Brian Holtz sends mailing to 1,500 current and former delegates: ‘9 Facts LP Delegates Should Know About Ernest Hancock’

Originally posted at Libertarian Intelligence. Although Brian Holtz also writes for IPR, the views expressed are his own. IPR is not endorsing or unendorsing any candidates.



[I sent this letter to 1500 delegates of the current and recent Libertarian national conventions. It invites delegates to view the following videos.]

Dear fellow Libertarian delegate,

I’m writing to share with you some information about one of the candidates for Chair of the Libertarian National Committee: Ernest Hancock. 

I won’t presume in this letter to suggest who to vote for or against in this race, because I have profound confidence in the judgment of our delegates. Indeed, because there is more than one good candidate in this race, I will not be endorsing any of them. 

I won’t pretend I don’t have a firm opinion about Hancock’s candidacy, but I will let the following facts about him speak for themselves:

  1. Hancock boasts publicly that he hasn’t voted since 2002, argues that voting “legitimizes” government, and even used free TV airtime as an LP candidate to say “I’m asking you to not vote”.
  2. Hancock signed a “Declaration of Independence” from the LPUS in 2000, which said that “No principled libertarian can associate with the LPUS without compromising the libertarian principle.”
  3. Hancock repeatedly questions whether the LPUS should exist, and said in 2009 that he is “getting very close to targeting the national Libertarian Party as an enemy of freedom“.
  4. Hancock questioned the libertarian credentials of the 2008 LP presidential nominee, but in 2008 called the Constitution Party nominee “a good hardcore libertarian”.  Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin ran on a platform of outlawing all abortion and assisted suicide, opposing gay marriage, “closing the borders”, jailing employers of illegal immigrants, “stopping the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S.”, “vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity”, and imposing tariffs “no less than the difference between the foreign item’s cost of production” and U.S. costs.
  5. Hancock is a “9/11 Truth” advocate who distributes DVDs saying that the Lincoln and JFK assassinations were conspiracies of international banking interests. He says that “if we’re not out there telling the Truth on things like 9/11″ then the LP is “not relevant”.
  6. Hancock says that “if you’re not at least a little uncomfortable with your position, it isn’t radical enough“. His idea of a radical-enough candidate is Vin Suprynowicz, the candidate for Vice President in 2000 nominated only by the Arizona LP, who says LP candidates should advocate the right to “personal nuclear weapons”.
  7. In Hancock’s outreach efforts he vouches for the personal character of fundamentalist preacher Steven Anderson.  Anderson calls Obama a “devil” who should be “aborted on national television” and who “promotes a sodomite agenda”.
  8. Hancock publicly predicts that bloodshed and violent revolution in America is inevitable: “There will be some bloodshed, just how much — are you sure you want to go this far?”
  9. Hancock defends the 1994 Arizona LP candidate who as a member of the Viper Militia was sent to prison in 1996 after stockpiling ammonium nitrate explosives and conducting video surveillance of federal buildings.

I realize many of these claims seem too outrageous to be true. I imagine any fair-minded person would want to see more than a letter and examine the supporting evidence.

You don’t have to take my word for it. You can see for yourself. 

At http://TruthButton.org/hancock you can read the declaration Hancock signed for item 2, and watch videos documenting the rest of these facts. 

If you have any questions for me about this, feel free to contact me at brian@holtz.org.

Brian Holtz
Life member of the LP since 1999
Father of three young Libertarians
3-time LP candidate for Congress in Silicon Valley
Elected in 2009 to Purissima Hills Water Board

44 thoughts on “Brian Holtz sends mailing to 1,500 current and former delegates: ‘9 Facts LP Delegates Should Know About Ernest Hancock’

  1. Joey G. Dauben | The Palmer Post

    Thanks for posting this, and mailing the information out, Brian.

    This is why the Ruwart-Zack Bass-anarchist wing of the party will never again control the party. Hancock would go well with Chuck Geshlider though.

  2. Andy

    “4.Hancock questioned the libertarian credentials of the 2008 LP presidential nominee, but in 2008 called the Constitution Party nominee “a good hardcore libertarian”. Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin ran on a platform of outlawing all abortion and assisted suicide, opposing gay marriage, “closing the borders”, jailing employers of illegal immigrants, “stopping the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S.”, “vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity”, and imposing tariffs “no less than the difference between the foreign item’s cost of production” and U.S. costs.”

