

    I never “dinged” Dondero for his suspicions or theories. Dondero and Holtz have theirs, I have mine.

    However, Dondero also claimed that he had specific evidence that he was soon to release.

    I keep waiting for Dondero to release the evidence he promised, years ago. He hasn’t so far.

    Holtz — please find someone to help with your reading comprehension problems.

    Offering a theory and claiming to have a smoking gun are two different things. Even Big Bird can tell you that.

  77. Andy

    Eric Dondero said: “Tom Blanton brings up those ‘evil Zionists.’

    Bingo!!! Looks like we’ve got an Anti-Semite in our midst. Why am I not surprised.”

    Considering that you’ve brought up those evil Islamofascist, and considering that the Arab peoples who make up that group of people are also Semites, doesn’t this make you an Anti-Semite as well?

  78. Andy

    “Eric Dondero // Apr 11, 2010 at 10:54 pm

    Paulie, I only supported McCain AFTER!!! he picked Sarah Palin as VP.

    As you may remember I was petitioning for the LP in 7 States, all the way up to the very day she was picked.

    If she had not been picked, if McCain had chosen a boring-ass choice like Tim Pawlenty (which history now shows that he was almost about to do), than I would have been a “Republican for Barr/Root” all the way up to Nov. 4.”

    Eric, you live in Texas and it was clearly apparent that McCain/Palin was going to carry Texas, so shouldn’t it have been “safe” for you to vote for Barr/Root instead?

  79. Brian Holtz

    I stand corrected: when it comes to paranoid fantasies about bad guys secretly financing libertarians who claim to have an honest disagreement with you, Thomas Sipos and Eric Dondero are two peas in a pod.

  80. Thomas M. Sipos

    Holtz displays his reading comprehension difficulties yet again.

    Holtz: I stand corrected….

    Holtz’s “corrected” statement is identical to his earlier statement, in that he equates Dondero and my statements. So it’s not “corrected” at all.

    Holtz can never admit he’s wrong, especially toward me.

    I voiced a suspicion. We all have suspicion. Holtz, doubtless, has suspicions.

    Dondero claimed more than a suspicion. He claimed to have actual evidence of terrorists funding antiwar libertarians, which evidence he was soon to release. And never did.

    My voicing a suspicion not the same as Dondero claiming to have evidence.

    Holtz suggested the two statements were similar. Holtz is wrong. Holtz cannot admit this. Therefore, Holtz is dishonest

  81. Open Invitation to Spin Doctors Everywhere ???????! .......... Lake

    Thomas M. Sipos // Apr 12, 2010
    “Holtz suggested the two statements were similar. Holtz is wrong. Holtz cannot admit this. Therefore, Holtz is dishonest ……….”

    Cohen, Knapp, Phillies, Rider, Tesslier, Handcock, Kubby, W. A. R.

    Decades from now they will call it the LP syndrome …………

    Rampant, explosive, government grow and the messenger is still not respected ………….

  82. Chuck

    Wow – Is this what the Libertarian Party has come to? I’m tearing up my membership card immediately.

  83. Fredo

    On Dec 10,2009 Boortz registered as a “Republican” in Collier County Florida (Naples) and at the same time is registered to vote in Fulton County Georgia (Atlanta)

  84. Belle

    Kind of got the Hanlon’s Razor thing going on, Libertarians. You just scorched your very best advocate. Never surprised when politicians behave just like every other politician, no matter the party.

  85. Bob Compangoni

    Joined the libertarian party in 98….
    Now I’m done.
    I can’t support a party without common sense.

  86. Thomas M. Sipos

    Holtz: “when it comes to paranoid fantasies about bad guys secretly financing libertarians who claim to have an honest disagreement with you”,

    I’d suggested that pro-war Republicans might be financing pro-war Libertarian Reform efforts.

    That’s a “paranoid fantasy”?

    Root has said “the money is on the right.” Root reaches out to the pro-war right, focusing his efforts on the Fox News/Mike Savage audience.

    Clearly, pro-war Reform LP types are reaching out for pro-war Republican money.

    Is it such a “paranoid fantasy” to suspect that pro-war Republican money was financing pro-war Reform LP efforts as early as 2006?

    Of course, pro-war Holtz would like everyone to ignore pro-war Reformer’s outreach to the pro-war right.

  87. Brian Holtz

    Holtz’s “corrected” statement is identical to his earlier statement

    False. I first suggested Sipos was hypocritical and would be embarrassed by the reminder of his own past paranoid fantasies about nefarious financing behind liberterians he disagrees with. My second statement conceded that he’s apparently not embarrassed at all.

    I’m a millionaire. When the Reform Caucus has an expense/project that I consider worthy, I just get out my checkbook. The cost of our booth rental and staffing in Denver was split among a handful of us LRC leaders. I personally paid for our modest expenses in video production, A/V equipment, and floor handout printing. The idea that the LRC’s efforts required outside “financing” is ludicrous.

    There was nothing “pro-war” or liberventionist about the Reform Caucus’s efforts in Portland or Denver. Of the few thousand dollars we spent, not a penny was wasted on “pro-war” or liberventionist advocacy. Sipos is simply making stuff up. Those who don’t remember the graphics and video I did for Denver can review them for themselves. Reform Caucus leaders led the efforts by the 2008 PlatCom to repair the Platform, and we brought to Denver a plank saying “The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances.” It passed with flying colors.

  88. Thomas M. Sipos

    Holtz, most pro-war Reform types don’t openly advocate war. A few do, on occasion. But most don’t have the guts, because they’re outnumbered by antiwar libs.

    What most Reformers do is they dilute the LP’s antiwar stance. And they push the false notion that the war is an issue on which “libertarians of good faith can agree to disagree.”

    And that’s bad enough.

    And let’s not forget, I’m still waiting for Eric Dondero’s promised evidence of terrorists funding the US antiwar movement.

    Dondero said he would soon release his evidence. “Soon” was years ago. I’m still waiting.

  89. David F. Nolan

    @87 – WE “scorched” HIM? You gotta be kidding. Boortz was removed from the speaking list after he started telling his listeners NOT to vote Libertarian. What kind of “advocate” does that?

  90. Robert Capozzi

    tms: And they push the false notion that the war is an issue on which “libertarians of good faith can agree to disagree.”

    me: Please expand on why this is “false.” Seems to me that some Ls are pacifists, some aren’t. Some think a militia is sufficient to defend the US, some don’t. Some thought some military action was indicated at the outset of the Afghanistan conflict, some didn’t.

  91. Brian Holtz

    most pro-war Reform types don’t openly advocate war. A few do, on occasion. But most don’t have the guts, because they’re outnumbered by antiwar libs.

    Mind-reading looks like fun. Let me try: Most antiwar types don’t openly make excuses for Saddam’s regime. A few do, on occasion. But most don’t have the guts, because they’re outnumbered by anti-tyranny libs.

    When your opponents don’t have the guts to argue against your actual stated position, and instead argue against what they claim to know you secretly believe, then you know you’ve successfully defended your position.

    And when they fantasize that you’re secretly financed by The Bad Guys, then you know that your defense has pushed them over the cliff of paranoid dementia.

    Or… maybe I’m just saying all this because Sipos has stumbled onto The Truth: that antiwar Libertarians like him are a dire threat to the Empire, and the Republican Party is financing the efforts of the Reform Caucus to neutralize him. Just like they paid off Ron Paul to say: “Shortly after 9/11, I voted for the authorization to go into Afghanistan because it told the president to do what he already had the authority to do: go after the ones who directly hit us.”

  92. Andy

    “Mind-reading looks like fun. Let me try: Most antiwar types don’t openly make excuses for Saddam’s regime. A few do, on occasion. But most don’t have the guts, because they’re outnumbered by anti-tyranny libs.”

    It should be pointed out that the US government aided Saddam for years. Now we are supposed to believe that they were all of a sudden concerned about Saddam’s regime being tyranical. Yeah right. The people who control our government don’t even give a damn about the freedom of Americans, why would anyone believe that they really give a damn about the people in Iraq?

