Libertarian Chair candidates debate @LPKS: Root and Hancock scare each other with moderation and 9/11 Truth

On Saturday April 24, Libertarian National Committee Chair candidates Ernest Hancock and Wayne Root debated at the LP state convention in Kansas.  Each said he was scared by the prospect of the other being Chair:

Hancock said: “I’m afraid of Wayne getting exactly what he promises. He will be the face of the LP if he gets LNC Chair. Everything he says will be seen as the Libertarian Party philosophy. To all the millions that will hear it, that will be it. I, as LNC Chair — it won’t be about me. It will be us, all over. And you want to know how it happens? The R3VOLution. You think that was an accident?”

Root later responded: “You talk about the face of the LP and what I’m going to do when I get to Washington — it isn’t going to make us the party that believes in 9/11 Truth. Can you imagine what would happen to the LP the next day if Ernie’s elected chairman, and the radical idea that the government and George Bush asked those planes to go into the World Trade Center and kill 3,000 Americans?  Are we out of our minds?  Is that what you want the LP to be about?”

Hancock told the audience: “I will not back off from this 9/11 investigation.  Will he?”  Root responded: “Abso-freaking-lutely. I’d run away from it like a train on the tracks. If you want to destroy this Party, name a national chairman who believes that 9/11 was an inside job by the government.”  Hancock rebutted by saying “if we’re not out there telling the Truth on things like 9/11” then the LP is “not relevant”.

Ernest Hancock has posted videos of the debates.  Here are links and highlights:

Part 1

  • Root: Tea Parties are a unique opportunity for the LP.
  • Hancock: I am nothing like the Tea Parties.  Fox News misrepresents them.
  • Hancock: The LP was founded for challenging the cult of the omnipotent state, not for winning elections.

Part 2

  • Root: A poll of Tea Partiers reported their preferred party is LP.
  • Hancock: Libertarianism is already sweeping the country. Get in front of the parade.
  • Root: What’s sweeping the country is moderate libertarianism — John Stossel, Glenn Beck.
  • Root: Must expand LP beyond white male already-libertarians.

Part 3

  • Hancock: Tea Parties are “controlled opposition” and a “psy op”. We suck in Tea Partiers by giving them Obama Deception DVDs.  Beck has already endorsed Mitt Romney for 2012. [IPR fact-check: Beck merely forecast Romney as the only announced Republican who could win in 2012.  Beck had called Romney a "socialist” only a day earlier.]
  • Root: Ron Paul appeals to all the demographics I want us to pursue. Mark Rutherford and I “are the adult candidates” who will make the LP relevant again.
  • Hancock: parents at my kids’ Christian school were eventually won over by my consistent radicalism.
  • Hancock: Candidate training by LPUS? No, just stay out of the way and hold up good examples.

Part 4

  • Root: I reach millions on talk radio. My radio guests have included Ron Paul four times, John Stossel, Glenn Beck.
  • Hancock: I’ve interviewed Stossel, G. Gordon Liddy, Sam Donaldson, Tony Snow.  I’m afraid that Root will be seen by millions as the face of the LP.
  • Root: I will campaign for our local LP candidates, and raise money for them.
  • Root: I started out as a Goldwater/Reagan conservative, and I can help America make that transition too.

Part 5

  • Hancock: My goal is for the LP to not need to exist.  “It won’t happen all at once, but it will happen overnight.”  Get out of the LPUS HQ lease.
  • Root: The LP needs to work hard and plan patiently, like my plan to get my home-schooled daughter accepted into Harvard and Stanford.
  • Hancock: I recognized the New World Order in my 20s, before I knew the term. I’ve been trying to expose the Truth ever since.
  • Hancock: I’m not in this to be national Chair. I’m in this to set a standard for libertarianism. A lot of people know what’s expected of me. That’s where a lot of my financial support comes from. It’s from hardcore no-compromise wealthy libertarians that are begging to give money to the Party if it will actually represent libertarianism.
  • Hancock: Is the LNC going to say Ernie can’t go out and be libertarian? Ernie can’t go and keep doing what he’s doing?  Is that written somewhere?

Part 6

  • Root: I’m scared of naming a Chair that advocates 9/11 Truth. I will target small business owners as donors.
  • Hancock: Jesse Ventura talks about 9/11. I don’t need to know whether a conspiracy theory is true. I just need to know: can they? If so, then what’s the moral hurdle for them not to?  I will not back off from 9/11. Will he?
  • Root: Abso-freaking-lutely. Ventura killed his presidential chances with one gaffe, saying religion is the opiate of the masses. Then he grew a ponytail and went surfing in Mexico.
  • Root: Sara Palin is not a libertarian. I basically agree with Ron Paul, but he’s too strident on a few issues.

Part 7

  • Hancock: I need the Libertarian Party to be libertarian. If we’re not out there telling the Truth on things like 9/11, the drug war, foreign policy, then we are not relevant.  We need to be clear on what libertarianism is.
  • Root: We’re not relevant, but Tea Parties are. I emphasize the libertarian issues that resonate: end the IRS, follow the Constitution, no universal healthcare adding to $100T in unfunded liabilities, pensions for government employees — that’s our single best issue.
  • Hancock: I’m not afraid to advocate a libertarian society. We should care less what the media think.
  • Hancock: We have a totally different perspective on what the LP should be. Moderation has been the problem.

Hancock and Root debated again the same day at the LP Indiana state convention, in a four-way debate that included John Jay Myers and James Oaksun standing in for George Phillies.  A subsequent IPR article will cover that debate.

238 thoughts on “Libertarian Chair candidates debate @LPKS: Root and Hancock scare each other with moderation and 9/11 Truth

  1. hf

    Well crap. I hadn’t been following this LNC thing closely, but now I find that our top two choices are a whacked out conspiracy theorist and a warmongering infomercial Republican.

    Phillies, Myers – get your act together, we need you.

  2. Eric Dondero

    I didn’t know much about this Hancock dude before. But finding out he’s a 9/11 Truther is really off-putting.

    Funny these Truthers are so strident about Republican Bush. But ask them about Obama’s birth certificate or Clinton’s Waco disaster, or the cover-up in the Oklahoma City bombing and Middle-eastern terrorists, connections and they clam up.

  3. Brian Holtz

    Eric, if you want to know just how deep Hancock’s rabbit hole goes, then watch the Obama Deception conspiracy DVD that he distributes tens of thousands of copies of. It’s online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw. Look for the part where it reveals that Lincoln and JFK were both assassinated on the orders of international banking interests.

  4. Alexander S. Peak

    I haven’t watched all of the parts, but from the main video presented first, Root does look better. This is not an endorsement, however.

    I wish I knew more about Hinkle and Myers. And why wasn’t Phillies there? Really, Phillies is looking better and better.

    “Root: What’s sweeping the country is moderate libertarianism — John Stossel, Glenn Beck.”

    I’m not convinced that Stossel is a “moderate libertarian,” whatever that means. He seems like a rather principled minarchist, from what I’ve seen.

    And I’m not convinced that Glenn Beck is even a libertarian, although I do believe he’s moving in that direction.

    “Root: … I basically agree with Ron Paul, but he’s too strident on a few issues.”

    Really? I’d like to see Root’s explanation.

    “Hancock: I need the Libertarian Party to be libertarian. If we’re not out there telling the Truth on things like…the drug war [and] foreign policy, then we are not relevant. We need to be clear on what libertarianism is.”

    “Root: … I emphasize the libertarian issues that resonate: end the IRS, follow the Constitution, no universal healthcare adding to $100T in unfunded liabilities, pensions for government employees — that’s our single best issue.”

    Does this mean Root wants to run away from ending the drug war and our interventionist foreign policy?

    We need to make sure that we focus on issues associated with the American left and on issues associated with the American right.

    My only real fear with Root is this: he seems to only focus on “conservative” issues, he doesn’t seem to give any focus to “liberal” issues. I think it’s imperative that we focus on both, just as Harry Browne did.

    (Also, I don’t want to see Wes Benedict lose his current position.)

  5. Trent Hill

    Anyone who campaigns on the idea of firing Wes Benedict shouldn’t get anywhere in this race. First of all, Wes is brand new. Secondly, he has a list of accomplishments in Texas a mile long.

  6. Thomas L. Knapp

    “no universal healthcare adding to $100T in unfunded liabilities”

    One of Root’s good points is that if he’s convinced he’s not saying something the right way (“$100 trillion national debt”), he fixes it.

  7. John Jay Myers

    I am glad to see this article. I was beginning to think I was crazy.

    In my opinion Wayne is way too far right, he only appeals to the right. Most of the far right he appeals to are not going to join the Libertarian Party.

    I think our principles will sweep this nation off of its feet, if we focused on getting more people (who actually represent us) out there speaking for us.
    I have in many videos stated my case for what we need to be doing as a party.
    Ernie has the conspiracy message, and doesn’t believe we need to exist or that people need to vote. Basically Ernie is an Anarchist, which is not an insult. It’s just the truth.

    From my understanding we are trying to function as a party now. It is our goal to get people elected and spread our message. I do both these things.
    If I was simply an anarchist… I would not be running for LNC chair I wouldn’t care.

    I also understand that as soon as the media hears that Ernie is a 9/11 is an inside job guy, it’s over. There is no “wait let’s back up”. It is over.

    I joined this race not from my desire to be LNC Chair but because I am adamant that it not be Wayne or Ernie. I didn’t see Phillies or Hinkle as able to win, so I felt I have to save us from either fate.

    One fate of destroying our message “We must appeal to Christian women!”~ W.A.R. or “We have to appeal to the right, that is where the money is” ~W.A.R. or “Our plan is for me to make videos and everyone send them out to their friends” ~W.A.R. (which he could be doing now).

    Or the other darker fate of just becoming obsolete, no longer working to get our group in order.

    We function like a party in Texas and I would like to see that spread across America. We can do this. But we can not sacrifice our message and we can not become only activists.

    I am a radical activist for the Libertarian Party and its platform of getting other Libertarians elected to public office.
    Here is a video of me at LNC chair debate in Austin, there are more on that same channel, or if you want to know more simply google John Jay Myers.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRNcJA7SPQE

    Thank god people are seeing what made me stand up and say “what the?”

    see my youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/clearsky24 or find me also on http://www.youtube.com/dallascountylp

    John Jay Myers
    http://www.JohnJayMyers.com/lnc.htm

  8. John Jay Myers

    I am glad to see this article. I was beginning to think I was crazy.

    In my opinion Wayne is way too far right, he only appeals to the right. Most of the far right he appeals to are not going to join the Libertarian Party.

    I think our principles will sweep this nation off of its feet, if we focused on getting more people (who actually represent us) out there speaking for us.
    I have in many videos stated my case for what we need to be doing as a party.
    Ernie has the conspiracy message, and doesn’t believe we need to exist or that people need to vote. Basically Ernie is an Anarchist, which is not an insult. It’s just the truth.

    From my understanding we are trying to function as a party now. It is our goal to get people elected and spread our message. I do both these things.
    If I was simply an anarchist… I would not be running for LNC chair I wouldn’t care.

    I also understand that as soon as the media hears that Ernie is a 9/11 is an inside job guy, it’s over. There is no “wait let’s back up”. It is over.

    I joined this race not from my desire to be LNC Chair but because I am adamant that it not be Wayne or Ernie. I didn’t see Phillies or Hinkle as able to win, so I felt I have to save us from either fate.

    One fate of destroying our message “We must appeal to Christian women!”~ W.A.R. or “We have to appeal to the right, that is where the money is” ~W.A.R. or “Our plan is for me to make videos and everyone send them out to their friends” ~W.A.R. (which he could be doing now).

    Or the other darker fate of just becoming obsolete, no longer working to get our group in order.

    We function like a party in Texas and I would like to see that spread across America. We can do this. But we can not sacrifice our message and we can not become only activists.

    I am a radical activist for the Libertarian Party and its platform of getting other Libertarians elected to public office.

    Here is a video of me at LNC chair debate in Austin, (see link to my name) there are more on that same channel, or if you want to know more simply google John Jay Myers.

    Thank god people are seeing what made me stand up and say “what the?”

  9. Jeremy Young

    When Root was asked by Chuck Moulton whether he’d fire Wes Benedict, he essentially said “Mark Rutherford will make that call when the time comes.” So I think he could clear this up very quickly by getting Rutherford to come to some of these events with him, so people could just ask Rutherford what he plans to do while running the LNC. Saying “Mark will make those decisions” is the beginning of an answer, but it’s not an answer. Apparently Rutherford has those answers, so let’s ask him.

  10. George Phillies

    @1 For what are you looking?

    Business plan? On NewPathForTheLP dot org

    Full plan? same place

    full slate of candidates? Almost there. One or two more At-Large candidates are forthcoming soon.

    Downloadable candidate web site? We did that. See LibertyForAmerica dot com

    Downloadable trifolds you can use in your state party, complete with blank slots for your contact info and candidates?
    See LibertyForAmerica dot com

    Candidate training material? We did that.
    See LibertyForAmerica dot com

    What *else* do you want?

  11. George Phillies

    @5

    Phillies was in New York. New Path candidates/Phillies and the rest of us stand-ins were in Indiana, Georgia, and Florida.

    Sorry, one day, one state is about my limit. That means I missed several other states.

  12. Ross Levin

    My opinion as an outsider is that Root would probably move the part in the direction of being more a growth off the Republican party than its own entity. This is a similar challenge that the Green Party has – neither the Greens or the LP are really just to the left or the right of either major party. But they are frequently presented that way. IMHO, I don’t think Root would differentiate between the LP and the GOP enough.

  13. John Jay Myers

    The New Plan for the LP is a fantastic plan, most if not all of the candidates on their slate, that I have met or interacted with are great people.

    I would like to work with these people in one way or the other in the future.

    I see the out reach slightly different, but maybe only in the way I explain it. I seriously believe the CM style website is an immediate priority to fascilitate our growth.
    Which is why we are currently setting it up in Texas, with the ability for National to be at the top. If they so choose.

  14. George Phillies

    @14

    When we met for the first time, and you described what you wanted out of a web site, I urged you to try to get it up and running in Texas first. You have an excellent number of candidates to test it, you know what the ballot access law in your state requires, and you have a lot of local resources. I hope it turns out well this year for all your Texas candidates who want it.

    Generalizing the election law features across state lines is in my opinion going to be a challenge.

    We do have a template up at LfA, but my reaction is that we need at least a half-dozen, to match people using Joomla or Drupal or MS-Pagemaker or native html or style sheets.

    Best,

    George

  15. John Jay Myers

    I took that into account. The site will be built so each state is programming the reminders themselves, they can add them or delete them using an admin tool. So you do not have to recode for each state, but each state or county will have to set up their specific dates of interest, reminders and bylaws into the site.
    The important back end information would be available to all, even those who choose to opt out, of the site itself.

  16. John Jay Myers

    Let me give you an example: The state has created a county affiliate, if the county affiliate has by laws, they will need to enter those. If the state has specific requirements of the county affiliates (like Texas) then those will be added by state (like a reminders check list).

    Now let’s say the county creates a candidate template site, (the state will have programmed in the requirements of that candidate position and their campaign manager and treasurer).

    So if Joe Thomas is running for U.S. Congress, he will know exactly what is required of him via email reminders as well as tips for that position, but if he signs up Jordan Davis as his treasurer, Jordan starts receiving emails telling him when he needs to file his FEC reports.

    All of the initial reminders and important dates as well as county chairs handbooks based on the same premise are online and functioning thanks to the state orginazation. Who can now stop baby sitting as much and start focusing on growing the party.

    We want the website to be a shell that can be easily manipulated (both in the look and the functionality).

  17. hf

    George

    Didn’t mean to say anything was missing on the planning front – just want to see you out there winning.

  18. tab

    Calling for a new investigation is completely rational and, I think, acceptable to most Americans. Putting yourself out there as a truther immediately earns you the nut label. If that is the face of the party then we are in some extreme trouble.

    By the way, I think it’s funny he says “the Truth” as if it was a theory that hasn’t been completely dismantled by scientists, engineers, and basic logic.

  19. Jill Pyeatt

    As far as Mr. Hancock asking questions into the events of 9/11, I think everyone is underestimating the number of Americans who know we’ve been lied to about the events of that day. I think it would be a huge positive, since Truthers come from all parties. Mr. Root need not be afraid of it unless he wants to continue down the neocon path.

  20. Tom Blanton

    W.A.R. demonstrates his Reagan libertarian view:

    Root: What’s sweeping the country is moderate libertarianism — John Stossel, Glenn Beck.

    Beck clues us in as to what his libertarianism is all about:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6C6E6ayh4U

    As for the 9/11 thing, it is far more believable that the official 9/11 conspiracy story is untrue than the idea that by transforming the LP into a conservative organization, LP candidates will start magically winning elections. That is a theory that is truly out on the fringes of reality.

  21. Aaron Starr

    @21

    I have to wonder if it’s fair to Wayne Root to suggest he is going down a neocon path or to label him with such a pejorative term.

    Neoconservatives support using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries.

    Those who read Root’s book, Conscience of a Libertarian, will find this simply doesn’t describe what Root advocates. He clearly writes that the US should not engage in nation building and advocates dramatically cutting foreign aid, military bases and military spending all over the world.

  22. Jill Pyeatt

    Mr. Starr, perhaps you’re right that “neocon” is a little uncalled for. I’ve actually bought Wayne’s book, and it’s right at the top of the stack of the other 30 or 40 books I’d like to get to right away. I’ll get to it as soon as I finish “Meltdown” (very good, BTW, I would recommend it.)

    I’ve been very disturbed about Wayne from a conversation on David Nolan’s Facebook page from about 10 days ago. He totally disrespected David, and was interested in no dialog or conversation as to why he might not be the best choice for LP chair. He totally marginalized the radical and left side of our party; indeed, he said that 70- to 90- % of our future members are Republicans. I’m very concerned that the balance of our party will swing totally to the right if Wayne wins.

    Wayne even said he’s “good for the GOP”. We assumed it was a Freudian slip, but he said that, no, he doesn’t make slips.

    I keep trying to like the guy, I really do. I just believe he’s a Republican in Libertarian clothing.

  23. Jill Pyeatt

    Tom @ 22: Thanks for the link to Glenn Beck. I do NOT think he’s a Libertarian, and I think he’s harming our brand.

  24. Aaron Starr

    @ 22

    I’m not aware of any conservative organizations with views matching Wayne Root’s (i.e. advocating legalizing prostitution, ending the war on drugs, getting the state out of the licensing of marriage and bringing US troops home).