    This is a bit disengenuous. Chuck Baldwin’s platfrom called for calling of the War on Drugs. I personally spoke to Chuck Baldwin’s VP running mate Darryl Castle and I asked him if he opposed the War on Drugs at the federal level as well as the state level and he said that he did. So while the Constitution Party’s National Platform may say this, it is NOT the platform that Chuck Baldwin and Darryl Castle ran under.

    Also, Chuck Baldwin advocated getting rid of the income tax and the Federal Reserve System as well as Social Security taxes. He favored a 10% flat tarriff rate in his platform (which differs from the Constitution Party’s national platform).

    A purist libertarian (of which Holtz is not) opposes all taxes, including tarriffs, so a 10% flat tarriff rate is not a pure libertarian position, however, Baldwin’s tax plan was an overall reduction in the size of government, and I’m pretty sure that his suggested flat tarriff rate is lower than some tarriff rates which are already being collected.

    It should be pointed out that many Libertarian Party candidates have run on platforms which included eliminating the income tax and Social Security taxes but keeping tarriffs, duties, and excise taxes.

    I wouldn’t say that Chuck Baldwin is a 100% purest libertarian – nor does he claim to be – but I would say that a good case can be made that he is more libertarian than Bob Barr. I think that it is pretty sad that one could make a good case that the Constitution Party’s Presidential candidate is more libertarian than the Libertarian Party’s Presidential candidate.

  3. Andy

    “9.Hancock defends the 1994 Arizona LP candidate who as a member of the Viper Militia was sent to prison in 1996 after stockpiling ammonium nitrate explosives and conducting video surveillance of federal buildings.”

    If we were in the 1700s, this would be like saying, “Hancock defends the Massachusetts Minutemen Militia, who after stocking piling muskets and gun powder conducted surveillance of his Majesty’s Royal Army’s forts.”

  4. LibertarianGirl

    Joey ,theres no comparison between Ruwart and that psycho fucjer Zack Bass , who bythe way isnt really an anarchist , he just pretends to be and defends the most outrageous positions to discredit them and he is a fucking child pornographer.

  5. Brian Holtz

    while the Constitution Party’s National Platform may say this, it is NOT the platform that Chuck Baldwin and Darryl Castle ran under.

    Then who was it who said, at 3m50s into the video below:

    “I commit to you today: I will be faithful to principles of the platform of the Constitution Party.”

    That guy sure looks and sounds like Chuck Baldwin.

    On a test like above, Baldwin gets about a 60/95, whereas Barr gets at least 80/90. I’m not saying Hancock shouldn’t call Baldwin libertarian, or even that he should call Barr more libertarian than Baldwin.

    I’m just saying that Hancock should show a little more support and respect for the choices of LP NatCon delegates, since they are the ones he’s asking to elect him Chair.

    As for whether it’s OK for Hancock to support revolutionary violence against the government, I’m confident that the St. Louis delegates will react appropriately to any such information.

  6. Andy

    “LibertarianGirl // May 24, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    chuckie poisoned yourmind which sucks for us because your a good dude”

    I don’t know if you are talking to me or not, but just in case you are, “Chuckie” did not poison my mind, nor am I claiming that Chuck Baldwin is a purist libertarian.

    I think that Michael Badnarik is more libertarian than Chuck Baldwin. I think that Harry Browne was more libertarian than Chuck Baldwin. I think that Ron Paul is also more libertarian than Chuck Baldwin (even though Paul ended up endorsing Baldwin/I think that this was mostly because the Libertarian Party nominated Barr). I would prefer Browne, Badnarik, or Paul over Baldwin.

    I just think that a good case can be made that Baldwin is more libertarian than Bob Barr. This does not mean that I think that Chuck Baldwin is a hardcore libertarian purest, but rather that I don’t think that Bob Barr is as libertarian as the party that he claimed to represent, or that he was even as libertarian as Baldwin.