  93. Scott Wassmer

    Hey Dondero, perhaps you should go back to the Revolution and read about Classical Liberalism, the foundation for Libertarianism. Being a Rothbardian Voluntaryist, thus, being Anti-State in all facets, this is hardly a new position.

    Elbridge Gerry – “Standing Armies = Bane of Liberty”. Why the hell do you think America modeled its defense on MILITIAS. Standing Armies, always are the bane of liberty. They are tools of the tyrant, both despotic at home and abroad, and I am in the USCG. Sadly, I didn’t come to my current beliefs until after I joined.

    That being said, if you had any intellectual honesty you would know that us Anti-War libertarians are not pacifists like Robert LeFavre. We hold to the NAP, and many of us the Just War Theory. We also hold that wars should be fought totally voluntary and by the aggrieved party.

    Taxation is not liberty. Wars of aggression is not liberty. Fascism, masked in patriotism by the likes of Raytheon, Northropp Grumman, GE, and the rest of the Corporatocracy, is the bane of liberty. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve which finances war in the first place (without it, war would be financially impossible to wage, at least on the scale it is done now), is another bane of liberty. Being the arbiter of inflation and theft. So you support the two biggest banes of liberty. YOU ARE NOT A LIBERTARIAN.

    Personally, I hope all the pro-war, pro-Federal Reserve, pro-Fascist “libertarians” are kicked out of the Party, asap. We need more Ruwarts, Pauls, Raimondos, Rothbards, Rockwells, Napolitanos, Tom Woods, etc. We don’t need more Cato-ite fascists, and Friedmanite Monetarist Fascists. I am glad for Patri though!

    If I had my choice the LP Foreign Policy and Defense Policy would be a return of Common Sense and Anti-Statism (Read: Classical Liberalism), which this country was Founded on. The dissolution of all Standing Armies, and the prominence of the voluntary Militia for the common defense, and of a strictly non-interventionist approach to all nations. Why do you think the Swiss have not been in a war in 600 years? Are you that prideful that in the name of “glory” or “nationalism”, or whatever adjective you wish to convey you are willing to kill fellow Americans and deprive them of their inherent right of liberty, property, and happiness for Imperialism? FUCK OFF DONDERO.

    As for libertarianism itself, it is nothing more than the continuance of Classical Liberalism in its logical conclusions — Anarcho-Capitalism. Building upon Bastiat, Locke, Molinari, et. al. Dondero you fascist tool, I will use voluntary, and peaceful means to annul you — ostracizing. I hope everyone hangs a picture of this tool for the State in their places of businesses and refuses to serve him. If you want to fight this war for the State and its lies and oil, so bad, then how about you enlist?

  94. Thomas M. Sipos

    Holtz lies.

    First, Holtz equates my voicing a suspicion with Dondero claiming to have evidence, by saying: “Sipos dings Dondero for Eric’s paranoid fantasies of secret Islamo-fascist financing of antiwar libertarians, but Sipos himself has written of his own suspicions that the Libertarian Reform Caucus was financed by the GOP.” @ 73

    Then when I observe that these claims are not similar, Holtz dishonestly recharacterizes his statement as: “I first suggested Sipos was hypocritical and would be embarrassed by the reminder of his own past paranoid fantasies about nefarious financing behind liberterians he disagrees with.” @ 90

    Not at all what he first suggested.

    Holtz first equated my suspicion with Dondero’s claims of evidence. That’s what he first suggested.

    Hotlz was wrong to do so, so he dishonestly tries to re-characterize his previous statement.

    Now Holtz re-characterizes my suspicions as mind-reading, hoping his earlier lie won’t be noticed.

    Pro-war people are so pathologically dishonest. From Cheney, to Root, to all the rest.

    And I’m still waiting for Dondero to reveal his long-promised evidence that terrorists are funding the antiwar movement.

  95. Donnie

    Seems that the anti-war folks have just about taken over the Libertarian Party. Are you people seriously opposed to ANY war? Nobody in their right mind enjoys war, but to be totally opposed to any war just because it is a war is lunacy. Sometimes it’s necessary.

    “The dissolution of all Standing Armies, and the prominence of the voluntary Militia for the common defense, and of a strictly non-interventionist approach to all nations.”
    Sounds nice, but wouldn’t work for the U. S.. Works for the Swiss because the rest of the free world protects them.

    That’s why I’m not a Libertarian. When y’all grow up and start living in the real world, call me.

  96. Brian Holtz

    Holtz @73: Sipos dings Dondero for Eric’s paranoid fantasies of secret Islamo-fascist financing of antiwar libertarians, but Sipos himself has written of his own suspicions that the Libertarian Reform Caucus was financed by the GOP.

    Sipos @100: Holtz first equated my suspicion with Dondero’s claims of evidence.

    No, I didn’t mention evidence at all @73. Learn to read.

    I consider your paranoid suspicions to be as catastrophically embarassing as Dondero’s (alleged) claims of having evidence for his paranoid suspicions. You apparently disagree. My mistake — already admitted — was in thinking that Dondero’s paranoia was part of what you were dinging him for. But it turns out you are two peas in a paranoid pod.

    If you say you suspect the moon is made of cheese, and Dondero says he’s tasted the cheese, I consider you both hopelessly clueless. I leave it for readers to decide how much dignity you can salvage from the distinction between the two of you.

    Sorry, Thomas, but you don’t get to decide what I was making fun of you for. Feel free to keep calling me “dishonest” and a “liar” and “pro-war” and invoking “Cheney” if you think it will distract from your embarrassment over your past suspicions that the Reform Caucus was financed by the Republican Party.

    Holtz lies.

    This part is especially funny. Sipos thinks that I would lie — i.e. deliberately assert something I know to be demonstrably false — about written statements published in this very thread in the last 36 hours. As if readers here don’t know how to use a scrollbar. And I’m sure Sipos really believes I lied. For a smear to be maximally effective, you have to convince yourself it’s true.

  97. Scott Wassmer

    Donnie, the world doesn’t protect the Swiss. The Swiss gives no incentives for anyone to attack them, and moreover, even the most despotic totalitarians had the sanity to not attack the Swiss because even they understood that it would cost far too much (Hitler, Stalin, etc.), for no appreciable gain.

    When you have free-trade, and peaceful talks with all Nations, you give no Nation the determination to foist war upon you. I think George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Elbridge Gerry, and the rest of the Anti-Federalists lived in the real world, along with the radical liberals in England like Cobden & Bright during the 19th Century. Similarly, among the radical liberal laissez-fairests in France at the time.

    The 19th Century was one of the most peaceful when you analyze it through the lens of history, although there were still some terribly aggressive and violent wars.

    I always find it funny so-called fiscal “conservatives” who don’t mind spending trillions and trillions for Imperial wars, then get out-raged over “Illegal” Immigration and its associated increases of the Welfare State, which when compared are miniscule in comparison. They also believe that we can spend trillions and not raise taxes! Haha! Where the hell do they think the money comes from? Oh, thats right. They also support the Federal Reserve. I think we all know what Jefferson had to say about Central Banks. So, there is no such thing as a fiscal “conservative” (Probably which you call yourself — though correct me if I’m wrong). There is only libertarians contrasted to authoritarians.

    Also, I’m not opposed to all wars, nor am I opposed to defense, as I ascribe to the Non-Aggression Principle which justifies the use of force in defense of aggression.

    Honestly, why do you think we get attacked & we are reviled around the world, when other more non-interventionist countries aren’t? Why do you think the Founders came to their reasoning and sound logic? We are the British Empire circa 1775. We are the global hegemonic tyrannous State. We are Imperialists.

    Even the most insane would never invade a country that trades with them who also harbors 300,000,000 people with military weapons and training in each home. That’s suicide and even Hitler knew it, which is why he didn’t invade the Swiss.

    Not only is the Militia a bulwark to tyranny abroad and home, but it also reduces violent crimes. Associated with this is the natural and inherent right to self-defense and of unregulated markets for weaponry. Boy, would I love it if even a small part of the US returned to its root and we once again became a Nation of Riflemen, and roared like the lion for Liberty.