    If that’s the new definition of conservative, we can probably label most people posting here as conservative.

  25. Melty

    Any freedom oriented party should be calling for an independent investigation of the jumbo jet fiasco, simply because there’s been none.

  26. Aaron Starr

    @ 24

    I haven’t read the exchange between David and Wayne, but I can certainly understand why they are not on the best of terms.

    You might recall how David posted a scathing review of Wayne’s book on Amazon and then later admitted that he had actually never read the book.

  27. Jill Pyeatt

    And Tab @ 20: You’re wrong. Hundreds of scientists and engineers have gone on record that the official conspiracy theory couldn’t possibly have happened. Maybe it wasn’t Dubya and his cronies, but how will we know if we can’t ask questions?

    I would suggest: ae911truth.org (Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth). Over a thousand highly trained professionals, including someone Mr Starr knows well, have signed a demand for a new investigation.

  28. Melty

    “I just believe he(Root)’s a Republican in Libertarian clothing.”
    – me too

  29. Bruce Cohen

    So Davey Nolan was miffed by a FaceBook comment? How about when Mister Nolan gave Root a horrible Amazon book review before he read the book?

    Wayne’s alleged ‘dissing’ of David doesn’t even come close to the heights of disrespect (and other words starting with dis, such as ‘honest’) of a fake Book review.

    David has a burr in his saddle about Wayne Root and whatever his special little grudge is, it shows.

    I say we focus on the type of personality and skill set that the LP would be best served by as National Chair.

    Mister Nolan can keep marginalizing himself with this kind of childishness, or we can get back to the business at hand, which is talking about who will best grow the party.

    Period.

    Let’s try and live by the 11th Commandment.
    I won’t talk smack about David if he doesn’t do it to me. And I’m sure Mister Root feels the same way, but I don’t speak for him.

  30. Melty

    John Jay Myers posts here . . . anybody got hardball questions for the man?

  31. Aaron Starr

    @ 24

    By the way, when did I ever become “Mr. Starr?” You and I have been friends for 20 years. Can you believe it’s been that long?

    As far as where future members may come from, I’ll take them from where ever we can get them. I only care that they advocate a dramatic reduction in the size and scope of government.

    When I first introduced you to the Libertarian Party 20 years ago, it didn’t matter to me that you came from the left. I would add a thousand Jill’s to the party tomorrow if I could.

  32. Chuck Moulton

    I’m an equal opportunity critic: This debate put my evaluation of Hancock for Chair a notch down.

    Although I like Hancock’s approach of decentralism (getting out of the way, highlighting the best activists, and letting the free market of ideas work), I think having the LP emphasize the 9/11 Truth issue would be a disaster. An absolute disaster.

    My view on 9/11 is that there may be legitimate questions about whether flight 93 went down on its own or was shot down to avoid further crashes and whether building 7 collapsed on its own or was a controlled demolition after the other neighboring buildings fell to the attacks. I don’t know the answers to those questions and the evidence is not clearcut. I don’t take the 9/11 commission report as the gospel.

    But the idea that the government planned and executed the 9/11 hijackings is crazy — bat-fucking-crazy.

    Even the legitimate inquiries into flight 93 or building 7 are not terribly important to me and strike me as terrible issues to focus on for candidates or the LP. It casts us as conspiracy nuts making it harder to sell our other ideas that enjoy much wider support.

    I still think Hinkle is the best way to go.

    The best way for Root or Hancock or Phillies or Myers to get my vote for Chair is to serve a term on the LNC before running. I hope whoever loses will seek an At-Large seat to setup for a future run in 2012 rather than giving up on the LNC or only running for the top post year after year after year.

  33. Galileo

    9/11 was an inside job. If you have not figured out that WTC 7 did not fall down by itself, please seek help.

  34. John Jay Myers

    Let us be realistic, Wayne is far from screaming Libertarian principles at these tea parties, he is very divisive and has said as recently as last Saturday that our focus needs to be on Christian women.
    To me that is all I need to hear. Wayne doesn’t get the idea that politics and religion don’t match. If you have to have religion in government, you want too much government.

    Of course God is in the title of his book.

    I had this discussion today with a local Libertarian preacher, and he agreed. We need (America) to stop dividing this country. This party needs to stand on the ideas of less government, and welcome anyone from any direction that believes that.
    80% of America dislikes our government… that is our target market, why do we start by dividing them?

    Most important to me, and what I believe should be our number 1 issue. Is this foreign policy, DOD nightmare that will bankrupt this country. Yet Wayne ignores it to talk about the Republican talking point…… “Obama”. Good night, he needs to read the budget and get a handle on what is bankrupting this country.

    With or without Obama, if you we just continued George Bush’s spending this country would be equally in debt by 2020.

    I have said repeatedly if Wayne wants to drive people to the Libertarian Party instead of to the GOP, he needs to drop the word “Obama” from his vocabulary and replace it with “Our Government”. That is the real enemey here.

    If it wasn’t then the rest of us would probably be Republicans too.

  35. Tom Blanton

    Mr Starr declares:

    I’m not aware of any conservative organizations with views matching Wayne Root’s

    Perhaps not, but 99% of the people who hear Root’s mindless Obama-bashing rhetoric on shows like Savage Nation and at Sarah Palin Tea Party events will not read his book. They will think he is just another right-winger.

    They will hear him talk about being a Reagan libertarian (nonsense) or talk about Glenn Beck being a libertarian (more nonsense). He attracts pro-war right-wingers like Bruce Olsen, who is seeking the LP nomination to run for Governor of Arizona as he gushes over the GOP Governor.

    It was not so long ago that Root himself generated massive amounts of hardcore neocon rhetoric on his own website, for example:

    Islamic extremists hate us and will continue to try to kill Americans and our children until we defeat them. To Islamic extremists we aren’t humans or Jews or Christians or Americans. To them, we’re all infidels. The penalty for disagreement is death. The penalty for not converting to Islam is death. The penalty for writing books (ask moderate Muslim Salman Rushdie) or even cartoons that question Islam or Mohammed is death. Not a lot of choice there. Whether we “interfere” or not in their affairs is meaningless.

    http://www.millionairerepublican.com/blog/index.php?m=07&y=07&entry=entry070723-081824

    Root has also said:

    I believe it will take a third party coalition of Conservatives and free market, limited government Libertarians to take back America.

    It is no secret that Root targets conservatives. It is his strategy. It should not come as any surprise that he will attract conservatives into the LP. If he is as successful at recruiting people into the LP as his supporters claim, it is not a reach to conclude that the LP could be transformed into a conservative organization.

    This, in fact, may be Root’s game plan. If it is, he probably wouldn’t want to reveal it. I don’t think he is particularly honest. Most politicians aren’t. Most super-salesmen aren’t. Most infomercial pitch artists aren’t.

    Regardless of what his motivations and intentions are, when right-wingers like Bruce Olsen pop up as LP candidates claiming Root attracted them to the LP, the results of Root’s pandering to the right is apparent.

  36. Root Won't Challenge Neocons on Fox News

    Aaron Starr: “I have to wonder if it’s fair to Wayne Root to suggest he is going down a neocon path or to label him with such a pejorative term.”

    Yes, it’s fair.

    Aaron Starr: “Neoconservatives support using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries.

    Those who read Root’s book…”

    Root does not oppose neoconservative foreign policies loudly and repeatedly on major national media. Instead, his supporters must point to a few obscure passages buried in Root’s book.

    Root’s views on economic policy are clear, because he loudly and repeatedly hammers away at those views.

    Root knows how to get media attention for an issue, so if he buries an issue, it’s intentional.

    Furthermore, despite some passages buried in his book, Root has made pro-neocon statements (calling for an Afghan surge in late 2008).

    If Root doesn’t want to be seen as a neocon, he knows how to dispel that image.

    Root knows how to go on national media, and loudly and repeatedly, for months on end, hammer away at at issue.

    But Root won’t loudly and publicly, on Fox News and right wing radio, hammer away against foreign aid and foreign wars.

    Why not?

  37. Nicholas Sarwark

    The best way for Root or Hancock or Phillies or Myers to get my vote for Chair is to serve a term on the LNC before running.

    I’m sure they’ll get right on that in the next three weeks.

    It sounds like you’re leaning Hinkle, but I still don’t understand why. His debate performance in Austin was less than spectacular and I still don’t have any sense for what would be different on the LNC if he was Chair. Are you supporting him because he’s the status quo candidate?

    I haven’t made my mind up for Chair yet, but I sure as hell am not voting for anyone who intends to keep doing what we’ve been doing.

  38. Aaron Starr

    John @ 35

    You haven’t read his book.

    His chapter on “God and Government” is about how the government and religion should be separate and how intertwining the two is very dangerous to those who have religious beliefs.

  39. Andy

    “But the idea that the government planned and executed the 9/11 hijackings is crazy — bat-fucking-crazy.”

    Oh yeah, governments always tell the truth and would never do anything like that. Communist terrorist really burned down the Riechstag. The Vietnamese really attacked that ship in the Gulf of Tonkin. The government told the truth about Waco.

    I’m astounded at how naive some “Libertarians” are.

  40. Tom Blanton

    But Root won’t loudly and publicly, on Fox News and right wing radio, hammer away against foreign aid and foreign wars.

    Why not?

    Because if he did, they wouldn’t invite him back and that’s not how to sell books.

  41. Aaron Starr

    @ 37

    But Root won’t loudly and publicly, on Fox News and right wing radio, hammer away against foreign aid and foreign wars.

    Why not?

    That’s easy. He couldn’t possibly be effective that way.

    Here’s how it works. Wayne Root makes a pitch to a radio or television show’s producers to cover a topic of interest to their audience.

    They agree and he gets to be a guest on the air. If he reneges on his agreement and deviates from the topic he won’t be invited back.

    Wayne Root understands how to take a conversation as far as the host and audience will let him. People change slowly and they certainly won’t change their ideas unless they are willing to listen.

    In a book, it’s far easier to have a more in-depth conversation, so he’s able to push the envelope further there.

  42. Andy

    “Root later responded: ‘You talk about the face of the LP and what I’m going to do when I get to Washington — it isn’t going to make us the party that believes in 9/11 Truth. Can you imagine what would happen to the LP the next day if Ernie’s elected chairman, and the radical idea that the government and George Bush asked those planes to go into the World Trade Center and kill 3,000 Americans? Are we out of our minds? Is that what you want the LP to be about?'”

    This would actually be one of the best things that the Libertarian Party could do considering the fact that the 9/11 Truth Movement is now many times larger than the Libertarian Party. 9/11 Truthers should be ripe picking for the Libertarian Party since they are already skeptical of government and are anti-war and pro-civil liberties. If every 9/11 Truther voted Libertarian the Libertarian Party would recieve more votes than it ever has in history.

    Anyone who can’t see the 9/11 Truth Movement as an opportunity to rapidly expand the Libertarian Party and would rather run away from the issue in an attempt to appease mind-numbed boot licking cowards who believe everything that the government tells them (as in people who are less likely to become Libertarians) should not hold any position in the Libertarian Party.

  43. Chuck Moulton

    Chuck Moulton wrote (@34):

    The best way for Root or Hancock or Phillies or Myers to get my vote for Chair is to serve a term on the LNC before running.

    Nicholas Sarwark wrote (@38):

    I’m sure they’ll get right on that in the next three weeks.

    I’m talking 2012.

    My desire for LNC Chair candidates to have experience serving on the LNC is not only about knowing the internal LNC issues and headquarters issues. It’s also about showing some humility.

    Before I was Chair of the Libertarian Party of Pennsylania, I stuffed a lot of mailings myself, collected a lot of petition signatures for LP candidates, and served on the board in many capacities (county rep, election committee chair, secretary, etc.). Our current LNC Chair Bill Redpath was an LNC member for years and LNC Treasurer twice, has personally collected thousands of petition signatures for candidates, and was involved with the Virginia LP in many capacities. Past LNC Chair Dr. Jim Lark personally collects many petition signatures, staffs lots of LP booths with the WSPQ, and has served in the Virginia LP in many capacities.

    I just respect a leader a lot more when he’s been a follower before and knows what it’s like to do the grunt work. Chairing a meeting you have more empathy for the board members trying to perfect and pass a motion or trying to convey a point in the discussion when you’ve been in their shoes before.

    Nicholas Sarwark wrote (@38):

    It sounds like you’re leaning Hinkle, but I still don’t understand why. His debate performance in Austin was less than spectacular and I still don’t have any sense for what would be different on the LNC if he was Chair. Are you supporting him because he’s the status quo candidate?

    I haven’t made my mind up for Chair yet, but I sure as hell am not voting for anyone who intends to keep doing what we’ve been doing.

    The status quo on the LNC is divisive fighting. Hinkle ia not a divisive guy — unlike several other Chair candidates. He won’t piss off huge important demographics.

    He has a record of stable management and party growth at the state level. He knows the national nuts & bolts well from serving on the LNC. He listens much more than he talks — which is a key characteristic I look for in any leader… it exhibits an openness to better ideas rather than an “I know best” cult of personality. In a larger sense I know he’s here for the long haul and will put his all into moving the LP forward (he’ll work with everyone, he won’t take his ball and go home, and he has earned my respect as a Libertarian activist).

    I’m not seeking a media guy for chair. Thus debate performance is relatively unimportant to me. I’ve spoken with most of the Chair candidates extensively and repeatedly one on one (except for Myers), so I already have a broad and detailed view of what all the candidates are all about. Debates and IPR interviews just fill in small details for me rather than swinging my whole opinion.

    Hinkle’s goals are here (and I agree with them):
    http://mark4chair.com/goals/proposed-goals-for-the-lnc-2010-2012/4213

  44. Aaron Starr

    I’m probably one of the few people posting here who has actually gotten Libertarians elected to office and I take this endeavor quite seriously.

    Ultimately, you have to look at what strategy is going to enable us to earn the plurality needed to obtain and hold elected office so that we can implement Libertarian policies.

    There are simply not enough wacky people in the country to build a coalition sufficient in size to become a plurality.

    And openly associating with conspiracy theorists who chant “9/11 was an inside job” will not restore freedom to our country.

    It will only create a ceiling for our level of support and cause fewer people to seriously consider our ideas for how to improve people’s lives by increasing the net amount of liberty.

  45. Jill Pyeatt

    Thanks, Andy. My point is that we shouldn’t stay away from the 911 Truth issue because it is becoming a force that WILL be reckoned with, sooner or later.

    Out of respoect for a mentor of mine in the party, I kept my 9/11 beliefs quiet when I ran for office in 2008. I find it increasingly difficult to do so, though, because our Iraq and Afghanistan wars are closely tied to the events of that day, and the abominal Patriot Act is also a direct result. Since anti-war is the focus of my activities, I simply won’t keep quiet about the subject any longer. As far as 9/11 Truthers being “nutcases”, who cares? It’s ignorant, uninformed people who don’t know anything about the topic saying it.

    As the new chair of Region 63 (which is the Pasadena/Glendale area of CA), I organized an event last month where an engineer came out from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and gave a presentation of WTC Tower 7 and its baffling collapse. We had more guests that night than we have in months, maybe years in Region 63, and many of them were new to the group and the Libertarian party. We made $80, as well! The subject is no longer “verboten”.

    Aaron, I thank you for bringing me to the party, and we’ve both evolved quite a bit in the past 20 years. I remain committed to the party, and even though I now identify with the Radicals, I welcome Republicans if they understand our message of true Liberty.

  46. George Phillies

    Those of you watching the KS debate on you tube will note that the Indiana debate is now also available on Youtube. That’s a 4-candidate (Root, James Oaksun as my surrogate; Myers, and Hancock).

    I was at the New York convention that day, but New Path had people representing us at the Florida, Georgia, Indiana, and Washington convention, and friends in Vermont.

  47. AntiW.A.R.dotcom

    Root fits his initials. I left the LP after Barr was nominated and will not return given W.A.R. is even slightly taken seriously about being a libertarian.

    Bob Barr. W.A.R. … Who’s next? Glenn Beck? Sarah Palin? Lets ask Hannity and Bill-O to join the LP why we are at it.

    And to the comment that said

    ” Here’s how it works. Wayne Root makes a pitch to a radio or television show’s producers to cover a topic of interest to their audience.

    They agree and he gets to be a guest on the air. If he reneges on his agreement and deviates from the topic he won’t be invited back.”

    Ron Paul brings empire into almost every media appearance he makes and W.A.R. can’t hold a candle to Dr. Paul as far as notoriety or consistency. (Even with Paul’s few deviations from the Non-Aggression-Principle.)

    Sounds like W.A.R. supporters are war supporters and they also care more about a party or an election than a message.

    Even if you consider it consistent to claim to support the N.A.P. and have minarchist views (which is very debatable) W.A.R. is nowhere close to being any sort of libertarian.

    By entertaining the possibility of a W.A.R.-LP you are proving the stereotype as libertarians being Republican-lite. And by doing that the Libertarians are giving the far more numerous libertarians a bad name.

  48. Robert Capozzi

    jp: My point is that we shouldn’t stay away from the 911 Truth issue because it is becoming a force that WILL be reckoned with, sooner or later….As far as 9/11 Truthers being “nutcases”, who cares?

    me: My impression is that 9/11 Truth is waning. When the Truther theory congealed in about 03, there were polls I recall that had very large percentages of the general population believing the Truthers. I do believe those numbers have fallen, and the Truthers are now a small hardcore.

    But let’s say the Truthers are correct? How does it help us in the here and now? Cheney’s out of office, after all.

    How does positioning the LP as “nutcases” help the cause of liberty? Yes, we can attract more fringe-oriented folks, but that’s a tiny percentage of the population.

    Why not appeal to what Angela Keaton refers to as the “Normals”? That’s where the numbers are, and politics is a game of numbers.

  49. Kevin Barrett

    According to a recent poll, 26% of Americans agree with Ahmadinejad that 9/11 was “a big fabrication” and another 12% aren’t sure. http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-poll-about-1-in-3-americans-thinks.html

    Another poll showed that only 16% believe the government is telling the truth about 9/11. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469

    If Root really wants to draw Libertarian votes from the 16% of true believers in the government, rather than the 84% of skeptics, he’s following a very strange political strategy.

    I met Root at the 2008 convention and have a bad feeling about him (and Barr for that matter). They struck me as operatives, possibly of the same crime network McCain fronts for — read the work of Jeff Gates and you’ll see where I’m going with this.

