LNC Chair candidate Hancock addresses 9/11 on his radio show

In their April 24 head-to-head debate, Libertarian National Committee Chair candidate Wayne Root said of his opponent Ernest Hancock: “If you want to destroy this Party, name a national chairman who believes that 9/11 was an inside job by the government.”

In his radio show on May 3, Hancock responded by paraphrasing Root:  “‘If he’s elected chairman, he’ll talk about 9/11.’  I’m sure as heck not going to avoid it.”

Hancock said Root would fail to attract the young people of the Ron Paul revolution: “They’re not going to come over to the LP if you’re making these kinds of statements.”

Hancock had his own questions about Root: “It was very very interesting that he would take such an adamant position, especially to a group of Libertarians. I’m like, who is he taking his direction from? Who really wants him in that position, to do what? Is it the #1 job, don’t question anything about what the government has done in regards to 9/11?”

Hancock mused about the DVD that he’ll be sending to St. Louis delegates: “I want everybody to know what it is that [Root] will not talk about. […]  I’m going to be controversial. I’m not even sure exactly what I’m going to send to the delegates. I’m leaning towards Invisible Empire.”

(Invisible Empire is a two-hour video about the “New World Order”.  It claims that the U.S. government had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing, that Timothy McVeigh worked on CIA “black operations”, and that the bombing was part of a government plan to “demonize critics of world government”. The video talks about “implantable brain chips” and says: “Imagine: a planet where every human being is required to be chipped at birth. This would be the final tool implemented in a command-and-control world government system in which the elite rule the masses with total control of their lives.”)

Hancock said that he had been somewhat surprised as he has recently toured LP state conventions, asking: “How many of you have been around more than a couple years? And it’s like, 80% of them are new Libertarians.”

Hancock described Root’s position as: “We’ve got to appeal to the Tea Party, we’ve got to appeal to the soccer moms, we’ve got to appeal to the conservative Republicans that are mad at the Republican Party, we’ve got to not be libertarian.”

The primary topic of Hancock’s radio hour was the increasing use of unmanned aerial combat drones. The audio file below compiles the ten minutes of the show in which Hancock discusses the Chair race. At the beginning of this excerpt, he transitions to the topic of conspiracy theories in the Chair race from the topic of U.S. drone use by saying: “Are we trying to start something?  Are we trying to be the targets? […] These are the things that should be talked about.  I was in Kansas the weekend before last [to debate Wayne Root…]”

44 thoughts on “LNC Chair candidate Hancock addresses 9/11 on his radio show

  1. Andy

    I totally agree with Ernie Hancock here.

    This makes me wonder if Root is a plant or is he just a guy who doesn’t really comprehend the big picture and/or is too scared or too narrow-minded to search for the truth.

    Root wants to water down the Libertarian Party in an attempt to appeal to non-libertarians. Hancock wants to make the Libertarian Party a home for libertarians, including those who are already libertarian but have yet to realize it. There is a huge base of people out there who are already libertarian but who are not members of the party.

    Give me a 9/11 Truther over the boot-licking Fox News loving statists that Root wants to appeal to any day.

    Only going after conservative soccer moms and Joe Six Packs is a horrible strategy. Root wants to turn the Libertarian Party into Republican-Lite.

  2. Steven R Linnabary

    I don’t know if Root is a “plant”, but he let his true feeling be known on April 21st of THIS year:

    “I get on TV and radio again and again. And I get asked back every week by hosts all across the country. Last I checked thats a great achievement…and a very positive step for GOP.”

    You can draw your own conclusion. But personally, I could care less what is “good” for Root’s beloved GOP.

    PEACE

  3. Trent Hill

    The boot-licking Fox News statists like Andrew Napolitano and John Stossel? One has an hour-long show now, the other is soon to.

    Also, I think Root is 100% right. Talking about 9/11 Truth would give the LP an even kookier image. I think both Hancock and Root would make terrible Chairpersons. Hinkle, Phillies, Myers–all would be superior.

  4. Don Wills

    Ernie puts up the strawman argument of the Patriot Act when discussing whether or not he’s a 9/11 truther, which is what Wayne is saying. Ernie avoids the question. The question isn’t whether or not the resulting growth of government after 9/11 is bad. Rather, the question is simply this –

    Does Ernie believe that 9/11 was an inside job?

    If the answer is yes, and if Ernie openly discusses his views (which, being Ernie, he absolutely will), then Wayne is right – Ernie’s election as LNC chairman would be a disaster for the LP.

  5. Steven Wilson

    George Phillies New path is the only logical choice. Although he has some issues, George Phillies in New England and DC, and John Jay Myers in Texas will benefit the party.

    If you care about the existence of this party,it needs strategy and intellect. It doesn’t need promotion and conspiracy theories.

  6. Ump

    Which views are not too kooky to have?