    So, yes, I live in the real world, as do my ideas, and the idea of America. The idea of Classical Liberalism enshrined in the Declaration of Independance.

    As Jefferson said:

    “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.”

    It is also remarkable how the Old Right, and the Classical Liberals of old understood that War is the Health of the State. War is the very essence in which all of our liberties are stolen. The libertarian therefore, if he cherishes liberty to be Anti-War.

    I guess you enjoy fake-security more than ye’ love liberty. Anyone who is Pro-War cannot be a libertarian.

  98. Tom Blanton

    Anyone who is Pro-War cannot be a libertarian.

    This is the bottom line. Taken one step further, anyone who is pro-war cannot be a fiscal conservative.

    We can’t forget that the wars America has chosen to fight during the last 50 years were, in fact, wars of choice – military wars, covert wars, and proxy wars against nation states who posed little to no threat to America and had not attacked America.

    Pro-war “libertarians” cannot compartmentalize war and keep it separate from the consequences of war – debt/inflation and loss of liberty.

    The idea that libertarians must agree to disagree with those pro-war foes of freedom who promote massive increases in the size, scope and power of government is ludicrous.

    Should libertarians also be so tolerant of “libertarians” who advocate lynching gay people?

    What about “libertarians” who call for state execution of anyone selling drugs? Hey, it’s just that one issue they aren’t that good on and it’s not as expensive or as far reaching as …a war. Can’t we all just get along?

    One could make the libertarian personal responsibility case that taxes shouldn’t be cut, but rather increased dramatically to reduce the debt being passed on to our children. How popular would they be in the LP for advocating massive tax increases?

    What’s next, libertarians that favor expanding government at all levels to better safeguard our liberties? Perhaps embedded microchips with GPS to keep us safe? More CCTV cameras to protect us from evil-doers?

    Is this what the new reformed LP is all about?

    Maybe the GOP was behind the reformers after all. Or maybe the government. What better way to squelch ideas they don’t like?

  99. Thomas M. Sipos

    Holtz: :No, I didn’t mention evidence at all @73. Learn to read.

    I never said you “mentioned evidence.” I said Dondero claimed he had evidence, and you equated our two statements.

    You should learn to read. Either that, or stop trying to twist words around to fit your lies.

    Donnie: “Seems that the anti-war folks have just about taken over the Libertarian Party.”

    From your lips to God’s ears, I hope that it is so.

    “Are you people seriously opposed to ANY war?”

    The term antiwar has to be taken in context. In the context of 2010, the term usually refers to our current and potential future wars (e.g., Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, etc.).

    “Pro-war” in this context refers to neocons and liberventionists who support war and empire as a policy of “spreading freedom,” or whatever lie they’re currently using as an excuse for their unjustified wars.

  100. Andy

    “Are you people seriously opposed to ANY war? Nobody in their right mind enjoys war, but to be totally opposed to any war just because it is a war is lunacy.”

    I’d be in favor of another American revolution to get rid of the corrupt US government which we are living under.

    “Sometimes it’s necessary.”

    The problem is that almost all wars are based on lies. I don’t think that there’s any war that the US has fought in since the American Revolution which was not based on lies and/or could have been avoided.

    The people who control our government are extremely corrupt. Their record of lies and corruption is so great that I don’t think that they can be trusted to take us into a war.

    War is something that should be avoided. The only reason to go to war is if it is purely self defense. The US government should not have troops stationed all over the world and should stay out of the internal affairs of other nations.

  101. Michael H. Wilson

    I think the case can be made that just about every war since the Mexican War was unnecessary or we stumbled into. Poor grasp of foreign policy and ignorance of other cultures.

    I’m excluding the Civil War, War of Northern Aggression or War between the States what ever you care to call it. I’ll let someone else pick the name of that mess.

  102. Brian Holtz

    Sipos, @73 I equated your paranoia with Dondero’s. You can keep saying I “equated” your paranoia with something else, but that will never make it true.

    Sorry, but you don’t get to decide whether I’m interested in Dondero’s unfulfilled promises of evidence. Dondero’s views on foreign policy don’t interest me in the slightest.

    Meanwhile, Blanton @105 wins yet another argument with the voices in his head.

    I guess we don’t really need to start worrying until Blanton starts losing arguments with those voices…

  103. Thomas M. Sipos

    Holtz: “I equated your paranoia with Dondero’s. You can keep saying I “equated” your paranoia with something else”

    That “something else” was the issue I actually raised: Dondero claiming he had evidence.

    If you respond to my post by ignoring its content, and instead refer to “something else” inside your own head, then you should make that clear.

    Just because you insist that I’m a mind reader doesn’t mean that I am.

  104. Brian Holtz

    Sipos, you don’t get to decide what positions of yours I’m allowed to call attention to. My target was absolutely clear from the very beginning: Sipos dings Dondero for Eric’s paranoid fantasies of secret Islamo-fascist financing of antiwar libertarians, but Sipos himself has written of his own suspicions that the Libertarian Reform Caucus was financed by the GOP.

    It was always about your paranoia, Thomas. You can keep changing the subject, but I can repeat my original point as many times as you try to mischaracterize it. (“Inside your own head”? Are you trying to deny you ever said what I claim you said?)

    You gave in to the urge to smear the Reform Caucus with your suspicions of Republican Party financing, and I’m not going to let you forget it. So was it worth it? Would you do it again? Are you proud? Care to double down?

  105. Thomas M. Sipos

    Holtz: “Sipos, you don’t get to decide what positions of yours I’m allowed to call attention to.”

    Of course not. When did I say otherwise? The voices in your head?

    If you want to ignore the position I stated, and instead call attention to “my position” as fantasized in your head, that’s your business.

    It’s just confusing when you do so.

    “You gave in to the urge to smear the Reform Caucus with your suspicions of Republican Party financing, and I’m not going to let you forget it.”

    When have I ever denied saying that? Again, you’re arguing with voices in your head.

    But in this thread, I initially accused Dondero of revealing his promised evidence. You “responded” by equating my suspicions with Dondero’s claims of evidence.

    If you were instead responding to your seething memories of my long ago statement (did I touch a nerve?), you should have made that clear.

    One is not a mind reader.

    BTW, Root is quoted as saying “The money is on the right.”

    Sounds to me like Root’s reaching out for GOP money. It’s not such a “paranoid” leap to think that GOP money has already funded the LP’s pro-war wing.

    So you go on and remind everyone that I slammed the LP Reform Caucus. Because if you don’t, I will.

    I will also keep reminding everyone that Brian Holtz is a pro-war liberventionist.

  106. Thomas M. Sipos

    Of course, I meant to write: “But in this thread, I initially accused Dondero of not revealing his promised evidence.

    But it’s late, and it’s so wearisome arguing with these pro-war liberventionists. So dishonest. Always denying and spinning and changing the subject.

    They say “the money is on the right.” They deny any interest in right-wing money. Who can keep up with their spin?

  107. Seems to me

    Our history books are defined by wars. The response to threat and tribe is both instinctual and trained.

    People’s desire for cruelty, savagery and war is natural but the shape it takes and the constraint it has is determined by reactions of our family, peers and community. I feel like culture is the only deep long term social education option we have without force or fraud.

    I think that we cannot educate people on the outside our culture on cultural rules. Exclusivity and absolutism is not the answer to changing the game in people’s minds.

  108. Robert Capozzi

    Tb: Should libertarians also be so tolerant of “libertarians” who advocate lynching gay people? What about “libertarians” who call for state execution of anyone selling drugs? Hey, it’s just that one issue they aren’t that good on and it’s not as expensive or as far reaching as …a war. Can’t we all just get along?

    Me: Tom, last I checked, Lism ain’t a religion. Buy into 100% of what some say is the L dogma, and you’re a “good L,” deviate on some issues and you’re not, is that your view?

    If someone advocated your hypotheticals above, I would not support him or her. I would not want him or her to be a candidate or an officer. I would strongly disagree with those positions. He or she might use the term L to describe their political philosophy, but I wish they wouldn’t.

    I am not, however, a pacificist. There may be times when the use of military force is justified as a last resort. Do you disagree with this view? Does my view make me NOT a L in your view?