    –Kevin Barrett, 2008 USHR Candidate, WI-3

  50. Alexander S. Peak

    Starr

    Mr. Starr writes, “As far as where future members may come from, I’ll take them from where ever we can get them. I only care that they advocate a dramatic reduction in the size and scope of government.”

    This is the correct attitude to have.

    Andy

    In response to someone saying that the 9/11 conspiracy theory is crazy, Andy writes, “Oh yeah, governments always tell the truth and would never do anything like that.”

    This is a strawman argument. It’s possible for the government’s official story to be filled with lies and for the 9/11 Truthers to still be wrong.

    The fact that governments do lie is not proof within itself that the Truthers are correct.

    A Comment on 9/11 Truthing

    My position on this debate has been, and remains, that although it’s not technically impossible, I find it highly improbable that the U.S. federal government, with all of its inefficiencies, was able to accomplish a huge, secretive operation on the scale that the Truthers believe it has.

    It’s not that I don’t believe there are government officials evil enough to do it. I’m sure there are.

    Rather, it’s a simple matter of the improbability that you can get hundreds of Americans together, get them to play their part in the dastardly act, and then expect that not one of them will come forward to explain to the world that it was set up after all. If it truly were set up, wouldn’t we expect a number of government employees to come forward and say so?

    This doesn’t mean that I believe the U.S. federal government’s reports are 100% accurate. But I do believe that the most reasonable explanation I’ve heard for 9/11 is the one Ron Paul and others give: blowback.

    Hancock and Root

    HANCOCK

    Hancock seems to think the LP should take a stance on 9/11 Truthing. I do not.

    9/11 Truth has absolutely nothing to do with ideology. One can be 100% libertarian in ideology and still think that 9/11 was caused by al-Qaeda. The LP should, as a party, only take stances on ideological issues.

    Further, I suspect most libertarians do not want to be associated with 9/11 Truthers. While I do not believe we should ever even think about kicking 9/11 Truthers out of the party, there’s no reason why the LP needs to embrace an issue on which there is no objectively libertarian position.

    Let’s compare the situation to intellectual property. I am completely against intellectual property. But, I know that one can be a good libertarian and hold what I consider to be the wrong view on IP. Thus, I’m not going around trying to get a platform plank about IP added to our platform.

    In conclusion, I cannot endorse Hancock, for I fear he would marginalise the party by focusing on an issue that has nothing to do with our ideology.

    ROOT

    Root seems to focus on trying to bring Republicans into the party. He also appears to want to fire Wes Benedict.

    I believe Wes Benedict is doing an excellent job, from what I’ve seen. If Root wants my support, one thing he would have to do is promise to not fire Wes Benedict.

    I also believe it is a huge mistake, and extremely bad marketing, to focus 70-90% on disgruntled Republicans. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, Harry Browne was successful in getting me, a former “liberal,” into this movement by coupling his positions in order to appeal to both sides.

    In conclusion, I cannot endorse Root, for I fear he would marginalise the party by focusing disproportionately on the American right, and because I do not want to see Wes Benedict fired.

    Hinkle, Phillies, and Myers

    My current inclination is to say that I hope one of these three men get the position.

    Sincerely,
    Alex Peak

  51. Robert Capozzi

    kb, this is the concluding statement of the polling company you cite:

    “A majority of Americans are on the same side when it comes to 9/11, stating that the event was not a fabrication, that the conclusions of the 9/11 commission are correct, and that the conspiracy theories are not credible. While one-in-four Americans believe 9/11 was a fabrication designed to facilitate the campaign against terrorism, the proportion of respondents who openly reject the conclusions of the 9/11 commission—and who find the conspiracy theories as credible—is far lower.”

    Do I personally think it’s possible that Bush/Cheney withheld damning information regarding 9/11? Sure. It’s slightly more germane for the LP in 2010 than the suspicions surrounding the sinking of the Lusitania.

    We Ls already know that government is dysfunctional. We need to convince others of that case. Hitching ourselves to a conspiracy theory strikes me as contra-indicated, since the theory is unproven, complex, and increasingly ancient history.

    EVEN IF the LP DID become the political arm of the Truthers and we DID convince most people that it was an inside job, so what? At this point, it’s very recognized that the Iraq War was a mistake, yet there’s not a consensus that the US exit next month. Far from it, actually, near as I can tell. Don’t get me wrong, I personally was against the war and am for getting out quickly.

  52. Need attitude adjustment

    I not sure what is going to happen to Wes, but I will tell you this, I don’t think he is doing that good of a job, I called and tried to talk to him on several occasion as a LP supporter. He needs an attitude adjustment. He doesn’t have the time for people who contribute and also he is very insulting to people he has never met when there are questions being asked, He has shown he doesn’t care to be bothered and he hangs up on you. He has done that to several people I know as well as myself. He is not friendly and not inviting. I can do a better job in treating people who call the LP Office. I don’t consider Wes to be professional at PERIOD. First hand you treat the public who may be interested in the LP with respect and make them feel welcomed. Not like crap. One aspect of why people shun the LP party.
    VERY POOR PEOPLE SKILLS. This is a problematic thing through several offices, including Orange County LP office as well. When building a business, how are you treated at Olive Garden. You use the same tactic to the public, compared to business that treat you like garbage.

  53. Thomas L. Knapp

    “It’s possible for the government’s official story to be filled with lies and for the 9/11 Truthers to still be wrong.”

    That depends on what you mean by “9/11 Truthers.”

    Broadly defined, a “9/11 Truther” is anyone who is skeptical of the “official story” and wants a full, public investigation of the 9/11 attacks.

    A small sub-set of “9/11 Truthers” assert — on the basis of, as yet, no evidence whatsoever — that the US government was behind the attacks.

    That small sub-set of “Troofers” uses the larger group of “Truthers” as camouflage. They throw out their “the US government did it” claim, and then when someone points out that in nearly nine years they have yet to present so much as an iota of evidence for that claim, they pretend to just be part of the larger group of people who don’t claim to know exactly what happened but would like to find out.

  54. Brian Holtz

    In a few weeks we’ll learn whether the following is an allegory about Hancock’s campaign for Chair, or about LP campaigns under Hancock’s Chair tenure.

  55. Actions Speak Louder Than Words

    Mr. Starr writes, “As far as where future members may come from, I’ll take them from where ever we can get them.”

    I often hear this talking point from Reform types.

    But while they say they want a Big Tent, their hero, Root, drives away left-leaning American voters.

    Starr claims that Root has to “talk right” to get on Fox News?

    Okay. But then why doesn’t Root “talk left” (i.e., denounce our upcoming war with Iran) in his few left media appearances?

    Root “talks right” whether he’s in front of a right audience or a left audience.

  56. Again I state my case

    While the norm people start at the bottom and work their way up to the top to become the LP Chair as some people are quoting. The experience of the LP party yet again still has not excelled in comparision to what Wayne Root did in a short time. No someone like Wayne need to be at the Helm. He has already bypass the small stuff and with his expertise can be readily used by being at the National Chair. Not wasted by being at the bottom. How many of you even with your experience did what Wayne did. NONE. NONE OF YOU. NADA.
    You don’t have to like Wayne. But look at the bigger picture. We are basically out of time to waste anymore. Things are happening to fast in the country, and I hope, I really hope we do have the next election. At the rate Obama is going. It is very serious what he is doing. I commend Wayne for doing what he is doing. I couldn’t do it. It takes a strong stomach to do this.

  57. Mik Robertson

    @35 “Wayne doesn’t get the idea that politics and religion don’t match. If you have to have religion in government, you want too much government.”

    I think the nation’s founders expected people to bring their own ideas and ethics, including their religion, with them into government. I have never heard Wayne advocate that specific religious doctrines should be law, as some CP and GOP candidates and party officials have done.

    Just because people hold different sets of principles, it does not necessarily mean that they are not libertarian principles. Whenever someone talks about a standard for libertarianism, I think that is cause for concern.

    Being able to consider yourself libertarian is one thing. Being able to consider yourself libertarian and some one else not even though they want to move public policy in a direction that increases individual liberty and minimizes aggression is quite another.

  58. John Jay Myers

    Maybe his book can come and speak for him at the debates, because it apparently is a lot better at articulating his views than he is.

    I completely disagree with our candidate “toning down” the message when they are on these shows, the whole reason Ron Paul grew is because people went “that’s it…. that is what I believe I just never knew it”. Wayne doesn’t do that.

    I have been going to the state conventions and I am shocked at the state of this party. It seems like we have folks trying to be chiefs, who don’t care if there are no indians.

    My North Texas area brings in more money than all but two states. Our Texas budget is 1/3 the size of nationals, we are running 200 candidates, and 17 of them are from my county, we had a boot camp for them at my house and made them all web sites.

    I will have a BBQ at my house for our county, that will bring in more people than any state convention I have been to.

    If I became chair I would still be our precinct chair, because who else would do it? That being said, most people involved with this party don’t know what a precinct chair is.

    The most important thing we can do is grass roots training of POLITICS. It is not enough to do activism, and it wouldn’t matter if we had the most charismatic person in the world speaking down from the pulpit of Libertopia, if we don’t have an infrastructure in place, people get turned off when they find out that there is no local affiliate near them.

    I will gladly take someone who has never served on the LNC, but I would rather they know something about what is going on in states where we are growing and things are working.

    We need to get County Chairs in every county of the United States, we need to get the website set up that actually acts a County Chairs hand book and gets these people rolling setting up grass roots across America.
    How did I get $8000 in two weeks to run for City Council? From those people that come out to our meet ups. How do we get 20 people walking knocking on doors on Saturdays for candidates? Those same groups.

    When I go to these conventions and meet these great candidates I will say “so how is your county chair?” They will say “my what?” Talk about my heart sinking.

    We have 14 people on our county executive committee who have pledged to do what we can to get our candidates elected. We need that across America. We need to stop trying to be the “top down” party, and realize that is not how this is going to go down.

    We have no infrastructure to speak of, and what’s so funny is those at the top….don’t realize it.
    Ernie will crush the party, we can not be the 9/11 party, I think Alex Peak said it best.
    But we also can’t be the “you still vote?” (which he said to me 10 months ago). He doesn’t even believe we need to exist as a party, I think that about sums it up. It’s almost amazing that we have to have this conversation.

    We also can not be the male Sarah Palin party. Where we don’t talk about true Libertarian Principles instead we create sound bites and try to shove as many of them into a media interview as possible …SHAM WOW!

    All that being said, we need members of this party who do get attention that spread the message well, our “Ron Paul”‘s if you will. We have people who are associated with Libertarianism, but not with the party itself.

    We need someone that can speak to our principles and not be divisive, but be charismatic enough to draw some people in.

    Wayne says he makes 5000 media appearances a year, how has that panned out for us?
    How much money has that brought in?
    Last I checked we were going down in both members and donations.

    He says the key is putting him on youtube and emailing it to all our friends. Does Wayne not own a video camera? If that is the KEY then start filming. Oh wait, only if he is chair .

  59. Aaron Starr

    @ 57

    I have been involved with the Libertarian Party for 30 years.

    I volunteered walking precincts for my first Libertarian campaign when I was 16. I have been a registered Libertarian voter since I was 18. I’m one of the few individuals in our party who did not come from another political party.

    I reject the idea that bringing in “right-leaning” American voters into our party drives away “left-leaning” American voters.

    I also reject the idea that bringing in “left-leaning” American voters into our party drives away “right-leaning” American voters.

    This nonsense thinking simply must end.

    I am not going to discriminate against someone coming into the movement because of his or her political origins. There’s only one question any of us should care about when bringing in a new member: Do you want to decrease the size of government or not?

    Different people have different issues they want to emphasize. It might be eliminating non-defensive war, reducing taxes or legalizing the ownership of ferrets in California.

    I don’t care.

    I’m not going to reject people because of where they want to concentrate their efforts on reducing the size and scope of government.

  60. Brian Holtz

    Hancock believes the government can and has purged selected information about 9/11 from the Internet.

    Here’s Hancock on his 2004-05-07 radio show, talking about how recollections of air traffic controllers were recorded soon after 9/11, and how the tapes were nefariously destroyed by government agents:

    “Then you start doing some searches, and I can’t find anything. You see on airlinesafety.com, you go to these obscure things that deal with air traffic, and they’ll have a reference to a report that kinda sorta looked at it, but they don’t really get into the meat of the story. It’s like it’s been purged from the Internet, and I’m wondering can they do that? Well, of course they do it. If they can, will they? Of course they will.”

    At http://www.911myths.com/index.php/FAA_destroyed_tapes we learn:

    According to union officials representing air traffic controllers, it is almost unheard of to tape-record an air traffic controller’s account of an accident. The normal procedure is for controllers to provide written statements after reviewing radar and other data. A union official representing the New York controllers agreed to the tape recording on Sept. 11 because the union wanted to help law enforcement officials, but only on the condition that the tape was to be a “temporary” document, a union official said.

    There’s no evidence that the destruction of the tape resulting in useful information being lost. The controllers provided written statements, and the FAA said they believed the tape “would not have added in any significant way to the information contained in what has already been provided to investigators and members of the 9/11 commission”. Further, many of the 9/11 controllers have spoken about the events of the day elsewhere, in newspaper articles, TV documentaries like NBCs “America Remembers” and more. It’s hard to imagine a detail in the tape that would be important enough to contradict some part of what we know already, yet simultaneously so trivial that the controllers would forget to mention it.

  61. John Jay Myers

    @61
    You are right it would be ridiculous if that is what we are saying.
    But there is a huge difference between people coming from the right or the left, and the leader of the party “targeting” the right only.
    On the issues that matter to me, I do not hear Wayne talk about them, (though Ron Paul talks about ending the war even if he is asked about financial reform) from Waynes media appearances I know he “hates Obama” to the degree that he will blame Obama for his kids not eating their vegetables.

    He is going to sink us with the left with statements like “we have to target Christian Women” or saying “we have to target the right, because that is where the money is”.

    He considers the left the devil, when most on the left are just people who didn’t want any more George Bush, they didn’t want the wars, or the patriot act, or gitmo or a nanny state, though… they still got it.
    It’s time to give them an option, without alienating them with this “OBAMA made it rain on my picnic” “Obama caused my friends business in Vegas to close 2 months after his election” (actually that last one is real).

  62. Tom Blanton

    The idea that because someone thinks the official 9/11 story is a lie makes them a “Truther” that believes Bush planned and executed the 9/11 attacks is analogous to the idea that because libertarians believe in gun rights and dislike government, they are dangerous extremists plotting a violent revolution. It reminds me of Giuliani’s response to Ron Paul’s assertion that blowback was the reason for 9/11 or the position of the Southern Poverty Law Center on the Oath Keepers.

    The events of 9/11 have unleashed a shit storm of unprecedented proportion. The size, scope and power of the government has increased at a rate not seen in most of our lifetimes, justified solely on 9/11. The facts of what lead up to 9/11 and why remain shrouded in a cloak of mystery because of government obfuscation. Even if you believe the cover-up exists merely to minimize government incompetence and blowback caused by bad policies, the truth should be known.

    To say there is no libertarian principle involved in this issue is to say that government accountability should not be addressed.

    Root says:

    Whether we “interfere” or not in their affairs is meaningless.

    This indicates that he must subscribe to the neocon bullshit that “they” hate us because of our freedom. He apparently dismisses the well-established motives of those accused of the 9/11 events.

    There is no question that the topic of 9/11 is controversial among certain segments of the population, including the pro-war right and statists on the both the left and right. This doesn’t mean the issue of accountability should be off the table and there can be no accountability until all the facts are known.

  63. JT

    I for one am impressed with the responses of Myers on this thread. I agree with virtually everything he has said.

    @63, he’s absolutely right that it’s good to bring into the LP people from the right as well as the left. But targeting ONLY the right based on the specious belief that most people on the right are our natural allies while most people on the left are our natural enemies is wrong and bad for the LP. Yet it’s clear that this has been Root’s very approach.

    Here’s how I see it: Root isn’t different from many other people who come into the LP after being hardcore Republican or Democratic loyalists for many years. Though they may have libertarian-leaning views on most issues, they just can’t seem to psychologically extricate themselves from the notion that the right is “better” than the left (or vice versa). Their sympathies clearly lie with one side, which is revealed in what they say. For a rank-and-file LP member or even a local LP candidate, this isn’t so bad. For someone vying for national chair or presidential nominee, it is.

  64. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT,

    I think you’re right.

    Of course, that’s not especially a problem if the office of chair is treated as an administrative “nuts and bolts” post instead of as a pulpit from which the occupant personally markets the party.

    The chairs of the “major parties” do give speeches and appear on talk shows to some degree, but they aren’t their parties’ primary spokespersons.

    A party’s natural spokespersons are its candidates for office and its elected public officials.

  65. LibertarianJoe

    One point needs to be made. Why would Wayne Allyn Root continue to be in the Libertarian Party and go speak at state LP conventions with 25 people in the room (presumably spending his own money to do so, since the state parties couldn’t afford it) if he’d have better odds in the Republican Party? Could it be that he actually supports the cause?

    It seems to me that he’s putting a lot more effort into the LP than any other political organization, despite the odds against the organization succeeding in the end. Let’s be honest. Marginal movements inspire marginal people. That said, the LP needs to support the candidate that is least marginal and would be best at moving the party out of the margins, if it really hopes to overcome the odds against it.

    Like it or not, Wayne Allyn Root is the only one of the candidates running for LNC Chair that can do what needs to be done to grow the LP outside of the margins it’s been in since it’s founding.

  66. John Jay Myers

    I don’t know why he would. I wonder it myself.

    That being said, lots of people get press but does that mean they need to be the leader of the Libertarian Party?

    Wayne has had every opportunity as the only person in public that gets on TV and speaks for the party.
    But he doesn’t attract any new members or donations, when does this kick in?

    We need to grow, but we need to do it for the right reasons, we can not/should not try to grow just for the sake of growing. I don’t want to find myself surrounded with people that tell me they are libertarians but we need to change our stance on the war, gay marriage, patriot act, gitmo etc…. thanks, but no.

    This is where Ron Paul gets it right, we have to teach the principles and attract people through our message, we just have to get it out there.
    We have to stop electing people like Root and Barr because we are desperate for someone who can get in the media, it’s just silly. If we attract too many more neo-cons into the party we might as well hang up our hats.

    If Wayne is spreading a non-libertarian message it’s not going to be beneficial to us.
    If he is spreading a watered down version of the message it’s not going to cause people to leave the GOP and we have already talked about how it appeals to the left.