    I mean if I cant be a Libertarian and question 911, can I question the drug war? Or am I a dangerous drug fiend preying on children if I do that?

    Can I question the wisdom of a central bank? Or am I a crazy bilderburger conspiracy nut bomb throwing anarchist if I do that?

    Can I question government’s licensing of marriage? Or am I a sick godless fag if I do that?

    Anyone want to recall what it was like in the 80’s fighting the drug war? Remember what it was like to be gay in California before pride? How about questioning the fed or talking about financial pragmatism in the middle of a growing bubble?

    The LP’s growing fear of controversy is a far bigger danger to it than a controversial view or two. Part of our job is to educate people on why kooky ain’t so kooky because calling “kook” is the one of the favorite political tools of the political tool.

    To disassemble government means fighting a hard and long fight and more often than not holding up signs next to kooky people.

  7. Robert Capozzi

    ump: I mean if I cant be a Libertarian and question 911, can I question the drug war?

    me: Please show us who has suggested that a L cannot question 9/11. I’ve not seen one.

    The LP DOES question the drug war, which is a fact. The LP doesn’t question what happened on 9/11, since alternative theories are NOT a fact, but rather speculation.

    We’ve got plenty of factual issues to address without electing a Chair who is a 9/11 Truthers. No one wants to expel Hancock that I know of, but many Ls do not think he’s an appropriate Chair since he promotes (and likely would continue promoting) 9/11 Truth. I wish him and all Truthers well, I and many Ls would prefer that the LP not become strongly associated with Truth-ism.

  8. Andy

    “If the answer is yes, and if Ernie openly discusses his views (which, being Ernie, he absolutely will), then Wayne is right – Ernie’s election as LNC chairman would be a disaster for the LP.”

    This shows how little you know about marketing. The 9/11 Truth Movement is MANY times larger than the Libertarian Party. 9/11 Truthers are skeptical of government and are anti-war and pro-civil liberties. Many of them are already libertarians or are libertarian leaning. These are people who SHOULD BE ripe picking for the Libertarian Party.

    Root wants to alienate these natural libertarians and instead focus on Republicans/conservatives who believe what the government tells them to believe and who worship the military and police. These are NOT people who are interested in the “animating contest for liberty,” they are people who prefer the “tranquility of servitude” and who relish “licking the hand” of their government master (borrowing some phrases from Samuel Adams).

    I’m astounded at how many “Libertarians” there are who are so afraid of questioning government. Questioning government is a principle for which this party is supposed to stand.

    There are many people in the general public who question government about a variety of issues. Many people believe that there was a conspiracy within government to murder JFK. Many people know that the government lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Many people know that the government told several lies in regard to both wars against Iraq. And there are many people who question the official government story about 9/11.

    Ernie Hancock is not afraid to search for the truth while Wayne Root wants to run away from it. I think that this party needs a Chair that’s got some balls.

  9. Andy

    “I wish him and all Truthers well, I and many Ls would prefer that the LP not become strongly associated with Truth-ism.”

    So you’d rather have the Libertarian Party be the party which believes what the government tells us to believe. That’s NOT Libertarian.

  10. Andy

    “The LP’s growing fear of controversy is a far bigger danger to it than a controversial view or two. Part of our job is to educate people on why kooky ain’t so kooky because calling ‘kook’ is the one of the favorite political tools of the political tool.”

    You just hit the nail on the head.

  11. Andy

    “Trent Hill // May 11, 2010 at 3:58 am

    The boot-licking Fox News statists like Andrew Napolitano and John Stossel? One has an hour-long show now, the other is soon to.”

    You know what I’m talking about, the ones who worship the likes of George W. Bush, John McCain, Rudy Guiliani, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin and who think that Glen Beck and Neal Boortz are really libertarians.

    “Also, I think Root is 100% right.”

    Which shows how little you know about marketing.

    Root thinks he knows about marketing but he doesn’t know as much as he thinks he does. Root wants the Libertarian Party to be Republican-Lite because that’s his background.

    “Talking about 9/11 Truth would give the LP an even kookier image.”

    Only to people who are not going to support the Libertarian Party anyway.

    The Libertarian Party ALREADY has a “kooky” image to these people over issues such as drug legalization, anti-Fed, anti-tax, hardcore pro-gun rights, legalizing prostitution, etc…

    The people who think that these issues are “kooky” are people who are mostly hopeless big government worshippers. Shying away from 9/11 Truth is not going to win any of these people over to the Libertarian side.

    For many years some people told Libertarians to avoid certain issues, such as drug legalization, for fear that it would make Libertarians seem too “kooky.” Fortunately, there were many Libertarians who did not avoid this issue and the tide is starting to turn in our direction as many states have now passed laws allowing for medicinal marijuana and several have passed laws that reduce penalties for marijuana and make marijuana the lowest priority for the police. Talking about drug legalization no longer sounds as “kooky” as it once did.