  7. LibertarianGirl

    HC_child pornographer, just like mary ruwart defends

    me_ saying something and DOING something are 2 entirely different universes. also Joey know what he’s doing when he says Ruwart/Bass / anarchist wing . Bass isnt involved in the LP he’s just a fucking crackpot like Geshlider who also IS NOT involved in the LP . Its a sad attempt to discredit Ruwart and other anarchists.

  8. Andy

    “‘I commit to you today: I will be faithful to principles of the platform of the Constitution Party.’

    That guy sure looks and sounds like Chuck Baldwin.”

    This does NOT mean that he endorsed every aspect of the Constitution Party’s national platform. I’d interpet it to mean that he advocates supporting the Constitution, which is what the Constitution Party is what the Constitution Party is supposed to be about.

    The Constitution Party, like every other political party, has different factions in it, and Baldwin is from the faction that opposes the War on Drugs.

    Contrast this with Bob Barr who while as a sitting member of the LNC wrote an article where he favored US military intervention in Columbia to fight the drug war. Shortly before the LP National Convention in 2008 Bob Barr said that he would not favor ending the drug war at the state level in Georgia.

    Bob Barr also opposed fully informed juries while Chuck Baldwin supported them.

    Bob Barr favored the Fair Tax as promoted by John Linder and Neal Boortz while Chuck Baldwin favored a 10% flat tarriff rate. I’d say that Barr’s plan was worse.

  9. Rorschach

    Holtz,

    Thanks for your research. I would be glad to thank your dedication to honesty, integrity, fairness and impartiality if you would provide us with similar lists for the remaining 4 candidates. I am sure you will agree that there are pros and cons to every option available to us this election, and while we can rely on the candidates themselves to provide us with the pros, you show a talent for and devotion to exposing the cons.

    Otherwise you’re just a muckraker and yellow at that, and I’d hate to have to describe you in such negative terms, especially when I’m sure you’re so much better at it.

  10. Trent Hill

    I agree with Andy in #2, though not in #3. Chuck Baldwin ran on a very libertarian platform, partially because he was aiming at the Ron Paul base, partially because he has more libertarian impulses himself, and partially because the libertarian-wing of the CP was instrumental in getting him the nomination.

  11. Trent Hill

    “The Constitution Party, like every other political party, has different factions in it, and Baldwin is from the faction that opposes the War on Drugs. ”

    Actually, very few of the CP’s delegates support the federal war on drugs. Both the libertarianish faction and the more Christian Conservative faction both think it has been an abject failure. This is why the platform calls for ending the federal war on drugs, despite the fact that the platform was written solely by the Christian conservative group.

    Brian,

    Chuck Baldwin said in one interview:
    “TNA: Where do you stand on the war on drugs?
    Baldwin: I believe that as president, I would have the responsibility to keep drugs from crossing the borders, and I would do everthing in my power to keep drugs out of America. Once they come into the country, drug enforcement falls under the rubric of law enforcement, and the Constitution gives no authority to the federal government for domestic law enforcement. That is the responsibility of the state and local communities. So I believe that the drug war has been used by the federal government many times excessively, to the point where individual rights have been abridged and abrogated. I think the propensity for overreach is too great.”
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/351

    In his column, he later said:
    ““I believe the federal ‘war on terror’ and ‘war on drugs’ are mostly a cover for power-hungry, Big Government zealots to trample constitutional government and squash freedoms and liberties, which are supposed to be protected by the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence.”
    http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=1522

    No where, though, has he said he supports the War on Drugs. The most war-on-drugish position you could ascribe to Mr. Baldwin is that he’s against allowing drugs to flow into the country–more of a protectionist position on drugs than anything else, oddly enough. This is, strangely, at odds with his free market beliefs. And while he believes in a tariff, he was very adamant about it not being a protective tariff, only a revenue tariff.

  12. Trent Hill

    And to quote the platform of the CP as Chuck Baldwin’s platform is just plain disingenuous–it’d be like quoting the LP platform in reference to Wayne Root/Bob Barr or the Republican Party platform in reference to Rudy Giuliani or Susan Collins.

  13. David F. Nolan

    I find it interesting that there are many, many, many negative comments about Hancock, Root and Phillies here on IPR, a few about Hinkle, and none (or very few) about Myers. If the LP is to survive, we need a leader who does not inspire widespread animosity and divisiveness. That means Hinkle or Myers, kids. Your choice.