    So let’s be honest… Wayne gets on TV because he says he was the Libertarian Parties VP nominee, and agrees to not upset the powers that be at Fox.
    If we had the right chair, who would go out and try to get media, with the ability to say “I am the national chair” maybe their media appearances would result in new members and donations.

    Wayne’s 5000 media appearances a year since 2008 have not.
    Let’s be honest.

    A lot of people in this party are being won over by Wayne because he is promising them rainbows and unicorns.

    It will be dissapointing if people do not see thru this. We have to stand for principle first, then grow, or there is no point to any of this.

  67. lp pragmatist

    So who is running for At-Large with LNC and does it matter? Any interviews set for those people? Who are the top 5 candidates ? St.Louis is only one month away.
    Only two I have any confidence in are Pat Dixon and Rebecca Buris. Anyone else I hear that Michael Colley is retiring.
    What gives with at large

  68. lp pragmatist

    John, we have standing for principle for 39 years. How has that worked for us?
    Any one ever think of an adjustment to the plan ?

  69. Electing Neocons is No Victory

    LPP: “we have standing for principle for 39 years. How has that worked for us? Any one ever think of an adjustment to the plan ?”

    Better the LP should lose on principle, then “win” by electing statists.

  70. JT

    Tom: “Of course, that’s not especially a problem if the office of chair is treated as an administrative “nuts and bolts” post instead of as a pulpit from which the occupant personally markets the party.”

    That’s true, Tom. Of course, as you state, the national chairs of the other parties do get on national TV and radio sometimes. Even a handful of such opportunities give a national chair more total media exposure than almost anyone else in the LP.

    Joe: “Why would Wayne Allyn Root continue to be in the Libertarian Party and go speak at state LP conventions with 25 people in the room (presumably spending his own money to do so, since the state parties couldn’t afford it) if he’d have better odds in the Republican Party?”

    Maybe it’s because he’d be a blip on the screen in the Republican Party. I’m not saying Root doesn’t have libertarian-leaning views on many issues; he does. But he wouldn’t even be considered as a national chair, presidential nominee, or vice presidential nominee as a Republican who has never held government or party office before, and he knows it. As a Libertarian he gets to be a big fish in a small pond. The issue is whether his targeted right-wing-only outreach is a good approach for a national leader of the LP. I think not.

  71. Alexander S. Peak

    Mr. Starr writes,

    “I reject the idea that bringing in ‘right-leaning’ American voters into our party drives away ‘left-leaning’ American voters.

    “I also reject the idea that bringing in ‘left-leaning’ American voters into our party drives away ‘right-leaning’ American voters.

    “This nonsense thinking simply must end.”

    Since I do not know to whom this is addressed, I’d like to make a response.

    I, for one, agree with you here, Mr. Starr. Bringing Mr. Barr or Mr. Gravel into the party isn’t going to drive liberals and conservatives away respectively.

    Nevertheless, I would still feel uncomfortable with having either man, with his current positions, represent our party as a presidential candidate, not because I have some crazy notion that former non-libertarians cannot become libertarians, but because their policy statements have failed to convince me that they yet are libertarians.

    I happily accept both men into the party. And the more former-Democrats and former-Republicans we attract, the better!

    But, this is not the matter I wish to stress in my comments about Mr. Root. I am actually extremely impressed with Mr. Root’s ideological development. He appears to have adopted a fairly-consistent libertarian position on most issues, including foreign policy.

    My issue with Root (other than the Wes Benedict thing) is marketing. Which is perhaps a bit ironic, considering that Root fancies himself as one who is good at marketing.

    To clarify, drawing disgruntled Republicans into the movement is not what I think is going to drive disgruntled Democrats away. Rather, the problem is that, when one focuses only on attracting disgruntled Republicans, disgruntled Democrats who might otherwise look our way fail to even realise that we might have something to offer them.

    Therefore, LP leadership and candidates must, if we are to be effective, market ourselves to “liberals” and conservatives. Harry Browne was magnificant at this.

    My proposal is extremely simple: When running for office or representing the LP in the media, always ask yourself, What would Harry Browne do? What would Harry Browne say?

    Does this seem like a reasonable assessment?

    Sincerely yours,
    Alex Peak

  72. Michael H. Wilson

    The rate of turnover in the LP is significant and it might be wise to try and understand why so many have left before we try to bring new people in.

    Did they graduate and move on to other things or did they get pissed off and leave feeling they wasted some time?

  73. Robert Capozzi

    ap: When running for office or representing the LP in the media, always ask yourself, What would Harry Browne do? What would Harry Browne say? Does this seem like a reasonable assessment?

    me: I can think of less useful questions to ask, but those don’t strike me as all that instructive, no.

    I appreciate that Browne did his best, but I did not resonate with his simplistic homilies. Here’s a great ex: “Whatever we believe abortion is, we know one thing: government doesn’t work, and it is as incapable of eliminating abortions as it is of eliminating poverty or drugs.”

    This approach is suboptimal on a lot of levels. He baldly states “government doesn’t work,” and yet I cannot think of a sustainable stateless society in history, even before the advent of modern transportation, communications and weapons.

    Very, very few have the expectation of NO abortions, NO drugs and NO poverty, so Browne here and often engaged in catastrophizing, all-or-nothing-ism, which most adults I know do not.

    We can of course offer more liberty and more peace as solutions to social dysfunction, and I certainly do. We can and should IMO point out that government generally makes things worse, often in unintended ways, and therefore call for less of it.

    On the positive side, I generally found Browne pithy and non-threatening in his language usage, which were lessons Ls should learn.

  74. Robert Capozzi

    mhw, excellent idea! We could conduct an extensive exit survey. If conducted in a systematic dispassionate way, it could be an interesting datapoint.

  75. Michael H. Wilson

    Hey Robert you agree on something.

    Imagine if this thing isn’t turned around we can hold future conventions in Branson, Missouri. That way no one will have to travel very far. Most of the membership will already be there watching their favorite stars from years gone bye.

  76. Alexander S. Peak

    Mr. Capozzi,

    (1) When Browne says government doesn’t work, he’s not calling for anarchy.

    See this:

    http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/GovernmentDoesn'tWork.htm

    (2) There are examples of sustainable stateless societies. For example, ancient Ireland was effectively an anarchy for about a millennium.

    See J. R. Peden’s “Stateless Societies: Ancient Ireland” (pp. 3-4, 8):

    http://mises.org/journals/lf/1971/1971_04.pdf

    I agree that Browne’s responses were not always perfect. But, he had a knack for taking radical positions (e.g., ending the war on drugs) and explaining why this is the only pragmatic solution to the problems caused by the drug war.

    Best,
    Alex Peak

  77. Eric Dondero

    Question for you 9/11 Truthers here.

    Why do you completely ignore the Oklahoma City Bombing issue and the connection to Middle Eastern Terrorists?

    Have you read the Jayna Davis book?

    Why is it that you all are so keen to bash “evil” Republicans and blame Bush for every problem of the world, but when it comes to Democrats – Clinton, Obama, you all are so willing to give them a pass?

    The problem with the Libertarian Party is that it has tilted far, far leftward these past few years.

    When I served on the Libertarian National Committee back in 1985/86, (Jim Turney’s tenure as Chair), we had a far more balanced Party. Yes, we had the nutty lefty Berglandistas. But we also had Mike Dunn and the Libertarian Defense Caucus, and also Goldwaterites like Karl Hess who despised Communism.

    Return to balance!

  78. Eric Dondero

    How is it that Wayne Root is a “NeoCon”?

    Root supports:

    Repeal of Seat Belt laws
    Legalizing Marijuana
    Pro-Choice on Abortion
    Gambling (EVERYWHERE)
    Legalized Prostitution

    Someone please tell me the last time you heard NeoCons like George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, and Pat Robertson support Pot, Prostitution, and Driving 90 miles an hour with no Seat Belts on Nevada highways?

    NeoCons are prudish bastards who have no fun, and hate Sex. Root is the complete polar opposite of that. Hell, he joined the Libertarian Party in late 2007 over the ban on Internet Gaming.

    Name one friggin’ NeoCon who supports Gambling. Just one???

  79. Robert Capozzi

    ap, I have no particular problem with Browne having been an anarchist or not, esp. since I’m a theoretical asymptotic anarchist. I was making a narrower point: That Browne is not my role model, nor would I suggest him as one for others. He was too prone to exaggeration, IMO.

    I’m utterly unconvinved by the Rothbardian/Rockwellian arguments that there have been sustainable stateless societies. I view tribes and clans are states. But even if they were so, I find pre-1945 history non-instructive for us here in the nuclear age. It’s my contention that Hiroshima changed everything.

  80. Eric Dondero

    To Alexander Peak, there is no “ideologically consistent” view from libertarians on foreign policy. Some leftwing libertarians are non-interventionists. Those of us on the rightside of the libertarian movement are passionately in favor of fighting back against the onslaught of Islamo-Fascism, precisely because we see Islamo-Fascists as threatening our civil liberties:

    They are against Legalized Pot
    They hate Women, and want to force them to wear ugly Black Burqas from head-to-toe
    They want to cut off the genitals of our Gay friends, and hang them publicly in the streets
    They want to stone to death Prostitutes and “loose women”

    Leftwing Libertarians who do not see the threat of Islamo-Fascism are dangerously close to being pacifists.

    So, in the future, speak for yourself. DO NOT MAKE THE ASSUMPTION, that all libertarians are “non-interventionist” or isolationist. Some of us actually are Patriotic, and support the Military.

    Eric Dondero, USN Veteran
    1981-85
    USS Kittyhawk CV-63, USS Luce DDG-38

  81. Tom Blanton

    Some of the most recent documents regarding the OKC bombing obtained through FOIA indicate CIA involvement in the matter. The documents are so heavily redacted that no information is discernible from them.

    I suppose the folks that imagine Islamofascists are poised to take over America would have us believe that the CIA is engaged in a cover-up of al Qaida/Saddam involvement in the OKC bombing.

    SEE: http://www.hstoday.us/images/stories/1900_001.pdf

    What prize do I get if I can name just one neocon who is in favor of gambling?

    I think Bill Bennett would qualify. He was a member of the Project for a New American Century – neocon. He lost $8 million gambling – in favor of gambling, a lot.

    As for Karl Hess, he may have hated communism, as most libertarians do, but he was anti-war – and he certainly wasn’t a conservative:

    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.

    Ain’t that the truth, Karl.

  82. Eric Dondero

    Blanton, I knew Karl Hess. I partied with Karl Hess. I participated in big bonfires at his West Virginia home. I even passed out on Karl Hess’s couch a time or two.

    Karl was about as rabid an anti-Commie as you could ever imagine. He was very retrospective about how to best fight Communism. But trust me, he was “an extremist in the defense of Liberty,” very much in the Goldwater mode for his entire life, up til the time of his death, and most certainly including his tenure in the Libertarian Party.

  83. Eric Dondero

    Damned, you got me Blanton.

    You are correct. I stand corrected.

    Bill Bennett is a NeoCon of the highest order, and Yes, he does have a Gambling addiction.

    Touche’.

    But what about prostitution and the other social issues?

    Please, please, please name me one single Pro-Choice NeoCon?

    Wayne Root is Pro-Choice, and actually very much hardcore Pro-Choice. He was a fanatic on the Terry Schiavo issue, which led to him leaving the GOP.

  84. Andrew

    Love not W.A.R.
    http://www.ernesthancock.org

    If you want a REAL Libertarian VOTE for Ernie Hancock!!

    For all you people that put Ernie down for questioning 9/11 , I thought Libertarian Philosophy taught us that freedom of different individual speech and thoughts and ideas on different subjects is what made this LP party unique….not this HIVE mentality and GROUP think. GOD forbid someone have a different view on History based on FACTS they Research for themselves. Perhaps you “libertarians” like your cookie cutter Government brainwashing Educations. Next you will say END the FED talk and Austrian Economics is to Radical for the LP Party.
    with LOV3, Andrew

    My campaign for LNC Chair is a campaign to reinvigorate the heart and soul of the Libertarian Party. I recognize that there are many issues that illuminate what it truly means to be a libertarian. But of all the issues one could choose there is one issue that stands out above the rest. One issue that the Libertarian Party, to its shame, has neglected for the past seven years.
    Naturally, I will make my views on many issues well-known by the time we gather in St. Louis this Memorial Day weekend. I believe that libertarians will like what I have to say on everything from the abominable PATRIOT Act to tragedy of drug prohibition. However, the overriding theme of my campaign will be opposition to the American empire and the wars it has inevitably spawned.

    Wars exact a huge price in blood and treasure; both to the victor as well as the vanquished. What they don’t do is produce anything of value beyond huge profits for arms makers. On the contrary, war destroys people, property, even whole societies. American society is in no way immune to this destruction either. Our current economic meltdown can be traced directly to the huge cost of waging wars without end around the globe. These costs will ultimately be borne by the American people through lost wealth, lost liberty, destruction of the dollar, and massive unemployment; as well as the loved ones lost or grievously injured when called upon to wage war.
    The U.S. already has two war parties. It doesn’t need a third one.
    Peace,
    Ernie

    Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock Morning April 27th 2010
    interviews guest
    Howard Wooldridge from LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) Drugs and Immigration Wars:

    http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/001/Media/2010-04-27-ernie-a.mp3
    and
    Butler Shaffer is a law professor and author… Chaos = more freedom than the Gov’t abuses us now.
    http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/001/Media/2010-04-27-ernie-b.mp3

  85. David F. Nolan

    Just to clear up some facts about Wayne’s endless diatribe on my Facebook page, he posted 27 messages in 24 hours. Most of what he posted had little to do with me; it was an exchange between WAR and John Jay Myers. At one point, WAR did in fact write that his numerous media appearances were good for the GOP. Maybe he meant to say LP, but he didn’t. He wrote GOP. Draw your own conclusions.

    As for his rambling, turgid book, I read quite a bit of it online before posting my review on Amazon.com. If I did things correctly, you can read that review by clicking on my name at the top of this posting. And, perhaps ironically, it was Wayne’s absurd, self-serving statement that his book is “the best book you’ll ever read” that led to the 27-message exchange on Facebook.

    Why is this relevant? Because, in my opinion, the biggest problem with Wayne is not his issue stands. It’s his huge, bloated, monstrous ego which makes him look like a clown – a buffoon. If he had an ounce of humility, he would have simply ignored my observation that his “best book ever” comment was a bit over-the-top, or admitted that perhaps he had overstated the case just a little. But no, Wayne cannot tolerate even the slightest criticism. Even a tiny, humorous remark will set him off on a 27-message rant – during which he says he’s “good for [the] GOP”

    It is this self-importance and lack of judgment that makes WAR the wrong choice to lead the Libertarian Party. And until he is willing to admit, in public, that there a lot of people who know more than he does about libertarian principles, their presentation, and application than he does, he’s not yet ready to lead.

  86. Tom Blanton

    How many neocons are pro-choice? That’s easy. My research indicates that 100% are pro-choice in cases involving their daughters or mistresses.

    How many neocons favor prostitution? Again, the answer is 100%. However, 22% objected to splitting their fees with pimps.

    The truth is that neocons don’t believe in anything except projecting power. They live to see others die. They’ll say they believe in anything if it will help them to cobble together a coalition of pro-war groups. After all, that is their job. Neocon think tanks and neocon publications are bought and paid for by those with a vested interest in perpetual war. But then you already knew that, Dondero.

  87. Bill Wood

    High Jack, anyone following the stories of the Democrat Leadership wanting to issue National ID cards with finger prints and bio data stored. ACLU is upset other other liberal groups are happy about this.

  88. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Wayne Root is Pro-Choice, and actually very much hardcore Pro-Choice. He was a fanatic on the Terry Schiavo issue, which led to him leaving the GOP.”

    Usually “pro-choice” is used to indicate support for legal abortion, not support for court-ordered murders to further insurance fraud schemes.

  89. Tom Blanton

    Wow, it turns out I do agree with one Root on one aspect of his strategy – the part about him being good for the GOP.

    I think I’ll pass on reading his book, though. I’ve read enough of his rambling, turgid articles to know that I wouldn’t enjoy a rambling, turgid book by him.

  90. John Jay Myers

    @Eric, first of all thank you for your service.

    Secondly, if you find yourself saying I don’t believe in a non-interventionist foreign policy because I support the troops….you may be neo-con.
    You may be a neo-con if you say that islamo fascism is taking over the world.
    You may be a neocon if you believe that it is patriotic to stop foreign countries for doing bad things, but only in foreign countries where there is oil.
    You may be a neo-con if you believe that terrorists hate us because we are free.
    You may be a neo-con if you believe terrorists hate us because of our religion.
    You may be a neocon if you believe the United States needs to continue to be the worlds police.
    You may be a neocon if you think this country going bankrupt is worth our intervention into these countries for 8 years.
    You may be a neocon if you want us to all be slaves to this enormous debt that we are being shouldered with.
    You may be a neocon if you don’t publicly state that without Barack Obama (at all) just following Bush’s budget, we will be just as broke in 2020 as with Obama.
    You may be a neo-con if you don’t know that 7,000,000 muslims lived in the United States prior to 9/11 and don’t note that virtually none of them tried to attack us.
    For even 1% of them to have attacked us that would have been 70,000 attacks. Do you remember those?

    There is not a pro-war side to the Libertarian Party. It is an oxy-moron.
    Finally my dad was a Captain in the Army, my brother Christian (Army) my brother Shawn (air force) I have an employee that served on the Cole, and one who served in operation Iraqi freedom and to the man, they support me and our non-interventionist stance.

    Do you know who got more donations from the military than any of the other 8 republicans running for president….. Ron Paul.
    As a matter of fact his biggest contributor was the military, where as the other Republicans biggest contributor was big oil and other corporations.
    So they can say they support the military, but the military supports Ron Paul and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

    If I am named national chair, it will be the big issue. The one issue that sets us apart from the Dems and Reps.

    I am guessing I am not going to get your vote.
    ; )
    But I have to be honest.
    In my opinion, when you truly understand the Libertarian party, there is no left or right, there is simply freedom.

  91. Tom Blanton

    At one point, WAR did in fact write that his numerous media appearances were good for the GOP. Maybe he meant to say LP, but he didn’t. He wrote GOP.

    Perhaps this is the ibogaine talking.

  92. LP pragmatist

    Andrew I have a question for you. So Hancock gets elected national chair of the LP. ANd then the Media starts to ask him questions about 911 Truth stuff. OK, that will probably be the ONLy question they ask. All good for him to answer. But, what about the REST OF US poor slobs that are then put thru the same media guantlet? What about the candidates. That is all the media will brand us with. OK, what do we do in the trenches then? Spend all of our time answering questions about 911, when many don’t believe it?
    If that happens, the LP is finished, and another 3rd party will pick up the pieces.