    Regardless of what your view is, I suspect most Ls agree with my view, more or less. Does that mean that most Ls are “Ls” — not really L — in your view?

  109. Robert Capozzi

    tb, I trust that can we stipulate that matters of war/peace and life/choice are both consequential, deeply so. Two LM luminaries, Rothbard and Rockwell, were diametrically opposed on the life/choice issue, with Murray believing that fetuses are parasites and Rockwell being pro-life. Despite this MAJOR divide, they not only recognized each other as L, they even were partners in a newsletter.

    A model of pluralistic, respectful behavior for us today, I’d suggest.

  110. Thomas M. Sipos

    It suddenly occurs to me, Holtz thinks I “smeared” the LP Reformers by suggesting they’re financed by Republican money.

    What a twisted, bizarro way of looking at things!

    No, Holtz. I suspect the LP Reformers of being financed by pro-war, neocon Republican money.

    Holtz, you deluded creature. There’s no shame in being a Republican, or Democrat, or Green. Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Ralph Nader are all commendable for their antiwar stance, despite their party labels.

    The shame is not in GOP money, but in pro-war GOP money.

    Libervention is support for mass murder. Yet Holtz freely calls himself a libverventionist, even as he balks at being called a Republican.

    Holtz has such a fetishistic, cult-like desire to have an L before his name, rather than an R or a D. He’ll openly support war, just so long as you stick an L before his name, as if that exculpates him.

    Whereas I couldn’t care less what mindless party letter you stick before my name, just so long as you recognize me as pro-peace.

    The babies are crying over what letter you give them, while the grown-ups are trying to save lives by building a Left/Right antiwar coalition: http://libertarianpeacenik.blogspot.com/2010/03/left-right-antiwar-meeting-part-5.html

  111. Brian Holtz

    Sipos is now arguing with himself. On the question of whether he ever smeared the Reform Caucus with his suspicions of Republican Party financing, Sipos first writes: If you want to ignore the position I stated, and instead call attention to “my position” as fantasized in your head, that’s your business.

    So the Sipos smear is merely a position “fantasized in my head”. But wait — Sipos immediately rebuts Sipos, and asks When have I ever denied saying that?

    Sipos needs to make up his mind. When I embarrassed him @73 by comparing Dondero’s “paranoid fantasies” to Sipos’s own “suspicions”, were those suspicions something I made up “in my head”, or a historical fact that Sipos admits?

    Sipos keeps hallucinating that I “equated” anything with Dondero’s promises of evidence, when @73 I plainly wasn’t talking about Dondero’s promises at all. I’m only interested in Dondero’s paranoia, not his promises, and Sipos says that’s “confusing”. Sipos doesn’t want me to confuse his readers with the facts.

    Sipos is so desperate for me not to talk about his paranoid fantasy-smear of GOP financing of the Reform Caucus, that he tries to shout me down with more smears of “liar” and “dishonest” and “Cheney” and “pro-war”. Sorry, Sipos, but you can’t shout away facts.

    Then Sipos tries to link 1) Root’s strategy of recruiting members and donations from the right with 2) Sipos’s silly smear about Republican Party financing of the Reform Caucus.

    I guess Sipos doesn’t know that of the 9% of voters that the Cato Institute classified as libertarian from their answers in a Zogby survey, self-identified conservatives outnumbered self-identified liberals 4-1. (Even so, I think Root is misguided. I’ve always said the LP’s strength lies in its ideas, not in any funds it could possibly hope to raise. But that won’t stop Sipos from trying to smear me with Root’s fundraising ideas. Why let the truth get in the way of a good smear?)

    But since this Cato analysis is something that Sipos hasn’t pre-cleared me to mention, I suppose he’ll claim it’s just a “voice in my head”. It turns out that any truth that is inconvenient to Sipos is merely a “voice in my head”.

  112. Tom Blanton

    Capozzi believes a pacifist is someone who opposes American wars of choice against nations who have not attacked America and pose no existential threat to America based on lies and distortions.

    Capozzi must also believe that an abortion can affect millions of people. He must think that the consequences of having or not having an abortion are a nation spending hundreds of billions of dollars, massive debt, a surveillance state, the displacement, death or wounding of hundreds of thousands of people, setting aside habeas corpus, the assassination of mere suspects by drone attacks, the militarization of society, the torture of innocent people, among other things.

    There may be times when the use of military force is justified as a last resort.

    It seems to me that the pro-war libertarians are not supporting some imaginary hypothetical war that might occur at some time as a last resort. They are supporting wars and occupations that are currently ongoing. These were not wars of last resort.

    We are not engaging in some theoretical debate here over matters that have limited impact. An abortion impacts 2 people (3, if one counts the father who has no say in the matter), but wars can impact the entire world.

    I’m just wondering what the threshold of the LP moderate reformers really is for deviation from “the L dogma”. If support for killing innocent people and increasing the scope of government to include the devastation of the economy, assassination, massive surveillance, imprisoning innocent people for years without a hearing, allowing massive fraud to be committed by the cronies of politicians, etc. is acceptable in the LP, then perhaps it is time for the LP to call it quits.

    America already has two war parties, it sure as hell doesn’t need another one. It is apparent to me and many others that the vast majority of pro-war libertarians have no interest in meaningful limited government or individual rights.

    The extent of some who cheer on the warfare state to freedom is to advocate tax cuts for the wealthy.

    Is it any wonder that the LP is moribund and is it any secret as to why this is?

    Me: Tom, last I checked, Lism ain’t a religion.

    I’d agree. Apparently, it is not even a political philosophy anymore. It seems as long as one advocates tax cuts (or the Fair Tax in lieu of that), one is a libertarian in good standing – even while promoting the expansion of government and the warfare state. Oh, I forgot to insert “last I checked” to accentuate how obvious my argument is to everyone but Capozzi.

  113. Brian Holtz

    I’m just wondering what the threshold of the LP moderate reformers really is for deviation from “the L dogma”.

    Glad you asked. I would say that you have to score at least 160 on my test, and that any major deviations (e.g. on the franchise schisms of abortion, immigration, libervention) must come with a serious argument for why you think the policy would minimize the net incidence of aggression.

    Next question?

    If support for killing innocent people and increasing the scope of government to include the devastation of the economy, assassination, massive surveillance, imprisoning innocent people for years without a hearing, allowing massive fraud to be committed by the cronies of politicians, etc. is acceptable in the LP, …

    Not.

    Next question?

  114. Thomas M. Sipos

    Holtz: “So the Sipos smear is merely a position “fantasized in my head”

    No, idiot. Your fantasy is not my position, but that I raised that position in this thread.

    You responded to that position instead of to the actual issue I raised in this thread: Dondero never showing his promised evidence.

    Holtz: “Sipos is so desperate for me not to talk about his paranoid fantasy-smear of GOP financing of the Reform Caucus,”

    “Desperate” for you not to talk about it? Hell, you moron, I’ve blogged about it, explaining my rationale for all the world to see: http://libertarianpeacenik.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-neocons-fear-antiwar-right.html

    I posted that two years ago, and have proudly kept it up. It explains why the pro-war right is trying to neutralize antiwar libertarians.

    And “smear” is your word. It’s no smear to take GOP money. I repeatedly praise Ron Paul. The shame is in taking pro-war GOP money.

    Yeah, I know. You treasure that L so much, you think I smeared the Reform Caucus by linking them to Republicans. You support war, but cry if someone doubts your right to wear an L on your cardigan sweater.

  115. Brian Holtz

    You’re becoming unhinged. I obviously never claimed you here raised the issue of your smear about GOP financing of the Reform Caucus. Instead, I’ve repeatedly said that you don’t want the issue discussed. Why else would you whine that it was “dishonest” and “confusing” for me to compare your paranoia to Dondero’s?

    The link you give doesn’t even mention your paranoid fantasy about Republican Party financing of the Reform Caucus. Again: my thesis is that you’re embarrassed by your paranoid fantasy of the RNC writing a check to the Reform Caucus. Prove me wrong.