    The same is true of 9/11 Truth. The percentage of the population that questions the official government story about 9/11 has grown tremendously. Does the Libertarian Party want to be on the cutting edge of this wave like Hancock wants, or should the party miss this wave like Root wants? If the Libertarian Party wants to grow then it needs to ride that wave or the party is going to be left behind.

    “I think both Hancock and Root would make terrible Chairpersons. Hinkle, Phillies, Myers–all would be superior.”

    Maybe, or maybe not, but Hancock’s views on 9/11 would be an asset for the Libertarian Party, not a liability.

  12. Trent Hill

    “Trent Hill, GOP Lite ………”

    I want to end the drug war, end the fed, stop the wars, and end minimum wage. Calling me GOP lite is just silly.

  13. Trent Hill

    “Which shows how little you know about marketing.”

    Ohk, you show me where you have succeeded in marketing. Thus far my only exposure to your marketing techniques is your returning to IPR threads over and over again to discuss a petitioning issue–if that’s how you market yourself or your craft, I’d just a soon not take your marketing advice at all.

  14. Robert Capozzi

    andy: So you’d rather have the Libertarian Party be the party which believes what the government tells us to believe. That’s NOT Libertarian.

    me: Ah, no. That’s a logic leap that’d make Superman proud! I’d rather have the LP as an institution not take a position on a speculation.

    If individual Ls want to be Truthers, I say Knock yourselves out! Now, that IS Libertarian, yes?

    I could come up with a long list of conspiracies that I’d rather the LP remain silent on: chem trails, black helicopters, Area 54, tin foil hats, etc.

  15. Ump

    RC@8
    “me: Please show us who has suggested that a L cannot question 9/11. I’ve not seen one.

    The LP DOES question the drug war, which is a fact. The LP doesn’t question what happened on 9/11, since alternative theories are NOT a fact, but rather speculation.”

    I have not heard Mr. Hancock in any of the links from BH or others as they try and represent him as a kook that suggest he is a conspiracy nut. What I have heard is cynicism of government and outreach to other cynics.

    This is how I see it with 9/11:
    There is a shock that people go through when first disillusioned with government. Public Schools and the narrow 4th estate do a very good job at indoctrinating people into blind faith for authority.

    When people go through an experience that makes them question an ingrained belief that is connected so deep in their psyche, they suffer anxiety. That is where the kookiness comes in as they try and resort their life view.

    A mothers who’s son has just been sent to prison for 10 years for marijuana will find herself unable to find solace from her fundamental religious friends. To them, she is a kook for saying that it is unfair.

    A woman screaming at a hospital nurse in panic because she cannot visit her dying life partner in her last hours is also a kook in the eyes of those who are unable to look upon her as anything other than a dirty sexual deviant.

    A man who’s life has been ruined by the IRS holding a sign up high yelling to his neighbors that taxes are theft is also a kook to the good tax paying citizens.

    No matter what, if you question the status quo, you will be surrounded with people going through various stages of disillusionment and dealing with the post trauma stress they will feel shedding the fear violently punished into them as children.

    It is easy to call these people kooks. Really they are Libertarians dealing with realizations. For Hancock to tell them, “what you are feeling about government is justified,” is genuine outreach to those newly found natural allies.

    The kookiness of “truthers” is a manifestation of fear on both sides. I think Hancock looks at the truth movement as one that is collecting a lot of people who are disillusioned with government in the face of so much blatant deceit and incompetence.

    They will all mellow with time and adopt more mature and stable messages and views. Heck they might even uncover a conspiracy, or dysfunction of government mechanics along the way. But one thing is for sure, many of the people who are, right now, questioning the government because of the holes they seen in the official 9/11 story will be freedom fighters tomorrow when the anxiety moves on to wisdom and determination.

  16. Robert Capozzi

    ump, not everyone who has experienced trauma transforms that experience into positive action. Sometimes they just hold their grievances and occasionally act out, generally angrily. Sometimes they go McVeigh.

    Herding a lot of trauma victims doesn’t strike me as a good way to go for the LP, though I certainly have compassion for the traumatized.

  17. Brian Holtz

    I have not heard Mr. Hancock in any of the links from BH or others as they try and represent him as a kook that suggest he is a conspiracy nut.

    Then you have not see the following highlights from the Obama Deception DVD, which Hancock hands out by the tens of thousands. It claims that Lincoln and JFK were assassinated by international banking interests.

  18. I'll let the people decide...

    …why Brian Holtz is trying to portray the words of Alex Jones as those of Ernest Hancock just because Ernie hands out the video.

  19. Brian Holtz

    I never said that Hancock believes every single claim of the DVDs he hands out by the tens of thousands. I’m just informing people about what Hancock thinks constitutes good freedom-oriented outreach. Libertarians are smart enough to decide for themselves if they want the LP to adopt Hancock’s approach to outreach.