  14. Rorschach

    @14 – Or what? I might hurt his feelings? Bollocks, only people have feelings. People, and some of the more intelligent animals. I stand by my point: If Holtz is truly looking out for the good of the Party, we can expect 4 more lists. Otherwise, he’s just somebody’s pawn – a pawn with way too much time to waste and a penchant for smear campaigns.

  15. Jose C

    If Chuck Baldwin had by some miracle been elected President I would have opened up a bottle of French wine and had a drink. I would have invited people over to have a party and celebrate because I would know this was the beginning of the end of the Income Tax and the IRS. It was the beginning of the end of the FCC, FDA, FDIC, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration for Native Americans , Administration on Aging (AoA), Administration on Developmental Disabilities , Administrative Committee of the Federal Register, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, African Development Foundation, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Agency for International Development, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Agricultural Marketing Service, Agricultural Research Service, Agriculture Department (USDA), and all other federal government agencies from A-Z including Social Security, Federal Reserve, and Amtrak.

    I would know I soon would no longer pay for the education of others against my will. There would be no more tax payer supported low income housing, electric service, natural gas service, telephone service, and transportation. I would soon have honest and real money (gold and silver) as my currency. I would soon see the end of bailouts of banks, auto companies, insurance companies, states, cities, counties, and other countries.

    And I would know never again would someone I know and love be forced to die in some foreign war in support of the military industrial complex. I would be allowed to access health care of my own choosing without interference from Washington. And I would know I would soon see the restoration of our Constitutional Republic.

  16. LibertarianGirl

    ok I have one about Myers , an LPNV dude , i wont say who , who went to the state chairs , says Myers talks way way to much and he couldnt get a word in edgewise…LOL

  17. Observation

    Rorschach @ 19: I agree with you.

    Brian Holtz is definitely pushing his personal agenda.

  18. paulie Post author

    DFN

    I find it interesting that there are many, many, many negative comments about Hancock, Root and Phillies here on IPR, a few about Hinkle, and none (or very few) about Myers. If the LP is to survive, we need a leader who does not inspire widespread animosity and divisiveness. That means Hinkle or Myers, kids. Your choice.

    My first choice is Hinkle, and my second is Myers. I think they would be the best for going forward in a positive direction.

    But I doubt Root, Phillies or Hancock would destroy the LP. I think the party will still be here in 2012 regardless of who wins in St. Louis, and if it’s not, it won’t be because of anything having to do with our internal elections.

    JC

    and all other federal government agencies from A-Z including Social Security, Federal Reserve, and Amtrak.

    How about ICE (formerly INS)?

    O

    Brian Holtz is definitely pushing his personal agenda.

    I don’t know anyone who isn’t pushing his or her own agenda.

  19. LP watcher

    So lets’ just choose a LP national chairman who “gets along” with everyone, hold hands, and sings around the campfire.

  20. paulie Post author

    LPW 24,

    The amount of time/energy this term of the LNC has spent on internal feuds and bickering has been grossly excessive. I think the way the LP operated in the late 90s was better, relatively speaking.

    Granted, I paid a lot less attention to what the LNC was doing then, but that was because from the outside it appeared that they knew what they were doing, the party was growing, and doing so while remaining strongly libertarian. We had moderates and radicals, minarchists and anarchists (I was a minarchist then, am a radical anarchist now) but it was not tearing the party apart.

    The Texas LP is operating better right now.

    I think we can and should do better after this convention.

  21. Amen, amen, amen ????????? .......... Lake

    Observation // May 24, 2010:
    “Holtz is definitely pushing his personal agenda ……”

    [Lake: some thing I noticed a couple of years ago! It never ceases to amaze me how the truth finally wins out (wacko socialists running federal felons for president; non existent Constitution Party of California; Steve Kubby as dazed pot head poster boy; criminal reform deform move ment {starting with Patrick and Bay Buchanan’s $12.5M strong box robbery and Long Beach 2000}; insular California Governor)! ]

    ……….. I’m just saying …………

  22. Rorschach

    @21

    See? Now we’re getting somewhere. Let the mud fly in ALL directions!