    Readers can decide for themselves whether it’s a smear to suggest that an LP caucus is secretly financed by the Republican Party.

    I don’t “support war”. I support liberty and (in narrow circumstances) liberation, and I oppose tyranny and nation-building. The actual facts of what I “support” is yet another inconvenient truth for you.

  116. Robert Capozzi

    TB: Capozzi believes a pacifist is someone who opposes American wars of choice against nations who have not attacked America and pose no existential threat to America based on lies and distortions.

    Me: False, blatantly so. How you arrive at THAT conclusion is stunning, actually.

    TB: Capozzi must also believe that an abortion can affect millions of people. He must think that the consequences of having or not having an abortion are a nation spending hundreds of billions of dollars, massive debt, a surveillance state, the displacement, death or wounding of hundreds of thousands of people, setting aside habeas corpus, the assassination of mere suspects by drone attacks, the militarization of society, the torture of innocent people, among other things.

    Me: Also false. I’m a dove and I’m pro-choice. Still, there’ve been a reported 50MM abortions since 1973, and some Ls and others think that’s a LOT of murders. Regardless of where you come down on the justification of military actions or abortion, I’d say both are consequential, which was my point. While many/most/all of the behaviors you cite are contra-indicated, yes, I’d say that 50 million abortions is a substantial trend.

    TB: It seems to me that the pro-war libertarians are not supporting some imaginary hypothetical war that might occur at some time as a last resort. They are supporting wars and occupations that are currently ongoing. These were not wars of last resort.

    Me: Perhaps. It depends on what you mean by “pro-war Ls.” A lot of Ls thought Afghanistan was justified, at least at first. Some thought Iraq was. Some, like Kinsella and perhaps Gregory, don’t seem to believe the American Revolution was justified. It appear you paint with a VERY broad brush.

    TB: I’m just wondering what the threshold of the LP moderate reformers really is for deviation from “the L dogma”.

    Me: In my case, I consider anyone who wants less net government is an ally.

    TB: It is apparent to me and many others that the vast majority of pro-war libertarians have no interest in meaningful limited government or individual rights.

    Me: Hmm, you might be right about this, although it would be very difficult to discern and aggregate. My perception is that some who thought the Iraq War – which I oppose/d – are lessarchists, and some are not.

  117. Thomas M. Sipos

    Holtz: “You’re becoming unhinged.

    Projection?

    Holtz: “The link you give doesn’t even mention your paranoid fantasy about Republican Party financing of the Reform Caucus.

    My link discusses why the pro-war right is trying to neutralize antiwar libertarians, and places the issue in broader context.

    The Reform Caucus, the purge of Angela Keaton, the Portland purge of the platform, these are all attempts by pro-war types to stifle antiwar libertarians.

    People donate to political groups that share their leanings. Pro-war money goes to pro-war groups. Hardly a “paranoid fantasy,” but rather, a plausible likelihood.

    You obsess over the Reform Caucus, as though your self-esteem rested on its good L name. I casually suggested, years ago, that pro-war neocon Republicans likely helped finance the LP Reform Caucus (which I still believe), and you go ballistic.

    You feel “smeared” by being linked to the GOP, but feel no shame in supporting war. A bizarre view of morality.

  118. Robert Capozzi

    ts: The Reform Caucus, the purge of Angela Keaton, the Portland purge of the platform, these are all attempts by pro-war types to stifle antiwar libertarians.

    me: Hmm, I’m Chair of the LRC Pac, which has spent an aggregate total of about $5K, and I’m anti-war. Most of the planks that were deleted in Portland had nothing to do with matters of war.

    Do you believe I was trying to stifle myself?

  119. Brian Holtz

    The unhinged/ballistic one here is the one shouting “liar”/”dishonest”/”Cheney”/”moron”/”idiot”.

    Me, I’m just trying to explore the question of whether Sipos still harbors a Dondero-esque paranoid fantasy that the Republican Party secretly arranged financing for a caucus within the Libertarian Party in pursuit of a GOP plan to “neutralize” the threat posed by libertarians like Sipos.

    Bob, if the Reform Caucus got a secret check from the RNC to compensate for some of the ~$2000 I spent on the reform cause for Denver, then where’s my cut of the payola? 🙂

    I do consider the Republican Party to be a lost cause, and not even useful as an agent of marginal change toward more liberty in America. However, I don’t fault libertarian Republicans for trying to change that, and I certainly have never faulted individual Republicans for donating to pro-liberty causes.

    So it’s simply ignorant to claim I “fetishize” the LP. I have for many years criticized the LP’s policy against endorsing candidates of other parties. Here is how I said it over four years ago:


    The Bylaws say the LP should “function as a libertarian political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties or movements”, should “elect Libertarians to public office”, and forbids the endorsement of “any candidate who is a member of another party for public office in any partisan election”. The LP explicitly refuses to unite in electoral politics with any voter or politician who fails to “challenge the cult of the omnipotent state”. This is silly — and not just because states aren’t omnipotent and statism isn’t a cult. It’s silly because the LP acts more interested in using electoral politics to exhibit ideological purity than to “move public policy in a libertarian direction”. The Bylaws claims it wants to do the latter, but only “by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office” — as if electing Pledge-certified LP members is the only way to move public policy in a libertarian direction.

    The purpose of the LP should instead be to use electoral politics to send the policy-making community the largest possible signal of the desire for increased civil and economic liberty. The LP should seek to be the political voice and electoral broker of all eligible voters who want to pull America north on the Nolan Chart. Instead of making the perfect the enemy of the better, the LP should maximize the size of the pro-liberty voting bloc and then see how much increased liberty (if any) it can buy with these votes. We know from public choice theory that politicians will sell favors, and there is no reason that increased liberty can’t be such a favor. If a major-party candidate in a race will promise us an acceptable amount of effort for increased liberty, then we should swing our voting bloc her way. We won’t be infallible in our judgments about who to support, but the only way to guarantee we won’t make such mistakes is to continue our strategy of electoral irrelevance. Of course, the more liberty-increasers that the LP can unite into a voting bloc, the more the major parties will move to co-opt the LP by adopting some of our positions. Good! We care about increasing liberty, not about donkeys vs. elephants vs. torch ladies. (Right?)

  120. Seems to me

    Melty @117
    “seems to me desire for cruelty, savagery and war is not natural”

    I think you are incorrect. There is a couple thousand years of recorded history that shows a perpetual state of war for mankind. We find weapons among the oldest of tool using fossils.

    Morality and ethics are taught.

  121. Scott Wassmer

    The purpose of the LP should be to educate through electoral seasons the message of liberty. While winning would be nice, lets not kid ourselves on the duopoly’s stranglehold of the electoral process. Laws are hugely biased in favor of the Asses and Elephants.

    The State is a cult. Ask anyone if they believe an individual should be able to take your money from you for programs, and ideas you oppose, and do so with force, and you will get no 99.9% of the time. Then ask them if the State should be able to tax you, and you will get yes, 98% of the time. HOW DO YOU RECONCILE THAT? People have been brainwashed in the cult that is the State.

    It’s as if people don’t understand that individuals make up groups, and that all rights are derived based on our individuality — ergo, humanity. Rights are not deferred on the basis of groups.

    If you are serious about winning an election then I would recommend you either do so as a Democrat or Republican, but don’t be surprised when you lose because before you can win, you must educate, either that or help bring in half the population of your district (ala Ron Paul :p).

    Since the LP should be about education, and purity (since we are using the word libertarian here), the party should have some kind of basic tenets that all members must adhere to. Instance:

    Abolishing IRS and Income Tax and replacing it with nothing.

    Abolishing the Federal Reserve & Central Banking.

    Adopting a Non-interventionist Foreign Policy with the express intent on trade with all Nations, and peace to all Nations.

    Abolishment of all Subsidy and the repealment of all appropriations for Internal Improvements / Public Works.

    Abolishment of Property Tax, Inheritence Tax, etc.

    Abolishment of all gun restriction laws.

    Abolishment of all ABC departments.

    Abolishment of all Welfare.

    I could even get way more radical, but hell the above isn’t even radical. The above is traditional American ideals.