  93. Tom Blanton

    OK, what do we do in the trenches then? Spend all of our time answering questions about 911, when many don’t believe it?

    How can you not believe it? It was on TV for months. Surely you saw the towers come down, all three of them. It really did happen.

  94. LP pragmatist

    Hey Tom. YES it happened. I just don’t want to spend time talking about some whacko idea that the US Government conspired to kill thousands of innocent people. Jezzzz. Let’s get some people elected to office for goodness sakes.

  95. Gary Chartier

    Bruce, when someone alleges—correctly or incorrectly—that Root is a neoconservative, I don’t think the focus is on his stance on social issues. I suspect the socio-cultural positions of many neoconservatives are relatively liberal, since many have Trotskyite roots. The “neoconservative” allegation focuses narrowly, I suspect, on Root’s foreign policy positions. I’m not sure there’s any great value to continuing a debate focused on the question whether the “neoconservative” label is rightly applied to him, but it seems as if any such debate ought to focus on foreign and military policy rather than social issues.

  96. Reminder

    I don’t get why you’re asking about Oklahoma City, Eric. It seems to me like you’re changing the subject. In the first place, people who question the official story of 9/11 are all kinds of people: old, young, conservative, liberal, intellectual, not so intellectual. It’s a huge movement, and runs the gamut from people wondering if the Pennsylvania plane was really shot dow, to people convinced there’s a huge worldwide conspiracy. I’m sure some people can talk at length about the Ok City bombings. I don’t haappen to be one, because I wasn’t politically active at that time.

    Oklahoma City’s bombing has nothing to do with what we’re talking about here.

  97. LP pragmatist

    #99. That’s my point. It doesn’t matter now.
    The association with 911 truth stuff is all that the media will “hear”. And the beat goes on.

    Again, what will the LP candidates do to handle this situation?

  98. Jill Pyeatt

    Eric, what’s the deal with you saying 9/11 Truthers blame everything on Bush, but give Obama a free pass? Are you kidding? No one said that here. People who question the government’s fairy tale are all kinds of people. There may be some who blame everything on Bush, but many (like me) are politically aware and hate Obama as well as Bush. You’re making huge assumptions which aren’t based on evidence.

    For the record, I suggested that Wayne was following the neocon path, which really wasn’t saying he is one. I backed down on that a few posts later.

    The words I’ll stand on are that I think he’s a Republican in Libertarian clothing.

  99. Tom Blanton

    Maybe my people can touch bases with Wayne’s people and something can be worked out.

    I just hope Jill can negotiate a settlement with Wayne directly.

    Until these neocon path matters are resolved, it will difficult for the process to move forward.

  100. Jill Pyeatt

    No, I haven’t. I was pretty disgusted with him on David Nolan’s Facebook thread last week. I did not find that he was discussing anything with anyone, really. All Wayne did was brag and tell us he is Libertarians’ salvation, all while dissing radicals and left Libertarians. I find his personality utterly unpalatable, and his dicusion skills nil

    Don’t orry, though–I won’t be able to go to the Convention to vote against him..

  101. tab

    “And Tab @ 20: You’re wrong. Hundreds of scientists and engineers have gone on record that the official conspiracy theory couldn’t possibly have happened. Maybe it wasn’t Dubya and his cronies, but how will we know if we can’t ask questions?

    I would suggest: ae911truth.org (Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth). Over a thousand highly trained professionals, including someone Mr Starr knows well, have signed a demand for a new investigation.”

    No thanks, I don’t need any more recommendations for sites that bend and shape the truth to their agenda and throw out all facts to the contrary. Never mind the fact they can’t answer the most basic of questions.

    However, as I said, I am not opposed to a new investigation.

  102. Jill Pyeatt

    Tab, you’re wrong about that site not answering the most basic of questions. I’ll be happy to find someone from that group to answer your questions with scientific evidence that doesn’t need to be bent or twisted.

    You’ll find that the facts are right there in plain sight.

  103. Brian

    It is OBVIOUS in the youtube video that Wayne ROOt is simply affraid of using the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

    His only argument with 9/11 truth seems to be that your career is toast if you talk about it.

    Imagine almost 10 years after 9/11 that the subject of 9/11 is so censored across the board
    that candidates are scared to talk about it.

    It also says something that almost 10 years after 9/11 there are so many people still interested in speaking about 9/11 “truth”:
    Architects and Engineers
    Firefighters
    Whistleblowers
    Government Staff
    Veterans
    Eyewitness accounts

    Amazingly enough the scare tactics are the only argument against 9/11 “truth.”

    As if our air defense being down for an hour and a half is normal during hijacks or possible hijack scenarios like 9/11.

    As if World Trade Center 7 doesn’t look everything like a controlled demolition.

    As if anything could hit the Pentagon after an hour and 20 minutes of hijacked planes.

    As if Bush’s family does not have a corrupt history, dating back to Prescott Bush – George H.W. Bush’s father.

    Thanks for speaking some freedom and truth Ernest Hancock!

  104. Thomas L. Knapp

    Jill,

    I visited the URL you mention. I was there for about five seconds before I discovered the first … well, I’ll let you decide whether it’s a liar or just horrendously bad math:

    “WTC7 in Freefall – No Longer Controversial”

    The collapse of WTC7 took more than three hours (first public mention that the building was buckling, about 2pm; building entirely collapsed, a little after 5pm).

    Unless the building was thousands of miles tall, that’s nowhere near “freefall.”

    The “WTC 7 collapsed at the speed of gravity” claim may be the single stupidest “9/11 Truth” claim ever made. Since the site you refer to opens with it, I’m going to assume that the other “evidence” it presents is even weaker.

  105. Brian

    Eric Dondero:
    I am very much interested in OKC bombing events, as it is clear some sort of cover -up happened.

    9/11 was OKC times 30 or so. It is the new OKC, Waco, and so on.

    Cover-ups and corruption.

  106. Brian

    Thomas Knapp:
    If you werent so rash you would discover that the OFFICIAL NIST investigation admited freefall speed on Building 7.

    Keep up with BOTH stories please.

  107. Thomas L. Knapp

    Brian,

    If the NIST “admitted” something that is clearly untrue, that’s on NIST.

    I don’t even want to do the math to figure out how tall a building would have to be to take more than three hours to collapse at “freefall speed.”

  108. Brian

    Knapp:

    Who are you kidding?

    A buiding “collapse” is when it starts to move down or over.

    All of this is seen clearly on any video of Building 7.

    Please don’t try to fool yourself or others.

    The collapse of Building 7 happens in 5.4 seconds according to NISTs final report. 2.25 of those were in total freefall, that means no structural resistance.

    If you want to rely on News reports from that day then listen to Dan Rather speak about WTC 7 falling as if it is a controlled deomlition.

    Or any of the other broadcasters that said similar statements about the buildings irregular collapse on 9/11.

  109. Jill Pyeatt

    No, Tom, building 7 fell in seconds. There was no evidence prior that it was falling, only fire. There was supicious hearsay: The building owner saying they would “pull’ it: then, surprisingly, the BCC announced it was falling 20 minutes before it did.

    Why would the BBC think the building was going to fall, when no steel frame structure anywhere in the world had ever collapsed due to fire alone?

    Please go back to the site. They have video that shows the building really does fall to the ground within seconds. It did NOT take hours to fall.

  110. Brian

    It is clearly evident in any video from 9/11 that Building 7 “collapse” is a matter of seconds.

    You want to say that news reports are the truth?

    How about Dan Rather speaking about how you have to get at “the under infrastructre” to bring down buildings like that. And how it was similar to the Las Vegas demolitions.

    Regardless, NIST says the building fell in 5.4 seconds and 2.25 of it was in total freefall. That means no structural support. This was in their Final Draft of Building 7, which ultimately is a cover -up.

  111. Jim Davidson

    I enjoyed Ernie’s presentation. I disliked the ego-ridden Root. David Nolan @89 expresses my views fairly well. For the most part, I am going with Tom Knapp’s strategy of supporting Phillies. I think Ernie wins just by being in this race.

  112. Thomas L. Knapp

    “It is clearly evident in any video from 9/11 that Building 7 “collapse” is a matter of seconds.”

    Only if only seven seconds elapsed between the first public notice that the building was buckling (2pm) and the time the collapse completed (5:xxpm).

    My math isn’t great, but the result I get for that problem is 3 hours x minutes, not 7 seconds.

  113. Andy

    “Brian // May 3, 2010 at 12:52 am

    Eric Dondero:
    I am very much interested in OKC bombing events, as it is clear some sort of cover -up happened.”

    The OKC bombing was a government sponsored false flag terror operation as well.

  114. Andy

    I can’t believe that there are so many “Libertarians” out there who are so attached to government that they can’t fathom the notion that governments lie and are not above killing their “own” people as a propaganda tool to increase their power and further their agenda. No wonder this party doesn’t get anywhere.

  115. Alexander S. Peak

    I’ll try to respond in greater detail later, but for now, let me simply say that neoconservatism is primarily a foreign policy orientation. It’s rather similar to the neoliberal foreign policy position, except with a greater emphasis on direct military intervention as a legitimate tactic for the promotion of democracy. It is not—I repeat—not primarily an orientation on social issues.

    More needs to be said on the nature of war itself, but I have not now the time.

    Alex

  116. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I can’t believe that there are so many ‘Libertarians’ out there who are so attached to government that they can’t fathom the notion that governments lie and are not above killing their ‘own’ people”

    And you’re right not to believe that.

    Where you’re wrong is in assuming that failure to believe a theory for which no evidence has been presented — zero, zip, zilch, nada, not an ort, not an iota, not a crumb, not a single verifiable fact to support it — in nine fucking years of trying, constitutes believing that government is above lying and killing.

  117. Brian

    Thomas Knapp:
    zero, zip, zilch, nada, not an ort, not an iota, not a crumb, not a single verifiable fact to support it

    What rock do live under?

  118. John Jay Myers

    When did Thomas Knapp say he was voting for Phillies? I am still working on Mr. Knapp.

    Just out of curiousity of those who consider themselves on the 9/11 inside job side of this debate, do you ever go to the sites that are out there that show things like what Mr. Knapp said?

    I saw a video of a different angle of building 7 with major parts falling off it, and it took like 16 seconds from then for it to fall. Or the video of firemen standing outside of it, saying they just were pulled out of it, because they felt it was going to come down, because it had been made structurally unsound….. in your opinion were these firemen in on it?

    If you are looking for two sides to the story there are sites out there that debunk inside job theory.

    The very first time I saw loose change, I thought this is creepy but seems …. loosely based on thoughts derived from a kids basement. Which is how and why I found those debunking sites.

    I would encourage you to check into some of them, just so you can have a more rounded view.

    debunking911DOTCOM

  119. Brian

    Thomas Knapp:
    “constitutes believing that government is above lying and killing.”

    Where were you when the Governemnt said there was no warnings?

    Oh thats right, then came the news about the “osama determined to strike within U.S.” PDF. Condoliza Rice revealed that to the public during the 9/11 Commission hearings.

    Or how about Col. Anothony Shafer, or Sibel Edmonds, or any of the hundred + firefighters that had their testimony recorded as having seen and heard explosions.

    Or the Molten Steel that was found for months after the attack in the pile of rubble.

    Or the fact that our air defense was down for an hour and a half.

    Please Mr. Knapp:
    Turn your FOX T.V. off.

    Go back under your rock.

  120. Nicholas Sarwark

    When did Thomas Knapp say he was voting for Phillies? I am still working on Mr. Knapp.

    A week or two ago, in one of the comment threads. I think he listed his second and third preferences too, but I don’t remember what they were.

  121. Brian

    Please provide any logical explanation of how 47 stories can disappear in 5.4 seconds?

    There is only one.

    You guys may want to try to find your “own collapse times.” But we are not allowed to have our own facts , only opinons.

    The fact that you watched an old loose change means nothing.

    NO ONE has tried to DEBUNK the FACT that explosives, traces of thermite, were found in the dust of 9/11.

    STOP MAKING EXC– USES.

  122. Thomas L. Knapp

    John,

    You write:

    “When did Thomas Knapp say he was voting for Phillies?”

    I’ve said that many times.

    I supported Phillies in 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006. He didn’t run in 2008. I support him this year.

    My second choice (Hancock) might conceivably change. My first choice won’t.

    Regarding WTC 7:

    The southwest corner began to bulge at about 2pm. The collapse completed at 5:21pm. Claiming that that is “the speed of gravity” is just silly.

    Could the collapse have been artificially accelerated/assisted? Sure.

    Is it possible that the collapse which began at 2pm would have been only partial rather than complete without artificial acceleration/assistance? Sure.

    Larry Silverstein’s “pull it” remark certainly raises questions.

    But even if the collapse was artificially accelerated, assisted or augmented, that doesn’t constitute evidence that 9/11 was an “inside job” by the US government.

    A much more plausible theory is that Silverstein concluded he’d get a better insurance settlement for, and/or that it would be easier to rebuild, a “totaled” building than one that was badly damaged, partly burned and structurally suspect.

    He wouldn’t be the first building owner to decide that a building was worth more to him destroyed than preserved.

    I have no problem whatsoever with skepticism of the “official account,” and have a number of questions about/problems with that account myself. I’m on record in support of a thorough independent investigation.

    But on the specific question of whether or not 9/11 was an “inside job” by the government, “false flag” operation, etc., I’ve been BEGGING supporters of that hypothesis to provide ANY evidence AT ALL for their claim for nearly nine years now, and they’ve yet to do so. So, I provisionally reject that claim due to the total absence of evidence for it.

  123. Robert Capozzi

    tk: ….I’ve been BEGGING supporters of that hypothesis to provide ANY evidence AT ALL for their claim for nearly nine years now, and they’ve yet to do so.

    me: My experience of conspiracy theorists is that they TEND to throw out a few (often convoluted) datapoints and then build a circumstantial case based on the (often scant) data. The more polished theorists have lots and lots of these datapoints, and they connect the dots as they will.

    Maybe Cheney and some sinister worldwide conspiracy was behind it all, or maybe it was the Martians. And maybe tinfoil hats actually work.

    None are my operative premise as I go about my day, but it does take all kinds.

  124. Chris

    Wayne Root is a self promoter who fears the big issues. Hancock getsi tt-from being honest about 9/11 to rightly calling the tea party “controlled opposition”. Hancock gets it, Root is just another tool with no spine. AE911truth.org-NIST has a handful of hacks, AE911truth has over 1000 members and growing. You people believe the government for once huh? How naive.

  125. Chris

    If Root becomes the chair the LP continues to be Republican light and no real alternative to anything. If Hancock wins I become a member. At this point only gullible little kids and neocon “war on terror” adherents(dupes) think 9/11 happened how the corporate media and liar government says it did. Grow up you naive little kids.

  126. Chris

    Not “the government” Thomas, even if some within it played a role. Heres 2 names for you to research-take your time-“Dov Zakheim” and “Dominic Suter”. Get to reading, since it seems basic high school physics isn’t your thing.

  127. Thomas L. Knapp

    Chris,

    What I’ve read about Suter/Urban Moving Systems indicates some likelihood that the Israeli government and/or Mossad had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks — foreknowledge which they may not have shared with their US intelligence counterparts.

    If that’s true, I regard it as rather pedestrian. I expect Israel to act in its own interests, and to place those interests above US interests if the two conflict.

    Zakheim’s an interesting guy, but asserting a possible motive and making strained attempts to conjure ability/opportunity out of thin air don’t constitute “evidence.”

  128. Robert Capozzi

    Chris, call me when you realize there is no spoon, and then we can talk about “naivete.”

  129. Ben

    In the fifties, sixties, seventies, eighties and the nineties, if you spoke up and said you believed that the Catholic church was shuffling pervert priest around, you were labeled a kook.

    Jumping on Libertarians who question 911 by reflexively calling them kooks, follows a steadfast tradition of the weak to be as cowardly as possible in the face of corruption.

    Libertarians are not skirt clutchers or boot lickers. Grow a pair.

  130. Robert Capozzi

    ben, by your logic, members of the Flat Earth Society have a “pair,” and non-members don’t?

    there may well be people who “reflexively” believe it’s kooky to believe the Truther narrative, but I detect no such reflexiveness in this crowd. Most simply don’t buy the Truther narrative. I don’t, surely. I WOULD be VERY surprised if the “official” story is the whole story, too, and I’m certainly no Cheney fan, but it’s WAY too much of a leap for this hombre to buy the Truther narrative.

  131. Ben

    Robert, you might not be looking the other way, but you are in denial. Catholics couldn’t wrap their minds around the idea that their was a conspiracy to shuffle priests around either. They just couldn’t go there, like you, it was too much of a leap.

    Also, and I’m not singling you out, but this notion of discounting that there is something fishy about 911 by pointing to Bush or Cheney as incompetent bunglers who couldn’t possibly plan and execute such a thing, lacks common sense. It is like assuming that a photograph of Bush being driven around in a Cadillac would have to be fake because there was no way that Bush was smart enough to build such a complex car.

  132. Chris

    Simpletons, Bush was “out of the loop” a la Reagan and Iran Contra. And seriously, how simplistic, most 9/11 activists or “truthers” don’t even think “Bush did it”. Talk about a lack of common sense. Bush did not have to be involved at all for 9/11 to “succeed”, he only had to be enough of a coward to drag his feet on the investigation”, and he surely did as he and Cheney held hands behind closed doors with their testimony, and it was NOT under oath. Robert, most of you seem woefully uninformed on the subject of 9/11, just like most Republicans and Democrats are. More like them than you think. And Thomas, the old “Israel knew but just didn’t tell” card huh? How trusting of you. You trust NIST(again-a handful of hacks while you ignore the over 1000 INDEPENDENT architects and engineers from AE911truth-again-simple high school physics), you trust intel agencies, you trust the gov and medias accounts. How cute. Did you buy into the phony ass “Bin Laden” tapes as well? Do I even have to ask?

  133. Chris

    Rita Katz would NEVER lie, just like the 6 parent companies that own our media and the liar politicians would NEVER lie about 9/11 or the “war on terror”. Right Robert and Thomas? Wow. The gullibility is staggering, I expect it from garden variety partisan hacks who cling to the 2 major parties but you guys are supposed to be better informed than that. Guess not. Or you are just too intellectually cowardly to think that those “damn dirty muslims” you have been taught to fear didn’t act alone or at all. You do know what a “patsy” is right?