    And for the record, I ain’t saying we need a Chair that gets along with everyone, and while I’m all for singing and campfires I’m not a big one for holding hands. I always end up between someone with clammy, sweaty hands and someone with hairy, sticky palms.

    I also ain’t said that Holtz is pushing his own agenda. That would give him way too much credit. That dude is a pawn, no two ways about it. I doubt he’s even clever enough to get paid off.

    I mean, just so we’re clear.

  23. Chuck Moulton

    Paulie wrote (@23):

    I doubt Root, Phillies or Hancock would destroy the LP. I think the party will still be here in 2012 regardless of who wins in St. Louis,

    I agree.

  24. Brian Holtz

    Do I have an agenda? Of course. As I said in the letter: “I won’t pretend I don’t have a firm opinion about Hancock’s candidacy, but I will let the following facts about him speak for themselves.”

    Rorscach, I reject your assumption @13 that all Chair candidates have an equal number of skeletons in their closet. I’ve already written about my complaints about Phillies and Root, both of whom have been subject to close scrutiny ever since they started running for President in the 2008 cycle. I’ve already written that Hinkle and Myers don’t have much of a searchable record for me to investigate.

    Did you really just call me “yellow” from behind a cloak of pseudonymity? Even though I can tell from your IP address who you are? 🙂

    If there is a candidate in this Chair race whom you think is a greater risk to the LP than Hancock — and whom you think has unexamined skeletons in his closet — then do your own research to find them. Or at least tell me where I can find archives of their output that are anywhere near as extensive as those of Hancock, Root, and Phillies.

    Also, what are these “negative terms” that you suggest I’m “so good at” using? Can you quote any from my letter? Please re-read the part where I wrote “I will let the following facts about him speak for themselves.” I don’t even make a recommendation in the letter about whether to vote for Hancock. Of course, I don’t have to. The facts make the recommendation for me.

  25. Rorschach

    See, that’s the second time you’ve mentioned my IP address. I know that you think you know who I am, and it doesn’t stop me from taunting you, does it? But yet you keep trying to use it to threaten me. Like I told you before, man, when I really want to hide, you won’t find me. And like I’ve said before, that you would dare to threaten me with my IP just shows what kind of a man you are. I ain’t the coward, Holtz. Trust me on this one.

    Now, to get to the meat of it. Never did I say that they have an equal amount of skeletons. So reject away, but you’re not going to grab an argument on it from me. As for your complaints about Root and Phillies: Well, for someone who usually so diligently links or otherwise provides sources, I’m surprised you didn’t give me at least a taste of the complaints you’ve lodged. ‘Sides, I ain’t called you yellow …yet. As is usual, you ignore the conditions and leap straight to the conclusion. Come on, post me a link! Or are you just a yellow muckraker? =)

    Hinkle has been a Party member for decades, and you’re no newcomer yourself, I’m sure you could spin us a yarn. As for Myers, he’s been making up for lost time by being very vocal on many subjects, and with his relative lack of political polish (relative, except in the case of Hancock, who I assure you grates on my nerves as much as yours) he is likely to have let slip something of interest. Now, you’re right, I COULD do the research, but as I pointed out, you seem to have a knack for it. And if you’ve got time to argue with a pseudonym, I find it hard to believe you’re incapable of rising to meet a pseudonym’s challenge.

    Oh, and heck, while I’m being bitchy, there are two H’s in “Rorschach”

  26. Brian Holtz

    No threat, Rorschach. Ask any IPR moderator — I’m the one here who opposes any and all leaks of identity info as long as the current policy is in place.

    Some of my past muckracking:

    http://libertarianintelligence.com/2009/12/questions-for-george-phillies.html

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/04/10-questions-for-root/

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/05/lnc-chair-candidates-debate-indiana/ (comment 1, and the debate it sparked)

    Hinkle has been a Party member for decades, and you?re no newcomer yourself, I?m sure you could spin us a yarn.

    You may be sure, but you’re still wrong.

  27. Andy

    “Jose C // May 24, 2010 at 4:07 pm

    If Chuck Baldwin had by some miracle been elected President I would have opened up a bottle of French wine and had a drink.”