    Andy said “this party needs a Chair that’s got some balls”. Hancock says that the young generation “knows The Truth about 9/11”, but Hancock is extremely careful to never quite say what he thinks that Truth is. Indeed, he is proud of his stock answer for anybody who asks him to reveal what he thinks “The Truth” is. He just says “it’s always interesting what sort of person asks me that”, and then walks away.

  20. Kevin Knedler

    From Ohio, the 4th largest state affiliate of the LP. The Ohio LP didn’t come back from the brink of extinction because we spent time talking about 9-11 truth, conspiracy, kookie stuff. It grew from 5 years of real work on rebuilding the Ohio party, re-badging our brand, and networking with not only the liberty minded groups but the existing OHio government. History has been made in Ohio in regards to ballot access, having a primary, and field the first full-statewide slate of candidates since 1934.
    So why can’t the national party do the same? Do we want to remain a debate club that appeals to less than 1% of the national population, or maybe consider reaching out to the 60% of the population that might actually vote for us? Slow steps of incremental improvement and work towards more libertarianism.
    Frankly, Ohio wants to grow, in spite of the rhetoric.

  21. Mik Robertson

    @16 “Public Schools and the narrow 4th estate do a very good job at indoctrinating people into blind faith for authority….”

    I don’t know that it is blind faith in authority that leads people to think that some common authority can better secure rights and address some areas where markets have problems than a lack of such authority.

    There are kooks in the truthers, just as there are people really concerned about liberty, open government, and honesty. The same is true about other groups such as the Campaign for Liberty, the Tea Parties, the GOP, the Democratic Party, and society in general.

    There is nothing that says the LP can be a fringe party and keep its principles. There is also nothing that says the LP will lose its guiding principles if it becomes a mainstream party. It is not a choice between small and principled or large and unprincipled.

    It seems to me if you want to be a fringe party, then it makes sense to focus efforts recruiting from fringe groups. If you want to be a mainstream party, it makes sense to address the general electorate.

    Between Root and Hancock it seems that one leans one way and one leans the other. Maybe it would be good to hear how Wayne intends reach out to some of the fringe groups and how Hancock intends reach out to the general electorate.

  22. I'll let the people decide...

    …whether Holtz did or did not say “that Hancock believes every single claim of the DVDs he hands out by the tens of thousands. ” by implying such in post 18.
    …whether Holtz is simply anti-Hancock or pro-WAR?

  23. Ump

    MR@22:
    “Between Root and Hancock it seems that one leans one way and one leans the other. Maybe it would be good to hear how Wayne intends reach out to some of the fringe groups and how Hancock intends reach out to the general electorate.”

    That’s a darned good idea.

    BTW my point was that nearly everyone is a trauma victim. To illustrate: Our prohibitionist drug laws are a symptom of that trauma; held up neither by reason nor good affect, but by fear of not conforming to the authoritarian proscription.

    People who become disillusioned of the lies that authority uses to maintain tyranny go through stress. That stress sometimes manifests itself in paranoia and anxiety like we see in some “Truthers.”

    Libertarian principles fill that newly obviated hole in their world view where authoritarian justice once was.

  24. Andrew

    A Little QnA with Ernest Hancock

    These are questions submitted by Libertarians of Northeast Kansas for the forum between Wayne Root and Ernie Hancock at the LPKS State Convention, April 24, 2010. They are published here exactly as submitted, and may or may not reflect the wording of the questions submitted to the candidates at the forum.

    Question:
    I’d like them to discuss how they feel about the ongoing ‘tug of war’, between those who want to hold to our party’s principles, and those who are willing to ‘bend’ the principles to gain popularity and win more votes.

    Ernest Hancock:
    For 22 years I have advocated, worked for and demonstrated that Hard Core No-Compromise libertarian activism and advocacy in support of fundamental libertarianism has produced the popularity/support desired. Abandonment of the Libertarian Party at the National level has not been due to our being perceived as too principled,… it has been because we were not being principled enough.

    Question:
    Which do you believe is more important: to remain true to our principles or to get candidates elected to office?

    Ernest Hancock:
    Principles first. Support in the form of money, effort and votes are a side effect of filling a very desirable need for the promotion of individual liberty. A Libertarian Party that offers another form of Social and Economic Engineering of Americans can offer very little to a liberty starve populace searching for a way out of their enslavement.

    Question:
    How do you intend to increase the size of the LP and get candidates elected to office?

    Ernest Hancock:
    By being relevant to the lives of individuals.

    Increased membership, available resources, financial support, number of quality candidates and votes are a side effect of being perceived as a champion for the liberty of every individual.

    Question:
    Should the primary emphasis of the Libertarian Party be to win elections, or to present an ideologically pure Libertarian option to the voters? “Both” is not an acceptable answer.