  134. paulie

    Just to clear up some facts about Wayne’s endless diatribe on my Facebook page, he posted 27 messages in 24 hours. Most of what he posted had little to do with me; it was an exchange between WAR and John Jay Myers. At one point, WAR did in fact write that his numerous media appearances were good for the GOP. Maybe he meant to say LP, but he didn’t. He wrote GOP. Draw your own conclusions.

    The text of this exchange may be interesting to our readers.

  135. paulie

    Blanton, I knew Karl Hess. I partied with Karl Hess. I participated in big bonfires at his West Virginia home.

    I tripped on Ayahuasca on his former property albeit after his death.

    Karl was about as rabid an anti-Commie as you could ever imagine.

    As am I.

    He was very retrospective about how to best fight Communism. But trust me, he was “an extremist in the defense of Liberty,” very much in the Goldwater mode for his entire life, up til the time of his death, and most certainly including his tenure in the Libertarian Party.

    He wrote publicly that Goldwater’s foreign policy views were not libertarian.

  136. Thomas L. Knapp

    Chris,

    I don’t know where you get the idea that I don’t think the media and politicians lie.

    I’ve made it quite clear that I discount and/or question significant elements of the “official version” of 9/11.

    It’s a huge leap from not believing the official version in toto to believing a particular set of alternative theories (the “government complicity/false flag” theories) for which zero evidence has emerged in nearly nine years.

    There are two questions the LP as a party needs to ask itself about “9/11 Truth” —

    1) What IS the truth?; and

    2) Is this an issue which lends itself to political use?

    My answers to those two questions are:

    1) We don’t know yet; and

    2) Not particularly.

  137. Brian

    Thomas Knapp needs:

    INSIDE KNOWLEDGE PROOF:

    (Though by ALL MEANS, what I write is not implying BUSH knew. But SOMEONES did.)

    If the country was under attack BY SURPRISE, and surprise alone:

    Bush would not have had a choice to stay as a sitting duck in a classroom in Florida that was a visit that had been scheduled for a week.

    Secret Service would have wisked him away, not allowing for another 10 + minutes of listening to 1st graders read.

    NOT ONLY THAT, Bush then holds a televised press conference announcing we are under attack, AT THE SCHOOL.

    This is more than a failure of protocol, that is treasonous. What if the President had been killed by a plane or bomb? The kids, the school?

    Add that to our AIR DEFENSE being DOWN for an HOUR AND A HALF.

    And that is enough for a court to convict somebody’s of many things.

  138. Chris

    I would just like to make it clear that I am not absolving Reagan or Bush. Ignorance or stupidity is no excuse, especially when you help the perps cover up their crimes after the fact.

  139. Chris

    You second question says it all about you Thomas. Keep playing by the medias rules, its gotten you and the Libertarian party soooooo far in the past. Note sarcasm please. Hancock gets it, Root,much like yourself is stuck.

  140. Brian

    Thomas Knapp asks:

    1) What IS the truth?; and

    2) Is this an issue which lends itself to political use?

    My answers to those two questions are:

    1) We don’t know yet; and

    2) Not particularly.
    ——————————————-

    Thomas surely you have not forgotten that we are almost a decade into occupation and war?

    Have you forgotten the Patriot Act, Military Commission Act, Habeus Corpus, Guantanamo, Increased Police Budget and fear mongering (rising police state).

    1) When did 9/11 NOT WORK for POLITICAL — USE?

    2) When will the Truth matter for you in politics?

  141. Jill Pyeatt

    Paulie @ 142: Yes, I agree that the exchange between John Jay Myers and WAR on David Nolan’s Facebook page would be of interest to the readers here.

  142. Thomas L. Knapp

    Chris and Brian,

    I’ll answer Brian’s questions first, since they include a version of Chris’s implicit question.

    “Thomas surely you have not forgotten that we are almost a decade into occupation and war?”

    No, I haven’t.

    “Have you forgotten the Patriot Act, Military Commission Act, Habeus Corpus, Guantanamo, Increased Police Budget and fear mongering (rising police state).”

    No, I haven’t.

    “1) When did 9/11 NOT WORK for POLITICAL — USE?”

    Remember Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign, by any chance? I didn’t think so. I barely remember it myself.

    “2) When will the Truth matter for you in politics?”

    Always. As a matter of fact, the available evidence suggests that it matters much more to me than it does to the two of you.

    I’d like to see a real investigation of 9/11.

    You apparently don’t care if you get one. As a matter of fact, you probably hope like hell you don’t get one, because that would crush the buzz you get from macho-flashing your evidenceless theories and treating everyone who doesn’t drink your proffered “truth” Kool-Aid like a fucking idiot.

    From a political standpoint, the FIRST priority is finding the truth — and the SECOND priority is figuring out which truths you can use to get you the votes to act on ALL the truths you’ve found, and to find new truths.

    There are a number of issues that are just as personally important to me as uncovering as much of the truth as possible about 9/11. Most of those issues, I don’t recommend that the party make a high priority, because I don’t think they’re that marketable at the moment.

    From a marketing standpoint, a party needs to be primarily about two or three issues at any given moment, and those issues need to be the two or three issues that Americans are demanding action on.

    That doesn’t mean that you sacrifice the truth, or the correct position, on anything. It just means that you use your face time with the public to discuss their concerns rather than to discuss your hobbyhorses.

  143. Limbineer

    Where do people that are simply not happy with the level of disclosure and public discourse on the subject of 9/11 go?

    How about Iran/Contra?

    The Bush cocaine connection?

    Whitewater?

    You get down to it and all great conspiracy is manifestation of the public mistrust of power. The 9/11 truth crowd is a phenom of the same cynicism of government that libertarians hold. I do not find merit in the argument I have heard from them so far but that does not make them pariah.

    Reaching out to them, educating, disestablishing their fear for reason …and maybe, for our own understandings, finding some truth, or widening some aperture in the secrecy veil of the aristocracy in the mean time… is smart politics.

    The 9/11 truthers may not be your thing, but I pale any time I hear someone talking about exclusion. I shake my head when, worse, I hear someone criticizing someone for their outreach efforts.

    Everytime I hear fringe and image hysteria it is really someone playing games with other people for their own gratification. If you are afraid of a “fringe” group, go recruit some of the supposedly more populous “normal” people. Presumably it should be easier and out-recruiting is far more moral than character assassination.

  144. Brian

    Thomas,
    I would rather have a constructive dialogue as well.

    You asked for prior knowledge. I gave it to you.
    (PDF entitled “Bin Laden Determined to strike within U.S.” with the TOWERS on the cover page)

    You asked for evidence of insider knowledge. I gave it to you. (Secret Service not getting Bush away from Florida school, air defense down)

    You keep saying zero evidence has emerged in 9 years. Yet you have not addressed any of the prior mentioned or the THERMITE paper detailing high grade incendiaries in the dust from Ground Zero.

    You are making your OWN stories up of when building #7 starts to “collapse”, ignoring simple video analysis and both official and non official accounts. Free fall has been established by scientists on both sides of the debate. This means no structural support in the points of most resistance (directly below as the building does NOT TIP OVER).

    You say that Giuliani’s Presidential run failed because he used 9/11. I, and many others, would say it ONLY GOT SO FAR because of 9/11.

    Giulianni was directly involved in the radio fiasco that help kill almost 400 firefighters on 9/11. The only reason someone like that could be considered for President is because the Country’s masses were still fooled from the media hyping 9/11 for war and because people like you didn’t speak up.

    The reason why Giulianni failed was because of RON PAUL.

    I respectfully disagree with you in so many ways.

    I hope you might address the evidence I have given you and why it is not good enough.

    I hope these MOST important issues become more marketable for you and many others soon. We are dying in the meantime.

  145. Thomas L. Knapp

    Brian,

    You write:

    “You asked for prior knowledge.”

    No I didn’t. At least not that I recall.

    “I gave it to you.
    (PDF entitled ‘Bin Laden Determined to strike within U.S.’ with the TOWERS on the cover page)”

    The theory I am addressing is the theory that the US government or elements thereof was behind or complicit in the attacks.

    The existence of a warning that al Qaeda wanted to attack targets inside the US and might use hijacked planes to do so is not evidence for that theory.

    “You asked for evidence of insider knowledge.”

    Once again, no, I don’t recall that I asked for evidence of any such thing. And even if I had, this:

    “I gave it to you. (Secret Service not getting Bush away from Florida school, air defense down)”

    Would not be evidence of it.

    If anything, the Secret Service waiting until the second plane hit to get Bush out of the school in Florida is evidence that they DIDN’T know what was going on, and that they assumed it was an accidental crash for the first x minutes.

    As far as the slow response time of air defense, particularly in the DC area, that’s one thing I’ve personally pointed out as a glaring problem with the “official” account:

    [A]nyone who tells you that various units at Andrews AFB can’t scramble armed aircraft on less than five minutes notice at any time of day or night, 365 days a year, is a) lying, or b) high.

    The piss-poor response from military air is a problem in the government account — but it’s not something that explains itself as a government plot, it’s something that itself requires explanation.

    “You keep saying zero evidence has emerged in 9 years. Yet you have not addressed any of the prior mentioned or the THERMITE paper detailing high grade incendiaries in the dust from Ground Zero.”

    The fact that I haven’t addressed something HERE doesn’t mean that I haven’t addressed it.

    As I wrote in the message linked above:

    One need merely assume that a) al Qaeda was following its standard tactic of setting off one bomb and then waiting for responders to arrive before setting off additional ones; and/or b) That the secondary devices actually came in WITH the responders disguised as ambulances, etc.

    “You are making your OWN stories up of when building #7 starts to ‘collapse’

    Nope. I’m citing first-hand firefighter accounts of when the buckling was noticed, when they were withdrawn and a collapse zone established, etc.

    “ignoring simple video analysis and both official and non official accounts.”

    “You say that Giuliani’s Presidential run failed because he used 9/11.”

    Nope. Read what I wrote instead of what you wish I’d written.

    “Giulianni was directly involved in the radio fiasco that help kill almost 400 firefighters on 9/11. … … The reason why Giulianni failed was because of RON PAUL.”

    Really … you don’t say?

  146. Chris

    9/11 is a hobby horse? Marketing? Again-playing by the media and political elites rules has gotten you nowhere. Just the way you speak shows you are stuck playing “the game” just like they want. And Thomas, again, you DO know what a patsy is right? “But al qaeder said they would attack the US-see, the dirty A-rabs DID do 9/11!”. Are you serious? More blind trust huh? You make yourself look like a fucking idiot, no kool-aid needed, you already drink the corporate press and governments variety plenty. Start with basic high school physics(“but 7 was “buckling”!). That line is hilarious, “buckling” or not it would not have fallen in the manner it did without “help”. And of course the towers were built to withstand a strike from a Boeing 727-the differences in weight between a 747 and 727 being negligible at best. Since you suck at basic high school physics, can you explain to me why you trust a handful of government paid hacks from NIST over AE911truths over 1100 INDEPENDENT members? And finally, yet again, not everything is so simplistic as you would like it to be and those of us who call bullshit on the official 9/11 story do not think that “the government” did it even if a few within that structure were involved. You’re an expert on 9/11 right? So you know all about the war games and false inserts right? Still more “coincidences” right? So trusting…..

    http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html

  147. Chris

    Oh, and that list is from years ago, many more “coincidences” have come to light since. See no evil right Thomas? Unless its from Pakistan/Afghanistan/Iran etc. right?

  148. Chris

    Just saw your site Knapp, and I can see you buy into much of the disinfo that surrounds the phony “war on terror”. I can now see why 9/11 truth bothers you. THe latest lie ytou bought into? The ginned up South Park versus Islam bullshit. Joseph Cohen is the guy who sent said “death threat” to Matt and Trey. He lived in the West Bank prior to coming to the US and was “once” a hardcore zionist who “converted” to Islam. Now he puts out tapes like this that can be used by the MSM to fear monger idiots and demonize muslims. You prove it works like a charm on the weak minded and gullible. Do your homework before piling on next time ok Thomas?

  149. Thomas L. Knapp

    Chris,

    You write:

    “those of us who call bullshit on the official 9/11 story do not think that ‘the government’ did it even if a few within that structure were involved.”

    In that case, your position on the issue is the same as mine — so what’s your problem?

    My problem is not with those who “call bullshit on the official 9/11 story.” I’M ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO’S BEEN DOING _THAT_ FOR NINE YEARS.

    Rather, my problem is with those who insist, despite the absence as yet of any evidence whatsoever for the proposition, that 9/11 was a US government “false flag” operation.

    If anyone ever offers evidence to support that proposition, I’ll give that evidence every consideration. I’m under no illusion that the US government is an honest or benign entity.

    Your allegation that I give “the corporate media” and government too much credence — and that I “see no evil … unless its from Pakistan/Afghanistan/Iran” doesn’t pass the laugh test. Ad hominem doesn’t even piss me off, it just bores me. What else ya got?

  150. Chris

    My problem is you want to self censor and I do not. Also, you seem to buy into a lot of gov/media conventional wisdom(lies). On 9/11 at least. I do not. You want to continue to play by the medias rules and I do not.

    And no, our positions on 9/11 are not the same, you are clearly convinced(by shitty and obviously false evidence) that it was scary arabs who did it, I am not.

    There is more than enough evidence to show that we were lied to, you would just have us sweep that under the rug and move on to more “marketable” issues that have gotten us NOWHERE. Considering all that 9/11 STILL makes possible, from the erosion of civil liberties to the sustaining of these wars and everything in between I refuse to just lay down like you. And you demand “PROOF!” from citizens like me when you should be demanding proof from your government and media for their phony ass theory. Do you even understand what the term false flag means? Hint-It doesn’t automatically mean “the government!” did it.

  151. Thomas L. Knapp

    Chris,

    I find this statement from you interesting:

    “Considering all that 9/11 STILL makes possible, from the erosion of civil liberties to the sustaining of these wars and everything in between”

    Do you really think that there’s any explanation for the 9/11 attacks which WOULDN’T have “made [these things] possible?”

    Hint: The Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act would have eventuated even if the Nazis hadn’t indicted Marinus van der Lubbe.

    There’s no such thing as cover too thin for this kind of shit.

    If verifiable video of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney flying missiles into the WTC with joysticks and then giving each other a high five emerged tomorrow, it wouldn’t roll back so much as one letter of any of the stuff that 9/11 was used as flimsy justification for.

    Apparently you think the state is evil enough to do 9/11, but not evil enough to do all the stuff it used 9/11 as an excuse to do, if the excuse is taken away.

  152. ben

    Thomas L Knapp typed without contemplating: “Apparently you think the state is evil enough to do 9/11, but not evil enough to do all the stuff it used 9/11 as an excuse to do, if the excuse is taken away.”

    Thomas, by this logic, you assume that the raccoon that slips onto your porch in the dead of night to tear through and feed on your garbage is just as likely to show up in broad daylight and feed in front of everyone at your barbecue.

    By that logic, you might as well assume that the priests once caught red handed could now just openly put the grab on our kids while flipping us off.

    Thomas, it seems you may have what is called a “learned helplessness.”

  153. Brian

    Thomas, you did ask for it:

    I’ve been BEGGING supporters of that hypothesis to provide ANY evidence AT ALL for their claim for nearly nine years now, and they’ve yet to do so

    Just to remind you, you did ask for it.
    -Advance warnings
    -Military wargames
    -No secret service response
    -No air defense
    -FOLD a $20 bill
    -Thermite in Ground Zero dust
    -No one fired, only promoted
    -Larry Silverstien “pull it”, insurance covreage, and particular lease of buildings
    -BBC, FOX, CNN all announce Building 7 fell before it actually fell. (siginificant because buildings dont falll from fire into their own footprint)
    -Project for a New American Century
    -Insider Trades on stocks “put options”
    -“magic passport” and bandanas “recovered” from 2 sites
    -missing minutes on flight 93 black box
    -the FACT that what they showed us in Pennsylvania was not a plane crash scene.

    So continue disbeliving everything in front of your own eyes, if you want.

    Your only problem has a term, it is called a “pyschological thresh hold level.”

    Many of ours have expanded beyond yours, however I have faith you wioll see the light one day.

    The evidence points to atleast insider knowledge, and incredible assistance to bring the buildings down and make sure plane got to the targets.

  154. Chris

    Absolutely, if it was found that the scary and amorphous “al qaeda” did not do 9/11 but American and potentially citizens of an “ally” did it, including at least a few people within the US power structure? Obviously the political fallout and possibilities would have been COMPLETELY different.

    Your logic is ridiculous on its face. If you take the excuse away AND expose that such a fraud could take place in the first place(it did) not only do you knock out the legs of the wars and patriot act and on and on but you enact ACTUAL changes to the rotten system we currently have. Nothing leads to real change like the exposure of high crimes like treason and mass murder. I’m curious, what specific issues should we be focusing on instead of 9/11?

    As it happened, thanks in part to those like you who tell us to “move on”, 9/11 only served to consolidate power,spend trillions and keep things very much the same in all the worst ways. It is the “gift” that keeps on giving(and spending, and killing). As long as we as a people allow it. Nice “Bush with joysticks” crack, I haven’t heard that lazy ass line before. Sarcasm alert again. Get off of Bush, as I said above most people who actually care about 9/11 don’t even think he was in the loop.

  155. paulie

    Jill (and anyone else interested)

    Paulie @ 142: Yes, I agree that the exchange between John Jay Myers and WAR on David Nolan’s Facebook page would be of interest to the readers here.

    I’ll post it if someone sends me a transcript.

    I did receive a screen-captured image of part of the conversation where Wayne said his work would be “good for the GOP,” but the two most anti-Root IPR writers concurred that this was “not news” because it appears to be a typo.

    However, what I have read since then leads me to believe that the entire exchange would be of some interest – if someone would email it to us.

    contact.ipr@gmail.com

  156. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Nothing leads to real change like the exposure of high crimes like treason and mass murder.”

    In your fantasy world, maybe.

    In the real world, previous PROVEN examples of criminal and murderous acts by the US government haven’t led to “real change.” Why would this one?

    I don’t know where you got the idea that I’m asking you to “move on.” I’m asking you to do no such thing. I _am_ asking you not to make claims that you have no evidence for outside your own fevered imagination, but I don’t expect you to honor that request.

    By all means, continue to live out your fantasy if that’s what floats your boat. Just don’t expect me to support making the Libertarian Party one of your fairy tale game pieces.