    I totally agree. And I say this as somebody who is more radically pro-individual liberty than Baldwin is.

  28. Andy

    “David F. Nolan // May 24, 2010 at 4:06 pm

    I find it interesting that there are many, many, many negative comments about Hancock, Root and Phillies here on IPR, a few about Hinkle, and none (or very few) about Myers. If the LP is to survive, we need a leader who does not inspire widespread animosity and divisiveness. That means Hinkle or Myers, kids. Your choice.”

    It sounds like Hinkle or Myers could be the Michael Badnarik of the 2010 Libertarian Party National Convention.

  29. Andy

    “Actually, very few of the CP’s delegates support the federal war on drugs. Both the libertarianish faction and the more Christian Conservative faction both think it has been an abject failure. This is why the platform calls for ending the federal war on drugs, despite the fact that the platform was written solely by the Christian conservative group.”

    I thought that the Constitution Party’s national platform was still in favor of the War on Drugs.

  30. Thomas L. Knapp

    “And I say this as somebody who is more radically pro-individual liberty than Baldwin is.”

    OK, so we’ve narrowed you down to one of 6,822,999,999 human beings (estimated world population as of today is 6,823,000,000).

    Hmm …. Kim Jong Il. 6,822,999,998.

    Pol Pot … no, wait, he’s dead. Damn.

    This may take awhile.

  31. Trent Hill

    Nope, the platform states:

    “The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.

    At the same time, we will take care to prevent violations of the Constitutional and civil rights of American citizens. Searches without probable cause and seizures without due process must be prohibited, and the presumption of innocence must be preserved.”

  32. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp // May 24, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    “And I say this as somebody who is more radically pro-individual liberty than Baldwin is.”

    OK, so we’ve narrowed you down to one of 6,822,999,999 human beings (estimated world population as of today is 6,823,000,000).

    Hmm …. Kim Jong Il. 6,822,999,998.

    Pol Pot … no, wait, he’s dead. Damn.

    This may take awhile.”

    This is ridiculous. Chuck Baldwin is clearly very pro-liberty compared to the mainstream. He’s pro-gun rights, anti-income tax, anti-Social Security taxes, anti-Federal Reserve System, anti-Patriot Act, anti-foreign wars of aggression, anti-welfare state, anti-United Nations, anti-CIA, anti-War on Drugs, and pro-fully informed juries.

    I’m not saying that he’s a radical 100% purest libertarian. I’m just saying that he holds many libertarian views and that he’s probably more libertarian than Bob Barr. If Chuck Baldwin had been elected President in 2008 I’d have considered that to be the best thing to happen in a long time.

  33. Brian Holtz

    David, I wouldn’t agree that a Chair candidate should be ruled out just because he’s criticized a lot. If Hancock and Root and Phillies attract criticism, it’s most likely in proportion to the amount of activist effort they put forth. Delegates should rule out a candidate if they agree with the criticism, rather than just because the criticism exists. If a Chair candidate has never done anything to attract criticism, it might just be that their activism has been too risk-averse.

    To me, the high-order bit of this Chair election is one’s risk aversion. And one’s risk-aversion is a function of how well one thinks the LP generally, and the LNC in particular, can cope with a Chair making what opponents will inevitably decry as mistakes. I don’t think any of the Chair candidates can do the LP permanent harm. The worst they can do is squander opportunity, and create the need for more repair work.

    Trent, the only drug position I attributed to Baldwin is one that you admit he supports: “stopping the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S.” I cited eight positions of the CP platform, and the only Baldwin disagreement you’ve claimed is that the trade barriers he advocates aren’t quite as high as what the CP platform demands. Before you call my characterization “disingenuous”, you need to do a much better job of documenting Baldwin’s disagreements with the platform about which he said: “As I said to you yesterday, and so I commit to you today: I will be faithful to principles of the platform of the Constitution Party.”

  34. Andy

    Here’s a cool video of Ernie Hancock being interviewed at the Freedoms Phoenix Workshop by the Motor Home Diares:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFnkAi903-0

    Notice the people sitting behind Ernie Hancock and the interviewer. Most of them are young people. The people at the Freedoms Phoenix Workshop are all go-getter activist types. These are EXACTLY the type of people of which the Libertarian Party needs a lot more.