  122. Eric Dondero

    My last comment for this thread. It’s getting rather long.

    It’s funny that some of you here say stuff like “Can’t possibly be a libertarian, and be Pro-War at the same time.”

    Really? We Pro-Defense (Pro-War in Iraq & Afghanistan) Libertarians say exactly the same thing about the AntiWar position.

    Honestly, I cannot fathom for the life of me, how someone who claims to be a “Libertarian,” could align themselves with the likes of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and all Islamic extremists.

    Look, please listen here. I beg you…

    ISLAMO-FASCISTS WANT TO FORCE YOUR WIFE/GIRLFRIEND TO WEAR AN UGLY BLACK BURQA FROM HEAD TO TOE, MAKE YOU KNEEL TO ALLAH FIVE TIMES A DAY AT THE POINT OF A GUN, STRING UP YOUR GAY BUDDY BY HIS NECK AND HANG HIM IN THE TOWN SQUARE TIL HE’S DEAD, ARREST ALL MARIJUANA SMOKERS, OUTLAW GAMBLING AND BOOZE, AND PUT A BULLET THRU THE HEAD OF ALL PROSTITUTES IN TOWN.

    Please. Please. Please. Someone explain to me how that is anywhere’s close to being libertarian?

    We Pro-War Libertarians want to fight back against Islamo-Fascism, PRECISELY BECA– USE WE ARE PRO-CIVIL LIBERTIES!!

  123. Solomon Drek

    “It’s funny that some of you here say stuff like “Can’t possibly be a libertarian, and be Pro-War at the same time.”

    Of course one can be libertarian and pro-war. It’s called the Republican Party.

  124. Brian Holtz

    Eric, there may be people in the world who wish they could make all those Bad Things happen, but that doesn’t mean America is in any danger of those Bad Things actually happening. Hell, these guys can’t even competently set their own shoes or underwear on fire. If Al Qaeda had any halfway competent agents in America, they’d drive up and down California highways throwing lit matches out the window.

    I’ll say it again: the hole in America’s defenses that Al Qaeda exposed on the morning of 9/11 was closed within an hour by a small group of heroes in the skies above Pennsylvania. Their number included Tom Burnett, Mark Bingham, Jeremy Glick, Todd Beamer, and Sandra Bradshaw.

  125. Tom Blanton

    So, American libertarians should sacrifice blood, treasure and liberty in America to eliminate all evil-doers in the world and then, and not until then, should we worry about cleaning our own house. Until then, we must assassinate and torture any and all Muslims merely suspected of being evil-doers. We should bomb wedding parties, apartment buildings, and anyone else a small elite group of neocons, war profiteers, and political Zionists wish to eliminate.

    Stop the God damn madness. Forget about whether these war mongering sociopaths are libertarians or not. The real question is whether or not they are human beings.

    We Pro-War Libertarians want to fight back against Islamo-Fascism, PRECISELY BECA– USE WE ARE PRO-CIVIL LIBERTIES!!

    Bullshit Dondero, you want somebody else to do your killing for you not because of your altruism but because of bigotry and hatred. Dondero, you are no better than the worst al Qaida lunatic. And you forget the origins of their hatred – sociopathic white boys just like yourself that can’t restrain themselves from attempting to dominate others.

  126. Steven R Linnabary

    ISLAMO-FASCISTS WANT TO FORCE YOUR WIFE/GIRLFRIEND TO WEAR AN UGLY BLACK BURQA FROM HEAD TO TOE, MAKE YOU KNEEL TO ALLAH FIVE TIMES A DAY AT THE POINT OF A GUN, STRING UP YOUR GAY BUDDY BY HIS NECK AND HANG HIM IN THE TOWN SQUARE TIL HE’S DEAD, ARREST ALL MARIJUANA SMOKERS, OUTLAW GAMBLING AND BOOZE, AND PUT A BULLET THRU THE HEAD OF ALL PROSTITUTES IN TOWN.

    And yet, THAT is exactly what we are fighting for! The current Afghani Constitution:

    http://www.afghan-web.com/politics/current_constitution.html

    You will note that Eric and other war zealots SUPPORT Islamo-fascism when it is OUR puppet regime that inflicts it on their own people.

    PEACE

  127. paulie Post author

    Honestly, I cannot fathom for the life of me, how someone who claims to be a “Libertarian,” could align themselves with the likes of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and all Islamic extremists.

    See, that’s the whole point of libertarianism – we don’t, yet we don’t think our monopoly state should “solve” the problem.

    Just as our lack of enthusiasm for government “solutions” does not mean we favor drug addiction, initiation of force by criminals with guns, pollution, poverty, lack of education, or any of the other myriad problems that government “solutions” make worse instead of better. Islamic extremism is no different than any of these other problems – it is exacebated, not thwarted, by the regime’s ham-handed attempts at “fighting” it.

  128. paulie Post author

    We Pro-War Libertarians want to fight back against Islamo-Fascism, PRECISELY BECA– USE WE ARE PRO-CIVIL LIBERTIES!!

    Except that civil liberties suffer in the course of this (and all other) war(s), while “Islamo-fascism” has never had a better recruiting tool.

    As for your commitment to civil liberties, it seems to suffer a bit when you support politicians like Giuliani, far from a friend of civil liberties as Mayor of New York, or absurdly claim that if same sex marriage is permitted the government will force churches to perform gay weddings.

  129. paulie Post author

    “Eric Dondero // Apr 11, 2010 at 10:54 pm

    Paulie, I only supported McCain AFTER!!! he picked Sarah Palin as VP.

    As you may remember I was petitioning for the LP in 7 States, all the way up to the very day she was picked.

    If she had not been picked, if McCain had chosen a boring-ass choice like Tim Pawlenty (which history now shows that he was almost about to do), than I would have been a “Republican for Barr/Root” all the way up to Nov. 4.”

    Eric, you live in Texas and it was clearly apparent that McCain/Palin was going to carry Texas, so shouldn’t it have been “safe” for you to vote for Barr/Root instead?

    When was the last time Dondero voted Libertarian for President in a general election in November?

    I’m not sure, but I would guess maybe 1988?

  130. Andy

    “ISLAMO-FASCISTS WANT TO FORCE YOUR WIFE/GIRLFRIEND TO WEAR AN UGLY BLACK BURQA FROM HEAD TO TOE, MAKE YOU KNEEL TO ALLAH FIVE TIMES A DAY AT THE POINT OF A GUN, STRING UP YOUR GAY BUDDY BY HIS NECK AND HANG HIM IN THE TOWN SQUARE TIL HE’S DEAD, ARREST ALL MARIJUANA SMOKERS, OUTLAW GAMBLING AND BOOZE, AND PUT A BULLET THRU THE HEAD OF ALL PROSTITUTES IN TOWN.”

    This sounds a lot like the Republican Party.

  131. Paulie

    This sounds a lot like the Republican Party.

    …To the extreme. Yes.

    The real problem with the “war on Islamo-Fascism” is the same as with other regime wars, e.g. “war on drugs”, “war on poverty”, cold war/wars with communists, war against fascism, etc.

    The wars against fascism and state socialism have gradually made the US and allies more fascist/state socialist. Over time, we have become dangerously and increasingly dependent on a warfare-welfare state.

    The war on drugs has increased drug addiction, property crime and criminal violence, corrupted the legal system, militarized and corrupted law enforcemnt, and created a huge prison-industrial complex while destroying quality of life in many neighborhoods.

    The war on poverty has exacerbated the problems surrounding poverty, while helping to stifle economic opportunities for people to truly and lastingly lift themselves out of poverty.

    Likewise, the war on Islamic extremism and terrorism has created far more of what it is supposed to be combating, while continuing and increasing the trend of destroying domestic civil liberties and bringing home another generation of war-traumatized vereterans.

    All of these trends, working in tandem, combine to grow the beast that is government, making it ever bigger and more dangerous.

    The only question remaining is whether we – that is, humanity, civilization, perhaps even life on earth – can manage to outlive this parasitic presence inside it, or will die from it.

    Supporting the increase in any aspect of this beast – most especially its weaponized agencies – is to support its growth as a whole.