  157. Chris

    Who is living in a fantasy world you naive dupe? I noticed you failed to answer my simple questions. Say no more, that says it all. And why would the exposure of 9/11 lead to change? Because it involves the murder of US citizens, and like it or not that matters more to many Americans than the murder of countless foreigners. Common sense is not something you possess though, that much is clear so I forgive you for your density on the subject. Keep playing the media game of self censorship and cowardly capitulation, its gotten you(and the Libertarian party) oh so far! Your site is hilarious by the way, but probably not in the way you intended.

  158. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “Rather, my problem is with those who insist, despite the absence as yet of any evidence whatsoever for the proposition, that 9/11 was a US government ‘false flag’ operation.”

    Oh, so you’ve got a problem with people like Steve Kubby – a candidate for the LP Presidential nomination whom you worked for in the 2008 election – since Steve Kubby said that he thought that 9/11 was a false flag terror operation.

  159. Limbineer

    Wow… Chris is being a prick.

    “Common sense is not something you possess though, that much is clear so I forgive you for your density on the subject. Keep playing the media game of self censorship and cowardly capitulation, its gotten you(and the Libertarian party) oh so far! Your site is hilarious by the way, but probably not in the way you intended.”

    I am not sure if Chris is a believer that has the social skills of a mousetrap, or if he is a plant from the Bavarian Illuminati (perhaps the Gnomes of Zurich) sent to ruin the reputations of those looking for truth. One thing is for sure, saying anything positive about the truth movement right now would be cowardly capitulation in itself.

    It seems Mr. Knapp has two choices: Capitulate to the omnipotent star chamber Bush/Cheney story or capitulate to story Mr. low blood sugar demands he believe.

    It’s a tough choice.

  160. ben

    Limbineer is so right about that bogus omnipotent star chamber Bush/Cheney story.

    That’s why I rejected the images from the Mar’s rover as fake… obviously Bush and Cheney are way too incompetent to design and build a solar powered rover, much less cobble together a rocket to send them into space.

  161. Robert Capozzi

    ben, hmm, I’d not realized that Bush/Cheney ever made such a claim. Wouldn’t that’ve been NASA engineers?

    Your post may, however, be emblematic of a deeply dysfunctional thought system that, with any luck, is confined to a select few.

  162. Nicholas Sarwark

    FOLD a $20 bill

    I have a few of them in my pocket. I’ve folded them and unfolded them a few times without any revelation.

    How many times do I have to do it before I’m covinced 9/11 is false flag?

  163. Brian

    Nicholas,

    Pretty easy to latch on to that one, I knew you guys werent ready to handle any of this appropriately. Of course you ignore the stock trades, war games, advance warnings, explosives in the dust, WTC 7, the multiple different stories the “officials” have produced.

    Forget the $20 bill and figure out why our defense, and secret service were issued stand down orders. The $20 bill is only the candle on the cake.

    There comes a point where I call you folks coincidence theorists, and you have become so desperate to make these coincidences just that.
    It makes you look horribly gullible and unintelligent.

    The fact is you guys dont have one SHRED OF PROOF that the Government was NOT involved in 9/11.

    Nor do you have one shred of PROOF that Al Qaeda was the ONLY group involved.

  164. ben

    Robert,

    The point is that people, like you, try to discount the claim that 911 could have been a false flag by proclaiming that what we really mean, what we’re really suggesting, is that Bush and Cheney, orchestrated, and were at the helm, of the whole thing thus making it absurd and impossible because we all know how bumbling they are in everything that they do.

    This is a false attribution. It’s like we’re showing you a picture of Bush eating a chocolate souffle and you keep saying, “that’s impossible, he can’t MAKE a chocolate souffle. Have you any idea how complex a dessert that is?” Well, we’re not saying he MADE the souffle, we’re not even saying he ORDERED the souffle, at best we’re suggesting that maybe he agreed to meet for dinner. To put words in our mouths that suggest that we’re saying it all hinges on some “star chamber” where Bush-Cheney are pulling all the levers” is to be purposely obtuse.

  165. Brian

    Ben @ 174

    Well said.

    The idea that BUSH was in control is absurd.

    There is a lot of evidence that he was not in the know as much as Cheney, who ran the Country that day as Bush was at a school reading and giving press briefings.

    Norman Mineta, our Sec. of Transportation at the time, had some very revealing testimony to the 9/11 Commission regarding when Cheney was in the emergency bunker, and what he was doing down there.

  166. Robert Capozzi

    ben, I assure you I respect that you believe what you do. One of my best friends believes that there’s a “right” to private nukes, so it’s nothing personal that I don’t buy your take.

    My guess is that — like conspiracy theories about Pearl Harbor and the JFK assassination — we’ll never really know EXACTLY what happened on 9/11. We could find ourselves in an epistemological swamp trying to attain certainty in an uncertain world. Or we can take our best guess and wage our own personal love-olution.

    It’s all good.

    MY best guess is simply that I suspect the LP’s prospects will weaken with a Chair who demonstrates a strong interest in the subject of 9/11 Truth. I happen to view the subject as a dead end, but EVEN IF I were a Truther, I would acknowledge that a Truther as Chair is contra-indicated at this time in this place.

  167. Brian Holtz

    One micro-conspiracy is indeed pretty clear if you read between the lines of the 9/11 Commission Report. The report tries to obfuscate whether Cheney had Bush’s approval when he authorized Air Force fighters to shoot down any airliners that threaten D.C.

    The record is very clear (9/11 Commission Report pp. 44-45) that NORAD later wanted us to think it could have shot down the second hijacked jetliner inbound to Washington D.C., but in fact the Langley F-16’s that were the only three fighters in position had “negative clearance” to shoot. Apparently on his own initiative, Cheney had been giving the order to shoot since at least 10:10 am, but NORAD did not forward it to the regional air defense command (NEADS) until 10:31 am — and NEADS failed to forward it to the Langley pilots! Flight 93 would have hit the Capitol by 10:23 am. At 10:38 am, the Secret Service had bypassed the NORAD chain of command and gotten some Air National Guard F-16’s launched from Andrews with direct clearance from Cheney to shoot. (I wonder what kind of contact these two sets of fighters had with each other, since they were flying the same CAP under different chains of command and different rules of engagement.) NEADS used F-15’s from Otis AFB to establish a CAP over Manhattan by 9:25 am, 23 minutes too late to do anything. The 9/11 Commission Report doesn’t specify what rules of engagement they had.

    It looks to me like Cheney and the Secret Service were leading America’s air defense more competently than NORAD was. If the heroes of Flight 93 hadn’t succeeded, and Cheney’s orders had been obeyed to save the Capitol, then Cheney and the military would have been justifiably proud of their quick and decisive action.

  168. ben

    Robert, if it’s in the dust, this nanothermite, then it would be naive to think every agency on the planet hasn’t tested it. So, if it is true, yes, it will come out. How it comes out is what is unknown.

    For decades if you spoke up about abusive priests, you were ridiculed, shunned, and labeled a kook or as a person with irrational hatred for the church. Yet all these years later, it boggles the mind how evident, how so obviously it always was that these men who look like weirdos and have weirdo voices were in fact weirdos.

    Now, here you are, Robert, filling out your parental consent form to send little Jimmy to Father Coogan’s Swim Camp. And all we’re saying is, you might want to give it a little more thought.

  169. TomT

    “9/11 Truth”
    I support individuals who have integrity, who have spine, who have enough salt to stand by the truth and things which really matter…despite consequences of their popularity.
    I do not support weenies. Most politicians are weenies; they are made of plastic and they are seeking a “popularity contest”.

    I support individuals who have THOROUGHLY investigated the most important event of our time.
    9/11/01 is the most important event of our time.

    ANY individual who has invested many hours fearlessly investigating 9/11 with unfettered thought discovers that there is a huge cover-up concerning 9/11.
    No one (who honestly & thoroughly searches for many, many hours) can miss the fact that there is a dynamic cover-up surrounding 9/11.

    When someone denigrates 9/11 Truth, it is obvious that the person did NOT thoroughly research for many, many, many hours with unfettered thought into the subject (…or that person could be a government paid shill).

    It becomes obvious that people who deride “9/11 Truthers” can not do real homework.
    They can not investigate thoroughly the most important event of this age.
    …so if these critics of 9/11 Truthers can not even thoroughly investigate this incident, then what other important political aspects have they also not investigated.

    In short, if you do not know about the 9/11 cover-up, then you are a poor researcher.
    People who have spine stand up for 9/11 Truth.

  170. Limbineer

    I am just curious Ben, but are you French? I have seen three AnE4T demonstrations so far and I have found 2 things in common in all of them:

    The presenter recruits a volunteer from the audience to manage the slide show, which invariably goes horribly wrong and we miss out on what are supposed to be the best video clips.

    And the engineer is either French or Dutch (the one Dutch guy sounded VERY French not only in accent but in the tone and tenor he used as he “corrected” the hapless slide show volunteer.) So my curiosity is piqued.

    I have some regard for the French and their love for liberty. I disagree that liberty comes from a guillotine, but still the passion rocks and the French in culture are natural Libertarian allies, non?

  171. Brian

    Brian Holtz adds in:

    It looks to me like Cheney and the Secret Service were leading America’s air defense more competently than NORAD was.

    —————————
    If what happened on 9/11 is now considered conpetant by you, I hate to see an incompetant day.

    I mean 19 illegals made it on 4 planes, hijicking all of them with razors (lol) , to then fly around for an hour and a half hitting 3 major targets, one of them possibly the most heavily defended building on earth (pentagon).

    And thats a competant day? Are you crazy?

    That is treason.

    You might not know it, but we DONT KNOW what happened to flight 93.

    The coroner of the area never saw a body, or “a single drop of blood.”

    News reports mentioned a 4 mile long debris path, consistent with a shoot down.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc

    The FBI has admitted that Ted Olsens “phone calls” from his wife on flight 93 lasted 0 seconds.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514

    Now to not have bodies, blood, or major plan e parts is interesting enough for a plane crash.
    Add the planted evidence and you have a conspiracy.
    http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/docs/bandana_hi.jpg

    Now if you were going to plant that fresh out-of-the-box red bandana at a plane crash wouldn’t you singe it a little with a lighter or something?

    C’mon people. Look at that nice clean bandana.
    Think of the lack of bodies, or even a head for the bandana, and look at the bandana again.
    http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/docs/bandana_hi.jpg

    The Prosecution rests its case.

    Maybe the false flag known as 9/11 didnt go as well planned as the purps would have wanted. 93 was probably shot down, either because;
    the passengers got into the cockpit and saw a remote controlled cockpit,
    or because someone ignored stand down orders and shot the plane down, LIKE WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED 4 TIMES THAT DAY.

  172. Brian

    Thanks go to:

    Tom T, Chris, Ben , Andy and Ernest Hancock for not bowing down to fear!

    Continue to speak truth to power and community!

    What a orwellian fascist police state dictatorship this country would already be without the spirit and energy of those like us now and before!

    We embody the spirit of a truely FREE individual, a “patriot”; a quality that everyone has within themselves, as long as they are not afraid.

  173. David F. Nolan

    Anyone who really wants to read all 27 messages that WAR posted on my Facebook page can find them here. You’ll have to click “Older Posts” at the bottom of the screen several times to see them, but as of a few minutes ago, they’re still there. Because there is lots of back-and-forth sniping between WAR and several other people, some of the discussion may be hard to follow (and/or terminally boring) but the most revealing statement by WAR, posted at 5:05 pm on 4/20, is the following:

    ” The key John is…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.”

  174. Brian Holtz

    Revealing? I thought we already knew that Root’s intials (W.A.R.) disqualify him from LP leadership.

    But wait:

    radical adj. [L radic- (s. of radix) root]

    Well, now I don’t know what to think. It hurts my head to consider more than four bytes of information about a Chair candidate.

  175. Andy

    Tom Knapp has worked for 2 other candidates who are (or were since one of them is deceased) 9/11 Truthers in Aaron Russo and Michael Badnarik.

  176. Chris

    Thanks Brian, not all of us suffer from cognitive dissonance like Limbineer and Mr. Knapp(funny jokes though Limbineer! Well, not really….).

    Robert Capozzi, how has ignoring the biggest lies,like 9/11, fared for the Libertarian party thus far? How many elections have you people won by tailoring your message for the “safe” media and political class? Keep self censoring, you will change nothing and only stay stuck in place. I have news for you though-the corporate media and political elites will continue and have ALWAYS smeared 3rd parties, the answer is not to water down your message and make it palatable for the scum media(who will continue to smear you no matter how much you water your message down and try to go “mainstream”), the answer is to speak truth as much as possible and try and open as many minds as possible. But hey, you keep trying to please the media and political class that hates you and all 3rd party proponents, we all need a dream.

  177. Chris

    You know what would give third parties, including the Libertarian party a better chance of ACTUALLY winning elections instead of, you know, almost never winning them like is currently the case? Expose 9/11 for the OBVIOUS pack of lies it is and in the process you go a long way in further delegitimizing both major parties. Try it, it HAS to work better than what you are doing now.

  178. Andy

    These fools who act like being a 9/11 Truther is a liability are oblivious to the fact that there are 9/11 Truthers that have huge followings, such as Jesse Ventura, Willie Nelson, and Alex Jones.

    I gaurentee you that Jesse Ventura would get more votes than any Libertarian Party candidate has ever recieved if he ran for office again.

  179. Jill Pyeatt

    David @ 183: I clicked on your “here”, but it takes me to your cuurent FB page. Is there a way you can send the exchange to Paulie so he can post it?

    As far as Root’s GOP comment, I seem to recall that he said several exchanges later that he doesn’t make errors (indicating that he stood by his comment). I don’t recall what he said exactly.

  180. Jill Pyeatt

    Chris, Andy, Ben, & Tom T: Thanks for backing me on this isue. I don’t know what happened on Sept 11, 2001, but I do know that it changed my life and the course of this country. I don’t think the United States can heal and move forward without addressing the many questions about that day, and hopefully prosecuting those responsible. I DO NOT think open discussion of this by our party’s chairman would harm the party. I believe it could actually help show that Libertarians have strong principles, and that we live by these principles.

  181. Thomas L. Knapp

    Jill,

    You write:

    “As far as Root’s GOP comment, I seem to recall that he said several exchanges later that he doesn’t make errors (indicating that he stood by his comment).”

    The statement he made to me on Facebook about it was the opposite of that — he was tired, just off the road, etc., and hey, it was one typo in something like 30 Facebook replies.

    Nobody in their right mind will mistake me for a Root fan, but I really don’t see anything there beyond a typo that was worth a chuckle.

  182. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    You write:

    “Tom Knapp has worked for 2 other candidates who are (or were since one of them is deceased) 9/11 Truthers in Aaron Russo and Michael Badnarik.”

    Depending on what you mean by “9/11 Truther,” that shouldn’t be surprising.

    I question the government account and have signed petitions calling for a full investigation, which makes me a “9/11 Truther” in at least one sense.

    To the best of my knowledge, that’s Badnarik’s position as well.

    To the best of my recollection, that was Russo’s position at the time he was a candidate for president, although he later apparently moved toward the “false flag” view (I never discussed that with him; we only talked a few times after he offered me a job on his last film, “Freedom to Fascism,” which I turned down for personal reasons, and those last few conversations were of the non-political “how are things going for you” type).

    As far as Kubby goes, I’ve never insisted that a candidate agree with me on everything in order for me to work with or support that candidate.

    For that matter, I think I’ve been pretty clear that Hancock is my second choice for chair. I don’t base my entire judgment of people or candidates on their position on “9/11 Truth.”

  183. Andy

    Tom Knapp said: “To the best of my knowledge, that’s Badnarik’s position as well.”

    I’ve heard Badnarik go further than that when talking about 9/11.

  184. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    You write:

    “I’ve heard Badnarik go further than that when talking about 9/11.”

    Maybe you have. I haven’t, nor do I consider you a credible source for any “9/11 Truth” related information, so I’ll await evidence of that if you don’t mind too terribly much.

  185. Limbineer

    Chris@187;
    “Thanks Brian, not all of us suffer from cognitive dissonance like Limbineer and Mr. Knapp(funny jokes though Limbineer! Well, not really….).”

    I’m glad you almost liked the jokes. I almost liked the argument as well.

    Thing is Chris, I question what we know of 9/11 strongly. I am critical of the blanket of secrecy and the US role in world politics. I see empire and I do not like it much.

    I am taken a bit back by the sell I see from some. I ponder false flags and people motivated to prove them.

  186. Chris

    Roots comments were a freudian slip, Ive heard numerous interviews of his and he comes off as just another partisan Republican to me, with a few good libertarian comments here and there. His foreign policy views are only slightly better than most neocons and he slurps well known neocon huckster Glenn Beck whenever he can.

    http://www.dailypaul.com/node/50904

    “Blame America first” and “apologetic to our enemies” says WAR? Gee, where have I heard that kind of jingoistic bullshit before? Oh right, ALL OVER THE MSM AND FROM BOTH PARTIES. To choose Root over Hancock is ridiculously stupid.

    So Limbineer, you question strongly huh? Is that what you do when you’re not sniping at those that also(or actually) “question strongly”? 9/11 sustains that empire more than anything else, forgive me if I feel the need to talk about it instead of self censoring.

    Badnarik on 9/11:
    Badnarik: “Well, I support the truth. I want to know what really happened. And I don’t think that 911 truth should be a denigration or a slur. I mean, why would you be angry with somebody who wants the truth? I thought whenever you go into a court you want the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help me God. So why not have the truth when it comes to whatever happened on 9/11 in 2001?”
    http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20100502131024319

    Yes, why not? Oh wait, it might keep the Libertarian party from winning the 2012 Presidential election won’t it?(by the logic of some here anyway). 2012 was the year we were finally going to win it and that damn Hancock is going to sink us with his demand for the truth! (do I really need to point out when I’m being sarcastic? I think you guys get it by now).

  187. Chris

    If you can read Roots comments about Paul and why “they” hate us etc. and still support him then you basically prove that you yourself also buy into the lies and propaganda that surround and sustain the expensive and immoral “war on terror”. Root is a neocon with some libertarian leanings. No thanks.

  188. TomT

    9/11/01 was the most important event of our time.
    “9/11 Truth” is the most important issue of our time. It is the key to unlocking the corporatocracy controlled system.

    Supporting “9/11 Truth” is a huge advantage for anyone running for office.
    Many people know about 9/11 Truth.
    A vast number of people are aware of 9/11 Truth.
    Cynthia McKinney is a prime example of a political candidate. While many people did not necessarily support some of her fiscal ideas, they certainly preferred her balls. She firmly stands by truth and justice. She was hugely supported.