  35. Brian Holtz

    Notice the anti-voting sign on the wall in the background.

    Here is another video about activism launched from the Freedoms Phoenix workshop. Ask yourself if these are exactly the type of people of which the LP needs a lot more.

    Pastor Anderson himself was invited for an interview at the FP workshop, focusing on how wonderful his personal character is.

  36. Andy

    “here is another video about activism launched from the Freedoms Phoenix workshop. Ask yourself if these are exactly the type of people of which the LP needs a lot more.”

    Yes, the people at the Freedoms Phoenix Workshop are great. I spent some time there in 2009 and I was very impressed with their activism. They are most definetely the type of people that the Libertarian Party needs in great quantity.

    Pastor Anderson was invited as GUEST SPEAKER. He is not one of the regular people there and all of his views are not necessarily held by anyone who regularly goes to the Freedoms Phoenix Workshop and for you to suggest otherwise is highly disengenuous

    The Freedoms Phoenix Workshop people are entergetic doers, unlike your average Libertarian Party member who thinks that activism is going to a supper club once a month. A lot of the people who go to the Freedoms Phoenix Workshop are young people, something that the Libertarian Party most definetely needs.

    I get the impression that you’ve never even been to the Freedoms Phoenix Workshop. I highly recommend to everyone that if you are ever in Phoenix to check it out.

    I’d like to see places like the Freedoms Phoenix Workshop open up in more cities. That would be a fantastic thing for the Freedom Movement.

  37. LP Pragmatist

    Good golly. Yes, lets make these loonies the posterchildren of the LP, especially in the Midwest. Let’s just hang out all those candidates to dry, with a few clowns that don’t care.

  38. Andrew

    Should his conscience be your guide? (Review of Wayne Allyn Root’s book by Mary Ruwart)

    Ernest Hancock vs. Wayne Allyn Root – LNC Chair Debate – Michigan

    http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/069271-2010-05-23-ernest-hancock-v-wayne-allyn-root-lnc-chair-debate-michigan.htm

    December 2009 at the FreedomSummit Judge John Buttrick shares his opinion about the National Libertarian Party’s future.

    and

    (Review of Wayne Allyn Root’s book by Mary Ruwart)

    at:

    http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/068379-2010-05-04-should-his-conscience-be-your-guide.htm

    This book might be more honestly titled “Conscience of a Conservative II” or even “Conscience of a Constitutionalist.” Chapter 2, “The Libertarian Model,” opens with Ronald Reagan’s quote “Libertarianism is the very heart and soul of conservatism.” The author then describes the history of the New York State Conservative Party which his parents supported; he tells us that he wants to reintroduce the principles espoused by Republican conservative Barry Goldwater. No mention is made of any libertarian economist or Libertarian Party (LP) member. The uninformed reader cannot help but come away with the impression that “libertarian” is another name for “conservative.”
    On page 24, Mr. Root goes on to say “As a Libertarian, I believe that social and personal freedom issues are quite simply States’ Rights’ issues. … Voters should decide these issues on the state and local level.” Root’s position is that of a Constitutionalist, not a Libertarian. Libertarians believe that social and personal freedom issues are individual rights. However, since Mr. Root never refers to the non-aggression principle anywhere in his book, naïve readers are unlikely to learn of this distinction.

    Liberals will almost certainly come away with the impression that they are unwelcome in the Libertarian Party. While the author criticizes both Democrats and Republicans, he has nothing but praise for conservatives and offensive comments, almost to the level of “hate speech,” for liberals.

    Indeed, Root chokes on the popular slogan “Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.” He insists on saying that libertarians are “socially tolerant” instead. Since Conscience was originally conceived as a campaign book, why would the author, the LP’s 2008 Libertarian VP nominee, insist on alienating liberals, who constitute almost half of the voting populace, especially when the LP has the solutions to poverty, pollution, and health care that they seek?

    The answer to this question may lie in how the author apparently sees himself: as a conservative first, and Libertarian second. He usually styles himself as a “Libertarian conservative” (page 60), even though libertarianism is generally considered “beyond right and left.” Mr. Root apparently wants to redefine what it means to be a libertarian.