    Ernest Hancock:
    Presenting an ideologically pure libertarian message… the rest will follow.

    Question:
    As party chair, what will you do to win over moderate Libertarians–individuals who believe generally in freedom in both the social and economic spheres, but who do not endorse the party’s full agenda–to the party?

    Ernest Hancock:
    Be consistent. The government is making more libertarians every day in many ways.

    Question:
    Would you continue to invest LP resources to obtain ballot access in states such as Oklahoma and West Virginia or use these resources to help candidates in competitive races?

    Ernest Hancock:
    I’m one vote on the LNC. My vote will be to support a mechanism that allows individuals to direct their money to various projects presented to them by the LNC. I’m sure that ‘Ballot Status’, individual candidates, purchased media, affiliate promotion, issue advocacy, overhead etc. will be presented to the membership for support. The idea that a very small minority would spend other people’s money with very little input from them on a regular basis has proven to me to be a very unproductive method of allocating resources.

    Question:
    What is the first thing you would as Chair for the national LP and why?

    Ernest Hancock:
    Make absolutely certain that the entire Washington, D.C. Beltway area knows that we are there. “Liberty…. She’s Baaaack”.

    Question:
    What do you see as the best direction to take the national party to further our growth? Here are two distinct choices.
    Keep firm to Libertarian principles and demonstrate to the public that those principles are the founding principles of our nation. Point out that neither big party follows those principles and to vote for the lesser evil of those two gives us an evil and out of control government.
    Moderate our support of those principles to attract conservative voters from the Republican Party.

    Ernest Hancock:
    “Keep firm to Libertarian principles”.

    Question:
    How about what to really do about health care? What should be cut from the budget? Should taxes be raised?

    Ernest Hancock:
    Deregulate Healthcare. End the War on Drugs. The United States budget repealed back to at least its Constitutional limits of what the Federal Government is authorized to do. Eliminate the Income Tax as a start.

    Question:
    There is a perception that LP is only representing the white male baby boomer. We know that not to be the case, as evidenced by our gen Xers in ExComm. What do these gentlemen plan to do to promote that this is not the only demographic represented and to promote more diverse involvement?

    Ernest Hancock:
    Represent the smallest minority,… the individual. Then all of the other categories just fade away. YES, they just fade away!

    Question:
    What qualities do you possess over the other candidates that would make you the best choice?

    Ernest Hancock:
    A fundamental understanding that it is up to each individual to take responsibility for their own advocacy of liberty in whatever way they are best suited. The LPUS will be a very effective and ready tool for all of us to make use of in the fulfillment of that responsibility.

    Question:
    What is your stance on the government’s role in marriage, and how would that effect ‘gay marriage’?

    Ernest Hancock:
    At most, Government’s involvement in marriage should not extend further than being a disinterested 3rd party in the enforcement of a private contract.

    Question:
    If you are elected, what are the first three things you will do, and when will you do them?

    Ernest Hancock:
    I am making every effort to make my election to LNC Chair a very clear choice for relevance in American politics and culture by being very open and public with our advocacy for individual liberty. This can be inspired by the LNC Chair initiating a “campaign” in Washington, D.C. to make it very clear who we are, what we want and how much effort we are willing to devote to demonstrate to the whole planet of our sincerity and devotion to Human Freedom via peaceful means with LOVE. (Lots of signs and hand materials to start… the rest will follow – I’ve done this many times before

    Question:
    At the end of your term, what criteria will you use to judge your time as chairman as a success or failure? And, are any of those criteria objective measurable that you will strive to achieve?

    Ernest Hancock:
    Campaigns, Vote totals, Money raised, Membership increases etc. are all a side effect of effectively communicating to the planet our message in a clear and unwavering presentation. We are not afraid, we are confident and we are determined to spread the libertarian message to as many minds as possible. The r3VOLution was not my first effort to accomplish this, nor will it be my last.

    Question:
    What is the greatest barrier to electing Libertarians nationwide? How do you propose we overcome that barrier?

    Ernest Hancock:
    Trillions (with a “T”) have been spent over generations via the Government Education System (Government Schools, Government Public Service Announcements, Government Licensed Media, Government Programs and Projects) to convince as many individuals as possible that solutions to any imaginable problem is to be found when first you look to government.

    I have watched this programming be replaced with individual minds being able to communicate with millions of others without borders or boundaries or filters. Promotion of reality/truth and libertarianism will create a welcome environment for those looking for exactly what we offer.

    Question:
    The only way for a political party to win elections is to appeal to the voters in the “middle” (wherever that is). How do you propose positioning the LP to appeal to this voting bloc?

    Ernest Hancock:
    If try to appeal to ‘the middle’,… how will we ever attract ‘the middle’ to libertarianism?

    Government is our best recruiter. Being libertarian is our most appealing trait as the world learns what we offer.