    Aaron Russo is another example of wide public support. He had integrity in revealing the 9/11 lie.
    Another example: Alex Jones is strongly supported and he loudly states that 9/11 was an inside job.

    Supporting “9/11 Truth” is actually politically very smart. It is also morally smart.

    The true Libertarian ideal becomes compromised by “trying to play plastic popularity-contest politics”, much like Glen Beck hi-jacking the Tea Party.
    The puppet masters and corporatocracy now have so much control and influence, that any third party will always falter unless that third party goes the whole way towards integrity.

    Most political parties are made up of sheeple. A “sheeple” can not do ‘homework’, …a sheeple does not care enough to thoroughly investigate with unfettered thought. We already have two political parties who want sheeple.

    ANYONE who honestly and very thoroughly researches this subject finds out how deep the rabbit hole goes. Only people who can not do their homework do not know about 9/11 Truth.

    This is a good source for research:
    http://stj911.com/resources/index.html

  189. ben

    Mar 5, 2010
    Entire February 2010 Issue of the American Behavioral Scientist Devoted to State Crimes Against Democracy: The Case of September 11, 2001

    For 50 years the American Behavioral Scientist has been a leading source of behavioral research for the academic world. Its influence is shown by the fact that it is indexed by an extraordinary 67 major database services, causing its papers to be widely exposed on the international scene.

    The publisher, Sage, is headquartered in Los Angeles, with offices in London, New Delhi, Singapore, and Washington DC.

    Each issue offers comprehensive analysis of a single topic.

    The six papers in the February 2010 issue are devoted to the recent concept of “State Crimes Against Democracy (SCAD’s),” with emphasis on 9/11 and on how human behavior has failed to recognize its reality. [Ref. abs.sagepub.com/content/vol53/issue6]

    What are SCAD’s?

    SCADs differ from earlier forms of political corruption in that they frequently involve political, military, and/or economic elites at the very highest levels of the social and political order,” explains one essay.

    “Negative information actions” are defined by another as “willful and deliberate acts designed to keep government information from those in government and the public entitled to it. Negative information actions subvert the rule of law and the constitutional checks and balances.”

    One paper shows that “preexisting beliefs can interfere with people’s examination of evidence for state crimes against democracy (SCADs), specifically in relation to the events of September 11, 2001, and the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

    Another refers to TV’s “popular culture passion plays” as “displacing interrogation of real-event anomalies, as with the porous account given by the 9/11 Commission for what happened that fateful day.”

    And another deals with “the actual destruction of sovereignty and democratic values under the onslaught of antiterrorism hubris, propaganda, and fear,” in response to 9/11, asking whether the Patriot Acts of 2001 and 2006 are themselves state crimes against democracy.

    The papers extensively quote the independent academic researchers who have been studying the 9/11 problem for years, including Dr. David Ray Griffin; Dr. Niels Harrit, Dr. Steven Jones, Chemist Kevin Ryan, and the rest of the team that studied nanothermite in the World Trade Center dust; and Dr. Peter Dale Scott, Dr. Michel Chossudovsky, Barrie Zwicker, Dr. Nafeez Ahmed, and The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.

    ____________________

    Papers Listed in the February 2010 Issue, Amer. Behav. Sci.

    Matthew T. Witt and Alexander Kouzmin, “Sense Making Under ‘Holographic’ Conditions: Framing SCAD Research.” American Behavioral Scientist 2010 53: 783-794.

    Lance deHaven-Smith, “Beyond Conspiracy Theory: Patterns of High Crime in American Government.,” American Behavioral Scientist 2010 53: 795-825.

    Christopher L. Hinson. “Negative Information Action: Danger for Democracy.” American Behavioral Scientist, 2010 53: 826-847.

    Laurie A. Manwell, “In Denial of Democracy: Social Psychological Implications for Public Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9/11,” American Behavioral Scientist 2010 53: 848-884.

    Kym Thorne and Alexander Kouzmin, “The USA PATRIOT Acts (et al.): Convergent Legislation and Oligarchic Isomorphism in the ‘Politics of Fear’ and State Crime(s) Against Democracy (SCADs),” American Behavioral Scientist 2010 53: 885-920

    Matthew T. Witt, “Pretending Not to See or Hear, Refusing to Signify: The Farce and Tragedy of Geocentric Public Affairs Scholarship,” American Behavioral Scientist 2010 53: 921-939.

  190. TomT

    Supporting “9/11 Truth” is a huge advantage for anyone running for office.
    Many people know about 9/11 Truth.
    A vast number of people are aware of 9/11 Truth.
    People who are keenly aware of 9/11 Truth have done their own THOROUGH intensive research. (…the evidence of the 9/11 cover-up is overwhelming.)

    Sheeple can not do their homework.
    Most political parties are made up of sheeple. A “sheeple” can not do ‘homework’, …a sheeple does not care enough to thoroughly investigate with unfettered thought. We already have two political parties who want sheeple.

    Supporting “9/11 Truth” is a huge advantage for anyone running for office.
    Cynthia McKinney is a prime example of a political candidate. While many people did not necessarily support some of her fiscal ideas, they certainly preferred her balls. She firmly stands by truth and justice. She was hugely supported.
    Aaron Russo is another example of wide public support. He had integrity in revealing the 9/11 lie.
    Another example: Alex Jones is strongly supported and he loudly states that 9/11 was an inside job.

    Supporting “9/11 Truth” is actually politically very smart. It is also morally smart.

    The true Libertarian ideal becomes compromised by “trying to play plastic popularity-contest politics”, much like Glen Beck hi-jacking the Tea Party.
    The puppet masters and corporatocracy now have so much control and influence, that any third party will always falter unless that third party goes the whole way towards integrity.

  191. TomT

    This website is a great link to scientific information about 9/11.
    [[http://stj911.com/resources/index.html]]

  192. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Supporting ‘9/11 Truth’ is a huge advantage for anyone running for office. Cynthia McKinney is a prime example of a political candidate. While many people did not necessarily support some of her fiscal ideas, they certainly preferred her balls. She firmly stands by truth and justice. She was hugely supported.”

    Yeah, so “hugely supported” that she lost her seat in Congress and polled a whopping 160,000 or so votes for president. (Disclosure: One of those votes was mine)

    Of course, maybe she just didn’t go far enough — she didn’t claim that 9/11 was a “false flag” operation. She simply pointed out errors, omissions and abuse of secrecy provisions in the 9/11 Commission process, and once mused that Bush might have held the government back from preventing the attack in order to boost Carlyle Group profits.

  193. paulie

    Anyone who really wants to read all 27 messages that WAR posted on my Facebook page can find them here. You’ll have to click “Older Posts” at the bottom of the screen several times to see them, but as of a few minutes ago, they’re still there. Because there is lots of back-and-forth sniping between WAR and several other people, some of the discussion may be hard to follow (and/or terminally boring) but the most revealing statement by WAR, posted at 5:05 pm on 4/20, is the following:

    ” The key John is…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.”

    The Mobile library has facebook blocked. If anyone wants to email me the text of the full exchange, I can get it posted to IPR next time I’m on.

  194. Chris

    Cynthia McKinney was attacked for a whole host of reasons, most of which have to do with going after powerful interests(Carlyle,Dyncorp,big oil etc.) on behalf of the people who are screwed by them. Yes, this includes her position on 9/11. Would you have us(and politicians like her who at least stick their necks out somewhat) be silent about that for fear of being smeared by a media that is going to smear regardless? I don’t get people who want to play by rigged media rules and false narratives, how many times does one have to fail to realize its way past time self censoring and playing by those rules?

  195. paulie

    I question the government account and have signed petitions calling for a full investigation, which makes me a “9/11 Truther” in at least one sense.

    As far as I know, that’s Ernie’s position as well. It’s certainly possible that he has expressed an opinion on 9/11 besides calling for an investigation, but if so, I haven’t seen Brian quote it (although I haven’t been able to watch most of the videos yet). The part he quotes above, in the body of (this?) post, seems to be an exchange between Hancock and Root about the need for a new investigation, with Hancock in favor and Root adamantly opposed.

    Did I misunderstand something, or is there additional evidence I missed?

  196. paulie

    FYI to all: found 5 on-topic comments in this thread’s speam filter and fished them out. I didn’t check how old they were, so they will throw off comment-number references, etc.

  197. David F. Nolan

    Paulie@211 – There’s no way to reproduce the Facebook exchanges as a linear document. There’s too many comments and counter-comments. Sometimes Root posts replies to comments as new messages. It’s a big mess. And mostly, it’s Root bragging about himself and denigrating others. I’m not savvy enough to know if the whole thing could simply be “lifted” intact and posted on a website somewhere, but it probably would not be worth doing unless it’s very easy.

  198. Michael Seebeck

    David @216: I copied the mess into a word document, and am cleaning it up to remove the excess clutter while keeping the verbatim exchange.

  199. Brian Holtz

    Paulie, Ernie doesn’t just call for an investigation. He says that thanks to the Internet, the young generation “already knows The Truth about 9/11”.

    He also says about Internet-based Truth: it’s so threatening to them, not only do they have to keep it coming, but it has to keep getting bigger and grander. It’s Ruby Ridge that goes to Oklahoma City that goes to the World Trade Center. What’s the next one? I always say, hey, St. Louis Arch? Golden Gate Bridget? Toast, man. Done. Mushroom cloud.

    And Here’s Hancock on his 2004-05-07 radio show, talking about how recollections of air traffic controllers were recorded soon after 9/11, and how the tapes were nefariously destroyed by government agents:

    Then you start doing some searches, and I can’t find anything. You see on airlinesafety.com, you go to these obscure things that deal with air traffic, and they’ll have a reference to a report that kinda sorta looked at it, but they don’t really get into the meat of the story. It’s like it’s been purged from the Internet, and I’m wondering can they do that? Well, of course they do it. If they can, will they? Of course they will.

    Hancock’s mantra is that anything bad that the government can do, they will do. For at least 15 years he’s been saying that the way he knows election fraud is real is that electronic voting makes it possible.

  200. Thomas L. Knapp

    Chris,

    You write:

    “Cynthia McKinney was attacked for a whole host of reasons, most of which have to do with going after powerful interests(Carlyle,Dyncorp,big oil etc.) on behalf of the people who are screwed by them. Yes, this includes her position on 9/11. Would you have us(and politicians like her who at least stick their necks out somewhat) be silent about that for fear of being smeared by a media that is going to smear regardless?”

    Nope — and I’ve given you no reason to believe that I would have that. In point of fact, as I’ve already mentioned, I vote for her.

    What I would have the LP do is:

    1) Tell only the verifiable truth — and that doesn’t include the “false flag” bullshit, for which as yet not an iota of evidence has ever been produced;

    2) Focus its rhetoric in any given election cycle on the handful of issues that are most important to the most voters. You can’t teach them if you don’t reach them, and you can’t reach them by howling about something they don’t give a tinker’s damn about.

  201. LP Pramatist

    Heck guys, I frankly question the qualifications of anyone running for LNC Chair. You all make them sound to be all ego-maniacs or losers.
    There was a guy named Hinkle that has not been mentioned much at all. I suppose he has a lot of baggage also? What’s next or should I say “who’s next”?

  202. Nicholas Sarwark

    There was a guy named Hinkle that has not been mentioned much at all. I suppose he has a lot of baggage also?

    Hinkle is pretty baggage-free as far as I’ve heard.

  203. Reminder

    Actually, Mark did not show leadership skills in
    California this year re: an incident involving someone who did harm to the Party.

  204. Robert Capozzi

    Pragmatist, Hinkle’s has his critics, too, although he and Myers seem to be the least controversial of the 5 runners.

    Personally, I agree with Shakespeare: To err is human, to forgive, divine.

    Of course, that doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t state our preferences. That we have 5 reasonably high-gravity candidates speaks well for the LP. Were I voting, only Hancock would cause me to vote NOTA. I admire and appreciate his efforts, I just don’t think he’s an appropriate choice to lead the LP nationally.

  205. Andy

    “Brian Holtz // May 5, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    Paulie, Ernie doesn’t just call for an investigation. He says that thanks to the Internet, the young generation ‘already knows The Truth about 9/11’.”

    As does anyone who doesn’t have their head shoved up their ass.

  206. Chris

    Thomas, you are quite good at semantics but pretty bad at basic logic. Answer this simple question-do you think “al qaeda” and Bin Laden(who denied being behind 9/11 on at least 3 occasions) were behind the 9/11 “attack”? Again, your site says yes, you buy into most if not all of the propaganda that surrounds the phony “war on terror”. I would like a simple yes or no though, just to be clear.

    “They” don’t give a damn because tools and sheep have ignored or belittled 9/11 activists. But again, stick to tailoring your message for a system that hates you and will continue to smear you anyway, its worked oh sooooo good for the LP and Greens and every other third party so far…..(seriously though Thomas, your site really is great fun to read, I thought I was reading Michelle Malkin for a minute when you were speaking about “scary mooozlims!” Neocon sites crack me up, not that I’m calling you a neocon but some of your site does resemble that phony world view)

  207. Andy

    Tom Knapp said: “1) Tell only the verifiable truth — and that doesn’t include the “false flag” bullshit, for which as yet not an iota of evidence has ever been produced;”

    LOL! There isn’t one iota of evidence that has been produced to say that the official government story about 9/11 is true.

    I suppose if you are a statist like Tom Knapp you believe the official government story, but those of us who can think for ourselves know that the official government story is bullshit.

  208. Chris

    And I would be willing to bet that at least half of the issues you speak of are directly affected by the 9/11 fraud you choose to downplay. From military spending to civil liberties abuses and everything in between. Yeah, lets just ignore the lie and nibble around the edges, because yet again, that has worked soooooooo well in the past. Also, you failed to answer a previous question I asked. Do you even know what a “false flag” is? You DO know that it does not automatically mean “the government did it” right? Mr. Zakheim ande Mr. Cheney thank you by the way.

  209. Chris

    No, you see Andy, people like Thomas depend on the same media and government that continually lies to and spins at them to somehow get to the bottom of it for them. Those 1100 plus architects and engineers who call bullshit on the official story? So what is what people like Thomas say. “Al qaeda planted the explosives!!” right Thomas? Or does that pesky inability to understand high school physics prevent you from understanding AE911truths work? Yeah, better to just trust the handful of NIST hacks over 1100 independent AE911truth members….(no evidence!!!!!!)

  210. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Answer this simple question-do you think ‘al qaeda’ and Bin Laden (who denied being behind 9/11 on at least 3 occasions) were behind the 9/11 ‘attack’?”

    Al Qaeda is not an organization, it is a network. I provisionally believe, on the basis of the available evidence, that members of that network were the primary actors in the 9/11 attacks.

    “Again, your site says yes, you buy into most if not all of the propaganda that surrounds the phony ‘war on terror’.”

    You’ve obviously not read my site.

  211. Chris

    I did, the way you piggy-backed on that hacks “draw mohhamed contest” says it all about you. See my comments above about how you fell for that obvious one. Nothing like some good old fashioned islamophobia to grease the skids for war and occupation. Fight them over there right Thomas!?! What do you REALLY know about “al qaeda” Thomas? And what are YOUR sources? Notorious liars for the most part. Blind trust in authority(media,intel agencies etc.) is not something I expected from a Libertarian, but I see you are more of a pro-war,”war on terror” dupe, Wayne Root “mainstream” type libertarian and less a Ron Paul type(I’m speaking strictly about foreign policy in this case). I think “al qaeda” stole my lunch and killed the Jimmy Hoffa. Whats your take Thomas? Since you like(or are fooled by) mainstream media, I would suggest one of the few good BBC documentaries called-“The Power of Nightmares”. Watch it online now. From there you should move on to more independent stuff on the “war on terror”. You clearly still worship at the altar of that pack of lies and disinfo. Wake up. “Al qaeder started the oil leak thing down south!”. HA! Again though Thomas, please look up the term “patsy”. And “cognitive dissonance” as well.

  212. ben

    If the morning of 9/11 there had been no attacks, but Bush held a press conference anyway and said, “My fellow Americans, we’re gonna punk the Middle East, redraw the whole thing and take all the oil. Heck, we were the ones that taught ’em to extract it in the first place. Now, we were gonna do this whole thing to scare you into it, but that’s all “stick” and America, capitalist country that it is, is all about the “carrot.” So, we’re gonna punk the Middle East and drop gasoline to 65 cents a gallon. Who’s with me?”
    DEAFENING APPLA– USE.
    “Okay, let’s roll!”

    If he had said that I might have backed it. Instead we got this fake thing, where we’re supposed to be frightened while they take stuff.

    In Tom Ridge’s book he wrote about how over and over they manipulated the Terror Threat levels for political gain. Even the least perceptive of you can read that and understand that at least with the government threat levels officials purposely made you scared so you would go along.

  213. Andy

    Tom Knapp said: “Al Qaeda is not an organization, it is a network. I provisionally believe, on the basis of the available evidence, that members of that network were the primary actors in the 9/11 attacks.”

    You must mean al CIAda.

  214. Bryan David Lunzmann

    Mr. Myers is so much better than Hancock and Root, Im still reserving opinion on Phillies and Hinckle. but for now Myers is WAY in the lead IMHO because I agree with essentially everything ive heard him say/type. Phillies and Hinckle just arent being very vocal about anything. I would love to hear what they have to say, but I figure they wouldnt be running if they werent substaintially different from Mr. Myers, who is – again – IMO emblematic of everything a real libertarian should be.

  215. Brian Holtz

    Phillies has written hundreds of pages about LP strategy and governance — more than all the other Chair candidates combined:

    http://newpathforthelp.org/
    http://libertyforamerica.com/
    http://cmlc.org/headerpublications.htm
    http://cmlc.org/headerstandup.htm
    http://cmlc.org/headerfundingliberty.htm

    Phillies and Hinkle entered the race well before Myers did. Compared to Phillies and Hinkle, Myers is a relative unknown who says he entered the race to oppose Root and Hancock, on his theory that neither Phillies nor Hinkle is likely to win.

  216. No-More-WAR

    Any party led by a political hack like Root will not have me or my small group of friends in it.
    Alot of the messages on this board (more from further up) lead me to believe alot of people in the current loop in LP politics tend to care more about the party than libertarianism. Winning elections isnt the only goal. Spreading liberty and Challenging the cult of the omnipotent state are much more important than getting someone elected to a position I never even knew existed in some town of 8000 people.

Leave a Reply

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