  132. paulie Post author

    Meanwhile, see Poli-Tea

    http://politeaparty.blogspot.com/2010/04/boortz-affair-libertarian-politics-and.html


    Unless you’re a fan or a connoisseur of talk radio, you are probably not very familiar with Neal Boortz. Though he holds a number of Libertarian-leaning positions, the radio entertainer and political commentator is a staunch supporter of the global warfare state who allies himself with conservative Republicans, justified on the basis of a misguided analysis of Democratic-Republican Party politics. On April 2nd, Boortz announced that, though he is a Libertarian, he is against any and all advocacy of third party politics. Boortz stance is conditioned by his hysterical embrace of lesser-evilism:

    I’m a Libertarian. I’m a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party. I’ve voted for Libertarian candidates on the federal and local level for the past 15 years. Now what I’m going to say here is going to earn no small amount of rage from fellow Libertarian Party members . . .

    I believe with every fiber of my being that the survival of our Republic is dependent on removing as many members of the Democrat Party from the Congress as possible. The Party of Big Government must be removed from power. I’m not at all confident that America could survive another two years of Democratic control. This means that we must say no to third party movements. No doubt, the Republicans have been a huge disappointment. They vastly expanded government size and spending during the years they ran the show. They promised to get rid of the Department of Education. Instead, they doubled it’s size. Not good. The Republicans say they’ve learned their lesson. Have they? Don’t know. What I do know is that the Democrats are hell-bent on destroying economic liberty in this country.

    Boortz was right in thinking that Libertarians would not be pleased with his capitulation to the logic that sustains the Democratic-Republican political establishment, the two-party state and duopoly system of government. Many Libertarians have long been uncomfortable with Boortz’s positions relating to both foreign and domestic policy, see for instance the Boot Bortz Blog, which was maintained throughout 2003 and 2004 in opposition to Boortz’s scheduled appearance at the 2004 Libertarian Party national convention.

    Boortz was also scheduled to speak at this year’s Libertarian convention. On April 5th, three days after Boortz stated his opposition to third party advocacy and his reactionary embrace of duopoly ideology, the Libertarian Party announced that Boortz would be moved from his scheduled speaking slot. From the LP Blog, via Independent Political Report:

    Our speaker lineup continues to evolve and is always subject to change. One recent change is that Neal Boortz has been moved from the Sunday evening banquet dinner speaker position. We do expect Mr. Boortz to speak in a different time slot.

    Five days later, a press release from the Libertarian Party of Texas announced that Boortz had in fact been removed from the speaker’s lineup. From Independent Political Report:

    Syndicated radio talk show host Neal Boortz, a Libertarian Party member, has been uninvited as a speaker to the Libertarian Party’s national convention in St Louis the weekend of May 28 -31. Boortz stated on April 2 that voters should not support third parties in the 2010 and 2012 elections in order to get Republicans elected.

    Boortz had been a regular national convention speaker for the Libertarian Party through the 2004 convention in his home city of Atlanta. In 2008 he cancelled his appearance shortly before the convention to schedule some medical treatment. When the Libertarian Party removed him from the 2010 convention schedule due to his recent comments, Boortz removed himself again claiming he had medical treatment scheduled. [Emphasis added. Rumor has it that Boortz used the same excuse to get out of serving in Vietnam. -d.]

    “We do not need an unreliable and reluctant individual promoting the Republican Party to be given a speaking slot at our convention” said Texas state chair and national party committee member Pat Dixon. “We will have a great convention in St Louis and continue to offer voters a choice that neither the Republicans nor Democrats offer.” . . . .

    Dixon concluded “Neal Boortz has a very entertaining show has has been a great supporter of our party. Of course we respect anyone’s decision to support the candidates or party of their choice. We also get to choose who speaks at our convention, and at this time Neal is not a good choice.”

    Incidentally, it is worth noting that aside from a few warfare statist Republican Party trolls, the response in the comment thread at IPR is overwhelmingly in favor of Boortz’s removal from the speaker’s lineup. Yesterday, however, Boortz defensively emphasized that he withdrew from the speaking position and was in no way “removed” from the event, stating in reference to the press release at Independent Political Report:

    Sorry Mr. Butler, but you have this a bit wrong. Last week I instructed Belinda to inform the Libertarian Party that I would be unable to keep this speaking engagement for personal reasons.” According to Butler The Libertarian Party “removed me” from the schedule because of comments I made regarding voting for a 3rd party this November. Whatever, Mr. Butler. If you want to say that I was “booted” from the schedule, have at it. It’s your credibility that suffers, not mine.

    Boortz also reiterated the logic that motivates his support for the Republican wing of the professional political class and ruling establishment, but attempted to salvage his reputation among Libertarians with an addendum:

    We cannot afford a 3rd party effort this year if it is going to leave one single Democrat in office who otherwise might have been removed. I still plan to vote Libertarian in local elections

    Next he’ll be telling us that some of his best friends are Libertarians! Nonetheless, Boortz has done a service in providing such a succinct articulation of the reactionary political practice that is lesser-evilism. His support for the Republican wing of the ruling corporatist party is not predicated on support for the Republican wing of the ruling corporatist party – indeed, he admits that Republicans cannot be trusted either –, but rather on rejection of the Democratic wing of the ruling corporatist party. So long as American voters continue to allow themselves to be manipulated by the imaginary calculus of the greater and lesser evil that is Democratic-Republican Party politics, we will never be free of the evil that is Democratic-Republican Party government.


    p] Following the link back to Boortz’s blog

    http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2010/04/not-that-i-care-but-setting-th.html


    NOT THAT I CARE .. BUT SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
    By
    Neal Boortz
    @ April 12, 2010 8:37 AM Permalink | Comments (28) | TrackBacks (0)

    If you will click here you can read a news release from something called the “Independent Political Report.” The headline is “Libertarian Party Boots Boortz.” The news release, written by Robert Butler of the Libertarian Party of Texas (512-758-9134) says that “Syndicated radio talk show host Neal Boortz, a Libertarian Party member, has been uninvited as a speaker to the Libertarian Party’s national convention in St Louis the weekend of May 28 -31.” Sorry Mr. Butler, but you have this a bit wrong. Last week I instructed Belinda to inform the Libertarian Party that I would be unable to keep this speaking engagement for personal reasons.” According to Butler The Libertarian Party “removed me” from the schedule because of comments I made regarding voting for a 3rd party this November.

    Whatever, Mr. Butler. If you want to say that I was “booted” from the schedule, have at it. It’s your credibility that suffers, not mine.

    By the way …. I have an email from a top-ranking official in the Libertarian Party who, after listening to my comments regarding voting for a 3rd party in November, is going to resign his position. Why? Because he felt that what I said made sense. We cannot afford a 3rd party effort this year if it is going to leave one single Democrat in office who otherwise might have been removed. I still plan to vote Libertarian in local elections .. but I simply cannot afford the luxury when it comes to the Congress.


    p] Neal apparently thinks we issue press releases rather than just (re)print them, but thanks for the link anyway, Neal. As far as I know this is the first time he has noted something I’ve done — in this case, reposting an LPTX press release).

    I tried to post a comment on his article that clarifies that we at IPR don’t issue press releases, we report on them.

    However it went into moderation queue, so we’ll see.

    Following up on d. eris reprint of my comment about Neal’s medical excuses, my source is John Sugg of Atlanta’s Creative Loafing.

    For example see http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A14346 (emphasis added)


    Neal Boortz is no John Galt
    Libertarians will ensure their irrelevance if they embrace radio ignoramus
    Published 12.18.03
    By John F. Sugg

    b>Atlanta’s radio offerings are so, so, so very awful that, yes, on my drive to the office, in desperation I am forced to tune in to the city’s pinnacle (or is it pit?) of know-nothingness, Neal Boortz. But I have a rule. At his first lie, gross misrepresentation of the truth, or race baiting, I go to a book on tape. Often, I don’t make it out of the driveway. Seldom do I travel the five miles to I-85, and never have I completed the 30-minute drive to the Loaf without Boortz bellowing some deceitful absurdity.