    Indeed, Mr. Root can’t seem to get the words out when stating standard LP positions, like ending the Drug War. He tells us that we must “reposition” the war on drugs instead (page 225).

    Similarly, although telling readers he wants smaller government, the author’s proposed solutions often do just the opposite. He wants to increase the number of Congressional representatives from 435 members to almost 3,000 (pages 201-203). Mr. Root also wants to pay this gargantuan Congress CEO-level salaries ($500,000-$1,000,000 per year) “so they do not feel desperate to sell out their constituents in order to support their families” (page 202). Will paying more to those who steal our liberties and our money really stop them—or encourage them?

    Why not simply make it illegal for Congress to pass laws favoring one group over another, like taking from Peter to give to Paul? That would be the Libertarian solution, but our former VP candidate shows little awareness of it.

    Mr. Root continues: “The people who make our laws are very important people. We should try to pay them enough to attract the best and brightest (page 202).” Since virtually every law Congress passes violates our individual rights—and will continue to do so unless we place some truly libertarian restrictions on them—do we really want them to do it smarter and better?

    The author is undaunted by those who point out that the LP hasn’t yet elected anyone to major national office. Mr. Root counters that the LP has a great message, “but the missing ingredient up until now has been heart. I am Stella Root’s son. I am relentless. I have a bigger heart than a thousand candidates. More heart than all the others that came before me—combined… We have had plenty of intellect, plenty of brainpower, plenty of good ideas, but up until now, not enough heart” (page 347, emphasis in original).

    Judging from my three decades of observation, I would say that the LP has heart far beyond what any single person can bring to it. The Natural Law Party, with better funding and more political connections than the LP, threw in the towel years ago. The Reform Party, with taxpayer money and a more mainstream message, has self-destructed. Recently, when National Chair Bill Redpath approached the Constitution and the Green Parties for ballot access help, he learned that both of these groups could barely keep their doors open.

    Unlike the Greens, we receive no special interest funding. Unlike the Reform Party, we’ve never accepted matching funds. Unlike the Natural Law Party, we don’t have donors with deep pockets. Unlike the Constitution Party, we didn’t get Ron Paul’s endorsement. How is it that the LP, with the most radical message of all, is the only third party that is a recognized threat to the establishment, standing tall when other Parties are on their way to oblivion?

    The dedication of thousands of LP members make up the Party’s heart, which beats more powerfully than that of any individual. Many of our seasoned activists forgo the high pay they could get in the private sector to volunteer their time to gather ballot access signatures, run full-time campaigns, staff our state and national organizations, or spread the good news of liberty through their writing. Others donate their hard-earned money to help support the national office or their state parties. Many of our members have given, not just for a single year or two like the author has, but for decades, in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. The dedication and relentlessness of thousands of LP supporters have created the pulpit on which Mr. Root now stands; he abuses it when he belittles their contributions with grandiose and unsupported self-aggrandizement.

    Mr. Root’s dismissal of his LP predecessors is apparent in statements like “I’m the only politician in history who wants to make my office less important” (page xxviii). Every LP presidential ticket has vowed to shrink the power of their offices, but the author appears oblivious. He also claims to be “… the first candidate to run for president who has the same worries of a typical U.S. voter and taxpayer” (page 99), a patently false statement given his LP predecessors. On page 64, the author claims that he and Barr “attracted a record number of new LP members,” when that honor belongs to two-time presidential nominee, Harry Browne.

    Truth may not be that important to Root, though. On p. 249, he states “I understand that in the end, all that matters is winning. All the principles in the world gain you nothing, if you’re not in power to institute them. So winning really is everything…” We’ve heard this argument from the mouth of tyrants everywhere: the ends justify the means.

    Is this the conscience of a libertarian?

    Dr. Mary Ruwart currently serves as an At-large Representative of the Libertarian National Committee. You can contact Dr. Ruwart at mary@ruwart.com.

  39. Brian Holtz

    Don’t Hancock’s minions have enough respect for IPR readers to take three minutes and see whether content is already a top-level IPR article before they spam it as comments across multiple threads?

Leave a Reply

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