    Question:
    What support and training do you believe the National LP should provide to train candidates running for office?

    Ernest Hancock:
    Central Planning for candidate training at a national level has never been effective in my experience. At a local level there is more success, but each candidate is very different. Being able to provide legal requirements for running and access to many sources of information is useful, but a ‘one size fits all Candidate Packet/Presentation’ put together by committee for a State legislative candidate in Montana and a US Senate candidate in Arkansas is likely worse than useless. Every presentation I have attended never takes into account the personality of the candidate. And instead of allowing the candidate to learn how best to make the most use of their abilities and talents, the candidate is blamed for not being enough… whatever.

    I advocate sharing as much truth as possible with as many people as possible, while making friends whenever possible and choosing ‘non-friends’ very carefully (often you learn as much about someone, and their intentions, by who their ‘non-friends’ are). My goal is to help as many people as possible free the minds of as many people as possible. More often than not this is accomplished by being of service to them instead of trying to make them serve the collective as best determined by a committee around a table.

    Question:
    Explain to us how your previous background and experience positions you to represent and lead the LP in a superior manner.

    Ernest Hancock:
    Lead libertarians???

    The most effective method I know of to inspire libertarian activism is to be an example and inspiration. This has had “superior” results so far.

    Question:
    What is your vision for the LP 5-years and 10-years from today? If elected, what specific steps will you implement to bring us closer to that vision?

    Ernest Hancock:
    My preferred vision would be for the Libertarian Party to be unnecessary so we could all go about our business enjoying freedom. But I suspect that the Libertarian Party of the United States (I’m making no predictions about the many other levels of autonomous Libertarian Party’s),… I suspect that the LPUS will either be the touchstone of all political discourse on this globe within 2 years, or it will be irrelevant. Libertarianism can not be negotiated away for a place at the political table and think that we’ll be of any use to a liberty starved populace.

    Freedom is popular. It is why it has survived in spite of the enormous efforts to eradicate it. The advocacy of liberty loud, clear and pure will position the LPUS so that it can serve the interests of the many that will seek to help us free more minds.

    Question:
    If you became the Chair of the Libertarian Party what would you do to get the Party out there and recognized by more people (networking with liberty groups, getting in the news whether MSM; local; or internet, etc.)?

    Ernest Hancock:
    The same thing I’ve been doing for 22 years, get on the street. This is how individuals and groups learn of you, trust you and come to rely on you. While the freedom movement is getting much stronger, it is not so large that I haven’t been able to meet most of the most effective freedom advocates in America. The moment the freedom movement perceives the LPUS to be on the front lines with them, Challenging the Cult of the Omnipotent State, we will immediately experience our highest levels of influence in American politics.

    Question:
    Does the national LP office have BRCA/McCain-Feingold election finance compliance information and/or accounting support available for candidates? If not, would you direct the LP national office to create/fund that support?

    Ernest Hancock:
    No.

    I would encourage our challenging this unpopular and unconstitutional law and seek to understand how we might structure ourselves to be free of its requirements.

    Question:
    Would you support Ron Paul “reentering” the Libertarian Party as our candidate for U.S.President? Your reasons?

    Ernest Hancock:
    I don’t have any reason to oppose his “reentering” the LP. But why would he want to? He was already seen as the most libertarian presidential candidate of 2008 running as a Republican. A Hard Core, No-Compromise libertarian LPUS would attract many great libertarian candidates,… watch.

    Question:
    Would you support Sarah Palin entering the Libertarian Party as our candidate for U.S.President? Your reasons?

    Ernest Hancock:
    Sarah Palin is welcome to try. My hope is that the libertarians in the Libertarian Party will look to have libertarians represent them. If they do not… then we need to know that. St. Louis in 2010 will help provide the freedom movement with a great deal of information that we need in this regard.

    Question:
    With polls showing that over 40% of Americans willing to support/vote for non-R or D candidates for Congress, what are the top three specific actions you would have the party take to capture those potential voters this election cycle?

    Ernest Hancock:
    Tell the truth, Show No-Fear, Offer to help others find the information they need to survive what is going to happen to our economy.

    Question:
    What is the approximate combined net present value deficit of the U.S.A., including all outstanding Treasury debt and unfunded liabilities under our nation’s retirement and health care system (social security, Medicare, and Medicaid). ?

    Ernest Hancock:
    More than any of us, our children our grand children or great grand children are ever going to be able to pay back. Without another revolution of some sort (I’m working on a LOV3olution) we will continue to be tax slaves to The State for the rest of the foreseeable future.

    Question:
    How many sets of books does the Federal government keep? Can you describe the differences between these various books?

    Ernest Hancock:
    The government keeps books? And if they showed me the books, am I suppose to believe them? They have books that they use to convince you that they always need more money, they have books that convince others to invest in our debts, they have books that list investments for things like government retirement programs.