    Neal dissembles, John hits the off button.

    For example, just last week Boortz proclaimed that the Bushies told no fibs to con Americans into supporting the war. Huh? I paused for a minute before switching on my current recorded book to make sure Boortz wouldn’t qualify that astounding fiction or giggle and say, “Just kidding,” since all the world now knows George Bush lied. So did Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the contemptible gang. They politicized and distorted intelligence, and when that didn’t work, they fabricated and uttered gross untruths. They have even admitted it, but now claim it doesn’t matter.

    I sometimes jot down Boortz’s lamest deceits. It’s a long list. Ranking at the top was his hysterical claim, in the days before Bush’s invasion of Iraq, that Saddam Hussein’s military might surpass that of Nazi Germany. I slapped my forehead at that one — the claim went beyond mere bad information and makes me wonder if there isn’t serious impairment of Boortz’s reasoning capacity. The fellow needs a 12-step program for the chronically dishonest and incorrigibly stupid.

    The truth, by the way, was that in 1939 Adolf Hitler boasted 98 divisions, with 1.5 million well-trained men, for the invasion of Poland. For the Western offensive, Germany had 2.5 million men, and 2,500 tanks. In June 1941, Hitler had available 3 million men and 4,000 tanks to invade the Soviet Union. Saddam, prior to our invasion, never had more than 400,000 troops and 2,200 tanks, and the demoralized and largely broken-down Iraqi military was never in the same universe as the Wehrmacht.

    In other words, Boortz equals bullshit.

    I don’t want to argue the war here, but it was just so Boortzian for him to proclaim that pure lunacy as truth. And the sheep that follow him bleat their belief that they are actually getting “information.”

    That Boortz struts about touting himself as a libertarian would make his daily mission of mendacity a good laugh — except for one thing: For Big Brother to win, the Bush regime needs to bovine-ize America. Ignorance and the Orwellian capacity to simultaneously believe glaring contradictions are the essential intellectual diet of the Bushies. Force feeding America the swill are Faux News and the phalanx of talk show screechers, of which Boortz is, to his chagrin, merely a farm team lightweight.

    (In October a University of Maryland survey measured how much false information — such as that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq — people believed and whether they primarily relied on Fox, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN or print. Those relying on Fox were far less likely to know the truth about critical world and national issues, and far more likely to believe distortions of the truth. Boortz, of course, gets it wrong more often than the heavy-hitting propagandists he worships on Fox.)

    America needs real libertarians, whose origins are firmly rooted in the Bill of Rights. The Libertarian Party (libertarians with a big “L”) is holding its national convention in Atlanta in May, and the party has invited Boortz to be a speaker. I’m told by Libertarian activists the decision was rooted in the group’s cheapness — they didn’t want to foot the freight for major talent.

    Well, you get what you pay for — free traders such as the Libertarians should understand that. In lib — or Lib — ertarian land, there has been a howl of protest over the invitation to Boortz.

    One of the few points on which Boortz’s rants coincide with the Libertarians is ending the Drug War. Hell, there are a lot of tokers out there who can’t even spell Libertarian who are in tune with the party on that point.

    Boortz is no libertarian. He is a sorry shill for the Bush big-government, interventionist, xenophobic, authoritarian regime. Imposing our will on the world, looting resources and guaranteeing Halliburton billions in profits — that isn’t free trade; it’s empire. Gutting the Bill of Rights, spying on law-abiding citizens, manipulation through agitprop — that isn’t freedom; it’s slavery.

    “The Libertarian Party is so desperate, it has led them to abandon their issues in favor of seeking popularity,” says Eric Garris, who helps run a libertarian website, antiwar.com, and who has long been involved with the party at the national and state (California) levels.

    On the key issues confronting America, Boortz clearly stands on the side of those who attack freedom, and those who want to turn Big Government into Gargantuan Government (as long as someone besides rich people and corporations pay for it).

    Examples: He applauds the FBI investigating anti-war demonstrators, making a broad smear recently on his website (that could have been authored by Karl Rove, and maybe was) that activists should be hounded by the feds because they are “pro-Saddam and anti-U.S.,” and that they are “largely anti-American communists and Islamic radicals.”

    Likewise, in the same epistle, he applauded the police riot last month against trade demonstrators in Miami. I never met someone who claimed to be a libertarian but was so antagonistic toward the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments. It just doesn’t compute.

    In Boortz’s best imitation of Joe McCarthy, he has insinuated that Justin Raimondo — a nationally prominent Libertarian since the 1970s and the prolific editor of anti-war.com — is a red. Raimondo “doesn’t like me,” Boortz huffed on his website last week, “because I approve of our actions in Iraq. Fair enough. Do you know who else doesn’t like our Iraqi actions? Well, communists, for one.”

    Slimey, slimey, slimey.

    On economics, Boortz worships Ronald Reagan — ignoring the fact that government grew much faster under the Gipper than under, say, Bill Clinton, who the talk show host blames for just about every ill that has ever happened (another script line from Karl Rove). And, of course, Boortz has nothing but gushing praise for Bush’s economics, somehow equating fiscal responsibility with pumping up government spending to $21,000 per American household, compared with $16,000 during the Clinton administration — the biggest increase in more than 50 years.

    That remarkably un-libertarian accomplishment, coupled with Bush’s tax cuts for the plutocrats, has created record deficits that will indenture our children and grandchildren — hardly what Ayn Rand, the spiritual guru for Libertarians, had in mind in Atlas Shrugged.

    It’s the war, however, that has real libertarians frothing at the invitation to Boortz. The Libertarian Party platform is decidedly anti-war, stating: “We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad. … There is no current or foreseeable risk of any conventional military attack on the American people, particularly from long distances. We call for the withdrawal of the U.S. from commitments to engage in war on behalf of other governments and for abandonment of doctrines supporting military intervention such as the Monroe Doctrine.”

    Pretty clear writing, and it’s at the heart of Libertarian thought. An irony is that since Boortz is peachy happy with the FBI snooping on anti-war activists, and since most Libertarians are anti-war, the radio blowhard is all in favor of the government investigating the very people who invited him to address their convention. And, in the witch-hunting delusions that substitute for thought in Boortz’s diseased mind, it’s quite likely all those Libertarians are really either commies or radical Islamists.

    Boortz doesn’t like me. I outed him as a chickenhawk. He keeps changing the story about how he evaded military service during Vietnam (was it the asthma or your eyesight, Neal?). Last week, he was claiming the military wouldn’t take him. More precisely, when he couldn’t get a relatively cushy job as a pilot, he wasn’t about to get dirty (or dead) crawling through rice paddies. It’s so easy to be bellicose when it’s the other guy — probably an oh-so-expendable member of the working class and a minority — who is getting shot.

    But that’s Neal Boortz, the apotheosis of cowardice. He doesn’t like to debate when he can’t be in control. He keeps his finger on the disconnect button so that when callers start to score points, he can quickly cut them off.

    If that’s who the Libertarians want to hear, the party — already victim to several internal scuffles — might as well admit that it’s history. If its program is to imitate the Democrats’ emulation of the Republicans, the Libertarian Party stands for nothing.

    Neal Boortz was offered space for his unedited remarks on libertarians’ “boot Boortz” efforts. Boortz apparently preferred to pout in silence. For those who would like to sign the petition to give Boortz the heave-ho from the Libertarian convention: http://www.petitiononline.com/noboortz/petition.html.

    Senior Editor John Sugg — who says, “Neal, you gutless bag of wind, this is a challenge to a smackdown” — can be reached at john.sugg@creativeloafing.com or at 404-614-1241.

  133. Pingback: Talk radio host with audience of millions acknowledges Independent Political Report, but thinks we issue press releases rather than report them | Independent Political Report

  134. Dean Berry

    Boortz is a “jew”. That reason enough to be suspicious of everything he proposes. And check out all the “jews” commending other “jews” who support the Iraq War For Oil. What a surprise. And, yes, “jews” can be “discriminated against”. They’re trying to undermine Christ-ordained America at every turn. They control our economy, our political system, and our elections. EXILE THEM!

Leave a Reply

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