    In the mid 90’s I obtained Arizona’s CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) as a project with a fellow libertarian. The money invested in the stock market (and ready to be skimmed off, over and over) comes in large part from government pension plans (and other ‘they ripped us off’ methods of transferring our wealth from us to “them”). In time I suspect that we’ll find that these very large sums of money are now gone, to… ?

    Like the previous question I suspect that you are looking for validation of something that you already know, or think you know. Whenever I am asked about a ‘number’, I know that there is someone else to tell me the number is wrong and that the number doesn’t mean what I said it meant anyway. So I respond with principle. While entitlements and debts and other obligations can be estimated at as much as $100 Trillion dollars, there are lobbyist in Washington right now trying to determine who will be left without a chair when the music stops on $600 Trillion in derivatives with no assets to back them up while they still plague the balance sheets of our economy.

    If we focus on the proper role of government (defense of individual rights), the rest of this stuff is easily answered without the need for a potential voter to bring a calculator to a political debate.

    Question:
    The “headline deficit number” under the unified federal budget for the current fiscal year is a deficit of approximately $1.3 trillion. But this does not come close to reflecting the additional liabilities we as a nation incur for persons retiring this year and expecting lifetime benefits from the government. What is the deficit if the net present value of all promises to federal employees and military personnel are added to this figure? What is the approximate federal deficit if the NPV of unfunded promises incurred this year are added to the figure?

    Ernest Hancock:
    More numbers?

    More than can ever be paid back. The United States Government has two options; Repudiation or Massive increases in the supply of US Dollars. Take your pick.

    The rest of the world was convinced that the American people could be harvested without limit to our tolerances. But what was not counted on was the market forces that limit an individual’s desire to slave away for little benefit and no perceived guarantee that they would even have a claim to the meager benefits that they did derive from the system, even their justly acquired property.

    Question:
    Will you take a pledge to put the federal government and its promises under social security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the same financial accounting standards that we expect from any fully funded and solvent insurance program extending retirement and health care promises to its clients, as such accounting is required by FASB (the Financial Accounting Standards Board) ?

    Ernest Hancock:
    I wouldn’t waste a moment saying anything about these programs other than to advocate for their elimination.

  25. Mik Robertson

    Is it bending a principle to support legislation legalizing medical marijuana or is it bending a principle to not support such legislation because it does not legalize all uses of marijuana, or legalize all drugs for that matter?

  26. paulie

    “Which shows how little you know about marketing.”

    Ohk, you show me where you have succeeded in marketing. Thus far my only exposure to your marketing techniques is your returning to IPR threads over and over again to discuss a petitioning issue–if that’s how you market yourself or your craft, I’d just a soon not take your marketing advice at all.

    Actually, Andy’s pretty good at a certain kind of marketing. You may not see it from his IPR comments, but he knows very well how to translate complicated policy proposals into quick soundbites that get people’s attention, get them to agree, and take action (sign a petition). He knows how to communicate effectively with the general public, which is a valuable marketing skill.

    If he learned to apply that same strategy to his written communications, he would do even better. However, he has a tendency to overestimate the attention span/interest level of the reading audience that he does not have when he is out petitioning.

    If he treated the IPR and other such audiences more like he does the general public, he’d be even more effective.

  27. paulie

    If individual Ls want to be Truthers, I say Knock yourselves out! Now, that IS Libertarian, yes?

    Yes. So would you have a problem with a truther as chair if that person did not claim to be speaking for the whole party when pushing 9/11 truth?

    Conversely, would it trouble you if an LP chair speculated that the 9/11 Commission report was completely correct?

  28. paulie

    but Hancock is extremely careful to never quite say what he thinks that Truth is.

    So it seems that the extent of the problem you claim – which, as I understand it, is that Hancock would push the inside job theory of 9/11 as LP chair and claim or create the perception that the entire party agrees – is actually not quite all that great. Or did I misunderstand what you consider to be the problem?

    If his version of 9/11 truth is “more questions than answers,” is that a problem for you?

  29. paulie

    I never said that Hancock believes every single claim of the DVDs he hands out by the tens of thousands. I’m just informing people about what Hancock thinks constitutes good freedom-oriented outreach.

    You never said it, but I would forgive someone for coming away with that impression when you continuously re-play a cherry-picked 7 minutes from a much longer film. I haven’t been on a computer with sound to watch the 7 minute selection and see for myself how it compares with the rest of the film. I’ll be at one starting tomorrow for about a week or two, though.

  30. paulie

    The Ohio LP didn’t come back from the brink of extinction because we spent time talking about 9-11 truth, conspiracy, kookie stuff. It grew from 5 years of real work on rebuilding the Ohio party, re-badging our brand, and networking with not only the liberty minded groups but the existing OHio government. History has been made in Ohio in regards to ballot access, having a primary, and field the first full-statewide slate of candidates since 1934.

    Well, ballot access made a lot of that possible, and Andy was one of the three petitioners who collected the bulk of the signatures back in 2007 that qualified for the law suit that led to ballot access. I was another one. All three of us are 9/11 truthers to one extent or another.

    Unfortunately, y’all didn’t call us for the primary petitioning this year. I heard some other people did really well on that financially, though.

    So why can’t the national party do the same? Do we want to remain a debate club that appeals to less than 1% of the national population, or maybe consider reaching out to the 60% of the population that might actually vote for us?

    The problem here is the idea that the population that might actually vote for us is the mainstream. In reality, the mainstream are the people who are most likely to consider us too extreme – even the moderate libertarians – and to feel like the major parties are either not all that bad, or inevitable, or both.

    Breaking away from that prevailing though pattern is itself a radical step. People who take some radical steps – like questioning whether the US government may have staged an attack to misdirect people into giving up civil liberties and supporting foreign wars, among many other examples – are more likely than the average mainstream person to take other radical steps, such as joining an alternative political party.

    And while those who ask such questions aren’t quite 60%, they are a lot more than the percentage who vote LP, register LP, join the LP, call themselves libertarians, or even test libertarian-leaning.

  31. paulie

    It seems to me if you want to be a fringe party, then it makes sense to focus efforts recruiting from fringe groups. If you want to be a mainstream party, it makes sense to address the general electorate.

    You don’t magically become a mainstream party by addressing the people least likely to switch parties, much less back a party with a track record of losing badly that is seen by most of them as either a non-factor — or, when more successful than usual, a spoiler.

    So, addressing overlapping “fringe” groups that are larger than our “fringier” group with common interests/motivations seems to me like a more logical way of becoming relatively more mainstream while still providing a clear alternative rather than just be absorbed.

  32. paulie

    Between Root and Hancock it seems that one leans one way and one leans the other. Maybe it would be good to hear how Wayne intends reach out to some of the fringe groups and how Hancock intends reach out to the general electorate.

    I’m not sure that’s accurate.

    Some people consider tea party/hard right talk radio conservatives to be a fringe group as well.

    How do their numbers compare with those who question 9/11? Got polling data handy?

  33. Observation

    I just heard a rumor that Wayne Allyn Root is going to New York to testify in the mock “Birther” trial against Obama. Is that for real???

    I sure hope he associates himself with the GOP and not Libertarians, or people will think we’re a bunch of kooks.

    Is this really the kind of guy we want to be our chair?

  34. jon master

    Its really called denial. People who cannot deal with TRUTH…go into denial. I had a friend that did not want to acknowledge his cancer…he said..the doctor was wrong…went this way till he died 6 months later…still denying he had cancer. Denial that you have a drinking problem….denial your spouse cheats on you….Denial can be your worst enemy. People that want to deny that A Black man is president…will say He is not legally born here….its really like little children who play make-believe when they don’t want to confront something. Lying to yourself…is strong in our society as well. Blame is big too! Who better to blame for 9-11 than the government…(the big bad wolf). Its not a healthy way to live….because you must prepetuate the lies…to cover for the lies…to cover for the lies…and it grows a thick skin….not a peaceful way to live life….but this kind of stuff has been used for centuries…by the psychologically pained….its sad and it destroys lives…

  35. M Btok

    May 18, 2010
    Zbigniew Brzezinski giving the CFR branch in Montreal a presentation discussing world government and his fears of the mass global awakening that has taken place.

    Re: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDBlABD01U0&feature=player_embedded

    Time for you to awaken too?
    Then watch:

    http://www.infowars.com/brzezinski-decries-global-political-awakening-during-cfr-speech/

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/rand-paul-savages-obamas-catastrophic-green-economy.html

    “These petty dictators say that to stop climate change it’s about ending capitalism, they are explicit, and the President by attending Copenhagen gives credibility and credence to these folks and he should not go,” said Paul.

    After Paul had started attacking Obama’s “green” agenda, CNN quickly cut away from his victory speech and began to talk over him.

    Perhaps that’s because Paul is perhaps the first person to address the fundamental threat that the global warming scam poses to the free world during such a major victory speech.

    This marks a new watershed in how much the credibility of climate change alarmism has collapsed in the last six months alone.

    Paul is right in citing Mugabe, Morales and Chavez as acolytes to the climate cause, but similar sentiments have been expressed far closer to home.

    The agenda to use global warming fear mongering as a pretext to lower living standards in the west has openly been declared by top globalists over and over again – people like EU Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso, who has called for a “post-industrial revolution” in which CO2 emissions are capped.

    Check this out:

  36. Chas Kammerer

    There are some interesting points in time in this article but I don’t know if I see all of them middle to heart. There’s some validity however I’ll take hold opinion till I look into it further. Good article , thanks and we would like extra! Added to FeedBurner as effectively

Leave a Reply

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